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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<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
Page 1 and 2: The Impact
Page 3 and 4: authorities, central government aut
Page 5 and 6: There have been ma
Page 7 and 8: 1,000VND/person/month30020010002382
Page 9 and 10: Table 4: Criteria for different wea
Page 11 and 12: Table 7: Distribution of</s
Page 13 and 14: 10 08072.7 72.510 080Khuoi KenPac H
Page 15 and 16: Table 9: Average agricultural land
Page 17 and 18: (Thai Nguyen province), 12.4% in Ba
Page 19: harvesting season, or at th
Page 23: Paper for International Conference

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?