This section attempts to argue that agriculture and rural development in the Mekong Delta is not one single development paradigm. Its development landscape is indeed the interweavement of at least three development perspectives: modernisation, alternative/sustainable development, and holistic/strategic governance (see Figure 2.3).
44
Figure 2.3: The convergence of development perspectives in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta
Source: Own presentation
The deterministic ideation of modernisation and industrialisation by 2020 has in several respects shaped the recent socio-economic development of both rural and urban Vietnam’s Mekong Delta.
However, under and through the centralised planning apparatus, the translation and implementation of the national development strategy at local levels have largely fallen into a reductionistic approach biased towards economic growth, industrialisation, and urbanisation.
The development orientation of the Mekong Delta has been still questionable. The 10th National Party Congress put forward a national development strategy that Vietnam will be a modern industrial country by 2020. Following closely this industrialisation and modernisation orientation, provincial development plans have developed an economic structure in which industry share is the highest, followed by services; agriculture is to be kept as small as possible. This structure might be achieved at the national level. I have no knowledge to assess this. Even when we accept this structure for the whole country, it is not necessary that the Mekong Delta become all industrialised and modernised provinces. All provincial leaders in the Mekong Delta have built a strong industry inclined GDP, so finally what will the whole delta do with industry? (Interview 144, senior researcher, male, Can Tho, 21.9.2010).
When the economic structure, trends, and growth rate are guided and decided by provincial party committees’ resolutions, which are developed on the concept of “higher targets compared to last period” principle without careful consideration of available resources and real capacity, eventually only illusory growth figures are reported. For example, in 2010-2011, the Gross Regional Domestic Product (GRDP) growth rate of 63 provinces nationwide was announced to be two-digit numbers, while the national GDP growth rate is respectively 6.42% and 6.24%; where has the rest of the value gone? (Bui Trinh, VnEconomy October 16, 2013). It is true that “industrialisation and modernisation by 2020”
45
achieves ideational power that has strongly influenced national and provincial development planning34 (cf. Tan 2012); importantly, however, localitis and “achievement” disease have dismantled its practicable power when respect for local conditions, resources, and knowledge is under token agreement.
When a province becomes a central city and thus districts becomes quarters, many agriculture-pure communes are officially recognised as a ward, leading to the phenomenon of administrative urbanisation. Under these administratively urbanised subdistricts, the division of agriculture is replaced by the division of economic development and the position of deputy chair in charge of economic development is instated as a substitute of the agriculture predecessor. Accordingly, human and financial resource allocation for agricultural management and extension is sharply reduced.
Uncontrolled suspended project owners of evicted agricultural land planned for urban and industry development have increasingly bankrupted production and life plans of rural residents (Interview 80, senior official, male, Cai Rang, 16.8.2010). The rapid development of industrial zones and parks with only in-paper or during-inspection operation of waste treatment systems are leading to alarming water pollution (Interview 48, Environment and Natural Resource Official, male, 17.08.2010). Rural vocational programs cannot yet provide industrial zones with qualified labourers (see Section 2.3).
Although urbanisation is a key path for Vietnam in reaching middle income status (World Bank 2011), the current development planning and practices of the region have basically ignored the rural-urban continuum, which creates developmental vacuums where policy making and implementing are unmet and urban and rural inequalities widened.
Moreover, the region has a long pursuit of agricultural modernisation characterised by hierarchical institutional set-up, top-down planning, technology transfer, high yield-led production, and growth- based verification (Diglio and Siddivό 1998). “Good” farmers are mainly evaluated based on their gained yields and profits despite a long list of other criteria to be checked. At a commune’s symbolic farmer conference where participants were eager to hear experience sharing towards production
34 Even in the recent strategic Tam nong (agriculture, farmers and rural areas) policy that designs agricultural and rural development as comprehensive process and farmers as its agent, industrialisation and modernisation seems to be the journey’s end. The goal of the policy writes: “It is to achieve a continuous improvement of the physical and spiritual life of the rural residents, harmonisation among the areas, creation of more rapid change in stricken areas; the farmers are trained so as to reach production level on a par with advanced countries in the region, well equipped with political constitution to play the role of owner of the new rural area. It is to set up a comprehensively developed agriculture toward modernity, sustainability, commodities production, high productivity, good quality, effectiveness, and strong competitiveness to ensure the national food safety for immediate and long termed demands. It is to build up a new rural area with socio-economic infrastructure; proper structure of economies and production arrangements, with strong connection between agriculture and rapid development of industries, services, urban planned development; to ensure a stable situation in rural areas, richness in national identity, improved knowledge, protected biological environment; the political system in rural areas under the leadership of the party is to be enhanced. It is also to build up a peasant class, to consolidate the ally of the worker -the farmer -the intellectual, creating a strengthened a socio-economic and political foundation for the cause of industrialisation, modernisation, construction and defense of socialist Vietnam Fatherland.” (Resolution of the 7th Congress by the Session X Central Executive Committee on agriculture, farmers and rural areas) (Author’s emphasis).
46
success, the audience was finally disappointed with proud income figures of the presenters with little
“how to” knowledge shared with the farmers (Participant observation and short talks 30.11.2010).
The second development paradigm is alternative or sustainable development. Over the past decades, sustainable principles and practices have been introduced into the delta in part under the ascendancy of global sustainable development frameworks. On the other hand, the real production situation demanded local rethinking of their development approaches. Agricultural intensification and industrial development in the delta have put pressure on resources, especially water resources, use, and environmental protection, while conventional production management and practices turned out to be severely problematic, if not a cause of the actual problem. Further, the global market’s requirements of production process and product quality are challenging unsustainable ways of farming. Good practices, integrated management models, and farming systems approaches have been adopted in different agricultural sub-sectors, restructuring them toward sustainable development:
Some coastal provinces restructure production value based on value chain and enhancing link between processing and trading players and raw material suppliers. In which, the top priorities are given to the production of value-added products and the development of important seafood brands. Mekong Delta provinces are also expanding farming activities in compliance with Global GAP (Good Agricultural Practice) and Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) standards; tightening quality inspections, quarantines of shrimp seeds and feed and vet drugs used in shrimp cultivation; as well as enhancing control of water sources in farming areas to mitigate pollution. (Ngoc Ha, VASEP September 23, 2013)
Sustainable development in the Mekong Delta is substantially criticised for its less people-centered focus (Kọkửnen 2008). Grassroots participation and knowledge should be further promoted, for example, indigenous knowledge of sustainable agricultural production. One important question in the context of developing countries like Vietnam is whether it is possible to take a short cut and yet sustainable path of development. A research study by Estellès et al. (2002) confirms the answer:
“It is our impression after working with this subject, that yes, it is possible for the Mekong Delta, representing a region in a developing country, to develop in a sustainable way. The constraints are deep traditional believes (that might take generations to change) and lack of education. Overall, the major difficulty is the lack of a new regulation program regarding the principles of sustainable development, which can only be implemented if the policy-makers are going to start believing that sustainability is important in development” (Estellès et al. 2002, 97).
Though those optimistic comments are encouraging, I would doubt any short-cut approaches. At the implementation level, translation and diffusion of such new sustainable innovation have to overcome a number of epistemological, technical, and cultural barriers because of the more complicated nature of knowledge, even with foreign concepts.
The third interwoven development perspective in the Mekong Delta is holistic or strategic governance.
One might argue this archetype fits well under alternative development. The goal might be identical.
However, approaches and methods towards the goal are divergent between the two paradigms.
In the delta’s scale, attentions have been paid to inter-sector and inter-provincial planning and development (see Figure 2.4). For example, land use planning is starting to consider the needs, capacity, and development orientations for agriculture, aquaculture, industry, and rural development
47
purposes. Inter-provincial development planning focuses on provincial comparative advantages and benefits for the entire region. For example, it is an increasing concern how dyke-bounded intensive rice farming in the upper An Giang Province impacts water flow regimes in lower towns and the water quality of the downstream localities where aquaculture is more developed.
Previously each province and each sector worked at its own discretion and preference (manh ai nay lam). Planning schemes of one sector might contrast with the other. For instance, the aquaculture sector put forward pond and lagoon construction. Meanwhile, agricultural agencies disapproved with this plan and advocated food security. Land planning is somewhat easier than water resource planning because land is not moving. Water runs from upstream down, thus water management is required for the whole delta, region, and basin. We are still very weak in such cooperation and management (Interview 144, senior researcher, male, Can Tho, 21.9.2010).
Figure 2.4: Holistic resource governance is needed in the Mekong Delta
Source: Adapted from Le Quang Minh (2010)
Moreover, the Mekong Delta is experiencing the double impacts of climate change and construction of upstream dams (Le Anh Tuan 2010). Climate change is a major environmental challenge for Vietnam in general and in the Mekong Delta in particular (Eucker 2011). Climate change-related hazards in the Mekong Delta include inundation and saline intrusion due to sea level rise, extreme weather events, increased average temperature, reduced precipitation during the dry season and additional precipitation during the wet season, and changes in wind speed (Mackay and Russell 2011, 9). With the scenario of a one metre sea level rise, 39 percent of the total area of the Mekong Delta is inundated and 35 percent of the delta’s population is directly affected (Le Van Thang, Nguyen Dinh Huy, and Ho Ngoc Anh Tuan 2011). Moreover, 33 dam projects, with their either finished, operational, or pre-feasibility status are proved to create adverse effects on the Lower Mekong’s environmental flows and ecosystems (Pham Cong Huu 2012).
climate change
water-use conflict
48
Because of the global climate change, the icebergs are melting and causing sea level rise. This area is considered as the most vulnerable place influenced by the salinity intrusion. This year, salty water intruded about 80 kms toward upstream surface water and about 100 kms for underground water. Another problem is water shortage because of dams in the upstream. In the dry season, the river flow is limited because water is kept in reservoirs. Moreover, countries such as Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia are expanding farmland. Forests are also one of the causes of difficulties for the Mekong Delta’s water conditions. The forest coverage is reduced greatly, causing flood in the rainy season and a shortage of water sources in the dry season. We can obviously see the troubles of climate change and salinity intrusion that impact fresh water shortage. This is a serious issue since inhabitants also suffer a shortage of surface water for domestic purposes, while underground water is increasingly polluted because of delta inhabitants’ overuse (Interview 22, senior researcher, male, Can Tho, 3.6.2010).
In such a context, regional and basin-level cooperation and governance, including knowledge generation and sharing, among stakeholders need, more than ever before, to be strengthened for efficient decision-making in terms of social, economic, and environmental sustainability (cf. Hirsch et al. 2006; Renaud and Kuenzer 2012).
It is very difficult to determine at this stage whether there is a clear paradigmatic shift in the development landscape of the Mekong Delta. What we are certain of is the coexistence, interweavement, and interaction among modernistic, sustainable, and holistic perspectives, which both facilitate and hinder the transformation of the local knowledge system.