フランス支配下のベトナムにおいて、鉄道や石炭業など産業の発展や、人口増による燃材・建材消費の増加によって森林開発が加速していった。森林の荒廃を懸念した植民地当局は、19世紀末から20世紀初頭にかけて、フランス本国で行われていたように、森林局を整備し、森林管理のシステムを導入した。
森林政策の主要な柱は、保護林における許可制による伐採と、保全林における系統的伐採であり、森林の大半を占める保護林においては、不法伐採も含めて大量の燃材・建材が産出されていった。森林局は、徐々に保全林の割合を増やし、厳密な管理のもとに持続的な木材の供給を実現しようとしたが、予算不足や人員不足などにより、その割合は、植民地支配期末期においても9.1％と、目標からははるかに遠い数値にとどまっていた。保全林における系統的伐採は、その手続きの煩雑さや制約の多さから敬遠する伐採者も多く、企業などの大規模な主体を参加させて合理的・計画的な伐採を行おうとする森林局の目論見は成功したとは言い難い。保全林からは、原則として森林村落住民は締め出され、利用が制限されたが、一部では住民のための「共同体保全地区」が創設され、村落を系統的伐採に参加させる試みもなされた。しかしこれは、伐採権を一部の住民のみに与えることになり、村落内部に不和と摩擦をもたらすことにもなった。
こうした森林管理をめぐって、森林を利用する様々な主体と森林局の間には摩擦が生じた。森林局は、系統的伐採に企業の参加を促そうとした一方で、森林資源の大規模な利用によって経済活動を拡大しようとする企業や入植者に対して、地域社会の小規模な産業や、住民の用益権と対立し、社会不和を生むものとして警戒した。こうした森林局の姿勢に企業は強く反発し、総督府や本国植民地省に直接訴えることもあった。森林局による管理方法は、企業の活動を妨げるだけでなく、フランスで確立された手法を、全く環境の異なる地に適用しようとする無意味なものであるとの批判もみられた。
The advance of colonialism, concomitant with industrial development, such as railway and coal industry, and increase in wood consumption due to population growth, contributed to the accelerated exploitation of forests. From fears of deforestation, the colonial authorities, centering on the forestry bureaus, developed a forest management system from the end of the nineteenth century through the early twentieth century.
Mainstays of the forestry policies was the permit system for protected forests and the systematic logging in reserved forests, with the protected forests, which made up most of the forests, producing large quantities of fuel and construction materials, also including illegal logging. The forestry bureaus gradually increased the proportion of "reserved forests" and sought to realize a sustainable timber supply through strict management, but budget deficits and manpower shortages made sure that the proportion was not more than 9.1% toward the end of the colonial period, which were number far from the targets. The systematic logging in the reserved forests was shunned by many woodcutters because of the cumbersome procedures and numerous obligations, and it is difficult to consider the forestry bureaus' plan as successful as it involved rational and systematic logging with the participation of companies and other large-scale actors. Local residents were generally excluded from the reserved forests and use for their livelihoods restricted, but "communal reserves" were established for the residents in some areas, as a way to involved villages in the systematic logging. Yet this meant granting logging rights to only a small number of residents, which caused discord and friction inside the villages.
There was friction between these various agents making use of the forest and the forestry bureaus over the forest management. One the one hand, the forestry bureaus sought to encourage companies to take part in the systematic logging, but on the other, they were wary of the companies and settlers who were trying to expand their economic activities through large-scale use of forest resources. This was because they feared that it could threaten small-scale industries in regional society and residents' usufructuary rights, thereby causing social discord. The companies were very opposed to this stance assumed by the forestry bureaus, and would sometimes appeal directly to the Government-General or the Ministry of the Colonies in France. They would criticize the forestry bureaus' management methods not only for obstructing corporate activities, but also for being meaningless in that techniques developed in France were applied to a completely different environment.