SOCIAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
THE CENTRAL HIGHLANDS
POVERTY REDUCTION PROJECT
Dak Nong, Dak Lak, Gia Lai, Kon Tum, Quang Ngai & Quang Nam
[Draft 2]
[THIS DRAFT IS FOR CONSULTATION ONLY, PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE]
August 2013
List of Tables, Figures and Boxes ...................................................................................................... 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 5
Abbreviation........................................................................................................................................ 6
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 10
1.1 Context of the Social Assessment .......................................................................................... 10
1.2 Assessment Objectives .......................................................................................................... 11
1.3 Assessment Methodology....................................................................................................... 11
1.3.1 Theoretical framework...................................................................................................... 11
1.3.2 Data collection tools ......................................................................................................... 16
1.3.3 Sampling procedure and sampling size ........................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 2: KEY FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSMENT .................................................................. 19
2.1 Vulnerable groups, livelihoods capital and external factors that increase the vulnerability ... 19
2.1.1 Vulnerability of Project’s target groups ............................................................................ 20
2.1.2 Accessibility to livelihood funding of target groups in project areas ................................ 24
2.1.3 Some environmental/external factors contribute to the vulnerability of disadvantaged
groups in project areas .............................................................................................................. 39
2.2 Organizational structures and processes ............................................................................... 42
2.2.1 Organizational structures having potential effects on the success of the Project
implementation .......................................................................................................................... 43
2.2.2 Policies, processes and institutions: their levels of impacts on the participation and
benefits of vulnerable target groups .......................................................................................... 47
2.2.3 Some cultural, ritual practices affecting the Project implementation ............................... 53
2.3 Verifying the suitability of the CHPov Project’s livelihood strategies ...................................... 57
2.3.1 Remarkable feedbacks on infrastructure development supports .................................... 57
2.3.2 Remarkable feedbacks on livelihood development supports........................................... 59
2.3.3 Remarkable feedbacks on capacity building activities and project management ........... 61
CHAPTER 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 63
3.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 63
3.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 65
3.2.1. Recommendations to ensure the participation and benefits for vulnerable target groups
.................................................................................................................................................. 65
3.2.2. Recommendations on other stakeholders that could have direct and indirect influences
on the Project's success ........................................................................................................... 67
3.3. Notes to the report ................................................................................................................. 69
References ....................................................................................................................................... 70
Appendix 1: Consultation guidance framework ............................................................................ 71
2
Appendix 2: List of provinces/districts/communes in CHPov Project ........................................... 75
Appendix 3: List of interviewees and participants in group discussions ....................................... 76
3
List of Tables, Figures and Boxes
Table 1.1: Glossary of key terms used in the SLA framework ......................................................... 13
Table 2.1: District poverty rates in project areas, 2010 .................................................................... 20
Table 2.2: Access to utilities (electricity, water, and sanitation) by ethnic groups (2010) ................ 22
Table 2.3: Poverty rate by genders of household heads in project areas (2010) ............................ 23
Table 2.4: Access to utilities (electricity, clean water, sanitation) of households in project areas,
clustered by genders of household heads (2010) ............................................................................ 23
Table 2.5: Land ownership and usage, by ethnic groups (2010) ..................................................... 24
Table 2.6: Land ownership and usage, by genders (2010) .............................................................. 25
Table 2.7: Number of laborers in households in project areas, by ethnic groups (2011) ................ 28
Table 2.8: Number of workers in households, by genders of household heads (2011) ................... 28
Table 2.9: Quality of workforce in project areas – the highest qualification/education of household
heads (2010) .................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 2.10: Labor quality reflecting in qualification/education of household heads, by genders
(2010) ............................................................................................................................................... 31
Table 2.11: Infrastructure serving agricultural production in project areas (2010) ........................... 32
Table 2.12: Households’ access to financial capital in (July 1, 2011) .............................................. 34
Table 2.13: Households’ access to financial capital, by genders of household heads (July 1, 2011)
.......................................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 2.14. Ownership of telecommunication devices and TVs in project areas, by ethnic groups
(2010) ............................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 2.15: Ownership of telecommunication devices in project areas, by genders of household
heads ................................................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 1.1: Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) ...................................................................... 11
Figure 2.1: Ethnic presence in Project areass ................................................................................. 20
Figure 2.2 Poverty rate by ethnic groups, 2010 ............................................................................... 21
Figure 2.3: Proportion of land used for different crops (%), by genders of household heads (2010)
.......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 2.4: Percentage of children with malnutrition in project areas (2011) ................................... 29
Figure 2.5: Proportion of households owning agriculture machines and equipment in project
provinces (2010) ............................................................................................................................... 33
Box 2.1: Limited access to land and water in project areas ............................................................. 27
Box 2.2: Discussions on division of labor between men and women in project areas ..................... 29
Box 2.3: Discussions on qualification/education of EM groups in project areas .............................. 30
Box 2.4: Discussion on saving practices of disadvantaged groups in project areas ....................... 34
Box 2.5: Community spirit is an important social capital of migrant EMs in project areas ............... 37
Box 2.6: Discussion on impacts of migrant waves ........................................................................... 41
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The consultants conducted this survey and developed the “Social Assessment” for the Poverty
Reduction in the Central Highlands Project (CHPov) under the mandate of the Ministry of Planning
and Investment (MPI) and World Bank (WB). During our research, we have received enormous
and continuous supports from related agencies, officers at all levels and local people in the
surveyed areas.
First, we would like to express our great appreciation to the Ministry of Planning and Investment,
the Project Preparation Units at the central, provincial and district levels and World Bank for their
insightful comments and generous supports for the research team.
We would also like to thank the People Committee at all levels, representatives of
Departments/Boards/Sectors in 6 project provinces for providing and sharing practical, specific and
useful information to develop this report. At the same time, the research team is grateful to receive
supports from the local authorities to set up necessary arrangements for our work in the field and
introduce the team to local people and businesses in the surveyed areas.
Finally, we would like to extend our special thanks to the local people for their invaluable time
participating in our interviews, focused group discussion and their activeness in providing
information for the research team to complete our key findings and verifying the accuracy of such
statements related to the social issues of the CHPov.
Due to time and resource constraints, this Assessment may not cover all aspects that could
influence the implementation of the CHPov. For further improvement of research, analysis and
impact evaluation, we hope to receive constructive comments from those interested in the content
of this report.
5
Abbreviation
ADB
:
Asia Development Bank
Agribank
:
Vietnam Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
AusAID
:
The Australian Agency for International Development
CPO
:
Central Project Office
CDB
:
Community Development Board
CEMA
:
Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs
CH
:
The Central Highlands
CHPov
:
Central Highlands Poverty Reduction Project/ the Project
EM
:
Ethnic Minority
FLITCH
:
Forests for Livelihood Improvement in The Central Highlands
FS
:
Feasibility Study
GoV
:
Government of Vietnam
GSO
:
General Statistics Office
IFAD
:
The International Fund for Agricultural Development
ISP
:
Supporting program for Program 135-II in Quang Ngai
M&E
:
Monitoring and Evaluation
MARD/DARD
:
Ministry/Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
MIS
:
Management Information System
MOC
:
Ministry of Construction
MOF/DOF
:
Ministry/Department of Finance
MOLISA/DOLISA
:
Ministry of /Department of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs
MOST
:
Ministry of Science and Technology
MOT
:
Ministry of Transport
MPI/DPI
:
Ministry/Department of Planning and Investment
NGOs
:
Non-governmental organizations
NTM
:
National targeted program on building a new countryside
ODA
:
Official Development Assistance
OP
:
Operation Policy
P135
:
The Program 135
P30a
:
The Program 30a
PDO
:
Project Development Objective
PIM
:
Project Implementation Manual
PMU
:
Project Management Unit
PPC
:
Province People’s Committee
6
PPU
:
Project Preparation Unit
ToRs
:
Term of references
RPF
:
Resettlement Policy Framework
UN
:
United Nations
UNDP
:
United Nations Development Program
USD
:
United States Dollar
VBSP
:
Vietnam’s Bank for Social Policy
VHLSS 2010
:
Viet Nam Household Living Standards Survey 2010
VND
:
Vietnam Dong
WB
:
World Bank
WB3
:
Forest Sector Development Project
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Project Development Objective (PDO) of the Poverty Reduction in the Central Highlands
Project (CHPov Project) is to “increase the livelihood opportunity for poor households and
communities in 26 districts of 06 provinces in Project area”, comprising of four components:(1)
infrastructure development, (2) livelihood development, (3) connective infrastructure development,
capacity building and communication, and (4) project management. The Project is deployed in 26
districts, located in 6 provinces: Dak Nong, Dak Lak, Gia Lai, Kon Tum, Quang Nam and Quang
Ngai. Implementing agency of the Project is Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) and the
Donor is World Bank (WB). Estimated project duration is 5 years (2014 to 2018) with total project
budget amounting USD165 million; of which USD 150 million (90%) is from the ODA fund, and
USD 15 million (10%) is counterpart fund of the Vietnamese Government.
Project beneficiaries are poor households, of which the poor ethnic minorities (EM) people and
women are the vulnerable target groups that are most concerned in this project. Among these
target groups, there are several differences in terms of poverty characteristics, level of vulnerability
and stakeholders’ opinions on potential impacts of the Project on them. Thus, a Social Assessment
is of necessity and has been conducted in order to collect data to form the foundation for the
formulation of policy framework with the engagement of all stakeholders, ensuring that they all
contribute sufficiently to the designing and formulating of project implementation mechanism. The
objective of assessment study is to produce an overall analysis on various
strategies/measures/methods to ensure that project objective is suitable to the social context with
specific objectives as follows: (i) identify and describe the target groups bearing the risk of being
eliminated and not be able to benefit from the Project; (ii) identify major stakeholders in the Project
and their potential influence to the project implementation; (iii) identify procedures, institutional and
cultural features affecting the participation of the beneficiaries; (iv) testify the suitability level of the
livelihood enhancement strategies; and basing on that, (v) propose recommendations on
intervention strategy, project designing rules to ensure that all the vulnerable target groups will be
able to participate sufficiently in and benefit from the Project’s interventions as expected.
In order to realize the above-mentioned objectives, this Assessment is designed basing on the
theoretical framework of Sustainable Livelihood Approach (by DFID and AusAID), the findings are
resulted from secondary statistics and primary data collected from survey sites within the project
areas (using qualitative tools such as in-depth interviews, focus group discussions). Main findings
of this Assessment include:
Regarding vulnerable target groups, study shows that inhabitants in project areas are poorer than
average levels of the locality and the country. VHLSS 2010 reveal s that the poverty rate in project
areas (rural area) is 2.5 times higher than the average rate in rural area nationwide and average
income in project areas is only as 70-80% high as that figure nationwide. From ethnological
perspective, EM groups are poorer ones (compared to Kinh people). From gender perspective, the
group of female-headed households is poorer than male-headed ones.
At the same time, the study shows that the access of disadvantaged groups ( EMs, female-headed
households) to the livelihood resources (natural resource, human resource, capital resource,
financial resource and social resouce) is more limited than others. Additionally, natural disasters,
epidemics, uncontrolled migration to project areas (particularly in recent years) also impact largely
and negatively to the life and livelihoods of benefited groups in the Project area.
Regarding organizational structure, it can be classified into five categories: (1) Entities leading the
implementation process of the Project (People’s Committee at multiple levels with the direct
participation of Chairman or Vice Chairman of People’s Committee, who play the decisive role to
the success of the Project); (2) Entities implementing the Project (special attention have been
drawn regarding capacity and human resource at MPUs at all levels); (3) Entities supporting the
project implentation (departments, sectoral agencies and mass organizations (Women’s Union,
Farmer’s Union); they can only participate effectively in project implementation if there is consistent
direction from People’s Committees as well as sufficient consideration regarding their current roles,
8
capcacity, and workload); (4) Communal entities (currently, their roles has not been given
adequate importance. The project activities will enhance their role gradually); (5) Other entities
(e.g.: private manufacturing sector, service providers play a significant role in project activities.
However, they are confronting certain difficulties in linking players, seeking local labors qualified to
the job requirement of the Project, etc.)
Regarding mechanism, procedures and policies, the implementation of the Project is subject to the
concurrent existent of several poverty reduction policies/ programs in the project area. Though
these activities are fairly diversified, they remain limited in terms of resources, approaching
methods (lacking the participation of stakeholders), etc. Additionally, targeted communities still
remain their communal gathering characteristics with the village autonomy and the important
influence of village heads, the heavy rituals, customs and festival, the outdated ways of living and
manufacturing from the old time when there was not much pressure on their living, as well as
stereotype about the Project targeted groups (particularly local EM groups). These factors will have
certain disturbance to livelihooddevelopment actitivies of the Project.
Regarding the suitability of the Project, feedbacks are collected on three areas: (1) the project
support
to
infrastructure
development,
(2)
the
project
support
to
livelihood
enhancement/development, and (3) the activities to enhance capacity. Generally, the feedbacks
have high opinion on the proposed project design, intervention methods and projection on major
activities of the Project. It is agreed upon that the construction of infrastructure will be implemented
in the direction to support livelihood development. However, it needs a clearer and more detailed
instruction on some issues such as the linkage among constructions, biding methods with the
engagement of community, regulations on the employing of local labors, etc. In terms of livelihood
development activities, there arise quite a few concerns and questions regarding the collective
production models. The most concerned issue is how to avoid the formality and ineffectiveness of
the former collective production (namely cooperatives) model. Content and scope of the support
need designing to be suitable to EM people with special attention is drawn to technical assistance,
repeated training, new production model introduction, providing breeds and agricultural materials.
The question about sustainability also needs special concern of stakeholders. Regarding the
capacity enhancement and project management, the most prominent concerns are on the
importance of capacity enhancement, delegating specialized officers beside part-time positions
and the participation of commune level as investment owner.
Based on major findings presented in this Assessment, the most important recommendations are
to continue completing the designing of the Project following the current content and approaching
methods. The construction of infrastructure must reflect vulnerable target groups’ expectations.
Meanwhile, the activities to disseminate information to and mobilize the vulnerable groups to
actively engage in the Project; and to encourage the support from highly-influential individuals in
the communities will also help improve the participation of these groups significantly.
In addition, this Assessment also points out some notices on the approaching methods to and the
use of Assessment’s results and recommendations such as the scope of survey, the timing
relativity of information and recommendations, the opacity of this Project, etc.
9
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This Chapter presents background context of the Social Assessment (section 1.1), Assessment
Objectives (section 1.2) and Assessment Methodology (section 1.3), which clearly defines the
theoretical framework (section 1.3.1) and discribes assessment procedures and data collection
tools (section 1.3.2), sampling procedure and the sample (section 1.3.3). Thus, all stakeholders are
provided with overall backgound to have better understanding of the report structure and findings
presented in Chapter 2 and recommendations in Chapter 3.
1.1 Context of the Social Assessment
The Project Development Objective of the Central Highland Poverty Reduction Project (CHPov)
(hereinaffter called the Project) is “To increase livelihood opportunities for poor households and
communities in 26 districts of 06 provinces in the project area”. The project areas covers 26
districts in 6 provinces, namely Dak Nong, Dak Lak, Gia Lai, Kon Tum, Quang Nam and Quang
Ngai1. Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) is the Implementing agency and the World Bank
(WB) is the Donor. The estimated project duration is 5 years (2014 -2018) with total investment of
USD 165 million; of which, ODA from the WB comprises of USD 150 million (accounting for 90%),
counterpart fundings from the Government of Vietnam is USD 15 million (accounting for 10%).
The Project comprises of 04 components with specific objectives as follows (1) Component 1:
Commune and Village Infrastructure Development to support production, improve living conditions,
create jobs in infrastructure construction and maintain infrastructure works; (2) Component 2:
Sustainable Livelihoods Development to strengthen food security and nutrition, to diversify market
based livelihoods, and to develop livelihoods linked to markets by cooperating with businesses to
improve incomes sustainably; (3) Component 3: District connective infrastructure development;
capacity building and communication to improve the condition of connective infrastructure at district
level (including both economic and social infrastructure), to promote production, strengthen access
to public services, in parallel, to enhance the capacity of officers; to promote communication and
awareness raising; and (4) Component 4: Project Management to ensure that management,
monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of Project activities are in line with the Project
design.
Methods to select target areas and beneficiaries are designed basing on the guidelines by the
Ministry of Planning and Investment (Dispatch No. 10284/BKH&DT-KTDP&LT dated 11/12/2012
and Dispatch No. 10462/BKH&DT-KTDP&LT dated 17/12/2012). Accordingly, the selection criteria
of target areas and beneficiaries are based on local poverty rate with priorities given to the
vulnerable groups. The selection process follows 3 steps, (i) selection of project districts (ii)
selection of project communes within the districts and (iii) selection of beneficiaries. Annex 2 of this
Report provides more details of the 130 communes in 26 districts under the project areas.
It is reported that the beneficiaries of the CHPov are heterogenous between ethnic groups in terms
of composition of sex, ethnictity, culture, economic status and level of participation, etc. Thus, the
Project’s challenge is to determine different requirements of diverse groups, with focus on
vulnerable ones (the poor in general, the ethnic minorties and the poor women in particular).
Moreover, the numerous stakholders within and outside of this Project also have different views on
the level of impacts exerted from the CHPov activities and on the specific objectives of this Project.
1
26 districts under the project areas include: Dak Glong, Dak Song, Krong No, Tuy Duc (Dak Nong); Buon
Don, Ea Sup, Krong Bong, Lak, M’Dak (Dak Lak); K Bang, Kong Chro, Krong Pa, Mang Yang, Ia Pa (Gia Lai);
Ngoc Hoi, Dak Glei, Sa Thay, Kon Ray, Kon Plong, Tu Mo Rong (Kon Tum); Son Ha, Son Tay, Ba To (Quang
Ngai) and Nam Giang, Phuoc Son, Nam Tra My (Quang Nam).
10
Hence, the Social Assessment is of neccessity in order to develop an policy framework which
allows stakeholders’ participation and their comments to contribute to the design and
implementation mechanism of the Project in the upcoming stages.
In this context, the Social Assessment (hereinafter called the Assessment) under the Central
Highlands Poverty Reduction Project is conducted independently and after the launch of the
Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study of this Project is an important reference source for the
Social Assessment (more details are provided in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of this Report). Findings
and recommendations from this Assessment provide complementary and critic views [regarding to
social impacts] on Feasibility Study’s results.
1.2 Assessment Objectives
As stated in the ToR, the following overall and specific objectives need to be achieved at the
completion of the Project:
Overall objectives: The Social Assessment (SA) is a systematic investigation of the social
processes and factors that affect the outcomes of a development project. It is an analysis that
combines different methods to ensure that a project’s objectives are well defined and the proposed
means to achieve them are appropriate to the social context. The SA provides the baseline
information for designing the social strategy of the project. It is also a process and means to
incorporate social information and stakeholders’ participation/views in the project design
Specific objectives: (i) to identify and characterize vulnerable groups with potential risks of being
marginalized from participation in and benefitsof the Project; (ii) to identify key stakeholders in
terms of their importance to and influence over the project objectives; (iii) to define the procedures,
institutional and cultural factors affecting beneficiaries’ participation in the Project’s consultation,
planning, and implementation; (iv) to testify the relevance of livelihood improvement strategies; and
basing on that, (v) to propose recommendations on intervention strategies, project designing rules
to ensure that all the vulnerable groups can participate and benefit from Project’s interventions as
expected.
In order to realize the above-mentioned objectives, this Assessment is designed basing on the
theoretical foundation “Sustainable Livelihood Approach” (by DFID and AusAID). The findings are
resulted from secondary statistic resources and primary data collected from survey sites within the
project areas (using qualitative tools such as in-depth interviews, focus group discussions). More
details are provided below.
1.3 Assessment Methodology
1.3.1 Theoretical framework
Theoretical framework applied in this Assessment is the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA)
(see Figure 1.1 below)
Figure 1.1: Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA)
11
Key
H = Human Capital
S = Social Capital
N = Natural Capital
P = Physical Capital
F = Financial Capital
LIVELIHOOD ASSETS
LIVELIHOOD
TRANSFORMING
STRUCTURES &
PROCESSES
VULNERABILITY
CONTEXT
N
Influence
access
S

STRUCTURES
Laws
 Levels
 Policies
of
 Culture
govern
 Institution
ment
s
 Private
sector
achieve
F
 More income
 Increased wellbeing
 Reduced
 Improved
food
security
 More sustainable
use of NR base
to
P
LIVELIHOOD
STRATEGIES
&
order
 SEASONALITY
In
H
 SHOCKS
 TRENDS
OUTCOMES
Source: Aggregrated from relevant documents of DFID and AusAID
This approach provides a comprehensive direction for the development of community livelihood
initiatives for all programmes/projects, including the CHPov. According to Serrat (2008) 2, the
sustainable livelihoods approach is a way of thinking to identify the objectives, scope and priorities
for development activities/initiatives. It is based on the evolving thinking about the way the poor
and vulnerable live their lives and the importance of policies and institutions. Livelihood
development activities/initiatives must statisfy the following criteria: (i) people/vulnerable and poorcentered; (ii) responsive to and participatory for the poor and vulnerable; (iii) multilevel; (iv)
conducted in partership with the public and private sectors; (v) dynamic; and (vi) sustainable. This
approach makes the connection between people and the overall enabling environment that
influences the outcomes of livelihood strategies. It brings attention to bear on the inherent potential
of people in terms of their skills, social networks, access to physical and financial resources, and
ability to influence core institutions.
As seen from right to left of the SLA above, the starting point for livelihood development plan is
towards a positve livelihood outcomes for the poor community and the vulnerable. These livelihood
outcomes are also the development objectives, which include income-increase for the community,
increasing stability of the livelihood activities (thus increasing the stability of living conditions in
general); limiting the vulnerability of the community; strengthening food security and using
resources sustainably (these results may sometimes be in conflicts, for instance high income
generation in such a short period can be harmful to the environment). It is neccessary to implement
livelihood strategies in order to achieve the livelihood objectives. The livelihood strategies is a
combination of activities and approaches to implement these activities towards the livelihood
objectives. The livelihood strategies are carried out by a social structure including a lot of
2Sustainable
livelihoods approach identifies priorities for practical actions/interventions basing on stakeholders’ views and
interests but it is not the panacea for all. This approach cannot replace other tools such as participatory development,
sector-wide approaches, or integrated rural development.
12
stakeholders (Government/authority and public/private sector) through a set of
processes/procedures including law, regulations, specific programs/policies, norms/traditions, etc.
The assessment then should be employed at 2 levels, including (1) vulnerbility context and (2)
accessibility /ownership of beneficiaries to available resources for livelihood development, includin
human capital, natural capital, physical capital, financial capital and social capital. More
explanations of the terminologies used in SLA are provided in Table 1.1.
However, it should be noted that all factors in SLA are mutally correlated. Particularly, the
livelihood outcomes achieved can help enhancing available resources that the beneficiaries can
access/own; processes/structures can change several factors in the vulnerbility context.
Table 1.1: Glossary of key terms used in the SLA framework
Sustainable
Livelihoods Approach
(SLA)
:
The sustainable livelihoods approach helps to organize the actors that
constrain or enhance livelihood opportunities and shows how they relate to
one another. A central notion is that different households have different
access livelihood assets, which the sustainable livelihood approach aims to
expand (DFID).
Vulnerability context
:
The vulnerability context includes shocks, critical trends, seasonality that
could affect directly to the well-being of the households, individuals and also
could be harmful to the livelihoods of the inhabitants.
Shocks include extreme weather conditions such as storms, floods, drought,
frosts and civil conflict. These shocks can lead to homelessness and loss of
crops, thus the common response practices are to disperse or store assets
in different places, and/or early harvesting crops and livestock. The recent
macro-economic shocks such as global economic crisis also have negative
impact on the income of the poor, farmers due to the decrease in commodity
price of agricultural products and consumption in the global market. Other
shocks such as uncontrolled diseases can destroy livestock and plants.
Critical trends, even though predictable, may create both positive and
negative impacts. Critical trends include: demographic trend (for example
shift of labor from rural to urban to meet the labor demand during the
industrialization process in urban); environmental trends (for example soil
acidification, salinity in coastal areas, reduced aquifer water, loss of arable
land due to rising sea levels); economic trends at the national and
international level (for example shortages cocoa supply on a global scale),
and technological trends (for example seed production technology,
production technology of microbial fertilizers). All of these trends have
important implications to investment ratio, thus affecting selected livelihood
strategies. However, not all trends have negative impact. But the use of
vulnerability context [the negative impact from environment] is to emphasize
that the poor is facing [directly or indirectly] with a lot of difficulties caused by
these trends. Their livelihood activities are already vulnerable, making it
even harder for the poor to deal with these risks, whether foreseeable or
not. Moreover, this could also limit the possibility [of the poor] of reversed
impact on the environment to reduce these risks; as a result, the poor even
gets more vulnerable. Even if the trend is positive, the poor seems not to
benefit from it because they are lack of assets and production technique to
take advantages from this positive trend.
Seasonality is reflected in: (i) changes in agricultural commodity prices
(higher price when agricultural commodities are scarce, lower price at
harvesting period and large outputs); (ii) more job opportunities at
production peak (for example coffee harvesting period in the Central
Highlands); (iii) higher supply of food crops after harvesting period (typically
in maize and rice) and lower supply between-crop period; changes of
production costs during dry or rainy season (extra costs incurred due to
13
pumping water during dry season or drying agricultural products during rainy
season). Thus, seasonality more or less has effects on the poor and
farmers.
Vulnerability context is beyond control of the inhabitants. In short and
medium terms, a person or a small group of people can hardly do anything
to directly change any factors of this vulnerability context.
Defense capability
:
Is the ability to defense and recover from shocks, then maintaining or
strengthening production capabilities, assets and other activities after
shocks.
Livelihoods
:
A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets, and activities required for a
means of living.
It is deemed sustainable when the people can cope with and recover from
stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities, assets, and
activities both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural
resource base.
Livelihood strategies
:
A livelihood strategy is a combination of activities and approaches to
conduct that typical livelihood in order to achieve the expected livelhood
outcomes.
Natural-resource based activities are linked with agriculture, forestry
livelihoods. Non-natural resource based and off-farm activities include
services, handicrafts, mitigation and adaptation activities, and other short
term and long term activities.
The livelihood outcomes are exerted after the implementation of livelihood
strategies, with the assumption of no risks and unrecovered negative
impacts that can reduce or eliminate the livelihood outcomes
Human capital
:
Health, nutrition, education, knowledge and skills, capacity to work, capacity
to adapt
Social capital
:
Networks and connections (patronage, neighborhoods, kinship), relations of
trust and mutual understanding and support, formal and informal groups,
shared values and behaviors, common rules and sanctions, collective
representation, mechanisms for participation in decision-making, leadership
Physical capital
:
Infrastructure (transport, roads, vehicles, secure shelter and buildings, water
supply and sanitation, energy, communications), tools and technology (tools
and equipment for production, seed, fertilizer, pesticides, traditional
technology)
Financial capital
:
Savings, credit and debt (formal, informal), remittances, pensions, wages
Transforming
Structures
Processes
and
Transforming structures include public/private sector organizations,
mass/civil organizations. The public sector organizations set and implement
policy and legislation; the private sector organizations deliver services,
purchase, trade, and perform all manner of other functions that affect
livelihoods; mass/civil organizations support, promote and connect
public/private organizations with beneficiaries.
Processes embrace the laws, regulations, policies, operational
arrangements, agreements, societal norms, and practices that, in turn,
determine the way in which structures operate. Policy-determining
structures cannot be effective in the absence of appropriate institutions and
processes through which policies can be implemented.
Processes have a strong influence on the poor and other vulnerable groups
through the operation of the organizations/entities. Processes are important
to every aspect of livelihoods. They provide incentives that stimulate people
to make better choices. They grant or deny access to assets. They enable
14
people to transform one type of asset into another through markets. Thus,
processes are amongst the key factors in the Sustainable Livelihood
Approach (SLA)
Step2
Reviewbeneficiaries, poverty status (multidimensional) and other
important social factors of the poor, ethnic minorities and womenreassess the suitability of PDO with the needs of beneficiaries
Step3
Evaluate: (1) beneficiaries’ access to livelihood capital; (2) vulnerability
context (trends, shocks or seasonality)
Step4
Evaluate the transforming structures and processes (organizations
involve in management and operation of the Project including
government sector, civil/corporate sector, society; private sector
(enterprises, businesses) and cultural institutions that could affect the
project implementation
Verify
Review the Project livelihood strategies (include PDO and specific
objectives of 4 Components, sub-components and project activities)
Verify
Step 1
Verify
If the CHPov Project is considered as a sets of livelihood initiatives (or livelihood outcome
creations), the Social Assessment will review the development process of such initiatives by going
through the SLA above (Figure 1.1) from right to left, following the steps below:
15
1.3.2 Data collection tools
Different quantitative and qualitative data collection methods and tools are applied in every steps of
the social assessment. In particular:
Step 1:
Project
strategies
Review the
livelihod
:
Desk reviews:

Draft of Feasibility Study at central and provincial level;

Available documents, reports for the Feasibility Study;

Draft of Resettlement Policy Framework (for people who could lose
their land during the Project implementation).
Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews:
Step 2: Review the
vulnerable beneficiaries
:

PPU officers at central and provincial level;

WB officers.
Desk review and data calculation based on available databases:

Vietnam Household Living Standard Survey 2010 (VHLSS 2010);

Agricensus 2011;

Statistics at central, provincial, district and commune level;

Decisions of PPC on annual poverty rate announcement;

Local poverty reduction programs, strategies
In-depth interviews:

Government officers of departments/sectors at all levels;

Officers at social/political organizations (WU, Farmers Union);

Better-off households;

Representatives of businesses, private enterprises;

Representatives of local NGOs.
Focus group discussions:
Step
3:
Evaluate
determinants that could
affect livelihoods (access
to livelihood capital and
vulnerability context)
:

The poor (from different groups);

Indigenous ethnic minorities;

Migrant ethnic minorities;

Women (from different groups).
Desk review and data calculation from available databases:

Agricensus 2011;

Social-economic development reports of the locality;

Announcement of agricultural commodity prices (from different
sources);

Hydrological data.
In-depth interviews:

Government officers of departments/sectors at all levels;

Officers at social/political organizations (WU, Farmers Union);

Better-off households;

Representatives of businesses, private enterprises;

Representatives of local NGOs.
Focus group discussions:

The poor (from different groups);

Indigenous ethnic minorities;
16
Step 4: Evaluate the
transforming structures
and policies (poverty
reduction);
processes
(democracy,
participation, etc.) and
cultural norms that could
affect the implementation
of the Project
:

Migrant ethnic minorities;

Women (from different groups).
Desk reviews:

Feasibility Study at central level
management and roles of authorities);

Regulations of democracy;

Documents and reports from poverty reduction programs/projects
at the locality (Policy on stabilizing lives for migrant ethnic
minorities in Dak Nong; Program 30A, FLITCH, 3M, etc.).
(description
of
Project
In-depth interviews:

Government officers at all levels (especially commune officers and
CEMA officers)

Officers at social/political organizations (WU, Farmers Union);

Village head, elders
Focus group discussions:

The poor (from different groups);

Indigenous ethnic minorities;

Migrant ethnic minorities;

Women (from different groups).
Details of the quantitative data collection tools are attached with this Report. The Assessment
started from December 2012, and is divided into different stages including designing stages and
desk review, field survey (pilot and field trip), data processing and initial findings; and final report.
Among the stages, field survey is the most important implication because it provides objective and
realistic basis for all the findings in the Report. In this step, common evaluation techniques of
Participatory Rural Assessment – PRA are applied to promote participation in focus group
discussions and to encourage respondents to share information and ideas during semi-structured
interviews.
1.3.3 Sampling procedure and sampling size
Field survey was carried out in 6 provinces of the Project, one district was selected for survey in
each province (Krong No – Dak Nong, M’Drak – Dak Lak, Ia Pa – Gia Lai, Kon Ray – Kon Tum, Ba
To – Quang Ngai, Phuoc Son – Quang Nam). Selection criteria are the poverty rate and ethnic
composition. Regarding poverty rate, the selected districts are not the poorest nor the richest
districts in each project province. Regarding ethnic composition, districts were selected based on
their highest indigenous ethnic popoluation in the project areas, such as E De, Ba Na, Xo Dang,
M’nong and J’rai (in the Central Highlands) and H’re and Co Tu (in Quang Ngai and Quang Nam).
Two communes were selected in each district, based on criteria of ethnicity to ensure inclusion of
both indigenous ethnic minorities and migrant ethnic minorities (except for Ba To, Quang Ngai and
Phuoc Son, Quang Nam, the criteria of ethnicity was not applied, since the immigration of ethnic
minorities in these provinces is not as common as of the Central Highlands). List of surveyed
communes are provided in Annex 2.
The sampling size for the field survey is 488 respondents. In particular: in-depth interviews were
conducted on 100 provincial officers (including the Implementing agencies and other
organizations/agencies), 50 district officers, 40 communal officers and 14 village heads/elders. At
household level, focus group discussionss were organized with the participation of 115
representatives from indigenous ethnic minorities, 59 representatives from migrant ethnic
17
minorities, and 88 women. In addition, 09 better-off households and 11 businesses in constructrion
and agricultural field were also consulted.
In addition to data collected directly from field survey, this Assessment also references to a number
of available documents/research on ethnic minorities and gender equality in the project area;
utilizes data from VHLSS 2010, Agricensus 2011 and Enterprises Census 2010.
Therefore, with the scope and structure mentioned above, the sample size can adequately reflect
viewpoints of different stakeholders in the Project, especially those from the beneficiaries who are
the most vulnerable target groups. The consultation process with such respondents, especially
those who are not directly involving in the project management (such as businesses, better-off
households) can help acquiring more information and recommendations on the project design.
18
CHAPTER 2: KEY FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSMENT
As recommended in SLA Theory Framework and according to the current Project design, the key
findings of this assessment are presented in groups of contents as follows: Section 2.1 describes
features of Project vulnerable beneficial targets, which are poverty characteristics,
accessibility/ownership to livelihood fundings, and the contextual factor increasing the vulnarability
of the beneficial groups; Section 2.2 demonstrates the key findings concerning management
structures and processes; specifically, Section 2.2.1 includes key findings about stakeholders
having both direct and indirect impacts on the implementation and posibility of success in realizing
Project’s objectives, as well as potential risks involving these stakeholders; Section 2.2.2 is the key
findings on the structures/processes (including programs/projects, cultural/religious practices,
regulation on democracy at local levels and the participation of community in the local socioeconomic development. Section 2.3 focuses on the feedback of survey beneficial targets and
stakeholders on the Project design (projected livelihood strategy) at the time of survey. Based on
these findings, the Assessment gives some key recommendations in Chapter 3.
2.1 Vulnerable groups, livelihoods capital and external factors that
increase the vulnerability
Vulnerability is characterized as insecurity in the well-being of individuals, households, and
communities when facing changes in their external environment. People move in and out of
poverty and the concept of vulnerability captures the processes of change better than poverty line
measurements.
Vulnerability, as provided in SLA framework, has two facets: (i) external vulnerable factors or
vunerability context, and (ii) individuals’ defenselessness caused by lack of ability and means to
cope with risks/threats from external context. The vulnerability context includes shocks, trends, and
seasonality that directly affect individuals’/households’ asset status and/or their livelihood choices.
[See Table 1.1 for more details on vulnerability context concept]. On the other hand, people’s weak
defense also roots in limited possessions of assets (poor) and lack of access to livelihoods capital,
which, in turn, put them in situation of lacking ability and means to cope with risks/threats from
external context.
Section 2.1 will discuss the vulnerability characteristics of Project’s target groups, findings on their
limited access to livelihoods, and external factors causing such vulnerability.
Data will be analyzed by ethnics and genders of the household heads. This selection of analysis
dimensions reflects Project’s attention to ethnic minority groups (indigenous and migrant) as well
as female beneficiaries. Besides, these two dimensions help to construct recommendations in best
interests of target groups, mitigating risks that more disadvantaged/vulnerable groups are
marginalized both in Project’s participation and benefits.
Regarding ethnicity, there are three major groups, namely Kinh, indigenous EMs, and other EMs.
There are 41 ehnic groups living in 26 project districts. Among them, EMs account for 60%, the
rest is Kinh. By ascending scale, ethnic groups in project areas can be presented as follows: Co
Tu (1%), E de (3%), M’Nong (5%), Jarai (7%), Bana (7.4%), Xo Dang (9.3%), H’re (10%), other
minorities (16%), comprising of all other minorities having extremely low presentation in the
secondary survey, and Kinh (40%). Dominant indigenous EMs in project areas are Ede, M’Nong
(mainly located in Dak Lak and Dak Nong); Jarai, Xo Dang, Ba Na, Gie Trieng (mainly in Gia Lai
and Kon Tum); H’re and Ca Dong (in Quang Ngai) and Co Tu (in Quang Nam) (see Figure 2.1).
Data is analyzed by three levels: project communes (130 communes), project districts (26 districts)
and project provinces (6 provinces). Data at national level may be included in analyses to make
19
Figure 2.1: Ethnic presence in Project areass
comparison
between
project
provinces and the whole country. In
some cases, data of non-project
communes in project districts and
non-project districts in project
provinces is also explored to
highlight the comparison between
Project and non-project areas. Some
data is only available at province
level (e.g. people’s nutrition status),
limiting the relevant discussion at
comparing between six project
provinces and the whole country.
Other
ethnic
minorities,
16.4
Kinh ethnic,
39.6
Hre, 10.3
Co Tu, 1,1
Xo Đang,
9.3
Ede, 3.4
Bana , 7.4
Jarai, 7.2
M'Nong,
5.3
Regarding gender issues, gender of
the household head is the second
dimension in analyses. Data clustered by household heads’ gender is only analyzed for project
areas, from commune level to province level. It is worth noting that in project areas, matriarchy and
patriarchy are twisted all at the same time. Ethnic groups living under matriarchy usually have
female household heads. In Quang Nam and Quang Ngai, the major indigenous EMs (Co Tu, Hre,
Gie Trieng) follow patriarchy. In Central Highland provinces, major indigenous EMs (Jarai, M’Nong,
Ede) follow matriarchy. Typical cultural features and/or roles of men and women within families and
in the society of such two systems will be discussed for their impacts on the Project.
2.1.1 Vulnerability of Project’s target groups
According to Project Feasibility Report [version 2, available at the time of this asessment], Project’s
special focus is placed on disadvantaged beneficiary groups, including poor households, nearly
poor households, indigenous EM households [or so-called indigenous groups), migrant EM
households (particularly migrant households in the last 3 - 5 year) and women. Analyses of
secondary data and primary data from this survey reconfirm that poor households (in all ethnic
groups), EMs and women are groups having more disadvantages in access to livelihood capital,
being affected more seriously by adverse external factors and having risks of being marginalized
(at different levels) from Project’s consultation, planning, implementation and benefits.
Firstly, people in project areas are poorer than the average level of local areas and the
whole country: project areas are poorer than the national average level. According to VHLSS
2010, poverty rate in project rural areas is nearly 2.5 times higher than that of general rural areas,
and average income in project areas is only 70 – 80% of the national average.
Table 2.1: District poverty rates in project areas, 2010
National average*
Average for six project provinces
Average for 26 project districts
Non-project districts in the project provinces
130 project communes
Average for non-project communes in 26 project
districts
Poverty rate (%)
Near poverty rate (%)
14.2
7.53
24.9
7.4
45.0
8.4
20.0
7.1
51.9
8.1
39.4
8.7
Source: Agricensus 2011 and * poverty rate announced by MOLISA
20
In 2010, while national poverty rate decreases to 14.2% (Table 2.1), poverty rate in project
provinces is nearly 25% and keeps increasing particularly in 26 project districts or 130 project
communes. At province level, there is a poor one in every 4 people, and in project communes, one
out of two people are poor. Near poverty rate in project areas is also higher than that of national
average. For the whole country, only 6.98% of the population living in near poverty range but that
of six project provinces and 130 project communes is 7.39% and 8.07%, respectively. If confining
analyses in project districts, we can easily find that poverty rate of non-project communes is
remarkably lower than that of 130 project communes (34.9% in comparison to 51.9%). The
comparison between Project and non-project districts in the six project provinces also shows a
much higher poverty rate in 26 project districts (45% in comparison to 20%). And for the whole
country, poverty rate of the six project provinces is nearly double the national average (24.9% in
comparison to 11.8%). Although one of CHPov Project’s selection criteria is to choose locations
with higher poverty rate (only districts with poverty rate of above 30% are qualified to be included in
project areas), data showing the significant difference between poverty rates of Project and nonproject areas still reflects economic drawback in project areas, implying difficulties in life of people
living in such areas.
Secondly, from ethnological perspective, data also confirms that EMs are the poorer group:
Secondary data shows that, in comparison with King group, EMs (indigenous and migrant) are
poorer (see Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2 Poverty rate by ethnic groups, 2010
100
85
77
80
68
61
57
60
40
73
71
59
51 48
48
51
37
30
25
24
17
20
11
0
Quang Nam
Quang Ngai
Kon Tum
Kinh
Gia Lai
Indigenous EMs
Dak Lak
Dak Nong
Others
Source: Data for project areas, Agricensus 2011
It is quite obvious that poverty rate of Kinh group in project provinces is always lower than that of
EM groups. For example, in Kon Tum, Kinh group’s poverty rate is only 11% while that of
indigenous EMs is more than 70% and of other ethnic groups is nearly 50%. Poverty rate of Kinh
group in the project areas never exceeds 40%. But it is easily found poverty rates of over 70-80%
in EMs groups all over project provinces. The gap between the group having the lowest poverty
rate (always Kinh) with group having the highest poverty rate is usually 40-50 percentage points,
and the gap between this group and the middle ones only ranges around 10 percentage points.
Regarding Kon Tum, the province with highest disparity, the differences are 62 and 25 percentage
points, respectively.
With Figure 2.2, it can be stated that, in project areas, if we meet three Kinh people, at least two of
them live above the poverty line. But, if we meet 3 EM people, it is likely that two of them live under
the poverty line. And this is only monetary poverty rate. If we put the situation under multidimensional poverty measures, the poverty rate in EM groups can be more severe and gaps
between Kinh and other ethnic groups in project areas can be much larger (especially when
21
narrowing down to dimensions of education, health care and safe water usage). It can be predicted
basing on current population distribution (Kinh people mainly locate in cities and cultural-economicsocial hubs), living practices (with backwardness of EMs) of relevant ethnic groups.
Table 2.2: Access to utilities (electricity, water, and sanitation) by ethnic groups (2010)
Access to
electricity from
national grid
Proportion (%)
of households
using clean water
for cooking
91.4
66.8
17.1
Kinh
Indigenous
groups
94.8
94.4
38.9
93.3
47.6
6.7
Other EMs
project districts (including non-project
communes)
82.7
72.2
11.1
93.4
71.6
20.9
Kinh
Indigenous
groups
96.8
95.2
40.4
92.8
50.6
6.5
Other EMs
86.4
70.9
12.6
Kinh
Indigenous
groups
99.0
98.7
62.8
95.1
64.5
10.1
Other EMs
89.7
79.4
17.2
project communes (130 communes)
Hygienic latrines
Six project provinces)
Source: Agricensus 2011
To build up a accurate database on multi-dimensional poverty among ethnic groups in project
areas, it needs a more comprehensive and complicated survey and/or calculation that are beyond
scope of this report. However, with basic data provided by Agricensus 2011 (Table 2.2) on access
to electricity, clean water, and sanitation along with field observations of this survey, it somehow
pictures the disparity among ethnic groups in project areas. Even disaggregating for project areas
alone or aggregating for all districts or provinces, at any level of data, Kinh group always have
most access to all three basic dimensions of multi-dimensional poverty (electricity, clean water,
sanitation). In all six project provinces, nearly 100% of Kinh people have access to electricity from
national grid, use clean water for cooking, and 62.78% of them have access to hygienic latrines. If
narrowing to project districts or 130 project communes alone, these figures are lower but not much.
Access to national electricity grid is quite equal among ethnic groups (Kinh, indigenous EMs, and
other EM groups) but it is an exception. Access to clean water and sanitation clearly show the
disparity. In project communes, less than half of indigenous EM people use clean water for
cooking, and less than 7% of them have access to hygienic latrines. Migrant EMs group is in
slightly better situation with proportion using clean water is more than 70%, but proportion using
hygienic latrines is still extremely low at about 11%.
The overall picture, even zoom in or out, shows backwardness of EMs groups in comparison with
Kinh people in economic, sanitation, clean water terms. Among them, indigenous EM group is the
most disadvantaged, especially in access to sanitation. Only access to electricity from national grid
shows a higher access by indigenous EMs in comparison to other EMs groups because many
newly-migrated EM people are not settled and newly-established villages/communes have limited
or no access to utilities (including electricity). Among migrant EM households (Dao, Muong, Thai,
H’Mong from the North and Mekong delta), migrants in the last 3 years are in most difficult
situation.
22
Thirdly, from gender perspective, group of female-headed households is poorer than group
of male-headed households: Group of female-headed households (including both matriarchy and
patriarchy) has poverty rate considerably higher than that of male-headed households. The
difference, for 130 project communes, is 10 percentage points (60.4% in comparison with 50.4%).
Calculating on 26 project districts and the whole six project provinces, the differences are more
than 12 and 13 percentage points, respectively (see Table 2.3).
Table 2.3: Poverty rate by genders of household heads in project areas (2010)
Gender of household head
130 project communes
26 project districts
6 project provinces
Poverty rate
Near poverty rate
Male
50.4
8.3
Female
60.4
6.5
Male
43.1
8.7
Female
55.0
7.1
Male
22.0
7.4
Female
36.3
7.2
Source: Agricensus 2011
If including nearly-poor households, the difference will be reduced a bit because the proportion of
nearly-poor households in group of female-headed households is lower than that of male-headed
households. Poverty of female-headed households is rooted in the lack of laborers and production
capacity, making it more persist and extreme. However, though male-headed households have
laborers and production capacity, their poverty can be due to ways of living and family
management (of the men in families), they are not in extreme poverty but not be able to get rich.
“Poor households are those headed by the women without husband (died), sons; or those have too many
children (10 family members), that limits their family from developing economy”
(Village elderly, Ia Broai Commune, Ia Pa District, Gia Lai Province)
More illustration is provided in Table 2.4. Being poorer than group of male-headed households (in
monetary aspect) but access to electricity and clean water of group of female-headed households
is the same [at level of project communes] or higher [at level of project districts and project
provinces]. Access to hygienic latrines is higher in male-headed households [the difference varies
from one to three percentage points at all levels, communes, districts, and project provinces]. This
can ben explained that the female household heads have more concerns on using clean water for
cooking and other family usage.
“In family, women do not only have to take over the farming work, but also take care of the housework and
children. They are in charge of preparing foods for the whole family, men are not”
(Farmers in commune Quang Phu, district Krong No, province Dak Nong)
“Issues of nutrition or food security should be assigned to women and Women’s Union because they are the
ones who take care of foods, nutrition, and sanitation for all other family members. It is true for all ethnic
groups, both patriarchy and matriarchy.”
(Comments by many local authorities’ staff and people on roles of women in terms of family’s nutrition issues)
Data shows that if accessing to utilities is not much affected by availability of labor [for examples,
using electricity from national grid, using clean water for cooking] the situation in group of femaleheaded households is better or at least the same as that of group of male-headed households. If it
requires labor for implementation [building latrines] the female-headed households will lose its
advantages.
Table 2.4: Access to utilities (electricity, clean water, sanitation) of households in project areas,
clustered by genders of household heads (2010)
Sex of the household head
% of households
23
130 project communes
26 project districts
6 project provinces
Using electricity
from national grid
Using clean water
for cooking
Having hygienic
latrines
Male
91.2
66.8
17.2
Female
92.6
66.5
16.6
Male
93.2
71.5
21.2
Female
94.1
72.2
19.3
Male
97.4
89.7
49.0
98.0
92.1
46.8
Female
Source: Agricensus 2011
2.1.2 Accessibility to livelihood capital of target groups in project areas
As provided in SLA framework, the theoretical framework of this assessment, livelihoods capital
can be categorized into 5 groups of (i) natural capital, (ii) human capital; (iii) physical capital; (iv)
financial capital, and, last but not least, (v) social capital. The combination of such capital is the
prerequisite for communities to develop economically. However, it is worth noting that different
factors such as structures and processes are sufficient conditions for livelihood capital to be made
employed in socio-economic development processes. The following part will analyze, in
comparative views, the access of groups, clustered by ethnic and gender, to above-mentioned
livelihoods capital.
(a) Regarding natural capital: Natural capital includes land and its produce, water and aquatic
resources, trees and forest products, wildlife, wild foods and fibers, biodiversity, environment, and
climate. In this Social Assessment, access to the most important natural capital, land, will be
analyzed and compared among vulnerable groups. In general, opportunities to benefit from other
natural capital such as climate, environment, biodiversity, forest products, etc. are all the same
between disadvantaged groups and the others.
Table 2.5: Land ownership and usage, by ethnic groups (2010)
Households’ average land areas (m2)
Land for
Land for
Land for
annual
perennial
forestry
Total
crops
crops
production
areas
130
project
communes
26 project
districts
6 project
provinces
Households’ average cultivation areas (m2)
Rice
Maize
Coffee
Pepper
Rubber
tree
Cashew
Kinh
Indigenous
groups
6,697
9,328
849
16,874
1,592
1,487
5,861
303
1,903
1,127
11,915
2,422
5,078
19,416
4,934
2,156
908
50
416
632
Other EMs
10,224
5,343
1,074
16,641
4,066
2,015
2,714
93
1,768
667
Kinh
Indigenous
groups
7,089
7,509
1,100
15,698
2,131
1,493
4,828
301
1,466
781
11,236
1,817
4,652
17,706
4,695
2,077
669
27
325
409
Other EMs
10,126
4,746
1,359
16,232
3,981
2,148
2,474
87
1,485
588
Kinh
Indigenous
groups
2,622
4,110
957
7,689
1,891
511
2,791
212
683
303
8,699
4,359
2,798
15,856
4,048
1,585
2,386
81
1,007
646
Other EMs
8,428
5,485
1,919
15,833
3,361
2,820
3,126
164
1,084
985
Source: Agricensus 2011
Regarding 130 project communes, there is no significant difference in land ownership among
ethnic groups. Each indigenous EM household owns about 1.94 ha while each Kinh and other EM
household owns about 1.65 ha. But data for the whole six provinces in general starts showing
disparity. Kinh group’s land area is just about half of the other two groups’. There is, however, still
no significant difference in land ownership between groups of indigenous EMs and migrant EMs.
24
This may be due to the fact that migrants usually buy land from indigenous EM households. There
is no new land for exploration, therefore, despite of their prior residency, indigenous EMs show no
advantage over groups of Kinh and other EMs in land ownership.
Difference in land ownership is not significant but usage of such land is greatly different among the
three groups. Kinh group owns very little land of annual and forestry crops, especially forestry
production land. This group focuses on perennial/industrial crops which have high economic value
and are the advantage of project provinces. The aggregated statistics of all six project provinces
shows Kinh group’s land area is only half of that of the other two groups; but in the scope of 26
project districts or 130 project communes in particular, areas of Kinh group’s perennial crops are
much higher than that of indigenous EMs and other EMs. Taking 130 project communes alone,
average area of perennial crops of Kinh households is 0.93 ha while it is just 0.24 and 0.53 ha for
indigenous EMs and other minorities groups, respectively (see details in Table 2.5).
Indigenous EMs’ land is mostly used to cultivate annual crops (rice and maize) and forest trees
which require less investment and care but result in lower economic benefits and incomes than
those invested by Kinh and other EM groups. Other EM households also spare a large proportion
of their land for annual crops, similar to that of indigenous EMs (about 1.0-1.1 at commune and
Project level, reducing to about 0.85 in case of calculating for all six project provinces as a whole).
However, their area of perennial crops is much higher. It can be reasoned that migrants need
annual yields to ensure their normal life in process of accumulating land but their long-term target
is increasing investment in and getting benefits from perennial/industrial crops.
Statistics on cultivation of Kinh, indigenous EMs, and other EMs are totally consistent with abovementioned statistics and analyses on land ownership and usage. Indigenous EM groups which has
the highest land areas of annual and forestry crops is also the highest investors in rice and maize
cultivation. Kinh households, in general, have the highest average areas of coffee, rubber tree and
cashew. Other EMs, although have similar areas of rice and maize as indigenous EMs, have much
higher areas of rubber tree, pepper, and cashew. Especially in project communes, average land
area that households in this group spare for rubber tree is very high. Therefore, despite their much
lower area of perennial crops in comparison with Kinh households, their area of rubber tree is
almost similar (0.17 ha comparing with 0.19 ha). Statistics for all six project provinces show that
households’ average areas of coffee, rubber tree, and cashew in this group are also higher than
that of Kinh households.
Analyses on land ownership reveal significant differences between male-headed households and
female-headed households (see Table 2.6).
Table 2.6: Land ownership and usage, by genders (2010)
Households’ average land areas (m2)
130 project
communes
26 project
districts
6 project
provinces
Households’ average cultivation areas (m2)
Total
areas
Rice
Total
areas
Rice
Total
areas
Rice
Total
areas
Rice
Total
areas
Rice
Male
10,413
5,385
3,106
18,904
3,911
1,999
2,927
147
1,212
822
Female
7,695
3,445
2,065
13,206
2,900
1,525
1,818
56
808
570
Male
9,860
4,862
2,868
17,590
3,735
1,937
2,805
162
1,023
616
Female
6,994
2,880
1,830
11,704
2,633
1,429
1,571
57
661
420
Male
4,691
4,772
1,572
11,035
2,617
994
3,070
210
866
469
Female
2,762
2,240
751
5,753
1,754
545
1,387
69
433
245
Source: Agricensus 2011
As presented in Table 2.6, male-headed households are always the group of higher land
ownership. The gap will be widened if data level increases. Calculating for 130 project communes
25
alone, male-headed households own an average area of 1.9 ha in comparison with 1.32 ha of
female-headed households. If calculating for 26 project districts or the whole six project provinces,
the figures will be 1.75 ha – 1.17 ha and 1.1ha – 0.57 ha, respectively. At a larger scale (for all six
provinces as a whole) group of female-headed households obviously shows its disadvantaged
access to land capital given that land areas owned by them is only about half of that of maleheaded household group. There is also difference in their usage of land. Female-headed
households cultivate more annual crops than male-headed ones (48% comparing to 42.5%, Figure
2.3), however, the difference is not large at district and commune level. Crop distribution is quite
equal between two groups and this pattern is also repeated with other major crops (see Figure
2.3). It implies that households’ decision on land usage does not depend on gender of the
household head (see Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3: Proportion of land used for different crops (%), by genders of household heads (2010)
130 Project 26 Project 6 Project
communes districts
provinces
a. Annual, perennial, and industrial crops
Female
48.0
Male
38.9
42.5
Female
43.2
59.8
Male
Male
0%
20%
16.3
26.1
55.1
60%
Land for
forestry
15.6
28.5
40%
Land for
perennial crops
15.6
27.6
58.3
Land for annual
crops
14.3
24.6
56.1
Female
13.1
16.4
80%
100%
6 Project
provinces
Female
130 Project 26 Project
communes districts
b. Major crops
Female
Male
Rice
Maize
Coffee
Male
Pepper
Rubber
Female
Cashew
Male
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Source: Agricensus 2011
People and local authorities’ staff in most of surveyed communes mention limited access to land
and water as the main obstacles to production development in project areas (Box 2.1). Even in
case of large cultivation areas, disadvantages of terrain (segmented, sloppy) and infrastructure
(poor transportation and irrigation) still create difficult conditions for agricultural production of
majority of people in project areas.
26
Box 2.1: Limited access to land and water in project areas
“It is impossible to cultivate maize in the highest hill, three fourth (3/4) of the area is rocks. Irrigation is also
difficult, depending heavily on natural flows. There are only two damps serving 45ha. If natural flows run
out then crops will be lost. Cassava is cultivated in hill land, best crops yield about 5 tons/ha while the
normal yield in other localities is 25 tons/ha. It is due to poor-fertilized land here (60%)...”
(Communal official, commune Eatrang, district M’Drak, Dak Lak)
“The major obstacle is the lack of water: there is no irrigation damp here, all depends on rains and natural
spring flows. The water sources are very far (both wife and husband have to go to carry water). There is
almost no water from March/April to August”.
(FGDs with women, commune Ba Kham, district Ba To, province Quang Ngai)
“Land area is large but segmented; the field is 5-6 km away from home, take half of day to travel there. It is
not fertilized by muck because it is too far, no one can carry muck to that far.”
(FGDs with women, commune Ba Kham, district Ba To, province Quang Ngai)
“Households in most difficulties are the 9 households with little land. The parents before were too lazy for
reclaiming land therefore they do not have land to share for their descendants”.
(Village patriarch, communes Ia Broai, district Ia Pa, province Gia Lai)
“Poverty here roots in poor-fertilized land, tough terrain. Population scatter, making trade and
transportation more challenging. Trading is also difficult due to lack of water”.
(Village head, commune AeTrang, district M’Drak, province Dak Lak)
“I have not had land-use rights certificate for this piece of land yet. I still invest in but I am very worried
whether I can get the certificate. If it is foreclosed I will lose all investment”.
(FGDs with migrant EM people, commune Quang Phu, district Krong No, province Dak Nong)
Source: Social Assessment Survey, 2013
Agriculture generates major income for most of people in the project areas (in the six project
provinces, proportion of households has main income from agricultural activities is 95.32%, for 26
project districts, it is 98.19%, and for 130 project communes, it is 98.73 (Source: Agricensus
2011)). This argument is very important in explaining the reason that poor female-headed and EM
households tend to cultivate short-day crops which may result in low economic benefits but satisfy
their instant money demands and have short capital turnover.
(b) Regarding human capital: Human capital implies “quantity and quality of workforce”, in which,
quality is reflected in health, nutrition, education, knowledge and skills, capacity to work, capacity
to adapt of such workforce.
Regarding labor quantity, according to available secondary data, proportion of population
participating in production in the six provinces is higher than their population in working-ages
(65.5% comparing with 60.9% according to Agricensus 2011). This difference may be resulted
from difficult economic conditions, forcing people out of working ages (elderly and children) to join
the workforce. That elderly in poor and short-handed households still work can illustrate the fact
mentioned.
From ethnic perspective, EMs couples usually have more children, resulting in their average
number of household members is usually higher than that of Kinh households. In average, each
Kinh household has 3.8 – 3.9 members, each EM household has 4.4 – 4.9 members. Correlatively,
average number of workers in EM households is slightly higher, 2.6 – 2.8 for EM households in
comparison with 2.3 – 2.4 workers/Kinh households (Table 2.7). It means, in quantity terms, Kinh
27
group has less workforce than EMs ones. However, quality of such workforces should be taken
into account to have a more comprehensive picture (see Table 2.7).
Table 2.7: Number of laborers in households in project areas, by ethnic groups (2011)
project communes (130 communes)
Kinh
Indigenous groups
Other EMs
Non-project communes but in project districts
Kinh
Indigenous groups
Other EMs
project districts
Kinh
Indigenous groups
Other EMs
Non-project districts but in project provinces
Kinh
Indigenous groups
Other EMs
Overall (six provinces)
Kinh
Indigenous groups
Other EMs
Average
number of
family
members
(people)
4.4
3.8
4.6
4.6
4.2
3.9
4.5
4.4
4.3
3.9
4.6
4.5
4.0
3.8
4.9
4.5
4.0
3.8
4.8
4.5
Number of
people in
working
ages
/household
size (%)
59.3
63.8
57.3
57.6
60.5
62.9
58.0
59.2
59.9
63.2
57.7
58.3
61.2
62.2
56.6
60.2
60.9
62.3
57.0
59.4
Real
number of
workers
/household
size (%)
63.1
65.9
62.6
60.6
64.3
65.3
63.6
62.9
63.8
65.5
63.1
61.5
66.0
67.1
61.0
62.1
65.5
67.0
61.9
61.8
Household’s
average
number of
workers
2.5
2.3
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.8
2.6
Source: Agricensus 2011
From gender perspective, Table 2.8 shows that, in female-headed households, the average
numbers of household members and workers are both lower than those of male-headed
households but their ratio of real number of workers/household size is always higher. This reveals
somehow the short-handed situation but harder labor in female-headed households.
Table 2.8: Number of workers in households, by genders of household heads (2011)
Gender of the household head
130 project
communes
Average for 26
project districts
Average for six
project provinces
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Average
number of
family members
(people)
4.5
3.5
4.4
3.4
4.3
3.0
Number of
people in
working ages
/household size
(%)
59.1
60.2
59.8
60.8
61.1
60.3
Real number of
workers
/household size
(%)
62.2
68.6
62.6
70.1
63.2
75.0
Household’s
average number
of workers
2.6
2.2
2.6
2.2
2.5
2.0
Source: Agricensus 2011
Discussions in interviews and FGDs during the social assessment in 2013 also confirm arguments
drawn from quantitative data on hard works placed on shoulders of women in project areas. This
situation is found at both families under matriarchy and patriarchy (see more details of discussions
in Box 2.2 below).
28
Box 2.2: Discussions on division of labor between men and women in project areas
“Division of labor between men and women are not fair for women. They have to work more, even
hard works while men are very reluctant to help”.
(Staff, Farmers Association, province Quang Nam)
“Main workers in Co Tu families are women because (i) it is tradition, men have to pay much
money to marriage and women think they should be hard- working to “pay back”.
(Staff, Board of EMs Affair, province Quang Nam)
“In agricultural activities, women work on field, cultivate cassava and maze; men make traps and
catch fish”.
(Village patriarch, commune Phuoc Chanh, district Phuoc Son, province Quang Nam)
Source: Social Assessment Survey, 2013
Labor quality, in project areas, is generally low. Regarding health situation, although there is no
available data on heath of people in working ages, data on under-5 children with malnutrition can
somehow tell the story about communities’ health status.
Figure 2.4: Percentage of children with malnutrition in project areas (2011)
a. % of under-5 underweight children
b. % of under-5 stunting children
30
40
26.3
24.6
24.8
25
34.5
30
20
16.2
35.1
35
24.3
16
17.2
15
26.7
26.3
24.3
25
20
16
17.2
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
National Dak Lak
average
Dak
Nong
Gia Lai Kon Tum Quang
Nam
Quang
Ngai
National Dak Lak
average
Dak
Nong
Gia Lai Kon Tum Quang
Nam
Quang
Ngai
Source: National Institute of Nutrition (NIN)
As illustrated in Figure 2.4, only Quang Nam and Quang Ngai can keep their ratios of under-5
underweight and stunting children as levels similar to the national average, other Central Highland
provinces have the ratios much higher. Situation of children with malnutrition in Dak Lak, Dak
Nong, and Kon Tum is very severe. These ratios not only show the quality of future workforce but
can imply the similar situation for current workforce because the malnutrition situation in children
somehow reflects the nutrition situation of the whole family. Such information is important given
that one of Project’s interventions in Sub-component 2.1 is enhancing food security and improving
nutrition status of target households.
This low labor quality is also reflected in data on qualification/education of workers in project areas.
At province level, there are 92.3% of household heads having no training certificate or not ever
participating in any trainings before (Table 2.9). If analyzing from gender and ethnic perspectives,
disadvantages of EMs and female-headed household groups will be revealed. Table 2.9 illustrates
more about low labor quality in the six provinces in general and 130 project communes in particular
with data on the highest qualification/education of household heads.
29
Table 2.9: Quality of workforce in project areas – the highest qualification/education of household
heads (2010)
Highest qualification/education of household heads (%)
Trained at professional
Trained at colleges,
Not trained or no
secondary schools and
universities, and
certificate
vocational colleges
above levels
project communes (130
communes)
Kinh
Indigenous
groups
Other EMs
Non-project communes but in
project districts
Kinh
Indigenous
groups
Other EMs
project districts
Kinh
Indigenous
groups
Other EMs
Non-project districts but in
project provinces
Kinh
Indigenous
groups
Other EMs
Overall (six provinces)
Kinh
Indigenous
groups
Other EMs
94.0
88.2
4.8
8.7
1.2
3.0
96.6
96.0
2.9
3.5
0.5
0.5
93.4
89.9
5.0
7.3
1.6
2.8
97.0
95.5
93.7
89.4
2.6
3.8
4.9
7.8
0.5
0.7
1.4
2.8
96.8
95.8
2.7
3.6
0.5
0.6
92.0
90.8
5.9
6.7
2.1
2.5
96.8
96.3
92.3
90.7
2.7
3.0
5.7
6.8
0.6
0.7
2.0
2.6
96.8
96.1
2.7
3.3
0.5
0.6
Source: Agricensus 2011
Table 2.9 shows us that most of household heads has no certificate or has not ever been trained
before. There is only about 3% of Kinh people being trained at colleges, universities or above
levels. And there is less than 1% of EM people reaching this level of education. Travelling around
the six provinces, even in 130 project communes or in non-project communes, among 100 EM
people, less than one has ever completed education at college or university levels. It can be stated
that labor quality of EM groups, especially indigenous EMs, is much lower than that of Kinh group.
Proportion of indigenous EM households having household head equipped with certain education
is always the lowest among three groups.
Discussions in interviews and FGDs with respondents in project areas also show that indigenous
EMs are usually the group with the lowest education levels, slow adaption to new production
models (see Box 2.3).
Box 2.3: Discussions on qualification/education of EM groups in project areas
“Co Tu People has the highest population is the in this province, most of them does not know how to
do business”.
(Staff, Provincial Women’s Union, province Quang Nam)
“They are not good at applying technologies. New knowledge/skills are only well applied for a crop
right after the training(s). After this crop, when agricultural extension officers leave, people return to
their old practices, giving little care to and using little fertilizers to crops”.
(Commune officer, commune Ba Kham, district Ba To, province Quang Ngai)
30
“Regarding livelihoods, they only dare to change a little. And they only cultivate trees requiring little
care, such as acacia, senna siamea, eucalyptus and khaya senegalensis. Their production of coffee
and cashew is not efficient”
(FGDs with women, commune Ea Trang, district M’Drak, Dak Lak)
“We give priorities to indigenous minorities but their skills too poor to meet businesses’
requirements”
(Businesses’ representatives, district M’Drak, province Dak Lak)
“EM people do not have the will to escape poverty. They think “this is ok” – working as playing,
eating what they can earn, buying what they can afford, having no demand for shopping. They work
only when they want”
(Officer of Farmer’s Union, province Quang Ngai)
“Indigenous minorities are lazy. Migrants are much quicker and better in applying new production
technologies. Indigenous minorities are just waiting for government’s supports”
(DARD’s official, province Dak Nong)
Source: Social Assessment Survey, 2013
And with further analyses of male-headed and female-headed household groups, it is shown that
labor quality of female-headed households is also lower than that of male-headed group. Although
proportion of female heads of households reaching college or university education levels is slightly
higher than that of male heads at data levels of 130 project communes or 26 project districts (at
data level of six project provinces, this data return to be in favor of male-headed households), the
proportion of female heads having no certificate or not ever being trained is always higher than that
of male-headed households (at all data levels, from 130 project communes, to 26 project districts
or six provinces as a whole) (see Table 2.10).
Table 2.10: Labor quality reflecting in qualification/education of household heads, by genders (2010)
Gender of the household head
130 project
communes
Average for 26
project districts
Average for six
project provinces
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Highest qualification/education of household heads (%)
Trained at
Trained at professional
colleges,
Not trained or no
secondary schools and
universities, and
certificate
vocational colleges
above levels
93.9
4.9
1.2
94.7
4.0
1.3
93.5
5.1
1.4
94.6
3.8
1.6
91.8
6.2
2.0
94.5
3.6
1.9
Source: Agricensus 2011
(c) Regarding physical capital: The definition of physical capital is quite loose. Physical capital
can include infrastructure components (transport, roads, vehicles, secure shelter and buildings,
water supply and sanitation, energy, communications), tools and technology (tools and equipment
for production, production inputs, etc.). The next part will not analyze situation of shelter or
sanitation in project areas but focus on (i) production infrastructure (roads, markets, bank
networks, communication networks, processing station for agriculture products, etc), and (ii)
ownership of agriculture machinery and equipment because these physical factors are targets of
CHPov Project’s supports. And, as mentioned above, most of people in project areas do the
farming therefore these two groups of physical capital are determinants of people’s livelihoods
capacity.
31
Data shows that limitations in infrastructure are the fundamental obstacle creating difficulties in
developing livelihoods in project areas. Not only basic infrastructure (roads and transportation),
other infrastructure components serving production, such as processing station, warehouses,
markets, communication networks, banking networks) are also very limited. This is common issue
of all beneficiaries in project areas (see Table 2.11 below).
Table 2.11: Infrastructure serving agricultural production in project areas (2010)
Proportio
n of
commune
s having
markets
in
commune
(%)
Proportio
n of
commune
s having
banks/ba
nk
branches
in
commune
(%)
No. of
households/
No. of
stations
processing
agriculture
products in
communes
No. of
household
s/ No. of
stations
processing
forestry
products
Car roads
to
commune
s (%)
Commun
es having
post
offices
(%)
Commun
es having
public
loud
speaker
systems
down to
villages
(%)
130 project communes
Non-project communes
but in project districts
96.9
16.7
61.5
12.3
5.4
8.4
2.9
98.6
19.8
80.8
47.3
9.9
16.9
8.3
26 project districts
Non-project districts but
in project provinces
Average for the six
project provinces
97.0
16.3
64.7
20.1
5.6
10.5
3.2
99.0
20.7
83.9
52.0
10.9
18.0
9.5
98.4
19.4
77.9
42.0
9.2
15.6
7.5
Source: Agricensus 2011
Given selection criteria of poverty rate, in general, infrastructure serving agricultural production in
130 project communes is more limited than other areas. At all aspects in concern (car roads to
communes, post office systems, public loud speaker systems, markets, banking systems, station
processing agriculture and forestry products), project communes show lower availability than other
communes in the district as well as the average for whole six provinces. Taking the availability of
markets as an example, among project communes, there is only 12% of them having market(s).
While this figure in non-project communes is 47.3%, in non-project districts is 52% and the average
for all six provinces is 42%. Differences in availability of facilities serving agricultural production are
quite obvious. Within 130 project communes, average numbers of stations processing agriculture
and forestry products are only 8.4 and 2.9 per commune, respectively (equivalent to about 1/2 and
1/3 of these numbers in non-project communes). Proportion of communes having banks/bank
branches in 130 project communes is equal to only half of that in non-project areas and the
average for the whole six provinces.
“The main difficulty for the farmers is that they don’t have a road system connecting to fields to
transport products.”
(Village head, commune AeTrang, district M’Drak, Dak Lak)
“There are many poor households in the village but only 10 of them are listed in the official poverty
list. The major cause of poverty is difficult transportation and isolation in rain seasons. Products are
traded locally at low price. They can sell at higher price if they can bring to collecting point, but the
difficult transportation prevents it”
(Village head, commune Dak Ruong, district Kon Ray, province Kon Tum)
Regarding agriculture machinery and equipment, secondary data clustered by ethnic groups and
genders is presented in Figure 2.5 below. There are differences between Kinh group and EM
groups, and between group of male-headed households and group of female-headed households.
Kinh group always has the highest ownership of machines and equipment serving agricultural
production, especially millers and water pumps which must be used and used at high frequency in
agricultural production.
Similar to that, group of male-headed households, usually advantaged group, is also the groupthat
has higher ownership of machinery and equipment than that of female-headed households. The
32
group of male-headed households has all kind of machinery and equipment in concern. While the
group of female-headed households shows a very low ownership of such, especially auto millers,
wood - processing machines, and electric generators.
Figure 2.5: Proportion of households owning agriculture machines and equipment in project
provinces (2010)
a. By ethnic groups
0.25
0.2
0.2
Kinh
0.15
0.16
0.12
Indigenous
Ems
0.1
0.05
0.010.010.01
0.03
0.010.01
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.010.010.01
0.010.010.01
0.04
0.03
0.01
0
Rice milling
machine with
engine
Milling machine
Wood power
machine
Force generator
Generator
Motored
insecticide
sprayer
Water pump for
agriculture
production
b. By genders of household heads
0.25
0.2
0.2
0.15
Male
0.1
0.01
Female
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.01
0
Rice milling
machine with
engine
Milling
machine
Wood power
machine
Force
generator
Generator
Motored
insecticide
sprayer
Water pump
for agriculture
production
Source: Agricensus 2011
It is worth noting that the six project provinces, as analyzed before, are poorer than the national
average. Accordingly, the ownership of agriculture machinery and equipment is also very low. For
example only 2% of Kinh households own water pumps for agricultural production this figure in
indigenous EM households is 1.2% and in other EM households is 1.6%. It means in the six project
provinces, there are two out of 100 Kinh households owning water pumps for agricultural
production. Proportion owning other machinery and equipment like auto millers, manual millers,
wood processing machines, diesel engines, and electric generators ranges from 0% to less than
1% of total households in project areas. This too modest statistics confirms that ownership of
agriculture machinery and equipment in project areas is almost equal to zero, implying labor
intensive farming practices in project areas’ cultivation.
(d) Financial capital. Financial capital includes savings, credit and debts (formal, informal),
remittances, etc. The lack of funding is considered one of the main roots of low investment in
production in order to improve income. However, capacity to use such capital is the sufficient
condition to ensure that financial resources (if accessed) can be made the best use to improve
production and income.
The survey shows that savings of households for investment in production are very low, especially
with indigenous EM households. Many local officials say that EM people in project areas almost
have no practice of saving. In addition to common reasons (spending demands exceeding income,
33
large expenses on health care, etc.), there is another reason that most of poor and EM households
have poor financial management skills. However, migrant EM people have built up the saving
practices. They save to buy land from indigenous EM households. Besides, living far from their
homeland makes themselves get used to preparing protection and savings, building their
“provident” attitudes. Regarding Kinh people, savings for investment in production are their
traditional and common practices. They are even informal credit providers for indigenous EMs in
many project communes (see Box 2.4 for more qualitative information on saving capacity of people
in project areas).
Box 2.4: Discussion on saving practices of disadvantaged groups in project areas
“...in many cases, indigenous minorities people get bank loans then put money in a safe place, just
waiting for the day to pay back. If they have some money from selling agriculture products they will buy
motorbike, cell phone, or something but not save for investment in production”.
(Communal official, commune Quang Phu, district Krong No, province Dak Nong)
“Jarai people are not good at spending and spending management while Kinh people always know how
to make profits. Jarai people work to feed themselves, they do not make calculation of costs and benefits
like Kinh people”.
(Village head and village patriarch, commune Chu Mo, district Ia Pa, province Gia Lai)
“Poor people don’t have fund to invest, they have to rent out 1/3 of their land areas to buy fertilizer. Kinh
people are richer because they have fund, have “hard-working brain” (know how to plan) while EM
compatriots have to borrow their money. Jarai people just work hard without due planning and
consideration”.
(FGDs with Jarai people, commune Ia Broai, district Ia Pa, province Gia Lai)
“...migrant EM people only need two to three years to save money to buy land from indigenous EMs
compatriots. While indigenous people just sell land for money in need, after selling land they spend all
the proceedings in a short time”.
(Communal official, commune Quang Phu, district Krong No, province Dak Nong)
“...I have to save money to send my children to schools”.
“we migrants are only poorer than indigenous people in the first 1-2 years (selling all land and house in
homeland for about VND100 million, buying about 1 ha here; after sometime we are better off because
we have experiences, buy more land, and are better at doing business and production”.
(FGDs with migrants from Thanh Hoa, commune Quang Phu, district Krong No, province Dak Nong)
Source: Social Assessment Survey, 2013
Regarding funding from formal financial institutions, data of Agricensus 2011 shows that
households’ access to preferential loan schemes for poor households and promoting employment
or under other supporting policies is quite good. As of July 1, 2011, proportion of households in the
six provinces borrowing form VBSP, VBARD, and other commercial banks is 42.1%, 25.6% and
9.8%, respectively (see Table 2.12).
Table 2.12: Households’ access to financial capital in (July 1, 2011)
Overall
130 project
communes
31.0
Proportion of households having borrowings from
banks/credit funds
Other
Employmen
VBSP
VBARD
commercia t supporting
l banks
fund
48.0
34.5
5.6
1.6
34
Kinh
Indigenous
groups
30.9
45.3
24.1
11.9
2.8
32.5
51.1
40.7
3.0
1.6
Other EMs
27.5
43.3
30.5
5.4
0.3
32.5
46.8
32.8
8.1
1.1
Kinh
Indigenous
groups
34.4
46.0
23.8
16.4
1.1
32.1
48.6
38.7
3.7
1.4
Other EMs
30.0
42.6
32.2
5.1
0.3
26 project
districts
6 project
provinces
30.7
42.1
25.6
9.8
1.4
Kinh
Indigenous
groups
28.1
37.8
18.5
13.1
1.3
35.2
51.3
38.7
4.4
1.8
Other EMs
33.1
41.0
30.8
6.0
0.7
Source: Agricensus 2011
Comparing ethnic groups, it can be seen that, in general, borrowings are distributed quite equally
among them. However, sources of their borrowings are quite different. EM groups borrow more
from VBSP and VBARD with borrowing proportion in indigenous EM groups is always higher than
that of other EM groups. This may be resulted from such banks’ policies which pristine poor
people, EMs, especially indigenous EMs. Another reason can be that newly-migrated EM people
(in last 3-5 years) have not yet settled and got their residential registration books, and they have
almost no land. That makes it more difficult for them to access loans from official financial
institutions than indigenous EMs.
“Migrants are not under any effective residential plan, have not transferred their residential registration to this
locality. Therefore they do not get much supports from government’s schemes. Land cannot be officially given
to them. Migrants cannot get loans from banks (they can only borrow from private lenders with high interest of
about VND50-70 thousand per VND1 million/month – that make some households sink in debts)
(Migrants, commune Quang Phu, district Krong No, province Dak Nong)
Although non-performing loan ratio of VBSP in project areas is not high (ranging from 3-5%) but
the survey shows that effectiveness of loan usage by vulnerable groups is usually very low.
Discussions in interviews and FGDs quoted below can somehow illustrate this argument.
“Lending them VND50-100 million will surely result in uncollectible situation, it is difficult to collect loans from
people. VBSP used to lend the poorest then lost. Their capacity for using and managing capital is limited.
Poor migrants can work and pay back but poor indigenous people find hard to pay back”
(FGDs with women, commune Quang Phu, district Krong No, Dak Nong)
“People get loans but when harvest loss occurs, they have to extend the loan term or misused the loan. Debts
accumulate over years and years, making severe poverty”
(Staff, Division of Agricultural and Rural Development, district Krong No, province Dak Nong)
“All of their [people] fund is from bank borrowing. They have assets but are debtors. They misuse loans, don’t
know how to manage such money and accumulate capital from production. That makes them poorer and
poorer. All of their production inputs is from borrowing”
(Staff, DOLISA, province Dak Nong)
On the other hand, poor households demonstrate that loan ceiling for poor-household is too low
and do not meet their demand. Hesitance in getting loans due to fears of risk is very popular in
vulnerable groups. Therefore, except soft loans under pro-poor policies, access to other loan types
in still limited. Along with formal credit, informal credit from private lenders or agriculture-input
35
suppliers is quite popular in project areas. In extreme cases, households lose land and fall in debt
burden because they cannot afford usurious interests.
Proportion of Kinh households borrowing from VBSP and VBARD (45.3% and 24.1%, respectively)
is quite high but still lower than that of EM groups while their borrowing from other commercial
banks and employment supporting fund is higher than any other group. Proportion of Kinh
households borrowing from commercial banks other than VBSP and VBARD is 11.9%, meanwhile
that figure of indigenous EM groups and other EM groups are 3.0% and 5.4%, respectively. This
figure with borrowings from employment supporting fund is 2.8%, 1.6% and 0.3%, respectively. EM
groups, especially other EM groups, borrow almost nothing from employment supporting fund. In
addition to the fact that Kinh people are usually pay more attention to education and long-term
planning (borrowing money to study in order to get jobs) than the other groups, there is another
important reason. It is the activeness and keenness of King people in identifying and making the
best use of opportunities.
Table 2.13 shows greatly different clientele from credit institutions’ perspective. VBSP and VBARD
focus their lending on EM groups. At 130 project communes or larger scope of all project districts
or six project provinces, their target clients are always EM groups, especially group of indigenous
EMs. Other commercial banks’ target clients are Kinh people. And may be due to its mission of
promoting employment in the locality, the fund targets King group also. This is the most active and
capable of using the loans for given purposes.
Table 2.13: Households’ access to financial capital, by genders of household heads (July 1, 2011)
Gender of the household
head
130 project
communes
26 project
districts
6 project
provinces
Overall
Proportion of households having borrowings from
banks/credit funds
Other
Employment
VBSP
VBARD
commercial
supporting
banks
fund
Male
31.8
49.5
35.4
6.3
1.7
Female
26.7
39.6
29.7
2.0
1.5
Male
33.5
48.5
33.8
8.7
1.2
Female
27.2
37.9
27.2
5.1
0.7
Male
32.2
44.3
26.7
10.5
1.5
Female
23.6
32.1
20.6
6.6
0.9
Source: Agricensus 2011
Among households having outstanding loans with banks and employment supporting fund,
proportion of male-headed household group is always higher than that of female-headed
household group, at all data levels (130 project communes, 26 project districts, and six project
provinces, see details in Table 2.13). This implies more disadvantaged access to formal credit
resources by female-headed households. This can be explained by (i) high proportion of maleheaded households in project areas (84.4% of households in six project provinces is male-headed
ones (Agricensus 2011) and this figure of Kinh group, which is patriarchy and the major group
(40%) of project areas’ population, is also higher); and (ii) hesitance of female-headed households
in general and poor female-headed households in particular in access to loans. Part of poor
female-headed households (if not matriarchy ones) are those lacking the sufficient and frequent
presence of male adults who has adequate labor. As shown in Table 2.8, female-headed
households have lower average number of workers than that of male-headed ones. This, in turn,
limits their economic development potential. Therefore, female-headed households, if poor, will be
more hesitant to access funding for economic development.
36
“Women here are afraid of obtaining loans, but without borrowing they will not have money for investment.
Women’s Union is encouraging them in borrowing, help them in production. Loans can be paid back after
harvest”
(Staff, Provincial Women’s Union, province Gia Lai)
“Women are afraid that they will not be able to pay back loans. Some households borrow to raise cows then
the cows die. Others see such cases and step back from borrowings (despite trainings and communication
interventions)”
(Staff, Provincial Women’s Union, province Kon Tum)
This is a waste of opportunity because access to financial capital/credit, as proved in many
countries and Vietnam also, is an effective way of empowerment and poverty reduction for women.
(e) Regarding social capital. Social capital refers to networks and connections (patronage,
neighborhoods, kinship), relations of trust and mutual understanding and supports, formal and
informal groups, shared values and behaviors, common rules and sanctions, collective
representation, mechanisms for participation in decision-making, leadership. Secondary data from
available documents and research shows certain concerns on social capital of vulnerable groups in
project areas.
With indigenous EMs, the most important social capital is the community connections developed
and enhanced by rules, traditions, and religions. Although there are many changes in living
practices, religious rituals, and traditional rules, indigenous EMs communities still have tight
internal connections. Roles of village patriarchs and prestigious persons (sorcerers, religious
heads, etc.) are very important in common activities of communities. However, this connective
feature just confines in cultural activities but not “replicated” to livelihoods and production activities.
Many responses in the survey confirm this.
“Co Tu people is indigenous in Nam Giang District, Ca Dong people is indigenous in Nam Tra My District, Bo
Nong (Gie Trieng) is indigenous in Phuoc Son District. These EMs have high community spirit in cultural
activities but not in production”
(Staff, Board of EMs Affair, province Quang Nam)
With migrant EMs, relatives and friends are their important social capital. Most of them migrate to
the locality following relatives’ or friends’ information and persuasion. This social capital is as an
informal social security network protecting migrants, especially in early years of migration. Box 2.5
presents some discussion on community spirit as important social capital of migrant EM groups.
Box 2.5: Community spirit is an important social capital of migrant EMs in project areas
“My family migrant here because my friends and relatives living here told me that it is easier to live here”.
(FGDs with migrants from Thanh Hoa, commune Quang Phu, district Krong No, province Dak Nong)
“Thanks to information from people migrated in 1996, my family (parents and 8 children) move here in
2007. My younger brother also migrated here. His family is smaller size, only 5 members. They live near
here”.
(H’Mong household migrated from Thanh Hoa, now living in Quang Phu, district Krong No, province Dak
Nong)
“During 2001 – 2004, there was a wave of migrants to this district. They reclaimed remote, forestry, hilly
areas to reside. Several new villages are composed of just free migrants. Migrants have better life than
indigenous households despite remote residence and difficult transportation because they have a lot of
land, will to develop, and community spirit”.
(Staff, Division of EMs Affair, district M’Drak, Dak Lak)
Source: Social Assessment Survey, 2013
37
As for female group, community models such as group activities (e.g. saving and credit groups –
mainly managed by Women’s Union under VBSP’s entrustment; production groups under
development Projects/programs) are good ways to enhance mutual supports among women. This
is a form of social capital that interventions by Projects/programs currently implemented in project
areas develop for their female beneficiaries. However, these projects/programs in project areas
cannot include all women in such groups and connective models, therefore, this form of social
capital should be deployed in small groups of beneficiaries. In a broader views (beyond
projects/programs having production connective models designed for women), women are facing
many limitations in access to and use of social capital. Regarding women in migrant minorities
(most of them living under patriarchy), burden of housework is an important obstacle limiting their
participation in community activities. Regarding women living under matriarchy (mostly indigenous
EMs), the role of family head implies many burdens (including housework and production activities)
but not better participation in community activities. That limits their access to social capital in
comparison with men’s. Some discussions on this issue are presented below.
“Women participate only in gender-equity related programs. Other discussions on cultivation and breeding are
attended by men. Women have to stay at home to take care of their children”
(Staff, district Division of Agricultural and Rural Development, province Kon Tum)
“Elderly women have more time for meetings; younger women rarely come to meetings. That they (younger
women) are not directly informed limits their information and participation in decision making”
(Officer, district Women’s Union, province Gia Lai)
“In village meetings, women should be grouped in separated meetings to get their comments because they
are usually silent in meetings with participation of men.“
(Officer, Project’s Preparation Committee, province Gia Lai)
“Local EMs women rarely talk and very timid in meetings. When Kinh people join such meetings, they talk
more and faster, EMs women don’t add their comments because they think others (Kinh people) have already
talked about the issue”
(Officer, Provincial Women’s Union, province Kon Tum)
Although access to information is just a bridging factor, it is quite important to improve access to
social capital. For example, having cell phones helps people enhancing community relations by
sharing production and prices information, and exchanging experiences without meeting in person.
Or, having TVs helps them easily accessing information on policies, legal regulations, etc.,
facilitating their participation in management activities. A comparison between ethnic groups and
male-headed and female-headed groups can be seen as in Table 2.14 and 2.15 below.
Table 2.14. Ownership of telecommunication devices and TVs in project areas, by ethnic groups
(2010)
Proportion of households owning
130 project communes
26 project districts
Average for six project provinces
TVs
Cell phones
Kinh
87.1
91.7
Indigenous groups
65.9
57.2
Other EMs
64.8
80.3
Kinh
90.3
90.6
Indigenous groups
65.6
55.0
Other EMs
68.6
79.8
Kinh
90.7
84.4
Indigenous groups
74.3
62.8
Other EMs
74.7
81.6
Source: Agricensus 2011
38
In both two modern and common ways of accessing information in project areas, TVs and cell
phones, Kinh people is the most advantaged group with much higher access in comparison with
that of EM groups. Meanwhile, indigenous EMs is the most disadvantaged group. Aggregating for
all six project provinces, proportion of households owning TVs in Kinh group is 90.7% while that in
indigenous EM households is 74.3% and in other EMs is 74.7%. This proportion will reduce a
slightly when data is narrowed down to only 26 project districts or 130 project communes alone.
However, relative comparison among groups stays the same. And it is reasonable to state that
access to information of group having more TV ownership is better than others.
Situation with cell phone ownership is similar. And it is interesting that ownership of this device in
Kinh and other EM groups are even higher than their TV ownership (a common asset in most of
households having access to electricity from national grid). Telephones helps its owners
maintaining a closer connection with people in the phonebook, and having more information
(through having more talks and contacts), and it can be said that cell phone is a tool promoting
access to social capital. While, cell phone ownership in indigenous EMs is not only lower than their
TV ownership but also much lower than that of the other groups. As for 130 project communes
alone, there are only 57.2% of indigenous EM households having cell phones while the figure in
Kinh and other EM groups is 91.7% and 80.3%, respectively.
Table 2.15: Ownership of telecommunication devices in project areas, by genders of household heads
Proportion of households owning
130 project communes
26 project districts
Average for six project
provinces
TVs
Cell phones
Male
73.3
74.3
Female
63.7
61.6
Male
77.4
75.2
Female
67.7
62.2
Male
88.7
84.0
Female
76.0
62.7
Source: Agricensus 2011
From gender perspective, group of male-headed households always have advantages in access to
social capital of telecommunication devices (TVs and cell phones). The proportion of households
owning TVs in male-headed groups is 73.3%, 77.4%, and 88.7%, respectively for 130 project
communes, 26 project districts, and six project provinces as a whole. This figure in group of
female-headed households is always lower at about 10 percentage points (see details in Table
2.13). This tendency also repeats with cell phone ownership but the gap is wider (about 13
percentage points and even nearly 20 percentage points (84% in male-headed households
comparing to 62.7% in female-headed households) at province level).
In general, vulnerable groups’ social capital, as observed in the survey, has not been fully exploited
to promote production organization in order to improve livelihoods (people’s participation in socioeconomic development activities as a part of social capital is still limited and will be discussed
further in following parts of this report).
2.1.3 Some environmental/external factors contribute to the vulnerability of
disadvantaged groups in project areas
Vulnerability, as defined in SLA framework, includes: (i) shocks, e.g. armed conflicts, floods and
storms, droughts, epidemic diseases; (ii) seasonality, e.g. prices, and employment opportunities;
(iii) critical trends, e.g. demographic, environmental, economic, and technological trends. It should
be noted that as classified by SLA framework, policies and policies implementation are not
elements of vulnerability but organizational/institutional factors helping to transform livelihoods
capital into livelihoods results. Such results will, in their turn, impact the external context (see
39
section 1.3.1. Theoretical Framework). Information collected from the survey on external factor
shows that:
Shocks like natural disasters and epidemic diseases in recent years have deepened the
poverty in Central Highland in general and project areas in particular: In the last decade,
Central Highland has encountered many unusual weather incidents, creating difficulties and greatly
harming production. Most recently are the 2009 - 2010 floods or 2012 drought which lasted for an
unusually long time. High incidents of unexpected natural phenomena and traditional cultivation
practices have led to reduction in production of several crops. Especially, cashew, a crop
comprising a considerable areas in project provinces, bears nearly no fruit in last few years;
therefore, people remove, abandon, or stop replicating it. The severe impacts of adverse weather
incidents can be seen more obviously in project districts in Quang Nam and Quang Ngai,
especially heavy rains during September - December (accounting for 80% of annual rainfall)
usually lead to landslides and floods in mountainous midland areas and floods in riverside areas.
“Impacts of natural disasters on our commune’s livelihoods are huge. There was a devastating
flood in 2009, affecting many households in our commune, damaging or sweeping away people’s
livestock, domestic fowls, and appliances. After that, number of poor households has increased
considerably, from 45% to near 51.4 %. There are also droughts in many years, several areas in
village Tul have to be changed to cultivation of cassava due to droughts”.
(Communal official, commune Ia Broai, district Ia Pa, Gia Lai)
In addition to that, epidemic diseases on plants and domestic animal are more and more severe,
especially diseases on livestock and pepper crops in recent years. Unusual weather incidents and
epidemic diseases bring great losses to harvest and threat the sustainability of livelihoods activities
and poverty reduction in project communes/districts. Shocks may not create severe impacts on
well-off households as on poorer households (EMs and female-headed households usually belong
to poor group, as analyzed in section 2.1).
“Losing one farming season can consequence the selling land to pay debt; Well-off households may have
something left to serve debts but poor households just make ends meet for each crop...”
(Farmer, commune Quang Phu, district Krong No, province Dak Nong)
“The flood in 2010 is a historic one. It has never been that severe. It put hundreds of families in moneyless
situation”
(Communal official, commune Quang Phu, district Krong No, province Dak Nong)
“Cashew has not bore fruits for a few years already, but we don’t have money to invest in another crop”
(Farmer, commune Quang Phu, district Krong No, province Dak Nong)
“Floods every year, taking everything; each flood lasts about 2 days, rice and maze all dies after that”
(FGDs with Jarai people, commune Ia Broai, district Ia Pa, province Gia Lai)
“There was a huge flood in 2009. Many households lost their farm produce. Assets, livestock, and appliances
were swept away. They don’t have money to buy new things, don’t have crop and harvest to pay for debts.
Number of poor households increased greatly”
(Communal official, commune Ia Broai, district Ia Pa, Gia Lai)
Fluctuation of agriculture products’ prices has increased risks to agricultural production
and adversely impacted life of beneficiaries in project areas: Although project districts do not
have natural advantages in developing high-value industrial crops such as coffee, rubber tree,
40
pepper, etc., cultivation of such crops in small scale with low production is quite common in project
districts. Fluctuation of world’s prices for such crops’ outputs in recent years (e.g. coffee’s and
cashew’s price falling in 2012, see Figure 2.6) poses many risks to the development of such highvalue but requiring long-time investment crops. Replacing crops having low-price outputs (in shortterm) by crops having higher price expectation usually happens as an instant reaction to short-term
changes in price. With vulnerable households in project areas, the volatility of cassava’s and
sugarcane’s prices, two common short-day crops of their cultivation, has also increased the
volatility of their incomes. It is not easy to spot changes in cassava price in Figure 2.6 as with
coffee and cashew (just some thousand VND per kg) but the changes really affect its cultivators’
revenues. For example, in 2010 the price of tapioca was VND5,500/kg, in 2011 it was
VND3,000/kg, reducing 40%; in 2012 the price was VND5,700/kg but in June 2013 it reduce 15%
to VND4,900/kg.
As discussed before, agriculture brings main sources of income for people in project areas.
Therefore, seasonality has made their vulnerability more severe.
Waves of migrants from EM groups (mainly in Northern mountainous areas and Mekong delta
areas) create difficulties in access to natural capital serving production. One of reasons for poverty
(of migrant and indigenous EM people) is the lack of arable land, particularly fertilized land.
Regarding migrant groups, issues of access to cultivation land mainly happen to poor households
who have migrated in recent years when cultivation land is more scarce and land selling prices
(informal purchases from former inhabited households in project areas) is higher and higher.
Regarding indigenous EM groups, the issues happen to households who have sold their land (in
different ways, such as direct purchases or using land to settle debts) to migrants, especially Kinh
people. Such households now have no land for production, especially households selling land to
settle aftershocks issues (after natural disasters) or family’s bad lucks (prolonging and/or severe
sickness). Besides, waves of migrants create pressures on public utility systems in poor
communes/districts in project areas, which themselves are already in deficiency and low quality.
They also create ethnic mix in many project communes more diversified, creating new challenges
to local socio-economic development.
Box 2.6: Discussion on impacts of migrant waves
“In this commune, migrants are supported to set up a new residential area but not included in
population plans and provided residential registration books because such things are attached to
land planning. Many migrants buy land from indigenous minorities and such land, in many cases, is
reclaiming land. Therefore, these purchases cannot be formally certified. Migrants have to face
several difficulties due to the lack of residential registration book, e.g. they are unable to get loans
from commercial banks or VBSP, then they have to borrow from Kinh households bearing very high
interest rates. If they lost two consecutive farming season, they may lost all their land. They are also
marginalized from supporting programs and Projects”.
“Migrants have to buy land from indigenous EM people. Indigenous people sometimes sell a piece
of land to two different persons, leading to disputes”.
(FGDs with migrants and communal officials, commune Quang Phu, district Krong No, province Dak
Nong)
“There are disputes about land between migrants and indigenous people. Some pieces of land are
reclaimed by indigenous EMs. After sometime, they abandon due to water shortage. Migrants come
and cultivate on the land (they make small-scale irrigation better than indigenous people). Then, the
dispute happens”.
(Communal official, commune Chu Mo, district Ia Pa, province Gia Lai)
Source: Social Assessment Survey
41
It is worth to note that, waves of migrants happen only in four provinces in Central Highland.
The assessment team has consulted stakeholders on probability of shocks created by Project
implementation due to land lost for infrastructure development activities under Project’s
Component I and Sub-component 3.2. As of survey time, all relevant government agencies at
levels confirm that the probability of shocks is extremely low. Besides, Project Feasibility Study did
include policy framework for resettlement (for impacted groups that may lose their land for Project
activities) in line with WB’s policies. If being well implemented, the policy framework will provide
Project’s beneficiaries a mechanism for social security.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that Project’s beneficiaries are poor people. Among them,
indigenous EMs, migrant EMs who have moved to project areas in recent years, and women are
poorer in terms of economic as well as other aspects (e.g. access to utilities, such as clean water
and sanitation). Both secondary data and data collected in the survey confirm that poverty is rooted
in limited access to most of livelihoods capital (lack of land, capital, and labor; limited production
infrastructure, and social capital). Besides, impacts from shocks like natural disasters, waves of
migrants (four Central Highland provinces/six project provinces), unexpected expenses on health
care, seasonality, and volatility of agriculture products have increased the vulnerability of such
groups. Vulnerable groups’ self-defense ability (coping with and mitigating impacts of adverse
trends as well as recovering after shocks) is very low, almost none. The picture looks like a vicious
circle for poor people in project areas, suggesting a great challenge to Project’s implementation of
its livelihoods strategies. This point leads to a suggestion that livelihoods strategies should have
two approaches at the same time (1) improving access to capital for production, and (2) mitigating
impacts from vulnerable context to beneficiary groups. Along with these, building capacity for
beneficiaries to improve their ability to absorb and take most advantage of Project’s supports is an
urgent task, it is the sufficient condition for other supports (infrastructure, financial capital, and
social capital enhancement) to be brought into full play.
2.2 Organizational structures and processes
As presented in Section 1.3.1 Theoretical Framework, the livelihood strategies and
results/outcomes do not only depend on the accessibility to livelihood funding (as analyzed
intensively in Section 2.1.2 Accessibility to livelihood capital of target groups in project areas) or
disturbed by the vulnerability context (Section 2.2.3). They are also the transformations of
structures and processes. Organizational structures and processes are regarded managerial and
administrative factors, playing important roles in mitigating negative impact of contextual factor
causing vulnerability to target groups. These factors promote the accessibility of target groups to
livelihood funding in order to improve economic situation and enhance ability to respond to and
cushion against disadvantageous developments of environment. Changing vulnerability context
can be generated through changing macroeconomic policies (for examples, restructuring the
economy, alternating the plantation structure, emigration, etc.) and/or enhance self-defense ability
for Project beneficiaries by supporting target groups in terms of asset/funding (in general term), for
example, increasing the funding. In order to do so, the adaptability [to the need of Project
beneficiaries] of managerial structure, institutions, programs and processes must be enhanced.
CHPov Project is considered the consolidation of actions, i.e. livelihood strategies, in order to
achieve livelihood outcomes; thus, organizational structure, institutions and processes are
analyzed in line with the implementation of the Project. Hence, this Section analyzes the structures
that may have potential effects on the success of the Project implementation (Section 2.2.1), as
well as the institutions, policies, processes and their levels of impacts on the participation and
42
benefits of vulnerable target groups (Section 2.2.2). Last but not least are some cultural and
religious practices having significant effects to the Project implementation (Section 2.2.3)
2.2.1 Organizational structures having potential effects on the success of
the Project implementation
As set forth in ToR, one of the objectives of this Assessment is to “identify and formulate the roles
and impacts of stakeholders to [the ability to realize] CHPov Project’s objective”. This Section
focuses on analyzing and assessing the potential impact levels of stakeholders on the
implementation following the current design of the Project, particularly those having direct impacts
on activities relating to main Project beneficiaries (in Component 1 and Component 2).
Accordingly, stakeholders are classified into main groups as follows: (i) entities leading the process
of Project implementation; (ii) entities directly implementing the Project; (iii) entities supporting the
implementation, including provincial sectoral agencies, mass organizations; (iv) communal entities;
(v) other entities: private manufacturing sector, service providers. According to the classification of
SLA Framework, these entities can be in state-owned/public sector, private sector, mass
organizations and civil societies.
2.2.2.1 Entities leading the process of Project implementation
The key entities having the leading role in Project implementation are mainly at local levels
(province and district). At province level, PPC is the responsible agency to lead the Project.
According to the current Project design, PPC is the agency to issue strategic orientations; and at
the same time, ensure institutional interventions at highest level (at province level) so that the flow
of the Project is in accordance to the objective and designing principles. Particularly, the role of
PPC is of great importance in case the cooperation among departments and sectors and different
levels in deploying the Project is ineffective. With such a leading role, PPC is the agency holding
the decisive role to the success of the Project; particularly if the implementation process
encounters institutional impedances.
In this aspect, the Assessment proposes some key warnings: PPC must truly and fully present its
leading role. This is of great necessity in the condition that the Project introduces some relatively
new approaches to the project areas, requiring a close institutional support from PPC to ensure the
success, particularly issues concerning the classification, empowerment, staff policy, the
participation of provincial sectoral agencies together with provincial PMU in implementing the
Project. Noticeably, there concurrently exist several programs/policies (as mentioned below) in the
project areas. This typical condition implies a risk that PPC heads may not have sufficient time and
determination to lead the Project implementation. Under such a circumstance, it is important to
have a province leader (President or Vice president of the provincial People’s Committee) with
deep understanding of the Project design keeping an eye on the project implementation and giving
strong instruction when necessary, especially instruction on project orientation and institutional
supports for the implementation of the Project.
At district level, district PCs play the leading role to district PMUs, commune PMUs and
responsible district sectoral agencies in implementing the Project. The current design of CHPov
Project, as well as other projects/programs, directly nominates district PC President/Vice President
to be the leader of district PMU. This mechanism assures the direct instruction of district PC to
Project activities. This arrangement, however, bears certain risks due to the fact that district PC
leaders usually have to solve regular issues of the district while managing the poverty reduction
programs/projects in their locality, hence, overwhelming workload is likely to happen. This implies a
necessity of having proper institutional arrangements to positively support district PC leaders in
implementing and supervising Project activities.
2.2.1.2 Entities directly implementing the Project
43
According to the current Project design, entities directly implementing the Project are PMUs at
different levels (province, district) and Commune Development Board (CDB). In the Project
management model, these entities are directly responsible for consulting, planning, implementing,
supervising, and monitoring the Project activities as designed. At the time of this social assessment
survey, PMUs at different levels had not been established, yet the Project Preparation Units (PPU)
– which are the core part of PMUs when the Project comes into effect - at province and district
levels had already been established. Though in preparation phase, PMUs at commune level were
not established, the key positions in CDBs (for examples, commune PC heads, accountant, admin
officer, relevant positions, village heads, respected elderly people in the village, and
representatives of mass organizations) were also consulted in the formulation process of this
Assessment.
The survey findings assert that all the staff in province and district PMUs and communal officials
(as above-mentioned) have clear understanding of major features of vulnerable target groups in
project areas; at the same time, the prioritized orientation of this Project to ensure the participatory
level of and adequate benefits for these target groups are well understood and basically consented
in the consultation process. This is an important condition to ensure that vulnerable target groups
will not be excluded in implementation process of the Project. However, this is not the sufficient
condition. The more important matter is how to realize and transform this understanding into
practical action in the implementation process. From this perspective, the Assessment gives some
warnings as follows.
Firstly, the competence of project staff at local levels, especially at commune level, remains limited,
and this will be a considerable risk to the Project. The current Project design highlights the role of
commune level as the investment owner of almost all Project activities in Component 1 and
Component 2. Although in most project communes, there already exist several poverty reduction
policies and programs, this is the first time they have participated in a poverty reduction program
with such a large approaching scope and complex administrative procedures (required by WB),
especially procurement procedure. Besides, the Project planning procedure, infrastructure
development and livelihood diversifying activities are performed in the direction of a community
driven development (CDD) project that is designed to highlight the engagement of beneficiaries,
especially vulnerable target groups. Nevertheless, the survey results show that the capacity of
local officials to motivate and encourage the participation of beneficiaries and communities remains
insufficient. Most of the technical officials at commune level still lack important skills to motivate the
participation of communities.
“Village heads disseminate information to people in their villages. However, the efficiency is very poor. The
capacity of officials at village level also remains poor. Furthermore, allowance for them is low; therefore, they
don’t work positively.”
(Staff, District DOLISA, District M’Drak, Province Dak Lak)
“Number of staff supporting beneficiaries at local levels is still insufficient; therefore, the information
dissemination is not really effective. It is regulated that there is one meeting at local level every month, in fact,
meetings are rarely held. And if being held, such meetings are combined with meetings of other mass
organizations’ representatives in the village.”
(Staff, Farmers’ Union, Province Quang Nam)
Secondly, knowledge, skills, and experiences to deploy market linkage livelihood activities remain
insufficient and poor. Project’s overall objective is to improve living standard for the beneficiaries;
thus, all core activities of the Project directly or indirectly focus on supporting the development of
sustainable livelihoods for beneficiaries. Component 2 in the current Project design includes two
Sub-components on food security, community forest and resource management, and market
linkage livelihoods. The survey results show various potential difficulties for the deployment of
market-oriented livelihoods. Most of staff in charge of agricultural issues at district level only has
experiences in developing small-scale cultivation and breeding activities but not yet in promoting
44
market-oriented production. Their access to the knowledge, market players (firms, private traders),
and price volatility or more complicated issues such as value chain, public-private partnership, etc.
remains limited. Hence, the implementation of Project’s livelihood development supports,
particularly market linkage livelihoods, will be a huge challenge to Project managers at levels,
especially district and commune ones.
Thirdly, motivating and delegating competent and dedicated staff for PMUs at all levels and
commune PPUs are considerable challenge, especially part-time positions. It is a commonly-seen
concern among local officials that they are afraid of the complication relating to processes and
procedures for implementing current Project design. According to relevant officials, that majority of
local staff is part-time but has to handle such a huge workload with modest allowance fixed as
provided in Decree 219/2009/TT-BTC dated 29/12/2009 will not motivate them. Therefore, though
they understand the promising learning opportunity they may have when participating in the project
management; most of the consulted officials demonstrate their concerns about long-term career
path. Additionally, another noticeable problem is that authorities at different levels (commune,
district, and province) are seemingly under-evaluating the importance of delegating competent
project staff to work with indigenous EM and female beneficiaries. Except for those communal
officials who regularly communicate with indigenous EM people, there are few officials at district
and province levels having significant experience in matters of EM policies; the participation of
Board of Ethnic Minority Affairs (province level) and Division of Ethnic Minority Affairs (district level)
in the consultation and designing phases of this Project is rather limited.
2.2.1.3 Entities supporting the Project implementation
Regarding the entities supporting the Project implementation being government sectoral agencies
at all levels, the survey indicates that they all convey their readiness to cooperate and support the
implementation of the Project. Among the supporting provincial sectoral agencies, Department of
Agriculture & Rural Development, Board of Ethnic Minority Affairs, Extension Center (and
extension system at different levels) play an important role in supporting the Project
implementation. In this aspect, this Assessment identifies some problems as follows:
Firstly, the level of support from provincial sectoral agencies largely depends on the instruction of
PPCs and cooperative skills of province PPUs. According to current Project design, Director of
province PMU is a leader of DARD and PMU is a component in organizational structure of DARD.
As can be seen from the practical implementation of other projects, the coordination and
collaboration between DARD and other provincial sectoral agencies in project activities are not
always effective. In some other poverty reduction projects in project areas, it is difficult to mobilize
supports from some functional provincial sectoral agencies that are not the implementing agencies
of the projects. Therefore, strong instruction from PPC is necessary if collaboration among related
sectoral agencies is not sufficiently effective to deploy Project activities in accordance to Project
design.
Secondly, in order to implement Component 2 of the Project – which can be considered the most
challenging component in the current Project design – successfully, it requires active participation
of staff in charge of agricultural issues and extension center system at different levels. As defined
in Project design, the livelihood supports in the Project are provided to production groups, and
these groups are given the autonomy in finding inputs and technical assistance. Given various
forms of livelihoods supported and large number of production groups, agriculture staff and
extension system at different levels have the leading role. They will cooperate with PMUs at
different levels to advice and provide supports to production groups in accessing to production
inputs and technical assistance. In order to do so, the instruction from PPC in assigning tasks to
officials in charge of agricultural issues and extension staff at different levels to support Project
activities as planned is needed.
Entities supporting Project implementation being mass organizations such as Women’s Union, and
Farmer’s Union have networks of staff and collaborators in communities, as well as a large number
of members being Project beneficiaries. Besides, the participation of Women’s Union’s
45
representative in CDB, the current Project design defines specific role of Farmers’ Union in the
management of Project at different levels. However, these socio-political organizations play an
important role in implementing Project activities, from consultation, planning to supervising and
deploying of specific activities. In consultation aspects, these organizations play an important part
in disseminating information, promoting the participation of beneficiaries into the consultation and
planning processes. In implementation aspects, these two organizations probably have the most
active roles in motivating their members to join production groups and deploy livelihood supporting
models in the Project. In supervision aspects, these organizations have representatives in
Supervision Board and they have positively performed supervisory role in their function. Regarding
this supporting entities group, the Assessment reveals some potential problems as follows:
Firstly, though these mass organizations have an extensive network and a large number of
members, their operation efficiency depend largely on the competency of the union leaders at
commune level in the project areas and the perception of local authorities about their roles and
how to promote their roles. The survey results indicate that in many project communes, the role of
socio-political organizations like Women’s Union, Farmer’s Union remains limited. Therefore, there
is a possibility that the support of these socio-political organizations to the implementation of
Project may vary among different project communes.
Secondly, Women’s Union and Farmer’s Union have important roles in receiving the entrustment
from VBSP to manage their funding in project areas. The continuity of supports from these
organizations may encounter difficulties because the workload will increase while capacity of their
staff remains limited and remuneration stay low.
2.2.1.4 Commune entities
As defined in this Assessment, communal entities are production group models or spontaneous
self-managed groups having participation of households in project areas. In the formulation
process of this Assessment, survey results show that these entities are not very popular in project
areas. The most common form may be credit saving groups under loans managed by sociopolitical organizations under VBSP’s entrustment (and VBARD’s entrustment before). Besides,
some programs/projects being deployed in project communes have also formed some production
groups and saving groups (such as IFAD’s project in Dak Nong and Gia Lai), production clubs (in
Success Alliance Project). Additionally, self-managed groups established with the support of
communal authorities and mass organizations at local level to manage public infrastructures (clean
water tanks, wells, canals, etc.) are also quite common.
However, their popularity in project areas quite varies; even in the areas where these groups exist,
their capacity remains limited. Therefore, currently, these entities have not been regarded as an
important stakeholder of the Project. Nevertheless, the supporting principle of Component 2 is to
support the livelihoods through groups, and construction, operation and maintenance groups are
also encouraged in the design of Component 1 of this Project. Hence, along with the
implementation of Project, the role of communal entities will become more and more important,
especially to Project’s outcomes.
2.2.1.5 Entities from private sector in Project implementation process
Besides the above-mentioned entities, there is another stakeholder group who may have
significant effects on success of this Project, including private enterprises, private traders,
agriculture suppliers in project areas, and technical service providers (both individuals and
organizations) who provide trainings, extension services, etc. Regarding these entities, this
Assessment proposes some main issues as follows:
Enterprises are expected to play an important role in certain activities of the Project including
developing infrastructure constructions and market linkage livelihoods. Regarding Component 1
and Sub-component 3.1, construction and installation companies are assumed to implement works
46
in line with project’s preference to using local labors. In Sub-component 2.2, enterprises (including
private traders) play the role of ensuring markets for output products of production groups. In this
aspect, there are some problems as follows:
Firstly, according to the opinion of construction and installation companies, the employment of local
labors in infrastructure construction depends largely on the possibility to find qualified labors
satisfying job requirements. This is a considerable challenge to the enterprises, unless the works
are simple. Hence, the possibility to generate income for beneficiaries by providing jobs in
constructing infrastructures, even temporarily, is not significant.
Secondly, in project area, there are very few private enterprises operating effectively in agriculture
sector, hence, possibility to create linkage between enterprises and production groups is very low
(except for some products such as Japanese sweet potato, coca).
Thirdly, the network of private traders is playing an important role in the trading of agriculture
products in project areas. However, the survey results reveal that there is a significant competition
among private traders in some fields (such as trading cows and coca); therefore, price squeeze
rarely happens.
The network of organizations and individuals providing inputs for agriculture production is also
important. In project areas, this network comprises of mostly Kinh people, they open stores selling
fertilizers, pesticides, seeds; some of these stores are agents of providers, the remainder
collectively buy products from different sources (mostly from province or district centers) and
redistribute to people in Project area. With project areas’ limited infrastructure, this network is the
main source of production inputs to most of the beneficiary households, especially vulnerable
ones. In many case, this network is also the buyers of agriculture products in project areas (e.g.
private traders). Given this current situation, it can be foreseen that even if there is positive
intervention of the Project through supports to livelihoods and infrastructure development, this
supplying network will still play an important role at project communes.
The number of organizations/individuals providing technical services in Project area and
neighborhood is still insufficient, and their capacity remains limited. In Project area, there is hardly
any private technical or extension training service provider, thus, most of the services are provided
by extension system, some universities or local research institutions/centers. In some cases, firms
provide specific technical services to farmers who directly sell products to them, so that products
meet firms’ requirements. It is unlikely that this network of organizations/individuals providing
technical services will be able to meet the demand for quality technical assistance for production
group in Project area. The survey reveals that farmers receive technical assistance from only 3
main sources: (1) commune extension staff, (2) local suppliers of agriculture production inputs
(especially pesticide and fertilizer), (3) firms employing local labors (in forestry farm) and firms
buying agriculture products (for examples, cassava, Japanese sweet potato). Local officials at
different levels also assert that extension system is the most effective channel to provide technical
assistance/guidance to farmers, other agencies such as Research Institution or Vocational Training
Center also participated in programs/projects as technical assistance providers, but their services
are contract-based (they provide service basing on contracts and only deliver services when paid).
However, it is appropriate to employ these agencies in the Project implementation for selective
activities (such as training of trainers, first-time transferring technologies). But in the long term, the
local extension system and extension farmers are the more sustainable choices.
2.2.2 Policies, processes and institutions: their levels of impacts on the
participation and benefits of vulnerable target groups
2.2.2.1 Existing policies and programs targeting vulnerable groups are rather various
47
There have been many poverty reduction programs/project unfolding in the project areas. Given
their high poverty rate, difficult socio-economic situation, high concentration of indigenous EM
compatriots, all the project districts/communes are targets of several poverty reduction,
infrastructure and livelihood development programs/projects. Despite having different focuses and
supporting mechanisms, all these programs/projects have direct impacts on life of vulnerable target
groups in project areas. With the current coverage of those programs/projects, basically, major
impedances to socio-economic development in the project areas have been intervened at certain
level. Regarding infrastructure, Program 135/II, 3EM, TNSP prioritize developing small-scale
infrastructures at village level, meanwhile Program 30A and 30B focus more on those at district
and commune levels. Regarding production development supports, FLITCH and WB3 focus on
forestry livelihoods; Program 3EM, TNSP, ACP support the development of agricultural livelihoods;
Program 135-II, 30A also include production supports, though investments for these activities are
not as high as that for infrastructure development.
Programs/ Projects at District level
135-II communes3
3EM (4); FLITCH (3)
(7)/20
Dak Lak
ACP (5); FLITCH (3)
(13)/25
Gia Lai
TNSP (4), FLICTH (3), 30B (4), ACP (3)
(18)/25
FLITCH (3), 30A (2), 30B (3)
(28)/30
Quang Ngai
30A (3), WB3 (1)
(9)/15
Quang Nam
30A (2), 30B (1)
13/15
Provinces/Districts
Dak Nong
Kon Tum
Though these programs/projects have had certain impacts to the enhancement of socio-economic
condition and living standard of people in Project area, the improvement of living standard among
vulnerable groups in this area is much lower than the average level of the Central Highlands. The
key question here is why there are so many poverty reduction programs/projects but the
improvement of living standard of vulnerable target groups is noticeably (and worryingly) slower
than the average level. Besides, objective reasons such as limited livelihood potential, difficult
natural conditions, the synthesis of some recent studies (for examples, Pham et al. 2010, UNDP
(2009), WB (2009)), combined with this survey’s results reveal some reasons as follows:
Firstly, though the number of programs and projects is large, their resources are limited and there
is duplication in management without an effective integrating mechanism. Several reports
synthesizing results of poverty reduction programs/projects for EM compatriots emphasize that
even though there are many programs/projects, the resources for them remain far lower than
required. Even in a large-scale program like Program 135-II (valuing nearly USD1 billion), due to its
large intervention scope, each commune is provided with roughly USD 75,000 on average. Some
Government programs are not provided with sufficient resources as planned (for examples,
Program 30A, NTP on Building New Countryside). While the resources are limited, it is almost
impossible to coordinate and cooperate such resources because each program/project has a
different management agency/level, with different regulations and implementation approaches.
Secondly, investment in “hard” connective infrastructure is still prioritized, particularly in
Government’s programs/projects which have little partnership of development partners (merely in
1Figures
in parentheses () represent number of Project districts in CHPov Project that are concurrently in beneficial scope
of other pp – the list does not refer to National Target Program such as NTP on Sustainable Poverty Reduction 2012-2015,
NTP on Building New Coutryside;
2
Figures in parentheses () represent number of Project communes that are concurrently in beneficial scope of 135-II, ACP
stands for Agriculture Commodities Program; “3EM” is Project for the Sustainable Economic Empowerment of Ethnic
Minorities in Dak Nong Province, sponsored by IFAD; “FLICTH” is Forests for Livelihood Improvement in The Central
Highlands, sponsored by ADB; “TNSP” is Tam Nong Support Project, sponsored by IFAD in Gia Lai Province; “135-II” is
Program 135-II at villages with particular difficult conditions; “WB3” is Forest Sector Development Project, sponsored by
World Bank; “30A” is Circular 30A on the Program to support quick and sustainable poverty reduction for 61 poor districts;
“30B” is in accordance to Decision 293/QĐ-TTg on the objective funding support from State budget for 23 districts with high
poverty rate, applying procedures and infrastructure investment policies in accordance to regulation of Circular 30°.
48
form of funding, if any). It is clear that developing infrastructure is necessary, but supporting
livelihood development to take advantages of those infrastructures in developing production is also
very important. Promoting investment in “soft” connective infrastructure in form of developing
production remains a huge difficulty because the livelihood potential in disadvantaged areas is
usually much limited than that in favorable ones. Additionally, promoting investment in “soft”
connective infrastructure to build capacity for local officials at different levels is also a challenge
unsolved.
Thirdly, to ensure that the programs/projects being truly “for the vulnerable target groups”, “for the
poor”, the resources allocation should be prioritized for groups/locations having more difficult
conditions or higher poverty rate. However, this principle is sometimes bypassed by poverty
reduction programs/projects. The common approaching method of programs/projects often defines
geographic areas (village, commune, district) as target approaching units and the resource
allocation is normally proposed based on the calculation using number of approaching units rather
than taking into consideration all the differences among geographic areas (in terms of poverty rate,
characteristics of vulnerable groups). Obviously, it is not necessary that some targets that are
benefited from social support/protection policy should also be targets of poverty reduction projects.
However, if the resource allocation does not take this factor into consideration, it will be unlikely
that vulnerable target groups can be able to improve their living standard faster than average level.
Fourthly, there are still controversies over the relevance of existing programs/projects to EM
compatriots’ needs and characteristics. WB (2009) points out that there exist various biases and
stereotyping about EM compatriots and these concepts may lead to the use of inappropriate
‘models’, ‘measures’ to improve living standards of EM compatriots. The survey results of this
Assessment also affirms the existence of biases, and it emphasizes that these biases can cause
disadvantages for EM compatriots in gaining benefit from the economic development opportunities
(the following Sections analyzes this issue in more details).
2.2.2.2 The processes to motivate the participation of people and communities in local
socio-economic development remain limited
Democracy at local levels and policies to motivate the participation of people and communities in
local socio-economic development have been conducted in project areas for more than a decade.
The engagement of communities and beneficiaries in the planning of socio-economic development
has taken place at project communes concurrently under Program 135-II (which comprises of 68%
of total project communes) or at project districts concurrently under IFAD Project in Dak Nong and
Province Gia Lai (which comprises of 31% of total project districts). This Assessment evaluates
participation of beneficiaries in the socio-economic development in 5 ascending levels, specifically:
(i) information; (ii) consultation; (iii) implementation; (iv) collaboration in implementation; and (v)
autonomy in implementation. According to the survey result at Project area, participation of
vulnerable groups at each level is summarized as follows:
Information level: When interviewed, most of the vulnerable target households are able to list the
supports they have received from different programs and projects, but they do not understand
contents of those assisting programs/projects. Only some of the households remember
programs/projects’ names (mainly Governmental ones such as Program 135-II, Program 167 on
Housing Assistance). Though there are several international sponsored programs, beneficiaries
barely know their names. EM households in Quang Nam and Province Quang Ngai have higher
level of understanding about programs/projects than those in the Central Highlands, particularly,
indigenous EMs demonstrate that they have received tangible support (rice, baby plants, support
to build house) directly from village and commune authority, but they are not aware of and do not
care about the origins of those supports. Spontaneous migrating EM households in the recent time
have very little information and barely receive any support from programs/projects. Noticeably,
49
women in matriarchy indigenous EMs often have more information about programs/projects than
those in patriarchy ones – this is resulted from their role as the head of the family.
Consultation level: The main consultation procedure conducted by programs/projects in Project
area is participatory planning, of which the first step is to organize participatory village meetings
where beneficiaries discuss and identify the priorities. The interviews with commune and village
officers reveal that the organization of participatory village meetings varies among locations and
characteristics of each program/project. The requirement on participatory village meeting is
regulated in Program 135-II, 3EM, TNSP, but is not clearly identified in Program 30A, ACP, and
many others. Normally, a participatory village meeting is hold at village common house or at village
head’s house, participants are informed in advance, there are representatives of commune
authorities, and the village head chairs the meeting (with the support of commune authorities’
representatives). Depending on the actual context, language of the meeting can be Vietnamese or
combination of Vietnamese and EM languages, meetings are rarely conducted by EM languages
only. In case of combining languages, beneficiaries discuss in EM languages, and then the
discussion result is summarized in Vietnamese language.
According to the vulnerable target groups’ evaluation, generally, participatory village meetings are
attended by representatives of almost all households in the village. However, vulnerable
households have not actively participated (they may attend the meeting, but their engagement in
discussion are limited). As for indigenous EM ones, they only attend and listen (passive
participation), they occasionally raise their voice, and only smile or answer by simple sentences
when asked. With such levels of participation, basically, vulnerable target groups have not fully
played their role in participatory village meetings to advice and identify priorities for specific
programs/projects.
Implementation level: Due to the limitation in participatory level as above-mentioned, the
engagement in the implementation of programs/projects activities in local areas remains limited.
Regarding the participation in infrastructure construction, some vulnerable households did
participate in constructing activities in their localities but mostly in forms of daily works. They
receive payments by day/week, perform simple tasks such as supporting in site clearance, carrying
materials, cooking. Because this type of income is irregular, it is mainly spent on temporary
expenses (for food, wine), hence, it barely has any meaning to the improvement of their living
standards.
Regarding livelihood development activities, the survey results show that vulnerable groups
receive quite a lot of supports for formulating different livelihood developing models, both in forms
of supports to individuals and groups of households. Although beneficiaries evaluate impacts of
these supports positively, there are signs of low sustainability. The most commonly-seen matter is
that when the support stops, beneficiaries also cease applying production methods/models; they
do not use their own money to buy seeds and agricultural materials and resume their traditional
cultivating method. Vulnerable households rarely succeed in deploying cattle raising models, the
main reason is that they cannot maintain the appropriate caring and veterinary conditions to
prevent epidemic for the cattle.
Regarding the participation in supervising programs/projects activities, most of the project
communes have Supervisory Board, functioning the supervision, and this Board is also a
component in management models of almost all programs/projects in the location. However, due to
the limited understanding of basic construction, the supervision is mainly formality, administrative
procedure but does not have practical meanings. The survey results show no case of active
participation in supervising activities. There are quite a lot of water supply schemes – a
fundamental infrastructure to people’s life – but the protection of theses infrastructures is poor.
Observations show that most of damages on these constructions are caused by the careless
users.
50
“Taking the road building project in this village as an example, villagers do have supervision, but the
supervisors are lack of responsibility and unprofessional, there’re a lot or nonsense opinions. Sometimes
materials are missing but no one is responsible. No one fixes the road when it is damaged.”
(An elder in village, Commune Ia Broai, Province Gia Lai)
Nevertheless, not all the supervision at commune level is ineffective.
“Our works are supervised by Commune Supervisory Board. We consider this supervision effective and it
does not impede our operation”
(Representative of Construction Company, District Kon Ray, Province Kon Tum)
“Regardless of scale, all the recent projects are supervised by the community. They don’t have technical
knowledge about construction, but they evaluate based on what they see, such as thickness of cement
concrete, quality of road surface. An example is the program to refurbish and maintain transportation system
on 0.5 km of road (valuing VND800 million). 2/3 of the project value is mobilized from villagers: labor,
materials, tools; both the contractor and villagers positively and actively engage in the work. Villagers discuss
and assign work to individuals, who to do what, where to refurbish. When they discuss, they participate in and
understand the work, hence, it is successful. Their perception about their own benefit changes and it removes
the ineffectiveness. Before, even though the electricity system had been built, they didn’t even spend just a
small amount of money more to buy wire to conduct electricity to their houses. Everything has changed now,
like the example I have mentioned above”
(PPU staff, District Kon Ray, Province Kon Tum)
Regarding participation at upper levels of collaboration and autonomy in implementation levels, the
survey found almost no proof of such participation in project areas.
Generally, the participation level of vulnerable groups in existing programs/projects in the location
is low; basically, the beneficiaries know part of the information (receiving supports) and attend
some participatory meetings to comment on priorities. There are several reasons for such poor
participation of vulnerable target groups in programs/projects in the impacted area of CHPov
Project. Some major reasons are detected as follows:
At information and consultation level: Although the participation of beneficiaries is a fundamental
principle in many programs/projects, the method to motivate participation in consultation process
have many limitations. Firstly, village meetings are normally informed in advance, but the meeting
contents are not clearly informed, therefore, people often do not have preparation. Contents
concerning quick assessment to identify difficulties and challenges are not well-prepared at village
level; hence, there is not much information for the discussion. Secondly, the language used in
meetings is normally Vietnamese because there is also the presence of communal officials to
provide guidance. In many cases, participants have limitation in using Vietnamese, or due to local
custom, participants discuss in EM language and assign one person to summarize the discussion
content in Vietnamese. This interpretation causes certain impedance to the discussion result of
participatory village meeting. Thirdly, organizing a participatory village meeting requires
organizational, motivating and facilitating skills at certain level. These, however, are the
weaknesses of majority of communal officials in Project area. Fourthly, as above-mentioned, the
duplication of multiple programs/projects with the demand on participation of beneficiaries in
different ways and levels is also a negative factor affecting the efficiency of engaging people in the
consultation.
While the method to motivate participation of beneficiaries remains still have several limitations,
there are other reasons rooted from features of vulnerable target groups and biases towards them.
Firstly, the shyness and passivity of indigenous EM people are clearly recognized in the
consultation process. It is commonly agreed by many entities that in general the indigenous EM
people do not actively engage in discussion if there is participation of outsiders such as groups of
migrating EM people, officers, or other entities that do not belong to their community. Secondly,
51
even if there are inappropriate priorities proposed in the meeting, but due to the shyness, the
beneficiaries often keep silence rather than raise their voice. The survey results collected in the
formulation process of this Assessment shows quite many opinions of communal officials that
because EM compatriots often have low level of education, hesitation in communicating, and
limited Vietnamese language competency, it is very difficult for them to demonstrate their opinion in
participatory village meeting. Whether or not this bias is right or wrong (there are evidences of the
limitation of EM compatriots while communicating in Vietnamese as can be seen in citations
hereunder), it has negative impact on the organizing and chairing of participatory village meeting
that participation and opinion of vulnerable target groups are not given adequate importance.
“EM people and women participate in community activities, but not much. In the discussion Sections, they
contribute idea less. They attend the meeting but do not have valuable questions. They participate more
actively if the matters involve funding and interest rate of VBSP. The ability to actively search for information
of women and EM people in general is still limited, they are reluctant to ask and have high self-esteem.”
(Communal official, District Chu Mo, Province Gia Lai)
“85-90% of the EM people here can speak and communicate in Vietnamese. Those who cannot speak
Vietnamese are the elderly. However, only 50% can communicate fluently and 20% can read documents in
Vietnamese. Commune authority often disseminates information through local officials who can speak EM
language. In addition, 50% of them can’t even read in their mother tongue.”
(Village head, Commune Ea Trang, District M’Drak, Province Dak Lak)
“All EM people here can speak Vietnamese language fluently. But some pretend that they don’t understand
Vietnamese when the officers come to give information on birth control. Those people normally speak
Vietnamese very well.”
(Staff, Women’s Union, Province Quang Nam)
At implementation level: The modest participation of vulnerable target groups in infrastructure
construction in Project area can be explained by several reasons. Objectively, this is not
permanent and long-term job opportunity; therefore, it is not an appealing choice for beneficiaries.
Besides simple manual works such as supporting in site clearing, carrying materials, the others
require certain skills that local workers have not been trained. Subjectively, according to many
interviews with contractors and local officials, indigenous EM young workers are not very
disciplined, spontaneous, off-and-on way of work; hence, it is very risky to hire them. In this aspect,
all the contractors demonstrate that they understand the advantage of labor cost saving when
employing local workers. Given the concerns as above-mentioned, contractors often bring labor
from other places, or hire only local Kinh workers.
Regarding livelihood supports, the survey results demonstrate that vulnerable households only
conduct traditional livelihoods. They produce food and raise animals to supply their daily
consumption with simple traditional experiences. Market linkages are just in form of irregular small
scale selling of some output products to increase income to cover daily expenses. The use of
agricultural materials to increase productivity and application of intensive cultivation techniques are
also implemented but not common among vulnerable groups in Project area. Therefore, without
training and effective information dissemination, it will be difficult for vulnerable groups to receive
and apply new production models.
“In order to promote the “talented farmers” movement, we establish clubs for farmers of same interests, create
favorable conditions for them to observe, study and new production models. Selected households are often
poor ones who are lack of production experience.”
(Staff, Farmers’ Union, Province Kon Tum)
52
2.2.3 Some cultural, ritual practices affecting the Project implementation
The field study shows the importance of some cultural and ritual practices that may have potential
impacts on the Project, including:
Firstly, the community spirit and the role of the elderly in creating consensus in community life are
important factors. The community spirit often results in leveling off benefits as well as creating
concessions or selective consensuses in order to gain fractional benefits. This will deteriorate
efforts of some proactive households and create free-rider mentality in some others. There are
feedbacks on the matter of benefit leveling off in classifying poor households as follows:
“The classification of poor households is conducted transparently in the village meetings. However, there are
cases where both the husband and the wife in a poor household do nothing but drinking all day long (poverty
is the result of laziness) – work for one day then drink for three days, but then they are still qualified to be poor
household to be benefited from Government policy”
(FGDs with H’Re EM women, Commune Ba Kham, Province Quang Ngai)
“Last year, my family was classified as poor household. At the end of the same year, communal official came
and told us that we were still poor household but would not be able to enjoy policies supporting poor
households any more; we have to be excluded from the list for the other households to be in. Hence, in the
meeting, we are no longer in the considering list”
(Female farmer, District Krong No, Province Dak Nong)
“There are many poor households, but poor ones due to laziness should not be helped. However, they are still
qualified to benefits from pro-poor policies”
(FGDs with EM groups, District Krong No, Province Dak Nong)
Secondly, the role of folk doctrine in daily life and production, especially religious rituals and
traditional parties to celebrate seeding, harvesting, disease curing, wedding, funerals, often costs
much money and time; some families are even in debt due to the expenses for those custom.
Hence, the custom has certain negatively effects on the production development.
“There are many festivals with various offering and abstaining rituals, affecting the production. When
conducting the offering rituals, people have to cease working, even in the middle of the harvest or in the time
of urgent fertilizing. Each festival takes place in up to 10 days; the festival to celebrate the harvest last about
10 days. If a family has thunderstorm stricken on their field, then they have to offer seven (7) buffalos, not until
they have offer that number of buffalos can they resume cultivating on that field”
(Village head, Commune Phuoc Chanh, District Phuoc Son, Province Quang Nam)
“The ritual of sharing assets to the dead people still exists. The biggest expense is on offering parts of a
buffalo to the dead one, a little of every part: leg, head, tail, etc., offering pork, wine, and rice. The whole
village will come and help. This ritual is consuming, but that’s the custom, we have no way but to follow”
(FGDs with H’Re women, Village Dong Ram, Commune Ba Kham, Province Quang Ngai)
Thirdly, the routines in daily life are originated from the kaingin cultivation agriculture and extensive
farming of indigenous EM compatriots in self-sufficiency model, resulting in monotonous routine,
slow pacing of life with vague sense of pressure; the free lifestyle, especially farming routines that
require little effort and investment. These can be the factors barring the compatriots’ mentality from
accessing new things, particularly intensive farming models, plants and animals that need
complicated cultivation and breeding procedures, or exploit the forestry resource.
“In our village, we use neither fertilizer nor manure. Farmers only sow the seed and wait to harvest. They think
that the soil quality is good enough so no need fertilizer.”
(Village elder, Commune Phuoc Chanh, Province Quang Nam)
53
“Commune authority assigns 1500 ha to 55 households (i.e. 30 ha/household) to protect, plant, and develop
the forest (forest land allocation to EM people in accordance to Program 304, 2007 of Government). EMs
people are provided with rice, money and allowed to exploit forestry resources. However, up to now,
beneficiaries are too lazy to develop the forest, they only protect it. These forests are rich forests. The
allocation is not effective because the beneficiaries neglect their allocated forests for the hijackers to destroy”
(Communal official, District Kon Rat, Province Kon Tum)
Fourthly, many indigenous EMs are matriarchy. However, the family heading role of the women
means that they have to take over the heavy works like men. At the same time, heading role does
not necessarily mean that women will participate more actively into community activities. In fact, in
matriarchy and patriarchy societies, the women rarely represent their households to take part in
social life like men do.
Box 2.7: Opinions demonstrating that despite their important role in the family, women have limited
roles in community activities
“In matriarchy indigenous EM families, women make decision, they also work harder on farm than men do,
but men attend training Section more regular, hence, the training efficiency is limited”
(Agriculture officer, District M’Drak, Province Dak Lak)
“The gender equality is improved, but husbands provide just a little help. We have to manage the
housework, take care of children, we have to earn money and take care of the housework at the same time”
(FGDs with women, Commune Ea Trang, District M’Drak, Province Dak Lak)
“Women do more housework than men”
(Farmers in Chu Mo, Ia Pa District, Province Gia Lai)
”Women work harder than men do; they take care of everything in family: raising children, educating them,
cooking, farming. Men think that’s women’s responsibility to take care of the housework so they don’t care
about it, they just do the farming.”
(Staff, Division of EM Affairs, District Kon Ray, Province Kon Tum)
“Women here are very poor because they have limited education, limited participation in social activities,
get married soon, and then work on kaingin to earn their living. About 60% of them take part in some
unions, the remainder rarely participate such activity, so they have little access to information and
technologies applicable to production.”
(Staff, Women’s Union, District Kon Ray, Province Kon Tum)
“Women’s competence is more limited than men. In meetings they can interpret only 50-70%; they are
more reluctant and shy than men. Women often communicate in local language, so when disseminate
information, the officer have to speak little and slowly.”
(Staff, Women’s Union, Province Quang Nam)
Source: Social Assessment Survey 2013
Fifthly, in two recent decades, Catholicism and Evangelicalism with faiths and rules has been
becoming more and more popular in the Project area. Their religious values have made significant
impacts on people’s way of living such as they encourage people to quit smoking, reduce drinking,
simplify wedding and funeral rituals, expand the traditional social network. Catholicism and
Evangelicalism also have effect on traditional community life, people believe in and live up to
religious faiths and rules instead of traditional rituals.
Sixthly, the existence of biases and stereotyping about EMs, especially about indigenous EM
compatriots, also increase the vulnerability of disadvantageous groups. The problem of biases and
54
stereotyping about indigenous EM compatriots in the Central Highlands has been mentioned in
some previous studies on EMs and development. This Assessment reaffirms the existence of
these biases and stereotyping in project areas. It is necessary to emphasize that this Assessment
is not aimed to give judgment whether these biases and stereotyping are “right or wrong’; it only
synthesizes some existing biases at the locality, and basing on that to give some warnings and
recommendations for the Project designing. Therefore, the recognition of these biases and
stereotyping reflects reality but not necessarily reflects the opinion of consulted groups or involved
organizations. With such approach, biases about indigenous EMs compatriots involve some major
matters as follows:
Regarding general perception/understanding, the common bias towards EM compatriots is that
they have lower level of education than the average, they are slow in improving and even
backward.
”Indigenous E De people are not as smart as migrants from the North of Vietnam. The migrants work harder
to increase income; they are more flexible so their productivity is 1.2-1.5 times higher than that of indigenous
EM people. Indigenous people are lazy; their custom does not favor far-distance moving or risky activities.”
(In-depth interviews with enterprise’s representatives, District M’Drak, Province Dak Lak)
Regarding livelihoods, the common bias is that indigenous EM compatriots only rely on
traditional ways of cultivating and breeding, which require little effort, hence, productivity is low.
Moreover, because they are used to these methods, it will be difficult for them to apply new
cultivation methods requiring a lot of time and effort. In addition to that, EM compatriots don’t
usually have practices of saving money. They spend huge expenditures on festivals (mostly for
parties), they do not have accumulation to reinvest in production.
”EM people rely on the fertility of soil. They don’t use manure; some officers show them how to use fertilizer.
People don’t know how to use rat killers. Last year, they applied some rat killing methods, but then, rat
reproduced even more."
(Village head, Commune Phuoc Thanh, District Phuoc Son, Province Quang Nam)
“Traditional custom and habits have large impact on production. Cows, goats and pigs are mostly fed to serve
village’s rituals. If one family has some kind of rituals, such as funeral, the whole village cease working and
organize feasts in 2-3 days, it affects negatively to their living. The soil is fertile, but they seriously lack of
techniques and don’t want to learn.”
(Communal official, District Ia Pa, Province Gia Lai)
“The indigenous EM people only do farming. Thus, migrating Kinh people, who come later, only have land to
run services or trading such as fertilizer and rice milling.”
(Communal official, Commune Chu Mo, District Ia Pa, Province Gia Lai)
Regarding the participation in labor market, the bias is that EM young workers do not obey
working disciplines and time. They are not familiar with machine operations, thus, they are not able
handle complicated works and not suitable to the factory working environment.
“As a business, we have to assure our benefit, so we don’t want to employ indigenous EM workers. We only
hire them when investing in forest planting because they are more honest and have more experiences than
Kinh people”
(In-depth interviews with enterprise’s representatives, District M’Drak, Province Dak Lak)
“We don’t have in-house workers. When we have forest planting project, we will find 200 people. The work
doesn’t require special skills and EM people here are familiar with it. For works that require technical
knowledge, we don’t trust them because they are incapable of doing those works. Anyway, employing Kinh
people is better.”
55
(In-depth interviews with forestry enterprise’s representatives, District Kon Ray, Province Kon Tum)
“If the EM people work hard, they can do simple works. For example, Kinh people take over the technical
works (person-in-charge) and EM people can assist in simple manual works. Indigenous EM people are poor
but they are very lazy, they don’t want to work. When there is a festival, they skip work. Their cognitive ability
is lower than Kinh people’s. Kinh people only need brief explanation, but for EM people, we have to explain
many times. Moreover, EM people always want to receive payment right at the end of working day because
they are afraid that employer will not pay and also because they need money to cover daily expenses.
Therefore, EM people don’t have labor contract while Kinh people have because they get payment by month.”
(In-depth interviews with representatives of construction enterprises, District Kon Ray, Province Kon Tum)
Regarding the access to socio-economic development programs and policies, the common
bias is that most of EM compatriots passively rely on free support; they do not make effort to
overcome poverty.
Regarding the access to funding, there is a bias that EM compatriots do not know how to use
funding effectively; therefore they often cannot repay the loan.
”EM people are lazy and often passively rely on Government supports. Some households don’t do anything
but drinking. Some others rely on supports and don’t work, even though the elders and officials have
explained and helped.”
(An elder in village, Commune Phuoc Chanh, District Phuoc Son, Province Quang Nam)
“EM people don’t know how to do business (planting tree, feeding animals) effectively. Funding has been
invested quite a lot, but it’s still not efficient. Due to low level of education, they rely and depend on the
support from Government; they take what the Government provides. If the project requires contribution from
them, it will be very difficult to implement.”
(Communal official, Commune Chu Mo, District Ia Pa, Province Gia Lai)
“10-15% of poor households in the village are due to laziness, they don’t want to work. Therefore, the project
should require their commitment and have proper supervision. In the ADB project [planting acacia, improving
garden structure to plant fruit trees], beneficiaries are provided with baby plants, fertilizer and termite killer.
The project area is 200ha of non-commercial forest land. The implementation outcomes are evaluated by
ADB. If the outcome is good, beneficiaries will receive payment for their labor. All the beneficiary households,
regardless of their outcomes, have to refund 15% of the initial investment to reinvest in other households
(applicable to all households). Even when applying that procedure, the effectiveness is only 50%.”
(Village head, Commune Ae Trang, District M’Drak, Province Dak Lak)
The above-mentioned biases may cause risks to indigenous EM groups – the main targets of these
biases – in accessing Project supports [such biases toward migrant EM groups are rare]. As
several citations in this Assessment mentioned, migrant EM groups in the area are considered
active, hard-working, they pay attention to accumulating land and overcome poverty in only 3-5
years].The current Project design applies CDD - Community Driven Development approach and
emphasizes that the development plan must be formulated based on beneficiaries’ needs.
However, due to the bias on the limited cognitive ability of indigenous EM groups, they may not be
fully engaged in, or only formally consulted in the consultation and planning phases of the Project.
Secondly, according to the current design of Component II, livelihood models in Sub-component
2.2 are aimed at market linkage livelihoods and generating sustainable, high income.
Nevertheless, the bias on the limited ability to apply technology and production organization of
indigenous EM groups will pose a risk that the participation of these groups in Sub-component 2.2
will be low. Instead, they will receive simple livelihood supports in Sub-component 2.1, focusing
mainly on assuring food security. Thirdly, the opportunities for indigenous EM young workers to be
employed by construction contractors are low (as projected in Component I and Sub-component
3.1) due to bias on their discipline at work and limited ability in performing complicated works.
56
Overalls, it can be concluded that the existing cultural mechanisms, religions, biases can also lead
to certain impacts on the implementation of the Project, both positively and negatively. Particularly,
the living and production practices that have established over generations and relied on kaingin
cultivation and self-sufficient model, are considerable obstacles to access to new production
models, which require initial investment and significant efforts in cultivating. In addition, although
the religious custom and rituals, especially festivals and funerals, tend to be simplified, they may
still have significant effects to the investment in production and the sustainability of some
livelihoods because they still disturb beneficiaries’ decision on using livelihood assets (for
examples, slaughtering cattle while still in production process) or to abandon cultivation for a long
period due to communal events (e.g. festivals, rituals). Besides, if a proper intervention strategy is
not deployed, women, even those in matriarchy societies, may not participate actively in the
consultation and planning activities of the Project. The existing biases prevent beneficiaries from
fully engaging into the community-driven development and some Sub-components of the Project.
2.3 Verifying the suitability of the CHPov Project’s livelihood strategies
Collecting feedbacks and comments of related stakeholders and beneficiaries are amongst the
main focuses of the Social Assessment. During field survey, the Project’s strategies, principles,
basic design of components, models and implementation methods were shared with all relevant
stakeholders and beneficiaries in the project areas in order to collect feedbacks for the Project’s
design. However, it should be noted that the Feasibility Study of this Project was in its second
phase of development during the time of this field survey (December 2012 and January 2013).
Hence, the feedbacks reflected in this Report are towards the design of the Project at that time.
Generally, the draft of Project’s design, interventions and the proposed main activities are highly
appreciated. This report does not systematically summarize positive feedbacks, but instead,
summarize all feedbacks from beneficiaries and related stakeholders on issues that need further
considerations during the completion process of Project’ design and implementation at later
stages. All remarkable feedbacks are clustered into 3 main categories as follows.
2.3.1 Remarkable feedbacks on infrastructure development supports
In general, it was agreed upon that the construction of infrastructure will be implemented in the
direction to support livelihood development. However, comments on infrastructure scope and
investment budget are quite different, as of follows:
Regarding district infrastructures: The Project’s policy is to encourage development of
connective infrastructure. Connective infrastructure here refers to both ‘hard’ infrastructure (such
as road and irrigation, etc) and ‘soft’ infrastructure (such as market information). However,
connective infrastructure is not clearly defined in the Project design, and ‘connectivity’ is
understood by staff as different meanings. Most of district staff, especially district PPU, raised their
‘concerns’ during in-depth interviews, such as:
“What is connectivity, we don’t even understand. Is the inter-communes road considered connectivity, or must
it connect with the market ?”
(district PPU staff, Province Kon Tum)
or “Whether a bridge connecting an arterial road, but locates in just one commune is considered connectivity
or not?”
(district PPU staff, Quang Ngai province)
“We are so concerned about the connective infrastructure, since we are not explained clearly, whether a
market is considered connective infrastructure or not?”
57
(district PPU staff, Province Dak Nong)
Besides, a ‘hard’ connective infrastructure that could create important connection in terms of
transportation or infrastructure often required an enormous investment (even higher than the
expected funds for Component 3 at district level). It suggests that the term ‘connectivity’ should be
interpreted more clearly in the Project documents as any district infrastructure that could
strengthen the connection between district and communes, and between different communes are
classified ‘connective infrastructure’. A ‘soft’ connective infrastructure can be interpreted as any
supports to enhance cooperation/partnership between different stakeholders who involving directly
or indirectly in social-economic development at the locality, such as provision of information on
labor market, or changes in agriculture product prices.
Regarding commune infrastructure: Several issues are raised as follows:
Firstly, community procurement is highly appreciated, however detailed guidance on
implementation, and simplified procedure to facilitate community’s participation in construction,
especially procedure of advanced payment and settlement, are agreed to be of necessity.
Secondly, priority in mobilizing local labor in infrastructure construction is fully aware but its
capacity to meet work requirements is a question. In addition, the mechanism to encourage
contractors to use local labor needs more clarification, so that contractors have more incentives to
make long-term and earnest commitments in mobilizing and training local labor.
“Our company totally agrees with the Project’s requirement of using at least 50% local labor”
(Construction company, District Kon Ray, Province Kon Tum)
Thirdly, in addition to infrastructure serving livelihood development, several typical infrastructure
works are proposed during interviews, such as: electricity construction (mostly electricity line from
electricity pole to households), classrooms (for school sites at villages and schools at communes),
cultural houses, supplementation of equipments for commune health centers, restrooms, and even
lighting systems. Nevertheless, according to viewpoints of officials at commune and district level,
these typical infrastructure like electricity construction, schools, cultural houses, etc, has already
been supported by many other programs now and maybe in the future. Thus, as agreed by
different respondents, Project’ s supports in infrastructure development can still be focused on
serving livelihood development.
Moreover, a number of common issues on infrastructure at commune and district level are also
reported. Based on observations of other programs/projects, a lot of respondents think that the
Project should identify the maximum investment value for infrastructure sub-projects in line with
level of decentralization for commune investment owner. Besides, integration with activities funded
by other sources in the project areas are also posed as a quiz for the Project to solve. Given the
proposed fund allocation in CHPov may not be sufficient for the demand of basic infrastructure
development in the project areas, and a lot of other programs/projects have also supported
infrastructure development in the same areas, it raises the question of how to integrate different
funding in order to ensure the focus on key infrastructure and to improve efficiency. Up to present,
all stakeholders show concerns on differences in procurement procedure and financial
management applied by Vietnam and development partners. These differences may hinder the
possibility of fund integration.
“There are 24 settlement projects, but only 6 being implemented. It is because of capital shortage. Donors
don’t approve disbursement due to weak and false management
(Staff, DARD, Province Dak Lak)
58
“The fund was not used efficiently by district authorities. They will use whatever funding they have without
reviews, evaluation, or integration of funding. There are a lot of fundings, however due to disagreement of
management and time differences, thus it may be difficult to achieve affiance”.
(District official, District Ia Pa, Province Gia Lai)
2.3.2 Remarkable feedbacks on livelihood development supports
Feedbacks on livelihood development supports are clustered into 2 main categories, namely the
mechanism to support LEGs and specific supporting activities of the Project.
2.3.2.1 Regarding the mechanism to support LEGs
According to feedbacks from beneficiaries and local officials at all levels, the following issues
should be paid great attention.
Firstly, a lot of related stakeholders interpret LEGs as the former ‘collective production model’ in
economic central-planning mechanism during Vietnam’s subsidy period, thus certainly realizing no
effectiveness. This is not the correct interpretation of the Project’s design, however it shows that
LEGs are not common/popular in the project areas.
“Common ownership is not a good way. If the Project provides 10 cows, then just distributing them among 5
households, rather than giving to production groups. If beneficiaries interpret supports as group activities, it
will fails. The activities should be 100% privatization. Supports must be provided to each individual household,
and negotiable amongst the groups.
(District official, District Kon Ray, Province Kon Tum)
Secondly, a lot of local officials claimed that it’s important for these LEGs to avoid formality. In
other words, after establishment, these LEGs must have regular activities, knowledge sharing; at
the same time, specific regulations of collaboration amongst LEG members must be apparent.
“In recent time, there is a rice cultivation model having applied for 3 years but after project’s conclusion,
people go back to old practices and wait for supports from the Government. They always think “Why
supported last year, but not this year?”
(Staff, DARD, Province Kon Tum)
“We promoted vegetable planting in their home garden, but they didn’t follow. We told them how to grow
vegetable in their garden, but when we left, they just went to the forest to do cultivation and stopped
gardening”
(Staff, WU, Province Kon Tum)
“For example, the Central Poverty Reduction Project has a large investment fund and supports fertilizers and
seeds. However, project staff does not come to households [to provide instructions], but only focus on fund
disbursement instead”.
(Staff, DARD, Province Kon Tum)
Thirdly, respondents show great concerns on whether the majority of members in each LEG are within the
same ethnic groups. This would create complexity if this event occurs, because it may enhance interaction
between members of LEGs but reduce interaction between different ethnic groups.
“The model of LEGs in the Central Poverty Reduction Project is successful because LEG members are from
the same ethnic groups. It is so difficult to integrate Kinh group with other ethnic groups. Kinh group seems to
be more wise and takes all the benefits”.
(Communal official, District Dak To Re, Province Kon Tum)
“The model of supporting the rich aims at pulling up the poor and training the poor. LEG members should
include people with good, average and low skills. And farmers should implement model replication through the
establishment of Farmer Union’s centers”
59
(Staff, Provincial Farmer Union, Province Dak Nong)
Fourthly, LEG leaders and active members will play an important role in ensuring the sustainability of the
group after receiving supports from the Project. Their [important or hindering] roles are shared in some
discussions as follows:
“There is a man in Chu Reng commune receiving a cow since 2008. Now he has 5 cows and sell 2 already.
He is elected as LEG leader, so the group is running very well. Other households learn from him and even sell
cows to have money to send kids to schools and pay for medical expenses”.
(Staff, DOLISA, Province Kon Tum)
“People are the key, choosing the right people who want to overcome poverty is the determinant for success.
Normally, poor households are hard-working. You should select the best man whom people listen to and can
make decision for the group.”
(Staff, DARD, Province Kon Tum)
“There will be little cooperation since the leader sees no interest/benefit, he/she just want to be a normal
member, and so they don’t care much and take no responsibility. Sometimes, the leader even don’t know
anything when we ask, he/she only know what they do, and don’t know about others.”
(Official, DOLISA, District Kon Ray, Province Kon Tum)
“Amongst those migrated from province Thanh Hoa or Me Kong region, they do help each other. If someone
knows how to do good business, he/she will help other people and people really trust him/her”.
(FGDs, commune Quang Phu, District Krong No, Province Dak Nong)
2.3.2.2 Regarding scope of supports and activities
According to beneficiaries, their main focus still lies on distribution of seed/livestock and
agricultural inputs. In this respect, according to the current Project’s design, LEGs will receive
fundings to buy seeds/livestock and necessary agricultural inputs after developing implementation
plan. However, this raises a lot concerns for beneficiaries because they do not have much
experience with LEG operation. In addition, supports for several new models are also proposed for
different reasons, with emphasis on effective communication/persuasion on indigenous ethnic
minorities to apply successful models – which implemented by other households in the same
village/hamlets and/or in the same ethnic group. Besides, there are a lot of comments on the
sustainability of livelihood activities after the completion of the Project.
“There are successful production models amongst ethnic minorities; however they are discontinued when
supports are no longer provided. Animal raising is successful, but then no reproduction. The main reason is
that production has yet become a habit for them”.
(Official, DOLISA, Province Dak Lak)
This raises a concern regarding the number of production cycles that the Project will support LEGs
in order for LEGs to maintain their livelihood activities after a certain number of cycles. Technical
training is emphasized as an essential factor for people to absorb new technique. However, it is
agreed by beneficiaries and local officials at all levels that technical training must be designed
appropriately to audiences, the training content should be easy to understand, and repeated
trainings should be provided for complicated/difficult livelihood activities.
60
2.3.3 Remarkable feedbacks on capacity building activities and project
management
Regarding the Project’s design at the time when this assessment was conducted, beneficiaries and
officials at all levels suggest almost no remarkable feedbacks on the proposed project
management. The following only summarizes main feedbacks on certain issues.
Regarding commune being investment owner, there are two main themes in feedbacks. The first
group thinks that commune investment owner will pose a lot of risks to the Project, because the
capacity of communal officials are at low level, and they do not have much experience with WB
loan projects. The second group thinks that decentralization is necessary despite limited capacity
of communal authorities. The decentralization will enable building capacity for communal officials
otherwise they would remain in the trap of low capacity. However, feedbacks generally show
agreement to the decentralization of the role of investment owner to commune level. But it was
suggested that such decentralization should come with clear roadmap and a concerted capacity
building process should be provided for officials at all levels, especially commune level.
“Effective supports are resulted from improved capacity at levels – production supports should come with
guidance in implementation and up-scaling. Moreover, local officials should also have better capacity to
provide required supports for farmers. Communal officials now do not have such required capacity”
(Staff, Provincial Board of Ethnic Minorities Affairs, Province Dak Lak)
”Investment owner roles can by assumed by commune authorities. They are capable now because district
officials are enhanced and decentralization has been gradually put into practice. It is required to have at least
a bachelor certificate to be a public servant. Constructions are implemented quite well because communal
officials live with people and know their needs. An investment of about VND500 million – VND1 billion can be
managed at commune level but VND2 billion may be beyond their capacity and should be placed under
district level management”
(Staff, District Division of Ethnic Minorities Affairs, District Kon Ray, Province Kon Tum)
“They are capable of handling works of PMU at commune level, however the remunerations must be clear to
create incentives for them. It should take advantages of their experiences in implementing commune level
constructions”
(Project staff, district PMU, District Ia Pa, Province Gia Lai)
Regarding remunerations for project staff at all levels, all the stakeholders consulted agreed that
the Project should recruit full-time project staff at provincial and district levels, because their current
workloads are already intensive. Besides, there are still a lot of discussions upon the
remunerations for project staff, especially related to long-term development and personnel
planning (for those expectedly to be assigned in PMU by PPC at levels) and the possibility to be
recruited as public servant government staff (for contracted staff) at the end of the Project.
“There must be a good organization structure and human structure. There are many staff who concurrently
hold different positions in different projects. There is even one person holding positions in 3-4 projects”
(PPMU, Province Quang Nam)
“No communal official have education at university level except persons assigned under Project 60. Most of
communal officials are from local ethnic minorities and their capacity is very limited”
(Staff, district Division of Agriculture and Rural Development, district Phuoc Son, Quang Nam)
Regarding technical assistance and capacity building, given the current project design, capacity
building is seen as an emerging priority in order to ensure that project staff all levels, especially at
commune/village level, is equipped with adequate knowledge on project management, particularly
on procurement. Capacity building must be conducted on a regular basis enhacned by repeated
61
trainings, short-term trainings with knowledge sharing and experience sharing with other relevant
programs/projects. In addition, technical assistance is of necessity for the implementation of the
Project at locality, especially for the implementation of market linkage livelihoods, monitoring and
evaluation, etc. so that all activities are carried out as planned in the Project’s design.
“The Project has been prepared for 6 months already, however a lot of district and communal officials do not
fully understand the Project. Due to their limitation in capacity and information gathering so they do likely not
to meet the Project’s requirements”
(Project staff, PPU, Province Dak Lak)
“The Project should focus on capacity building in the areas of project management. But local staff is the key
determinant, as “good staff, then good works”. Therefore, we need to create a good human resource for
village-level education, including preschools”
(Staff, Provincial Board of Ethnic Minorities Affairs, province Gia Lai)
“The most important thing is to enhance community capacity, to change the knowledge of indigence,
especially the beneficiaries. The trainings and instruction must be clear.”
(District officials, District Kon Ray, Province Kon Tum)
Therefore, it can be concluded that there are both opportunities and obstacles arising from
management structures/entities influencing Project implementation. Along with supports from local
authorities, limitations in capacity and working practices of government officials, especially
communal officials, who directly participate in project implementation are obvious challenges. If
these challenges are not addressed at the very beginning, Project’s success can be advisedly
affected. Cultural and traditional institutions as well as biases appear to have invisible but
threatening power over participation of vulnerable groups in the Project. Therefore, if activities to
build capacity, establish mechanisms promoting participation, bring people into play, and remove
biases are not put in place, impacts from livelihood improvement will be limited.
62
CHAPTER 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Conclusions
Based on the primary and secondary data collected from in-depth interviews and focus group
discussions with related stakeholders, this Social Assessment provides a multidimensional and
systematic analysis on the vulnerable beneficiaries of the Project. It can be concluded that the
CHPov is targeting those who have higher poverty rate in terms of income and other aspects (such
as access to basic services including clean water, sanitation). Their poverty status is examined as
suggested in the theoretical framework SLA and classified into two main categories: (i) access to
livelihood capital and (ii) vulnerability context/factors. The results show that the most vulnerable are
the poorest, who are mainly the indigenous ethnic minorities and spontaneous ethnic minority
migrants in recent years [within the past 5 years] and women (either in patriarchy or matriarchy).
These findings are not new and are reflected in previous studies. However, this Assessment
provides a regional-comparison between the project areas (130 selected communes in 26 districts
in 6 provinces) with other areas that are not covered by the Project and with the national average
so that the vulnerability of the Project’s beneficiaries, their gap/difference in economic, social status
and their disadvantaged accessibility to specific resources for livelihood development are
highlighted.
The Assessment shows that the necessity for livelihood development is the access to livelihood
capitals (include natural capital, human capital, physical capital, financial capital and social capital).
The ethnic minorities are likely to be more vulnerable than the Kinh in the project areas; womenheaded households are more vulnerable than those of man-headed. Land capital is reported not to
be an disadvantage for the indigenous ethnic minorities in terms of areas, due to their land
accumulation from ancients; however their land usage is less efficient than that of the Kinh and
migrant ethnic groups. The reasons are due to their unskillful workforce and traditional production
practices that rely mainly on natural conditions with limited adaptation of new and more productive
techniques. Not to mention, transfer of land ownership of indigenous ethnic minorities to cover the
cost occurring family’s internal shocks (e.g. sickness, death) has reduced cultivation areas of these
groups. However, access to social capital (within the small community) of the indigenous ethnic
minorities, migrant ethnic groups is quite good. Women groups can access to social capital through
programs promoting economic development and enhancement of women’s role/participation.
Though considered as more vulnerable, women are confirmed as the key contributors to economic
development due to their diligence, hard-working, non-alcoholness, activeness in learning and
participating in every activities of programs/projects implemented in the locality; women also take
more responsibility and important role in housework. Thus, supporting women in improving their
livelihood activities is a necessity. Another encouraging factor is that despite the limitation in
access to the most important natural capital, production land, the migrant ethnic groups have
exhibited determining efforts in adapting to the destination. They are usually found with hardworking, diligence, willingness to improve conditions for production (such as small irrigation,
application of techniques). Therefore, their possibility of escaping from poverty and vulnerability is
relatively high, if the current polices on resettlement for the migrant ethnic groups in some localities
are more inclusive and effective.
The Assessment reconfirms the external factors that could increase the vulnerability of the
inhabitants in the project areas in general and the vulnerable in particular. Shocks include disasters
(floods, drought), diseases (include harmful pest like mice) have caused serious and unavoidable
damages such as loss of assets, human and crops. The coping capacity of the better-off
households seems to be considerably higher compared to the less better-off. Consequently, the
poor, indigenous ethnic minorities and women-headed households are most vulnerable in falling
back into poverty after shocks and recovery could take years. Trends that could increase their
63
vulnerability such as price fluctuations of key crops of the locality (include annual crops and
industrial crops) can push the poor and their agricultural livelihoods into an insecure status.
Another obvious trend being confirmed during the field survey is the migration flow from different
regions (including migration of the Kinh and ethnic minorities), of which those migrated from the
Northern mountains and poor provinces in the Central Vietnam (Thanh Hoa, Nghe An, Quang
Ngai, etc) has made significant changes for the socio-economic conditions of the project areas. It is
noted that positive changes exerted from migration are found during the field survey, namely
acculturation with the Kinh/migrant ethnic groups helps indigenous ethnic minorities to learn more
about agricultural production, to be more active in using capital and accessing information, etc.
However, the uncontrolled migration has caused difficulties for the local authority in providing
sufficient resettlement support for these groups (especially in productive land allocation and
residential planning). Thus, land trading between indigenous and migrant ethnic groups in these
areas are often spontaneous without control from the local authority. In some cases, this created
some tension between the indigenous and the migrants. The Project itself will not create another
disadvantaged ‘shock’ for the project beneficiaries, for example the event of loosing land
unwillingly due to the implementation of the Project will likely not happen, and the Resettlement
Policy Framework for people that may loss their land is currently developed in the Feasibility Study
of this CHPov.
The Assessment has also reviewed essential conditions for the implementation of the Project
interventions, namely the current [cultural] norms/ processes [participation, democracy]/policies
[poverty reduction, residential settlement] of the locality, as well as management
structures/stakeholders involving in the implementation of the Project. The Project is facing with a
‘double’ difficulty as confirmed by numerous viewpoints and factual information related to these
issues. A ‘double’ difficulty refers to the situation when neither the essential conditions [as
mentioned above] are favorable, nor the sufficient conditions are ready. This situation is reported to
happen amongst the key stakeholders from the Government authorities, for example it is difficult to
have a team of project management officers at all levels who are both dedicated and qualified.
However, it is encouraging that all government sectoral agencies show strong commitments on
collaboration in implementing the Project. But similarly to other ongoing programs/projects, the
effectiveness of this collaboration may be not as high as expected. And for some sectors
(especially the agricultural sector), as shared by most of the officers, their works is relatively
overload with daily work and management and so are specialized agencies (extension, veterinary,
plant protection). In spite of their extensive and broad network (down to the village level), their
capabilities and time committed to the Project remain as a concern. Especially with communal
officials – who will involve in a lot of commune investment processes under Component 1 and Subcomponent 2.1 and 2.2, the Assessment is not able to gather common feedbacks to confirm that
these groups are capable of delivering the expected role in the Project.
Regarding other stakeholders such as civil organizations (WU, Farmer Union), it is confirmed in the
SA that these ‘mass’ organizations has made positive contributions to past and present
programs/projects. These organizations are important and their roles need to be promoted in the
CHPov (as reflected quite sufficiently in the current project design). Regarding private sector,
construction firms are reported to participate actively as agreed to the commitment of mobilization
of more than 50% local labor in infrastructure works. However, agricultural and forestry
businesses are concerned about the possibility of involvement of the indigenous ethnic minorities
in their workplace, due to their lack of perception towards working contracts, working in
organization and skillful tasks. There have been not many positive signs of the effectiveness of the
community groups [established and active groups] who would likely to become key stakeholders in
the CHPov. There are only few women teams/groups established with supports from the local WU
are confirmed to operate efficiently.
64
Regarding the current cultural institutions/participation process/poverty reduction at locality, the SA
has collected proof to show that some important implications. (i) Cultural/religious institutions may
expose some hidden barriers to the production process such as costly festival, traditional
cultivation time or practices ingrained into indigenous people, thus even though they have changed
their production practices, but very slowly. However, their habits of living in harmony with the
community and listening to prestigious persons in the village/hamlet is a cultural advantage
because the Project can mobilize these groups to become a ‘leverage’ in the production
groups/organizations as designed currently. (ii) Participation of the local people in general and the
vulnerable in particular (especially indigenous ethnic groups and women) in the planning and
monitoring of the local social-economic development, despite its years of implementation, is still at
low level and mostly initiated by communes rather than people themselves. Limitation in
participating is explained by numerous reasons, such as shyness, habits of not raising voices,
inadequate technical skills, etc. However, there is not many evidences from the SA to suggest that
language is probably a barrier hindering participation (because Kinh language is reported to be
commonly used, and/or there are indigenous ethnic minorities working at commune office in most
of the project communes, and village heads and elderly are the key connection between local
authority and people in meetings, consultation activities). (iii) There have been a number of poverty
reduction and residential settlement programs/policies for spontaneous immigrants in the project
areas, and a lot of innovative model/mechanism encouraging participation and benefiting from
these programs. Nevertheless, as discussed in this SA, the effectiveness of most of these
programs is still limited, and the barrier determinants are discussed thoroughly in the analysis of
this report.
Livelihood strategies as designed in the Project are agreed upon the overall objectives and scopes,
but survey respondents express a lot of concerns/challenges regards to the implementation
approaches (such as LEGs, commune investment owner, community participation in infrastructure
construction and O&M, etc).
In short, this SA has indicated a full picture of the social challenges of the CHPov. The PDO and
livelihood outcomes would be hardly realized if there are lack of innovative but cautious
implementation approaches (fully accounted for the characteristics of the Project beneficiaries),
lack of commitment and concrete guidance from Government authorities at all levels. Some of the
recommendations below should be carefully considered.
3.2 Recommendations
Based on the main findings discussed in Chapter II, the following recommendations are proposed
to bring out the approach or solution in order to get the target, the effectiveness, and the
sustainable impacts of the Project. The recommendations are aimed at the targets, and classified
into two major groups: (i) recommendations to ensure the participation and to maximize the results
of livelihood beneficiaries, (ii) recommendations for entities that have direct or indirect effect to the
success and sustainability of the Project results. Recommendations are also divided into some
groups of issues (capacity building, communication, working mechanisms, etc.) and followed the
process from planning to implementation and monitoring / evaluation.
3.2.1. Recommendations to ensure the participation and benefits for
vulnerable target groups
The recent design of Project mostly consistent with the principles of the SLA framework. Thus it
should be improved continuously. However, all the measures which ensure the active participation
of vulnerable groups in the process of planning, implementation, and benefit from the results of the
65
Project, should be further classified in the recent design. It is necessary to specify regulations
(should be presented in the Project Implementation Manual) to:
(1) Ensure the active participation of vulnerable groups in the consultation and planning process of
the Project. The Project should consider to require a minimum proportion participation of the poor
and EMs households (both indigenous and migrants), and also women in the participatory village
meetings. In addition, the criteria for the participation of vulnerable groups should also be included
in the Project monitoring and evaluation index system. Trainings on participatory planning
procedure for the officials at all levels should place due focus on CDD approach, improving their
skills to mobilize community participation [as analyzed before, this capacity of local officials is still
very limited].
The community consultation meetings should be accompanied by group sessions for indigenous
peoples and must be deployed in their native languages. The contents of consultation meetings
should be built into the simple questionnaire by the forms of “agree” or “disagree” opinions, and an
open part for further opinions. However, it should not require participants to write down, their
opinions or proposals should be recorded by a secretary of the meetings. A framework guiding the
community consultation are presented in Appendix 1 of this Report.
(2) Ensure the participation of vulnerable households in the livelihood activities of the Project.
Detailed regulations on the participation proportion of each target groups (for examples, EM
households, female-headed households) in the Project beneficial groups are necessary. In
addition, number of supporting cycles for livelihoods of vulnerable households should also be
projected so as to sustainably maintain the activities even when the Project stop supporting.
Besides, it is important to ensure that vulnerable households are the prioritized groups in providing
technical training. The Project should form separated groups of women. At the same time,
livelihood development activities should be focused on developing sustainable livelihoods that
require little labor and ownership of machinery or production materials. Female-headed
households should be prioritized in selecting
(3) Ensure that the priorities in infrastructure investment reflect the expectation of vulnerable
beneficiaries. The vulnerable beneficiaries in Project area have typical characteristics, thus, they
have typical needs (e.g. female beneficiaries want to have water supply system, and supports in
constructing supplementary classrooms for schools and kindergartens, etc.). These typical
expectations must be taken into account adequately in the consultation process to formulate
annual plan when the Project comes into effect.
(4) Promote the information dissemination and motivation to encourage the participation of
vulnerable beneficiaries. As for vulnerable groups, particularly the poorest households, their
participation is hindered by the reluctant attitude or doubtfulness about efficiency of supporting
models. Therefore, the information dissemination and motivation must be highlighted to promote
the change and willingness to access new livelihood models. Mass media (broadcasting radio and
television, newspaper) and non-official communication channels such as the influence of respected
elderly in the village, village heads, successful farmers are other ways to make impact on
vulnerable beneficiaries.
To create favorable conditions for the Project to reach vulnerable groups, and ensure that these
groups are benefited from the Project, the information dissemination must concurrently be in local
EM languages. The rights and benefits of beneficiaries are summarizes clearly and printed in
leaflets to give to beneficiaries, especially EM groups in general and indigenous EM groups in
particular.
66
(5) Encouraging the approval of influential individuals in the community such as the elderly, heads
of socio-politic, religious organizations and agencies, promoting the community coherent are
significant factors that need being taken into account in designing Project. This will reinforce the
consensus and approval of community to the Project implementation and increase social capital for
beneficiaries. In this aspect, the participation of respected individuals, particularly the elderly, in
Commune Development Board is necessary. In addition, the Project should pay attention to
motivate the participation of these individuals in the consultation, planning and dissemination
processes.
(6) Existing biases, though cannot be changed in short term, should be one of the discussed
issues among management levels, beneficiaries and enterprises so that these biases will not
deprive target groups of opportunities to participate in the Project. For example, commune
authorities should support construction companies in recruiting local young laborers for the
construction of infrastructures at villages. The training for indigenous EM beneficiaries need to be
designed properly so that they can absorb the technology, and this will disregard the bias that EM
people are not able to learn and apply technology.
(7) In order to enhance the sustainability of livelihoods when the Project ends, trainings must be
closely integrated or mainstreamed into awareness raising activities. Production groups should
hold periodic meetings (every fortnight) in groups of 5-7 people. These meeting is aimed to provide
and revise knowledge. Group members cross check the technical procedures, application of
provided knowledge. These small groups can then be regrouped into bigger groups to have some
kinds of competition. The presenters and demonstration production models in competition must be
from EM people (preferably indigenous ones).
Technical trainings should be repeated, especially training for indigenous EM groups. Training
material should be translated in to local languages; in case that writing system of some EM is not
available, material should be transformed into recordings and illustration. In addition, in order to
ensure the continuing development of skills and knowledge, it is necessary to reinforce the
demonstration models deployed at prestigious households in the community who are able to
absorb, quickly buy in, and implement the models sustainably in the long run.
(8) According to the Project monitoring and evaluation regulations, it is necessary to have
compulsory regulations on consulting beneficiaries’ evaluation (particularly EM and women groups)
on the livelihood outcomes that they benefit from the Project and the significant changes in their
lives thanks to Project’ interventions. This consultation should not only be deployed in periodic
assessments such as mid-term assessment or project completion assessment, but other
independent topic-oriented assessments or non-periodic assessments by central and provincial
Project management levels should also be conducted at communities.
3.2.2. Recommendations on other stakeholders that could have direct and
indirect influences on the Project's success
Regarding officials that could have direct interaction with the beneficiaries: The most
important stakeholders that have key role in mobilizing beneficiaries' participation are commune
and village officials. Thus, in order not to marginalize the vulnerable, there must be a number of
approaches towards the local officials - who will be in direct interaction with the Project's
beneficiaries and implement Project's activities at community level with local people. In particular:
(1) Improving the current regulations on the focus of the capacity building for communal officials.
The current capacity building activities for communal officials presented in the Feasibility Study are
67
regarding commune investment owners, monitoring and evaluation of infrastructure construction
and participatory approaches. According to the research team of this Assessment, the focus of
these current capacity building activities is quite suitable, however the following issues are
suggested or emphasized to be necessary for the communal officials as well as officers from civil
organizations, village officers (village head, elderly): (i) specific skills are equipped (not just only
equipped with knowledge on participatory approaches) in order to promote community participation
in development planning; (ii) capability to handle inquires and complaints from the local people and
capability to provide the relevant information of the Project to the vulnerable targets (women, ethnic
minorities) are also trained; (iii) especially, these officers must be trained to collect M&E
information from the local people and community (such as focus group discussions, most
significant change, questionnaire survey on households).
(2) Requirement that Commune Development Board (CDB) should have members fluent in
language of the most dominant ethnic minorities in the locality. Currently, it is stated in the
regulations of CDB that the Vice Head must be the President/Vice President of the commune WU
to ensure women participation (it is indeed an appropriate and practical regulation). However there
have yet any regulations on the CDB composition to include an official fluent in ethnic minorities’
languages. If CDB can deploy indigenous ethnic minorities official, it will be much better. Field
survey suggests that it is not difficult to find ethnic minority people working as communal officials; a
lot of Commune President and Vice President are indigenous ethnic minorities. These are
favorable conditions to put this regulation into practice.
(3) Regulations on the working frequency between CDB officers at community in the Project
Implementation Manual. As indicated in Chapter 2 of this Report, the establishment of production
groups in the current programs/projects is often at the risk of formalism, hence they are not
sustainable. Therefore, a mechanism to ensure regular interaction between CDB officers and/or
community facilitators (for example periodic visits to LEGs on specific occasions, or on a regular
basis such as by months) is necessary so as to: (i) timely support LEGs when needed; (ii) provide
regular guidance to increase the probability of success of each model; and (iii) evaluate the
practical effectiveness of each model for timely interventions/decisions.
For stakeholders that could influence policies: As suggested in the SLA and along the findings
of this Report, if relying only on the time-bound Project interventions (within the Project duration
from 2014 - 2018), then expectations on systematic changes on the vulnerable context as well as
ensuring accessibility to sustainable livelihoods capital can be realized only when (legal) policies,
regulations and institutions are in good operation and the relationship between public and private
sector is in flavor/supporting for these systematic changes. Therefore, the Project must develop its
own strategies to ensure that these systematic changes will be applied at the local level (within
project provinces) and replicated on a wider scale outside 130 project communes. The strategies
may include the following activities:
(1) Regular policy dialogues at province level on the activities that the Project will initiate and
implement, especially those related to production in groups and agricultural cooperatives.
(2) Knowledge management of the Project should focus on the policy makers at province level.
The main focus should be lesson learnt on how to stabilize production for migrant ethnic groups,
models that could connect ethnic groups together, or how the physical capital supported by the
Project can bring about specific changes (can be quantifiable) to people's lives, etc. Through this
activity, policy makers are provided with sufficient information and practical evidences to develop
appropriate policies for application on a wider scale, outside of the project areas. This is not just a
68
matter of replication of Project's approaches, but also a solution to ensure the sustainability of the
Project outcomes.
(3) Models of businesses to support and cooperate with the poor, ethnic minorities and women in
all forms, if having potential to bring economic benefits to local people in and outside of the project
areas, should be promoted. The Project should take the active and leading role in connecting these
businesses with local authorities by numerous approaches, such as public-private dialogue, or
public-private partnership, etc in order to help the vulnerable easily access to social capital,
physical capital and financial capital from businesses for the purpose of economic development.
3.3. Final remark
Due to the objective and subjective limitation in data collection and report development, there are
several cautious notices in accessing and using results and recommendations from this report.
Firstly, a lot of important findings from this report is summarized on the basis of a relatively small
scale survey, especially the ethnic composition (the Report mentioned 8 ethnic groups with sizable
samples in the total project population, whereas there are more than 40 ethnic groups living in the
project areas). Secondly, the main findings presented here, including feedbacks/recommendations
on the current Project design are mostly based on the draft report of the Feasibility Study on
December 2012 - according to the master plan, the Feasibility Study is required more consolidation
and consultation, thus there would be significant changes between the current Project design (at
the time this Assessment is conducted) with the approved Project design. Thirdly, it should be
noted that the important factor in the Project design is its openness and flexibility as indicated in
the Community Driven Development. Therefore, the Project design will be continuously developed
and adjusted to fit with the beneficiaries after the Project comes into operation. This suggests that
the social policies of the Project would be 'open' to match with new changes amongst the social
impacts of the Project.
69
References
1. CDI (2013), Consolidated Feasibility Study at central level – Poverty Reduction in the Central
Highlands Project, Ministry of Planning and Investment – WB
2. CDI (2012) and IMPP (2012), Feasibility Study at provincial level – Dak Lak, Dak Nong, Gia
Lai, Kon Tum, Quang Nam, Quang Ngai – Poverty Reduction in the Central Highlands Project,
Departments of Planning and Investment of 6 provinces - WB
3. Reports on socio-economic development 2012, 2013 of the surveyed communes
4. Reports on socio-economic status of Dak Lak, Dak Nong, Gia Lai, Kon Tum, Quang Nam,
Quang Ngai 2012, 2013
5. Annual Reports of Departments/Sectors in 6 project provinces: Department of Labor and
Social Invalid, Department of Agricultural and Rural Development, Farmer Union at provincial
level, Women Union, Provincial Project Management Unit, Center of Ethnic Minorities Affairs
6. Annual reports of commune departments/boards – of 6 surveyed districts
7. J.H. Mr. (2006), “Proposed Loan and Technical Assistance Grant Socialist Republic of Viet
Nam: Forests for Livelihood Improvement in the Central Highlands Sector Project” - ADB
8. Rob Swinkels and Carrie Turk (2006): “Explaining Ethnic Minority Poverty in Vietnam: a
summary of recent trends and current challenges” World Bank, Vietnam
9. ‘Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets’ – DFID
10. Jennifer Rietbergen – Mc Cracken Deepa Narayan (1998) “Participation and Social
Assessment: Tools and Techniques” - The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development
11. Richard Clark and Alexandra Forrester – 2008 “Vietnam Central Highlands needs Assessment”
– UsAId
12. Several legal documents on the Ethnic Minorities (1999 – 2005) – Center of Ethnic Minorities
Affairs.
13. Pham Thai Hung, Le Dang Trung, Nguyen Viet Cuong - 2011 “Poverty of Ethnic Minorities in
Viet Nam: Situation and Challenges in Programme 135 Phase II Communes, 2006-07” – IRC
14. Manila (2005), “Livelihood Improvement and Ethnic Minorities Development Plan for the
Forests for Livelihood Improvement in the Central Highlands”, Asian Development Bank
15. Baulch, B (2002), “Ethnic Minority Development in Vietnam: A Socio-Economic Perspective”,
Ha Noi, World Bank
16. Andrew Wells- Dang (2012), “Ethnic Minority Development in Vietnam: What leads to
Success?”
17. Gay McDougall (2010)), “Report of the independent expert on minority issues – mission to
Vietnam”
18. Nguyen Viet Cuong (2012), “Spatial Poverty and its Evolution in Vietnam: Insights and Lessons
for Policy from the 1999 and 2009 Vietnam Poverty Maps”
19. UNDP (2010), Human Development Report 2010 “Real Wealth of Nations: Road to Human
Development”,
20. General Statistic Office (2012), “Vietnam Household Living Standards Survey 2010”, Statistical
Publishing House, Ha Noi
21. Pham Quynh Huong and Hoang Cam (2011), “Ethnic prejudices and emerging issues”, Ha noi
22. Hickey, G.C (1982) “Free in the Forest. Ethno history of the Vietnamese Central Highlands
1954-1976”, Yale University Press, New Haven and London
23. IRC, CEMA, UNDP, Finland Embassy (2012), “Impacts of Program 135 – phase II through lens
of baseline and endline surveys”, Ha noi
24. World Bank (2009), “Country social analysis: Ethnicity and Development in Vietnam”,
Washington
70
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Consultation guidance framework
The Consultation Guidance Framework provides and recommends specific required skills to
assure the consultation effectiveness and motivating beneficiaries to participate in all fundamental
phases of the Project and to apply most effectively and consistently to various social groups in the
Central Highlands, in line with their socio-cultural characteristics.
In the implementation process of CHPov Project, the participation of communities is one of the
important requirements to assure that inhabitant communities in Project area will receive,
contribute and develop ideas to the Project activities. Thus, consulting the communities is to
ensure the Project activities (i) reflect beneficiaries’ expectation, and (ii) are appropriately designed
in line with beneficiaries’ conditions and capacity.
Community consultation is a regular activity that has been deployed throughout the Project
implementation process, from Project formulation to implementation of supporting activities.
Community consultation is deployed at multiple levels: province, district, commune and household.
Among those level, consultation at household level is focused and implemented through meetings
with communities and households, through broadcasting programs of local radio-television
stations. The direct beneficial groups of this Project are vulnerable and disadvantaged ones,
therefore, it is necessary to create favorable conditions for both the consultation groups and
beneficiaries in this activity throughout the Project implementation.
Implementing principles in community consultation process

Ensure the appropriate timing of consultation so that beneficiaries can demonstrate their
opinion and points of view most effectively

Ensure the focus is put on community

Ensure the interactivity of consultation content

Ensure the efficiency and meaning of the consultation content

Ensure the openness, equality and justifiability of the consultation content

Ensure the efficiency of information: Make sure that all the participants have enough time to
understand clearly the consultation content and they themselves become a source of linkage
information
Requirements for Community officers
Implementing principles for Community officers

Understand the Project objective and the role of a community officer

Work with, but not work for, beneficial groups and disadvantaged groups: help them
understand, do not change them. They have the right to demonstrate their understanding and
opinion on their own needs and rights.

Let the beneficiaries demonstrate their thinking and understanding, help them develop
themselves and understand what this Project’s objectives can bring about. The Project
objectives do not only generate income or improve living standard, but also create belief and
self-esteem for individuals and communities as the whole.

Engage beneficiaries’ responsibility into process

Establish and reinforce cooperative organizations in communities

Use simple, friendly and short way of expression
71
Community officer
Project area comprises of locations with diversity of cultures and ethnic minorities; hence,
community officers must be the ones who understand thoroughly about the locality (villages,
communes), about the communities, the language used in his/her responsible location. Most
importantly, they must understand the objectives and activities of the Project.
Community officers can be selected from community, but they must have adequate skills or training
on fundamental skills in the community consultation process. Community officers can also be fulltime officers (at commune level) or part-time officers who are also in charge of other functions.
Community officers are the factor facilitating the accessibility of beneficial groups to the Project and
vice versa, the impact of Project on beneficial groups. Hence,

Community officers are the accelerant that helps connect, share, provide information and
create favorable conditions for the beneficiaries to be open and contribute effectively to the
improvement of their own livelihoods, as well as their needs in terms of infrastructure items.

Community officers are the representatives of beneficial groups in proposing list of livelihood
models, livelihood needs, infrastructure needs as well as their rationales for those proposals.

Community officers are the trainers: they are in charge of training organizational and
management skills for community members. In addition, they also formulate detailed
implementation plan at commune level.

Community officers help contractors recruit laborers for infrastructure construction. The priority
is given to households in need of livelihood supports.
72
Community consultation framework for CHPov Project
Activities
Consultation content
Role of community and
beneficial groups
Rationale for the
participation of
community
Preparation phase
and
Collectively consult and  Investment
implementation plan
group discussion with
 Economic status quo in
community groups in
Project area
Project area:
 Potential
livelihood
models to apply in
 Formulate Project plan
Project area
 Formulae
livelihood

Infrastructure status quo
models and list of
in Project area
infrastructure items

Approach
to
help
 Consult
on
Project
beneficial
groups
implementation
plan
accessing
Project
and activities
support
 Participate
in
community consultation
session
 Establish
community
supervision boards
 Provide
information
needed
for
the
formulation
of
the
Project
 Identify their needs and
provide
information,
contributing ideas to
consultation group
 Ensure the beneficial
groups
understand
Project objectives
 Collect information and
needs
of
the
beneficiaries
 Motivate
the
direct
participation
of
the
beneficial groups
 Provide
transparent
information
to
beneficiaries
 Apply livelihood models
at Project area
 Participate
in
the
construction
of
infrastructure at local
levels
 Supervise
and
implement
Project
activities
 Participate
and
contribute
idea
to
improve outcomes of
Project area
 Identify the status quo
of
Project
implementation
 Assess Project results
in each phase
 Clearly present results
of Project activities
 Provide information to
serve
the
Project
implementation process
 Beneficiaries take part
in the construction of
infrastructures
to
increase income
Implementation phase
 Consult
on
the
implementation at local
level
 Consult
on
implementation
of
livelihoods
 Consult on feasible
outcomes
of
each
project phase
 Consult
on
implementation plan of
the successive phases
 Identify
economic
efficiency of livelihood
models
 Formulate, implement
Project activities at the
area
 Evaluate the feasibility
and
necessity
of
investment sources
 Evaluate efficiencies of
livelihood models and
infrastructure system
 Plan for the multiplying
of positive factors in the
Project
 Prepare solution plan
for potential problems in
Project implementation
73
Outline of a community consultation session
Step 1: Preparation

Select consultation issues and contents that appropriate to Project phase, targeted
participants

Identify objective of the consultation session: (i) what are the objectives? (ii) who are the
participants? And (iii) What are the expected outcomes?

The invitation to individuals or community must include information about time, venue,
objectives of the meeting

In the consultation session at village level, there must be competent interpreter of local
languages
Step 2: Meeting – consultation session agenda

Introduce the working agenda

Briefly introduce the project

Introduce guests and participants

Consulting session:

o
Focus on evaluating the consulted contents
o
Orient the participants to the tentative topics
o
Ensure that participants understand the consulted content clearly
Template used in community consultation session
Agenda of community consultation session:
Objectives (Key contents):
Participants:
Time:
Venue:
Detailed contents:
No.
Consultation content
Time
Person in charge
Note
1
Step 3: Outcomes of the consultation

Evaluate consultation content in line with set objectives

Minutes of Meeting

Other consultation minutes

Synthesize, evaluate comments and ideas of target groups

Summarize the results in line with set objectives

Report the results to Project management agency at higher level
74
Appendix 2: List of provinces/districts/communes in CHPov Project
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Province
District
Project commune
Dak Nong
1
Dak Song
Dak N'Rung, Thuan Ha, Dak Hoa, Dak Mol, Truong Xuan
2
Dak Glong
Dak R'Mang, Dak Som, Dak P'lao, Dak Ha, Quang Hoa
3
Krong No*
Nam Xuan, Quang Phu*, Dak Nang, Tan Thanh, Dak Dro*
4
Tuy Duc
Quang Truc, Quang Tam, Dak R'Tih, Dak Ngo, Quang Tan
1
Buon Don
Tan Hoa, Ea Nuol, Krong Na, Ea Huar, Ea Wer
2
Krong Bong
Cu Dram, Cu Pui, Yang Reh, Ea Trul, Yang Mao
3
Lak
Dak Phoi, Dak Nue, Krong No, Nam Ka, Ea R'Bin
4
Ea Sup
Ya To Mot, Ia Rve, Ia Lop, Ea Rok, Cu Kbang
5
M' Drak*
Ea Trang*, Cu San, Cu Mta*, Krong Jing, Krong A
1
Ia Pa*
Ia Kdam, Ia Tul, Chu Mo*, Ia Broai*, Ia Mron
2
K' Bang
Kon Pne, Dak Roong, Son Lang, Krong, Lo Ku
3
K rong Cho
An Trung, Chu Krey, Dak Po Pho, K ong Yang, Dak To Pang
4
Krong Pa
Dat Bang, Krong Nang, Ia Hdreh, Ia Rmok, Chu Ngoc
5
Mang Yang
Lo Bang, Kon Thup, De Ar, Dak Troi, Kon Chieng
1
Kon Ray*
Dak To Re*, Dak Ruong*, Dak To Lung, Dak Koi, Dak Pne
2
Kon Plong
Dak Ring, Dak Tang, Mang But, Mang Canh, Ngoc Tem
3
Ngoc Hoi
Dak Nong, Dak Ang, Sa Loong, Dak Duc, Dak Kan
4
Dak Glei
Dak Man, Dak Nhong, Dak Long, Dak Kroong, Xop
5
Tu Mo Rong
Dak Ro Ong, Dak Sao, Tu Mo Rong, Van Xuoi, Dak Na
6
Sa Thay
Ya Ly, Ya Xier, Ya Tang, Ro Koi, Mo Rai
1
Son Tay
Son Mua, Son Long, Son Mau, Son Lien, Son Tinh
2
Ba To*
Ba Kham*, Ba Trang*, Ba Le, Ba Giang, Ba To
3
Son Ha
Son Nham, Son Ky, Son Linh, Son Cao, Son Thanh
1
Nam Giang
Ca Dy, Ta Bhinh, Cha Val , Dak Pre, Dak Pring
2
Nam Tra My
Tra Mai, Tra Van, Tra Vinh, Tra Don, Tra Nam
3
Phuoc Son*
Phuoc Chanh*, Phuoc Hoa, Phuoc Kim, Phuoc Loc, Phuoc Thanh*
Dak Lak
Gia Lai
Kon Tum
Quang Ngai
Quang Nam
Note: (*) areas in the scope of CHPov Project and conducted field survey for Social Assessment
75
Appendix 3: List of interviewees and participants in group discussions
Dak Nong
No.
Full name
Gender
Position and institution
A. Representatives of Provincial Departments/Sectors
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
1
Nguyen Huy Phong
Male
Head of Planning Division
2
Nguyen Huan Truong
Male
Deputy Head of Division of Forestry
3
Nguyen Van Thai
Male
Deputy Head of Division of Plant Protection
Department of Labor, Invalids & Social Affairs
4
Y Long
Male
Deputy Director
5
Bui Anh Vu
Male
Deputy Head of Assistant Division
Provincial Women’s Union
6
Nguyen Thi Thu Huong
Female
Standing Vice President
7
Tran Thi Kim Hoa
Female
Member of Standing Committee
8
Nguyen Thi Le
Female
Chief of Secretariat
9
Nguyen Thi Trang
Female
Senior officer of Ethnic Minorities and Religious
Affairs
10
Nguyen Thi Anh Nguyet
Female
Commission of Family and Social Affairs
Provincial Farmers’ Union
11
Tran Xuan Hong
Male
President
12
Ho Ngoc Dai
Male
Vice President
13
Nguyen Huu Nam
Male
Director of Vocational Training Center
Provincial Committee of Ethnic Minority Affairs
14
K Thec A To
Male
Head of Division of Ethnic Minority Policy
15
Nguyen Van Khue
Male
Head of Planning Division
16
Y Ai Buon Da
Male
Chief of Secretariat
17
Doan Van Su
Male
Vice Chairperson
Male
Officer of PMU
Provincial FS Project Preparation Unit
18
Duong Minh Chau
B. Representatives of Krong No District officers
1
Mai Van Hung
Male
Director of District PMU
2
Ngo Xuan Loc
Male
Chairperson of District People’s Committee
3
Dang Thanh Quang
Male
Vice Chairperson
4
Nguyen Gia Loc
Male
Chief of Secretariat
5
Nguyen Thi San
Female
6
Do Hoang Phu
Male
Deputy Head of Agriculture Division
7
Ngo Tran Vinh
Male
Officer of Division of ARD
8
Y Troi
Male
Officer of Division of EM Affairs
9
Tran Quang Hong
Male
Head of Division of LISA
District Women’s Union
Leaders of private enterprises - Krong No District
10
Tran Dinh Quang
11
Pham Duc Thang
Male
Male
Director of Quang Phat Trading, Service and
Manufacturing Ltd.,
Director of Nam Lung Ltd.,
C. Representatives of Commune officers
76
Dak Dro Commune
1
Nguyen Van Binh
Male
Chairperson
2
Mai Van Vinh
Male
Vice Chairperson
3
Tran Ngoc Thuy
Male
Officer of Land Office
4
Hua Van Son
Male
K62 village head
5
Dieu Thi Ngoan
Female
Thai People_Wealthy household K62 village
Indigenous EM people discussion group
6
Ma Ve
Male
Ede People Buon 9
7
Ma Duyen
Male
Ede People Village No. 6, Buon Ol
8
Ma Duyen+A21+B41
Male
Ede People Village No. 3, Buon K62
9
Y Xuyen
Male
Ede People Village No. 3, Buon K63
10
Ma Ri
Male
Ede People Ede People Village No. 6, Buon OL
11
Ma Tor
Male
Village No. 6, Buon OL
12
Ma Diep
Male
Village No. 3, Buon K62
Female group discussion
13
Nguyen Thi Tam
Male
Kinh People_ Village No. 3_ Buon K58
14
Do Thi Phuong
Male
Kinh People_ Village No. 3_ Buon K59
15
Le Thi Hue
Male
Kinh People_ Village No. 3_ Buon K60
16
Trieu Thi Dao
Male
Tay People_ Village No. 3_ Buon K61
17
Vo Thi Hoa
Male
Kinh People_ Village No. 3_ Buon K62
Quang Phu Commune
18
Ho Trang
Male
Chairperson of People’s Committee
19
Do Huu Sinh
Male
General Secretariat of Committee of the Party
20
Le Hung Vi
Male
Officer of Construction Land Office
21
Nguyen Anh Duc
Male
Officer of Agriculture Land Office
22
Y Wang Buon Dap
Male
Wealthy household
Member of Women’s Union
Female group discussion
23
Vu Thi Hong Gam
Male
24
Than Thi Phuc
Male
25
Ho Thi Dung
Male
Member of Women’s Union
Member of Women’s Union
Migrating EM people group discussion
26
Lu Xuan Thang
Male
Thai People
27
Dang Van Phuc
Male
Kinh People
28
Phang A Chu
Male
Mong People
29
Sung A Sinh
Male
Mong People
30
Lu Van Ngoac
Male
Thai People
31
Ha Hong Ngu
Male
Thai People
32
Huynh Tan Hien
Male
Kinh People
77
Dak Lak
No.
Full name
Gender
Position and institution
A. Representatives of Provincial Departments/Sectors
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
1
Vu Van Lam
Male
Deputy Director
2
Tran Van Tay
Male
Officer at Division of Planting
3
Nguyen Duc Viet
Male
Officer at Division of Forestry
4
Nguyen Dinh Chinh
Male
Deputy Head of Planning Division
5
Anh Binh
Male
Department of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs
6
Anh Dan
Male
7
Anh Dung
Male
Head of Division of Social Affairs
Provincial Women’s Union
8
Nguyen Thi Loc
Female
Standing Vice Chairperson
9
Nguyen Thi Thanh Huong
Female
Vice Chairperson in charge of Vocational Training
10
Duong Thi Hong
Female
Vice Chairperson in charge of Law
11
H Phong Nia
Female
Vice Chairperson in charge of Religion
12
Dang Thi Huong
Female
Head of Standing Committee
13
A Jun H Huong
Female
Member of Committee of Family and Social Affairs
Provincial Farmers’ Union
14
Y To
Male
Chairperson
15
Nguyen Van Tu
Male
Standing Vice Chairperson
16
Nguyen Xuan Doan
Male
Vice Chairperson in charge of Socio-economy
17
Te Thi Thanh
Female
Member of Standing Committee, in charge of Socioeconomy
Provincial Committee of Ethnic Minority Affairs
18
Nguyen Van San
Male
Vice Chairperson of Provincial Committee of Ethnic
Minority Affairs
Male
Officer of Provincial FS Project Preparation Unit
Ban Chuan bi du an FS tinh
20
Nguyen Viet Dung
Representatives of M’Drak District
1
Nguyen Ngoc Binh
Male
Vice Chairperson of District People’s Committee
2
Dao Thanh Vinh
Male
Head of Division of LISA
3
Do Van Lap
Male
Director of PMU
4
Van Tam Hoai
Male
Technical officer, PMU
5
Nguyen Huu Hon
Male
Accountant - PMU
6
Phan Dinh Cuc
Male
Deputy Head of Division of EM Affairs
7
Y Lop Nia
Male
Deputy Chief of Secretariat
8
Pham Thi Thu Duong
Female
President of District Women’s Union
9
Le Thi Tuyet
Female
Division of ARD
10
Do Thanh Hai
Male
Deputy Director of M’Drak Forestry Ltd.,
11
Anh Chien
Male
Director of Sanh Chien Ltd.,
Male
Officer of Land, Construction and Environment
Office
Representatives of commune officers
Ea Trang Commune
1
Femaleyenh Nie
78
2
Ha Ngoc Khoa
Male
Officer of Agricultural Land Office
Y – Jie
Male
Secretary of Commune Party Committee
3
Thao Thanh Cong
Male
Village Head, Ea Bar Village
4
Lu Xuan Hong
Male
Deputy Village Head, Ea Bar Village
5
Y Bri Kso
Male
Village elder in Buon Mlia
6
Y Thang
Male
Representative of wealthy household
Group discussion of migrating H’Mong people
14
Thao Thanh Cong
Male
Village Ea Bra
15
Lu Xuan Hong
Male
Village Ea Bra
16
20 people in the village
-
Village Ea Bra
Group discussion of indigenous EM people
Y Mat
Male
E de People, Member of Commune Farmer’s Union
18
Y Pem
Male
E de People, Village head Uzai ( M’zui)
19
Hua Van Xin
Male
Nuleng, Member of Commune Farmer’s Union
20
Y Khiz
Male
E de People, Elder
21
Y Pat
Male
E de People, Member
22
Nong Van Va
Male
Tay People, Member
23
Y Prok
Male
E de People, Member
17
Women group discussion
11 Ede people
Cumta Commune
21
Y Khoan Nie
Male
Chairperson of Commune People’s Committee
22
Nguyen Hai Toan
Male
Officer of Land Office
23
Phan dang Khoa
Male
Village head
24
Y Dhuan Nie
Male
Representative of successful farmer’s household
Group discussion of migrating Kinh People
25
Pham Dang Khoa
Male
From Ha Tinh Province
26
Pham Quang Van
Male
69 years old, from Thai Binh Province
27
Nguyen Huu Thuong
Male
49 years old, from Hai Duong Province
28
Nguyen Huy Binh
Male
45 years old, immigrated since 1984
Women group discussion
29
H' Nhan
Female
24 years old - E de People
30
H' Luyen
Female
30 years old - E de People
31
Han Bich
Female
20 years old- E de People
32
Vo Thi Huong
Female
42 years old- Kinh People
33
H' Hung
Female
42 years old - E de People
34
H Coro Mlo
Female
44 years old - E de People
79
Gia Lai
No.
Full Malee
Gender
Position and institution
A. Representatives of Provincial Departments/Sectors
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
1
Le Van Lenh
Male
Deputy Director of Department
2
Le Quoc Tuan
Male
Head of Division of Finance and Planning
3
Van Phu Bo
Male
Head of Division of Agriculture
4
Nguyen Van Du
Male
Deputy Head of Division of Agriculture
5
Duong Thi Hue
Female
Officer
6
Huynh Thi Le Hoa
Female
Chief officer
7
Vo Quoc Truong
Male
Senior officer of Division of Agriculture
Department of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs
8
Dinh Xuan Lich
Male
Head of Division of Labor and Work
9
Tran Anh Son
Male
Pho Head of Division of Social Protection
Provincial Women’s Union
10
Ro Cham H’ Hong
Female
Vice President
Provincial Farmers’ Union
11
Nghia Cach Dao
Male
Vice President of Farmers’ Union
12
Dang Ngoc Khoi
Male
Head of Socio-economic Division
Provincial Committee of Ethnic Minority Affairs
13
Nguyen Khoa Lai
Male
President of Provincial Committee of Ethnic Minority
Affairs
14
K Sor Chong
Male
Deputy Head of Policy Division
15
Pham Duy Hoang
Male
Officer of Policy Division
Provincial FS Project Preparation Unit
16
Ho Phuoc Thanh
Male
Deputy Director of Department
17
Le Quang Dat
Male
Head of Division of Foreign Trade and Cooperation
18
Tran Thi Kim Thoa
Male
Officer of Division of Foreign Trade
Representatives of Ia Pa District
A.
1
Nguyen The Hung
Male
Vice Chairperson of Ia Pa District
2
To Van Hieu
Male
Head of Division of EM Affairs
3
Nguyen Phu
Male
Officer of Division of EM Affairs
4
Nguyen Cuong
Male
Director of PMU
5
Ksor - H'Che
Male
President of Women’s Union
6
Siu - D'or
Male
Chairperson of Amaron Agricultural Cooperative
7
Lu Phuc Phong
Male
Head of Division of ARD
8
Nguyen Thanh Lan
Male
Deputy Head of Division of LISA
9
Tran Van Truong
Male
Chairperson of K-Tan Construction Cooperative
10
Huynh Vinh Huong
Male
Head of Division of Finance and Planning
Representatives of local authority and people
Chu Mo Commune
1
Bui Xuan Su
Male
Officer of Land, Construction and Environment
Office
2
Hoang Van Nam
Male
Officer of Land, Agriculture and Environment Office
3
Hmah Prom
Male
Representative of successful farmer’s household
Group discussion of indigenous EM people
80
4
Ksor Nai
Male
Ama Hlale
5
Ksor Bybih
Male
Ama Hlale
6
Nay Nsoai
Male
Ama Hlale
7
Nay RyMon
Male
Ama Hlale
Women group discussion
8
R’ O HDoai
Female
Amalim 1
9
Rmah Ha Van
Female
Amalim 2
10
Nay HDjuen
Female
Plei pa ama da
11
Ksor H’ Nhao
Female
Plei pa oi H’ Briu 2
12
Nay H’ Huyen
Female
Ploi Pa Amah Lak
13
Ksor H’ Nhun
Female
Plei Pa Oi H’ Briu 1
14
Rahlan H’ Blet
Female
Plei Ehroh Braih
Ia Broai Commune
15
Truong Nguyen Hao
Male
Chairperson of Commune People’s Committee
16
Kpa BaraK
Male
Officer of Land Office
17
Nay Hong
Male
Village elder
18
H' Jing
Male
Officer of Women’s Union
19
Kb Tho
Male
Representative of wealthy household in Broai
Village
Group discussion of EM Ja Rai People
21
Rojar
Male
Ea Rniu
22
Nay - Thi
Male
Bon - Hoet
23
Ksor - Theo
Male
Bon Ju - Uok
24
Ksor - Nim
Male
Bon Tong O
25
Ksor - Khoan
Male
Bon Rniu
26
Ksor - Sen
Male
Bon Tul
27
Ksor - Mon
Male
Bon Tong O
28
Ksor - Ang
Male
Bon Ju - Uok
29
Kmah - Blor
Male
Bon Tong O
30
Rahlan - Wil
Male
Bon Tong O
31
Nay - Luon
Male
Bon Tul
32
Rcom ChLuar
Male
Bon Rniu
33
Siu Them
34
Kpa - Then
Male
Bon Ia Rniu
35
Siu Nghiem
Male
Bon Ia Rniu
36
Ksor - Khon
Male
Bon Broai
37
Nay - Yoil
Male
Bon Ia Rniu
38
Ro.o Que
Male
Bon Tul
39
Nay - H' uot
Male
Bon Ju - Hoet
40
Ksor - H' char
Male
Bon Ia Rniu
41
Kpa - H'ut
Male
Bon Ia Rniu
42
Nay - H'nhuen
Male
Bon Tong O
43
Rcom H' jing
Male
Bon Broai
Female
Bon Ju - Ama Uok
Kon Tum
81
No.
Full name
Gender
Position and institution
A. Representatives of Provincial Departments/Sectors
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
1
Lam Thi Minh Thuy
Male
Deputy Head of Division of Agriculture
2
Pham Quoc Long
Male
Head of Division of Aquaculture
3
Tran Cong Lam
Male
Deputy Director of Extension Center
4
Vu Van Dan
Male
Head of Division of Finance and Planning
Department of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs
5
Lam Quoc Hung
Male
Officer of Division of Social Protection
Provincial Women’s Union
6
Siu H Bia
Female
President of Provincial Women’s Union
7
Trieu Thi Linh
Female
Head of Economic Development Support Division
Provincial Farmers’ Union
8
Le Van Thanh
Male
9
Trieu Thi Linh
Female
Head of Socio-economic Commission
Head of Division to Support Women in Economic
Developing
Provincial Committee of Ethnic Minority Affairs
10
Tran Van Tan
Male
Head of Division of EM Policies
11
Nguyen Thanh Hung
Male
Deputy Head of Division of EM Policies
Male
Deputy Director of Department _ Director of PMU
Provincial FS Project Preparation Unit
12
Tran Van Tri
Representatives of Kon Ray District
A.
1
Nguyen Van Chung
Male
Chief of Secretariat of District People’s Committee
2
Le Huu Phuoc
Male
Deputy Chief of Secretariat
3
Dang Gia
Male
Deputy Head of Division of Agriculture
4
Huynh Ngoc Thai
Male
Officer Division of ARD
5
Nguyen Trong Phan
Male
Deputy Head of Division of EM Affairs
6
Dinh Thi Thuan
Female
President of Women’s Union
7
Dinh Xuan Thi
Male
Head of Division of EM Affairs
8
Hoang Huy Toan
Male
Officer of Division of Labor and Social Affairs
9
Nguyen Van Thuy
Male
Director of PMU
10
Bui Van Quang
Male
Director of Kon Ray Forestry Company
11
Nguyen Thi Sen
Female
12
Vo Trung Tien
Male
Director of Tu Sen Ltd,.
Technical Officer, Tu Sen Ltd,.
Representatives of local authority and people
Dak Ruong Commune
1
Nguyen Van Sanh
Male
Chairperson of Commune People’s Committee
2
Nguyen Chi Van
Male
Officer of Land Office
3
A Dieu
Male
Representative of successful farmer’s household
(Xo Ra People)
4
Hoang Van Hong
Male
Village head, Village 14
Group discussion of indigenous EM people
5
A Doi
Male
Village 10 _ Dak Ruong Commune
6
A Phien
Male
Village 10 _ Dak Ruong Commune
7
A Hoang
Male
Village 10 _ Dak Ruong Commune
82
8
A Giao
Male
Village 10 _ Dak Ruong Commune
9
Y Hin
Female
Village 10 _ Dak Ruong Commune
10
Y Theo
Female
Village 10 _ Dak Ruong Commune
11
A Cham
Female
Village 10 _ Dak Ruong Commune
Women group discussion
12
Le Thi Lam
Female
President of Commune Women’s Union
13
Y Hu
Female
Village 8_ Kon Nhem
14
Y Nghia
Female
Village 8_ Kon Nhem
15
Huynh Thi Yen Vi
Female
Village 9_Kinh People
16
Nguyen Thi Van
Female
Village 9_Kinh People
17
Nguyen Thi Song Huong
Female
Village 9_Kinh People
18
Y Ngoc
Female
Village 8_ Kon Nhem
19
Nguyen Hong Thuan
Female
Village 9_Kinh People
Group discusion of migrating people
8 people
Dak To Re Commune
20
Tran Minh Quang
Male
Chairperson of Commune People's Committee, Dak
To Re Commune
21
Vo Anh Quan
Male
Vice Chairperson of Commune People's Committee
22
A Dum
Male
Village head, Village 8_Kon Do Xinh
23
A Vinh
Male
Village elder, Village 8
Group discusion of migrating Kinh people
24
Pham Thi Thai
Female
Village 12 - Dak To Re Commune
25
Nguyen Thi Nhung
Female
Village 12 - Dak To Re Commune
26
Do Thi Da
Female
Village 12 - Dak To Re Commune
27
Nguyen Thi Chinh
Female
Village 12 - Dak To Re Commune
28
Dao Thi Anh
Female
Village 12 - Dak To Re Commune
29
Nguyen Thi Cang
Female
Village 12 - Dak To Re Commune
30
Duong Thi Mai
Female
Village 12 - Dak To Re Commune
31
Nguyen Van Dong
Male
Village 12 - Dak To Re Commune
32
Dang Van Hoa
Male
Village 12 - Dak To Re Commune
33
Pham Quyet Chien
Male
Village 12 - Dak To Re Commune
34
Vu Thu Cuc
Female
Village 12 - Dak To Re Commune
35
Nguyen Binh Toan
Male
Village 12 - Dak To Re Commune
Women group discussion of Ba Na People
36
Y Zoan
Female
Village 5 - Dak To Re Commune
37
Y Tuoi
Female
Village 5 - Dak To Re Commune
38
Y Khung
Female
Village 5 - Dak To Re Commune
39
Y Duc
Female
Village 5 - Dak To Re Commune
40
Y Xoan
Female
Village 5 - Dak To Re Commune
41
Y Ngun
Female
Village 5 - Dak To Re Commune
42
Y Treh
Female
Village 5 - Dak To Re Commune
43
Y Hgec
Female
Village 5 - Dak To Re Commune
44
Y Hyun
Female
Village 5 - Dak To Re Commune
45
Y Xuan
Female
Village 5 - Dak To Re Commune
46
Y Kham
Female
Village 5 - Dak To Re Commune
83
47
Y Bluch
Female
Village 5 - Dak To Re Commune
48
Y Doak
Female
Village 5 - Dak To Re Commune
Group discussion of indigenous EM people - Xo Ra
49
Y Buon
Female
Village 1 - Dak To Re Commune
50
Y Nya
Female
Village 1 - Dak To Re Commune
51
Y Eo
Female
Village 1 - Dak To Re Commune
52
A H'Lap
Male
Village 1 - Dak To Re Commune
53
U Roan
Male
Village 1 - Dak To Re Commune
Quang Ngai
No.
Full name
Gender
Position and institution
A. Representatives of Provincial Departments/Sectors
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
1
Anh Duong
Male
Deputy Chief of Secretariat
2
Pham Van Tuan
Male
Head of Division of Agriculture
3
Do Ky Anh
Male
Head of Division of Rural Vocational Management
Department of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs
4
Do Tien Tan
Male
Head of Division of Social Protection
5
Nguyen Huu Dung
Male
Deputy Head of Division of Labor and Works
6
Phan Thi Thanh Thuy
Female
Officer of Division of Social Protection
Provincial Women’s Union
7
Huynh Thi Tuyet Nga
Female
Vice President of Women’s Union
8
Truong Thi Hao
Female
Division of Society and Domestic Violence
Provincial Farmers’ Union
9
Vo Van Chinh
Male
President of Provincial Farmers’ Union
10
Tran Ngoc Vinh
Male
Head of Socio-Economic Division
11
Vo Van Quang
Male
Deputy Head of Socio-economic Commission
12
Dinh Sung Sung
Male
Deputy Director of Extension Center
13
Nguyen Dinh Trong
Male
14
Le Trung Viet
Male
Deputy Chief of Secretariat
15
Nguyen The Kieu
Male
President of Farmers’ Union, Tra Bong Commune
16
Nguyen Van Khang
Male
President of Farmers’ Union, Minh Long Commune
Male
Deputy Head of EM Affairs Committee
Provincial Committee of Ethnic Minority Affairs
17
Nguyen Vuong
Provincial FS Project Preparation Unit
18
Le Tan Hung
Male
Deputy Director of Department of Planning and
Investment
19
Tran Hoai Thu
Male
Deputy Head of Division of Foreign Trade
20
Tran Hoang Vinh
Male
Deputy Head of Division of Culture and Social
Affairs
Representatives of Ba To District
1
Thanh Minh Thuan
Male
Deputy Head of Division of Finance and Planning
2
Nguyen Quang Vinh
Male
Head of Division of ARD
3
Nguyen Van Trieu
Male
Head of Division of LISA
84
A.
4
Pham Van Dung
Male
Deputy Head of Division of EM Affairs
5
Phan Quang Duc
Male
Deputy Chief of Secretariat of People’s Council –
People’s Committee
6
Nguyen Thi Hoa
Female
7
Anh Nam
Male
Director of Dai Nam Forestry Company
8
Nguyen Cong Thanh
Male
Director of Ba To Construction Company
President of District Women’s Union
Representatives of local authority and people
Ba Trang Commune
1
Pham Van Mang
Male
Secretary of Commune Party Committee
2
Pham Van Chep
Male
Deputy Secretary of Commune Party Committee
3
Pham Van Mia
Male
President of the Commune Committee of
Fatherland Front
4
Nguyen Van Long
Male
Officer at Commune People's Committee office
5
Pham Thi Bich
Female
6
Dinh Van Goi
Male
President of Commune Farmer’s Union
7
Pham Van Sam
Male
Secretary of Commune Youth Union
8
Pham Van Ra
Male
Village head - Con Doc Village
9
Pham Thi Mai
Female
10
Pham Van Huyet
11
Nguyen Thi Thanh Tra
Female
Commune Finance officer
12
Pham Thi Ha
Female
Member of Women’s Union
13
Pham Thi Choc
Female
Member of Women’s Union
14
Pham Thi Mat
Female
Member of Women’s Union
15
Pham Thi Ban
Female
Member of Women’s Union
16
Pham Thi Manh
Female
Member of Women’s Union
17
Pham Thi Go
Female
Member of Women’s Union
18
Pham Thi Re
Female
Member of Women’s Union
19
Pham Van Mon
Male
Chairperson of Commune People's Committee
20
Pham Van Ghe
Male
Representative of successful farmer’s household
Male
Officer at Construction Land Office
President of Commune Women’s Union
Village head - Con Rieng Village
Women group discussion
21
Pham thi Mai
Female
President of Commune Women’s Union
22
Pham Thi Van
Female
Member of Standing Committee of Commune
Women’s Union
23
Pham Thi Troc
Female
Hre People – Ba Trang Commune
24
Pham Thi Re
Female
Hre People – Ba Trang Commune
25
Pham Thi Ha
Female
Hre People – Ba Trang Commune
26
Pham Thi Mac
Female
Hre People – Ba Trang Commune
27
Pham Thi Go
Female
Hre People – Ba Trang Commune
28
Pham Thi Man
Female
Hre People – Ba Trang Commune
Ba Kham Commune
29
Le Ba Do
Male
Vice Chairperson of Commune People's Committee
30
Pham Van Tap
Male
Representative of successful farmer’s household _
Nuoc Gia
31
Pham Van Lan
Male
Officer of Land Office
Village Head
Thao luan nhom DT tai cho
32
Tran Phuong Dong
Male
Hre People– year of birth:1948, Dong Ram Village
85
33
Pham Van Ớ
Male
Hre People– year of birth: 1972, Dong Ram Village
34
Pham Van Cuong
Male
Hre People– year of birth: 1989, Dong Ram Village
35
Pham Van E
Male
Hre People– year of birth: 1974, Dong Ram Village
36
Pham Van Luong
Male
Hre People– year of birth: 1983, Dong Ram Village
37
Pham Van Gheu
Male
Hre People– year of birth: 1968, Dong Ram Village
38
Pham Van Nguy
Male
Hre People– year of birth: 1976, Dong Ram Village
39
Pham Van Xung
Male
Hre People– year of birth: 1956, Dong Ram Village
Women group discussion
40
Pham Thi Goi
Female
Hre People– 54 years old, Dong Ram Village
41
Pham Thi Bup
Female
Hre People– 24 years old, Dong Ram Village
42
Pham Thi Thay
Female
Hre People– 25 years old, Dong Ram Village
43
Pham Thi Bech
Female
Hre People– 23 years old, Dong Ram Village
44
Pham Thi Thuong
Female
Hre People– 36 years old, Dong Ram Village
45
Dinh Thi Keo
Female
30 years old, Dong Ram Village
46
Dinh Thi Cham
Female
32 years old, Dong Ram Village
47
Nguyen Thi Anh Suong
Female
30 years old, Dong Ram Village
Quang Nam
No.
Full name
Gender
Position and institution
A. Representatives of Provincial Departments/Sectors
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
1
Anh Thanh
Male
Deputy Head of Division of Finance and Planning
Department of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs
2
Truong Thi Xuan
Female
Deputy Director of Department
3
Van Le
Male
Officer of Social Protection
4
Anh Khanh
Male
Officer of Department
Provincial Women’s Union
5
Dang Thi Le Thuy
Female
Vice President
6
Huynh Thi Tuyet
Female
Vice President
7
Ho Thi Minh Hoang
Female
Officer of Committee of EM Affairs
Provincial Farmers’ Union
8
Nguyen Ut
Male
Head of Economic Commission
Provincial Committee of Ethnic Minority Affairs
9
Le Thi Thuy
10
Nguyen Van Than
Female
Deputy Head of Provincial Committee of Ethnic
Minority Affairs
Male
Deputy Head of Division of EM Policies
Male
Director of PPU
Provincial FS Project Preparation Unit
11
Lam Quang Thanh
Representatives of Phuoc Son District
1
Doan Van Thong
Male
Vice Chairperson of District People's Committee,
Phuoc Son District
2
Tran Anh
Male
Director of PMU, Phuoc Son District
3
Vo Van Ba
Male
Deputy Head of Division of LISA
4
Nguyen Duc Toan
Male
Deputy Head of Division of ARD
86
Male
Deputy Chief of Secretariat of People’s Council –
People’s Committee
5
Lo Dinh Tai
6
Nguyen Thi Thu Hiep
7
Nguyen Dinh Toan
Male
Director of Construction Company
8
Nguyen Van Phuoc
Male
Head of Division of EM Affairs
9
Nguyen Thanh Ha
Male
Deputy Head of Division of EM Affairs
Female
Vice President of District Women’s Union
Representatives of commune officers
Phuoc Chanh Commune
1
Hung
Male
Vice Chairperson of Commune People's Committee
2
Dung
Male
Vice Chairperson of People’s Council
3
Nguyen Van Nam
Male
Officer of Land Office
4
Linh
Male
Chief Secretary
5
Ho Van Nhem
Male
Village elder
6
Ho Thi Duong
Male
Representative of successful farmer’s household
Women group discussion
7
Ho Thi Do
Female
B h’noong People -29 years old, Village 2
8
Ho Thi Be
Female
B h’noong People -25 years old, Village 2
9
Ho Thi Man
Female
B h’noong People -35 years old, Village 2
10
Ho Thi Thanh
Female
B h’noong People -22 years old, Village 2
11
Ho Thi Loai
Female
B h’noong People -21 years old, Village 2
12
Ho Thi Lai
Female
B h’noong People -24 years old, Village 2
13
Ho Thi Duoi
Female
B h’noong People -28 years old, Village 2
14
Ho Thi Bon
Female
B h’noong People -30 years old, Village 2
15
Ho Thi Lai
Female
B h’noong People -23 years old, Village 2
Group discussion of indigenous EM people- Bh’Noong (nhanh cua Gie Trieng)
16
Ho Nhieu
Male
B h’noong People -Village 3 Rot Rot
17
Dinh Van Via
Male
Village 3 Rot Rot
18
Ho Van Bong
Male
B h’noong People -Village 3 Rot Rot
19
Ho Thi Thi
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3 Rot Rot
20
Ho Thi Thom
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3 Rot Rot
21
Ho Thi Tham
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3 Rot Rot
22
Ho Thi Bia
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3 Rot Rot
23
Ho Thi Phuoc
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3 Rot Rot
24
Ho Thi Thui
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3 Rot Rot
Phuoc Thanh Commune
25
Nguyen Thien
Male
Deputy Director of Program 600
26
Dinh Van Qua
Male
Chairman
27
Hua Van …
Male
Officer of Land Office
28
Ho Van Trinh
Male
Village head, Village 4b
29
Ho Van Ngoi
Male
Representative of successful farmer’s household, 64
years old, Village 4b
Women group discussion
30
Ho Thi Hoa
Female
B h’noong People -28 years old, Village 4b
31
Ho Thi Hue
Female
B h’noong People -27 years old, Village 4b
32
Ho Thi Thanh
Female
B h’noong People -23 years old, Village 4b
33
Ho Thi Hoa
Female
B h’noong People -40 years old, Village 4b
87
34
Ho Thi Dam
Female
B h’noong People -19 years old, Village 4b
35
Ho Thi Pha
Female
B h’noong People -24 years old, Village 4b
36
Ho Thi Pho
Female
B h’noong People -36 years old, Village 4b
37
Ho Thi Dan
Female
B h’noong People -27 years old, Village 4b
38
Ho Thi Van
Female
B h’noong People -26 years old, Village 4b
39
Ho Thi Phai
Female
B h’noong People -27 years old, Village 4b
Group discussion of indigenous EM people- B h'noong (Gie Trieng branch)
40
Ho Van Hai
Male
B h’noong People -Village 3
41
Ho van Rieng
Male
B h’noong People -Village 3
42
Ho Van Soc
Male
B h’noong People -Village 3
43
Ho thi Kho
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3
44
Ho Thi Mim
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3
42
Ho Thi Khai
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3
43
Ho Thi Mau
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3
44
Ho thi Mien
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3
45
Ho Thi Vuong
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3
46
Ho thi Ech
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3
47
Ho Thi thuy
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3
48
Ho Thi Trung
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3
49
Ho Thi Hoa
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3
50
Ho Thi Inh
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3
51
Ho Thi Khag
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3
52
Ho Van Femaleong
Male
B h’noong People -Village 3
53
Ho Thi Phanh
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3
54
Ho Van Kem
Male
B h’noong People -Village 3
55
Ho Thi Khanh
Female
B h’noong People -Village 3
88