Economic Feasibility of Diversified Farming System in the Flood-Prone Delta: Simulation for Dike Area in An Giang Province,

Shigeki Yokoyama Le Canh Dung Japan International Research Can Tho University, Vietnam Center for Agricultural Sciences, Japan Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Yoichi Fujihara Hideto Fuji Ishikawa Prefectural University, Japan Yamagata University, Japan Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Keisuke Hoshikawa Toyama Prefectural University, Japan Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

A simulation of crop choice was performed to examine the feasibility of introducing diversified farming systems, coexisting with seasonal floods, as an alternative to triple rice cropping system in the flood- prone in Vietnam. A combination of 1.78 to 1.88 ha of double rice cropping and 0.12 to 0.22 ha of upland cropping can achieve an equivalent income or profit from 2 ha of triple rice cropping. Farmers evaluated the full-dike system positively in terms of both economic aspects and living conditions. Some farmers recognized that full flood control might have worsened the natural environment and reduced soil fertility resulting in declining rice yields. To establish a smart flood control system as an adaptation strategy against expected climate change, the following measures must be undertaken: (1) sensitize farmers to the increasing climatic risk in the near future and long- term adverse effects of intensive triple rice cropping; (2) offer alternative environmentally sound and economically profitable farming systems; and (3) develop institutional design for well-coordinated gate and pumping operations both at dike units and in canal network systems.

Keywords: adaptation strategy, climate change, economic simulation, triple rice cropping, dike system JEL Classification: Q01, Q12, Q25 22 Shigeki Yokoyama, Le Canh Dung, Hideto Fuji, Yoichi Fujihara, and Keisuke Hoshikawa

INTRODUCTION cultivated in this type of dike. The full dikes were built to improve local standard of living, Rice is a strategic food crop in Vietnam, to increase agricultural income from intensified as affirmed by the Central Communist Party and diversified farming systems, and to ensure development program until 2020.1 Paddy fields protection of livelihood from floodings year- are protected and are expected to remain at 3.76 round. million ha nationwide until 2020.2 In particular, The dike construction in Vietnam’s paddy fields in the Mekong Delta are expected Mekong Delta, however, might have caused to remain at 1.8 million ha. In this region, aside unexpected effects on soil and water quality, from conserving paddy fields, intensification of resulting in environmental problems and yield rice planting is strongly encouraged through the decline especially in the case of triple rice development of triple rice cropping in flood- cropping system, which is associated with prone zones that are protected by dike systems.3 continuous and increased use of chemical An Giang is a major rice producing province inputs (Nhan, Be, and Trung 2007; Apel et al. in the Mekong Delta with intensive practices. 2012; Sebesvari et al. 2012; Fujii, Fujihara, and It occupies 353,643 ha or 8.9 percent of the Hoshikawa 2013). Linh et al. (2013) revealed total area of the Mekong Delta. Its agricultural from a farmers survey in Tien Giang province land area totals 297,405 ha, accounting for 84 that the rice yield of continuous triple rice percent of the province’s total land area as of cropping decreased from 2006 to 2010, while 2011. In 2012, the province launched a project to that of rotational system of rice and upland increase the area devoted to triple rice cropping crops increased. Van Brakel, Hambrey, and from 164,881 ha to 192,536 ha by 2015.4 The Bunding (2011) also documented that farmland province has 11 administrative units where expansion and increased use of agrochemicals Chau Phu is a major rice producing district in have negative impact on both wild fish habitat a flood-prone zone. In 2010, the district had and inland aquaculture. Moreover, recent 14,983 ha devoted to triple rice cropping and climatic changes in association with market- 776 ha planted to upland crops practiced within oriented economic reforms in Vietnam has made a full-dike system (An Giang DARD 2011). rice farming in the Mekong Delta increasingly There are two dike types in the area: (1) the full- uncertain, unstable, and insecure in terms of dike with a height of 2-4 m, depending on the production and economic returns (Coclanis local flood level, and is strong enough to protect and Stewart 2011). In order to keep the soil farmlands from flood throughout the year; and fertile, the introduction of nutrient sediments (2) the semi-dike with a maximum height of is recommended during flooding periods by 1.5 m, allowing flood intrusion during the flood appropriate gate operations (Hung et al. 2014). season; thus, only double rice cropping can be Diversified farming systems such as combining rice with upland crops, livestock, and/or aquaculture have been proposed as alternatives to intensive rice monoculture to mitigate 1 Decree 63/TTg (Vietnam Government 2009), followed by Decision 432 QĐ/TTg (Vietnam environmental problems without sacrificing Government 2012) agricultural income (Berg 2002; Bosma et al. 2 Resolution No. 134/2016/QH13 (Vietnam National 2005; Bosma et al. 2007; Kirby and Mainuddin Parliament 2016) 2009; Nhut 2011; Linh et al. 2015). 3 Decision 99/TTg (Vietnam Government 1996) In view of the foregoing, this study sought 4 Decision 740/QĐ-UBND (An Giang People to examine the feasibility of introducing Committee 2010) Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 15 No. 2 23 diversified farming systems coexisting with flood was recorded in 2011 (Vietnam Red Cross seasonal floods as an alternative to triple rice 2011). cropping system in the Vietnamese Mekong A comparison of economic returns was Delta. To achieve this, the following were conducted between different cropping systems. undertaken: Likewise, the farmers’ subjective evaluations of 1. Quantified economic returns of rice and the dike systems with respect to the economic other non-rice production available in the and non-economic aspects were examined. district; 2. Performed economic simulation of counterfactual double rice cropping with RESULTS AND DISCUSSION upland crops system against actual triple rice cropping system; and Characteristics of Sample Farmers 3. Clarified local people’s perception of the dike system in terms of improving As presented in Table 1, the average family agricultural production and living size in both My Phu and OLV is 4.56. About standards. 75 percent of family members are of working age, 18-60 years for males and 18-55 years for females. The average age of household heads is METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS 51 years. Most household heads have secondary level of educational attainment (Table 1). The 101 respondents of the study were Participation in organizational activities selected through random sampling. These are is unusual in both communes. Majority of farmers who own paddy fields located in an area the respondents in OLV (77%) and in My protected from the flood during the main wet Phu (64%) do not have membership in any season (August to November) by a dike system. organization. Only 5 percent of the sample Of these, 44 and 57 came from the communes farmers are members of a farmer association, of My Phu and O Long Vy (OLV), respectively, which indicates low collective activities in in Chau Phu district. Consisting of one town farming (Table 2). and 12 communes, the Chau Phu district had a Of the 101 respondents, some 66 farmers total population of 245,958 in 2011 (An Giang (32 in My Phu and 34 in OLV) participated in Statistical Office 2013). The average population training courses on plant protection. For the of each town/ is 18,920, and the courses of farming techniques (mainly rice sample population is 204 in My Phu and 257 in production) and postharvest loss reduction, OLV (calculated from Table 1). Based on these combined attendance was 3 and 1, respectively, figures, the coverage ratio of the survey sample for My Phu and OLV. About 31 percent of the is roughly estimated at 1.1 percent of My Phu farmers have not attended any extension course and 1.4 percent of OLV communes. in the last three years (Table 3). A structured questionnaire comprised of Motorbikes and bicycles ranked highest major sections on household demographical among the physical assets supporting the characteristics, landholdings, farming systems, farmers’ livelihood. These are the most cost structure, and perception of dike systems popular mode of transport in rural Vietnam was used in the survey. The interview survey because automobiles are less useful due to was conducted in October 2012. Data periods the narrow roads on the dikes. Agricultural covering one farming year from October 2011 machines such as four-wheel tractors, to October 2012 were collected. A 10-year 24 Shigeki Yokoyama, Le Canh Dung, Hideto Fuji, Yoichi Fujihara, and Keisuke Hoshikawa

Table 1. Profile of sample farmers

My Phu (n=44) OLV (n=57) Total (n=101) Major indicators Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Household members (person) 4.64 (1.08) 4.51 (1.13) 4.56 (1.10) Labor* in household (person) 3.36 (1.36) 3.46 (1.25) 3.42 (1.29) Rate of labor (%) 73 76 75 Age of household head (yr) 54.14 (15.04) 48.96 (12.53) 51.22 (13.85) Education of head (level)** 1.68 (0.90) 1.33 (0.69) 1.49 (0.80) Number of female headed 2 2 4 family

Notes: *Working age of 18-60 years for males and 18-55 years for females **Definition of level: 0 = No schooling; 1 = Primary: 1st to 5th class; 2 = Secondary: 6th to 9th class; 3 = High school (10th to 12th class); and 4 = College and university

Table 2. Participation of household heads in local community organizations by commune

My Phu OLV Association Total Number (%) No membership 28 (64) 44 (77) 72 (71) Charity* 2 (5) 3 (5) 5 (5) Elder Association 1 (2) 0 (-) 1 (1) Farmer Association** 2 (5) 3 (5) 5(5) Hamlet leadership*** 2 (5) 4 (7) 6 (6) Red Cross 8 (18) 2 (4) 10 (10) Veteran 1 (2) 1 (2) 2 (2) Total 44 (100) 57 (100) 101 (100)

Notes: *Collect medicinal herbs, process them, and give the processed medicine to patients of traditional medicine. **Make collective decision on agricultural production (e.g., rice cultivation and irrigation); learn and share farming techniques. ***Entails disseminating new policy/plan at hamlet and communal levels, and managing hamlet, etc.

pumps, and other power tools play important farmers’ livelihood because these help produce roles in rice production. My Phu and OLV profits. My Phu and OLV have six cows each have 13 and 23 pumps, respectively, that are that are used for breeding. Aquaculture plays a used for irrigation, specifically for taking water similar role in both communes, with fishponds from the canals to the field. The ownership of numbering to seven in My Phu and five in OLV. four-wheel tractors is 6 and 3 in My Phu and Survey results indicate that people in OLV in OLV, respectively. Cows and fishponds prefer to invest their capital on grocery business are also considered as assets that support the as there are seven groceries in the commune, but just two in My Phu (Table 4). Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 15 No. 2 25

Table 5 shows the three most popular are important income-earning opportunities non-farm jobs as services (24%), including for small farmers. Agricultural machinery work in post offices, internet shops, and bike services (i.e., land preparation, threshing, and taxis; small trades (22%) such as work in harvesting) are provided by a small number coffee shops, vegetable vendors, and small of farmers (5%) who have excessive machine groceries; and factory workers (17%). The capacity in their own farms. Engagement in My Phu labor force is more into services public services (public school teacher and (26%) and factory work (23%), while people local government official) is 11 percent in in OLV prefer small trades (25%). Hired farm My Phu and 23 percent in OLV (Table 5). work (12%) and construction work (2%)

Table 3. Participation of sample farmers in extension course by commune in the last three years

My Phu (n=44) OLV (n=57) Total (n=101) Course Topics Number (%) No participation 11 (25) 20 (35) 31 (31) Farming techniques 1 (2) 2 (4) 3 (3) Plant protection 32 (73) 34 (60) 66 (65) Postharvest loss reduction 0 (-) 1 (2) 1 (1) Total 44 (100) 57 (100) 101 (100)

Table 4. Ownership of physical assets supporting livelihood and production by commune

My Phu (n=44) OLV (n=57) Total (n=101) Assets Number (%) Grocery 2 (5) 7 (12) 9 (9) Car 0 (-) 0 (-) 0 (-) Motorbike 44 (100) 53 (39) 97 (96) Bicycle 34 (77) 45 (79) 79 (78) Four-wheel tractor 6 (14) 3 (5) 9 (9) Pump 13 (30) 23 40) 36 36) Other power tools* 8(18) 14 (25) 22 (22) Cow 6 (14) 6 (11) 12 (12) Fishpond 7 (16) 5 (9) 12 (12) Total 44 (100) 57 (100) 101(100)

Note: *Sprayer, small cart, etc. 26 Shigeki Yokoyama, Le Canh Dung, Hideto Fuji, Yoichi Fujihara, and Keisuke Hoshikawa

Table 5. Engagement of household head in non-farm work

My Phu OLV Total Job type Number (%) Service 14 (26) 8 (20) 22 (24) Small trade 10 (19) 10 (25) 20 (22) Factory worker 12 (23) 4 (10) 16 (17) Hired farm work 6 (11) 5 (13) 11 (12) School teacher 5 (9) 5 (13) 10 (11) Local official 1 (2) 4 (10) 5 (5) Agricultural machinery 4 (8) 1 (3) 5 (5) service Construction worker 1 (2) 1 (3) 2 (2) Seed nursery - 1 (3) 1 (1) Carpenter - 1 (3) 1 (1) Total* 53 (100) 40 (100) 93 (100)

Note: *Total number of responses may exceed or fall below the sample size because one may engage either in no job or multiple jobs

Farm Size and Land Use Of these farmers, more than half (56%) cultivate only rice, more than one-third (36%) cultivate The average farm size and distributional various upland crops, while a minority (8%) are patterns in the two communes are quite similar. into fish culture (Table 8). The average operational size is 1.93 ha, Upland crops are usually grown in fields although most farmers (32% in My Phu and near homes that are free from flooding. In some 37% in OLV) have less than one hectare. Only cases, they are cultivated in high furrows in 8 (18%) and 9 (16%) farmers in My Phu and paddy fields, in which ditches become flooded OLV, respectively, operate farmlands that are 3 during the flood season. The most popular ha and more (Table 6). upland crop is chili pepper (13 farmers), The farming system in Vietnam’s Mekong cultivation history of which dates back to the Delta has long been dominated by rice late 19th century (Brocheux 1995), followed monocropping as seen in the history of canal by a combination of okra and cucumber (eight system development of the area (Xuan 1975; farmers), then bitter gourd and pumpkin (seven Brocheux 1995; Kono 2001; Kakonen 2008; farmers). Sweet corn (six farmers) was recently Biggs et al. 2009). This is also the case for the introduced on a contract basis with traders based sample farmers. Paddy fields (1.86 ha out of in , and three more farmers are total 1.99 ha) dominate land use, followed by expected to join the following year. According upland cropping, in which various upland crops to the farmers, tomato and eggplant are less such as vegetables and forage for cattle are popular because of low productivity, high risk grown in an area of 0.11 ha (Table 7). of disease, and low market price (Table 9). As for cropping systems, all of the sample farmers practice triple rice cropping a year. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 15 No. 2 27

Cost Structure and Profitability by Crop (where the study site is classified) in 2015 was divided by that of 2012. All the prices It should be noted that cost and profitability were converted to 2012 real price deflated by change as prices change. A simple simulation Consumer Price Index of An Giang Province, was conducted to show how recent trends on 2015/2012 = 1.08. Rice varieties and kinds of price change affects a farmer’s choice of crop, chemical inputs were selected such as those that assuming the production structure (yields and are mainly used in the locality. inputs) does not change in the short run. The The declining trend of producer price of study obtained the following: (1) nominal rice is reflected by declining per capita rice local market prices of agrochemicals and consumption and export (World Bank 2016; crops in 2012 and 2017 (An Giang DARD OECD 2015). Parallel to increasing per capita 2017); (2) legal minimum wage in 2012 and expenditure for fruits and vegetables, vegetable 2015 (Thanh, Trinh, and Tung 2017); and prices are rising (OECD 2015). On the other (3) local Consumer Price Index in 2012 and hand, the market price of chemical fertilizers 2015 (An Giang Statistical Office 2016). Using declined after the law on VAT (Value Added these data, the price change ratio from 2012 Tax) exemption was approved in November to 2015 was estimated as follows: the prices 2014 (Phong, Thanh, and Phuc 2017), while of crops, fertilizer and pesticide were linearly the prices of pesticide increased in general, interpolated from 2012 to 2017. For labor but with varying ratio (Appendix Table 1). cost, the legal minimum wage of Region IV

Table 6. Farm size distribution of sample farmers by commune

My Phu OLV Total Operational Size Number (%) Less than 1 ha 14 (32) 21 (37) 35 (35) >1 – 2ha 11 (25) 19 (33) 30 (30) > 2 – 3ha 11 (25) 8 (14) 19 (19) > 3 ha 8 (18) 9 (16) 17 (17) Total 44 (100) 57 (100) 101 (100) Mean (SD) 1.93 (1.57) 2.04 (2.18) 1.99 (1.93)

Table 7. Land use of sample farmers by commune

Land Use My Phu OLV Total (ha/household) Mean (SD) Total area 1.93 (1.57) 2.04 (2.18) 1.99 (1.93) Paddy field 1.82 (1.47) 1.82 (2.13) 1.86 (1.91) Upland 0.08 (0.18) 0.13 (0.23) 0.11 (0.21) Fishpond 0.04 (0.14) 0.02 (0.06) 0.03 (0.10) 28 Shigeki Yokoyama, Le Canh Dung, Hideto Fuji, Yoichi Fujihara, and Keisuke Hoshikawa

Table 8. Number of the sample farmers by cropping system by commune

My Phu OLV Total Number (%) Triple rice 29 (66) 28 (49) 57 (56) Triple rice and 11 (25) 25 (44) 36 (36) upland crop

Triple rice and fish 4 (9) 4 (7) 8 (8) Total 44 (100) 57 (100) 101 (100)

Table 9. Number of sample farmers cultivating upland crops by crop, by commune

My Phu OLV Total Land Use (ha/household) Number (%) Chili 3 (18) 10 (37) 13 (30) Mix of okra and cucumber 0 (-) 8 (30) 8 (18) Mix of bitter gourd and 3 (18) 4 (15) 7 (16) pumpkin Sweet corn 3 (18) 3 (11) 6 (14) Lotus 3 (18) 0 (-) 3 (7) Papaya 2 (12) 0 (-) 2 (5) Van tho flower 2 (12) 0 (-) 2 (5) Tomato 0 (-) 1 (4) 1 (3) Cucumber 1 (6) 0 (-) 1 (3) Eggplant 0 (-) 1 (4) 1 (2) Total* 17 (100) 27 (100) 44 (100)

Note: *Total number of farmers exceeds that sample size because a household may cultivate two or more crops

The cost structure of rice production by season. For one cropping period, farmers must season is presented in Table 10. Total cash use three to four kinds of fertilizers that are expenditures were VND 19.8 million/ha applied three to four times. Thus, they usually from autumn to winter (August to November, buy fertilizers on credit from sales agents/shops flood season) and VND 20.7 million/ha from in the commune at the beginning of the cropping summer to autumn (April to July), with no season and pay immediately after harvesting. significant difference between the seasons.5 The service fees include tractor operation Fertilizer is the largest component (37%) of (i.e., plowing, harrowing, and leveling), the total cash expenditures, followed by service combine harvester, and irrigation pumping. fees (24–25%), and pesticides (19–20%). These machinery operations are provided These three components sum up to 80 percent mainly as custom hiring because ownership of of total cash expenditures irrespective of the large machines is generally concentrated among a few large-scale farmers (Tsukada 2013).

5 USD 1 = VND 20,825 (31 December 2012) Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 15 No. 2 29

Paddy yields of 7.8 t/ha in winter-spring are over those in winter-spring. This economic significantly higher than those of the other two advantage is one reason why many farmers seasons, autumn-winter (7.3 t/ha), and summer- prefer rice production during the flood season autumn (7.0 t/ha). Paddy prices are lowest (August to November). (VND 4,700/kg) in the high season of winter- Compared to actual profitability in 2012, spring probably because of excessive supply; the simulation adjusting to 2015 prices shows it is significantly highest (VND 5,400/kg) in significant decline, ranging from 40 to 60 the lean period of the flood season (autumn- percent. These are due to a combination of winter), resulting in the highest income and declining paddy price and increasing costs of profit (although not statistically significant) materials and labor (Table 10).

Table 10. Cost structure of rice production by season per hectare

2012 Actual 2015 Price****

Item AW (n=95) WS (n=97) SA (n=96) AW WS SA Aug-Nov Dec-Mar Apr-Jul Aug-Nov Dec-Mar Apr-Jul

Yield (wet paddy) (a)* 7,278a 7,797b 6,993a 7,278 7,797 6,993 (kg/ha) Paddy price (b)* 5,439a 4,702b 4,786b 4,786 4,138 4,212 (VND/kg) Gross output (c = a x b)* 39.59a 36.66b 33.47c 34.83 32.26 29.45 (VND in millions)

Cash expenditure (VND in millions/ha) Seed 1.70 1.73 1.74 1.50 1.52 1.53 Fertilizer 7.31 7.30 7.58 5.70 5.69 5.91 Pesticide 3.89 3.91 3.89 4.67 4.69 4.67 Service fee** 4.72 4.88 5.16 6.70 6.93 7.33 Transportation 1.59 1.52 1.62 2.26 2.16 2.30 Hired labor*** 0.60 0.60 0.75 1.42 0.85 1.07 Total (d)* 19.78a 19.95a 20.74a 22.25 21.84 22.81 Imputed family labor 1.65 1.50 1.65 2.34 2.13 2.34 (e)*** (VND in millions) Income (c - d)* 19.80a 16.71a 12.73b 12.58 10.42 6.64 Profit (c - d - e) 18.15a 15.21a 11.08b 10.24 8.29 4.30

Note: *Means followed by the same letter do not differ statistically (Turkey’s test, p<0.05). **Tractor operation, i.e., plowing, harrowing, and leveling; combine harvest; and irrigation pumping ***Wage rate is VND 150,000/day. ****Values are converted by: 0.88 for paddy and seed of all seasons; 0.78 for fertilizer; 1.20 for pesticide; 1.42 for hired/ family labor, service fee and transportation. Refer to Appendix Table 1. 1 USD = VND 20,825 (December 31, 2012) 30 Shigeki Yokoyama, Le Canh Dung, Hideto Fuji, Yoichi Fujihara, and Keisuke Hoshikawa

Cost structures of the two common upland to avoid problems arising from continuous crops are presented in Table 11. At first glance, cropping. In the case of chili, the land should be both the gross output and profitability per cleaned after harvest in May and left fallow until hectare are strikingly larger than those of rice. the next planting in August. For cucumbers, it is However, rice and upland crops should not be possible to have three harvests per year due to compared on a per hectare basis. In the low- the short cycle (two months) of plant-harvest lying delta, the suitable area for upland crops period (December to May). However, the land is limited; only 5.5 percent of the sample should be left fallow in the remaining period farmers’ land is categorized as upland (Table (June to November). 7). Moreover, large-scale upland operations The simulation results are quite opposite to are not feasible for smallholders because of the those of rice. Both income and profit of chili intensive nature of required material and labor increased by almost 100 percent under 2015 inputs for growing upland crops. Seasonality prices because the effect of crop price increase is another constraint. Even under flood-free (2015/2012=1.52) far exceeds that of the rising conditions, a certain interval is necessary costs (2015/2012=1.2).

Table 11. Cost structure of major upland crops

Chili (n=13) Okra and cucumber mix (n=8) Aug-May*** Dec-May**** Items 2015 2015 2012 Actual 2012 Actual Price***** Price***** Yield (a) (kg/ha) 17,402 17,402 80,069 80,069 Price (b)* (VND/kg) 19,992 30,388 5,063 5,721 Gross output (c = a x b) 347.90 582.81 405.39 458.09 (VND in millions/ha) Cash expenditure (VND in millions/ha) Materials 85.92 91.08 107.55 114.00 Pumping 4.54 6.45 3.96 5.62 Hired labor 48.57 68.97 16.16 22.95 Total cash expenditure (d) 139.03 166.49 127.67 142.57 Imputed family labor (e)** 25.50 36.21 54.00 76.68 (VND in millions/ha) Income (c - d) 208.87 416.32 277.72 315.52 Profit (c - d - e) 183.37 380.11 223.72 238.84

Notes: *Average in the period of Dec 2011 to May 2012 **Wage rate is VND 150,000/day. ***Planting in Aug-Sept, harvest starts in Dec and continues until May, depending on fruit bearing ****Cucumber, three cycles of plant harvest per year as Dec-Jan, Feb-Mar, and Apr-May *****Values are converted by: 1.52 for chili;1.13 for cucumber and okra;1.06 for materials (average of fertilizers and pesticides); 1.42 for hired/family labor, pumping. Refer to Appendix Table 1. 1 USD = VND 20,825 (31 December 2012) Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 15 No. 2 31

However, this price increase effect is not so and 500 percent, respectively (Table 12). remarkable in the case of okra (20%) and The changes in large/small relation of cucumber (6%) mix. The income (profit) profitability between chili and okra-cucumber increases are 14 percent and 7 percent for okra mix is mostly attributed to different rates of and cucumber, respectively (Table 11). increase in commodity prices: chili, 1.52; okra, Considering the limitations of farmland 1.20; and cucumber, 1.06 (Appendix Table 1). conversion from lowland to upland and This study explored the possibility of vegetable market volatility, a simple comparison offering alternative farming systems that will of the crop economy is presented in Table enable flood intake during the flood season, 12. Using the triple rice cropping per year in while achieving profitability equivalent to that 2012 as the benchmark, chili pepper can raise of triple rice cropping. income and profit four-fold. The case of okra A simple simulation was conducted under and cucumber mix is more prominent, showing the following assumptions: (1) it was assumed 3.7 times higher gross output, 5.6 times higher that a model farmer holds 2 ha of paddy field income, and 5.0 times higher profit. The high- (approximate average size of the sample income ratio (69%) of okra and cucumber mix, farms), which can be converted freely to upland with intensive use of family labor, resulted in at any portion (from 0 to 2 ha); (2) converted remarkably high income. upland is free from flooding throughout the However, the scenario changes drastically year—this assumption is realistic when small when 2015 prices are applied. The profitability area of roadside lowland is converted; and (3) of triple rice cropping sharply declined by only double rice cropping (winter-spring and 60 percent in income and 51 percent in profit summer-autumn) is allowed in a paddy field. compared to that of 2012 (actual). On the Based on the income and profit of rice, chili, contrary, both income and profit of chili pepper and a mix of okra and cucumber presented increased up to 800 percent, and those of okra in Tables 10, 11, and 12, economic returns and cucumber mix increased by 600 percent of counterfactual crop combinations were calculated.

Table 12. Relative profitability of rice and upland crops in million VND/ha/year

2012 Actual 2015 Price

Items Okra and Okra and Triple Rice Chili Triple Rice Chili Cucumber Cucumber Gross output (a) 109.72 347.90 405.39 96.54 582.81 458.09 (100) (317) (369) (88) (531) (418) Income (b) 49.24 208.87 277.72 29.64 416.32 315.52 (100) (424) (564) (60) (845) (641) Profit (c) 44.44 183.37 223.72 22.83 380.11 238.84 (100) (413) (503) (51) (855) (537) Income ratio (b/a) 0.45 0.45 0.69 0.31 0.62 0.69 Profit ratio (c/a) 0.41 0.37 0.55 0.24 0.56 0.52 Notes: Summarized from tables 10 and 11 1 USD = VND 20,825 (31 December 2012) 32 Shigeki Yokoyama, Le Canh Dung, Hideto Fuji, Yoichi Fujihara, and Keisuke Hoshikawa

The simulation results are presented in research institute. However, the local farmers Table 13a for income equivalence and in Table did not want the poor to join the project without 13b for profit equivalence. Results show that if contributing any land or capital (Ehlert 2012). a farmer converted only 6 to 10 percent of the Forming collaboration between owner farmers paddy field area into upland and operated double and the landless is a crucial condition for this rice in remaining 84 to 90 percent of paddy community model. Ensuring the same income field, then the equivalent income or profit from of triple rice cropping while allowing the flood that of the triple rice cropping system could be in one cropping season is an economically gained. However, even for small portions such necessary requirement for farmers to meet this as 10 percent or less, it is not so easy for farmers condition. to convert paddy fields into upland and choose a In addition, to alleviate the negative crop mix individually. consequences caused by continuous triple rice Conversion of paddy fields is applicable cropping system in dikes, rice-upland crop only along canals because of topographical rotation system and application of organic conditions and transportation of upland crops. amendments are recommended (Guong and Moreover, the unit of flood control is a dike, so, Hoa 2012). Inland aquaculture and rice-shrimp all the farmers within a certain dike must agree system promise high income opportunity; on the change from triple rice cropping system however, production and price risks are also (full-flood control for all seasons) to double high. Moreover, its high investment cost is not rice cropping system (flood intake in autumn- affordable for many small farmers. From an winter). In addition, close coordination among ecological point of view, rice and aquaculture the communes, which are responsible for sluice systems require large amounts of different gate control, is necessary to achieve integrated qualities of water such as fresh, brackish, and flood management, covering several canal- saline that cause varied pollution impacts as dike systems (Apel et al. 2012). A cooperative well (Renaud and Kuenzer 2012). decision-making mechanism between farmers On the contrary, upland crop cultivation on and local authorities is necessary to turn the small raised beds in combination with paddy abovementioned scenario into reality (Hedelin fields is more suitable for small farmers in 2007; Renaud and Kuenzer 2012; Benedikter terms of minimum requirements for additional and Waibel 2013). investment and dispersed risks. Diversifying In this scenario, no economic activity is agriculture with high-value and labor-intensive proposed during the flood season. However, vegetables provide supplemental income there is a potential to introduce a model opportunities for the landless or near landless of community-based floodplain fishery, farmers. It is evident in the survey villages that exploiting local knowledge. In this model, the payment to hired labor in chili cultivation during the flood season, the farmers can catch (VND 49 million/ha, August to May) and fish collectively in the dike. Long before dike in okra-cucumber mix (VND 16 million/ha, construction, the customary rule entitled poor December to May) are much higher than that in and landless families access to flooded paddy triple rice cropping (VND 2 million/ha, August fields to collect aquatic products for subsistence to November, December to March, April-July) purposes. In 2006, some pilot projects were (Tables 10 and 11). Moreover, chili harvest, implemented in An Giang, Dong Thap, and which lasts for several months, provides Can Tho City by an international NGO in significant job opportunities for rural women cooperation with a Vietnamese aquaculture who have less access to formal job markets. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 15 No. 2 33

The economic advantage of rice-upland crops upland crop cultivation may deplete the soil’s system over triple rice cropping system in organic carbon in the long run, resulting in low the dike system is also reported in the case of productivity and unsustainability (Linh et al. Tien Giang province. However, continuous 2013).

Table 13a. Economic simulation of the two model farms (total income equivalent to triple rice)

2012 Actual 2015 Price Rice + Okra Rice + Okra Rice + Chili Rice + Chili + Cucumber + Cucumber Area (ha) Double rice (WS and SA) 1.78 1.84 1.88 1.84 Upland crop 0.22 0.16 0.12 0.16 Total 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Income (VND in millions) Rice 52.38 54.18 49.49 48.41 Upland crop 46.10 44.30 48.99 50.07 Total 98.48 98.48 98.48 98.48

Notes: Calculated from tables 10, 11, and 12 1 USD = VND 20,825 (31 December 2012)

Table 13b. Economic simulation of the two model farms (total profit equivalent to triple rice)

2012 Actual 2015 Price Rice + Okra Rice + Okra Rice + Chili Rice + Chili + Cucumber + Cucumber Area (ha) Double rice (WS and SA) 1.77 1.82 1.83 1.72 Upland crop 0.23 0.18 0.17 0.28 Total 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Profit (VND in millions) Rice 46.50 47.75 23.00 21.64 Upland crop 42.38 41.13 65.88 67.24 Total 88.88 88.88 88.88 88.88

Notes: Calculated from Tables 10, 11, and 12 1 USD = VND 20,825 (31 December 2012) 34 Shigeki Yokoyama, Le Canh Dung, Hideto Fuji, Yoichi Fujihara, and Keisuke Hoshikawa

Farmers’ Perceptions of Dike Systems SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION In the two survey communes, the period of Farmers in the study site use most of their dike construction was from 1990 to 2012, with farmland for rice production intensively with 64 percent of the dikes constructed from 2000 triple cropping in the full-dike system. Upland to 2009. Most of the sample farmers, 99 out of cropping shares only 4 percent of farmland 101, operate paddy fields in full-dikes, the type cultivated by 38 percent of the farmers. Farmers, that is high and strong enough to make triple rice in general, evaluate the full-dike system cultivation possible. The farmers’ perceptions positively in terms of both agricultural and about dikes are presented in Table 14. Majority living conditions, while some of them recognize (55%) of the respondents are satisfied with the that full flood control might have worsened the dikes’ strength, while 19 percent perceived natural environment due to increased use of those as weak or very weak. fertilizer and pesticide for intensive triple rice As to the farmers’ perceptions about the cropping cultivation. impact of dike on rice production, majority To establish a smart flood control system (71%) did not notice any change, although as an adaptation strategy against expected 4–5 percent of the respondents recognized climate change, the following measures must either a great increase or decrease in the soil’s be undertaken: first, sensitizing farmers to fertility. The evaluation of rice yield is more the increasing climatic risks in the near future diverse. and long-term adverse effects of intensive Almost half (49%) of the respondents triple rice cropping are necessary. Second, perceived no change, while more than a quarter offering alternative environmentally sound and (28%) mentioned a decrease, and the remaining economically profitable farming systems must 24 noted an increase in rice yields. On the other be done. And thirdly, institutional design must hand, majority of the farmers increased the be developed for a well-coordinated gate and use of fertilizers (68%) and pesticides (59%). pumping operations both at dike units and in It is therefore likely that many farmers had to canal network systems. increase the chemical inputs to maintain the rice The results of economic simulation show yield (Table 15). that a combination of 1.78–1.88 ha of double The dikes do not merely function as rice rice cropping and 0.12–0.22 ha of upland crops, production infrastructure but as an important allowing flood intrusion seasonally, can achieve social infrastructure—a road system. Farmers, an equivalent income or profit from a 2 ha of in general, evaluate the impact of dikes on triple rice cropping under flood-free condition. livelihood positively, although 22 percent This diversified and less intensive farming reported that the natural environment worsened. system can be an alternative to the current Majority of the respondents claimed that the intensive triple rice cropping system. It is dikes improved their living conditions with thus recommended to propose this option respect to transportation (85%), access to job to the farmers in the flood-prone area as an opportunities (83%), and residential safety environmentally-sound and economically or convenience (54%). Due to improved viable system. transportation, migration to towns has become easier for 39 percent of the respondents, leading to improved access to emerging urban job markets in Ho Chi Minh City and Can Tho (Garschagen et al. 2012) (Table 16). Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 15 No. 2 35

Table 14. Farmers’ perception of the dike structure

Full-Dike Semi-Dike Total Very weak 7 - 7 Weak 11 1 12 Acceptable 25 1 26 Strong 34 - 34 Very strong 22 - 22 Total 99 2 101

Table 15. Farmers’ perception of the dike’s impact on soil quality and rice production

Soil Fertility Fertilizer Use Pesticide Use Rice Yield Much decreased 5 - - - Decreased - 3 3 28 Unchanged 72 (1) 29 (1) 38 49 (1) Increased 20 (1) 62 (1) 55 (2) 24 (1) Much increased 4 7 5 - Total 101 (2) 101 (2) 101 (2) 101 (2)

Note: Number in parenthesis is the case of semi-dike farmer.

Table 16. Farmers’ perception of dike impact on livelihood

Natural Transporta- Job Migration Residence Environment tion opportunity to Town Much worsened 1 - - - 3 Worsened 21 (1) 2 2 6 - Unchanged 29 (1) 39 (2) 13 (2) 11(2) 59 (2) Improved 42 55 66 83 35 Much improved 8 5 20 1 4 Total 101 (2) 101 (2) 101 (2) 101 (2) 101 (2)

Note: Number in parenthesis is the case of semi-dike farmer. 36 Shigeki Yokoyama, Le Canh Dung, Hideto Fuji, Yoichi Fujihara, and Keisuke Hoshikawa

REFERENCES Bosma, R.H., H.M.J. Udo, J.A.J. Verreth, L.E. Visser, and C.Q. Nam. 2005. “Agriculture Diversification in the Mekong Delta: Farmers’ An Giang DARD (Department of Agricultural and Motives and Contributions to Livelihoods.” Rural Development). “Giá cả nông sản (price Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development of agricultural products and inputs)." Accessed 5 2: 49-66. July 2017. http://sonongnghiep.angiang.gov.vn/ wps/portal/ Bosma, R.H., C.Q. Nam, H.M.J. Udo, and J.A.J. Verreth. 2007. “Assessing Farmers' Motives ———. 2011. Project: Building Irrigation System for Livelihood Diversification in the Mekong Serving for the Third Rice Crop Production in An Delta: Household Life Cycle, Virtual Farm Giang Province until 2015. An Giang Province, Size, and Index of Integration.” In Fishponds in Vietnam (in Vietnamese). Farming Systems, edited by A.J. van der Zijpp, An Giang People Committee. 2010. Decision 740/ J.A.J. Verreth, L.Q. Tri, M.E.F. van Mensvoort, QĐ-UBND: Approval of Project “Construction R.H. Bosma, and M.C.M. Beveridge, 261-270. of Irrigation Systems Serving for Triple Rice Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Press Crop Until 2015 (16 April 2010). (Ủy ban nhân Brocheux, P. 1995. The Mekong Delta: Ecology, dân tỉnh An Giang, 2010. Quyết định 740/QĐ- Economy and Revolution, 1860-1960. UBND ngày 16/4/2010 đề án “xây dựng hệ Monograph No. 12. Madison: University of thống thủy lợi phục vụ phát triển sản xuất vụ 3 Wisconsin, Center for Asian Studies. tỉnh An Giang đến năm 2015.”) (in Vietnamese). Coclanis, P.A., and M.A. Stewart (Eds.). 2011. An Giang Statistical Office. 2013. 2012 Statistical “Precarious Paddies: The Uncertain, Unstable, Yearbook of An Giang Province. An Giang and Insecure Lives of Rice Farmers in the Province, Vietnam. Mekong Delta.” In Environmental Change and ———. 2016. 2015 Statistical Yearbook of An Giang Agricultural Sustainability in the Mekong Delta, Province. An Giang, Vietnam. 103-114. Dordrecht: Springer. Apel, H., N.N. Hung, T.T. Long, and V.K. Tri. Ehlert, J. 2012. “Beautiful Floods: Environmental 2012.“Flood Hydraulics and Suspended Sediment Knowledge and Agrarian Change in the Mekong Transport in the Plain of Reed, Mekong Delta.” Delta, Vietnam.” ZEF Development Studies 19. In The Mekong Delta System: Interdisciplinary Lit Verlag. Analyses of a River Delta, edited by F.G. Renaud Fujii, H., Y. Fujihara, and K. Hoshikawa. 2013. and C. Kuenzer, 221-232. Dordrecht: Springer. “Expansion of Full-Dyke System and its Impact Benedikter, S., and G. Waibel. 2013. “The Formation in Flood-Prone Rice Area in the Mekong Delta.” of Water User Groups in a Nexus of Central Journal of the Japanese Society of Irrigation, Directives and Local Administration in the Drainage and Rural Engineering 81: 271-278 Mekong Delta, Vietnam.” ZEF Working Paper (in Japanese with English summary). 112,32. Bonn: Center for Development Research, Garschagen, M., J.R. Diez, D.K. Nahn, and F. Kraas. University of Bonn. 2012. “Socio-Economic Development in the Berg, H. 2002. “Rice Monoculture and Integrated Rice- Mekong Delta: Between the Prospects for Fish Farming in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam Progress and the Realm of Reality.” In The - Economic and Ecological Considerations.” Mekong Delta System: Interdisciplinary Analyses Ecological Economics 4: 95-107. of a River Delta, edited by F.G. Renaud and C. Kuenzer, 83-132. Dordrecht: Springer. Biggs, D., F. Miller, C.T. Hoanh, and F. Molle. 2009. “The Delta Machine: Water Management in Gerke, S., H.D. Evers, B.T. Cuong, T. Bauer, T., and the Vietnamese Mekong Delta in Historical J. Ehlert. 2012. “Managing Knowledge for the and Contemporary Perspectives.” In Contested Development of the Mekong Delta.” In The Waterscape in the Mekong Region: Hydropower, Mekong Delta System: Interdisciplinary Analyses Livelihoods and Governance, edited by F. Molle, of a River Delta, edited by F. G. Renaud and C. T. Foran, and M. Käkönen, 203-225. London: Kuenzer, 397-422. Dordrecht: Springer. Routledge. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 15 No. 2 37

Guong, V.T., and N.M. Hoa. 2012. “Aquaculture and Nhut, Q.M. 2011. “Efficiency Analysis of Selected Agricultural Production in the Mekong Delta Farming Patterns: The Case of Irrigated and its Effects on Nutrient Pollution and Soil Systems in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam.” and Water.” In The Mekong Delta System: In Environmental Change and Agricultural Interdisciplinary Analyses of a River Delta, Sustainability in the Mekong Delta, edited by edited by F. G. Renaud and C. Kuenzer, 363-393. M.A. Stewart and P. A. Coclanis, 165-180. Dordrecht: Springer. Dordrecht: Springer. Hedelin, B. 2007. “Criteria for the Assessment of OECD (Organization for Economic Development and Sustainable Water Management.” Environmental Cooperation). 2015. “Agricultural Policies in Management 39: 151-163. Viet Nam 2015.” OECD Food and Agricultural Reviews. Paris: OECD Publishing. Hung, N.N., J.M. Delgado, A. Günter, B. Merz, A. Bárdossy, and H. Apel. 2014.“Sedimentation Phong, N.A., N.T.H. Thanh, and V.H. Phuc. 2017. in the Floodplains of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. "Impact of VAT Exemption Policy for Part I: Suspended Sediment Dynamics.” Chemical Fertilizers on Farmers and Domestic Hydrological Processes 28: 3132-3144. Manufacturers in Vietnam." FFTC Agricultural Policy Articles, accessed 21 July 2017, http:// Kakonen, M. 2008.“Mekong Delta at the Crossroads: ap.fftc.agnet.org/ap_db.php?id=762 More Control or Adaptation?” Ambio 37: 205- 212. Renaud, F.G., and C. Kuenzer, eds. 2012. “The Water-Development Nexus: Importance of Kirby, M., and M. Mainuddin. 2009. “Water and Knowledge, Information and Cooperation in the Agricultural Productivity in the Lower Mekong Mekong Delta.” In The Mekong Delta System: Basin: Trends and Future Prospects.” Water Interdisciplinary Analyses of a River Delta 445- International 34:134-143. 458. Dordrecht: Springer. Kono, Y. 2001. “Canal Development and Intensification Sebesvari, Z., H.T.T. Le, P.V. Toan, U. Arnoldm, and of Rice Cultivation in the Mekong Delta: A Case F. G. Renaud. 2012.“Agriculture and Water Study in Can Tho Province, Vietnam.” Southeast Quality in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta.” Asian Studies 39: 70-85. In The Mekong Delta System: Interdisciplinary Linh, T.B., W. Cornelis, S. van Elsacker, and L.V. Analyses of a River Delta, edited by F.G. Renaud Khoa. 2013. “Socio-Economic Evaluation on and C. Kuenzer, 331-361. Dordrecht: Springer. How Crop Rotations on Clay Soils Affect Rice Thanh, N.D., P.T.T. Trinh, and N.T. Tung. 2017. Yield and Farmers’ Income in the Mekong Minimum Wages in Vietnam: Policy Discussion Delta, Vietnam.” International Journal of 06. Vietnam Institute for Economic and Policy Environmental and Rural Development 4-2: 62- Research. 68. Tsukada, K. 2013. “Mechanization of Paddy Cultivation Linh, T.B., S. Sleutel, V.T. Guong, L.V. Khoa, and in Mekong River Delta.” In Agriculture and W. M. Cornelis. 2015. “Deeper Tillage And Rural Development in the Era of Rapid Economic Root Growth in Annual Rice-Upland Cropping Growth in Vietnam, edited by S. Sakata, 59-88. Systems Result in Improved Rice Yield and Chiba-shi: Institute of Developing Economies, Economic Profit Relative to Rice Monoculture.” JETRO (in Japanese). Soil and Tillage Research 154: 44-52. Van Brakel, M., J. Hambrey, and S. Bunding. 2011. Nhan, D.K., N.V. Be, and N.H. Trung. 2007. “Water Use “Mekong-Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture.” and Competition in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam.” Foresight Project on Global Food and Farming In Challenges to Sustainable Development in the Futures. United Kingdom: The Government Mekong Delta: Regional and National Policy Office for Science. Issues and Research Needs, edited by T.T. Be, B.T. Sinh, and F. Miller, 146-188. Stockholm: Vietnam Government. 1996. Decision 99/TTg: Stockholm Environment Institute. Long Term Orientation and Five-Year Plan of Irrigation, Transportation and Rural Construction in the Mekong Delta (9 February 1996). (Quyết định về định hướng dài hạn và kế hoạch 5 năm 1996-2000 đối với việc phát triển thủy lợi, giao thông và xây dựng nông thôn vùng đồng bằng sông Cửu Long) (in Vietnamese). 38 Shigeki Yokoyama, Le Canh Dung, Hideto Fuji, Yoichi Fujihara, and Keisuke Hoshikawa

———. 2009. Decree 63/TTg: Food Security (23 December 2009) (Nghị Quyết 63/TTg về đảm bảo an ninh lương thực, ngày 23/12/2009) (in Vietnamese). ———. 2012. Decision 432 QĐ/TTg: Approval of Vietnam Sustainable Development Strategy for the period of 2011–2020 (12 April 2012) (Quyết định phê duyệt chiến lược phát triển bền vững Việt Nam giai đoạn 2011 – 2020, ngày 12/04/2012) (in Vietnamese). Vietnam National Parliament. 2016. Resolution No. 134/2016/QH13: Adjustment of Land Use Until 2020 and National Land Use Plan for the Period 2016–2020 (9 April 2016) (Nghị quyết về điều chỉnh quy hoạch sử dụng đất đến năm 2020 và kế hoạch sử dụng đất kỳ cuối (2016–2020) cấp quốc gia) (in Vietnamese). Vietnam Red Cross. 2011. “Emerging Crisis In Viet Nam as Mekong Delta Reaches Record Levels.” accessed 20 November 2015. http://www.ifrc. org/en/news-and-media/news-stories/asia- pacific/vietnam/emerging-crisis-in-viet-nam-as- mekong-delta- reaches-record-levels/ World Bank. 2016. “Transforming Vietnamese Agriculture: Gaining More from Less.” Vietnam Development Report. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank Group Xuan, V.T. 1975. “Rice Cultivation in the Mekong Delta.” South East Asian Studies 13:88-111. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 15 No. 2 39

APPENDIX

Table 1. Change in prices of crops and major inputs, An Giang Province, 2012-2015

Unit 2012 2015 2015/2012 Crops (producer price) VND Paddy IR 50404 kg 5,300 4.702 0.89 Paddy OM 2514 kg 5,700 4,960 0.87 Paddy OM 4218 kg 5,550 4,947 0.89 (Paddy average) - - - (0.88) Cucumber kg 4,000 4,249 1.06 Okra kg 4,000 4,803 1.20 (Cucumber and Okra) - - - (1.13) Chili kg 12,000 18,290 1.52 Fertilizer DAP brown (China) kg 14,000 11,048 0.79 NPK Vietnam (20-20-15) kg 14,800 11,842 0.80 Urea (Vietnam) kg 10,500 7,981 0.76 (fertilizer average) - - - (0.78) Pesticide Beam (pack) 100g 72,000 76,484 1.06 Fuan (bottle) 480 ml 40,000 39,720 0.99 Regent 800 WG pack 7,000 8,406 1.20 Validacine 5L China 500 ml 20,000 21,246 1.06 Whip’s (bottle) 100 cc 40,000 67,986 1.70 Padan China pack 10,500 12,193 1.16 (pesticide average) - - - (1.20) (fert. and pest. average) (1.06) Legal minimum wage month 1,400,000 1,986,000 1.42 Region IV

Sources: Crops, fertilizer and chemicals (An Giang DARD 2017) Legal minimum wage (Thanh, Trinh, and Tung 2017)

Notes: Prices of crops, fertilizer, and pesticide in 2015 are linearly interpolated from 2012 to 2017. The study site, the rural area of An Giang Province, is classified under Region IV. All prices are converted to 2012 real price deflated by CPI (consumer price index) ofAn Giang Province, 2015/2012=1.08 (An Giang Statistical Office 2016). 40 Shigeki Yokoyama, Le Canh Dung, Hideto Fuji, Yoichi Fujihara, and Keisuke Hoshikawa