Part II: Forging signatures to create documents

The fact that the Dien Loi commune government did not return the forestry land records to the people and allowed other units to exploit them indiscriminately was thought to be a shocking event in Dien Loi commune. However, during the investigation, we also discovered another violation, a set of records created with dozens of fake signatures that had been used by the Dien Loi commune government for many years without the knowledge of the Dien Chau district government.

Watch Part I: "Forgetting" people's rights

According to Mr. Vuong Quoc Anh - Deputy Head of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment of Dien Chau district, the Government's regulations are that families who take care of and protect the forest have the right to exploit pine resin.

Unless they feel they are not qualified to exploit on their own, they will have a written authorization to the commune government for the commune to submit to the district. Based on that, the district will allow the commune to sign contracts with companies to proceed with exploitation.

Mr. Anh added: The design file for pine resin exploitation that Dien Loi commune submitted to Dien Chau district and Dien Chau district Forest Protection Department had a Commitment Paper and signatures of 50 households with forests with the same content: "Due to my family's conditions, I am not able to exploit, so I made this commitment paper for the Commune People's Committee to exploit resin (with a period of 5 years) to get funds for management and protection, forest fire prevention and pest control...".

However, when we brought the district's pine resin exploitation design documents back to show the households, they were shocked to find out that they were all fake documents. Looking at his signature in the documents, Mr. Thai Ba Quang - a retired soldier with more than 30 years of Party membership - was surprised: "I only had one signature in my whole life, but now I don't understand why there is such a "strange" signature like this".

In addition, some households also wonder why, although their family's forest is a forest of the Viet Duc Project (pine forest for timber) or a cajuput forest, their names are among the households that signed the commitment to exploit pine resin?

Mr. Le Trung Thiep also wrote a guarantee: "The fact that the People's Committee of Dien Loi commune drafted a document under my name, Le Trung Thiep, with a forest area of ​​3.1 hectares for pine resin exploitation on January 8, 2008 was a forgery of my signature. In fact, my family only has a Viet Duc project forest, mainly planted with cajuput trees and young pine trees that are not yet old enough to be exploited."

Not only that, people also said that 10 households in the commune do not have forests, or newly planted forests, but the commune still lists forests for exploitation. In addition, in the commune's application for exploitation, there are 120.1 hectares, but the actual exploitation area is dozens of hectares larger.

By forging dozens of signatures to create a design file for pine resin exploitation, over the past 4 years (2008-2011), the Dien Loi commune government has asked Dien Chau district 4 times to allow pine resin exploitation successfully. "When the pine trees are eligible for exploitation, when the documents have all the legal procedures, the district organizes an inspection and then agrees to let the commune sign a contract with Quynh Van Cooperative for exploitation.

However, the value of an exploitation period is only valid for 12 months and is renewed every year. The commune's signing of a contract with Mr. Le Van Hue - Chairman of Quynh Van Cooperative with a 5-year exploitation period (2008 - 2013) is a violation," said Nguyen Thanh Binh, an expert from the Department of Agriculture of Dien Chau district.

What about the fact that the commune has "held" the people's forestry records for 12 years? Mr. Vuong Quoc Anh affirmed: "The Dien Chau district forestry land allocation records were handed over to the commune in 1999 and there was no change from green to red covers. Dien Loi commune did not return them to the people, which means the commune was wrong."

So, who is responsible for "detaining" people's forestry records and not allowing them to exploit pine resin?

My Ha - Bich Hue