Working Paper 2004-09
Implementation of Poverty Reduction Policies in Ethnic Minority Regions in
Vietnam: Evidence form CBMS
Vu Tuan Anh
December 2004
Vu Tuan Anh, Vietnam Insitute of Economics, Vietnam
IDRC photo: N. McKee
This work was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC)-funded Poverty and Economic Policy (PEP) research network [www.pep-net.org]. Implementation of poverty reduction policies in ethnic minority regions in Vietnam: Evidence from CBMS
VU TUAN ANH Socio-Economic Development Centre Hanoi, Vietnam
December, 2004 Implementation of poverty reduction policies in ethnic minority regions in Vietnam: Evidence from CBMS
Vu Tuan Anh Socio-Economic Development Centre (SEDEC) Hanoi, Vietnam
Introduction
Vietnam is a multy-nation country. In addition to Kinh (Viet) people occupying 85% of the whole country, there are other 53 ethnic groups with 15% of the whole population that are called ethnic minority groups. Most of the ethnic minority population is living in mountainous areas and far away from main highways. Production activities are in extreme difficulties due to hard climate, bad soil and terrain. Thus, this leads to low socio-economic development and education among these areas. Language is viewed as a barrier. People’s income is low, accompanied with poor entitlements to social services such as education, healthcare. Poverty incidence is considerably higher in mountainous, remote and far-flung areas than that of the national average level. Poverty reduction is prioritized in the socio-economic development strategy of Vietnam. In poverty reduction policies and programs, the Vietnamese government noted an emphasis on the extremely poor regions and ethnic minority groups. This paper is foccused on the following: - Reviewing the governmen’s poverty reduction policies toward ethnic minorities. - Analyzing and evaluating impacts of poverty reduction policies on ethnic minority groups. - On that basis, make recommendations for improving poverty reduction policies and measures in ethnic minority regions. This paper consists of 3 parts: - Part 1 presents the research methodology. - Part 2 gives an overview of ethnic minorities in Vietnam and analyzes the poverty status. - Part 3 reviews governmental policies that aim to promote poverty reduction among ethnic groups and evaluates the implementation of concerned policies, as well as its actual impacts on ethnic people over the last five years.
2 Part 1: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The following are different methods applied in the research: (1) Review of existing materials and analysis of secondary data concerned. There are several studies on poverty reduction in ethnic minority regions available in some last years (see Reference). Issues on poverty reduction in regions of ethnic minorities have been launched in numbers of conferences and workshops. A couples of surveys in the national scale conducted by General Statistic Office (GSO), namely Vietnam Population and Housing Census (1999), Survey on infrastructures in rural communes (2000), Household Living Standard Surveys (1993, 1998, 2002) have also figured out the context of poverty reduction in ethnic minority regions. (2) Quantitative research: The assessment of poverty status and evaluation of implementation of poverty reduction policies requires quantitative data. Compiled statistics and outputs of surveys launched by GSO and several agencies and researchers have been viewed rich, but lacked a sufficient overview on different aspects of life of ethnic minority groups. In the previous studies were deprived of basic data of separated ethnic groups. Data of some large regions or provinces, where ethnic minorities are living, is used prevalently to be taken as arguments for general conclusion and remarks on the context of “ethnic minority regions”. Several other studies relied on the Living Standard Surveys in 1993 and 1998 and made comparison between Kinh-Hoa group and the rest of other ethnic minority groups. The number of samples of ethnic minority households unfortunately was inconsiderable. Therefore, in the very real sense, the comparison failed to benefit policies 1. The data set of the Vietnam Household Living Standard Survey in 2002 (VLSS 2002), in which 75,000 households were probed, should have been sufficient to a survey on several main ethnic minority groups by provinces and regions. Unfortunately, it still has been in the pipeline due to time constraints. In the framework of the IDRC-sponsored research project “Poverty Monitoring in Vietnam” (MIMAP-Vietnam project), we have implemented the community-based poverty monitoring survey approach (CBMS) in several pilot sites. In 2002, the MIMAP-Vietnam project have collaborated with the Managing Office of the National Programm for Hunger Eradication and Poverty Reduction to implement CBMS in 20 villages which will be considered as regular poverty observatories. Results of annual community-based poverty surveys will be served as effective tools for policy adjustment and for more implementation of the poverty reduction strategy and plans. In addition, CBMS has been piloted in two provinces with 40 surveyed communes 2. In this study, we use the CBMS data collected in observatory communes in 2003 in the whole country. Among surveyed communes, with the number of 100-200 households selected at random each commune; we selected several communes with the high
1 Actually, the comparison did not reflect the reality and thus no appropriate conclusion or recommendations were drawn. This is attributed to different social development, education level and living standards. The combination of Kinh and Hoa was not persuasive, particularly in terms of socio- economic difference between the two groups. Besides, such ethnic groups as Thai, Tay, Nung that have the same conditions to Kinh’s people in several faucets were combined with other ethnic groups. 2 In Hatay Province (in the Red River Delta), 30 communes have been selected as representative samples for more than 300 communes in the province. In Yenbai province (in the Northern Mountainous Region), 10 communes have been selected among120 communes in the province.
3 population of different ethnic minority groups, with the effort to the fulfillment of the study. The major ethnic groups such as Tay, Thai, Muong, Khmer, Mong, Dao, Gia rai, Ede, Coho, Xodang were all probed in the CBMS samples. Some smaller ones namely Giay, Sandiu, Bru-Vankieu ethnic groups were also included. Surveyed communes are distributed at any place where these ethnic groups are inhabiting: Northwest, Northeast, North Central, South Central, the Central Highlands, and the Mekong Delta. Survey data were available at two levels: communes and households. The Kinh people living in the same communes were also surveyed and taken for comparison with ethnic minorities. The total is 17 communes with 1985 households, 10,932 people of 15 ethnic groups. Communes listed to be surveyed in the quantitative study: Communes Districts Provinces Nationalities 1 Chieng Bom Thuan Chau Son La Thai 2 Chieng Kheo Mai Son Son La Thai 3 Cam Giang Bach Thong Bac Can Tay, Kinh 4 Yen Cu Cho Moi Bac Can Tay, Dao, Kinh 5 Hai Yen Cao Loc Lang Son Nung 6 Sa Pa Sa Pa Lao Cai Mong, Kinh 7 Ban Xeo Bat Xat Lao Cai Dao, Giay, Kinh 8 Nam Loong Tam Duong Lai Chau Mong, Giay, Kinh, Thai 9 Tan Vinh Luong Son Hoa Binh Muong, Kinh 10 Thach Dong Thach Thanh Thanh Hoa Muong, Kinh 11 Ban Dat Phu Binh Thai Nguyen San Diu, Kinh 12 Tham Don My Xuyen Soc Trang Kho me, Kinh 13 Ia dok Duc Co Gia Lai Gia Rai, Kinh 14 Ea drong Cu Mga Dac Lac Ede, Kinh 15 Ngoc Wang Dac Ha Kon Tum Xo dang 16 Loc Nam Bao Lam Lam Dong Co ho, Kinh 17 Huong Hiep Dac Krong Quang Tri Bru-Vankieu, Kinh The total number of surveyed households, classified by nationalities: 1. Kinh 462 9. San diu 52 2. Tay 154 10. Giay 88 3. Thai 235 11. Gia rai 82 4. Muong 160 12. Ede 100 5. Nung 102 13. Xodang 99 6. Mong 138 14. Bru-Vankieu 96 7. Khmer 77 15. Co ho 67 8. Dao 73 (3) Qualitative research: Beside the quantitative study, field trips were taken in several localities. The following works have been done: (a) Interview and group discussion with representatives of provincial, district and commune agencies and mass organisations. (b) In-depth interview of some poor households of ethnic minorities.
4 Part 2: POVERTY OF ETHNIC MINORITIES IN VIETNAM
2.1. Overview on ethnic minorities in Vietnam: 2.1.1. Population Vietnam is a multi-nation country. According to the list of ethnicity, announced by Vietnamese Government, there are 54 different ethnic groups inhabiting Vietnam, in which the Kinh people is majority, other 53 ethnic minorities only account for nearly 15 percent of Vietnam's total population. The Vietnam Population and Housing Census in 1999 released that there were 10.53 million ethnic minorities in Vietnam. As estimated, at present, the population of ethnic minorities is about 12 million. The chart below arranges the population of all the ethnics decreasingly, basing on the Vietnam Population and Housing Census on 1/4 /1999, ratio of each ethnic of the country population, and residential area (province).( Table 2.1).
Table 2.1: Population (on 1/4/1999) and residential areas of 54 ethnics
Ethnic Population % in total Residential areas (people) country’s population Whole 76,323,173 100.00 country 1 Kinh 65,795,718 86.207 All provinces 2 Tay 1,477,514 1.936 Mountainous provinces in Northeast, and Central Highlands. 3 Thai 1,328,725 1.741 Mountainous provinces in North-West, Thanh Hoa, Nghe An, Central Highlands 4 Muong 1,137,515 1.490 Phu Tho, Hoa Binh, Thanh Hoa 5 Khmer 1,055,174 1.383 Tra Vinh, Soc Trang, Can Tho, Hau Giang, Vinh Long. 6 Hoa 862,371 1.130 Big cities, mountainous provinces in Northeast. 7 Nung 856,412 1.122 Mountainous provinces in Northeast, and Central Highlands. 8 Mong 787,604 1.032 Mountainous provinces in North Eastern, North-West, Central Highlands, Nghe An. 9 Dao 620,538 0.813 Mountainous provinces in Northeast, Northe-West, Central Highlands. 10 Gia rai 317,557 0.416 Gia Lai, Kon Tum, Dac Lac, Dac Nong 11 E de 270,348 0.354 Gia Lai, Dac Lac, Dac Nong, Phu Yªn 12 Ba na 174,456 0.229 Gia Lai, Kon Tum, Binh Dinh 13 San chay 147,315 0.193 Moutainous provinces in Northeast.
5 14 Cham 132,873 0.174 Ninh Thuan, Binh Thuan, An Giang 15 Co ho 128,723 0.169 Lam Dong, Binh Thuan 16 Xodang 127,148 0.167 Quang Ngai, Quang Nam, Kon Tum 17 San diu 126,237 0.165 Quang Ninh, Bac Giang, Vinh Phuc, Phu Tho, Thai Nguyen, Tuyen Quang 18 Hre 113,111 0.148 Quang Ngai 19 Rag lai 96,931 0.127 Lam Dong, Binh Thuan 20 Mnong 92,951 0.122 Dac Lac, Dac Nong, Lam Dong 21 Tho 68,394 0.090 Nghe An, Thanh Hoa 22 Xtieng 66,788 0.088 Binh Phuoc, Dong Nai 23 Kho mu 56,542 0.0741 Son La, Lai Chau, Nghe An 24 Bru – 55,559 0.0728 Quang Tri, Thua Thien – Hue Vankieu 25 Co tu 50,458 0.0661 Quang Nam, Thua Thien – Hue 26 Giay 49,098 0.0643 Lao Cai, Yen Bai, Ha Giang 27 Ta oi 34,960 0.0458 Quang Tri 28 Ma 33,338 0.0437 Lam Dong, Binh Phuoc 29 Gie trieng 30,243 0.0396 Quang Ngai, Quang Nam, Kon Tum 30 Co 27,766 0.0364 Quang Ngai, Quang Nam 31 Cho ro 22,567 0.0296 VND Nai 32 Xinh mun 18,018 0.0236 Lai Chau, Son La 33 Ha nhi 17,535 0.0230 Lai Chau, Lao Cai 34 Chu ru 14,978 0.0196 Lam Dong, Binh Thuan 35 Lao 11,611 0.0152 Moutainous provinces in Northwest, Thanh Hoa. 36 La chi 10,765 0.0141 Ha Giang 37 Khang 10,272 0.0135 Lai Chau, Son La 38 Phu la 9,046 0.0119 Moutainous provinces in Northeast. 39 La hu 6,874 0.0090 Lai Chau 40 La ha 5,686 0.0074 Lai Chau, Son La 41 Pa then 5,569 0.0073 Tuyen Quang 42 Lu 4,964 0.0065 Lai Chau 43 Ngai 4,841 0.0063 Lang Son, VND Nai 44 Chut 3,829 0.0050 Quang Binh 45 Lo lo 3,307 0.0043 Cao Bang, Ha Giang, Lao Cai 46 Mang 2,663 0.0035 Lai Chau 47 Co lao 1,865 0.0024 Ha Giang 48 Bo y 1,864 0.0024 Ha Giang, Lao Cai
6 49 Cong 1,676 0.0022 Lai Chau 50 Si la 840 0.0011 Lai Chau 51 Pu peo 705 0.0009 Ha Giang 52 Ro mam 352 0.0005 Kon Tum 53 Brau 313 0.0004 Kon Tum 54 O du 301 0.0004 Nghe An
Source: General Statistic Office- Vietnam Population and Housing Census 1999.
As the table above, the population of ethnic minorities in Vietnam is not equal. The most populated ethnic minority is Tay with 1.5 million people, and the least one has only several hundred people. - There are only 4 ethnic minorities which has more than 1 million people (Tay, Muong, Thai, Khmer) - There are 13 ethnic minorities, which has population ranging from 100 thousand to 1 million. - There are 19 ethnic minorities, which have population ranging from 10 thousand to 100 thousand. - There are 12 ethnic minorities, which have population ranging from 1.5 to 10 thousand. - There are 5 ethnic minorities, which have less than 1000 people. Especially, there are 3 ethnic minorities, which has only about 300 people (Odu, Brau, Romam).
2.1.2. Settlement Most ethnic minorities live in mountainous areas and highlands. There are only 3 ethnic minorities mainly living in plain areas, which are Hoa, Cham, and Khmer. Because of the obstacles and difficult to access residential areas, and difficulties in the transportation development, ethnic minorities are now standing isolatedly, which leads to the difficulties in social and economic problems of ethnic minorities. Ethnic minorities live in almost all provinces in Vietnam; however, they populate densely in only some areas, which are Northwest, Northeast, mountainous areas in North Central part, South Central part, and Central Highlands. Cham people live in South Central part (Ninh Thuan, Binh Thuan), and Khmer people live in the Mekong River Delta. Here is some information about the settlement of ethnic minorities: (1) North-West Region has 4 provinces: Hoa Binh, Son La, Lai Chau, and Dien Bien. In this 4 provinces there are high rate of ethnic minorities in comparison with the province’s population (from 72% to 85%). In all the region, ethnic minorities account for 79.2 percent of the region’s total population, and 16.8 percent of all the population of ethnic minorities in Vietnam. This is the region of the highest mountainous area and also region with the most difficulties in the country. Thai ethnic group is major in this region. They make up about 32.2 percent of the region’s population, and about 54 percent of all the Thai people in Vietnam. In Son La province, Thai is major people, which account for 55 percent of the province’s total
7 population. In Lai Chau province, Thai account for 35 percent of the population of the province. Muong people accounts for 24.8 percent of the total population of the region. There are about 48.5 percent of all Muong people in Vietnam. In Hoa Binh province, Muong is major ethnic, and account for more than 63 percent of the province’s population. There are also some ethnics living in this area, such as Mong (13% of area, 36.7% of all Mong people in country), Dao (3.1% of area, 11.1% of all Dao people in country). (2) North-East Region consists of 11 provinces. Ethnic minorities account for 41.3 percent of total population of the region, and 34.6 percent of all ethnic minorities in Vietnam. There is a big gap among provinces in terms of ratio of population of ethnic minorities, socio-economic development, and living standard of the people. Cao Bang, Ha Giang, Bac Can, Lang Son, Lao Cai are provinces that have high rate of poplation of ethnic minorities (67%-95%). Yen Bai and Tuyen Quang provinces has more than 50% population who are compatriots of ethnic minorities. Thai Nguyen, Phu Tho, Bac Giang and Quang Ninh provinces are low mountain and midland, so there are also lower ratio of compatriots of ethnic minorities, from 11% to 25%. There are also some other ethnics living in this region, such as Tay (15% of the region’s population, 90% of all Tay people in Vietnam), Nung (8% and 85%), Dao (6% and 84%), Mong (5% and 57%). Similar to Thai, Muong in Northwest area, Tay and Nung people live mainly in lowlands, near water source, and valleys. They cultivate on similar way as Kinh people do. The natural conditions in Northeast mountainous areas are better than in Northwest mountainous areas. However, residents in high mountains in northern frontier provinces such as Lao Cai, Yen Bai, Ha Giang, Cao Bang and Bac Can provinces, especially some tribesmen living in high mountains and remote areas are now living and farming in a very difficult condition. (3) North Central Part Region: 6 provinces from Thanh Hoa to Thua Thien-Hue. Ethnic minorities, who are living in third region, are mainly Mong, Thai, Kho Mu, and Muong. They account for 10.6 percent of total population of the area, and about 10 percent of all the ethnic minorities in Vietnam. Thanh Hoa and Nghe An provinces have relatively 16% and 14% of total population who are ethnic minorities, however they live scatteredly in many suburban districts. There is about 10% of Quang Tri province’s population who are ethnic minorities. The number of Thai people who live in two provinces Thanh Hoa and Nghe An, account for about 37 percent of all Thai people in Vietnam. In Thanh Hoa province, Muong people make up nearly 30 percent of all Muong people. Tho is a small ethnic, with only 70 thousand people, 95% of them are now living in Nghe An and Thanh Hoa provinces. Similarly, Bru-Van Kieu ethnic has only 55 thousand people, and most of them (95%) are living in Quang Binh and Quang Tri provinces. (4) South Central Part Region: 6 provinces. There are 12 groups of ethnic minorities live alternatively in this region. They are Hore, Raglai, Xtieng, Bru-Van Kieu, Cotu, Taoi, Gie-Trieng, Chut, and Cham. Although, ethnic minorities in this region only comprise 5,5 percent of total area’s population, and nearly 3 percent of all population of ethnic minorities in all country, they gather in some areas.
8 98% of Hore, 33-36% of Xodang and Raglai, 15-16% of Cham and Mnong are now living in this region. (5) Central Highland Region: There are 5 provinces: Dac Lac, Dac Nong, Gia Lai, Kon tum, and Lam Dong. There are about 40 ethnic minorities in this region, 12 of them are local ethnic minorities: Gia rai, Ede, Bana, Xodang, Mnong, Gie-Trieng, Ma, Chu-Ru, Raglai, Coho, Brau, Romam. About 10 years ago, some ethnic minorities immigrated from North to Central Highlands, which diversified the ethnical structure in this region; though the number of emigrants is not too large. Ethnic minorities in this region only account for 33 percent of the total population in this region and about 13 percent of all ethnic minorities in Vietnam. (6) The Mekong River Delta: In this region, the most crowded ethnic minorities are Khmer people (97% of all Khmer), and Hoa (23% of all Hoa). Cham people also live in this region, mainly in An Giang province (12.5 thousand people, 10% of all Cham people). There are few people of ethnic minorities live in Red River Delta and Southeast Regions. 99 percent of Red River Delta population, and 91,5 percent of population of South East Region is Kinh people. More than 50 percent of 1 million ethnic minorities in Southeast Region is Hoa people, the rest are Khmer and some other ethnic minorities emigrated from North to Dong Nai, Binh Phuoc and Binh Duong provinces, etc. Totally, in these two regions, there are about 10 percent of all ethnic minorities in Vietnam. The proportion of ethnic minorities varies from province to province. Particular as follows (Population Census in 1999): - 11 provinces with the highest rate of ethnic minorities - more than 50 percent of total population. - 7 provinces with rate of ethnic minorities ranging from 20% to 50% - 9 provinces: 10%-20% - 7 provinces: 5%-10% - 13 provinces: 1%-5% - 14 provinces: under 1%
9 Table 2.2: Proportion of ethnic minorities in provinces( in 1/4/1999)
Province Ethnic % of Province Ethnic % of minorities population minoritie population s Country 10,527,455 13.79 Binh Thuan 72,457 6.92 Cao Bang 467,379 95.32 Quang Nam 93,100 6.78 Ha Giang 529,551 87.89 Phu Yen 40,271 5.12 Bac Can 238,578 86.70 An Giang 103,380 5.06 Lang Son 587,718 83.50 Khanh Hoa 47,805 4.63 Lai Chau 488,488 83.14 Thua Thien – Hue 38,704 3.70 Son La 728,431 82.58 Vinh Phuc 36,650 3.36 Hoa Binh 546,861 72.27 Can Tho 58,901 3.26 Lao Cai 397,475 66.87 Ba Ria – Vung Tau 23,880 3.00 Kon Tum 168,535 53.64 Binh Duong 20,951 2.92 Tuyen Quang 350,141 51.78 Ca Mau 31,802 2.84 Yen Bai 341,993 50.36 Vinh Long 27,190 2.69 Gia Lai 421,902 43.63 Ninh Binh 18,831 2.13 Soc Trang 407,007 34.72 Binh Dinh 28,985 1.98 Tra Vinh 301,802 31.21 Quang Binh 14,761 1.86 Dac Lac 530,241 29.78 Tay Ninh 16,316 1.69 Thai Nguyen 259,003 24.76 Ha Tay 29,369 1.23 Lam Dong 228,629 22.91 Ha Noi 16,623 0.62 Ninh Thuan 110,979 21.98 Da Nang 3,927 0.57 Binh Phuoc 125,958 19.26 Ben Tre 5,761 0.44 Thanh Hoa 568,996 16.41 Tien Giang 5,733 0.36 Phu Tho 183,700 14.56 Long An 3,868 0.30 Kien Giang 216,047 14.43 Hai Duong 4,198 0.25 Nghe An 381,416 13.34 Dong Thap 3,690 0.24 Bac Giang 177,801 11.91 Hai Phong 2,294 0.14 Quang Ngai 137,960 11.59 Bac Ninh 1,182 0.13 Quang Ninh 111,609 11.11 Ha Nam 973 0.12 Bac Lieu 80,979 11.02 Thai Binh 1,197 0.07 HCM City 460,189 9.14 Ha Tinh 847 0.07 Quang Tri 51,893 9.06 Hung Yen 679 0.06 Dong Nai 171,075 8.59 Nam Dinh 794 0.04
10 2.1.3. Socio-economic characteristics of ethnic minorities:
Ethnologists stated some characteristics of ethnic minorities in Vietnam as follows (Dang Nghiem Van (1994), Be Viet Dang (1995), Bui Minh Dao (2003)): • The population scale of each ethnic is far different from others’. • Settlement: Ethnic minorities are now living in mountain villages and communes alternately. The situation of many ethnic minorities living together in the same villages, the same communes are popular. In recent years, there have been the emigrations inside provinces, inside districts, inside communes, which have encouraged the cultural interference, and economic integration among ethnic minorities. • Solid relationship and unity: Thanks to conducting the solid and equal ethnic policy consistently from 1945, in Vietnam, there have not been any ethnical discrimination, and ethnical confliction among ethnic minorities, or between ethnic minorities with ethnic majorities. Different ethnics living in the same area are always equal in politic and social relation. Moreover, they always help each other to live and earn money. • Some small-scale ethnic minorities live in remote areas, in high mountains so they have higher isolation level than some large-scale ethnics, who live in lowlands, such as Kinh, Tay, Nung, Thai, Muong. • Clearly unequal economic development among some specific ethnic minorities. - Cham, Khmer people live in plain. They cultivate wet rice, so they have the same working condition and infrastructure as Kinh has. - Tay, Nung, Thai, Muong also cultivate wet rice with level as high as Kinh. However, in some areas, the economy is still self-producing, and self-supporting. They have not yet developed non-agricultural industry. So, their living standard is not high. - Some ethnic minorities have market-oriented economy. They plant coffee, rubber, pepper, sugar, and fruit trees with intensive cultivation. They are Ede, Gia rai, Co ho, Ma in Central Highlands, and Tay, Nung, Muong in North. However, some other fields of the development such as education, health…are not as good as people in plain have. - Ethnic minorities live in high mountains where there is few farming area. So they mainly cultivate on mountainsides to self-support their families’ need. Because of geographical isolation, they are not satisfied with many basic needs such as education, health, and information3. Each ethnic minority has its own unique culture. Traditional culture, customs have a decisively role in economic and community development. Each ethnic minority’s
3 Basing on geographical positions and other general characteristics of socio-economic development, State Committee for Ethnic Minorities and Mountainous Areas defined 3 development areas: I, II, and III. Area level III is very difficult, so they need favorable policies to eliminate poverty. Now, there are 2325 communes in this area. Area level II is in better condition than Area level III, however there is still high risk of poverty. Area level I includes plains, and urban areas. This way of diversify was proposed in 1996; some criteria are now no longer suitable, but State Committee for Ethnic Minorities and Mountainous Areas still base on this diversification to implement policies. However, they are trying to reform it at this moment.
11 culture presents clearly where its people live. The socio-economic development of North Eastern has been influenced by Tay-Nung culture. The way of cultivate and organize communication of many communities in North West have the characteristics of Thai culture. Truong Son mountain and Central Highlandsare now preserving the cultures of Ede, Gia rai, Bana, Coho which have the characteristics of commune, not having rich and poor class. Thus, all policies in general, and poverty reduction policy in particular should pay much attention on the characteristics of ethnics’ culture, then they can run effectively, and can be accepted by communities.
2.2. Poverty of ethnic minorities
2.2.1. Overview In the last 10 years, Vietnam’s economy have gained high growing rate, from 7%-8% a year, which contribute to reduce the poverty ratio. According to the result of Vietnam Household Living Standard Survey (VHLSS), which based on the poverty line including all expenditures, i.e. food ration with 2100 kilo cal a day and about 40 percent of non-food expense4, poverty rate has reduced from 58,1% in 1993 to 37,4% in 1998, to 28,9% in 2002, and to about 25% in 2003. Food poverty rate, that includes only food expenditures, also has reduced from 24.9% in 1993 to 15.0% in 1998, to 10.9% in 2002, and to 9% in 2003. According to the poverty line, that is based on monthly per capita income, announced by MOLISA, and was used to calculate the number of the poorest people who will be helped by the government, the poverty rate has reduced from 30% in 1992 to 17.7% in 1997, and to 10% in 2000. In 2001, this poverty line was raised, so the poverty rate in 2001 was 17.2%, and reduced to 11% in 2003. Chart 2.1: VHLSS poverty rate (%)
58.1 Overall Poverty Food Poverty
37.4 28.9 24.9 15 10.9
1993 1998 2002
Source: GSO – VHLSS 1992, 1998, 2002.
4 Expenditure per capita was 1,2 million VND in 1993, 1,8 million VND in 1998, and nearly 2 million VND in 2003.
12 Chart 2.2. MOLISA poverty rate
23.1 20.3 19.2 17.7 17 15.7 14 13 11 10 9
'94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04
Chart 2.3.: VLLS overall poverty rate in areas
Mekong river delta 47.1 36.9 23.4 Red river delta 62.723.4 29.3 22.4 Mekong river delta 36.9 Southeast region 37 12.2 10.647.1
51.8 Central Highlands 52.4 70
Southern central 25.2 34.5 region 47.2
Northern cental 43.9 48.1 region 74.5
Northeast 38.4 62 mountainous region 86.1
Northwest 68 73.4 mountainous region 81
28.9 Vietnam 37.4 58.1
0 20406080100
1993 1998 2002
Source: GSO – VLSS 1992, 1998, 2002
However, the rate of poverty reduction is not equal among regions in the country (Chart 2.3). According to VLSS, in a period of 10 years from 1993-2002, in Northeast Region, the poverty rate reduce 55%, while in Central Highlands, it only reduce 26%; and in Northwest Region, the poverty ratio reduce very little, only 16%5.
5 Because the number of survey sample was too few, only 4000 household in all coutry, so the data about poverty rate of VLSS 1993 is not reliable. Northwest region is always known as the poorest area in
13 The data about poverty reduction rate in two year, 2003 in comparison with 2001, which was announced by MOLISA, stated that the poverty ratio in Northwest Region reduced more slowly than other regions, although the speed of reduction was rather equal between regions and the Northwest region reduced 45%, Northeast Region and Central Highlands reduced 48%. However, the above data seem to be not reliable, since only in two years, the poverty rate of those regions reduced nearly a half (Chart 2.4). Chart 2.4: Poverty rate by MOLISA
34.0
25.6 24.9 22.4 22.2 17.2 18.6 14.2 14.2 11.6 13.0 8.8 10.4 9.8 8.9 8.0 6.5 3.0
Vietnam Northwest Northeast Northern Southern Central Mekong Red river Southeast region region Central Central highlands reiver delta delta region
2001 2003
Source: National Office of NTP on HEPR and Employment, MOLISA, 2004.
2.2.2. Poverty rate and poverty tendency in ethnic minorities In recent years, MOLISA, State Committee for Ethnic Minorities, Council forEthnic Issues of the National Assembly, many policy-maker organizations, research institutes, and the reports from some provinces have pointed out the poverty state-alarm of residents of ethnic minorities in Vietnam. Although there were many different data which used to evaluate 6, we can easily see that the speed of poverty reduction of almost country, however the poverty rate of Northeast region in 1993 survey was higher than Northwest region poverty rate (86% and 81%). 6 A report of the Managing Office of HEPR&JC in 2002 has assessed that poverty rate of thnic minorities was higher than poverty rate of Kinh people at 6% to 10%. A sample survey conducted by MOLISA in November 2001 in Yen Bai Province showed the poverty rates of different ethnic groups as follows: Dao 51.27%, Nung 33.55%, other ethnic minorities 35.22% (Managing Office of HEPR&JC - "Some problems of poverty reduction in regions of ethnic minorities”. Paper presented at the workshop on “Poverty reduction in regions of ethnic minorities”, organised by the National Centre for Social Sciences and Humanities in march 2002 in Hanoi). A survey conducted by the National Asemble’s Council for Ethnic Issues in 11 mountainous provinces in 1998-1999 showed also that the poverty rate of ethnic minorities as double higher than the national rate. While the national poverty rate was 23.8% in that time, the poverty rate of Mong ethnic group in Ha Giang provinve was 51.7%, of Dao group in Ha Giang province was 39%, of M’nong group in Dac Lac province was 67.1%, and of Odu group in Nghe An province was 64.3%. (the National Asemble’s Council for Ethnic Issues, 10th session – "Policies and legal system of CPV and Vietnam’s State towards ethnics”. Publisher of Ethnic Culture. Hanoi, 2000). The research project coded KX04-05 conducted by the State Committee for Etnic Minorities in 2000 estimated that the poverty rate of ethnic minoroties was 1.5 to 2.5 times higher than that of Kinh group. In comparison to poverty rate of Kinh group, the poverty rate of Tay group was 1.5 times higher, that of Dao group was 2 times and that of Mong group was 2.5 times higher. (Ha Que Lam – “Poverty reduction in regions of ethnic minorities: Status and solutions” Publisher “National Politics”. Hanoi, 2002).
14 all ethnic minorities - usually small scale ethnics, living in difficult geographical, and climatic conditions - are more slowly than the speed of poverty reduction of Kinh and other ethnic minorities as Tay, Nung, Muong, Thai. It is more difficult to reduce the poverty rate of residents of ethnic minorities than to reduce the poverty rate of Kinh. Thus, the process of reducing poverty for residents of ethnic minorities needs a comprehensive system of policies and measurements. If poverty is eliminated slowly, the rate of residents of ethnic minorities of all the poor will increase. Analyzing expenditure data of 30.000 households in VLSS 2002, experts of the World Bank pointed out some remarks about the poverty of ethnic minorities as follows: • The level of expense per capita of ethnic minorities households is 13% lower than Kinh or Hoa (community and household characteristics are the same). • In general, ethnic minorities very poor. However, the poverty rate is very different among ethnic groups. (Chart 2.5). • In general, more than 50 percent of residents of ethnic minorities are now living under the poor level. • The proportion of residents of ethnic minorities in total number of the poor increased from 20% in 1993 to over 30% in 2002. The rate of residents of ethnic minorities in all the poor who were classified basing on food poverty line, increased from under 30% in 1993 to 53% in 2002. The experts of World Bank also estimated that, by 2010, about 37 percent of the poor will be the residents of ethnic minorities, while they will be account for only 13 percent of total population. 49 percent of total people, whose expense is under food poverty level, will be ethnic minorities. • Some welfare indicators of ethnic groups such as education, health care, public health services are dramatically lower than Kinh. Chart 2.5: The poverty rate of ethnic minorities in 2002
120 Overall Poverty 100 Food Poverty 80
60
40
20
0
e i o o e ng ai ng Hoa Tay m Da o h r o Kinh Nung Tha u E d Co Gia M Ba na Kho M
Source: " Vietnam development report 2004: Poverty". General reports of sponsors in Consultant Meeting of Vietnamese sponsors, Hanoi, 2-3/12/2003. Note: The poverty rate is only counted for ethnic minorities which has at least 100 observations in VHLSS 2002.
15 From the above considerations, experts of World Bank concluded that in this decade, the poverty in Vietnam connect closely with ethnic minorities. Our survey result of 17 communes showed the big difference in the poverty rate among ethnic minorities (Chart 2.6). Similar to the result of VLSS 2002, the poverty ratio among ethnic minorities is ten times difference. While the poverty rate for total sample, which is calculated basing on the MOLISA’s poverty line of 80.000 VND per capita a month, is 31%; the lowest poverty rate is only 2% (Nung, San diu), the highest poverty rate is 90%(Gia rai). If we calculate the poverty rate basing on VLSS’s poverty line (160.000 VND per capita in a month - 2003), the lowest poverty rate is 17-21% (Nung, San diu), and the highest is 97%(Co ho, Gia rai). Kinh people who live together with residents of ethnic minorities, have the poverty rate basing on two above poverty lines relatively 14% and 36%. Kinh ethnic has the highest average income, however, since the difference among household is large so the household poverty rate is still higher than Nung ethnic and San Diu ethnic groups.
Chart 2.6: Average income and poverty rates of 15 ethnic minorities in 17 surveyed communes in 2003
120 350000
97 97.6 300000 100 91.5 78.1 78.1 78.4 250000 80 71.1 73.2 66.2 200000 60 51.3 53.9 53.7 48 47.9 150000 37.4 40 36 36.4 30.1 28.4 100000 21.2 25.5 25.9 23.2 17.6 19.5 20 14.1 14.3 50000 2 1.9 2 0 0
y o a ai a ho rai ung inh T h D N K E de T Kieu Giay o ia an diu Mong C G S e dang Kho me Muong an X V
<80000 <160000 Average income
Taking into considerations of the disparity in poverty rate of ethnic minorities, something should be relieved • In areas where many ethnic minorities live together, Kinh’s poverty ratio is not higher than other ethnic minorities as Tay, Nung, Muong, Thai. It means that the most important reason for the poverty is not the ethnic identity. • The poverty problems present clearly in some ethnic minorities that the social and economic institution is still at low level. The ethnic minority is not the reason for the poverty. Because of living in isolated areas, lacking production resource, lacking information, and still upholding the old community institutions, those ethnic minorities are living isolatedly with the development. They have a weak economy,
16 beside they do not have chance to learn, to approach to information and good social services. The less people an ethnic minority has, the more difficulty it faces, since its’ residents live isolatedly in remote areas and high mountains. Almost all of people of those ethnic minorities are the poor. They also have the lowest level of living standard in comparison with other ethnic minorities. • If an ethnic minority is taught how to work effectively, it can eliminate the poverty quickly, then it has a better living standard than an other ethnic minority with similar social institution but living isolately. This fact can be proved by comparing Xodang, Ede ethnics with Gia rai, Co ho ethnics in 17 researched communes. The general concept “ethnic minorities” (contrary to “ethnic majorities”) cannot be seen as the basis for proposals of poverty reduction policies for all ethnic minorities. Ethnic groups may be classified on the basis of economic development as follows: a) Ethnics with big population, living in lowlands, having advantage economic conditions, and high level of education and economic developments: Kinh, Hoa, Tay, Nung, Muong, Thai.; (b) Ethnics who live in low and mid mountainous areas, have difficult conditions, and middle level of education and economic developments: Dao, Khmer, San diu,etc.(c) Ethnics who live in remote areas and in high mountains, have the lowest level of education and economic developments.
2.2.3. Causes of poverty At macro level, the causes of the poverty of ethnic minorities are usually pointed out as follows: - Living areas in high mountains, transportation difficulty, geographical isolation. - Language barrier prevents them from acquiring information and gaining knowledge. - Having few farming area and good land. - Lacking capital, technical and business knowledge, and to apply scientific improvements into cultivating and breeding. - Having low level of education standards of the people, still upholding backward living and cultivating customs. - Governmental organization’s development assistance and policies are not really effective. Beside those general causes, each community has its own causes of its poverty. The results of our research in 17 communes indicate that there is a significant difference in defining the causes of poverty of households in ethnic groups. There may be 4 groups of direct causes of poverty: (1) lacking production inputs (farming area, capital, working knowledge and experience), (2) factors that affect production outputs - market, and price, (3) force majeure (risk, natural calamities) (4) population and society (lacking people in working age, having many children, getting sick, contracting social evils, etc.). (1) The group of production inputs: Most poor households are in the first group of causes. (Table 2.3). Lacking working experience and capital are the popular causes. For Kinh, Tay, Khmer, Gia rai, the cause of lacking experience is not as serious as other ethnics.
17 Table 2.3. The causes of poverty assessments (% households)
Production factors Market Force Population, society majeure natural calamities Lacking people in people Lacking Having accidents Lacking working Lacking Lacking farming Getting sick, old Lacking market Lacking capital Lacking Disadvantage Having many working age working Affecting by Affecting by experience social evils social children price land
Kinh 43.6 78.2 64.1 2.6 5.1 7.7 6.4 23.1 16.7 39.7 3.8 Tay 40.0 66.7 46.7 6.7 0 0 0 46.7 20.0 6.7 0 Thai 65.1 69.8 57.1 0 0 0 1.6 19.0 1.6 1.6 0 Muong 93.3 20.0 2.2 0 0 42.2 35.6 31.1 26.7 17.8 0 Nung 75.0 75.0 25.0 0 0 0 0 25.0 0 0 0 Dao 86.2 82.8 48.3 0 0 0 0 31.0 17.2 17.2 3.4 Mong 75.0 73.6 56.9 1.4 1.4 1.4 11.1 43.1 0 1.4 2.8 Khmer 37.2 83.7 60.5 0 7.0 7.0 4.7 32.6 18.6 20.9 0 E de 70.7 87.8 39.0 2.4 4.9 0 2.4 29.3 29.3 7.3 0 Gia rai 24.7 58.9 0.0 1.4 1.4 0 0 11.0 35.1 6.8 0 Co ho 69.6 100 82.1 0 5.4 5.4 1.8 7.1 14.3 21.4 0 Xo 100 86.7 26.7 6.7 13.3 0 0 33.3 33.3 0 0 dang Giay 74.2 58.1 48.4 0 0 3.2 0 54.8 12.9 12.9 0 San diu 100 80.0 20.0 0 0 0 20.0 70.0 10.0 10.0 0 Van 74.5 48.9 8.5 0 0 0 4.3 38.3 36.2 19.1 0 kieu
The situation of lacking farming land is the cause of most ethnics. Kinh people who live together with ethnic minorities in the same resident, always have smaller farming land area because Kinh people are emigrants. There is a clearly relationship between the rate of household with little farming land (per capita) and the poverty rate (income per capita). Table 2.4 shows that in many communities, the rate of households with less than 500 square meters farming land ranged from 20% to 30%. There is a cause of this tendency that should be a concern: farming land is transferring from people to people that causes the bigger and bigger gap among households in the area of working land.
18 Table 2.4: Households’ farming land Average Rate of Farming Farming Rate of MOLISA’s area of land household land area land area household rate of poor per with small per per capita with small household household area of household (m2) area of (%) (m2) land(less (m2) farming than 1000 land (less m2) than 500m2 Kinh 7,444 10.4 4,872 958 33.0 14.1 Tay 27,079 0.6 3,556 770 28.6 14.3 Thai 11,026 3.0 7,336 1,244 50.0 25.9 Muong 9,559 3.8 6,528 1,064 23.9 19.5 Nung 37,842 0 5,986 1,316 2.9 2.0 Dao 12,812 1.4 5,378 941 23.3 30.1 Mong 18,610 1.4 9,259 1,409 16.7 23.2 Khmer 9,420 16.9 9,109 1,686 26.0 36.4 E de 21,941 3.1 19,504 2,932 26.5 25.5 Gia rai 19,490 0 16,228 3,278 0 91.5 Co ho 6,757 1.5 6,537 1,404 4.5 53.7 Xo dang 27,913 0 26,608 4,565 3.0 2.0 Giay 6,469 3.4 4,707 891 19.3 28.4 San diu 10,147 0 7,619 1,230 7.7 1.9 Van 9,217 5.2 4,564 780 53.1 47.9 Kieu
(2) The group of production outputs: About production output, many ethnic minorities produce to satisfy their own family’s need. Market-oriented economy still plays a small part in their trade activities. The rate of the value of the sold products in their total harvest volume shows the development level of market-oriented economy. This is also the measurement for the development of household economy. Kinh, Tay, Thai, Muong, Khmer, E de, Gia rai, Co ho, Xo dang develop commodity economy at high level. According to our research, for food production, there is only Khmer ethnic who can sell over 90% of their production to the markets; while other ethnics as Kinh, Tay, Muong, Giay can only sell 15-20% of their production to the markets. High commodity rate mainly lies in cultivating industrial crops and fruit-trees.( Chart 2.7)
19 Chart 2.7: The rate of products for selling ( % productivity value)
98.4 99.8 89.189.1 71.9 65.6 63.5 53.7 55.4 49.2 50.7 34.8 30.3 29.2 24.9 17.9 19.8 20.7 14.8 14.9 18.3 12.1 5 8.4 5.5 6.9 1.8 003.4
Kinh Tay Thai Muong Nung Dao Mong Kho Ede Gia rai Co ho Xo Giay San diu Van me dang Kieu Cultivation Food-trees only
The poor produce mainly to satisfy their own need. There is little contact with markets. That is the reason why the poor almost do not regard the market price as the cause of the poverty. Some ethnics as Ede, Xo dang, Co ho in Central Highlands, who cultivate industrial crops to sell products to the market, are affected clearly by the market price fluctuations. (3) The group of force majeure: Force majeure as natural calamities, pestilent insects, is very dangerous risk for the poor. Because of severe geographical and climatic conditions, ethnic minorities are the direct victims of this kind of danger. In the next section about relief policy, we will discuss this problem more detail. (4) The group of human causes: The family size of ethnic minorities is usually big. On average in Vietnam, one family has 4.8 people. One Mong or Ede family has 6.6 – 6.7 people on average; San diu, Muong, Thai, Van Kieu, Xo dang, Dao: 5.7 – 6.2 people; Khmer, Giay: 5.3 – 5.4 people. Kinh people who live together with compatriots of ethnic minorities, have a family-scale of 5.1 people, higher than national average number. Tay and Nung have the smallest family-scale, only 4.6 people. (Chart 2.8) Poor households usually have big family size. Having many children and dependants is the popular cause of poverty. However, many poor people have not yet understood this fact. They still think having many children is happiness. As we can see in Figure 2.3, Mong regards lacking people in working age, but not having many children, as the cause of poverty. Small rate of Mong, Dao households, i.e. 2.8 – 3.4%, is poor because of having addicts. The rate of Kinh households which are poor because of this cause, is higher: 3.8 percent of poor households.
20 Chart 2.8: Size and structure of household (persons)
7.0 6.0 5.0 3.5 3.2 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.4 2.7 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.3 2.0 3.4 3.1 2.6 2.6 1.0 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.3 0.0
g h n hai ao me ay n rai ay ng Ede T D T Mo ho Gi Ki Coho Nu Sandiu Muong K Gia Van Kieu Xo dang
Dependants People in working age(15-65)
Part 3: STATE POLICIES ON POVERTY REDUCTION FOR ETHNIC MINORITIES
3.1. Overview of policies on ethnic minorities: The following basic concepts are contained in the Vietnamese State policies on ethnic minorities: Politics: to ensure equality and solidarity between ethnic groups. Any political, legislative, cultural discrimination, any ethnic agitation both at national and small community levels affecting this solidarity is contrary to the Vietnamese Constitution. Culture: languages, scripts, cultural traditions, ethnic customs and habits of their identity are encouraged for conservation Economy and society: the State provides special priorities policies on economy, education, and communication for ethnic minorities, with the understanding that economic and cultural developments of most ethnic minorities remain low and their living conditions remain difficult. In addition to policies, programs and national projects, special priorities have been focused in investment into extremely difficult areas. Some major development programs and international cooperation projects (including borrowed fund and non-returnable relief) have been implemented in various localities having remote ethnic minorities to reduce poverty, develop rural infrastructures, provide credits for the poor. These policies have gained some basic achievement, i.e. to ensure national unity, to promote development in difficult areas and to create more favorable conditions for ethnic minority development. However it is difficult to reach both positive impacts and harmony between all policies successfully. The gains of one aspect of a project may affect that of others. For example, ensuring national unity and solidarity between peoples, some policies might have missed special attentions to ethnic colors or features. Rapid socio-economic development in poor areas may bring about undesirable loss of
21 long-standing tangible and intangible cultural identity and heritage. Long term and frequent subsidization will create possibility of such minorities. 3.2. Contents and implementation of poverty reduction policies on ethnic minorities: Poverty reduction is a vital part of the ethnic policies and of the socio-economic policies domain. These policies provide special priorities for ethnic minorities. Policies on poverty reduction for ethnic minorities have gained initial successes, however there are outstanding issues to be settled. In past years, together with economic growth development, Vietnamese State always consider poverty reduction and hunger eradication an objectives in its plans and strategies, in which mountainous and ethnic minorities areas are given special priority. Therefore along with the nation-wide program, the Government set forth a socio- economic development program for the extremely difficult remote and mountainous areas (called Program 135) to improve living conditions, eradicate hunger and reduce poverty for ethnic minorities in these areas; and at the same time, continue implementation of permanent farming & settlement, provide support, price and freight subsidization, health care and education to extremely difficult ethnic minorities. Most recently, the Government issued Decision 134/2004/QD-TTg on some policies to support production/housing land and to supply living water for poor ethnic peoples with hard living conditions. These policies cover 4 following targets: 1. Relief; 2. Improve infrastructure in poor areas and communities; 3. Improve quality of social services (health, education, culture); 4. Assist households in economic development. The support policies usually focus in some fields, objects and time periods and are performed by relevant agencies. Each national program and project often addresses many targets. For example, National Target Program on Hunger Eradication and Poverty Reduction, and Program 135 cover all 4 above targets. Below are the summary of contents and impacts of above policies. 3.2.1 Relief policies: Although the number of round-the-year starving households remains a few, hunger in some months of the year and between crops remains popular in many localities. As reported by the Committee of Ethnic Minorities, hunger between crops rises dramatically in the last months of 2004. Some provinces required food relief for about 10% of their total population such as 10.2% for Cao Bang province, 9.5% for KonTum province and 7.8% for Hoa Binh province. Our survey data in 17 communes shows that the number of starving households differs substantially between various ethnic minorities. Each household evaluated themselves on the capacity of making ends meet (so-called “food sufficient” and “food shortage”). Severe starvation occurs in Gia-rai when 100% interviewed household reported themselves as food shortage, 50% of which suffers more than 4 months a year. This ratio is over 50% for the Coho, Xodang, Mong, Khmer, 35% for the Ede, Thai, Giay, Van Kieu. Food sufficient households account for over 90% of the Tay, Nung, San Diu and 85% of the Kinh peoples living in ethnic minority areas.
22 For many years, the Government had to provide one-off subsidy for extremely difficult minorities groups (within the national project framework); and granted relief (in rice, salt, clothes, blankets, mosquitoes nets, cooking utensils, chinaware, seeds and strains or in money) for in-need households due to sudden harvest loss or natural calamities. Although poor / hunger ratio substantially decreases, this fund was indeed increased. Table 3.1: Food shortage ratio as self-evaluated by households (%) Food Sufficient Food Shortage Food Shortage Food Shortage over 1-3 months 4-6 months 6 months Kinh 85.5 8.0 2.8 1.5 Tay 91.6 3.2 1.9 1.9 Thai 60.8 32.8 3.4 0 Muong 59.7 17.0 5.7 6.3 Nung 95.1 4.9 0 0 Dao 72.6 17.8 9.6 0 Mong 37.0 43.5 11.6 5.8 Khmer 48.1 29.9 9.1 11.7 E de 66.3 31.6 1.0 1.0 Gia rai 13.4 84.1 2.4 0 Co ho 0 50.7 41.8 7.5 Xo dang 52.5 39.4 6.1 2.0 Giay 62.5 26.1 6.8 3.4 San diu 90.4 9.6 0 0 Van Kieu 63.5 26.0 6.3 2.1
3.2.2 Infrastructure improvement policy for poor areas and communities Investment in infrastructure is of particularly concerns by the State and is considered as a threshold to develop socio-economy in difficult areas. National programs on hunger eradication and poverty reduction reserves the majority of their budget for this purpose, among which Program 135 is the main contribution source. Program 135 was approved by Government under Decision 135 dated 31 July 1998. Localities covered under the initial program included 1200 extremely difficult communes with around 1.1 mil households totaling to over 6 million people. So far, the program has been extended to 2,374 communes. The program’s objectives are: (i) reducing poor household ratio in extremely difficult communes down to 25% by 2005; (ii) supplying sufficient living water and attracting more than 70% of children at schooling ages to classes, supplementing production skills and knowledge to majority of the poor, controlling social severe diseases, providing roads to communes cluster centres and promoting rural markets. Within 5 years 1999-2004, 6493.1 billion VND (equiv. to 95.5% of the program’s total budget has been spent on construction of communes and inter-communes infrastructure.
23 With support of the Program 135, localities has built 17,235 infrastructure projects, in which: - 5,748 transport projects account for 40.28% of the capital budget - 2,948 irrigation projects account for 17.08% of the capital budget - 4,150 schools account for 22.79% of the capital budget - 2,072 clean water supply projects account for 5.84% of the capital budget - 1,063 electricity projects account for 7.94% of the capital budget - 367 clinic projects account for 1.72% of the capital budget - 167 markets account for 1.2% of the capital budget - 402 reclaiming items account for 0.5% of the capital budget - Other construction projects account for 1.43% of the capital budget
Since 1996, construction of mountainous communes cluster centers were experimented in Ha Giang, Cao Bang, Lang Son and then expanded to become a part of Program 135. Within 7 years, 1388.8 billion VND has been invested to build 143 communes cluster centers in 49 provinces. In average, each of CT135-targetted communes were invested VND 2,735 million in infrastructure (including investment in communes cluster centers). Every commune was provided with 7.26 communes-level projects at 300 million VND each. The National Target Program on Hunger Eradication and Poverty Reduction also consists of one infrastructure project for 700 poor communes (non-CT135) with a plan to build 1 infrastructure work for each commune a year. Although budget has not been allocated for this project due to its delay in classification and selection of poor communes, within 2001-2003, these localities have mobilized 776 billion VND for construction of about 1,000 infrastructure projects. With priorities being given to infrastructure, new public projects have changed the outlook of extremely difficult communes. There have been some overall reports on the positive impacts of the infrastructure support policies at these communes. However while acknowledging the positive impacts of infrastructure construction to ethnic minorities areas, we wish to note the following points: • The achievement remains minor compared to the requirement. Only half of the mountainous communes have access and benefits from CT135 projects. In fact, only central areas of those communes received new common welfare projects such as schools, clinics, offices, roads, electricity & markets. People of very remote villages has not benefited significantly from these projects. • Recent investment focused only in common welfare projects such as schools and roads. In average, each commune only had one small irrigation project, which could directly impact on local people’s economic development, productivity enhancement and their incomes. • There are still weaknesses in the selection of project type, design, contractor & construction management. Only a few localities followed democratic principle, and were open for local people’s participation, discussion, decision-making &
24 supervision, or decentralized its management. A couple of projects were incorrectly designed or located, were completed with poor quality, received low impacts or were rarely used by local people. They have negatively affected the overall evaluation of the public and international donors.
3.2.3. Polices improving quality of social services and living standards A pillar in HEPR policies is to improve the quality of education, healthcare, information with the aim to extend the outreach to public services of ethnic people. (i) Education: Various supports in education in form of written documents have been made as follows: - Tuition waivers and free charge in school hostels (Decision No. 70/1998/TTg, No. 1121/1997/TTg). - Preferential policies for teachers, education managers in extremely difficult areas (Degree No. 35/2001/ND-CP). - Provision of writing papers for pupils (Document No. 2727/VPCP-KTTH). - Provision of textbooks and magazines. Annually, the Government spends some VND 155-157 billion in providing notebooks and text books for poor children, VND 38.1 billion of which was given to 4 provinces in Central Highlands in 2001 and VND 64.9 billion for 6 provinces in the North of mountainous areas. Numbers of programs and projects on education have been prioritized for children in extremely difficult areas and in ethnic groups. Thanks to above-mentioned priorities, a good performance in education has been maintained in these areas. Unfortunately, prevalence is low quality in education, low enrolment rate in terms of schooling age; school leaving in adults; unsustainability in the work of eliminating illiteracy in some localities, with a high possibility in falling back into illiteracy. Several notable conclusions are found as follows: • A low rate of enrolment is in place in several groups, namely Gia rai, Xo dang, Khmer, Co ho. • Inequality in terms of schooling opportunities among girls and boys in groups, proved by the proportion of school-boys doubling that of school-girls in Mong and Khmer; the number of 70% in Gia rai, Xudang; and mostly 80-90% in remaining groups with an exception of Ede and San Diu that the number of girls is higher than that of boys (see Chart 3.1)
25 Chart 3.1: Number of school children out of 1,000 residents
450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
ª ¸i g g ai ho ×u inh n me r iÒu Tµy Th êng Dao £ ® a ¬ Gi¸y d k K − Nïn M« h¬ C M K Gi S¸n X¬ ®¨ng V©n
Nam N÷
• The number of households having children at the schooling age (6-15) without enrolment is considerately high in some groups7: 70% households in Mong group, 50% in Co ho, 40% in Dao, Gia rai. Meanwhile, the rate is rather low in the groups of Kinh, Tay, Nung, Thai, San diu and Van kieu (1.4 – 3.6%).
Table 3.2: Households having school-aged but unenrolled children Kinh Tay Thai Muong Nung Dao Mong Khmer Ede Gia rai Co ho Xo dang Giay San diu Van kieu Boys 1.7 1.4 3.7 14.3 0.0 26.4 27.6 16.8 15.3 17.2 32.1 10.4 10.8 3.1 3.6 Girls 2.6 1.4 9.5 4.1 0.0 14.4 41.9 9.6 13.8 19.7 19.2 15.6 6.5 0.0 0.0 Total 4.3 2.8 13.2 18.4 0.0 40.8 69.5 26.4 29.1 36.9 51.3 26.0 17.2 3.1 3.6 • The higher the education levels are, the lower the rate of enrolment (notably that of schoolgirls) is.
Despite available tuition waivers and exemption of contribution into schooling facilities, the enrolment is still low, due to insufficiency derived from the real condition of poor households that fails to meet all needs in studying. Children have to leave schools after all. Our survey figured out that such lowland groups as Tay, Thai, Muong, Nung, Khmer and Van kieu have to bear higher schooling expenses (over VND 200,000 for school fees, facilitators and other contributions) than that of highland groups including Dao, Mong, Gia rai, Xo dang (under VND 100,000).
7 Due to several constraints, we thus replaced the indicator of "the rate of unenrolled children out of the total of school-aged children” by that of "the rate of households having school-aged but unenrolled children ".
26 Chart 3.2: Average expense for school fees, facilitators and other contributions in a school year per person (VND thousands)
519
318 257 253 272 206 214 154 141 137 102 133 62 55 5
h ¸i g e g ×u Tµy ng ng m rai Th ê ï Dao «n £ ®ª ¨n Gi¸y Kin − N M ¬ C¬ ho ® M Gia ¬ S¸n d ©n kiÒu Kh X V
• In terms of awareness, a prevalence of low enrolment in highland areas is subject to the fact that in mean time, children’s family and themselves find it unnecessary to study much.
• In terms of studying programs, it is hard for ethnic children to grasp all official Vietnamese lectures. This is proved by numbers of children in 3rd or 4th grades in illiteracy.
• The shortage of teachers in highlands is prevalent. Notably, ethnic teachers are in special needs.
The work of education promotion in ethnic minorities should be further researched and improved with a need to a special action plan. Some recommendations are given as follows: A system of various norms in terms of teaching-studying programs and methodologies should be in place, in conformity with the level of socio-economic development in the areas. This conclusion is backed up by distinctions in terms of living conditions, languages in ethnic groups that differentiate with that of other groups in the country. • A great concern for primary students should be focused by the State. Thus, authorities in education and training could set up a system of boarding schools for primary students under the caring of residents right in the localities. Students in secondary schools or high schools are currently studying in district-based boarding schools. In case the system fails to be set up, several supports should be provided to help them study in day-broading campus (meals and breaks are served). Fundamental needs should be met with an aim to a better system, on the basis of: (i) A rise of the number of teaching staff; (ii) A financial support in terms of expenditures on schooling facilities and functional rooms. • Vocational training centers and undertakings should be improved, especially in terms of various jobs with an aim to the development of agriculture production, manufacturing of agriculture products, and on-the-job training promotion. (ii) Healthcare:
27 In the light of State policies on health supports to poor people, various healthcare forms have been applied:
- Medical care fees are exempted for holders of certificates of poor households or certificates of healthcare fee exemption.
- Issuance of medical care cards, the value of which is equivalent to that of Health insurance cards, helps hospitals recovered the actual expenses that are exempted for the poor in the form of part of the budget.
- Health insurance cards are for sale, under the guidelines of the Joint Circle No. 05/1999.
- A periodical added amount should be provided for hospitals by provincial authorities to make up for their expenditures on medical care exemption entitled by the poor.
- Medical care and distribution of free medicines for the poor are conducted periodically
- Several fictional diseases should be focused with the supports of Healthcare charities
In 2002, the Government issued Decision No. 139/2002/QD-TTg providing guidelines on Medical care and Treatment for the poor with a focus on ethnic people living in 4 provinces in Central Highlands and 6 provinces under extreme difficulties in mountainous areas in the North. Public healthcare undertakings, including commune- level healthcare stations and center-level hospitals, are all in charge of the given task. In the light of the Decision, almost entitled provinces chose the form of issuing health insurance cards for beneficians; other provinces applied the pay-as-you-go manner to finance free healthcare undertakings.
Special healthcare programs were implemented in some ethnic groups in the forms of preparedness of strum, malaria; set-up of healthcare stations at all communes (elimination of communes with “blank” healthcare stations). Medicines and iodine, which cost dozen of billions VND, were provided. Annually, State supports in terms of medicines delivery costs were given to poor people. A network of healthcare (including integration of soldiers-farmers-doctors) was open, with a focus on healthcare at the very first stage; healthcare for mothers and newborn children, preparedness of malnutrition; community healthcare. Medical facilities were provided and improved in hospitals for the poor and part of them were given to healthcare stations.
Healthcare programs are attributed to the improvement of heath among residents, with a special focus on women and children. Such social diseases as tuberculosis, malaria, leprosy, struma are viewed as a great concern. Many residents get access to healthcare entitlements.
However, some shortcomings remain: • The health status of ethnic people is improved at the lower pace in comparison with the general level of the whole country. Such basic health indicators as fatalities in children, malnutrition, sum of maternity and death ratio are still high. Some regional diseases namely malaria, plague, leprosy, struma still exist. Others such as petechial fever and diarrhoea are in danger of outbreaks.
28 • The quality of healthcare services is quite low and under expectation of people. Prevalence is poorly punished facilities; stations with no persons on duty; even some stations fallow due to downgraded conditions and lack of people’s trustworthiness. • Salary for healthcare staff is a barrier for their willingness to work in mountainous and remote areas. Besides, their capacity is low and very few doctors are in charge here. According to statistic, in 2001, the rate of communes having doctors in Northwest, Southwest, Central Highlands, Northern Central, Red River Delta, and Southeast are respectively10.5%, 37.4, 41.9%, 40.4%, 74.3%, and 79.4%. Those of communes having midwifes in Northwest, Southwest, Central Highlands are 79.9%, 81.3%, 72.1%, compared to 91.5% and 97.7% in Red River Delta, and Southeast region 8. • Provision of free medicines is ineffectively managed. Subsidies on medicines prices and delivery costs are under difficulties. Improper distribution mechanisms make redundancy as well as shortage of medicines in, say, province-based or commune-based stations. In addition to that, a weak network of grassroots healthcare, traditional customs and hard transportation all impair the provision and use of medicines. • Hospitals lack of budget to ensure the quality of medical care services. Compensation covered by the State is too low, with VND 10,000 in maximum for a commune station and VND 147,000 for a district undertaking in terms of the course of time serving medical care. • Medical care at home with the belief in magicians is prevalent. • Regardless of the availability of programs on clean water and sanitation for the poor, their efficiency is low due to irregular implementation, dependence attitude of residents. The prevalence of drinking unclear water, sleeping without mosquito nets, working with bare feet is notable. Sources of clean water are in suspicions, especially in dry seasons. Our surveyed results figures out that among 17 communes, 85% of Nung households, 70% of Thai, 47% of Dao, 40% of Gia rai, 35% of Co ho and Giay, 15-17% of Tay and Muong have used spring water (see Table 3.3). Residents have to carry barrels of water from faraway places. Rivers, ponds and lakes are for washing and cleaning (over 96% of Thai, 85% of Nung, 45% of Gia rai ). A series of constructions with the aim to the protection of environment (sanitary latrines, livestock cages far from living clusters and water sources) have been ineffective in ethnic minority areas. Several groups are unfamiliar with latrines. (Table 3.4).
8 Yearbook of Statistics on Health 2001.
29 Table 3.3: Sources of drinking water (% households)
Tap water Rain water Water from Water from Treated Untreated drilled wells digged wells river water river water Kinh 3.9 6.1 9.3 74.2 1.3 5.2 Tay 5.8 0 3.9 79.9 0 15.6 Thai 0 42.7 0 0.4 0.9 69.4 Muong 0 11.3 1.3 86.2 1.3 0.6 Nung 000013.785.3 Dao 21.9 19.2 0 0 0 46.6 Mong 7.2 1.4 0 32.6 40.6 17.4 Khmer 14.3 24.7 57.1 0 1.3 0 E de 7.1 0 2.0 87.8 11.2 12.2 Gia rai 00056.1040.2 Co ho 0 0 0 64.2 1.5 34.3 Xo dang 0 0 0 100.0 0 0 Giay 31.8 0 0 15.9 13.6 35.2 San diu 0 0 0 100.0 0 0 Van Kieu 0 0 0 46.9 22.9 27.1
Table 3.4: Proportion of households using latrines
Sanitary latrines Manual latrines Toilet in rivers, No latrines (Unsanitary) lakes Kinh 44.0 41.0 3.1 11.9 Tay 70.1 27.3 0 2.6 Thai 14.2 85.8 0 0 Muong 10.7 81.1 3.8 4.4 Nung 9.8 58.8 5.9 25.5 Dao 31.5 16.4 16.5 35.6 Mong 1.4 3.6 8.8 86.2 Khmer 29.9 16.9 9 44.2 E de 1.0 90.8 6.2 2.0 Gia rai 000100.0 Co ho 03.0097.0 Xo dang 0100.00 0 Giay 2.3 48.9 1.1 47.7 San diu 11.5 88.5 0 0 Van Kieu 4.2 30.2 0 65.6
30 (iii) Housing:
Housing policies are new, including the policy on loans with deferred payment for housing in Mekong Delta, Central Highlands; the policy on supporting roofs for ethnic people in 6 provinces with extreme difficulties in the North. These policies met basic needs of ethnic residents, in the compliments of all levels.
In a variety of approaches, the common objective of localities is to eliminate dilapidated, leaking, temporary houses. A few set up an objective to supports in living standards for people, i.e. Ha Giang with the model of “a roof, a cistern, a cow”, with replication in Lao Cai, Son La and some other mountainous areas in the North. The confessional amount varies from VND 3 million to VND 10 million, with regard to local capacity and conditions.
Mass organizations and community as the whole considerately contribute to the housing campaign, notably with “Fund for the poor” conducted by National Fatherland Front with the aim to building houses for poor households. Over the last 3 years (2001-2003), the Fund spent VND 200 billion on constructing and repairing 43,000 houses.
The policies on housing have a direct impact on living standards of the poor. Yet, insufficient resources of localities fail to meet with the board outreach of beneficians.
(iv) Culture and Information:
Over the past few years, improvements in terms of information and culture in ethnic minorities have been considered. Radio and television news are on the air everywhere with diversity in contents and the longer length of time broadcasting. Artistic activities are still maintained in several provinces.
Constructions in terms of centers of information and culture, exhibitions and libraries, State head offices, etc. have been popular. Regardless of the fact that they are provincial and occur in parts of community, these constructions make a deep impression on the work of reservation and development of such fields in ethnic minorities.
The number of households having audio facilities is an indicator of policies’ impact. As surveyed, it is the majority in ethnic groups with a difference among various groups.
The proportion of households possessing tivi sets is nearly 50% in the groups of Tay, Thai, Muong, Nung, Khmer, Giay, San diu and very few in the group of Mong (8.7%), Coho (10.4%), Gia rai (15.8%).
Radio sets are also rare in the group of Gia rai (2.4%), Mong (18.8%).
In terms of audio facilities, the rate is very high in Gia rai (81.7%), Mong (74.6%), Co ho (53.7%), Khmer (45.5%), Xo dang (42.4%), E de (38.8%), Van kieu (36.5%), Dao (35.6%).
31 Table 3.5: Proportion of households having audio facilities (%) Radio Black-white Color TV set Video, VCD, None TV set DVD Kinh 43.2 18.7 64.2 33.2 12.1 Tay 57.1 30.5 43.5 22.7 9.1 Thai 65.5 12.1 37.9 12.1 17.7 Muong 24.5 28.9 40.3 18.9 21.4 Nung 70.6 0 60.8 36.3 10.8 Dao 32.9 4.1 34.2 27.4 35.6 Mong 18.8 3.6 5.1 4.3 74.6 Khmer 27.3 13.0 36.4 27.3 45.5 E de 36.7 12.2 34.7 15.3 38.8 Gia rai 2.4 2.4 13.4 1.2 81.7 Co ho 43.3 0 10.4 6.0 53.7 Xo dang 24.2 32.3 14.1 5.1 42.4 Giay 45.5 14.8 35.2 21.6 25.0 San diu 42.3 32.7 28.8 0 13.5 Van Kieu 34.4 5.2 39.6 9.4 36.5
Other facilities such as newspapers, magazines are rare in many ethnic groups. There are some State policies on delivery of newspapers to localities but they are ineffective due to limited quantity and difficult transportation. Thus the efforts to eliminate illiteracy are hopeless due to the consequence of forgetability in handwriting when seldom reading is considerate.
In general, the extent to access information and entertainment is low, with the poor outreach of beneficians in the context that ethnic people are living separately and isolatedly in highlands, which is viewed as source of social evils such as drug addition.
Expenditures on film-making, cinema are still negligible. Meanwhile mobile theatres, amateur performers are in danger of market domination. For instance, residents watch cinema once a year in Quang Tri province, 4 times in a year in Kon Tum province. So, behind great efforts to improve spiritual lives of ethnic minorities lies a shortage of quality in related services. Thanks to that, the reduction of “poverty” in information and knowledge could be part of poverty reduction as the whole.
3.2.4 Policies on supporting households in economic development Four main contents are split as follows: (i) solving the shortage of production land; (ii) settlement and cultivation stabilization; (iii) preferential loan rate; (iv) technology transfer, agriculture extension, forestry extension. (i) Shortage of production land: As explained in section 2, the lack of production land is one of the main causes of poverty in a group of ethnic minority community. There are different reasons for different ethnic minority communities.
32 In the Northern mountainous area, although this area has large square area, accounting for 31% of the national natural land, a majority of population of these mountainous areas is in lack of stable production land. Population pressure weighs upon land resources, which are becoming exhausted due to over-exploitation, floods, and trends of expanding biological preservation areas, aquatic resources protection areas, reservoirs and dams, hydroelectricity and irrigation works. Shortage of production land is the pressure forcing many ethnic families in the Northern mountainous areas to migrate to Central Highlands, Southeast area, and the Mekong Delta where although their land area is not large, it is at least bigger and of better fertility than theirs in the hometown. In Central Highlands, for the last decades, there have been strong turbulences in land situation among ethnic minority groups. Traditionally, each family has at least 10-15 ha of forestland for farming. Since 1990, due to policy on promoting land exploitation accompanying with the excessive appropriation of the state-run collective farms and forestation farms, the migration situation along with land trade, many ethnic families fall into lack of production land, they become people to sell labour or step into the forest, and continue destroying forest for tilling in the fields. In the Mekong Delta, the lack of production land is one of the main causes of poverty, especially for Khmer group. The main reasons are: as people are not good at weighing pros and cons or earning their livings, they usually mortgage or sell their land for their expenses; a group of farmers prefer selling labour than directly involving in farming; meanwhile, land collection of the rich to build up specializing areas has been increased strongly regardless of legal regulations on land limitation. Due to lack of production land, limited job opportunities and service business, and weak development of non-agriculture, people in lack of land in those areas are facing more difficulties. The Government issued Decision No 186/2001/QD-TTg and Decision 132/2002/QD- TTg on supporting production land to the ethnic minorities. As calculated, in the whole country, by the end of 2003, 10,455 households were supported with 5,139 ha of land totally. However, the situation of land shortage is increasingly more serious. It is completely difficult to solve the shortage of production land for the ethnic minorities. Policies should be comprehensive and appropriate to socio-economic context, to practices of different areas, and to the capacity, and Government resources. In the Northern mountainous area, where there is limited farming land resources, the solution is high-farming, changing types of plants, exploring more fields instead of assigning land or splitting more land. In Central Highlands, it is just a beforehand solution that the Government forced state enterprises to give land to the ethnic minority. The longer-term solution should be to combine with support for promoting effective business on their land. Otherwise, it will result in a vicious circle: due to poverty, they will send their land and become those in need to be supported with land. (ii) Settlement and sedentarisation Settlement and sedentarisation is an important policy once there are still a number of ethnic minorities keeping shifting cultivation of wandering hilltribes, or settling but wandering hilltribes. The programme on settlement and sedentarisation started from 1968 in the North, applied in the whole country from 1975. That is an enduring and constant process with a long-dated profile of achievements and fails.
33 In three years of 2001-2003, there were 479 projects on settlement sedentarisation in 39 provinces with the total budget of 340.4 billion VND. They achieved to stabilize lives of about 50,828 families. The common content of this activity is to re-organize production and lives of the ethnic groups through a comprehensive set of measures like deforestation, develop basic infrastructure in such a new area including building roads, drilling boreholes, supplying electricity, planting forest, guiding the ethnic group to cultivate and raise animals, establishing centers to provide social services like health care, schools, etc. Some projects on resettlement and sedentarisation have actually improved lives of the ethnic minorities who formerly wandered hilltribes or shifted cultivation of wandering hilltribes. Projects implemented by bordering servicemen along the borders of Son La, Thanh Hoa, Nghe An, Quang Tri, and Central Highlands provinces mobilized a volume of important resources, including the most important one - more than 2,000 officers and combatants. They went to villages; they became teachers, doctors, agriculture and forestry extension officers, officers to support building capacity on local authority management. With this resource strength, these projects with complete activities have brought comprehensive impacts on the socio-economic lives of people. In addition to successful projects, according to some households who involved in programmes on settlement and cultivation sustainability in some areas, there exist many ineffective projects due to: • The low quality of farming land in the resettlement areas; • Lack of effective infrastructure works such as irrigation, roads; • Lack of essential social services including health care, education; • Inappropriate design of villages, houses compared to ways of life of the ethnic minorities; • Arising social problems, conflicts among resettled people and the local people due to lack of wide consultation with communities. One important traditional lesson learnt of the past decades, which is not carefully an attention to is to ensure the principle of democracy, willingness, wariness, paying attention to culture of each ethnic group, their ways of life and thinking from the planning process, designing process, and implementation process of all projects on settlement and sedentarisation.
(iii) Credits support: Giving credits support to the poor ethnic minority people to develop their production and business activities are seen as a key tool in the process of carrying out poverty reduction policies. Sine 1993, the Government has promulgated policies to help family producers to get credits through the credit programs for mountainous, island areas, the concentration areas of the Khmer people. In 1995, the credits program for poor families started and the Bank for the poor was established to carry out this program. Within five years from 1996 to 2000, the Bank for the poor has given credit to 729,000 ethnic minority households with the total money of VND 782 billion and with soft interest without requiring mortgate1. On average, each loan worth VND1.07 million. In recent years, credit programs for ethnic minority peoples have been continuously conducted in larger scale with higher average loan and lower soft interest.
34 Results of a survey conducted in 17 communes illustrate that the number of household who can get loan depends on the activeness of the bank at each locality (see Table 3.9). Communities that have highest number of households getting credits from the Social Policies Bank (with the soft interest rate of from 0.5% to 0.6%) are Van Kieu (74% of the households with the average amount of VND4.8 million), Giay (71% with VND3.4 millions), Dao (56% with VND3.5 million), San Diu (53.8% with VND2.1 million). Communities that have smaller number of households receiving credits from the Social Policy Bank are Khmer (3.9% with VND2.2 million per loan), Co Ho (7.5% with million 1.2 million per loan). The Kinh people who live in ethnic minority areas have little access to such credit channel (only 8% with VND4 million per loan). Credit activities of mass organizations in the investigated communes are not strong. The second important lending channel is the Bank for Agriculture. Credits from this bank mostly are for families who know how to do business and have business purpose with the interest rate (0.8% to 1% per month). Despite of high percentage of poor people, the Khmer people almost get credits from the Bank for Agriculture since they have few opportunities to get credit from the Social Policies Bank. Apart from official lending channels, private channels operate strongly in areas where the commodity economy develops (e.g. the Mekong Delta where there is Khmer people, or coffee plantation areas in the Central Highlands) Table 3.6: Situation of getting credits Total credits Social Policies Mass Agriculture Bank Bank organizations borrowing borrowing borrowing borrowing families families families families Million Million Million Million family family family family VND/ VND/ VND/ VND/ % of % of % of % of
Kinh 36.7 7.86 8.0 3.98 1.1 2.20 15.4 9.46 Tay 48.7 2.65 33.1 2.48 4.5 1.30 5.2 5.44 Thai 25.9 3.10 21.1 2.78 0 1.7 5.00 Muong 57.2 4.55 28.9 6.83 0 31.8 15.78 Nung 19.6 4.98 12.7 5.04 0 6.9 4.86 Dao 58.9 3.38 56.2 3.45 0 2.7 2.00 Mong 56.5 4.77 42.8 4.19 0.7 8.00 13.8 6.16 Khmer 35.1 7.27 3.9 2.33 0 31.2 7.89 E de 67.3 9.27 16.3 2.0 1.0 2.00 40.8 12.33 Gia rai 31.7 2.28 29.3 1.93 0 1.2 10.00 Co ho 14.9 1.39 7.5 1.20 0 0 Xo dang 11.1 2.86 11.1 2.86 0 0 Giay 77.3 3.79 71.6 3.40 0 8.0 5.57 San diu 80.8 2.05 53.8 2.07 1.1 4.00 26.9 2.00 Van kieu 86.5 5.00 74.0 4.76 0 10.4 7.05
It can be noted that, local people can access to credit but how to use it effectively is still a difficult issue, which require synchronized solutions. Supports in credit will become a burden to local people and destroy the system of credit policies for poverty reduction if
35 it is not combined with transferring knowledge, enhancing technical and business capacity for local people. (iv) Transferring techniques and agro-forestry extension: This activity has been consolidated and operated effective with certain achievements. Models of trial breeding and farming some types of animals and trees that are suitable to the natural conditions; cultivating water rice, crossbred maize, productivity cassava; intensive cultivating coffee, fruit trees; improving mixed gardens; mixing agriculture and forestry, raising new types of chicken, productively pigs, goats, etc. have been created. At the same time, on-the-job trainings are organized to transfer technology advancements on cultivation and husbandry. With basic knowledge, the farmer families started applying it in the agriculture production to increase the outputs. In general, there has been a great progress in agro-forestry activities with an increase in acreage, output and capacity of water rice. Technology advancements have been applied in the production and the production seems to direct toward producing trees as products. Local people have gradually been aware of applying science and technology advancements in the production. So far, the production of trees as products has moved toward the objective of enriching. There are following constraints in agriculture extension activity: • Large areas and scattered population, different communities with different traditions and customs living in the same place are very difficult for monitoring the production. • Low background limits the ability of local people in getting knowledge and applying science and technology advancements, as well as in doing calculations and using the capital effectively. • Poor economic condition, out of date infrastructure for production is one of the constraints for implementing the agriculture extension activities. • The extension cadres often play different functions, They do not have good understanding about the local traditions, customs and can not speak local languages. They do not have experience while the number is small. Policies and mechanisms for agriculture extension cadres in the difficult ethnic minority areas are inadequate. The implementation of agriculture, forestry and fishery extension activities in the difficult communes encounters with many problems due to the lack of cadres, equipment and investment. • Unstable market for agriculture products is seen as a difficulty to the propagation on science and technology transfer. Because of such above-indicated problems, the results gained from agriculture extension activities bear following constraints: • In spite of the fact that investment in agriculture extension activities have been and attention to, economic effectiveness has not been high and satisfied the practical needs of the areas. The activities have not been comprehensively implemented. There is a difference in background of local people in different areas. • There is a lack of good production-business models and cultivation methods that are appropriate for each locality. Though, a number of models of farming and breeding have been established through agriculture extension activities, they have not been
36 multiplied to other locations. In the Northern mountainous areas, the implementation of agro-forestry extension services faces with more difficulties than in the Central Highlandsand Southern part because of the lack of effective production models. There is prevalence that the local authorities encourage ethnic minority peoples to develop economic trees (such as coffee, cashew nuts, pepper, fruit trees) with the good intention of quickly reducing poverty and improving living standard for local people. However, such way of doing is aimed at making a record for the Government cadres or giving the benefit to some enterprises that are sometimes not successful and poor families are the effectors. To ensure stable market is regarded as the first priority in giving production and business directions for the poor in general and ethnic minorities in particular. • Specific policies for ethnic minority people on transferring the technology have not been issued. The shifting of crops and animals through demonstration models, then providing them with seedlings in the beginning to disseminate and multiply the models still follows the general policies. As a fact, some families have not follow properly the created models, which led to bad results. For instance, in the agro-forestry model for long-term tree, it requires a long time to take care of, however, the families only pay attention to it in the implementation period of the model then they stop. Finally, the models get failure.
Concluding remarks:
Firstly, the proportion of ethnic minorities in the total population of the poor is on the rise. As a result, the poverty tendency in ethnic minorities may become a key issue in hunger eradication and poverty reduction activities in Vietnam. To prevent such tendency, it is necessary to set out and achieve the target on increasing the pace of poverty reduction in ethnic communities. As analyzed above, in spite of the continuous reduction in absolute number, with a slower reduction speed, the poor ethnic minority people will tend to account for a higher portion in the total poor people nationwide. Such trend means that the living standard gaps among different peoples will rise in the direction that the smaller and mountainous peoples will become backward and be left behind by the ones in the lowland. This result is in contrary to the policies and programs of the Vietnam’s Party and Government and to the desires of people. Therefore, it is necessary to set out the important objective for hunger eradication and poverty reduction in period from 5 to 10 years of: raising poverty reduction speed in the ethnic minority areas to the general level then exceed that level. Only by doing this can we escape from the above-mentioned unexpected tendency. Hunger eradication and poverty reduction policies and recommendations for ethnic minorities should also be strong, effective and positive. Secondly, to reach the above-mentioned objective, hunger eradication and poverty reduction policies for ethnic minorities should not just be a general framework for
37 every poor groups in every areas or localities but a specific ones with respect to the characteristics of ethnic minorities. During the previous time, ethnic minorities, particularly the poor ones have been an attention to and supported through the promulgation of a number of policies. However, it is notable that in these policies the target groups are enlarged and amount of support to ethnic minorities are increased but the contents and ways of supporting are not different from the ones offered to the poor Kinh people. It seems that the application of the models and experience of the plain to the mountainous areas does not bring sustainable results. According to our opinion, the system of poverty reduction policies and recommendations should be classified into two groups: (i) general policies and recommendations for every poor target groups; (ii) solutions and specific implementation ways for each group of ethnic minorities. Taking into account the special characteristic of the population in ways of doing business, their background, ways of thinking and living is considered as a framework for the formulation of a group of special poverty reduction solutions and special ways of carrying out the policies and recommendations for different groups of ethnic minorities. Thirdly, the National Targeted Program on Hunger Eradication and Poverty Alleviation for ethnic minorities should consider the content of direct poverty reduction as the focus. Activities that have indirect impact on poverty reduction or create general conditions for socio-economic development should be moved to other targeted programs. Activities of extending agriculture – forestry – fishery, developing marketing and market, transferring technology, creating and introducing demonstration models, developing new sectors for jobs creation and income generation, providing new seedlings and breeds, developing processing industries, giving loans to the poor, etc. should be given large proportion of budget in the program and the contents should be broadened. In the framework of the program, only small infrastructure should be built to serve the production of poor communities (e.g. small irrigational systems, dykes, breeding farms, processing workshops).
Fourthly, poverty reduction policies and recommendations should be an attention to and be combined following location and time to create a general impact that is strong and long enough to achieve the target of sustainable poverty reduction.
In comparison with areas with high socio-economic growth, poverty reduction in ethnic minorities is more complex and longer. The main task of poverty reduction is not just supporting the development of production and the target groups of poor households but also enhance the capacity of individuals, families and communities on economic, education, public health, environmental and natural resources protection, gender equality, social management, etc. All of these aspects must be developed in time, harmoniously and interactively in a long process.
38 The current hunger eradication and poverty reduction program is designed based on the categorizing of projects per types of activities, or sectors: credit, agriculture extension, creation of demonstration models, building infrastructure, supporting the development of non-agriculture sectors, supporting the immigration. Each project operates independently and separately in time and location. In order to reduce poverty for ethnic minorities, it is essential to combine intervention solutions with general impacts of different sector in one area and at one time.
The distribution of resources and capital for hunger alleviation and poverty reduction activities in ethnic minority areas should be re-considered. It is suggested that budget of different projects should be combined in one project at commune level to conduct hunger alleviation and poverty reduction activities comprehensively.
Fifthly, indigenous knowledge and national culture must be integrated in designing and organizing the implementation of poverty reduction activities.
Indigenous knowledge is the precious asset of each nation, which is accumulated through many generations. Such asset contains lessons on how people should react to the surrounding environment to sustain and develop. They are also principles on how individuals should behave in the community and among communities. The custom of each locality and nation exist for a long time and has higher effect than the modern legislation. Indigenous knowledge is one of the basics of national character and culture.
In the present modern society, the rapid changes in natural and social conditions have led to the backwardness of part of indigenous knowledge. Nevertheless, much of such knowledge still remains with its value and communities still maintain their customs. Poverty reduction is a process that brings two-side affects on the knowledge as well as on culture of people. On one side, it brings new knowledge, new tools to create new production methods and new ways of living; it enriches, re-improves and even erases part of the backward knowledge, tradition and custom that hinders the progress. On the other side, poverty reduction program has to inherit the knowledge on nature and people, appropriate cultivation techniques of the communities. It has to respect the local cultural tradition and take part in reserving the valuable ones. To deal with such two aspects, it is necessary to formulate ways, contents, and process of implementing suitable solutions for each community.
Results of previous years show that, the first aspect of the influencing process has covered policies and supporting activities for ethnic minority people while the second aspects has been accepted in arguments, directions and plans but it has not been attentively carried out. There have been a number of practical lessons that if poverty reduction project does not pay enough attention to national knowledge and culture, it will not achieve the expected result.
39 Reference
ADB (2002) – "Indigenous people, ethnic minorities and poverty: Vietnam".
Be Viet Dang _ Chief editor (1995) – "Ethnic minorities in Vietnam – Over the 50 years (1945-1995)". Social Science Publishing House, Hanoi, 1995.
Bob Baulch, Truong Thi Kim Chuyen, Dominique Haughton, Jonathan Haughton (2001) – "Ethnic Minority Development in Vietnam: A Socio-Economic Perspective". Working paper. World Bank, 2001.
Bui Minh Dao, Chief Editor (2003) – "Several issues on poverty reduction in ethnic minorities in Vietnam”, Social Science Publishing House, Hanoi, 2003.
CEM (2004) – " 5-year Preliminary Wrap-up (1999-2003) on Implementation of program on Socio-economic development in extremely difficult communes in ethnic minorities, in borders and remote and far-flung areas. (CT135) and implementation of 2-year plan (2004-2005)". Hanoi, 6/2004.
Dang Nghiem Van (1994) – "Reservation and Development of Cultural heritages in ethnic minority groups”. Report in the conference on Reservation and Promotion of Non-physical heritage of ethnic minority groups conducted in Hanoi 12-14/3/1994. Printed in the book “Diversity in Culture of Vietnam: Approaches in reservation”. Published by National Human culture and Social science and UNESCO. Hanoi 2002.
Duc Quyet (2002) – "State policies on employment and HEPR”. Publishing House of Labour, Hanoi, 2002.
GSO (2001) – "Socio-economic development derived from 10 large-scale surveys 1998- 2000". Publishing House of Statistics, Hanoi, 2001.
GSO (2003) – "Vietnam’s Household Living Standards Survey”, VHLSS 2002-2003". Publishing House of Statistics, Hanoi, 2003.
Ha Que Lam (1995) - "HEPR in ethnic minorities in Vietnam – Reality and Solutions” – Publishing House of National Politics, Hanoi, 2002.
Le Trong Cuc & A.T Rambo, Chief Editor (2001) – "Mountainous areas in the North: Issues on environment and socio-economic development: Publishing House of National Politics, Hanoi, 2001. Managing Office of HEPR (2002) – "Issues on HEPR in ethnic minorities”. A report at the conference “Poverty reduction for ethnic people " organised by the National Centre of Social Sciences and Humanities, Hanoi, 3/2002. MPI and WB (2004a) – "Yearbook of community-based development”. Program on partnership in supporting poor communes (PAC). Hanoi, 13-14 April 2004.
MPI and WB (2004b) – "Yearbook of National Conference on Socio-economic development of poor communes, 24-26 November, 2004.
40 Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs (2003) – "Yearbook of Preliminary Wrap-up on NTP on HEPR and Employment 2001-2005". Hanoi, 3-4/10/2003. Labour- Social Affairs Publishing House, Hanoi, 2003.
Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs & UNDP (2004) – "Taking Stock and Planning ahead: Evaluation of NTP on HEPR and P135". UNDP. Hanoi, 11/2004. National Centre for Social Sciences and Humanities and UNESCO (2002) – “Diversity in Culture of Vietnam: Approaches in reservation”, Hanoi, 2002. Parliamentary Committee of Minorities (2000) – “Policies and Laws by the State and the Government on Ethnic minorities. Ethnic Culture Publishing House, Hanoi, 2000.
Van de Walle, Dominique and Dileni Gunewardena. 2001. "Sources of ethnic inequality in Viet Nam," Journal of Development Economics, 65:177-207. Vu Tuan Anh & Vu Van Toan (2004), Implementaion of the community-based poverty monitoring in Vietnam, Vietnam’s Socio-Economic Development Review, No. 39, Hanoi, Autumn 2004. WB (2003) - M. Rama, Nguyen Nguyet Nga, R. Swinkels, C. Turk "Vietnam development report 2004: Poverty". Joint report of donors in Consultation Group, Hanoi, 2-3/12/2003.
41