coastal livelihood transitions: socio-economic …naumannj/professional geography...the case study...

62

Geographical Research

•

March 2008

•

46(1):62–73

doi: 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2007.00492.x

Blackwell Publishing Asia

Original ActicleLE THI VAN HUE AND STEFFANIE SCOTT:

SOCIOECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF CHANGING MANGROVE MANAGEMENT

Coastal Livelihood Transitions: Socio-Economic Consequences of Changing Mangrove Forest Management and Land Allocation in a Commune of Central Vietnam

LE THI VAN HUE

1

and STEFFANIE SCOTT

2

*

1

Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Hanoi University of Science, Vietnam.

2

Department of Geography, Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 1V5 Canada.*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Received 15 July 2006; Revised 29 November 2007; Accepted

30 November 2007

Abstract

This paper reviews the evolution of land use and mangrove forest managementin a coastal commune in Central Vietnam from its early period of environmen-tally sound management under a common property regime, through State andcooperative management, to individual household allocation under the economicreforms of the 1990s. It analyses in particular the introduction of shrimp cultureand its environmental and socioeconomic consequences. The case studydemonstrates that, while opening up many economic opportunities, Vietnam’seconomic reforms have had uneven impacts on income inequality. Like manycases in Asia and Latin America, the disruption of common property resources– through the introduction of aquaculture as a livelihood opportunity andproducer of an export crop – leaves farmers indebted and natural resourcespolluted. But, ironically, it was the financially better-off aquaculture farmers,who had more capacity for risk-taking and investing, who ended up mostindebted, in comparison with poorer farmers who had already sold their ponds.The latter were less integrated into the market economy and relied more onmarine product collection. This paper suggests that attention to local contextsand histories can contribute to a better understanding of the causes andconsequences of environment-poverty interfaces.

KEY WORDS

Vietnam; economic reforms; land; mangroves; income inequality;social differentiation; privatisation; aquaculture; shrimp; environmental problems

Introduction

Vietnam’s coastal zones are areas of complexity,opportunity and conflict. They are naturally richin resources but also fragile ecologies; they arenarrow transition zones between land andocean, and fresh and salt water, and are home toover half of Vietnam’s people. There are thusnumerous opportunities to manage the coastal

zone to support the country’s goals of economicgrowth, poverty reduction, and sustainabledevelopment. At the same time, unless managedwell, the complex overlays of different interests,resource uses and ecological processes willlead to conflict, and to environmental, socio-economic and cultural deterioration. Equitableand sustainable coastal zone management is thus

L. T. Van Hue

and

S. Scott:

Socio-Economic Consequences of Changing Mangrove Management

63

© 2008 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2008 Institute of Australian Geographers

a primary challenge for public policy (Bailey,2006).

Since the market-orientated economic reforms(known as

doi moi

or renovation) were intro-duced in Vietnam in the late 1980s, countries inAsia, Europe, and the United States havebecome major importers of Vietnam’s marineproducts. Shrimp and other marine productsbegan to fetch high prices. Motivated by largeexport profits, both the central and local govern-ments have encouraged farming of shrimp(

Penaeus monodon

).Vietnam’s economic reforms have included

the elimination of collective agriculture and for-estry, the introduction of short-term, individualland-use rights (up to 20 years for agricultureand 50 years for forestry), and encouragementof privatisation and market liberalisation. Thereforms have been considered ‘one of the greatestsuccess stories in economic development’ in theworld (Joint Donor Report, 2003, 11). However,while opening up economic opportunities formany, the economic reforms have resulted in anincreasingly stratified distribution of income(Luong, 2003; Le, 2004). Despite a relativelyequitable distribution of land, rising inequalityin rural areas is associated with non-agriculturalactivities such as commercial aquaculture inlowland coastal North Vietnam (Adger, 1999;Lutrell, 2002; Le, 2004).

This paper presents the findings of a casestudy on the impact of land privatisation onmangrove forest use and management in CentralVietnam. Fieldwork was conducted in PhuocSon commune, Tuy Phuoc District, Binh DinhProvince, in Central Vietnam between November2004 and June 2006. The research examinedhow policy reforms and other factors affectedthe villagers’ management of mangrove forests.The analysis pays attention to

1. changes in access to and control overmangrove resources from State and collectiveto individual allocation;

2. gender differences in resource use andmanagement, and

3. conflicts between those who have been ableto capture nearly exclusive access and thosewho lost access as a result of the privatisationof coastal aquaculture resources;

and explores how differing levels of access toand control over mangrove resources have causedinequality in household incomes.

The paper is organised as follows. The firstsection reviews briefly the unsustainable nature

of much aquaculture development around theworld and its adoption as a poverty alleviationstrategy. Second, we provide an overview ofresearch methods and the study site. The nextsection reviews the evolution of mangrovemanagement in Phuoc Son commune over dif-ferent periods. The fourth section investigateshow social differentiation has affected the waysin which different social groups – defined bygender, income and social status – use andmanage mangrove resources within the community.The final section provides some overall conclu-sions and recommendations.

Global experiences with shrimp aquaculture expansion

A review of the literature on shrimp aquaculturearound the world reveals recurrent ecologicaland social crises. Taiwan was the leading exporterof shrimp from the 1970s until 1987 when adisease outbreak occurred and productionplummeted, never to return to its peak levels.China took its place as a leading exporter until1993, when it too faced serious problems withshrimp diseases and production losses. Chinawas in turn surpassed by Thailand.

The World Bank began to provide loans forshrimp ponds in the 1970s, especially toThailand, Bangladesh, Indonesia and thePhilippines. By the 1980s, loans had beenextended to China, India, Venezuela, Colombiaand Brazil. The rationale for promoting shrimpexpansion was to support food security, povertyalleviation, and broader rural developmentobjectives. Global aquaculture has been expandingby 10% per year since 1984, at a much higherrate than the growth of livestock meat (3%) andcapture fisheries (1.6%). Close to 85% of worldaquaculture production comes from developingcountries. Over seventy percent of cultured shrimpfor export is produced in Asia, particularlyThailand, Indonesia, China and India (Jana andJana, 2003, 286).

Shrimp production began its global boom –the ‘blue revolution’ – in the 1980s. The marketprice for farmed shrimp rose substantially asdemand from wealthier countries grew and thevolume of capture fishery production began tolevel off (Neiland

et al

., 2001). But a host ofenvironmental problems is associated withintensive aquaculture practices. The problemsrange from landscape destruction, soil and waterpollution from pond effluents, species invasion,depletion of biodiversity, and loss of fragilemangrove ecosystems. Wastewater from seafood

64


•

March 2008

•

46(1):62–73


processing plants and aquaculture areas is notwell treated.

An equally serious range of socio-economicproblems has plagued the development ofaquaculture: equity issues relating to distributionof benefits; conversion of common property toprivate property; land-use conflicts; productionof a luxury export food instead of food for thepoor; and over-reliance on imported fishmeal(Davy and MacKay, 1999; Williams, 1999; Janaand Jana, 2003). The adoption of technology forintensive shrimp production is greater in higherincome groups, and tends to displace the live-lihoods of lower income groups. This phenomenonhas particularly grave consequences for loss ofemployment and income in high density coastalareas of developing countries (Williams, 1999).Seafood exporters have suffered significantfinancial losses and damaged reputations due tochemical and antibiotic residues in exportedVietnamese seafood. All of those problems arehindering socially and ecologically sustainableaquaculture.

The intensification of shrimp production –akin to the green revolution in agriculture – hasled to disease outbreaks in shrimp cultivationacross many countries of Asia and LatinAmerica. The consequences for the livelihoodsof small-scale producers have often been devastat-ing. In 1996 and 1997, for example, Thailandexperienced a 30–40% drop in overall shrimpproduction due to disease outbreaks. Such crisesare compounded by low educational levels offarmers, lack of farmer experience in aquaculture,poor technical support, and lack of access tocapital to make improvements and reduce risk(Chanratchakool and Phillips, 2002). Therepetition of these problems in site after site andcountry after country has contributed to an‘image problem’ for aquaculture as a means ofpoverty alleviation (Davy and MacKay, 1999). Itis striking how little has been learned from pastproblems in other countries by governmentauthorities and extension agents to avertsubsequent economic and environmentalcatastrophes.

Research methods and case study site

The study involved ethnographic fieldwork inPhuoc Son commune and a review of secondarysources, used to understand the physical andsocial structure of Phuoc Son. These includedgovernment records and maps, and projectreports of the Ministry of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment and the Ministry of Natural

Resources and Environment. The field researchwas carried out in Con Chim island hamlet,one of 36 hamlets in Phuoc Son commune(Figure 1). Con Chim was selected because itseemed representative, being of average size,average income status, and among the hamletsmost dependent on shrimp farming as a sourceof income (Figure 2). It is an off-shore islandand is also close to newly planted mangrovesand the Thi Nai Lagoon.

In 2005 Con Chim had 180 households witha total population of 1176 people. Based on theresults of a participatory wealth-ranking exercisewhich considered annual income, householdassets and the house itself, the villagers developeda scheme to classify the 180 households intofour groups consisting of 35 rich, 20 upper middle,105 middle and 20 poor households. The richwere those who had concrete houses with goodfurniture and other consumer goods. The poorhad temporary houses with palm leaf roofs.Their members had incomes of less than US$13per person per month. A sample of 36 households,accounting for 20% of all households in ConChim, was randomly selected to include seven rich,three upper middle, 22 middle, and four poorhouseholds.

Semi-structured interviews were conductedwith the head of household or his/her spouse,for each of the 36 households sampled. Thequestions covered information about householdassets, income sources, demographics, health andnutrition, social organisation, cultural identity,gender relations and environmental conditions.In addition, interviews were conducted withlocal government and cooperative officials inPhuoc Son commune, the director and thedeputy director of the Provincial FisheriesDepartment, and the manager of the EcologicalThi Nai Lagoon Project, to provide insightsinto the local implementation of nationalpolicy on land allocation (and specificallymangroves), the institutional setting, and localpower relations.

Phuoc Son commune is a largely Buddhistcommunity located in Tuy Phuoc District, BinhDinh Province in Central Vietnam. It covers anarea of 2582 ha, of which agricultural landaccounts for 1210 ha (47%) and commercialshrimp farming 304 ha (12%) of the totalcommune area. This agricultural communitysupports a population of 24 853, including5500 rice-farming households, of which322 were allocated shrimp ponds in the1990s.

L. T. Van Hue

and

S. Scott:


65


Evolution of mangrove management in Phuoc Son commune

Phuoc Son commune is a community with along and rich history. The commune was

established more than 100 years ago, whenmany mangrove islands were within severalkilometres of the commune. According to elders,Phuoc Son is thought to have had about 300 haof mangroves at that time. The trees were 4–6m tall and

Avicennia marina (Forssk.) Vierh.,Rhizophora apiculata Blume

, and

Rhizophoramucronata Lam

. dominated the forests (Phanand Hoang, 1993).

In previous times, according to the communeelders, the mangroves were open to all villagers.Later, these islands were owned by and namedafter those who first claimed them, and thesenames continue today. Owners went to theirforests to catch birds and collect bird eggs,honey, crabs, fish, shrimp and bivalves, either toeat themselves or to sell at the local market.They also collected dry branches for firewoodand cut mangrove trees for timber and dikeconstruction during the rainy season. Peopleused mangrove wood to make rafts, whichprovide shade and food for fish, thus making the

Figure 1 Phuoc Son commune, Binh Dinh Province, Vietnam.

Figure 2 Shrimp pond with mangroves in Con Chimhamlet, Phuoc Son commune.

66


•

March 2008

•

46(1):62–73


fish easier to catch. When the season was over,the mangrove wood was used for cooking fuel.

Those who did not own an island were notallowed to cut mangrove trees, but could collectcrab, fish and shrimp, and dry branches forfirewood. In addition there were open waterfrontsand an open inter-tidal area where villagerscollected marine products. In this way, the poorwere not excluded from the mangrove andmarine resources. Elderly people reported thatthese owners also replanted mangroves at theplaces where they had harvested. According tothese accounts, local practice amounted toeffective resource management, although therewas no law on forest exploitation and management.

Post-1975 collectivisation and State enterprise formation

During the French and American occupations(1883–1975), the mangroves of Phuoc Son weremaintained. In fact, these resources served asprotection from enemy forces during these twoconflicts. On 31 March 1975, the commune wasliberated from American occupation. After thereunification of North and South Vietnam, theProvince of Binh Dinh reconstructed a 3.7 kmlong dike, located adjacent to Thi Nai Lagoon,which was originally built in 1948–1949 butwas heavily damaged during the war. Mangrovetrees were once more used to build the dike,separating one area for rice production andanother for shrimp farming.

In the period following 1975, the model ofcollectivised agriculture from northern Vietnamwas applied in the south. In 1977, Phuoc Son’sfirst agricultural collective was established.Farmers pooled their agricultural land and tools,and farmed in common. Every person’s labourcontributions were measured in work points.After each harvest, members of the collectivereceived a share of the crop according to thework points they had accumulated.

In 1978, the State-owned Thi Nai LagoonShrimp Farming Enterprise was establishedunder the provincial Fisheries Department. Anarea of 140 ha, consisting of Trang, Chim, andGia Islands, was set aside for the enterprise.Residents who owned these islands were askedto donate their land, while those who wereunwilling to give up their land were forced to doso, according to local accounts. For the firsttime, villagers witnessed outsiders coming in tocut mangrove trees that formerly belonged to thevillagers, in order to practise commercial farmingusing extensive shrimp aquaculture. The

enterprise also set out a rule that villagers werenot allowed to log mangrove trees or to catchany marine produce within its territory. Naturalresources that previously belonged to the villagersthen became the property of the State. Accordingto interviews with local residents, villagers werenot allowed even to pass through the enterprise’sshrimp farming area or they would be arrestedand brought to the commune People’s Commit-tee. Many were fined for having stolen whatthey perceived as their own fish, shrimp andbivalves. This resulted in resentment betweenthe enterprise workers and the villagers. Sincethe enterprise did not have sufficient personnelto guard the mangroves and no one had realresponsibility, villagers would illegally harvestthe forests, hiding long knives and cutting downeven large mangrove trees for firewood. Themangrove forests were severely depleted as a result.

1980s: the household-based economy and a new aquaculture cooperative

During the 1980s, a household-based economyincreasingly displaced the collective and Stateenterprise economy (Le and Rambo, 1999). TheGovernment of Vietnam shifted responsibilityfor the management of natural resources – bothland and water – away from commune collectivesand into the hands of individual farm households(Nguyen, 1995). Generally speaking, rural livingconditions improved greatly (Ngo, 1993) andpeople diversified their sources of income; butmarket liberalisation also led to greater socialdifferentiation (Adger, 1999; Le, 2004; Scottand Truong, 2004).

In 1985, the Phuoc Son Aquaculture Cooperativewas established and pooled villagers’ mangroveforests. All the commune’s remaining islandowners or those who inherited land from theirparents or grandparents were encouraged to pooltheir lands and join the cooperative. Farmersthen constructed ponds to farm shrimp. Thecooperative leased shrimp ponds to groups offive or six households. Household contractorswere responsible for hatching shrimp fry, labour,pond management, and even marketing. At thattime, a production quota for each pond wasfixed for a period of one year, and shrimp hadto be repaid to the cooperative. Cooperativemembers who exceeded their quotas wereallowed to keep the surplus for home consumptionor to sell to private traders. Conversely, in casesof natural calamities and other extenuatingcircumstances, they were required to make upfor all deficits. The implication of farmers

L. T. Van Hue

and

S. Scott:


67


becoming owners of the resource was that theysought to exploit its potential to maximise theirown returns, often ignoring sustainable practicesthat would bring them long-term benefits.

More than 10 out of 51 ha of land in PhuocSon were set aside in 1988 for an intensiveshrimp farming joint venture with an Australianshrimp farming company. The land was convertedfrom rice paddies to shrimp ponds. By 1990, theattempts at shrimp farming failed due to acidi-fication of the shrimp ponds, so the company left.

1990s: economic liberalisation, expansion of aquaculture and mangrove deforestation

In 1991, households were able to lease shrimpponds for a period of 20 years. This policy wasalso applied to the Thi Nai Lagoon ShrimpFarming enterprise. Its workers, who were notlocal residents, were allocated land for shrimpfarming. Conflict increased between villagerswho did not have enough aquaculture land andthe enterprise’s workers. In 1991 villagers’complaints were addressed to the enterprise’sBoard of Management. The Provincial PartyCommittee Secretary was assigned to go to ConChim to solve the villagers’ problem. In 1992,the enterprise had to return 54 ha to the com-mune, which then allocated the land to households.

On 21 December 1994, the Prime Ministerissued National Decree 773-TTg, which stipulatesthat open coastal areas and waterfronts could beused for shrimp and crab farming. Since then,government policy has continued to explicitlyencourage aquaculture and export of aquaticproducts. Households that cleared the mangrovesfor shrimp ponds after 1994 were exemptedfrom paying tax to the cooperative for the firstfive years. During this time, those who clearedthe forests for shrimp pond construction werenominated as heroes of the ‘uncultivated landencroachment’ movement. This policy, whichwas applied extensively across coastal Vietnam,encouraged shrimp farmers to clear all thecommune’s remaining mangrove forests forshrimp farming and resulted in great demand foraquaculture land.

In 1993, the commune’s aquaculture reserveof 51 ha was auctioned to individuals for shrimpfarming. The proceeds from the bidding processwere spent on the commune’s infrastructure,such as roads, schools and health clinics.Although the bidding process was nominallyopen to everyone, only the rich who had sufficientcapital, management skills and, more importantly,connections, were able to participate in the

process. Between 1993 and 1997, extensiveaquaculture was applied to the 51 ha. Between1996 and 1997, modified extensive aquaculture(stocking densities of one to five shrimp persquare metre with additional artificial stockingof crab, fish, and shrimp) was applied in PhuocSon. Using this method, a one-hectare pondcould bring in US$5000, a much higher amountthan could be earned from rice farming. Hatcherieswere established in the area for the first time,partly because natural shrimp fry were no longeravailable. Then, between 1998 and 2005, inten-sive aquaculture was applied to two thirds of the51 ha, while modified extensive aquaculturecontinued to be practised in the remaining area.

In 1995 and 1999, households that had receivedland were issued land-use right certificates.During this period, shrimp farmers tried to extendthe area of their ponds illegally by encroachingon the open waterfronts. These were the areasused by the villagers, mostly women and girls,to collect marine products (Figure 3). Conse-quently, the area of open waterfronts shrunk.Some women participated in bivalve collectionin their ponds and others traded shrimp andother coastal products. However, most womenare confined to the private sphere and householdduties. Thus, men have better opportunities toearn much more than women who, because ofthe persistence of certain patriarchal normsat the village level, were virtually excludedfrom the aquaculture resources.

2000s: land allocation and the shrimp farming boom

In May 2000, the Ministry of Fisheries hosted aScoping Meeting on Sustainable Aquaculture for

Figure 3 Girls collecting bivalves in Con Chim.

68


•

March 2008

•

46(1):62–73


Poverty Alleviation, attended by representativesfrom various government ministries and donoragencies. The meeting consolidated the role ofaquaculture development (in freshwater,brackish and marine environments) in thegovernment’s Hunger Eradication and PovertyReduction program. This contrasted with theindustrial- and commercial-scale aquaculturedevelopment that had been promoted previously.The initiative to promote small-scale aquacul-ture for poverty alleviation in Vietnam parallelsa global trend supported by the Food andAgriculture Organization and other donors.

Between 2000 and 2001, semi-intensiveaquaculture and intensive aquaculture were appliedin the commune, except on Con Chim Island.Semi-intensive aquaculture means use of small,1–5 ha ponds, where supplementary stockingand feeding are routine. Intensive aquaculturerefers to the use of 0.1–1.5 ha ponds with highstocking densities of more than 300 000 postlarvae (or fry) per hectare, around-the-clockmanagement, heavy feeding, waste removal andaeration. Con Chim’s shrimp ponds were locatedin the low-lying land of the Thi Nai Lagoon andtherefore difficult to drain. This made it toodifficult to apply intensive aquaculture, whichrequires high water exchange rates daily. In2001, modified extensive aquaculture was appliedto Con Chim.

During the time of the field research in 2005,210 of 322 households across the communewere practising shrimp farming. The rest hadeither sold or leased their ponds (117 ha in total)to better-off households that had capital,management skills and political power in thecommune. They then worked for these house-holds as waged labourers. Some leased rights totheir land for five years, others for 10 or even 15years – at the price of 1.4 taels of gold(US$886) for 1169 m

2

of pond. They thenworked for these wealthy households as wagedlabourers. These men (not women) were paid nomore than US$28 per month to guard the shrimpponds of the rich.

Usually two or more people shared a pond.This was the case even for wealthier shrimpfarmers. In this way, they shared the costs and therisks of shrimp production. Most local authoritieshad shrimp ponds, but this was always kept inthe background. They either shared the pondwith someone else or hired someone who waspoor to work for them.

For the first two years of semi-intensive andintensive aquaculture, many farmers earned

large profits from raising shrimp. An area of 0.8ha could yield US$13 000. In 2002 and 2003,Con Chim Island was considered across theProvince as a second Hong Kong, due to thelarge profits earned from shrimp culture. All oldhouses were knocked down and brick houseswith flat concrete roofs were built. These wealthyshrimp farmers spent money ‘like water’ andtheir children spent considerable amounts ofmoney on clothing. The government believedthat shrimp culture had great potential and thatthis was the only local occupation capable ofgenerating large profits within a short period oftime.

1

Due to the large profits, all banks, includ-ing the Vietnam Bank for Agriculture, the GoBoi Bank and the Phuoc Son AquacultureCooperative Bank, made loans available to shrimpfarmers in the area, sometimes even beforefarmers received their land-use right certificates.

Shrimp farming boom ... and bust

Since 2002, when all mangroves were cleared toconstruct shrimp ponds and raise shrimp usingmodified extensive aquaculture, shrimp produc-tion has dropped off dramatically. Between 2002and 2003, the spread of shrimp disease causedalmost all shrimp farms to fail. At the request ofthe Provincial government, scientists investigatedand found that loss of the mangroves was themain cause of the degraded environment forshrimp. Mangroves in the ponds provide spacefor shrimp to escape into the cooler, shadedwater. They also absorb the food residue in thepond. The loss of mangrove trees which absorbpollutants results in water pollution, which inturn leads to shrimp disease (CRES, 2004). Thelarge area of semi-intensive and intensive shrimpponds in the commune enabled the disease tospread.

As a result, many people lost large amountsof money and could not repay their bank loans.From an area of 0.8 ha one could now earn onlyUS$3000, or about one fourth of the revenueduring 2000 and 2001. According to a villageleader, in 2004 the Phuoc Son shrimp farmersowed the banks VND 8 billion (US$506 329)and it would be very difficult for them to payback their debt. While pressure from the Provinceprevented banks from confiscating shrimpfarmers’ ponds when defaulting on loanrepayments, many local leaders and a number oflarge shrimp farmers sold their ponds to outsideshrimp farmers as shrimp farming became lesslucrative. In contrast, if a household owed thecooperative US$6 for not paying their irrigation

L. T. Van Hue

and

S. Scott:


69


fees for rice paddy land, their land would beauctioned or confiscated until the loan wasrepaid.

Protecting local resources from outsiders

As a result of this disaster, the Provincialgovernment recognised that the planting ofmangroves was necessary to restore the environ-ment. At the end of 2002, the old enterprise wasdissolved because of its mismanagement. Butwhile waiting for the legal documents, themanager and vice-managers of the enterprisedecided to rent its land to outside shrimpfarmers for six months in order to earn someextra income. This once again created resentmentbetween the enterprise and the villagers, whoagain sent their complaints to the leaders ofthe District and the Province, and asked theProvince to give them the enterprise’s land thathad been rented to outsiders. According to anofficial of the Provincial Fisheries Department,the director of the department was criticised forallowing the enterprise leaders to act as they haddone, and the leaders were asked to retire.

In 2003, the management committee of theecological Thi Nai Lagoon Project was estab-lished under the jurisdiction of the ProvincialFisheries Department. Its headquarters werebased on Con Chim Island. In June 2003, fourhectares of inter-tidal mudflats were set aside formangrove plantation. Although the director ofthe Fisheries Department promised the villagersthat they would be informed when the plantingtook place, this did not happen. Instead, outsiderswere hired to plant the mangroves. Villagerswere furious that they had been excluded fromthe decision-making process, and that outsidersinstead of local people were hired to plant man-grove trees on the land that formerly belongedto their parents and grandparents. Despite thefact that villagers were supportive of the project,since they would benefit from the newly-plantedmangroves, villagers from Con Chim protestedon July 28, 2003, by burning the headquarters ofthe management committee. Many newly-planted

mangroves were uprooted. Afterwards, theProvincial and District officials came to meet thevillagers and an agreement was reached in whichthe villagers would be involved in the decision-making process and would be hired by theproject. In January 2004, the villagers of ConChim replanted the mangroves they haduprooted. This experience showed the fragilityof local rights over local resources in Phuoc Son.It also revealed that villagers were not passive,but rather acted collectively to exclude outsiders– the ecological Thi Nai Lagoon Project and theoutside guards – who threatened to abolish theirrights over their local resources.

Social differentiation and the harvesting of coastal products

This section analyses the household incomefrom the mangroves and mangrove-related resourcesearned by the four different groups of house-holds. The analysis focuses on the main factorsthat cause differentiation, including capital,labour, management and entrepreneurial skills,and age of the household heads (White, 1989;Ngo, 1993). These factors, in turn, affect accessto and control over mangrove resources and theways in which different groups of people use theresources. With respect to gender differences,men were in charge of activities that had greatcommercial value, such as shrimp farming. Thisleft women to handle those activities that hadless commercial value, such as trading of coastalproducts. Men could assist their wives to do thejob, however. During the time of the fieldresearch there were five traders in Con Chim, allof whom were women.

Distribution of households by shrimp pond area

Table 1 shows the areas of shrimp ponds held bydifferent groups of households. As the tabledemonstrates, none of the poor households hadshrimp ponds, while 13 of 22 middle incomehouseholds also lacked ponds. All of the richand upper middle income households had ponds.The average pond size for the rich income group

Table 1 Areas of shrimp ponds among households by income group in 2005 (Source: Authors’ field survey, 2005).

Area (ha)

Rich (n = 7)

Upper middle(n = 3)

Middle(n = 22)

Poor(n = 4)

Total(n = 36)

5.1–7 2 0 0 0 25 or less 5 3 9 0 17None 0 0 13 4 17

70


•

March 2008

•

46(1):62–73


was 3 ha, the upper middle 2 ha and the middle1 ha. In Thailand, having fewer than 1.6 ha isconsidered small-scale shrimp production(Chanratchakool and Phillips, 2002): thus, thehouseholds that are called ‘upper middle’ or‘middle’ in the Phuoc Son commune – accordingto local criteria – might be considered smallfarmers in an international context.

The poor households initially received pondsas did other households in Phuoc Son communethat were allocated agricultural land. But sincethe majority of these poor households were notable to invest in commercial shrimp farming andthey needed cash to cover household expenses,they leased or sold their ponds to those who hadcapital resources, management skills andpolitical power. In Con Chim, some 30% ofhouseholds, of which the majority were poor,sold or leased their ponds.

Household cash income from mangroves and mangrove-related resources

After the failure of the shrimp crop, the majorityof the shrimp farmers in Con Chim were afraidthat they could lose their ponds and houses iftheir attempts at shrimp farming continued tofail. In 2004, the rich and the upper middleincome households lost the most from shrimpfarming, followed by the middle households.The poor group did not own any ponds, and thusavoided becoming indebted, unlike the otherthree groups.

Table 2 illustrates household cash incomesgained by four groups of households from themangroves and the mudflats. To calculate thesefigures, total incomes from mangroves andmangrove-related resources – including sales ofwild shrimp, bivalves, wild crabs, fish collectedfrom the inter-tidal mudflats, and farmed shrimpand crabs from the households’ own ponds –were divided by the total number of people fromthe households sampled in each group. These

income differences indicate that the poorbecame least indebted based on their incomesfrom mangroves and mangrove-relatedresources. This is because they did not invest inshrimp farming and were instead engaged incollecting natural crabs from the intertidalmudflats. Meanwhile, the rich, upper middle andmiddle income households who were engaged inshrimp farming lost their investments, plungingthem into serious debt. The rich householdsfared better than the upper middle and themiddle income households, since they had addi-tional income from collecting natural crabs andshrimp, using systems of nets.

Sources of income

The poor had no ponds or service activities,depended mostly on mangrove resources, andreceived some government pensions. In contrast,the middle households earned the most fromgrocery and tailor shops, and commercial iceproduction. The upper middle households hadno government salaries, and engaged in someservice activities. The rich households were theonly group that earned income from tradingshrimp. Without capital resources, labour, entre-preneurial skills and social networks, the otherthree income groups were constrained in joiningthe trade.

Table 3 shows the sources of householdincome and the distribution of that income percapita for the four income groups in 2005.Income gained from trading shrimp and othersources of income is also included to show howmuch each group of households earned fromspecific sources. Since Con Chim is an off-shoreisland, it does not possess any agricultural land.This explains why no households in the sampleearned income either from sales of paddy rice orlivestock, unlike other hamlets in Phuoc Soncommune. Six households in the sample – onesixth of the total – received a government salary

Table 2 Mean annual cash income (in US$) per capita for each income group from mangroves and mangrove-relatedresources in 2005 (Source: Authors’ field survey, 2005).

Type Rich Upper middle Middle Poor

Sales of wild shrimp 83Sales of bivalves 2Sales of wild crabs 7 20 28Sales of shrimp from own pond −89 −163 −36Sales of crabs from own pond 1 −2Total 3 −−−−155 −−−−16 28

L. T. Van Hue

and

S. Scott:


71


or pension income. The rich had governmentjobs, such as teaching, or received retirementpensions of US$16 per person per year. Themiddle received retirement pensions and vet-eran’s pensions, and on average received almostUS$11 per person per year. The poor receivedpensions such as ‘families of war dead’ atalmost US$76 per person per year. According tothe Ministry of Labour, Invalid and SocialAffairs poverty line, a poor household has anincome of less than US$12.50 per capita permonth (US$150 per year). Although poor house-holds in Con Chim had pensions, their houseswere in poor condition. They did not havevaluable assets in the house. In addition, theysuffered from health problems, and wereburdened by a higher dependency ratio (1.0)than is seen in the other income groups.

This table reveals that, in the year of the crisisin shrimp production, the highest cash incomesfrom all sources were in the poor households(US$120 per person per year), followed by themiddle households (US$57) and the rich(US$38). The upper middle group ended upwith an income of negative $127 per person peryear. Selling their shrimp ponds and engaging inwage labour helped the poor avoid becomingindebted, while buying and leasing shrimpponds from the poor and engaging in shrimpfarming made the rich and the upper middleincome households become more indebted.However, the rich, upper middle and middleincome households still had more valuableassets. That means they had access to alternativesources of income compared with the poor.

Thus, although lack of capital resources, labour,and management and entrepreneurial skillsforced the poor to sell their ponds, which in turnhelped them avoid the risk of farming shrimp,this was only over a short time span. Althoughthe poor households did not experience the debtof wealthier households, they are likely to faceother shocks, such as crop failures and medicalbills, that undermine their security.

Indebtedness

Of the four poor households sampled, only onewas in debt. Table 4 shows that, compared to theother income groups, poor households borrowedthe least amount of money (US$63). Theproportion of poor households in debt (fromall sources) was the smallest, followed by themiddle group (who borrowed an average ofUS$4519), the rich (US$5424), and then theupper middle (US$12 772). The poor wereindebted by one fifth of their annual income, themiddle group by almost 16 times their averageannual income, and the rich income householdsby more than 26 times their annual income. Theannual income of the upper middle householdfrom all sources in 2005 was negative US$671.Note that Table 3 is calculated for eachhousehold member, while Table 4 is calculatedfor each household in each income group.

In 2005, the majority of the households indebt in Con Chim wrote letters to the banks toinform them they could not pay the interest, butonly the principal. However, only a few households(of the middle group) in extreme situations wereallowed to do so. The rest were still expected to

Table 3 Net income sources of each income group per capita per year in 2005 (Source: Authors’ field survey, 2005) (in US$).

Source of income Rich Upper middle Middle Poor

Mangroves 3 −155 −16 28Trade of shrimp 10 0 0 0Waged labour 3 16 38 16Government salary and pensions 16 0 11 76Service 6 11 24 0Total 38 −−−−127 57 120

Table 4 Extent of indebtedness of households by income group in 2005 (Source: Authors’ field surve, 2005).

Categories Rich Upper middle Middle Poor

Number of households in debt 7 (100%) 4 (100%) 15 (71%) 1 (25%)Average amount of debt per household (US$) 5424 12 772 4519 63

72


•

March 2008

•

46(1):62–73


pay both the interest and the principal. It islikely that their house, valuable assets and shrimpponds will eventually be confiscated by thebanks. This has already happened in parts ofnorthern and southern Vietnam where indebtedshrimp farmers became homeless. They wouldeffectively become tenants on their own plots ofland.

The loss of livelihood not only affected shrimpfarmers themselves but families dependent ontheir income, especially women and girls. Thewomen, who are responsible for feeding thefamily, were the most worried members ofthe household. Many became sick. Husbandsand wives often fought with each other over thedebt, and girls were asked to leave school andgive food to their male siblings. Over the lastfew years to 2006, no boys in Con Chim completed6th grade and many girls across all incomegroups did not finish 4th grade. Many girlsmarried early. At the end of the 1990s and at thebeginning of the 21st century, when shrimpfarming was a profitable industry, their spouses,the majority of whom were not from Con Chim,moved to Con Chim to be involved in shrimpculture, leading to a rapid increase in Con Chim’spopulation. But by 2005, many women wereconcerned about their daughters not findinghusbands, since no one would be interested in agirl who comes from a household in debt. Onemale shrimp farmer stated:

In Con Chim, except for the poor householdseveryone is worried about his debt. I couldnot sleep at night and that is how I have beenill all the time. I cannot concentrate on doinganything. I would be very grateful if the bankcould allow me to pay the principal only, notthe interest. I would then look for another joband in that way I hope I could pay back the loan.

Conclusions

Phuoc Son is not exceptional in its experience ofa crisis shortly after the boom in shrimp produc-tion. Similar situations have been reported acrossVietnam and other countries where mangrovedestruction and environmental degradation,particularly water pollution, have played havocwith the shrimp, killing large numbers andresulting in severe poverty in farming com-munities. The shores and lagoons had beenconsidered a kind of ‘gold rush’, as farmers andtheir financial backers sought to become richthrough shrimp production and export. This nolonger holds true.

No one knows how long the socio-economicand environmental crises of shrimp productionin Phuoc Son will last, unless local authoritiesdevise a scheme to reschedule farmers’ debtsand help those who convert to less intensiveshrimp farming pay off their debts and plantnew mangroves. Due to their low level ofeducation, it is unlikely that shrimp farmers inPhuoc Son can switch to other employment.Other recommendations for shrimp to become amore appropriate means of poverty reductioninclude providing better extension services andinformation, and technical support to preventdisease outbreaks.

With the introduction of commercial coastalaquaculture came inequitable access to andcontrol over sources of non-agriculturalincomes. Those with management skills, capitalto invest in aquaculture, willingness to takerisks, and connections to powerful local bureau-crats gained access to these resources. The poor,a social group who traditionally have been themost dependent on the local mangrove resources,became the social group with the least access tothese resources, despite the fact that they didinitially receive an allocation of ponds.

After 2003, a range of environmental problemsand disasters – shrimp diseases, pollutionproblems and typhoons – changed the entirepicture in Phuoc Son. After this point, the poorearned the most from the mangroves and theinter-tidal mudflats, because they were notengaged in commercial shrimp farming, anunreliable industry that has driven the majorityof shrimp farmers in Phuoc Son and elsewherein Vietnam to bankruptcy. Even so, the poorwere not necessarily better off; they just did notexperience the significant decline of those whohad the capital to invest in aquaculture. They aremore likely to face other shocks that underminetheir capacity. Moreover, they lack access to thewider range of alternatives sources of incomethat other social groups may have.

The market liberalisation period opened upnew opportunities for households that wereready to work hard and willing to take risks, butalso had management and entrepreneurial skillsand capital. As the case of Phuoc Son communeillustrates, after the introduction of commercialaquaculture, the households that were mostintegrated into the market economy experiencedthe biggest financial shocks. Nevertheless,although the commune is stratified and individualhouseholds have responded differently to marketdemands, they acted collectively to exclude

L. T. Van Hue

and

S. Scott:


73


outsiders – the ecological Thi Nai Lagoon Projectand the outside guards – who threatened toabolish their rights over their local resources.

The development of commercial aquacultureexacerbated the problem of resource degradationand over-exploitation, and the impacts ondifferent groups of villagers have been uneven.This study has shown that rapid changes in localland-use systems, ownership, managementpractices of mangrove resources, and institutionalarrangements in response to

doi moi

, haveweakened the livelihoods of many shrimpfarmers in the community. Moreover, they havebypassed women, while opening up economicopportunities for others.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSAn earlier version of this paper was presented at the Instituteof Social Studies Conference on Land, Poverty, SocialJustice and Development, The Hague, the Netherlands, 12–14 January, 2006. The authors thank two anonymous reviewersfor their useful comments on previous versions of this paper.

NOTE1. In contrast to the experience in central Vietnam, Le’s

(2004) research in 2000–2001 in Giao Lac village, acoastal community in Nam Dinh province in the RedRiver Delta, showed that government authorities con-sidered shrimp farming a risky occupation in the northof Vietnam. The government was afraid that shrimpfarmers would not be able to pay back their loans, soinstead they had to borrow from local moneylenders.

REFERENCESAdger, W.N., 1999: Exploring income inequality in rural,

coastal Vietnam.

Journal of Development Studies

35, 96–119.Bailey, C.R., 2006: Report on Visit to Fisherfolk and

Fisheries in Thi Nai Lagoon, Binh Dinh Province. FordFoundation Office in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Studies(CRES), 2004:

Bao cao Tong hop: Xay dung Mo hinh Baoton va Su dung Ben vung Da dang Sinh hoc, Quan ly cacHe sinh thai Nhay cam dua vao Cong dong tai diem Nghiencuu Dam Thi Nai, tinh Binh Dinh

(Comprehensive reporton developing a model of preservation and wise use ofbiodiversity, and community-based management offragile ecosystems in Thi Nai Lagoon, Binh DinhProvince). Vietnam National University, Hanoi.

Chanratchakool, P. and Phillips, M.J., 2002: Social and eco-nomic impacts and management of shrimp disease amongsmall-scale farmers in Thailand and Vietnam. In Arthur,J.R., Phillips, M.J., Subasinghe, R.P., Reantaso, M.B. andMacRae, I.H. (eds)

Primary Aquatic Animal Health Carein Rural, Small-scale, Aquaculture Development

.FAO Fisheries Technical Paper no. 406. FAO, Rome,177–189.

Davy, F.B. and MacKay, K.T., 1999: The role of fisheriesand aquaculture in the future supply of animal protein. InSvennevig, N., Reinertsen, H. and New, M. (eds)

Sustain-able Aquaculture: Food for the Future?

A.A. Balkema,Rotterdam, Netherlands, 285–301.

Jana, B.B. and Jana, S., 2003: The potential and sustainabilityof aquaculture in India. In Jana, B.B. and Webster, C.D.(eds)

Sustainable Aquaculture: Global Perspectives

.Haworth Press, Binghamton, New York, 283–316.

Joint Donor Report, 2003:

Vietnam Development Report2004: Poverty

. Joint Donor Report to the Vietnam Con-sultative Group Meeting, ADB, AusAID, DFID, GTZ,JICA, Save the Children UK, UNDP and the World Bank,Hanoi, Vietnam.

Le, H., 2004: Coastal resource use and management in a vil-lage of northern Vietnam. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Department of Agriculture and Rural Development,Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Le, T.C. and Rambo, T., 1999: Composite swidden farmersof Ban Tat: a case study of the environmental and socialconditions in a Tay Ethnic Minority Community in HoaBinh Province, Vietnam. Paper presented at the Center forNatural Resources and Environmental Studies (CRES),Vietnam National University, Hanoi.

Luong, H., 2003: Gender relations: ideologies, kinshippractices, and political economy. In Luong, H. (ed.)

PostwarVietnam: Dynamics of a Transforming Society

. Institute ofSoutheast Asian Studies, Singapore, 201–223.

Lutrell, C., 2002: Embracing and resisting the global shrimpboom: shifting access to resources in the VietnameseRenovation. Paper presented at the Ninth Conference ofthe International Associations for the Study of CommonProperty (IASCP), Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe.

Neiland, A.E., Soley, N., Baron Varley, J. and Whitmarsh,D., 2001: Shrimp aquaculture: economic perspectives forpolicy development.

Marine Policy

25, 265–279.Ngo, L.V., 1993: Reform and rural development: impact on

class, sectoral and regional inequalities. In Turley, W.S.and Selden, M. (eds)

Reinventing Vietnamese Socialism

.Westview Press, Boulder, 165–207.

Nguyen, C., 1995:

Agriculture of Vietnam 1945–1995

.Statistical Publishing House, Hanoi.

Phan, H. and Hoang, S., 1993:

Vai Tro Cua Rung Ngap ManVi

é

t Nam

(Mangroves of Vietnam). Nha Xuat Ban NongNghiep (Agricultural Publishing House), Hanoi.

Scott, S. and Truong T.K.C., 2004: Behind the numbers:social mobility, regional disparities and new trajectoriesof development in rural Vietnam. In Taylor, P. (ed.)

SocialInequality in Vietnam: Challenges to Reform

. Institute ofSoutheast Asian Studies, Singapore, 90–122.

White, B., 1989: Problems in the empirical analysis of agrariandifferentiation. In Hart, G., Turton, A. and White, B. (eds)

Agrarian Transformations: Local Processes and the Statein Southeast Asia

. University of California Press, Berkeley,15–30.

Williams, M.J., 1999: The role of fisheries and aquaculturein the future supply of animal protein. In Svennevig, N.,Reinertsen, H. and New, M. (eds)

Sustainable Aquaculture:Food for the Future?

A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Nether-lands, 5–18.

coastal livelihood transitions: socio-economic …naumannj/professional geography...the case study...

Documents