The Impact of the Renovation Policies on the Livelihoods of ... - RCSD

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Renovation</strong> <strong>Policies</strong> on <strong>the</strong> Livelihoods <strong>of</strong> UplandForest-Dependent People in Nor<strong>the</strong>rn VietnamThi Thu Ha TranSchool <strong>of</strong> Resources, Environment and Society<strong>The</strong> Australian national University (ANU), Acton 0200, AustraliaAbstractIn <strong>the</strong> late 1980s, <strong>the</strong> Vietnamese Government shifted from a subsidised central economy to amarket economy, and transferred land use rights from <strong>the</strong> state to users through implementingits “<strong>Renovation</strong> <strong>Policies</strong>”. <strong>The</strong> government expected that <strong>the</strong> livelihoods <strong>of</strong> local peoplewould improve as a result <strong>of</strong> an increase in income from agriculture and forest activities. Thisresearch investigates how <strong>the</strong> “<strong>Renovation</strong> <strong>Policies</strong>” have affected <strong>the</strong> livelihoods <strong>of</strong> forestdependentupland people in <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn mountainous region <strong>of</strong> Vietnam since <strong>the</strong> early1990s. Five criteria related to local livelihoods: 1) cultivation system, 2) income levels, 3)food security, 4) employment and cash flow, and 5) welfare and services are addressed usinga case study approach in three mountainous nor<strong>the</strong>rn provinces <strong>of</strong> Vietnam. <strong>The</strong> transition toa free market has led to more diversification and investment in agricultural and forstryproduction, and broadening <strong>of</strong> income sources. However, <strong>the</strong> poverty rate remains very high,up to 80%. <strong>The</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> poor households still face food shortage for many months eachyear, and are fur<strong>the</strong>r disadvantaged by lower education and employment opportunities, poorinfrastructure and limited government service support. <strong>The</strong> results indicate that <strong>the</strong><strong>Renovation</strong> <strong>Policies</strong> have not been as successful as expected by <strong>the</strong> government. While <strong>the</strong>quality <strong>of</strong> livelihoods <strong>of</strong> better-<strong>of</strong>f villagers has improved due to agricultural and forestryactivities, this has not been <strong>the</strong> case for <strong>the</strong> poor upland people.1 IntroductionIn Vietnam, about 19 million ha (75 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country’s total land area) <strong>of</strong> forest andforest land are classified into three types <strong>of</strong> forest: (1) production forest (9.6 million ha), (2)protection forest (6 million ha), and (3) special use forest (2.4 million ha) (MARD, 1999).This area directly provides livelihoods for 24 million Vietnamese from about 50 differentethnic groups. Vietnam’s tropical forests constitute a key factor in environmental protectionand biodiversity. However, <strong>the</strong> forest quality and quantity has been severely undermined.Between 1943 and 1993, <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> forest cover declined from around 43 % to 20 %(Vo Quy, 1996). <strong>The</strong> annual loss <strong>of</strong> natural forests in Vietnam is 100,000 ha (MARD, 2000).This loss has had a wide range <strong>of</strong> social-economic, ecological, and environmental impacts.<strong>The</strong> main cause has been poverty and poor forest management. In <strong>the</strong> past, forest and forestland belonged to <strong>the</strong> state and were managed directly by state forest enterprises. <strong>The</strong> stateenterprises had <strong>the</strong> dual functions <strong>of</strong>, first, exploiting <strong>the</strong> forests and, second, protecting <strong>the</strong>magainst intruders and re-planting <strong>the</strong>m after harvest. However, while <strong>the</strong> enterprises weregenerally successful in <strong>the</strong> first objective, <strong>the</strong>y <strong>of</strong>ten failed in <strong>the</strong> second. Vietnam is anagricultural country with an annual rate <strong>of</strong> population growth above 2%, and <strong>the</strong> highestpopulation density in Sou<strong>the</strong>ast Asia (Koninck, 1999). This combination <strong>of</strong> factors has led topressure on forest areas for cultivation <strong>of</strong> food crops and for forest products such as timberand fuel wood. As a result, <strong>the</strong> impoverishment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forests continues.In <strong>the</strong> early 1990s, <strong>the</strong> Vietnamese Government “<strong>Renovation</strong> <strong>Policies</strong>” have been carried outin upland regions and aimed at addressing <strong>the</strong> afore-mentioned problems. <strong>The</strong> policies includetransferring forest land use rights from state to individual households and o<strong>the</strong>r users,combined with economic reforms and agricultural land reforms at <strong>the</strong> same time. <strong>The</strong> purpose<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> policies is to achieve optimal use <strong>of</strong> forests and forest land use through applyingappropriate cultivation systems and strategies to combine conservation and developmentPaper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region” 129-31, January 2007, Chiang Mai

goals in <strong>the</strong> upland areas, in <strong>the</strong> hope <strong>of</strong> increasing <strong>the</strong> income <strong>of</strong> upland people, timber andnon-timber products, protection <strong>of</strong> ecological systems and environmental benefits. It wasexpected by <strong>the</strong> government that, by increasing local income based on appropriate agriculturaland forestry production activities, deforestation would be stopped and sloping land would bemanaged sustainably. However, so far <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> policies have not really met <strong>the</strong>objectives above (Kerkvliet and Poster 1995; Goletti and Minot 1997; Morrison and Dubois1998; ADB 2000; Le Trong Cuc and Rambo, 2001; Al<strong>the</strong>r et al. 2002; Zingerli et al. 2002).My research asks <strong>the</strong> question “What impact have <strong>the</strong> <strong>Renovation</strong> <strong>Policies</strong> (Doi Moi) had onlocal livelihoods in <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn mountainous region <strong>of</strong> Vietnam?” This is an importantquestion because it challenges <strong>the</strong> success or failure <strong>of</strong> <strong>Renovation</strong> <strong>Policies</strong> which have set inmotion a strategy <strong>of</strong> sustainable development in <strong>the</strong> uplands <strong>of</strong> Vietnam since <strong>the</strong> early 1990s.<strong>The</strong> answers to this question will provide <strong>the</strong> scientific foundation for policy and decisionmakers to review <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> renovation policies, to apply appropriate approaches anddevelop <strong>the</strong>m fur<strong>the</strong>r in order to streng<strong>the</strong>n efforts towards sustainable development practicesin Vietnam.This paper presents <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> my research on local livehoods involving all three foresttypes - production, protection and special use.2. Methodology<strong>The</strong> research was carried out using an interdisciplinary approach with <strong>the</strong> major disciplinesbeing human geography, ecology, economics, and social anthropology.2.1 Study sitesSix case studies were carried out in nor<strong>the</strong>rnthree provinces <strong>of</strong> Thai Nguyen, Bac Kanand Cao Bang, which represent a transectfrom Hanoi to <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn border withChina and are representative <strong>of</strong> diferentforest types (Figure 1). Two case studieswere included for each province, with onebeing located near a commune centre andclose to <strong>the</strong> lowlands and ano<strong>the</strong>r located in<strong>the</strong> remote uplands.<strong>The</strong> villages were Vau and Nac (ThaiNguyen) for production forest type, BanCam and Khau Qua (Bac Kan) for specialuse forest type and Pac Han and Khuoi Ken(Cao Bang) for protection forest type.Cao BangBac KanThai NguyenFigure 2.1. Map showing location <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>three case study provinces in nor<strong>the</strong>rnVietnam2.2 Data collectionTo examine <strong>the</strong> impacts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> renovation policies since <strong>the</strong> early 1990s on <strong>the</strong> livelihoods <strong>of</strong>upland people, relevant data and information were obtained for two periods: <strong>the</strong> early 1990sbefore <strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> policies; and 2004-2005 after <strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> policies.Both primary and secondary data were collected by <strong>the</strong> author during about 11 months <strong>of</strong>fieldworks in 2005-2006.• Primary dataBoth qualitative and quantitative methods were used for collecting primary data. <strong>The</strong> threemain methods used were: (1) Group meetings and discussions using topic checklists wereconducted from local to national levels. Group discussions involving villagers, localPaper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region” 229-31, January 2007, Chiang Mai

authorities, central government authorities, and international agencies and NGOs (2)Interviews <strong>of</strong> key informants (local authorities) were based on a set <strong>of</strong> topic checklists andopen-ended questions; and (3) Key informant interviews and household surveys using semistructuredquestionnaires with a particular focus on cultivation systems, income, foodsecurity, land use and opportunities to acess public services and markets by forest-dependantpeople. At least 40% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total households in each case study village were selected based on<strong>the</strong> wealth ranking within <strong>the</strong> village identified during group discussions. About 20 to 30 keyinformants from each case study were interviewed. <strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> informants at differentlevels (village, district, and province) involved in group discussions is shown in Table 1.Table 1: Number <strong>of</strong> interviews conducted to obtain primary dataLocation Household Key informant(village)Key informant(commune)Government(district, province)Thai Nguyen 22 (Vau)40 20 2040 (Nac)Bac Kan 17 (Khau Qua) 40 10 2024 (Ban Cam)Cao Bang 18 (Pac Han)30 10 2015 (Khuoi Ken)Total 136 110 40 60• Secondary dataSecondary data recorded before 1990s up to 2005 by various government agencies, GOs,NGOs and o<strong>the</strong>r studies were collected. <strong>The</strong>se data include: (1) Documentation on policies,laws, decisions, planning and management strategies, and reports; and (2) Statistics on socioeconomicaspects.3. Results3.1 Change in upland cultivation system3.1.1 Change in land useIn total, 125 households in <strong>the</strong> six case-study villages were surveyed for <strong>the</strong> present study.Members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se households have lived continuously in <strong>the</strong>se villages since before <strong>the</strong>1990s.Before <strong>the</strong> renovation began in <strong>the</strong> early 1990s, forest land was managed by <strong>the</strong> governmentbut in <strong>the</strong> views <strong>of</strong> villagers, forest land was common land that <strong>the</strong>y could simply access forshifting cultivation. In some places like Khuoi Ken, forest land was managed by a collectivebut villagers also treated it as common land. In addition, <strong>the</strong> government’s strategy for foodself sufficiency in 1980-1990 resulted in upland people trying to maximize food cropproduction through shifting cultivation. <strong>The</strong> main consequences <strong>of</strong> shifting cultivation wereloss <strong>of</strong> forest and subsequent soil erosion. In <strong>the</strong> early 1990s, <strong>the</strong> government’s renovationstrategy for <strong>the</strong> upland region led to changes in <strong>the</strong> crop cultivation systems, to promotegreater economic efficiency and respect for environmental values. <strong>The</strong> cultivation systems inmost <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> case study areas have changed as a result (see Table 2).Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region” 329-31, January 2007, Chiang Mai

Table 2: Change in land use 1994-2005 for households in six case study villagesVillageNo.<strong>of</strong> hPaddy rice (equal 1 crop)(m 2 )O<strong>the</strong>r agricultural land (equal1 crop) (m 2 )Upland field for dry food crops(m 2 )Cash crops(m 2 )Forest plantation(ha)1992 2005 change 1992 2005 change 1992 2005 change 1992 2005 change 19922005 changeThai NguyenVau 20 30,660 34,660 + 4,000 2,000 7,200 + 5,200 575,000 10,860 - 564,140 0 50,570+50,570 0 13 + 13Nac 34 80,916 89,860 + 8,944 0 0 02,838,000360,300-2,477,700 0120,080+120,080 0 370 +370Bac KanBan Cam 22 45,250 74,200+28,950 58,100 116,200+58,100 310,000 41,000 - 269,000 0 0 0 0 0 0Khau Qua 16 70,000 87,500Cao Bang+17,500 0 0 0 305,000250,200 - 54,800 0 0 0 0 0 0Pac Han 18 12,960 13,680 + 720206,080 177,480-28,600 50,000 o -50,000 0 13,600+13,600 0 1.5 + 1.5KhuoiKen 15 1,200 15,200+14,000 0 0 0 655,000195,600 - 459,400 0 33,700+33,700 0 18.5 + 18.5Total 125 240,986315,100+74,114266,180 300,880 29,5004,683,000857,960-3,825,040 0217,950+217,950 0 403 + 403Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region” 429-31, January 2007, Chiang Mai

<strong>The</strong>re have been marked changes in land use since <strong>the</strong> land reform. <strong>The</strong> area <strong>of</strong> paddy (rice fields)increased in most villages, but for different reasons. First, areas near streams were turned intosloping paddy fields in Vau, Nac, Khuoi Ken, and Khau Qua. Secondly, some people boughtpaddy rice areas from Tay (ethnic minority) people in Khuoi Ken and Khau Qua who did not live<strong>the</strong>re but had owned <strong>the</strong>se paddy lands for a long time. <strong>The</strong> paddy rice area in Ban Cam has notincreased since <strong>the</strong> 1990s, but land use has intensified, from one crop to two crops per year byusing irrigation. Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 45,250 m 2 <strong>of</strong> paddy rice areas in Ban Cam in 1994 were cultivatedfor two crops in 2005, an equivalent <strong>of</strong> 74,200 m 2 one crop (see Table 2)O<strong>the</strong>r agricultural land 1 classified as plain land for dry food crops has increased in area, in BanCam (+58,100 m 2 ) and Vau (+5,200 m 2 ) (Table 2). In Vau <strong>the</strong> increase was <strong>the</strong> result <strong>of</strong> two-cropcultivation in small plots near rivers and streams.In contrast, upland areas for dry food crops such as upland rice, maize, cassava and beans havereduced significantly in most cases. During <strong>the</strong> 1980s-1990s, <strong>the</strong> forest land area was used forupland rice and maize cultivation in most villages to satisfy <strong>the</strong> staple diet for local livelihoods.<strong>The</strong> survey data from 2005 (Table 2) shows that <strong>the</strong> areas used for shifting cultivation in <strong>the</strong>1990s had, in most villages, reduced by 2005. For example, <strong>the</strong> shifting cultivation area used inVau by 20 households was reduced from 575,000 m 2 in <strong>the</strong> 1990s to 10,860 m 2 in 2005.Similarly, <strong>the</strong> shifting cultivation area in Nac used by 34 households was reduced from 2,838,000m 2 in <strong>the</strong> 1990s to 360,300 m 2 in 2005. At present, upland rice and maize (corn) are still beingcultivated in <strong>the</strong>se villages as <strong>the</strong> main food source, especially by <strong>the</strong> poor people who lack paddyrice land or lack <strong>the</strong> capacity to develop cash crops.Cash crop and plantation areas were expanded in <strong>the</strong> last five years in most study villages exceptin Vau village where tea plantations had been developed earlier in 1994 under a resettlementproject. Most areas previously under shifting cultivation were allocated to individual householdsfor reforestation. However, <strong>the</strong> villagers elected to plant cash crops, including short-term crops(e.g. Thach Den - grass jelly) and long-term crops (e.g. tea) or commercial trees that providehigher economic returns than forest trees or naturally regenerated forests on <strong>the</strong>se areas.3.1.2 Changes in crops and animal husbandrySince <strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> land allocation policy, upland people have had land use rights. <strong>The</strong>yare now more confident about investing labour and capital in <strong>the</strong>ir land for household economicdevelopment. Shifting cultivation was prohibited under <strong>the</strong> forest protection law and <strong>the</strong>regulations on forest land allocation to households. Thus, upland people have had to re-organize<strong>the</strong>ir production by selecting alternative crops and animals which are appropriate to <strong>the</strong>irresources, such as soil condition, labour, and investment abilities, and to markets and marketaccess.As show in Table 3, <strong>the</strong>re have been considerable changes in agricultural and forestry cultivationin most case study villages since <strong>the</strong> renovation policies came into effect.1 Agricultural land is characterised by < 8° <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> slope.Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai5

Table 3: Changes in cultivation system in <strong>the</strong> six case study villages since Doi Moi policiesCultivation type Before 1990s 20051. Food cropsPaddy riceFew traditional varieties with More varieties with high yieldsvery low yields for household Intensive investment in fertilizers,consumptionown consumptionUpland riceO<strong>the</strong>r crops (maize,beans, peanuts)2. Cash crops (tea, ThachDen- Grass Jelly)Most households had largeareas for own consumptionMany local varieties with verylow yields, householdconsumption onlyNoneFew households cultivating rice;small area for own consumptionMore varieties with high yields;intensive investment in fertilizers,own consumptionSmall to large plots, mainlycommercial3. Fruit trees None to few trees near houses New varieties/clones, mainlycommercial4. Commercial tree Noneplantation5. Animal husbandry Few traditional breeds(chicken, ducks, few cattle) forMany new plantations,commercialMany new breeds for householdand commercial usehousehold consumptionNote: No cash crops and commercial tree plantation in Ban Cam and Khau Qua because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>restriction under special use forest - Ba Be National Park<strong>The</strong> transition from self-sufficiency to a free market has led to more diversification <strong>of</strong> agriculturaland forestry production in most upland villages. <strong>The</strong> main products are not only food crops, butinclude many different kinds <strong>of</strong> cash crops, both short-term and long-term crops and commercialtrees. In addition, animal husbandry has been developed for both household consumption andcommercial purposes. Moreover, upland people now have more freedom to trade forest products,including timber and non-timber from <strong>the</strong>ir own forests, in <strong>the</strong> market. <strong>The</strong>se products areimportant in terms <strong>of</strong> employment, food, fodder and income to <strong>the</strong> local people, for bothhousehold consumption and trade. <strong>The</strong> diversification <strong>of</strong> products presents opportunities to raiseincomes. This has been encouraged by <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> both good information about <strong>the</strong> market,and incentives to participate in <strong>the</strong> market economy. However, diversification has been limited inthose villages located far from market centres like Nac, Khuoi Ken and Khau Qua.3.2 Income3.2.1 Income at provincial levelOverall, average income per person per month in <strong>the</strong> three provinces increased during 1995-1999and again in 1999-2003 (sees Figure 2). For example, in Thai Nguyen, <strong>the</strong> average incomeincreased considerably from 155,000 VND to 196,000 VND during 1995-1999 but only slightlyfrom 196,000 VND to 230,000 VND during 1999-2003. Similarly in Cao Bang, income increasedrapidly from 120,000 VND in 1995 to 209,000 VND in 1999 but more slowly average from209,000 VND in 1999 to 238,000 VND in 2003.Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai6

1,000VND/person/month300200100023823020919 621915513412 0931995 1999 2003Thai Nguyen Bac Kan Cao BangFigure 2: Change in average monthly income per person during period 1996-2003 indifferent provincesSource: MARD, 2002; Statistic Office <strong>of</strong> Thai Nguyen in 2004; Statistic Office <strong>of</strong> Bac Kanprovince in 2003; and Statistic Office <strong>of</strong> Cao Bang in 2004<strong>The</strong> situation is different in Bac Kan province where <strong>the</strong> average monthly income per person wasvery low, only 93,000 VND in 1995. <strong>The</strong> income increased at a similar rate to Cao Bang during1995-1993, but <strong>the</strong> increase was much greater during 1999-2003 from 134,000 VND to 219,000VND. Bac Kan was a new province created in 1997 2 . It is one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> poorest provinces in <strong>the</strong>country, and has received special support from <strong>the</strong> central government for infrastructuredevelopment which has led to a greater increase in annual income than for Cao Bang and ThaiNguyen during <strong>the</strong> period 1999-2003.However, annual inflation has led to a reduction in <strong>the</strong> true value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> VND. <strong>The</strong>refore, <strong>the</strong>increase in average income has not helped improve <strong>the</strong> livelihoods <strong>of</strong> people overall. Accordingto <strong>the</strong> new criterion, rural people are poor if <strong>the</strong>ir average monthly income per person is less than200,000 VND (appropriate 13 USD). According to this measure, <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> poor people in2005 increased to very high levels in all <strong>the</strong> three provinces. Many minority people living inhamlets/villages in <strong>the</strong>se provinces like H’Mong and Dao have a poverty rate <strong>of</strong> 90-100% under<strong>the</strong> new criterion.3.2.2 Income <strong>of</strong> village people in different case study areas• Overall incomeAverage monthly income per person in <strong>the</strong> six case study areas is presented in Figure 3.2 Before 1997 Bac Kan belonged to Bac Thai province which was subdivided into two provinces, ThaiNguyen and Bac Kan, in 1997.Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai7

1000VND/person/month3002001000176128235192260Vau Nac Ban Cam Khau Qua Pac Han KhuoiKenProduction forest Special use forest Protection forest150Figure 3: Average monthly income per person in <strong>the</strong> six case studies<strong>The</strong>re are considerable differences in <strong>the</strong> average monthly income per person in <strong>the</strong> different casestudy areas. Average income per person per month is very low; 128,000 VND in Nac, 171,000VND in Vau, and 150,000 VND in Khuoi Ken while it is much higher, at 260,000 VND in PacHan, 253,000 VND in Ban Cam and 192,000 VND in Khau Qua (see Figure 3). According to <strong>the</strong>government’s new criterion for classification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> poor, only Pac Han and Ban Cam villageshave an average monthly income per person above <strong>the</strong> poverty threshold. Each villager in Nacearns an equivalent <strong>of</strong> only 26 US cents per day.In <strong>the</strong> early 1990s, <strong>the</strong> average income <strong>of</strong> people in Thai Nguyen province, which is located nearHanoi, was higher than that <strong>of</strong> Bac Kan and Cao Bang. After ten years <strong>of</strong> renovation, <strong>the</strong> income<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> people in Bac Kan and Cao Bang has improved considerably and in 2005 <strong>the</strong> averageincome is higher than that in Thai Nguyen (Figure 3). <strong>The</strong> main reason is that upland people inThai Nguyen have fewer valuable resources, suffer more competition in <strong>the</strong> markets, have highpopulations and no longer receive a subsidy from <strong>the</strong> government, while upland people in BacKan and Cao Bang have more available natural resources with a special subsidy (e.g. school fees,credit program, seed supply) from <strong>the</strong> government.• Income in different wealth ranking groups<strong>The</strong> average income discussed above does not show <strong>the</strong> full picture <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> incomes <strong>of</strong> differenthousehold groups under <strong>the</strong> new free market system. <strong>The</strong>refore, income in different wealthranking groups is more informative. Three wealth ranking groups (very poor, poor and better-<strong>of</strong>f)are identified and classified based on local criteria, given in Table 4.Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai8

Table 4: Criteria for different wealth ranking groupsVery poor Poor Better-<strong>of</strong>f- Bamboo house/temporary - Simple house - Good house/solid househouse- No valuable items in <strong>the</strong>house- Some furniture and smallappliances- Good furniture, many valuableitems- Small appliances, eg thresher,TV- Limited or no paddy ricearea- Limited or no paddy ricearea- Have paddy rice area (1000 m 2 )and upland field.- Lack <strong>of</strong> capital for crop - Lack <strong>of</strong> capital for crop - Have capital for crop investmentinvestmentinvestment- Own 0-1 cow/ buffalo - Own 1-2 cows/buffalo - Own 4-6 cows/ buffalo- Lack food for 6-10months/year- Lack food for 2-3months/year- Food security, excess food forsome months <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> year- Income less than 150,000VND/person/month- Income > 150,000 to 200,000VND/person/month- No savings, in debt from - No cash savings, in same - Have cash savingsbuying food on credit- Education up to primaryschool onlydebt- Education up to secondaryschool- Education up to vocationalschool level.Table 5 presents <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> households in each wealth category as identified in Table 4. Inall <strong>the</strong> case study villages, poor and very poor people accounted for 50-80%. <strong>The</strong>re is a tendencytowards more poor people in remote villages (i.e. Nac, Khau Qua and Khuoi Ken) than in villageslocated near a commune or district centre (i.e. Vau, Ban Cam and Pac Han).Table 5: Percentage <strong>of</strong> households in <strong>the</strong> very poor, poor and better-<strong>of</strong>fcategories in <strong>the</strong> six case study villagesVillage Very poor (%) Poor (%) Better-<strong>of</strong>f (%)Vau 22.7 40.9 36.4Nac 45.6 36.6 13.8Ban Cam 19.7 36.0 44.3Khau Qua 36.4 39.4 24.2Pac Han 22.2 23.8 50.0Khuoi Ken 33.3 46.7 20.0My survey, showed a big gap in average monthly income between <strong>the</strong> very poor and <strong>the</strong> better<strong>of</strong>f.<strong>The</strong> income <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> better-<strong>of</strong>f is about three times higher than that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> very poor people inmost case studies (see Figure 4). Very poor people earn less than 112,000 VND per month in allcase study villages.Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai9

4003713333351000VND/person/month30020010090179285235168 169180 180108 108 1128387172220Very poorPoorBetter-<strong>of</strong>f0Vau Nac Ban Cam Khau Qua Pac Han Khuoi KenProduction forest Special use forest Protection forestFigure 4: Income according to wealth ranking group in study sites, by forest typeResults from household interviews using semi-structured questionnaires show that before <strong>the</strong>renovation policies, most households in <strong>the</strong> villages experienced similar economic conditions, astypified by temporary houses, no goods <strong>of</strong> much value, low annual income, food insecurity, nocash savings, and little money to invest in production. However, <strong>the</strong> classification <strong>of</strong> wealthranking by group in Table 4 and <strong>the</strong> monthly income from Figure 4 show that after renovationpolicies, monthly income <strong>of</strong> better-<strong>of</strong>f people has improved while that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> poor people remainspoor.• Income sources* Income sources before 1990sDiscussions in <strong>the</strong> six case study villages show that <strong>the</strong> income sources <strong>of</strong> local people in <strong>the</strong>early 1990s comprised three main sources: food crop cultivation, animal husbandry and forestproducts (Table 6).Table 6: Distribution <strong>of</strong> income sources in <strong>the</strong> six case study villages before 1990sIncome sourceProduction forest Special use forest Protection forestVau Nac Ban Khau Pac Khuoi KenCam Qua HanFood crops (%) 75 80 65 85 40 87Husbandry (%) 5 4 8 5 7 4Forest (%) 15 16 15 10 53 9O<strong>the</strong>rs (fishing) (%) - - 12 - - -Total (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100Food crops, particularly from shifting cultivation provided <strong>the</strong> main income source before <strong>the</strong>1990s in most case study villages, except in Pac Han where <strong>the</strong> income from <strong>the</strong> forest wasgreatest. Traditional cultivation by slash and burn expanded in most upland areas during that timeto maximize food crops to support subsistence.* Income sources in 2005In 2005, <strong>the</strong> income sources were more diverse than in 1990. Six main sources <strong>of</strong> income wererecorded: food crops, cash crops, husbandry, forestry activities, labouring and o<strong>the</strong>rs such asfishing, services, government salary, or project support (see Table 7).Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai10

Table 7: Distribution <strong>of</strong> different income sources in 2005Income sourceProduction forest Special use forest Protection forestVau Nac Ban Khau Pac Khuoi KenCam Qua Han1. Food crops (%) 13.4 44.6 44.6 69.6 44.4 41.32. Cash crops (%) 54.6 13.9 0 0 0.8 24.73. Animal husbandry (%) 15.6 16.7 11.1 28.6 13.0 20.44. Forest (%) 8.7 12.7 3.3 1.1 40.1 11.05. Labouring (%) 2.8 5.1 0 0 0 06. O<strong>the</strong>rs (%) 1.0 2.9 41.0 0.7 1.7 2.4Total (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100Note: Labouring is farm labour; o<strong>the</strong>r work includes fishing, services, government payment forvillage/commune representatives, small shops.<strong>The</strong> income sources reported in most case study site sin 2005 differed from those recorded in <strong>the</strong>1990s. <strong>The</strong>re were three new income sources in 2005; cash crops, labouring and o<strong>the</strong>rs.Compared to <strong>the</strong> data for <strong>the</strong> 1990s, <strong>the</strong>re was a notable change in <strong>the</strong> income composition in2005 with a substantial drop in food crop production, and an increase in cash crop production(e.g. tea and Thach Den) and animal husbandry. Income from food crops was is still <strong>the</strong> mostimportant in all case studies except in Vau; however, o<strong>the</strong>r income sources had increased <strong>the</strong>irproportion considerably. For example, new income from cash crops in Khuoi Ken accounted for24.7% in 2005, and o<strong>the</strong>r sources (boat services, fishing) in Ban Cam increased from 12% in <strong>the</strong>1990s to 41% in 2005.Market demand led villagers to change crop cultivation systems very quickly after <strong>the</strong> renovationprocess. Cash crops are a new source <strong>of</strong> income for many local people. Tea and ‘Thach Den’have become main cash crops in some case study villages. In Vau, income from cash crops (tea)accounted for 54% <strong>of</strong> total income while income from food crops decreased from 75% <strong>of</strong> totalincome in <strong>the</strong> 1990s to only 13.4% in 2005. Tea plays a very important role in <strong>the</strong> economy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>upland area. Many households that have invested in tea planting no longer have paddy land orland for shifting cultivation. <strong>The</strong>se cases, <strong>the</strong> income from tea products is used to purchases ricefor household consumption. Similarly, Thach Den contributed 24.7% to total income in KhuoiKen. It is also planted in small plots by a few households in Pac Han in early 2005. Large areaswere expected to be developed for Thach Den in <strong>the</strong> next few years.Livestock and poultry rising also provide examples <strong>of</strong> sources <strong>of</strong> important subsidiary incomewhich can be significant for households. <strong>The</strong>se provide <strong>the</strong> main source <strong>of</strong> cash income to payschool fees and for health care by many families.<strong>The</strong> income from forests has declined in most case study areas due to forest degradation andstricter control <strong>of</strong> illegal logging. In Pac Han village, income from <strong>the</strong> forests dropped from 53%in 1990s to 40.1% in 2005. Apart from Pac Han, this source contributed 1.1-12.7% in o<strong>the</strong>rvillages. In Pac Han, Nghien (Excentrodendron tonkinense) is a high-value timber tree species.Nghien forest is classified as a special limestone-mountainous forest for protection purposes. Infact, <strong>the</strong> whole Nghien forest has been allocated to households in Pac Han for management underforest protection regulations since 1994. However, Nghien trees are still being cut by villagers forsale to China.Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai11

In <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r case study areas with production forest (Vau and Nac) and protection forest (KhuoiKen), income from <strong>the</strong> forest is low because <strong>of</strong> limited production from <strong>the</strong>se forests. <strong>The</strong> mainincome from <strong>the</strong> forest is from firewood, bamboo, non-timber products and small timber <strong>of</strong> loweconomic value. Many households within <strong>the</strong> case study areas had planted trees three years agounder funding support from a UNDP project (in Nac and Khuoi Ken) and from <strong>the</strong> 5 million harehabilitation program (in Vau), but <strong>the</strong> trees are still too small to harvest. <strong>The</strong>refore, incomefrom <strong>the</strong> forest is still very low in <strong>the</strong> period since land allocation.<strong>The</strong>re is a large area <strong>of</strong> high quality forest in Vau and Nac which located in Ba Be National Park,but local people cannot harvest it even for house construction and furniture. Local people are onlyallowed to collect firewood from dead trees and fruit from <strong>the</strong> forest.In general local income from forest activities has not increased as a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> renovationpolicies to <strong>the</strong> extent expected. Very few households invest in commercial plantations. However,as noted above, income from trees planted since <strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> renovation policies has yet tobe realized.Farm labour has become a new income source since <strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> renovation policies.Poor people, who have such limited private resources and do not have paddy fields, agriculturalland or forest land, are now working for better-<strong>of</strong>f people. Not only do adults go out to work onfarms, but so do many children under 13 years <strong>of</strong> age from poor families in Vau and Nac,harvesting tea and doing o<strong>the</strong>r farm work. In general, children are paid much less than adultsalthough <strong>the</strong>y produce <strong>the</strong> same.• Contrasts between different wealth groups?Income sources vary among <strong>the</strong> wealth groups. Poor people are still dependent on food cropswhile better-<strong>of</strong>f people have access to more diverse income sources. <strong>The</strong> income from cash cropsand husbandry for <strong>the</strong> better-<strong>of</strong>f is much higher than that for poor people. <strong>The</strong> main reason is that<strong>the</strong> better-<strong>of</strong>f have more capacity, including land resources and capital, to invest in <strong>the</strong> initialproduction process while <strong>the</strong> poor people completely lack this capacity3.3 Food securityDespite <strong>the</strong> current surplus <strong>of</strong> rice at <strong>the</strong> national level, food security remains a major concernamongst <strong>the</strong> poor upland people. About half <strong>the</strong> population in <strong>the</strong> six case study villagesexperience a shortage <strong>of</strong> rice for one to ten months per year. Food security is dependent on: 1)<strong>the</strong> capacity <strong>of</strong> households to produce rice for consumption; and 2) <strong>the</strong> ability to obtain ricethrough cash or barter from <strong>the</strong> market. <strong>The</strong>se factors are discussed below.3.3.1. Self-sufficiency in riceUpland inhabitants, both poor and better-<strong>of</strong>f people, are interested first in satisfying <strong>the</strong>ir ownfood security before venturing into income-generating activities. Rice self-sufficiency in <strong>the</strong>1990s was higher than that in 2005 in most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> case study sites. <strong>The</strong> main reason is that, afterforest land allocation, shifting cultivation was prohibited. At present, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> householdsfacing a rice shortage based on <strong>the</strong>ir own production is very high, 58.8% in Khau Qua, 72.7% inVau, 72.5% in Nac, 80% in Khuoi Ken, and 100% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> households in Pac Han (see Figure 5). InBan Cam (within Ba Be National Park) two crops <strong>of</strong> paddy rice can be harvested per year,<strong>the</strong>refore, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> households facing food insufficiency is much lower, at 29.2%.Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai12

10 08072.7 72.510 080Khuoi KenPac Han16.75033.3505006058.8Khau Qua505004029.2Ban Cam57.142.9020Nac70.527.520Vau Nac Ban Cam Khau Qua Pac Han KhuoiKenProduction forest Special use forest Protection forestVau68.831.2 00% 50% 100%Very poor Poor Better-<strong>of</strong>fFigure 5: Number <strong>of</strong> households sufferinginsecurity <strong>of</strong> food self-sufficiencyFigure 6: Distribution <strong>of</strong> insecurity <strong>of</strong> foodself-sufficiency among different wealth groupsHouseholds that are not self-sufficient in food in most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> case study villages comprise <strong>the</strong>poor and very poor people (see Figure 6). However, both better-<strong>of</strong>f and poor people in Pac Hanare facing food insecurity because <strong>the</strong>re are no paddy rice fields in this village.<strong>The</strong> level <strong>of</strong> food insufficiency even with <strong>the</strong>ir own production is very serious in most sites, , 3-6months for <strong>the</strong> poor, and 7-10 months for <strong>the</strong> very poor. However, better-<strong>of</strong>f people in most casestudy villages, except Pac Han village, have more rice supply than needed for <strong>the</strong>ir ownconsumption (see Table 8).Table 8: Number <strong>of</strong> months with rice sufficiency or shortage among different wealthgroups and villagesVillage Very Poor Poor Better-<strong>of</strong>fLack(month)Excess(month)Lack(month)Excess(month)Lack(month)Excess(month)Vau 9 0 5-6 0 0 4-5Nac 9 –10 0 4-5 0 0 2-3Ban Cam 7 0 3-4 0 0 2-3Khau Qua 10 0 4-5 0 0 3-4Pac Han 12 0 12 0 10-11 0Khuoi Ken 8 0 4-5 0 0 0-1In Pac Han, food insufficiency gives rise to even more serious insecurity; every household facesfood shortage for 10-12 months in per year. Only a few hundred square metres <strong>of</strong> paddy rice fieldare cultivated by a few households, but this is located in a neighbouring village. This village islocated in a valley, surrounded by limestone mountains. <strong>The</strong>refore, shifting cultivation to producerice is not feasible. <strong>The</strong> villagers usually grow maize or beans in <strong>the</strong> valley.3.3.2 Rice from <strong>the</strong> market<strong>The</strong> villages in <strong>the</strong> six case studies are not a totally self-sufficient community; in particular <strong>the</strong>poor and <strong>the</strong> very poor people are very dependent. Since <strong>the</strong> 1990s, rice has been available in <strong>the</strong>market. However, people need cash or different kinds <strong>of</strong> products to barter for rice in <strong>the</strong> market.Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai13

Field surveys showed that <strong>the</strong> main commodity exchanged for food in <strong>the</strong> market was tea in Vauand Nac, livestock in Khau Qua and Khuoi Ken, fish in Ban Cam, and timber in Pac Han.However, very poor people usually do not have many products to sell or exchange. Often <strong>the</strong>yrely on forest products (timber, bamboo and non-wood products) or <strong>the</strong>ir own labour to coverbasic needs, but <strong>the</strong>y still lack food. In addition, <strong>the</strong>se upland villages are located in remote areaswhere access to <strong>the</strong> main markets outside is limited and transport costs high for those who are notwealthy. <strong>The</strong> villagers thus rely on local markets. <strong>The</strong>y are aware <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir remote location andrelatively low output <strong>of</strong> products, and that <strong>the</strong>y do not obtain good prices for <strong>the</strong>ir products. <strong>The</strong>irability to trade is limited due to poor road quality. This is also <strong>the</strong> main reason why uplandinhabitants still maintain <strong>the</strong>ir view that food self-sufficiency is <strong>the</strong> first priority, even though<strong>the</strong>y are free to buy rice in <strong>the</strong> market.In general, rice is available in <strong>the</strong> market, but <strong>the</strong> poor people do not have <strong>the</strong> money to buy it.Normally, <strong>the</strong> poor and very poor people do not have enough money to buy even half <strong>the</strong> riceneeded for a year. For example in Nac village, very poor people who have 8-10 months <strong>of</strong> riceinsufficiency can only earn enough money from forest products or labouring to buy rice for 4 or 5months. For <strong>the</strong> remaining 4-5 months <strong>the</strong>y eat maize, cassava and forest fruits.3.3.3 Shifting cultivation continuing as a result <strong>of</strong> food insecurityShifting cultivation or slope farming is closely linked to <strong>the</strong> basic needs <strong>of</strong> upland people. It hasbeen <strong>the</strong> traditional cultivation and source <strong>of</strong> self-sufficiency for all upland people for centuries.However, rapid population growth has led to this cultivation system becoming unsustainable interms <strong>of</strong> both environment and economy. Forest land reform under ‘Doi Moi’ in this uplandregion was intended to stop shifting cultivation on forest land by changing <strong>the</strong> cultivation system.<strong>The</strong> area <strong>of</strong> shifting cultivation recorded in 2005 had reduced significantly compared to that in <strong>the</strong>early 1990s. Many previous shifting cultivation areas have been replaced by new regeneratedforest, cash crops or plantations. However, at present, shifting cultivation or food crop farming onforest land is still being practised in all <strong>the</strong> case study areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> three forest types. In villageslocated close to market, <strong>the</strong> farmers have tried to develop cash crops to earn higher income in .<strong>The</strong> limited access to areas suited to agriculture in general, and paddy cultivation in particular,force upland people to continue shifting cultivation even though it is prohibited by law. <strong>The</strong>average paddy land per household member ranges in size from 150 m 2 to 380 m 2 , which issmaller than <strong>the</strong> national average. In addition, most areas can be cultivated for one crop only,except at Ban Cam where two crops can be cultivated with an irrigation system (see Table 9).Moreover, <strong>the</strong> yield <strong>of</strong> paddy rice in <strong>the</strong> upland is influenced by climate factors such as rainfall.<strong>The</strong> average yield <strong>of</strong> rice in <strong>the</strong>se upland case study villages is 1.3-1.7 tonnes per ha while <strong>the</strong>national average yield <strong>of</strong> rice was 4.2 tonnes per ha in 2000 3 .Agricultural land for dry food crops is also very limited in most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> case study sites. <strong>The</strong>re areonly a few thousand square metres <strong>of</strong> agricultural land for dry crops in Vau and Nac and none atall in Khuoi Ken (see Table 9).3 National average yield <strong>of</strong> rice was 4.24 tonnes per ha in 2000 (Statistics <strong>of</strong> Agriculture and RuralDevelopment 1996-2000, 2002:122).Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai14

Table 9: Average agricultural land and paddy land per person in <strong>the</strong> six case study areasVillageAverageagriculturalland/person (m 2 )Average paddy land/person (m 2 )Total 1 crop 2 cropAverage land foro<strong>the</strong>r crops/person(m 2 )Vau 365 365 365Nac 422 422 422Ban Cam 868 380 134 246 488Khau Qua 374 374 374 0Pac Han 1592 150 150 1442Khuoi Ken 208 208 208In Thai Nguyen province, local government has adopted a strategy to change cropping systemsfrom annual food crops to long-term crops like tea, fruit trees or commercial trees on forest land.Some projects have been developed to help villagers adopt this model. However, better-<strong>of</strong>fvillagers always derive more benefits than poor villagers from <strong>the</strong>se projects because <strong>the</strong>y havemore capacity to invest in long-term crops. Poor people who lack <strong>the</strong> capacity to change cropscontinue to practise shifting cultivation to fulfill <strong>the</strong>ir basic needs.3.4 Employment and cash flow<strong>The</strong> impacts on employment and cash flow in upland areas after <strong>the</strong> change from a plannedeconomy under government subsidy to a free market economy are reflected in my field data. Ingeneral, employment and cash flow in <strong>the</strong> upland case study villages are unstable due to <strong>the</strong>agricultural activities, which are <strong>the</strong> main income source, providing only seasonal work.Normally, one to two crops per year are cultivated in all case studies in <strong>the</strong> upland region,compared to <strong>the</strong> two to four crops which can be cultivated in <strong>the</strong> lowland region. For example,only one crop <strong>of</strong> paddy rice can be harvested per year in <strong>the</strong> six case study villages, except BanCam village which csn manage two crops per year. O<strong>the</strong>r dry crops on sloping land are alsocultivated for one or two crops. Upland inhabitants are usually very busy during <strong>the</strong> planting andharvesting seasons for 7-8 months, but do not have much work during <strong>the</strong> remaining 4-5 months.More than 50% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m do not have work to earn money after <strong>the</strong> planting and harvestingseasons. Many people seek work outside <strong>the</strong>ir village in <strong>the</strong>ir free time; however, very few canfind work, even as labourers.During <strong>the</strong> 4-5 months <strong>of</strong> free time after <strong>the</strong> planting and harvesting seasons, <strong>the</strong> upland people<strong>of</strong>ten go to <strong>the</strong>ir forest or state forest 4 to cut trees or collect non-timber products. Table 10 showsthat a large number <strong>of</strong> villagers <strong>of</strong>ten go to <strong>the</strong> forests, and that men and women have differentroles in all case study areas. Hard physical jobs like tree cutting are done by men while womencollect non-timber forest product4 Common forests are managed by <strong>the</strong> communityPaper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai15

Table 10: Number <strong>of</strong> people visiting <strong>the</strong> forest for collecting products in <strong>the</strong>ir free timeVillageTimber harvesting Non-timber product collectionMale Female Male FemaleVau 19/24* 0/24* 9/24 24/24Nac 26/40 2/40 19/40 40/40Ban Cam 10/22 0/22 13/22 15/22Khau Qua 17/17 0/17 10/17 15/17Pac Han 18/18 0/18 10/18 14/18Khuoi Ken 15/15 0/15 13/15 15/15Total 105/136 2/136 74/136 123/136NB. * is <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> male and female interviewed in each village.In Pac Han, most working age males are engaged in illegal logging after <strong>the</strong> harvest. However,many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m also go to <strong>the</strong> forest during <strong>the</strong> planting and harvesting seasons to cut trees for saleto earn money to buy food. In o<strong>the</strong>r case study areas like Vau, Nac and Khuoi Ken, a smallnumber <strong>of</strong> villagers regularly go to <strong>the</strong> forest for harvesting because timber or non-timber forestproducts are scare.<strong>The</strong> reforestation programs/projects create employment for local people but only a small number<strong>of</strong> jobs are available. In addition, payment for work in <strong>the</strong>se projects is very low. For example,villagers receive only 50,000 VND (3.2 USD) per ha per year for forest protection andmaintenance work.In summary, employment and cash flow have become key factors affecting livelihoods since <strong>the</strong>‘Doi Moi’ process began. To reduce <strong>the</strong> pressure on natural resources, employment and cash flowmust be adequate and relatively stable. At present, however, employment and cash flow are notstable in most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> case study areas.3.5 Welfare and services3.5.1 Education<strong>The</strong> education system in <strong>the</strong> six case studies is generally not well developed. Few <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> casestudy areas have a primary school within <strong>the</strong> village. Secondary or high schools are only availableat <strong>the</strong> commune or district level. Village children from <strong>the</strong> case study area have to walk 3-12 kmeach way to a nearby commune to attend secondary school. High schools are available within <strong>the</strong>district centre only and children from <strong>the</strong> case study village have to stay in <strong>the</strong> distric<strong>the</strong>adquarters during school terms.According to three provincial governments, 100% <strong>of</strong> communes in <strong>the</strong>se provinces hadcompleted <strong>the</strong> program on eradication <strong>of</strong> illiteracy and <strong>the</strong> primary education compulsoryprogram in 2004 5 (Statistic Office <strong>of</strong> Thai Nguyen, 2004; Statistic <strong>of</strong> Bac Kan, 2004; Statistic <strong>of</strong>Cao Bang, 2003). This means that, <strong>of</strong>ficially, everyone who lives in <strong>the</strong>se provinces can read andwrite in <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial Vietnamese language. However, <strong>the</strong> surveys showed that many uplandinhabitants in all <strong>the</strong> case study areas could not read, write or even speak Vietnamese (see Figure7).Data from <strong>the</strong> field surveys and 136 sample household interviews in <strong>the</strong> six case villages reveal ahigh percentage <strong>of</strong> illiteracy (Figure 7). <strong>The</strong> illiteracy rate is 54.5% in Vau and 60.2% in Nac5 <strong>The</strong> eradication <strong>of</strong> illiteracy and primary education compulsory program is a national programwhich was implemented from 2000 to 2004.Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai16

(Thai Nguyen province), 12.4% in Ban Cam and 68.8% in Khau Qua (Bac Kan province), and18.2% in Pac Han and 21.7% in Khuoi Ken (Cao Bang province). Although Vau and Nac in ThaiNguyen province are located closer to Hanoi, <strong>the</strong> illiteracy rate was more than two times higherthan that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two case study villages in Cao Bang province. This is because school fees in CaoBang province are still being subsidised by <strong>the</strong> central government, while <strong>the</strong> subsidy scheme nolonger applies to Thai Nguyen province. <strong>The</strong> high poverty rate in Vau and Nac also means feweropportunities for children to go to school.80%68.8604020060.254.542.532.526.928.82521.716.918.212.410.6 11.79.38.35.2 4.56.12.1 11.31.5 1.7Vau Nac Ban Cam Khau Qua Pac Han Khuoi KenThai Nguyen Bac Kan Cao Bang13-30 yrs30-60 yrs>60 yrsTotalFigure 7: Illiteracy rate following a transect from Hanoi centre to Chinese borderKhau Qua villagers belong to <strong>the</strong> H’Mong ethnic minority. <strong>The</strong> illiteracy rate among those <strong>of</strong>working age (13-60 years old) is very high at 63.5% (Figure 7). None <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> female labour forcecan speak Vietnamese. <strong>The</strong>ir main work is looking after children and doing housework. Only afew men in Khau Qua can speak fluent Vietnamese. Khau Qua villagers use <strong>the</strong> Tay language forcommunication with people in o<strong>the</strong>r villages, including meetings with commune authorities.In most case study villages, <strong>the</strong> illiteracy rate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 13-30 years age group is very high suggestingthat <strong>the</strong> renovation process has not improved <strong>the</strong> formal education <strong>of</strong> upland people. Althougheducation is a priority <strong>of</strong> all households, economic factors force many children to leave schoolafter <strong>the</strong>y finish primary or secondary schools 6 . Very few children can study at high school 7 orvocational school.School fees are a heavy financial burden on poor families, forcing many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m to borrowmoney at <strong>the</strong> start <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school year. Most households cannot support <strong>the</strong>ir children to continueat secondary or high schools. To study at secondary school <strong>the</strong>y have to walk at least 4-5 km eachway to school and pay higher school fees.In all case study villages, although more young children now can speak Vietnamese, Tay is still<strong>the</strong> most common language among <strong>the</strong> different ethnic groups. <strong>The</strong> limited knowledge <strong>of</strong>Vietnam’s <strong>of</strong>ficial language is a disadvantage for local people. For example, illiterate people didnot appear to understand <strong>the</strong> renovation policies well so <strong>the</strong>y could not access governmentservices such as <strong>the</strong> extension system and advice on rights <strong>of</strong> land tenure. In addition, localauthorities and government staff cannot speak minority ethnic languages.6 Secondary school is year 5 to year 97 High school is year 10 to year 12Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai17

3.5.2 Health careMost case studies have no health centre or community health-care workers. In <strong>the</strong> past, sickpeople were cured by traditional healers. In recent years, sick people have received treatmentfrom health centres located at <strong>the</strong> commune or district centres. Because <strong>the</strong> health centres arelocated far from <strong>the</strong> villages, <strong>the</strong> transportation cost for sick people is high. Many poor peoplecannot afford proper medical treatment. <strong>The</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> health services and qualifications <strong>of</strong>health care workers in <strong>the</strong> commune are <strong>of</strong> poor standard. Often patients are referred to district orprovincial hospitals.As part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Renovation</strong> <strong>Policies</strong>, health services are free to poor ethnic upland people. Because<strong>the</strong> treatments are <strong>of</strong> low standard some poor patients have to pay extra money to obtain bettertreatment. <strong>The</strong> government’s policy on health services for <strong>the</strong> poor seems to have failed.3.5.3 Infrastructure• Poor transportMost <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> case study areas except Ban Cam village are located in remote upland areas where <strong>the</strong>condition <strong>of</strong> transport is very poor. Unsealed rural roads or dirt tracks link commune centres andvillages. <strong>The</strong>se villages are divided into different residential areas, 2-4 km away from each o<strong>the</strong>r,and communication between <strong>the</strong>m is by dirt tracks only. Ban Cam people communicate with <strong>the</strong>outside mainly by river boat, which is easier than walking through steep mountains. However,boat services are expensive.O<strong>the</strong>r infrastructure support such as electricity and telephone services are still not available in any<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> case study villages. However, some better-<strong>of</strong>f people can afford generators to service <strong>the</strong>irhouses.• Market access<strong>The</strong>re is no formal market within any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> villages in any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> case study areas. Markets arelocated some distance away at <strong>the</strong> commune centre, and are only open once a week. Access to <strong>the</strong>commune market is made difficult by poor road conditions. Villagers sell raw products and buysupplies from traders who come from towns or cities. <strong>The</strong> prices for raw products from <strong>the</strong>village are low but bought goods are expensive due to <strong>the</strong> high mark-up <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> traders and alsohigh transport costs. Villagers as local producers <strong>of</strong>ten do not have access to sufficient capital,market contacts and information nor have <strong>the</strong> technology to exploit new market opportunities.Compared with people in <strong>the</strong> lowland regions, <strong>the</strong> upland villagers are at a disadvantage in <strong>the</strong>free market economy.In some case study villages located at <strong>the</strong> tops <strong>of</strong> mountains, like Nac and Khau Qua villages,market access is even more difficult than for o<strong>the</strong>r case study villages located near <strong>the</strong> communecentre. In Khau Qua, villagers live in valley which is located on a limestone mountain. <strong>The</strong>distance from this valley to <strong>the</strong> plain land is 4-5 km. Villagers sell <strong>the</strong>ir products like maize,beans, and chickens at <strong>the</strong> bottom <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mountain which is half way to <strong>the</strong> commune market.Traders, mainly Tay people, buy <strong>the</strong> products at a much lower price than in <strong>the</strong> market. <strong>The</strong>H’Mong people in Khau Qua are aware <strong>of</strong> this but <strong>the</strong>y have no alternative.3.5.4 Credit systemIn all case study villages, access to formal sources <strong>of</strong> credit is limited. Better-<strong>of</strong>f people have cashfrom <strong>the</strong>ir own savings while poor people borrow from private sources, especially traders.Traders are an important source <strong>of</strong> credit but this ties <strong>the</strong> seller (villager) to <strong>the</strong> buyer (trader) andremoves <strong>the</strong> flexibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> seller to look around for a better market. Many loans are used todeal with capital shortage for family expenses, especially at <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> food shortage before <strong>the</strong>Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai18

harvesting season, or at <strong>the</strong> start <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school year or during illness. <strong>The</strong> interest charged byprivate sources/traders is always higher than that from government sources but private sources aremore flexible and easy to access in times <strong>of</strong> need.With <strong>the</strong> land allocation process, <strong>the</strong> Government-owned Bank for Agricultural Development and<strong>the</strong> Bank for <strong>the</strong> Poor have expanded services to households for development <strong>of</strong> agriculturalproducts and forestry activities on household farms in <strong>the</strong> upland region. <strong>The</strong>se banks with manymicro-credit schemes <strong>of</strong>fer loans to <strong>the</strong> rural poor with subsidised interest rates, but poor peoplehave not been able to access <strong>the</strong> special credit programs. Credit groups have been established insome areas only and access to a loan is difficult. Bank loans are very short term and services arepoor, with considerable administrative paper work. Borrowers are required to put up <strong>the</strong>ir land orhouse as loan equity; however, most poor people cannot meet this requirement. Poor people canaccess special credit through a paper issued by commune authorities to guarantee <strong>the</strong>m, but localauthorities do not generally like to guarantee villagers who are too poor. <strong>The</strong> poorest families are<strong>of</strong>ten not able to access bank loans as <strong>the</strong>y are perceived as high risk. Most poor households stress<strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> capital to invest in multiple activities <strong>of</strong> agriculture and forestry.3.5.5 Extension servicesExtension can play a key role in facilitating farmers to utilise <strong>the</strong> full potential <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir lands.Without any external assistance, farmers find it very hard to carry on production activities on <strong>the</strong>land. Since <strong>the</strong> 1990s, a network <strong>of</strong> extension in agriculture and forestry has been establishedfrom provincial level to hamlet level to support farmers during and after <strong>the</strong> land allocationprocess. This extension system with a service package including techniques and services wasestablished to help farmers develop an appropriate cultivation system and extract higher yieldproducts on <strong>the</strong>ir own farm. Many government reports show that <strong>the</strong> extension system hascontributed to successful economic development in lowland and upland regions. However, <strong>the</strong>extension system has not reached many remote areas.In interviews, villagers in most case study areas said that <strong>the</strong>y did not benefit from <strong>the</strong>government extension system because no one has visited <strong>the</strong>m to teach or help <strong>the</strong>m. Extensionworkers prefer to visit villages which are located near town centres and have good road access.<strong>The</strong>y do not go to remote upland villages by foot. However, <strong>the</strong> renovation process givesopportunities for remote villages to receive support from international donors.3.5.6 Support from government programs/outside projects<strong>The</strong> Vietnamese government has established many programs related to poverty reduction in <strong>the</strong>nor<strong>the</strong>rn mountainous region. <strong>The</strong> objectives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se programs are to eradicate hunger, alleviatepoverty and develop education and health care for <strong>the</strong> people. Toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> governmentprograms, <strong>the</strong>re are many o<strong>the</strong>r poverty reduction programs/projects in <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn mountainousregion funded by NGOs. For example, Vau village was supported by Program 135 forresettlement and poverty reduction. Tea plantation was developed here by this program o<strong>the</strong>rwiseVau villagers would continue shifting cultivation. Tea planting has expanded at a scale muchwider than that in <strong>the</strong> early 1990s. In Nac and Khuoi Ken village, a Small Grant from aDeveloping Community Forest program launched a credit scheme to provide financial assistanceto <strong>the</strong> villagers, which has encouraged <strong>the</strong> farmers to manage <strong>the</strong> forest as an investment since2004. Most farmers in Nac received loans from <strong>the</strong> credit program for investment in forestryrelated activities. Credit is available only for inputs (such as seedlings, seeds and nurserysupplies) procured from outside <strong>the</strong> farm. However, not every poor community can benefit fromPaper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai19

<strong>the</strong>se programs. Villagers <strong>of</strong> Pac Han and Khau Qua have so far not had assistance from anyprogram or project.3.6 Cause <strong>of</strong> poverty <strong>of</strong> upland people in different case studiesA survey was carried out among <strong>the</strong> poor to very poor households in <strong>the</strong> six case study areasusing a semi-structured questionnaire. Of <strong>the</strong> total 125 households surveyed, 95 are classified aspoor to very poor. Sixteen are in Vau, 34 in Nac, 12 in Ban Cam, 13 in Khau Qua, 8 in Pac Hanand 12 in Khuoi Ken. Each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 95 poor or very poor households was asked to select threecauses that <strong>the</strong>y believed most affect its household poverty. Table 11 shows <strong>the</strong> six main causesnominated as affecting <strong>the</strong> poverty <strong>of</strong> upland people.Table 11: Percentages <strong>of</strong> total village households experiencing six main causes <strong>of</strong> povertyfrom a survey <strong>of</strong> poor to very poor households in six case study villages.Cause <strong>of</strong> povertyProduction forest Special use forest Protection forestVaun=16Nacn=34BanCamn=12KhauQuan=13Pac Hann=8KhuoiKenn=121. Lack <strong>of</strong> capital and 83.5 94 58.3 61.5 75 100employment2. Lack <strong>of</strong> land 62.5 26.6 91.7 100 100 753. Lack <strong>of</strong> experience and 25 41 16.7 61.5 50 33.5knowledge <strong>of</strong> production4. Too many children 12.5 11.8 - 53.8 - 255. Illness and disability 18.8 13.6 16.7 15.3 12.5 16.76. Lack <strong>of</strong> labor force 6.3 8.8 - - 12.5 -Note: n = number <strong>of</strong> poor households surveyed in each case studyLack <strong>of</strong> capital and employment, lack <strong>of</strong> land, and lack <strong>of</strong> experience and knowledge <strong>of</strong>production are <strong>the</strong> top three main causes affecting poverty, as expressed by <strong>the</strong> poor and verypoor households. <strong>The</strong>re are also differences in <strong>the</strong> ranking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> causes between forest types.In <strong>the</strong> production forest (Vau and Nac) lack <strong>of</strong> capital and employment was considered <strong>the</strong> mostserious cause <strong>of</strong> household poverty by 83.5% <strong>of</strong> poor Vau villagers and 94% <strong>of</strong> poor Nacvillagers. In <strong>the</strong> special use forest areas, lack <strong>of</strong> land was considered <strong>the</strong> most serious cause <strong>of</strong>poverty, by 91.7% <strong>of</strong> poor Ban Cam villagers and 100% <strong>of</strong> poor Khau Qua villagers (Table 11).<strong>The</strong> two villages in <strong>the</strong> protection forest had different concerns about poverty, with 100% <strong>of</strong> poorKhuoi Ken villagers considering <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> capital and employment most serious while 100% <strong>of</strong>poor Pac Han villagers believed lack <strong>of</strong> land was <strong>the</strong> most important factor affecting <strong>the</strong>irpoverty.In all case study villages lack <strong>of</strong> experience and knowledge <strong>of</strong> production ranked third in causinghousehold poverty, though to varying extents. Up to 61.5% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> poor in Khau Qua considered itvery important (Table 11). Villages located near commune centres, or supported by internationalprojects have access to technical extension activities; <strong>the</strong>refore, lack <strong>of</strong> experience and knowledge<strong>of</strong> production is much lower in <strong>the</strong>se cases, for example, only 16.7% in Ban Cam.<strong>The</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r three factors causing household poverty are too many children, illness and disabilityand lack <strong>of</strong> a labour force. In particular, up to 53.8% <strong>of</strong> Khau Qua villagers considered that <strong>the</strong>irlivelihoods were affected by having too many children. In this village, <strong>the</strong> average number <strong>of</strong>Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai20

people per household is 3.5. With limited agricultural land for expansion, coupled with strictcontrol on land use by Ba Be National Park authorities, rapid population growth is a seriousproblem for village like Khau Qua. In contrast, Ban Cam and Pac Han villagers had no concernsabout this matter.Only a small number <strong>of</strong> poor households in Vau, Nac and Pac Han expressed concern about <strong>the</strong>lack <strong>of</strong> a labour force, but 12.5-18.8% <strong>of</strong> poor villagers across <strong>the</strong> six case studies believed illnessand disability were important causes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir economic situation.4. Conclusion<strong>The</strong> renovation process has led to rapid changes in local livelihoods in most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cases studyvillages surveyed for this study. Land allocation has led to a change in cultivation systems in <strong>the</strong>upland. Upland people are better-<strong>of</strong>f now, and can invest in cash crops, long-term tree plantationand reforestation. However, poor people are still disadvantaged by <strong>the</strong> change to <strong>the</strong> newcultivation system.<strong>The</strong> new cultivation systems and development <strong>of</strong> a market economy have led to morediversification <strong>of</strong> income sources, from three main sources (food crops, animal husbandry andforestry) to six main sources (food crops, cash crops, animal husbandry, forestry, labouring ando<strong>the</strong>rs). In general, <strong>the</strong> income from food crops has decreased but it is still a dominantcomponent. Cash cropping is becoming more important where <strong>the</strong>re is market demand and land isavailable. Normally, cash crops need high initial investment. Poor people do not have <strong>the</strong>necessary capacity to develop cash crops.Self-sufficiency in rice has decreased over <strong>the</strong> last ten years because <strong>the</strong> government has bannedshifting cultivation. Food security continues to be a big issue for most upland people, in particular<strong>the</strong> poor and very poor households. <strong>The</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> households still face a food shortage formany months per year. <strong>The</strong> poor do not have <strong>the</strong> cash to buy food in <strong>the</strong> market.O<strong>the</strong>r issues like <strong>the</strong> low level <strong>of</strong> education, unemployment, poor infrastructure and poorgovernment services also have negative impact on <strong>the</strong> livelihoods <strong>of</strong> people in <strong>the</strong> upland region.For example, <strong>the</strong> low education situation has led to people being unable to find jobs outside andthis has put more pressure on land and forest resources through over-population. Although manyspecial new policies, such as a bank for <strong>the</strong> poor and health care for <strong>the</strong> poor, have been issued tohelp people in <strong>the</strong> upland region, <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se policies appears to have failed in<strong>the</strong> case study villages.<strong>The</strong> three main causes <strong>of</strong> poverty as expressed by <strong>the</strong> poor people in <strong>the</strong> upland region are: lack<strong>of</strong> capital and employment, lack <strong>of</strong> land, and lack <strong>of</strong> experience and knowledge <strong>of</strong> production. Inorder to improve <strong>the</strong> livelihoods <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> poor people, <strong>the</strong> government must address <strong>the</strong>se concernsas a matter <strong>of</strong> priority.AcknowledgementsI wish to thank <strong>the</strong> Swedish International Foundation <strong>of</strong> Science (IFS) and <strong>the</strong> conferenceorganisers for <strong>the</strong>ir financial support to attend this conference. <strong>The</strong> field work carried out for thisresearch was funded by <strong>the</strong> IFS and <strong>the</strong> School <strong>of</strong> Resources, Environment and Society (CRES)<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Australian National University.Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai21

ReferencesADB-Asian Development Bank, 2000. Vietnam: Country Economic Review (Attached is a review<strong>of</strong> recent economic developments in Viet Nam for consideration in connection with forthcomingloans to Viet Nam). Asian Development Bank. IN.258-00. 6 November 2000.Al<strong>the</strong>r, C., Jean-Christophe Castella, Paul Novosad, Elrick Rousseau, and Tran Trong Hieu ,2002. <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> accessibility on <strong>the</strong> range <strong>of</strong> livelihood options available to farm households inmountainous areas <strong>of</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn Vietnam, in Doi Moi in <strong>the</strong> Mountains: Land use changes andfarmers’ livelihood strategies in Bac Kan Province, Vietnam, eds. Castella, J.C. and Dang DinhQuang. <strong>The</strong> Agricultural Publishing House. Hanoi, Vietnam, pp. 121-146.Goletti, F.and Minot, N. 1997. Rice markets, agricultural growth and policy options in Vietnam.In: proceedings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> workshop on Agricultural and Rural Development Straggles for Vietnam.Hanoi, 21-22 March, 1997, pp. 137-169.Kerkvliet B.J. and Porter D.J. eds. (1995) Vietnam’s Rural Transformation. Westview Press,Boulder, Co: Westriew Press USA. 251p.Koninck, D. 1999. Deforestation in Vietnam. International Development Research Centre,Ottawa, Canada.Le Trong Cuc and Ramboo, A. T. 2001, Bright Peaks, Dark Valley: A Comparative Analysis <strong>of</strong>Environmental and Conditions and Development Trend in Five Communities in Vietnam’sNor<strong>the</strong>rn Mountain Region. Hanoi, Vietnam: EWC, Upland Working Group, Central forResource, Environment Studies in Vietnam (CRES), Vietnam National University.MARD- Ministry <strong>of</strong> Agriculture and Rural Development Department, 2002. Statistics <strong>of</strong>Agriculture and Rural Development 1996-2000. Agricultural Publishing House, Hanoi (bothVietnamese and English).Morrison, E. and Dubois, O., 1998. Sustainable livelihoods in upland Vietnam: land allocationand beyond. Forestry and Land Use Series No.14.Paul, G., 2004. ‘An Overview <strong>of</strong> Economic Growth and Household Welfare in Vietnam in <strong>the</strong>1990s’ in Paul, G., Nisha, A. and David, D. (eds). Economic Growth, Poverty, and HouseholdWelfare in Vietnam. <strong>The</strong> World Bank, Washington, DC.Rivera, W.M., 2003. Agricultural Extension, Rural Development and <strong>the</strong> Food SecurityChallenge. FAO, Rome.Statistics <strong>of</strong> Bac Kan, 2004. Yearbook <strong>of</strong> statistics <strong>of</strong> Bac Kan province in 2004. Bac Kanprovincial People’s committee, Bac Kan, VietnamStatistics <strong>of</strong> Cao Bang, 2003. Yearbook <strong>of</strong> statistics <strong>of</strong> Cao Bang province in 2003. StatisticsPublisher, Hanoi.Statistics Office <strong>of</strong> Thai Nguyen, 2004. Yearbook <strong>of</strong> statistics <strong>of</strong> Thai Nguyen province in 2004.Thai Nguyen provincial People’s committee, Thai Nguyen.Vo Quy, 1996. <strong>The</strong> Environmental Challenges <strong>of</strong> Vietnam’s Development. Report for RegionalSeminar on Environmental Education. University <strong>of</strong> Hanoi, Centre for Natural Resources andEnvironmental Studies, Hanoi.Zingerli, C.. Jean-Christophe Castella, Pham Hung Manh and Pham Van Cu, 2002. Contestingpolicies: Rural development versus biodiversity conservation in <strong>the</strong> Ba Be National Park area,Vietnam, in Doi Moi in <strong>the</strong> Mountains: Land use changes and farmers’ livelihood strategies inBac Kan Province, Vietnam, eds. Castella, J.C. and Dang Dinh Quang. <strong>The</strong> AgriculturalPublishing House. Hanoi, Vietnam, pp. 121-146.Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai22

Paper for International Conference “Critical Transitions in <strong>the</strong> Mekong Region”29-31 January, 2007, Chiang Mai23