Abstract
The Mekong delta faces big challenges due to rising sea levels. The annual floods are increasing water discharge, resulting in environmental damage. Therefore, the Vietnamese government in combination with several Dutch instances have created the Mekong Delta Plan. The policy plan mainly consists of hard policies, such as improving infrastructure and implementation of dikes. Several stakeholders were involved in forming the policy plan, however it failed to include the poorest local farmers living in the Vietnamese part of the delta. It is important to assure that the interests of the poorest local farmers are included, to lessen the already existing inequality in the area. Therefore, the research question of this paper is: what solutions based on the needs of the poorest Vietnamese rice farmers can be proposed, to include their interests in the Mekong Delta Plan? Data has been gathered on the opinions of the farmer concerning the best way to adapt to the rising sea level. From the data that was gathered, solutions have been proposed. The plan has to be adjusted to different regions in the Mekong Delta as interests per area differ among local farmers. For the lower area of the delta, semi dikes in combination with double-crop rice farming have been proposed. A change from rice farming to rice-fish farming is also recommended. For the upper area, maintaining the full dikes in combination with triple mixed crop farming has been proposed.
Introduction
The Mekong delta in Vietnam has a great variation in water flow. The Mekong river, coming all the way from south-east China, drives the productivity of both agro- and aqua-ecological mechanisms. The variation in water flow is, however, also a restriction as it antagonizes the agricultural sector, fisheries, and the livelihoods of people that are living in the delta area (Tuan et al., 2014).
Recently, sea level rise has caused the river floods to intensify during the flood season, which is destroying harvests on a large scale. At the same time, sea-level rise is causing salinity intrusion to increase during the dry season (Wassmann, Hien, Hoanh & Tuong, 2004; Käkönen, 2008). The main crop that is produced in the Vietnamese Mekong delta is rice (Tong, 2017). Rice grows on freshwater, thus the increased salinization will have negative effects on its yield and growth (Shannon and Grieve, 1998). Research conducted by The Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development concluded that out of 650.000 hectares of rice, 100.000 hectares are at a high risk of salinity intrusion (Nhan et al., 2012). The Mekong Delta is one of the two biggest rice granaries of the country. A total of 85% of the delta’s population works in the agricultural sector, producing around 23 million tons of rice yearly for domestic consumption and export (Nhan et al., 2012; Nguyen, Vu & Nguyen, 2007). This export is one of the main drivers of Vietnam's economic growth and welfare (Wassmann et al., 2004). If the rice production in the Mekong Delta declines because of sea-level rise, this would have disastrous consequences for the economy of the country and also for all the people whose livelihood depends on rice cultivation (Nguyen, Vu & Nguyen, 2007).
To protect the delta from these floods, several instances from Vietnam and the Netherlands created the Mekong Delta Plan (MDP), which was published in 2013 (Mekong Delta Plan, 2013). The MDP is a very complete plan which offers many innovative solutions. It mainly focuses on hard policy options, such as improving infrastructure and dikes. It also proposes a few soft policy options, such as a change from triple-crop rice farming to double-crop rice farming (Mekong Delta Plan, 2013). However, the MDP is still flawed in some areas. The plan has a strict top-down approach. Several stakeholders are included in the plan, such as experts and specialists from different sectors, local, provincial, and national governments, and representatives of various organizations (Mekong Delta Plan, 2013). Nevertheless, no consideration has been made towards the rice farmers that are actually living in the delta (Hoang et al., 2018; Marchand, Pham & Le, 2014; Mekong Delta Plan, 2013). This threatens to significantly worsen the socio-economic situations of the people living in the region, as the proposed solutions could have unintended negative side-effects (Tung, 2018; Käkönen, 2008; Hoang et al. 2018). The poorest, small-scale or landless farmers have the largest disadvantage. For example, the hard policies offered by the MDP, affect the water- and nutrient inflow in the soil (Smajgl, 2015). Therefore, current farming practices need to be systematically adapted to new circumstances. The poorest farmers do not have the means to adapt to those changes, and thus stand to lose their livelihoods as a result (Käkönen, 2008). This will widen the already existing inequalities in the delta, which will in turn
negatively impact poverty and the economic growth of Vietnam (Reid-Henry, 2015). Furthermore, research from Smajgl et al. (2015) has shown that when measures are implemented that oppose citizens’ motivations, the implementation of these measures is much less effective and can make investments counterproductive.
Therefore, this research will focus on how to include the interests of the poorest Vietnamese rice farmers in the Mekong Delta Plan. This group was chosen because the poorest, small-scale, and landless rice farmers will be affected the most by the effects of sea-level rise and the proposed solutions of the MDP (Berg et al., 2017; Käkönen, 2008). The research will use a bottom-up approach, meaning that the interests of the rice farmers will be taken as a starting point. After that, policies, possible government interventions, and agricultural adaptations that will help their interests will be researched. So far, no research has been done on how to protect the Mekong Delta from sea level rise, starting from the perspectives of the farmers (Wassmann, Hien, Hoanh & Tuong, 2004; Renaud, Le, Lindener, Guong & Sebesvari, 2015).
Theoretical framework
The government set a rice-target, which they achieved by implementing dikes to increase production (Seijger et al, 2019). However, as will be explained in the next paragraph, this rice-target did not benefit the local farmers. About 85% of the people living in the Mekong Delta, work in the agricultural sector, mainly in rice cultivation (Nguyen, Vu & Nguyen, 2007). These local rice farmers are considerably disadvantaged as they suffer from pesticide accumulation and less fertile sediment inflow (Berg et al., 2017).
Sediment load in the Mekong Delta reduces significantly as a result of dikes holding back the seasonal floods (Smajgl, 2015). This would, in turn, lead to a considerable reduction in nutrients that are vital for rice cultivation. Thus, rice farmers will be forced to invest in fertilizers to sustain their level of agricultural production (Smajgl, 2015). Vietnam depends on imports for fertilizers, and the prices are high and fluctuate greatly (Smith, 2013). Small-scale and landless farmers will be affected most by these developments because they cannot afford the substantial prices of fertilizers (Käkönen, 2008). The increasing use of fertilizer also negatively affects the health of local people as it leads to a decline in water quality (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017; Käkönen, 2008). This decline in water quality has already led to a significant reduction of the fish stock in the delta (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017). The implementation of full dikes would cause the fish-stock to decline even more, resulting in a reduced income from fisheries (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017 ;Seijger et al., 2019). Moreover, many of the poorest farmers of the region depend heavily on fishing for their income and to supplement their food (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017; MRC, 2010).
The Vietnamese government describes citizens earning less than 2 million VND a month as poor (Ling et al., 2015). Poverty is extremely common amongst rice farmers in the Mekong delta (Can, Thanh Duong & Miller, 2007). Research from Can, Thanh Duong, and Miller (2007) showed that only approximately 30% of all farmers earn enough capital by producing rice. This
means that about 70% of the farmers do not earn enough to operate their production economically (Can, Thanh Duong & Miller, 2007). The poorest of these farmers are small-scale and landless farmers. They are not capable of making enough money to sustain their production and need to take out loans to survive. As a result, they are heavily indebted (Can, Thanh Duong & Miller, 2007). As Berg et al. (2017) described, these poorest farmers will be hit the hardest by the proposed measures of the MDP and by the effects of sea-level rise. This will further increase inequalities in Vietnam, which will negatively impact the economy of the country (Reid-Henry, 2015). Therefore, this research focuses on farmers who are defined as poor by the government and whose rice production is not profitable enough to properly sustain themselves.
The Mekong Delta plan has been critiqued for its top-down approach to forming the policy plan without involving those who are directly affected by the implementation of the plan (Seijger et al., 2019). Several research papers claim that top-down approaches negatively affect the citizens the plan was made for (Allard & Bleakley, 2016; McCay & Jones, 2011). Top-down governance is described by Allard & Bleakley (2016) as “policies and targets designed ideologically rather than through evidence and collective practitioner experience” (p. 804). In the case of the Mekong Delta Plan, this means that the bigger Vietnamese institutes and central government decide what policies are made, with little to no involvement of the citizens and their opinions. McCay and Jones (2011) add the information source of professional experts to this concept. The top-down approach offers several advantages such as the power of the state and the option for the government to manage bigger areas at once. The downside of top-down approaches is that they try to take the interests of citizens into account, but do not actively engage these citizens (McCay and Jones, 2011). This can cause disparities between what the citizens actually want and what experts view as most important for them ( Tran et al., 2018). This can cause measures to have unintended side-effects. An example of this in the Mekong delta are the dikes that were implemented in the area to physically protect the delta from the annual floods ( Tran et al., 2018). This is a great advantage, it enables farmers to harvest three crops per year. However, as previously discussed, these dikes also stop the nutrient-rich sediment from fertilizing the fields (Smajgl, 2015). This is especially disadvantageous for the poorest farmers in the delta (MRC, 2010).
The adaptation strategy proposed in the MDP has been planned without the participation of local farmers, so it is likely that it will have unintended negative effects (Marchand, Pham & Le, 2014). Andrews and Shah (2003) explain the top-down approach as a centralized organization and point out ‘permanence and non-innovation’ as a weaknesses of such governance. Permanence and non-innovation is the trap in which governments do not innovate their ways of working, thereby limiting change. This corresponds with the critique of Hoang et al. (2018) who described it as one of the three major deficits of the MDP: ‘low responsiveness to new issues’. They also argue that the measures do not sufficiently take climate change and socio-economic development into account (Hoang et al., 2018).
So instead, this paper aims to use a bottom-up approach to governance. In contrast to top-down governance, the bottom-up approach directly includes citizens in the making of plans and policies. This can be done by having them make autonomous decisions, or by pairing them up with the government (McCay & Jones, 2011). Marchand, Pham & Le (2014) show that bottom-up approaches are just as important as the large-scale solutions when it comes to flood risk management in the Mekong Delta. As described in the introduction, the interests of the local farmers have been taken into consideration poorly in the making of the plan. This problem can be tackled by a bottom-up approach, as the citizens are used as the first source of information on how best to adapt to the floods.
Research objectives & interdisciplinary integration
The MDP proposes several strategies to protect the Mekong delta from floods and help sustain a healthy and profitable rice production (Mekong Delta Plan, 2013). However, as previously explained, the MDP does not include the interests of local farmers due to its top-down approach (Hoang et al., 2018; Marchand, Pham & Le, 2014). This shortcoming is the focus of this report. Therefore, the research question in this report is: “what solutions based on the needs of the poorest Vietnamese rice farmers can be proposed, to include their interests in the Mekong Delta Plan?” The aim of this research is to use a bottom-up approach, meaning that the interests of local farmers will be investigated first. This will then be used to formulate different technical solutions that meet those preferences.
This research, however, has limitations. There are three main limitations defined. Primarily, it only focuses on the Vietnamese part of the Mekong Delta and not on the Cambodian part. This choice was made because the MDP is a collaboration between the Vietnamese and Dutch governments and therefore only focuses on Vietnam (Mekong Delta Plan, 2013). A second limitation of this research is the focus on rice cultivation. The Mekong Delta has other means to feed its inhabitants and drive the economy, like shrimp farming (Mekong Delta Plan, 2013). However, the choice to focus on rice cultivation has been made as this is the main crop that is cultivated in the delta and contributes the most to national food security. Moreover, it is the most important export product, considering that the Mekong Delta rice farmers produce about 90% of the country’s rice exports (Taylor, 2004). This makes it one of the main drivers for the Vietnamese economy as a whole (Wassmann et al., 2004; Mekong Delta Plan, 2013; Taylor, 2004). The third and last limitation is that this research focuses on rice farmers, specifically on small-scale and landless farmers who do not earn enough to sustain their livelihoods (Can, Thanh Duong & Miller, 2007). There are multiple cultural minorities living in the Mekong Delta, such as the Khmer Krom people (Ngoc Thuy, 2012). These minorities also mostly work in rice cultivation (Taylor, 2004). The interests of these minorities have not been taken into account in the MDP, but neither have the interests of the ethnic majority (Mekong Delta Plan, 2013). Therefore this research does not differentiate between the cultural majority and minorities but
instead focuses on all small-scale or landless, poor farmers working in rice cultivation.
An interdisciplinary approach is necessary to solve the research problem since it transcends the boundaries of multiple disciplines (Menken & Keestra, 2016). Integration techniques are used to better incorporate the different disciplines used to address this problem. Adding and connecting multiple disciplines and therefore creating a larger scope of the theory will help to develop the complex optimization function which is needed to provide an answer for this research problem (Menken & Keestra, 2016).
The Mekong delta region needs technical and innovative solutions to protect its agricultural production and the livelihoods of citizens in a sustainable and inclusive way. To come up with the appropriate solutions that meet the demands of local farmers, social researchers, technical scientists, and policymakers are necessary. This research will combine earth sciences, biology, human geography, and political science to solve the research problem. Human geography will be combined with political science to focus on the livelihoods and interests of local rice farmers. Using the interests of the rice farmers as a starting point, earth sciences, together with biology, will focus on what technical solutions are needed to sustain rice production while still protecting the delta from the increasing floods.
Methodology
For this research, a secondary data analysis will be conducted. This means that data on the topic that was collected by other researchers will be analyzed (Johnston, 2014). This paper will make use of government publications, scientific articles, and various reports that give further insights into the effect of the MDP on the poorest rice farmers. Furthermore, a literature study will be conducted to examine what the interests of rice farmers are and therefore what should be included in the MDP that is currently missing. So, this study aims to approach the Mekong Delta Plan from the perspective of the poorest rice farmers to learn from their own opinions through e.g. survey answers what they find to be the best way to adapt to the floods. This comes back to the bottom-up approach, which has been explained in the theoretical framework.
The research will focus on rice farmers in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta, specifically on the small-scale or landless, poor farmers living in the region. These people are difficult to reach as they live on the other side of the world, speak a different language, and most likely do not have the means to respond to online survey questions. These obstacles make it impossible to gain access to primary data within the time and economic limits, which is why the choice was made to only use secondary data. A secondary data analysis is sufficient for this research because the necessary data is already available. Surveys on the needs of local farmers have been done (Berg, et al., 2017; Nguyen & James, 2013; Smajgl, et al., 2015; Tran, van Halsema, Hellegers, Ludwig & Seijger, 2018). Literature on agricultural adaptations to improve livelihoods is available and can be taken from scientific papers. Surveys on household livelihoods and adaptation behavior have been conducted as recently as 2015 concerning 1265 households from across three provinces in the Mekong Delta (Smajgl, 2015). The existing surveys were not specifically aimed
at the poorest farmers, as each of them used random sampling methods across the entire population of the delta. They are, however, still useful to this research because the poorest farmers were included in all the consulted surveys, even though they were not the main focus.
This study adds to existing literature by approaching it from a different perspective: the research will start with the interests of the farmers and then examine how these can be accommodated. Meanwhile, assuring that the goal of the Mekong Delta Plan will still be met: sustaining the agricultural sector and protecting the Mekong Delta against floods.
The research is be interdisciplinary, approaching the issue from the perspective of earth sciences, biology, political science, and human geography. These disciplines are necessary to answer the critical research question more completely (Aboelela et al., 2007). Interdisciplinary research has the objective to advance fundamental understanding or to solve problems of which solutions are beyond the scope of a single discipline or area of research practice (Menken & Keestra, 2016). This research goes beyond the scope of a single discipline because protecting the agricultural sector and livelihoods in the Mekong Delta from floods, caused by the changing climate is a multifaceted issue. Policy plans are needed to adapt, but these include technical, agricultural adaptations to sustain production and the livelihoods of farmers. Therefore, the issue can only be solved with a combination of knowledge from natural and social sciences. From a social science perspective, the interests of the rice farmers can be researched and effective policies can be studied. A natural science perspective can be used to find technical innovations in agricultural adaptation solutions for rice cultivation.
Results
The interests of farmers
The MDP emphasizes the importance of hard policy options such as dike construction as a response to the rising sea level in the Mekong Delta (Mekong Delta Plan, 2013). However, other policy plans have focused more on soft policy options that emphasize alternative farming practices (Smajgl et al., 2015). Several interviews with local farmers have shown that a significant part of local farmers prefer soft policy options ( Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017; Nguyen & James, 2013; Tran, van Halsema, Hellegers, Ludwig & Seijger, 2018). In interviews conducted by Nguyen and James (2013), over 50% of the 459 local farmers that were interviewed indicated that they wanted to learn new farming practices to cope with floods. Only 27.7% of them have actually been able to incorporate new practices. A system used by a 61-year old farmer in Trung An grows two rice crops in the dry season and uses an integrated farming system during the wet season (Nguyen & James, 2013). With the resources he has, this results in a net benefit that is much greater than only growing rice as the main crop. But not all have the required land or capital to invest in these systems (Nguyen & James, 2013). Instead, the vast majority of farmers do not have the resources to adopt these new farming practices and
techniques (Nguyen & James, 2013). Considering that most farmers call for adopting new practices, it would be beneficial for soft policy options to be further integrated into the MDP, offering financial investments in the adoption of alternative farming techniques.
Research from Tran et al. (2018) showed that farmers in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta consider environmental sustainability for both land and water to be more important than their livelihoods. These farmers especially expressed concerns for triple-crop farming, which causes great soil and water degradation (Tran, van Halsema, Hellegers, Ludwig & Seijger, 2018). In research from Berg, Söderholm, Söderström, and Tam (2017) 80 - 85% of the interviewed farmers indicated that they prefer rice systems that would protect the ecosystems more, at the expense of decreased rice yields. However, they pressed that rice is their main income, so they could not accept their rice yield to drop below 6 tons per crop (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017). Rice farmers from Cai Be argued that due to the low market price, they could not earn enough to survive if they produced less than three crops of rice per year (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017). However, the triple-crop system is increasingly being questioned by farmers all over the Mekong delta (Garschagen, Diez, Nhan & Kraas, 2012). The third crop barely generates extra income, due to its low quality and the extra costs of agrochemicals (Chapman & Darby, 2016). Rice farmers have argued that the use of agrochemicals and triple-crop farming are largely to blame for the negative effects witnessed on the ecosystems in the Mekong delta (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017). According to the rice farmers, agrochemicals have caused severe negative health effects, loss of biodiversity, and degradation to soil and water. They have indicated that they no longer use the water for household consumption since it is so polluted (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017). Farmers have especially stressed that the number of aquatic animals has decreased in the last 15 years. This is a problem for them since they use fishing to supplement their food (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017). Especially the poorest people of the delta highly depend on aquatic animals and vegetables for survival, so this will hit them the hardest (MRC, 2010). In interviews conducted by Berg, Söderholm, Söderström, and Tam (2017), rice farmers proposed a rotation between rice and vegetables as a solution. These wild vegetables could be integrated with rice, both on the dikes and in the canals. They could provide food for fish and farmers could use them for their own consumption or for sale. Moreover, the farmers suggested that one or two crops per year would be more beneficial for aquatic animals to thrive (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017).
The population of the Mekong delta has historically shown that they have a great adaptive capacity in coping with swift changes and harsh conditions (Mekong Delta Plan, 2013). They are used to living with floods, they benefit from smaller floods, show great resilience to extreme floods, and are able to seize opportunities that market conditions and technology provide (Mekong Delta Plan, 2013). The Vietnamese government is expecting outmigration to be the main adaptation strategy of households (Smajgl, et al., 2015). However, a survey conducted by Smajgl et al. (2015) has shown the opposite is true. Citizens of the Mekong delta are more likely to resist out-migration as long as possible. Even when their rice production would be
hypothetically reduced with 50% for 5 years in a row, the vast majority of people would want to remain in their village and continue with their present way of life. The main reason households gave for not wanting to migrate, was that they wanted to remain in their ancestor’s village (Smajgl, et al., 2015). Moreover, they indicated largely not being able or willing to adapt their present livelihoods to change their profession from farmer to another (Smajgl, et al., 2015). This will likely lead to short-duration high amplitude out-migration, instead of the gradual and linear out-migration the government is expecting. In the short term, the MDP needs to take into account that farmers will continue living on their ancestral grounds as long as possible, this has not been explicitly addressed in the policy plan. In the long term, the extra costs of this possible short-duration high amplitude out-migration need to be taken into account.
Furthermore, introducing controlled flooding in the upper regions of the delta as proposed in the MDP (Figure 1) can lead to social tensions when implemented (Mekong Delta Plan, 2013; Van Staveren, 2018). It would mean that the upper region is purposefully flooded once a year (Dang et al., 2015) . To enable this, the MDP emphasizes the need to modernize flood-based agricultural production systems, such as floodwater retention and diversification of fish and vegetables. For the farmers in the upper delta, this means a shift from double- to triple-crop rice farming combined with fish farming (Mekong Delta Plan, 2013). However, the Vietnamese government has pursued the heightening and construction of full embankments in the upper regions of the delta since 1975 to stop the floods year-round so farmers could cultivate three crops of rice per year (Van Staveren, 2018). Along with these high embankments, the government built extensive infrastructure, which requires that the rice production system is unified. Farmers from the Binh Phu region in the An Giang province indicated that this makes it almost impossible for them to diversify or change their farming practices like the MDP is currently proposing (Hieu, 2010).
Figure 1. Proposed controlled flooding in the upper delta (Mekong Delta Plan, 2013).
Introducing controlled flooding measures into these regions will greatly influence farming-based livelihoods as it enforces farmers to change the way they cultivate their crops (Van Staveren, 2017). An interview conducted with a farmer from the Binh Phu commune tells that some farmers do not want to change their current farming practices. He maintains a double-crop system and finds it to be both low investment and low risk. Furthermore, he finds diversification difficult because he does not know what other forms of farming he could benefit from. Another man from the same region practices shrimp-rice farming and emphasizes that to successfully implement shrimp-rice farming, technical knowledge and investment is required (Hieu, 2010). Lastly, in the An Giang province in the upper region, an interview was conducted with 45 farmers who were asked if they preferred full embankments or semi embankments in
which 40 of the 45 farmers preferred the full embankments as they found it brought safety and welfare. This shows that they do not want flooding to be reintroduced there (Tran et al., 2018). The success of the plan to restore controlled flooding in the upper region is dependent on the capability and willingness of farmers in the upper region to change the way they cultivate their crops. They currently do not have the required capital to invest or the necessary knowledge to adopt a different farming system (Tran et al., 2018). Policy initiatives such as controlled flooding in the upper region are thus dependent on motivations on the household-level. If the initiative opposes household-level motivations, the effectiveness of implementation reduces and can make investment redundant (Smajgl et al., 2015).
In An Giang province, farmers preferred full dikes to semi dikes. In Dong Thap province, also in the upper region of the Mekong Delta, farmers had quite a different opinion as 7 of the 15 farmers that conducted the interview preferred semi dikes (Tran et al., 2018). In this province, fewer full dikes were constructed than in An Giang province. These farmers were averse to invest the required three-year financial contribution for dike construction. Furthermore, the negative impact of full dikes on the environment was an important reason for farmers to prefer semi dikes. All interviewed farmers who live in regions with full dike farming systems agreed that full dikes led to increased fertilizer use and reduced the fertility of the soil. Several downsides to semi dike farming were however noted: most farmers do not know enhanced planting techniques and fishing and planting crops would become more dangerous because of high exposure to strong winds (Tran et al., 2018).
Ten farming system alternatives were judged by the interviewed farmers and experts, half of the interviewees were for semi dike areas and half for full dike areas (Tran et al., 2018). Both experts and farmers agreed, that semi dikes and the farming systems that go with it are preferred over full dike areas and the farming systems that go with full dikes. The benefits of floods were considered to be the best way to ensure sustainable livelihoods, both by farmers and by experts. Among the farming systems under semi dike protection, double vegetable and double mixed crop were regarded as the best option (Tran et al., 2018). However, other criteria were weighed significantly different by the experts and farmers. Farmers said environmental sustainability was most important, while the experts emphasized the livelihoods of farmers to be the most important aspect. Furthermore, under the livelihood criterion, experts found profitability and infrastructure to be most important while farmers found market stability most crucial (Tran et al., 2018). This showcases that experts can try to highlight farmers’ needs in a policy plan, but they still approach it from their own perspective. Priorities can significantly deviate between farmers and experts, so if the farmers themselves are not involved, their interests might be misrepresented (Tran et al., 2018). Therefore, in a solely top-down policy plan, the interests of farmers can be misrepresented. Moreover, in the past, implemented measures that were created without the input of the people actually living there, have had significant negative effects on the poorest people. An example of this in the Mekong delta is the construction of infrastructure in remote areas (Taylor, 2004). When plans are made to start building infrastructure in a region, the land prices there will
start to rise. This causes many of the poor people that own these lands, to sell them to pay off their debt. They then relocate to places further away from the new roads and thus do not benefit from these roads. Moreover, they often do not know exactly how much their land is worth which causes them to sell their land for low prices (Taylor, 2004).
The main identified impediment to farmers’ ability to adapt their livelihood activities are insufficient education and skills. Especially the poorest farmers receive very little education. (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017; Hieu, 2010; Smajgl, 2015; Tran et al., 2018). One-third of farmers that cultivate rice agreed that they need further education to properly adapt (Smajgl, 2015). Presently, farmers overestimate the difficulty of applying adaptive measures to farming practices. As farmers have received insufficient information by local authorities, information provision on adaptive measures can help against the current overestimation (Le Dang et al., 2014; Le Dang, Bruwer, Li, Nuberg., 2014). Furthermore, providing information on private adaptive measures can help farmers become more aware of the risks climate change poses to their production (Le Dang et al., 2014; Le Dang, Bruwer, Li, Nuberg., 2014). From interviews conducted with 600 rice farm households, it was found that the reliability of the sources of information received by these farmers vary greatly from friends and neighbors to the internet to local authorities. Many farmers, therefore, receive false or deceptive information on climate change and adaptive measures. Le Dang et al. (2014) showed that even though farmers already received limited information by local authorities on the dangers of climate change, even less information was provided on the effectiveness of adaptive measures. Because of this, it is important that a plan is made for accurate, reliable information to be delivered to all farmers living in the Mekong Delta, especially on private adaptive measures (Le Dang et al., 2014).
The MDP already wants, through cooperatives, to educate farmers to get them to produce higher-value products. However, they do not mention educating farmers on the severity of climate change nor on private adaptive measures (Mekong Delta Plan, 2013). Thus, information provision and agricultural education should be further incorporated in the Mekong Delta Plan. Proposed solutions
Tran et al. (2018) explain how flood-based farming systems in semi dike areas are preferred by farmers. Semi dikes allow water to flood the area, once certain water levels are reached. In the context of the Mekong delta, this means that the area is flooded once a year (Dang et al., 2015). The floodwaters decrease environmental degradation because this deposits sediments and nutrients for the soil (Triet et al., 2017). The floods cause the land to be unavailable for agriculture for 3 months a year, from August till November (Wassmann et al., 2004). Therefore double vegetable and double mixed crops are the best farming systems for semi dike areas. This involves cultivation during the dry season in combination with floating crops during the flood season. In addition to cultivating crops, the floods bring nutrient-rich waters suitable for fish into the area. This allows the farmers to switch to fishery during the wet season (Tran et al., 2018). Between 1975 and 1994, the floating rice cultivation decreased by almost 80% due to an
export-oriented policy implemented by the Vietnamese government. This policy focussed on irrigation improvement, leading to high yield and short term rice production (Van Vo & Huynh, 2015). This incredibly high rice production is causing rapid environmental degradation all over the delta (Berg et al., 2017). To ensure a sustainable delta, this export-oriented policy needs to change.
Figure 2. Differences between full and semi dikes (Dang et al., 2015).
The other option would be full dikes, which means the area is protected against all water levels. The differences between full and semi dikes are displayed in Figure 2. Since full dikes protect the lands from floods all year long, they make it available for agriculture the entire year. This makes it possible to harvest three crops annually (Dang et al., 2015). Although, as explained before, this system would demand higher use of fertilizer (Smajgl, 2015). Although the majority of the farmers living in the area prefer semi dikes, farmers living in certain provinces in the upper delta have expressed their preference for full dikes (Tran et al., 2018). The full dikes have already been implemented in those provinces, which has caused local farmers to become entirely dependent on them and the triple-crop farming they enable (Tran et al., 2018). Therefore it is recommended not to introduce controlled flooding in these provinces of the upper delta, as this excluded the possibility of a third crop a year.
If full dikes are implemented, the most preferred farming systems in this scenario, according to the farmers, are double rice and vegetables, triple mixed crops and mixed crops with poultry or cattle (Tran et al., 2018). Triple or double cropping is about the number of crops that are cultivated in an area per year. This means that triple cropping enables 3 harvests of a crop per year from one particular area. Double cropping entails 2 harvests of a crop per year (Tran et al., 2018). The double and triple cropping can be done with only rice, but it can also be mixed with
different crops or alternated with fish-farming, as stated earlier. Different regions in the delta, both up and downstream, make use of both double and triple cropping. However, the choice of which cropping system to use is mainly dominated by the amount of salinity intrusion and by the number of seasonal floods in the area (Sakamoto et al., 2009).
The only way triple cropping is possible is with the full dikes, when no floods are allowed at all (van Staveren et al., 2018). In this way, the lands stay dry during the whole year and thus are available for cropping all year round. As described before, full dikes stop the nutrients and fertile sediment inflow. Acid components stay in the soil due to the absence of water that leaches the soil. In combination with the reduced input of nutrients and sediments, this results in increased soil acidity, thus in soil degradation. This, in turn, leads to an increased need for fertilizer to keep up the high production (van Staveren et al., 2018). According to Berg et al. (2017), high rice-yield is maintained by triple-crop rice farming and the use of a significant amount of agrochemicals. These agrochemicals lead to environmental degradation. Moreover, studies have shown that double cropping farming systems generate a higher income for farmers than triple cropping farming systems (Chapman & Darby, 2016). The quality of the third crop of rice is low and the little extra income that is generated by producing three crops of rice instead of two is offset by the extra costs of more pesticides and fertilizers. Furthermore, the excessive use of agrochemicals threatens rice-fish farmers. Rice-fish farming is only possible when limited amounts of agrochemicals are used, as they are harmful to fish. Even the agrochemicals used by neighboring rice farmers can reach the waters of rice-fish farmers. This results in a decline in the water quality which negatively impacts the production of fish (Berg et al., 2017). Moreover, the intensive use of pesticides and fertilizers decreased the number of aquatic animals and the abundance of wild vegetables during the last 15 years. As stated earlier, it has caused water quality to decline significantly. This has a negative impact on the livelihoods and health of people, and the overall food production in the Delta.
A change from rice-farming to rice-fish farming with integrated pest management (IPM) will reduce pesticide use because fish are a natural enemy to pests. Moreover, less fertilizer is necessary, because fish help to improve the soil of the rice fields. The loss of income caused by a lower rice yield is compensated by the income that is generated by fish farming and the reduced costs of pesticides and fertilizers. Moreover, according to Berg et al. (2017), rice farmers themselves indicate an increase in their gross income by 10 - 30%. A reduction in pesticide use of 40 to 50% is measured when pesticides are not used as a prevention method. This means that pesticides are only used when pests are actually present in the field. The reduced use of agrochemicals will also increase farmers’ health. Another benefit is that biodiversity will increase when switching from rice farming to rice-fish farming. (Berg et al., 2017; Luo, Fu & Traore, 2014). In addition to this, rice-fish farming is a soft-policy option that does not require any radical changes to the environment (Berg et al., 2017). The upgrade from rice-farming to rice-fish farming also guarantees food security to the poorest farmers, as they largely depend on aquatic animals for their survival (MRC, 2010). The implementation of wild vegetables can improve the
environment for the fish in the areas, therefore creating a sustainable food source (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017).
It is also important to focus on the different areas, up and downstream. As upstream areas face floods coming from the river, which are seasonal, downstream areas are more endangered by salinity intrusion by the sea (Sakamoto et al., 2009). It is therefore important to adapt the cropping systems per region. As experts might say that the full dikes keep up the high yield because they protect the livelihoods of the farmers (van Staveren et al., 2018), it has also made the farmers highly dependent on those dikes. Multiple researches have shown that while the full embankments might provide a safe livelihood for the inhabitants, it is not a sustainable option for the agricultural lands (van Staveren et al., 2018; Berg et al., 2017; Tran et al., 2018). Finding a fitting solution for the improvement of the delta will be different per area as those areas all face varying issues (Tran et al., 2018).
Discussion and conclusion
The main research question is: “what solutions based on the needs of the poorest Vietnamese rice farmers can be proposed, to include their interests in the Mekong Delta Plan?” The literature research results show that the focus group of poor small-scale or landless farmers mostly call for soft policy options in the form of new farming practices and techniques (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017; Nguyen & James, 2013; Tran et al., 2018). They are concerned about the environmental effects of triple-crop rice farming (Garschagen, Diez, Nhan & Kraas, 2012). Triple-crop rice farming goes hand in hand with high use of agrochemicals which causes high amounts of environmental degradation (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017). However, rice is their main source of income so they express the need for a way to keep rice yield above 6 tons per crop, without causing too much harm to the environment. The proposed solution for this problem is the switch from rice farming to rice-fish farming with integrated pest management. Rice-fish farming is based on double-crop rice farming instead of triple-crop rice farming, combined with fish farming during the flood season. This solution decreases environmental degradation, as it requires fewer pesticides and fertilizers (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017). Moreover, the fish are a natural enemy to pests. The income that is lost with the lower rice yield, is compensated by the income that is generated by the fish farming and the reduced costs of agrochemicals. It causes a significant increase in the gross income of farmers, which could lift the poorest farmers out of extreme poverty (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017).
Rice-fish farming will need to be combined with the implementation of semi dikes in most of the delta. These protect the Mekong delta from floods for the majority of the year but allow water to flood the area once a year (Dang et al., 2015). The floodwater can deposit sediments and nutrients to keep soil fertility high, and thus the necessity for agrochemicals low. Full dikes would permanently protect the delta from flooding. However, this would also prevent the inflow from sediment and nutrient-rich waters. Since this will negatively impact the rice farmers, and especially the poorest of them, and cause significant environmental degradation
because of an overuse of agrochemicals, further implementation of full dikes is not recommended (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017; Dang et al., 2015). However, in some areas in the upper delta, these full dikes have already been implemented and farmers have adapted their farming practices accordingly. Despite this, the MDP is proposing to introduce controlled flooding in these areas, to allow the fields to flood once a year. This would require farmers to completely change their farming practices again. They have pressed that they are not capable or willing to do this, especially the poorest farmers simply do not have the necessary knowledge or capital. Therefore, the full dikes need to be maintained where they have already been implemented, and controlled flooding cannot be introduced in these provinces (Tran et al., 2018). Berg (2002) confirms that double-crop farming systems generate a higher income per crop for farmers than triple-crop farming systems. This indicates that production efficiency decreases with increasing production intensity. Additionally, this solution has already been implemented by a few farmers. In interviews conducted by Berg et al. (2017), several farmers have expressed that they view this as a good approach. The farmers who have implemented rice-fish farming with integrated pest management have indicated that their income has increased since. Furthermore, the decrease in the use of pesticides and fertilizers would help in the long run to improve water quality and farmers’ health (Dasgupta et al., 2007). This means that switching to double-crop farming systems will increase the income of the poorest farmers while decreasing possible medical costs and costs of agrochemicals.
Another shortcoming of the MDP is that the extra costs of short-duration, high-amplitude outmigration have not been taken into account (Smajgl, 2015). Most households have indicated that they will hold off migration as long as possible, which is why this kind of outmigration is to be expected (Smajgl, 2015). When the government and local officials do not take this into account, cities such as Hanoi will not be prepared for large fluxes of migrants. This will likely mean that there will be no safe places for them to live, no jobs, no help at all (Smajgl, 2015). It is of importance that scenarios to deal with this kind of outmigration are included in the MDP to be better prepared for the future.
The MDP mentions improving education for farmers on how to produce higher-value products (Mekong Delta Plan, 2013). This is useful, however, this education plan needs to be broader. In several interviews, farmers expressed the necessity of better education about the impacts their practices have on the environment and the agricultural adaptations they can implement to combat or prevent these impacts. Especially the poorest farmers have received very little information about this, or education in general. Furthermore, farmers need to be educated more to protect themselves against the impacts of climate change (Berg, Söderholm, Söderström & Tam, 2017; Hieu, 2010; Smajgl, 2015; Tran et al., 2018). Concrete policy plans detailing the education of farmers all over the delta should therefore also be included in the MDP.
As explained earlier, this research has limitations. Further research is recommended to address these limitations. First of all, this research only focuses on the farmers in the Vietnamese part of the Mekong Delta. This means that only the opinions of Vietnamese farmers are included
in this research even though farmers in the Cambodian Mekong delta will also be affected by flood measures taken in the Vietnamese part. Further research is necessary to take the needs and wishes of Cambodian farmers into account and to formulate a plan for the entire Mekong Delta.
Moreover, only the interests of the poorest rice-farmers have been researched in this report. Other groups living in the delta could have entirely different needs that are not included in the results. For example, farmers with a larger income, who can more easily adapt to changes in their farming practices. Since they have a larger capital to their disposal, they have the ability to buy machinery or purchase agrochemicals to help increase the rice yield on their land. Furthermore, people living in the delta who are not rice farmers are also not included in this research. Lastly, as was mentioned earlier, there are multiple ethnic minorities living in the delta (Taylor, 2004). They have not been entirely included in this research since no special attention has been paid to ethnicity or cultural background. For further research, these other inhabitants need to be included as well, to create a more complete picture of the wishes and needs of all citizens of the delta.
In addition, no attention has been paid in this research to the effects that the implementation of semi and full dikes will have on the water peak discharge in areas other than the Vietnamese Mekong delta. As stated before, the full dikes upstream increase river discharge downstream. However, no consideration has been made towards the effect of the increase in discharge on areas around the farming lands in the delta. Further research is necessary to highlight the effects the implementation of the dikes might have before they are implemented.
Moreover, the results that discuss the interests of local farmers are based on interviews conducted with a limited amount of farmers with a maximum of 1265 households questioned by Smajgl (2015) and a minimum of 15 farmers that were consulted in Dong Thap province by Tran et al. (2018). No literature has been found that conducted a delta wide survey so not all regions have been taken into account. Scientific literature used in the results often focuses on a particular province within the Mekong Delta and therefore does not concern all rice farmers. The Mekong Delta consists of 12 provinces of which 7 provinces are included in the research. The provinces Vinh Long, Hau Giang, Kien Giang, Bac Lieu and Ca Mau are not included in any of the interviews or surveys that are consulted and should, therefore, be included in further research. Especially because farmers from different provinces in the Mekong Delta differ in interests because of their circumstances related to the number of dikes in the region and whether the province lies in the upper or lower region of the Mekong Delta (Tran et al., 2018).
As was explained earlier, none of the consulted surveys or interviews were aimed specifically at the poorest farmers that are the focus of this research. All surveys used varying random sampling methods in order to select the broadest variety of households. The poorest farmers were interviewed here as well, but so were richer farmers. The interests and concerns of farmers can vary greatly across different socio-economic standings. It is, therefore, possible that the interests of the poorest farmers were not adequately represented in these surveys. However, as was explained before, a total of 70% of the farmers do not have enough income to operate their
production economically. This means that a vast majority of the population is in fact poor, which should also show in the random samples. Therefore, we can assume that the surveys represent the poorest farmers quite well.
To conclude, this research has pointed out that in order to ensure a profitable yet sustainable Mekong delta, more than one solution is necessary. The different areas up- and downstream in the Vietnamese Mekong delta ask for different courses of action. Upstream, full dikes have already been implemented and need to remain, while downstream semi dikes will be more beneficial. In both areas, soft policy options are preferred to protect the delta, compared to hard policy options. The complexity of this issue is asking for a larger approach. This research can aid in finding a fitting solution and help create a sustainable future for the inhabitants of the Mekong delta.
References
Allard, J., & Bleakley, A. (2016). What would you ideally do if there were no targets? An ethnographic study of the unintended consequences of top-down governance in two clinical settings. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21(4), 803-817.
Andrews, M., & Shah, A. (2003). Citizen-centered governance: A new approach to public sector reform. Bringing civility in governance, 3.
Berg, H., Berg, C., & Nguyen, T. T. (2012). Integrated Rice-Fish Farming: Safeguarding Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Food Production in the Mekong Delta. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 36(8), 859–872.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.712090
Berg, H. (2002). Rice monoculture and integrated rice-fish farming in the Mekong Delta,
Vietnam—economic and ecological considerations. Ecological economics, 41(1), 95-107. Berg, H., Söderholm, A. E., Söderström, A. S., & Tam, N. T. (2017). Recognizing wetland
ecosystem services for sustainable rice farming in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Sustainability science, 12(1), 137-154.
Can, N. D., Le Thanh Duong, N. V. S., & Miller, F. (2007). Livelihoods and resource use strategies of farmers in the Mekong Delta. Challenges to sustainable development in the Mekong delta: regional and national policy issues and research needs. The Sustainable Mekong Research Network, Bangkok, 69-98.
Chapman, A., & Darby, S. (2016). Evaluating sustainable adaptation strategies for vulnerable mega-deltas using system dynamics modelling: Rice agriculture in the Mekong Delta's An Giang Province, Vietnam. Science of the Total Environment, 559, 326-338.
Dang, D. T., Arias, M. E., Van, P. D. T., Vries, T. T., & Cochrane, T. A. (2015). Analysis of water
level changes in the Mekong Floodplain impacted by flood prevention systems and upstream dams.
Dasgupta, S., Meisner, C., Wheeler, D., Xuyen, K., & Lam, N. T. (2007). Pesticide poisoning of farm workers–implications of blood test results from Vietnam. International journal of hygiene and environmental health, 210(2), 121-132.
Garschagen, M., Diez, J. R., Nhan, D. K., & Kraas, F. (2012). Socio-economic development in the Mekong Delta: between the prospects for progress and the realms of reality. In The Mekong Delta System (pp. 83-132). Springer, Dordrecht.
Hieu, T. V. (2010). Understanding farmer production strategies in context of policies for adaptation to floods in Vietnam. Case study at two communes. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Hoang, L. P., Biesbroek, R., Kummu, M., van Vliet, M. T., Leemans, R., Kabat, P., & Ludwig, F. (2018). Managing flood risks in the Mekong Delta: How to address emerging challenges under climate change and socioeconomic developments. Ambio, 47(6), 635-649.
Käkönen, M. (2008). Mekong Delta at the crossroads: more control or adaptation?. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 37(3), 205-213.
Le Dang, H., Li, E., Bruwer, J., & Nuberg, I. (2014). Farmers’ perceptions of climate variability and barriers to adaptation: lessons learned from an exploratory study in Vietnam. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 19(5), 531-548.
Le Dang, H., Li, E., Nuberg, I., & Bruwer, J. (2014). Farmers’ perceived risks of climate change and influencing factors: a study in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Environmental
management, 54(2), 331-345.
Luo, Y., Fu, H., & Traore, S. (2014). Biodiversity conservation in rice paddies in China: toward ecological sustainability. Sustainability, 6(9), 6107-6124.
Marchand, M., Pham, D. Q., & Le, T. (2014). Mekong Delta: Living with water, but for how long?. Built Environment, 40(2), 230-243.
McCay, B. J., & Jones, P. J. (2011). Marine protected areas and the governance of marine ecosystems and fisheries. Conservation biology, 25(6), 1130-1133.
Mekong Delta Plan (2013). Mekong Delta Plan Long-term vision and strategy for a safe, prosperous and sustainable delta. Accessed on 29-10-2019, from
https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/2/c/3/b5f2e669-cb48-4ed7-afb6-682f5216fe7d_mekong.pdf
Menken, S. B. J., Keestra, M., & Rutting, L. (2016). An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
MRC (2010). State of the Basin Report 2010. Accessed on 23-11-2019, from http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/basin-reports/MRC-SOB-report-2010full-report.p df
Ngoc Thuy, T. (2012). Poverty Reduction Strategies in an Ethnic Minority Community: Multiple Definitions of Poverty among Khmer Villagers in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Asian Social Science, 8(6). https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n6p196
Nguyen, V., & James, H. (2013). Measuring household resilience to floods: a case study in the Vietnamese Mekong river delta.
Nguyen, H. N., Vu, K. T., & Nguyen, X. N. (2007). Flooding in Mekong River Delta, Viet Nam. Human development report, 2008, 23.
Renaud, F. G., Le, T. T. H., Lindener, C., Guong, V. T., & Sebesvari, Z. (2015). Resilience and shifts in agro-ecosystems facing increasing sea-level rise and salinity intrusion in Ben Tre Province, Mekong Delta. Climatic Change, 133(1), 69-84.
Sakamoto, T., Van Phung, C., Kotera, A., Nguyen, K. D., & Yokozawa, M. (2009). Analysis of rapid expansion of inland aquaculture and triple rice-cropping areas in a coastal area of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta using MODIS time-series imagery. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92(1), 34-46.
Seijger, C., Hoang, V. T. M., van Halsema, G., Douven, W., & Wyatt, A. (2019). Do strategic delta plans get implemented? The case of the Mekong Delta Plan. Regional
Smajgl, A., Toan, T. Q., Nhan, D. K., Ward, J., Trung, N. H., Trí, L. Q., ... & Vu, P. T. (2015). Responding to rising sea levels in the Mekong Delta. Nature Climate Change, 5(2), 167. Smith, W. (2013). Agriculture in the central Mekong Delta. Overseas Development Institut
(ODI): London, UK.
Taylor, P. (Ed.). (2004). Social inequality in Vietnam and the challenges to reform. Institute of southeast asian studies.
Tran, D. D., van Halsema, G., Hellegers, P. J., Ludwig, F., & Seijger, C. (2018). Stakeholders’ assessment of dike-protected and flood-based alternatives from a sustainable livelihood perspective in An Giang Province, Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Agricultural water
management, 206, 187-199.
Triet, N. V. K., Nguyen, V. D., Fujii, H., Kummu, M., Merz, B., & Apel, H. (2017). Has dyke development in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta shifted flood hazard downstream?. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21(8), 3991.
Tung, D. T. (2018). Poverty and Ethnic Minorities: The Case of Khmer Households in the Rural Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Economics and Sociology, 11(1), 233-244.
Van Staveren, M. F., van Tatenhove, J. P., & Warner, J. F. (2018). The tenth dragon: controlled seasonal flooding in long-term policy plans for the Vietnamese Mekong delta. Journal of environmental policy & planning, 20(3), 267-281.
Van Vo, O., & Huynh, D. N. (2015). Comparing the costs and benefits of floating rice-based and intensive rice-based farming systems in the Mekong Delta. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 5(9), 202.
Wassmann, R., Hien, N. X., Hoanh, C. T., & Tuong, T. P. (2004). Sea level rise affecting the Vietnamese Mekong Delta: water elevation in the flood season and implications for rice production. Climatic change, 66(1-2), 89-107.
White, I. (2002). Water management in the Mekong Delta: changes, conflicts and opportunities. Paris: Unesco.
