Viet Nam: Fire Assesment


FireManagement Assessment

TramChim National Park, Dong Thap Province

(IFFN No. 26 – January 2002, p. 106-113)

Executive Summary

Tram Chim National Park (TCNP), Vietnam, is one of thelast remaining remnants of freshwater wetland habitat in the Mekong Delta. Thepark receives international recognition as seasonal habitat for endangeredwildlife species, including the Sarus crane, and as an extant portion of thePlain of Reeds. Objectives of restoration and biodiversity conservation conflictwith local people’s need for economic subsistence and development. Arson is amajor cause of fires and will require an economic incentive based fireprevention program. Management objectives of fire exclusion drive decisionsrelating to water levels, thus impacting all ecological processes within thepark. Maintaining high water levels as a tool for fire exclusion conflicts withother management objectives integral to the park. There is opportunity fordevelopment of a fire use program within the park, in conjunction with fireeffects research to expand the knowledge base. Although fire fighters areaggressive and professional, suppression capability is constrained due tolimited equipment.


Upon request of the International Crane Foundation incollaboration with Dong Thap Province, Vietnam, the United States Forest Serviceconducted a fire management assessment in Tram Chim National Park, Vietnam. AUnited States Forest Service fire management specialist visited TCNP during theperiod 1-12 March 2000, to conduct the assessment. The information presented inthis report is based on a review of available literature; site visits within thepark; observations; and interviews with park staff, scientists, and provincialofficials. The information presented may reflect slight distortions based onnuances of translation.


The Mekong River seasonally inundates 3.9 million hectaresof land in the delta, including the area originally known as the Plain of Reeds.The Plain of Reeds was a vast wetland depression covered with a thick mat ofvegetation. Over the last half century, the majority of the Mekong Deltaseasonally flooded grassland and forests have been fragmented by canals,drained, and converted to agriculture production. In the Plain of Reeds area,much of this activity is relatively recent, with approximately 700,000 hectaresconverted to agriculture during the period 1975-1995.
In 1975, the People’s Committee of Dong Thap Province chose Tram Chim as asite for restoring the original Plain of Reeds ecosystem. Since that time, thearea has gradually elevated in status as a conservation reserve to reach itscurrent, designated status at the national level. Tram Chim National Park wasestablished on 29 December 1998, with an objective to protect and restore thenatural landscape of the Plain of Reeds and conserve biodiversity. The 7,588hectare park area is one of the last remaining remnants of freshwater wetlandhabitat in the Mekong Delta. Over the last couple of decades, several thousandhectares of Melaleuca forests (Melaleucacajuputi) have been planted within the park. TCNP receives national andinternational attention as a seasonal feeding and resting area for endangeredbird species including the Sarus Crane, the tallest flying bird in the world.

Hydrologic Regime and Fire Issues

Tram Chim National Park is surrounded by 53 kilometres ofdikes built in the mid-1980s. Water gates (four constructed in 1991 and two in1995) control the outflow of water from canals within the park. Canals fragmentthe interior of the park into five separate management zones, identified as A1-A5. Water levels within each zone can be controlled as a separate unit. Thus,the water level during dry season within each zone of the park is regulated to alarge extent by management decision. The hydrologic regime within the park has afundamental relationship with fire management issues. Moreover, the hydrologicregime impacts all functional aspects of the ecosystem. The annual determinationof water level within each zone is a critical management decision, with impactson all aspects of the park.
The question of appropriate water level at TCNP is a complex and challengingissue. The historic hydrologic regime of the Mekong delta was characterized by aseasonal inundation of water followed by a dry season (December – May), with agradual recession of water levels. Natural freshwater wetlands store waterduring times of flood and release it slowly as floodwaters recede during the dryseason. The shallow depression morphology of the Plain of Reeds trappedfloodwaters, further slowing the release of water. It is reported the surface ofthe soil was still moist even at the end of the dry season (Safford et al.1997).
However, restoration of the “natural hydrologic cycle” within TCNP isdifficult, as the larger Mekong Delta wetland system has been irretrievablyaltered by channelization and conversion of land to agriculture production.There is limited data available in Vietnam to re-establish water levels to thehistoric natural wetlands regime. The issue becomes more complex with the lackof definitive knowledge of the original vegetation occupying the site. Withoutthis information, it becomes difficult to model rates of evapotranspiration andthe effect of root systems and ground litter on floodwater retention that wouldhave played a part in the historic hydrologic regime. Annual variability in theamount and timing of precipitation further complicates the principles of watermanagement in TCNP.
In spite of these obstacles, there has been significant progress towardsdefining the original hydrologic regime. Aerial maps and interviews withlong-term inhabitants have yielded valuable information on pre-canal vegetativedistribution and abundance. Available hydrologic data has helped in modellingthe system. The current water management plan for the park was developed by aninternational team of hydrologists and is a best guess approximation of historiclevels. The plan is described by park staff as highly technical and difficult toimplement. In practical terms, the gates are shut sometime shortly after the endof the rainy season. The general principle is that at the end of dry season,evaporation will have left a majority of dry area (moisture just below thesurface) interspersed with areas of shallow water.
Implementation of this general water management principle is alteredsignificantly in areas of the park, where water levels are used as a managementtool for fire exclusion. This tool has been used extensively since 1995, when atotal of 225 hectares of Melaleuca and 306 hectares of grassland burned. For theYear 2000, the fire prevention plan shows 6,758 hectares (zones A1, A2, and A5)of the total 7,588 hectares of land in the park maintained at high water levelsfor the purpose of fire prevention. Thus in the Year 2000, 89% of the park areais deliberately maintained at high water levels, in response to a fire exclusionmanagement objective. Over the next few years, it is the intent of park managersto gradually lower water levels during the dry season to better simulate thehistoric hydrologic cycle. However, this intention may be dissuaded withcontinued pressure for fire exclusion within the park.
The long-term ecological consequences of perennial high water levels on plantand associated wildlife communities are unknown. However, some short-termimpacts on crane habitat and Melaleuca stands, two key features of the park, canbe evaluated.
Water level is one factor in Sarus crane selection of feeding and resting sites.Sarus crane feed in very shallow water or dry (moisture below the surface)Eleocharis sites with nearby forests with open patches for resting sites (HoangVan Thang, personal communication). The seasonal presence of Sarus crane at TCNPis the primary tourist appeal, and contributes to the increasingly higherprofile of the park, both nationally and internationally.
Of the total 7,588 hectares of park area, approximately 3,000 hectares iscurrently Melaleuca forest. It is envisioned that Melaleuca forests willconstitute approximately 50% of the park area with future planting effortsfocused in zone A5 and the strips of land along Phu Hiep and Dong Tien canal. Astudy of Melaleuca growth rates inside and outside TCNP conducted by the ForestInventory and Planning Sub-Institute No 2, Ho Chi Minh City concluded thefollowing. “Growth rates of Melaleuca forest differed strongly inside andoutside the core and this is assumed to reflect difference in hydrology. In allage classes, growth of Melaleuca forest was considerably faster outside thaninside the core. Therefore, water level and flooding duration requires detailedconsideration in the management plan of Melaleuca forest.” (Saffordet al. 1997). Other evidence of high water stress onMelaleuca trees is the number of trees that have fallen in locations inside zoneA1 (Jeb Barzen, personal communication).
With such high stake consequences to key park features, it is critical toidentify and address the underlying issues driving the fire exclusion motivationfor water level management decisions.

Fire Prevention And Local Communities

All fires in TCNP are human caused. Park staff estimatesthat ninety percent of fires in the park result from arson, motivated by revengeof local people apprehended for exploiting resources within the park. Fivepercent is caused by carelessness and the remaining five percent is caused byfire used to smoke out bees or rats. Laws prohibit local people’s access tothe park’s natural resources, unless operating under a specific utilizationpermit compatible with park objectives (removal of Mimosapigra, collection of dead and downed woody material, etc.). As a result,relations between the park and local communities have been tense since thepark’s establishment. Objectives of restoration of the original landscape ofthe Plain of Reeds and biodiversity conservation conflict with local people’sneed for economic subsistence and development. The conflicts created by thesetwo seemingly incompatible land use objectives have been a dominant communitytheme over the last two decades.
Five impoverished villages surround TCNP. Many of the people from these villagesdepend on natural resources for survival. Vietnamese local custom allows freeuse of the forest and wild land resources. Despite laws prohibiting trespass anduse of resources within TCNP, impoverished local people routinely exploitaccessible resources in the park. This exploitation includes: land developmentfor agriculture (primarily rice); cutting Melaleuca for cooking fuel and lumber;extracting snails, snakes, fish, frogs, and water birds for food; cutting grassfor vegetable garden mulch; and utilizing grazing land for livestock. Evidenceof poaching activities abound (fishing nets, batteries for electro-shocking, cutstumps, fishing poles, cut grass, etc.) and local people were routinely observedexploiting resources inside TCNP. Although there is a fish harvest plan for thepark, it is not implemented because estimates of illegal fishing harvest farexceed the amount authorized within the plan. Resentment against TCNP guards,who are allowed to utilize park resources, further fuels the tension. In arecent act of violence, apprehended local electroshock fishermen threw batteryacid into the faces of two park guards when directed to leave the park.
A number of efforts are planned or in progress to improve relations with thecommunity and lessen pressure on the natural resources of the park. A donorfunded small loan program has been initiated to improve economic conditions inthe impoverished communities around the park. The fund is coordinated by thedistrict Women’s Union and used to support small-scale economic enhancementactivities. A pilot project will be implemented next year to encourage communityinvolvement in an anti-poaching patrol. Designated family units would havelimited and specified utilization rights to five hectares of park land, inexchange for protection of that land. As part of a poverty alleviation programby the central government, the district has proposed to use the border stripalong the edge of one side of the park as a utilization zone for people whocurrently live there. Although these people were officially “displaced” whenthe park was established, they remained in place and the strip is currently a defacto utilization zone. It is hoped the change in occupancy status of thesepeople from illegal to legal will create goodwill and cooperation between thevillagers and the park.

A commonality of successful fire prevention programs indeveloping countries is the linkage of fire prevention with some type ofeconomic incentive. Communities must have a vested interest in fire prevention.In the case of TCNP, options for economic incentive of limited utilization ofpark resources must be balanced with minimal disturbance to park wildlife. Indiscussions with park staff and managers from commercial Melaleuca forests thefollowing options seemed feasible.

  1. Establish a community-monitored scheme to distribute benefits (extra rice, labour assistance, etc.) to local communities for successful prevention of fires during a dry season. The proposed scheme should be evaluated for efficiency, equitability, and sustainability before implementation.
  2. Establish a small loan program (seed money of US$25,000) with eligibility requirements linked with successful performance of fire prevention.
  3. Allow limited utilization rights within the park contingent upon successful fire prevention.

In evaluating program options, consideration must be givento local people’s confidence in the validity of the proposed long-termoutcome, and local capacity for project management and oversight. If aneffective community fire prevention program can be established with linkages tovested economic interests, the pressure to maintain high water levels as a meansof fire exclusion will be lessened.

A TCNP fire prevention plan is prepared annually by theCoordinating Committee, which consists of the four TCNP department heads andother key staff. The Year 2000 fire prevention plan for the park contains fourmain elements.

  1. Maintenance of high water levels in specified areas of the park.
  2. Prescribed burning in high grassland to establish fuelbreaks around the Melaleuca stands.
  3. Education to the surrounding communities.
  4. Establishment of fire brigades at each hamlet with assistance from the district People’s Committee.

A section of the fire prevention plan lists each park zoneand identifies the high-risk fuel complexes. Proposed fuels managementactivities for the Year 2000 include construction of 400 hectares of firebreakin A1, 200 hectares of firebreak in A2, and prescribed burning of 200 hectaresin A4.
Community fire prevention education is accomplished through social structures.The Women’s Union, Farmer’s Union, and Youth Union give public servicemessages containing fire prevention messages and advise concerning forestprotection laws.
There is a national standard of fire danger rating using a scale of 1-5. Thefire danger rating is determined based on climate and fuel load. Every 15 daysduring the dry season, province level officials work with personnel at TCNP todetermine the fire danger rating. Signs indicating the fire danger rating areposted at many of the access points to the park. A high fire danger rating isnot linked with commensurate levels of prevention activities, as there are notenough resources for such a program.

Fire Ecology and Use of Fire

Of the total 7,588 hectares within the park, approximately3,000 hectares are Melaleuca cajuputi forest. The remaining hectares aregrasslands composed of a mixture of species that can be divided into five mainplant communities.

Although there is little scientific research of fireeffects on Melaleuca cajuputi,long-term park employees and scientists have considerable knowledge based onobservations. In 1997, a dense mat of Melaleuca propagules was observed in aMelaleuca forest area that had burned in 1995. The seeds had germinatedfollowing the fire (Tran Triet, personal communication). On that same site,trees that had been salvage logged after the fire re-sprouted naturally from thestumps. As of March 2000, the stand was approximately 2 meters tall. In anotherMelaleuca site, there was little evidence of regeneration from a 1994,six-hectare, high intensity fire. At a third site, young Melaleuca treesregenerated from seed were plentiful in the area of a 1998 grassland fire. Parkstaff conjectured that scattered, large Melaleuca trees had seeded followingfire stress. The seeds had then been transported by water and germinated.

These observations are consistent with fire effectsresearch on Melaleuca quinquenerviafound in Eastern Australia, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, and Irian Jaya. Asummary of studies indicates the following (Coladonator 1992):

“Melaleuca is well adapted to fire. It has a thick,spongy bark that insulates the cambium. The outer layers of bark are flakey andburn vigorously, which conducts the fire into the canopy, igniting the oil-ladenfoliage. The leaves and small branches are killed, but dormant lateral buds onthe trunk germinate within weeks after the burn. This prolific sproutingincreases the surface area of small branches and therefore the tree’sreproductive potential. Melaleuca can flower within weeks after a fire. Eachserotinous capsule contains about 250 tiny seeds which are released after aburn, frost, or any other event that severs the vascular connections to thefruit. A burned Melaleuca tree can release millions of seeds, which aredispersed a short distance by wind and water. Seedlings that are less than 3 to6 months old, or only 4 to 8 inches (10-20 cm) high are often killed by hotsurface fires. Death may occur as a result of lethal temperatures, insufficientfood reserves to produce new shoots, or drying of the sediments due to increasedexposure. Older seedlings are top-killed by most fires but recover quickly oftenwith multiple shoots sprouting from the root collar. A mature Melaleuca treewill respond to fire by releasing millions of seed that are held in the capsuleson the twigs and branches. Adults damaged by fire may also sprout vigorouslyfrom the roots, bole, or branches. The proliferation of branches on a burnedadult tree often results in more twigs, and thus more capsules and more seedproduction than was the case prior to the burn.”

Studies of Melaleuca cajuputi in Thailand indicate a fast growing shadetolerant species with high tolerance to fire and flooding (Safford et al. 1997).

Park staff has expressed interest in thinning as asilvicultural treatment in Melaleuca, followed by low intensity prescribedburning. However, park regulations at the national level prohibit cutting oflive standing trees. A variance for a small pilot project would be useful todetermine applicability towards meeting management objectives.
Experiments using prescribed fire to create firebreaks in the park wereinitially conducted in 1992. During the dry season of 1999, a prescribed burnexperiment was conducted in five grassland communities (Khanh et al. 1999). Theobjectives of this preliminary research were to: 1) determine the range of fireintensities and appropriate techniques for cost effective fuelbreakconstruction, and 2) determine fire effects on species composition andabundance. This experiment lays the groundwork for future prescribed burningexperimentation and program implementation. Anecdotal observations of Saruscrane observers indicate that feeding habitat is enhanced after a burn, wherecranes readily feed in recently burned areas. These observations support thenotion of fire effects research linked with an objective of wildlife habitatenhancement. Experiment design should incorporate variables such as burnseasonality (early/late dry season), burn severity (low moderate, high), burnfrequency interval (3 months, one year, two years, five years, etc.), andvegetative communities (five different grassland communities and Melaleucastands of varying age class/densities). Vegetative response characteristicsshould include such measurements as shoot height, density, weight, growth rate,and nutritional composition; aboveground standing crop; residual organicmaterials; mortality; and reproductive effort.

Given the pilot projects using fire to establishfuelbreaks, there exists ample foundation to establish a larger scale program offire use and research experimentation at TCNP.

Fire Suppression Organization and Capabilities

The TCNP Forest Protection Unit is a special unit withinthe province Forest Protection Department. This unit has 34 employees (potentialfor 40), staffing twelve guard stations and the headquarters office. There isone 5-person mobile patrol, with motorcycle or boat transport. The provinceForest Protection Department provides two days of fire suppression trainingannually. The training covers laws and regulations relating to forest fire, andnew equipment and methodologies in fire suppression. In addition to firesuppression, the Forest Protection Unit is responsible for anti-poaching actionsand planting contract administration.

The TCNP Forest Protection Unit has the following fireequipment:

  • 10 pressurized agriculture sprayers (12 liter Kubota)
  • 1 Professional Toyota portable pump 
  • 2 Honda portable pumps
  • 1 Vanguard Briggs and Stratton 6 horsepower portable pump *
  • 1 Industrial Plus Briggs and Stratton 5 horsepower portable pump*
  • 3 larger pumps
  • 300 meters of hose, 7.6 cm (3 inch) diameter in 20 meter lengths*
  • other handtools
  • 2 Wajax drip torches
  • 2 motorcycles
  • 1 boat
  • 7.6 cm (3 inch) quick-lock, haemophrodite couplings (possibly Storz or French variation)


The unit has no radio equipment. There are telephones atthe headquarters and three of the guard stations. The other guard stations haveno means of communication with headquarters. This is a critical safety concernnot only in a fire response situation, but also during other protectionactivities. The lack of personal protective equipment, particularly hardhatswith some type of face shield, was also noted as a safety concern.
Mechanized equipment is used in fire suppression efforts. Tractors, rented fromlocal farmers, are used to construct firelines around grass fires. Park staffexpressed an interest in a water tank trailer with spigot that would hitch tothe back of a locally constructed all-terrain vehicle. The water trailer wouldbe strategically placed along a fire perimeter to eliminate the need for labourintensive, hand-carried water.
The district government is responsible for organizing and mobilizing resourcesfrom the local villages to assist in fire suppression efforts within the park.By law, the village head is responsible for deployment of locals to fight fire.Each village designates one family as a focal point to assist with fireprevention and suppression efforts. One day of training is provided annually tothese families. It was noted that local farmers usually bring their own tools oragriculture sprayer when responding to fires.
When a fire in TCNP exceeds the capability of the Forest Protection Unit, theprovince level Forest Protection Department assists the park. The province levelForest Protection Department is structured as follows: Director, Vice-Director,a 5-person Fire Protection Unit, 5 mobiles units, Policy and Regulation Unit,Administrative Unit, and the special Fire Protection Unit at TCNP. There aredistrict and province level command centres. Smaller fires are handled locally,but if a situation exceeds the capability of the district, requests forassistance is sent to the province central command and resources deployed fromthat level.

Figure1. Freshly burned Melaleuca leucodendron L.stand in Long An, Viet Nam (Mekong delta region). Fires in Melaleuca are oftenset to obtain permission to salvage the stems and to bring them to the localmarkets. Photo: GFMC.

Figure 2.Local transport and trading of freshly salvage-logged Melaleuca poles. Photo:GFMC.


There is no formal fire fighter training. Although firesuppression tactics safety is taught, they have no personal protectiveequipment. In 1999, the province Forest Protection Department responded to atotal of 88 fire incidences in the province.

During the dry season of 1998, there were a total of 40fires in Tram Chim National Park. Three of those were large fires requiringsignificant deployment of fire suppression resources. The largest fire, 600hectares of grassland, required mobilizing 300 fire fighters including policeand army personnel. On March 8, 2000, the TCNP Forest Protection Unit respondedto the first fire of the dry season. The fire was burning in grassland (0.7meter high Penicum) and scattered, 2-year-old Melaleuca. Ninefirefighters responded on initial attack using boats for transportation.Equipment included: 1 Vanguard Briggs and Stratton 6 horsepower portable pump, 1Industrial Plus Briggs and Stratton 5 horsepower portable pump (Model 133432),fifteen 20-meter lengths of 7.6cm (3 inch) diameter hose with quick-lockhaemophrodite coupling, 1 Kubota pressurized agricultural sprayer, and plasticbuckets. A wetline anchored from the canal failed to contain the fire. Allavailable hose (300 meters) had been deployed and the fire burned around the endof the hoselay. With winds around 16 kph, the fire burned back towards thecanal, and soon spotted across. The fire fighters attempted a wet line along oneflank but the fire was too intense. After retreating to the canal dike for ashort period, they attempted a hose lay attack from the black side of theflaming front. The wind had slowed and the wet line was successful this time instopping the fire. The firefighters deployed all available hose and thenresorted to beating the edge with Melaleuca boughs and carrying water in plasticbuckets from the end of the hose lay. The firefighters wore sandals or werebarefoot and had no personal protective equipment of any kind. Local people fromthe communities were conspicuously absent in the fire suppression efforts,although the fire clearly exceeded the suppression capabilities of the limitedpark personnel.
The fire fighters were very aggressive, hard working, and professional. Althoughthey lacked personal protective equipment, safety was clearly a factor inselecting tactics. The limited water handling equipment was utilized aseffectively as possible. Additional pumps, smaller diameter hose, adapters,couplings, nozzles, training in hose packs and hose lays with laterals,fold-a-tanks, and personal protective equipment would maximize the effectivenessand safety of this firefighting unit.

Analysis – Management Dilemmas and Tradeoffs

Fire exclusion as a management objective is a highpriority with district, province, and national officials. Fire exclusion is theprimary driving factor in determining water levels at TCNP. Succinctlydisplayed, the tradeoffs associated with the decision to utilize high waterlevels as a means of fire exclusion, are summarized as follows.

I.High water levels maintained for the purpose of fireexclusion

  • No fires
  • Reduced area of bird species habitat
  • Slow Melaleuca growth
  • Unknown other ecological consequences

II. Water levels allowed to recede “normally” during the dry season asper the water management plan:

  • Higher risk of human-caused fire
  • Larger proportion of park area suitable for bird species habitat
  • Increased Melaleuca growth


For the year 2000, high water levels were maintained in89% of the park area, substantially limiting potential crane habitat.Paradoxically, the park logo, tourist brochures, and public relations material,all feature the crane as a centrepiece. From a political, managerial, andaccountability perspective, hectares of Melaleuca forest and grasslandsprotected from fire is an easily measured target. In contrast, the temporalpresence of Sarus cranes in TCNP is dependent on a number of variables, many ofwhich are not within the control of the park (availability of suitable habitatalong the migration route, poaching outside of TCNP, reproductive success,etc.).
Another recent management decision generated by wildfire concerns was theconstruction of new canals through some areas of the park. This action wasjustified by the need for access by fire suppression resources. Although canalsdo allow access by fire suppression crews, they also increase ease of access bylocals exploiting resources within the park. Since all fires are human caused,this increased access by locals will likely result in more fire ignitions.Construction of additional canals has adverse impacts on soil acidity and thehydrologic regime, and is also contrary to objectives of the park to protect andrestore the natural landscapes of the Plain of Reeds. Although canalconstruction was halted before completion, this management decision is anotherindicator of the high value placed on fire exclusion within the park.
Fire prevention in an atmosphere of tense and occasionally hostile communityrelations presents another daunting management challenge. In commercialMelaleuca plantations in Dong Thap province, utilization permits for locals andcommunity benefits (rice distribution) purchased with profits from theplantation ensures positive relations with the community. In TCNP, unrestrictedutilization rights in reward for fire prevention is not an option due to parkobjectives. The park does not generate revenues nor currently receive a budgetfor improving community relations, thus it is difficult to find incentives thatcould serve as a bridge for improved community relations. Yet improved relationswith local communities is a critical step in reducing the risk of unwanted fire.
The issues faced by managers at Tram Chim National Park are complex andchallenging. Outcomes of potential decisions should be evaluated carefully,within the continuum of single species management and biodiversity conservation.The concepts of disturbance factors and the role of fire in the ecosystem arepoorly understood by officials at all levels and there is little research onfire effects in the ecosystems within the park. The current paradigm of fireexclusion as a management objective should be re-evaluated within the context ofnatural disturbance factors.
In summary, moving from a strict fire exclusion policy towards recognition offire’s role in the ecosystem, augmented by a program of fire use in the parkwould allow for greater flexibility in management options. A deliberate strategyof fire use, in combination with an effective community fire prevention program,based on economic incentive extraneous to park resources, would result in adecrease in unplanned ignitions. Improving the capacity of fire fighting forcesto suppress unwanted fires would be the final step in enhancing the overall firemanagement program.


Birdlife International. Wetlands in the balance. Astrategy for balance and harmony in wetland resource management in the MekongDelta. Unpublished report.

Coladonator, Milo. 1992. Melaleuca quinquenervia. In: TheFire Effects Information System (Data base) (W.C. Fischer, comp.). Missoula, MT:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory. Magnetic tape reels; 9 track; 1600 bpi,ASCII with Common LISP present.

Khanh, Le Trong, and Le Thanh Cu. 1999. Report on theResearch. Using prescribed burning as a mean to prevent fire in melaleuca forestand the management of plant communities in the frequently burned conditions.Unpublished report.

Kiet, Le Cong. 1993. Dong Thap Muoi; restoring the mysteryforest of the Plain of Reeds. Restoration and Management Notes 11, 102-105

Safford, R.J., D.V. Ni, E. Maltby, and V.-T. Xuan (eds.).1997. Towards sustainable management of Tram Chim National Reserve, Vietnam.Proceedings of a workshop on balancing economic development with environmentalconservation. London: Royal Holloway Institute for Environmental Research.

IFFN/GFMC contribution submitted by:

Deanne Shulman
Fire Management Specialist
United States Forest Service
P.O. Box 3
Kernville, California 93238

Country Notes
IFFN No. 26