Participatory environment and socio-economy assessment (PESEA) of MRDP in Lao Cai province

Programme board officeMRDP Lao Cai coordinator

October 2001

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Vietnam Sweden Mountain Rural Development Programme 1996 - 2001

Contents 1. Introduction:

1.1 Monitoring and impact assessment 1.2 Geographical coverage 1.3 Land use situation and socio-economic conditions in the districts 1.4 Sustainable livelihoods

2 Changes in land use, production and environment: 2.1 General land use changes 2.2 Land distribution and quality 2.2 Intensified crop production 2.3 Forest products and forestry resources 2.4 Water 2.5 Livestock development and fodder sources

3. Development of local institutions: 3.1 MRDP management at village, commune and district levels 3.2 Development of management, technical skills and support capecity 3.3 Strong and weak points of the organisations at different levels.

4. Socio-economic changes: 4.1 Village examples of socio-economic changes 4.2 Livelihood strategies 4.3 Development of markets and market opportunities. 4.4 Changes in women´s situation 4.5 Why are people poor? 4.6 Important socio-economic changes: What are the reasons?

5. Conclusions

Annex List of participants at the provincial PESEA- workshop in Lao Cai

Acronyms CEMMA – Committee for Ethnic Minorities and Mountain Areas CMG – Commune Management Group DARD – (Provincial) Department of Agriculture and Rural Development FCP – Vietnam-Sweden Forestry Coorporation Programme MARD - Ministry of Agricultute and Rural Development MRDP – Vietnam-Sweden Mountain Rural Development Programme PESEA – Participatory Environment and Socio-Economiy Assessment PPA – Participatory Poverty Appraisal PRA – Participatory Rural Appraisal VMG – Village Management Group

1

Section 1. Introduction The Mountain Rural Development Programme (MRDP), under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) has worked 1996-2001 with supporting rural development and poverty alleviation in 18 districts in five provinces in northern Vietnam. The overall vision of the programme are to: Relating to the overall vision the following two End Results for MRDP were defined: • End Result 1: Improved livelihoods and income opportunities

for rural people in the programme communes and villages including equitable opportunities for poor people, women and men.

• End Result 2: Improved land use practices and natural resources management in the programme communes and villages contributing to environmental stability in the uplands.

This means that MRDP both aim to improve the socio-economic conditions and peoples´ livelihoods, as well as improve land-use and environmental stability. To do this the programme supported a variety of activities in the five provinces, including eg. agriculture & forest extension, rural finance, and business development.

During year 2000, MRDP conducted field studies in selected villages in all five provinces. These Participatory Socio-Economy and Environment Assessments (PESEA) looked at changes in both the socio-economic situation and the environment in the programme area. Each province also organised a workshop to discuss and analyse the information from the field studies.

Main questions in the PESEA The main issues in both the PESEA-studies and the province workshop were: 1. Socio-economic changes, and changes in well-being • Changes in poverty and well-being – and reasons for these • Changes in markets and marketing opportunities • Changes in women´s situation 2. Changes in land use and environment • Present land use, compared with earlier • Environmental impacts: water, land/soil, and biodiversity 3. The role and efficiency of local institutions • Changes in the roles of local institutions • Strengths and weaknesses of VMGs, CMGs and district

extension, related to MRDP In the year 2000, MRDP introduced a system of decentralised planning. This means that funds are controlled directly by each level - district, commune and villages. The effects and results of the decentralised planning are not covered in the PESEA.

In order to alleviate poverty amongst poor households the programme shall contribute to the re-establishment of green and productive uplands that are managed in a sustainable way by healthy people having secure land tenure, maintaining the ecological, economic, social

and cultural diversity of the area

2

1.1 Monitoring and impact assessment Since the start of MRDP, PRAs have been used both to plan activities, and to monitor changes and impacts in the villages. The PESEAs are a continuation of the earlier PRAs - but with more focused questions on both environment and socio-economy (gender, poverty, markets etc). It is important to remember that most of the changes that take place in MRDP villages, are also typical for other villages outside the project. There are also very many other factors that influence socio-economic development and land use – like new government policies, and other programmes. It is therefore practically not possible to separate the specific impacts of MRDP, and quantify these. Instead the programme tries to understand:

1. What has happened? 2. Why did it happen? What are the main reasons

behind the change? This way we hope to understand if and how MRDP-support has played a role in the change.

Methodology and data analysis This report is based on surveys, discussions and documentation made by village, commune, district and province staff in Lao Cai The PESEAs were done by village people – usually the Village Management Group and some additional people. Commune, district and province staff participated in most cases. Many people in each village participated in the discussions, and the final results were always presented and discussed at a general village meeting. Findings were compared with the earlier PRAs. At the workshop in Lao Cai, most of the six villages and communes participated. Together with district and province staff, the studies were discussed and analysed.

Sequence of activities and out-puts Activity Output Province workshop (October 2000)

PESEA report for Lao Cai

Village PESEA (June-July 2000)

Six village level reports

Earlier PRAs (1992-1998)

Village plans, base-line data, and review data

3

1.2 Geographical coverage

In Lao Cai, MRDP works in four districts: BacHa, Bao Thang, Muong Khuong and Sa Pa. Criteria for selection of PESEA-villages were: • Should have joined the programme 1997 or

earlier (since it cannot be expected to see anychanges in shorter time)

• One or two villages from each district • Different ethnic groups represented • There should be earlier PRAs available (for

comparison) All villages are in Zone 3**. Five different ethnicgrops are represented. Four villages havebetween 30 and 50 households. Two villages arebigger, with more than 75 households. Two villages are less than 10 km from the districtcentre, two between 10 and 25 km. Ban Quanvillage is far from the district centre, but veryclose to Lao Cai province town.

(*) Do no longer receive direct support and in-puts.There may still be a MRDP Savings & Credit group,and also provision for training. (**) CEMMA, the Committee for Ethnic Minorities andMountainous Areas, categorises communes and villagesin mountainous and minority areas according to threezones: Zone 1: Areas beginning to develop. Zone 2:Relatively stable areas. Zone 3: Areas with difficulties This categorisation is based on five criteria: natural resources, infrastructure, social factors, production conditions and living standards.

Name and summary of characteristics of villages where PESEA was carried out

Name of Village/ Commune

Year of joining FCP-/MRDP

Year of phasing out (*)

MRDP S&C group

Zone(**)

Ethnic groups

No of house-holds (2000)

Distance to district centre (km)

Bac Ha District*** Doi 2 village, Ban Pho commune

1994

1996

No

3

H’Mong

48

7

Na Pac Ngam village, Ta Chai commune

1994

1996

Yes

3

Tay/Dao

(Kinh)

50

3

Bao Thang District Ban Quan village, Ban Phiet commune

1997

2001

Yes

2

Kinh (Dao)

77

37

Muong Khuong District Sa Chai village, Pha Long commune

1996

2000

No

3

Nung

(HMong)

32

22

Sa Pa District Ma Tra village, Sa Pa commune

1993 2001 Yes 3 H’Mong 86 11

Ta Chai village, Ta Phin commune

1997

2001

Yes

3

Dao

44

13

(***) In 2000, Bac Ha was split into Xi Ma Cai and Bac Ha districts

4

1.3 Land use situation and socio-economic conditions in each district Statistics are supplied by the DARD-office in Lao Cai Bac Ha

Muong Khuong

Bao Thang

Sa Pa

Land use (ha): • Total natural land

area: • Agriculture land • Forest cover

(actual) • Resident land • Others (*)

92,132

18,872 19,004

222

54,032

55,226

8,398 13,079

192

33,555

67,298

10,110 24,124

606

32,456

67,864

3,822 29,173

202

28,012 Socio-economic conditions • Number of

households • Number of mouths • Ethnic minority

groups

12,075

64,436 H’Mong

72%, Dao 7.5%

7,984

42,606 H’Mong 52.5%, Nung,

Dao 6%

20,748

110,941 Kinh

75%, Dao 8%, Tay

4%, H’Mong

4%

6,312

33,678 H’Mong 73.5%,

Dao 18%

(*) Other = bare land, streams and rocky mountain(*) Other = Bare land, streams and rocky mountain

Between 1996 and 2000, MRDP has worked in 66 villages in 21 communes.worked in xx villages and yy communes in the district. During 2000, 37 villages in 20 different communes were supported through the Commune and Village Development Budgets. Conditions in the four districts are quite different, regarding eg. poverty, accessibility and availability of agricultural land. Bac Ha, Muong Khuong and Sa Pa are all more remote mountainous districts. H´Mong people are in majority in all three. In Bac Ha and Sa Pa almost 3/4 of the population are H´Mong. In Bao Thang, Bac Ha and Muong Khoung between 15 and 20% of the areas are classified as agricultural land. In Sa Pa the agricultural area is less than 6%. Bac Ha is the largest of the four MRDP-districts. There are good roads to the district centre, which attracts a lot of tourists. Planting of plum trees has been supported a lot by FCP/MRDP, and plum trees are abundant in MRDP-villages. Muong Khuong is the most difficult to access of the four districts. There are many different ethnic groups in Muong Khuong. Bao Thang is a midland district, close to Lao Cai town. Kinh people are in majority. Conditions are better than in the other districts. Area with forest cover is about 36%. Sa Pa has very little agricultural land, but the largest proportion of land with actual forests (43%). The road to the district centre is good and the area is well developed for tourists

5

1.4 Sustainable livelihoods and different

types of capital

Examples of different types of “capital” - or resources affecting situation of a household and a village

Natural capital

Human capital

Social capital

Financial capital

Material capital

Household land (How much land? How far away? How good quality? What type of land?) Community natural resources (e.g forest areas in the village, wildlife, non-timber forest products) Water resources for household uses and irrigation Livestock

Household labour and dependants Education, skills, and literacy of household members and village/commune staff Health

Networks of friends and relatives Traditional events and ceremonies Forums for sharing knowledge and influencing decision-making

Main cash income and savings Formal and informal sources of credits and loans Other income (trading, services, selling non-timber forest products etc)

Housing and other assets Processing machinery (e.g milling machines, sewing machines) Transportation (horses, motorcycles, bicycles). Village/-commune infrastructure (eg. electricity, markets, roads) Media eg TV and radio

Sustainable livelihoods We have tried to understand the changes through using the concept of “sustainable livelihoods”. This means that we look at different resources or “capital” that a household need, and discuss how these have changed over time. The types of “capital” that affects the situation for a household include:

• Natural capital, e.g. land, water and forests

• Human capital, like education, health and labour availability

• Social capital, like contacts and networks of relatives

• Financial capital, e.g. income sources

• Material capital, e.g. assets like house, equipment and transportation means.

Section 2. concentrate mainly on the natural capital. Section 3. focuses specifically on the human and social capital. Section 4. looks at socio-economic trends, and discuss this in relation to all five types of capital.

7

Section 2. Changes in land use, production and environment

This section describes and analyses changes in the “natural capital”. This includes both changes in environment and in land use. The main topic included here are: • General land use changes • Land availability and quality • Intensification of crop production and changes in

staple food • Forest products and tree growing • Water • Livestock development The information mainly comes from older PRAs, the six PESEA-studies from 2000, and from discussions and analysis during the province workshop in October 2000. Additional sources of information are: • A study on changes in vegetation and forest cover

by the Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI). • Lao Cai: A Participatory Poverty Assessment, by

MRDP together with Lao Cai province, the World Bank and DFID (UK)

General vegetation changes in Lao Cai province (Source: FIPI, 2000, “Assessment of Forest Cover and Vegetation in the Central Parts

of the Northern Highlands, 1989-1998”) In 1999/2000, the Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI) made a studyfor MRDP on changes of vegetation and forest cover in the five provinces. Thestudy was made through interpretation of satellite images combined with fieldchecks, and showed that forest cover in Lao Cai had increased during the lastten years. In 1989, forests covered slightly more than 15% of the total area inthe province. In 1998, this had increased to almost 23%. This means thatforested areas increased with 50% during the period.

• What the study classified as “natural timber forests” increased with

about 45,000 ha (from 113,000 ha to 157,000 ha). • Areas classified as “forest plantations” also expanded, and now (1998)

cover about 14,000 ha in total. This is less than 10% of the total forestcover.

• So natural regeneration was clearly much more important for forestincrease than tree planting

• However, a detailed field study at commune-level showed a muchhigher forest cover (almost 50%) than the average province-data, and abigger increase in planted areas. There can be several explanations forthis:

- The satellite images can only identify plot sizes of 25 ha or bigger of similar vegetation. This means that planted areas (eg household or or village tree plantations) smaller than 25 ha are not identified.

- There are big variations in forest cover between districts (see eg. 1.2) so comparison with a province average may be misleading.

8

2.1 General land use changes

Sa Pa, Bac Ha district

Muong Khuong, Bao Thang district

Province, district staffs group

(0= nothing, 5= a lot)

10 years ago

Now (2000)

10 years ago

Now (2000)

10 years ago

Now (2000)

1. Food production areas

5 1 4 1 5 1 5 5 4 4 2 4 1 2 2 3 5 5

• Hill rice area • One-crop rice • Two-crop rice • Two-crop rice+one cash

crop 0 0 5 4

2. Fruit trees

2 5 2 4 2 5 1 4 1 3 1 4

• Home garden • Forest garden • Fruit tree orchards

4 3

3. Grazing area 4 3 5 4 4. Forest area

2 3 3 4 3 4 4 1 2 1 2 1

• Watershed forests • Production forests • Special use forests 5 5 3 4 4 4

During the province workshop, the participantsdiscussed general changes in land use during thelast 10 years. Village and commune representativesfrom the two fairly similar mountain districts ofBac Ha and Sa Pa formed one group. Village andcommune staff from Muong Khuong and BaoThang formed another group - in spite of thedifferences between the two areas. Province anddistrict staff formed a last group.

Area with hill cultivation has decreased

Fruit tree growing and forest planting has intensified. Forest gardens have increasedbecause land has been allocated. Farmers have been supported with seedlings, techniques and capital

Grazing areas have decreased a bit with reforestation

9

Two village examples of land use changes The two examples below – one from Bac Ha district and one from Sa Pa district – both show a typical trend of increase in forest area, while hill crop cultivation has decreased. But there are different trends for crop production. In both the two Bac Ha villages (see Doi 2 village below) hill cultivation and paddy rice fields have decreased while area with fruit trees has expanded. The reason given is that plum trees give a better economic return, which shows a response to marketing opportunities. Ma Tra village in Sa Pa district is quite typical for all the other villages: Hill cultivation and bare land have decreased. But generally area with wet rice has remained the same or has expanded slightly. Doi 2 village in Bac Ha district (Source: Village PESEA)

Year 2000

Hill ri

30%

Rice fie

25%

Forest

20%

Fruit

tree

25%

Year 1991

Rice fie30%

Forest

10%

Hill ri

60%

Main changes

Reasons

Reduction of hill cultivation Reduction of flat rice fields

Lower yield and low economic returns from both hill cultivation and rice fields. Replaced by fruit trees. Planting with MRDP assistance

Increased forest cover A lot of activity in forest regeneration. Afforestation. Better protection

Increased area with fruit trees

Increased income. Support from MRDP with seedlings and techniques

Ma Tra village in Sa Pa district (Source: Village PESEA)

������������������

������������������

������������������

������������������

�����������������

�����������������

�����������������

�����������������

�����������������

1994 Regen

eration

forest

25%

Rice

field

25%

M aize

field

30%

Bare

land

20%

������������������

������������������

������������������

������������������

������������������

�����������������

�����������������

�����������������

�����������������

2000

Plantat

ion +

regene

ration

forest

50%Rice

field

30%

M aize

field

15%

Bare

land

5%

Main changes Reasons P 327 i t d i

10

2.2 Land distribution and quality The district overviews (1.3) showed that availability of agricultural and forestry land varies a lot between the districts. The PESEA-studies show that households access to land also varies within villages. Land size and quality are eg. given as important indicators of wealth/well-being category (see chapter 4.1), in several of the studies. The better-off households have more and better land, while poorer households have less land of all types. Their land is also of less quality and/ore far away. This includes both mountain villages like the four villages in Bac Ha and Sa Pa districts, and the mid-land village of Ban Quang in Bao Thang district.

Comments on land and land distribution

(Source: “Lao Cai: A Participatory Poverty Assessment”) In a Participatory Poverty Appraisal (PPA) from 1999, some additional observations were made. The PPA included six villages. Four were remote villages (three in Muong Khuong district, and one in Bao Thang district), and two villages were selected as more accessible (both in Bao Thang district). • The PPA records the same pattern as the PESEAs: The

poorest households have less paddy land, or none at all. This “makes them more reliant on hill cultivation”.

• No evidence of complete landlessness was found in any of

the six PPA-villages, but note that “lack of land is one of the main reasons why people indicate they have moved location within the mountain region in the past”.

• Several of the PPA-villages mention that some households

are classified as poor (in well-being ranking) because they are young and newly established. “One of the factors implied by this is that they have less land”.

ThePPA also found that land constraints of poor households are different in remote upland villages compared to more accessible midland villages:

Remote Upland villages

• Lower population density: 59 - 85 persons/km2 • Location of land is a main problem for poorer households.

Their land is often far away and/or steep. This makes it difficult to manage, and even more so if the household lack labour.

• A second important problem for poorer household is lack of livestock for manure and ploughing

• Where formal land allocation has taken place, it has mainly followed the traditional patterns of land distribution. “This means that any inequalities that existed in these systems will be cemented by land allocation”.

Accessible Midland villages

• Higher population density; 73-200 persons/km2 • Absolute shortage of land is the main problem. The reason

is the higher population density. Many poor households here have to borrow land from neighbours and relatives or in other villages.

• “This is a major source of vulnerability”. For example, when hill land is being reforested, this can result in loss of use of this land for poor households who may have borrowed it.

11

2.3 Intensified crop production

Changes in crop production and food habits were discussed both during the village studies and in the province workshop. a) Changes in use of fertilisers, pesticides and IPM-models Changes in use of fertilisers and pesticides were discussed both during the village PESEAs and during the workshop. Remember that the figures indicate the general trend within each district, and cannot be compared directly between the districts! Discussions and scoring by each group during workshop (0= not used, 5=very common)

Sa Pa, Bac Ha district

Muong Khuong, Bao Thang

Province/ district staff

10 years

ago Now (2000)

10 years ago

Now (2000)

10 years ago

Now (2000)

Fertilisers 3 4 1 4 2 4 Pesticides 2 3 2 5 3 4 IPM-models 1 4 0 1 1 4

Percentage of households using fertilisers and pesticides in:

1. Doi 2 village, Bac Ha district (Source: Village PESEA-report 2000)

Year 1991

Year 2000

Reason Advantage Disadvan-tage

Fertiliser Nitrogen Phosphorus NPK

60 %

100 % 0

100% 100% 50%

Poor soil Maize, plum need it

Make higher yield, quick impact

Soil will be degraded if used for along time

Pesticide O fa toc Vo pha toc Bi58 Bassa

0

80% 0 0

80%

0 100% 70%

Kill insect Not allowed A lot in market

Good effect Good effect

Hurtful to the health (people, animal)

2. Ta Chai village, Sa Pa district (Source: PESEA-report) Year

1992 Year 2000

Reason Effect

Fertiliser Nitrogen Phosphor NPK Manure/ashes

100% 100% 40% 100%

100% 100% 20% 100%

Bad soil Infertile soil

Increased crop yield. Soils get bad when chemicals are used a long time. Manure makes soil better

Pesticide O Fafox Vofatox 666 Bassa

100% 100% 100% 100%

100% 0 0 100%

Kill insects and pests

Insects and pests are eliminated

IPM-models are being used in plum tree orchards in Bac Ha.

Both number of households using fertilusers and pesticides, and amounts used, have increased

In some villages, like Ta Chai (Sa Pa) and Ban Quan (Bao Thang) fertilisers have been used for more than 10 years,

The negative effects of fertilisers and pesticides are also seen.

12

b) Changes in use of local varieties The participants in the workshop discussed intensified crop production and changes in use ofhow traditional seed varieties had been replaced by new higher-yielding varieties. (Score 0=not used at all, 5 = used a lot)

Sa Pa, Bac Ha district

Muong Khuong, Bao Thang

Province, district staff

Type of seeds

10 years ago

Now (2000)

10 years ago

Now (2000)

10 years ago

Now (2000)

Local 5 3 5 3 5 3 Rice New varieties 1 4 1 4 1 3 Local 5 3 5 3 5 3 Maize New varieties 1 4 1 3 1 4

New varieties have gradually replaced local varieties because: • Yield is higher • Number of harvest/year

increase

But new varieties need more fertilisers, and also pesticides. It is a more complex technique.

Many poor households with low education levels still use old varieties

Example from Sa Chai village, Muong Khuong district (Source: Village PESEA-report 2000) The change in Sa Chai village is common for all the villages in the sample. Hybrid varieties are replacing local varities.

10 years ago Now (2000) Reasons for change

Main food is maize and cassava 100% local varieties of both rice and maize

Main food: 50% rice, 50% maize 70% hybrid varieties and 30% local varieties Hybrid rice: TM63, TM64 Hybrid maize: Vietnamese hybrid Chinese hybrid

• More attention to

crop production paid by state and projects like MRDP.

• Technical training

• Land allocation • Markets have

been enlarged and easy to sell products

All this helps villages to change the crop growing structure.

13

c) Changes in staple food and food security

Lack of food, or surplus of it, is an important criteria for the wealth/-well-being ranking in all the PESEA-reports (see 4.1). All the PESEA village level studies in Lao Cai show that food security generally has increased. The better off households produce enough food and even a substantial surplus to sell, while period with food shortage has decreased for the poorer households. As a matter of fact, a reduction of months of food shortage is in all cases the only real improvement noted for the poorest category.

The new varieties and the increased production is a major contributing factor to the increased food security. There is also a clear trend that rice is becoming more common as staple food. Ban Quang village in Bao Thang district is an exception. This midland village has a high proportion of poorest households, and also suffered from drought two years in a row (1998 and 1999). Lack of land is a clear problem, and households who moved in to the village recently have less paddy land, and also lack other means to get enough money to buy rice.

Food security and poverty (Source: Lao Cai PPA) The PPA gives some additional important in-sights on the subject of food insecurity and its consequences: • Food shortage contributes to ill health. Staple

food in many upland villages consists of maize gruel, rice (if household has paddy land) and vegetables, and very little meat. Cassava, manioc and other roots are common food at times of shortage. Malnutrition contributes to many diseases.

• Food insecurity is the most important reason

why children not attend school. Children in poor households must work to contribute to basic food needs. They work in the fields, or collect wild roots if food is really scarce. Especially girls drop out of school to help their mothers, and look after their younger sisters and brothers

Staple food in Doi 2 village, Bac Ha district (Source: Village PESEA-report) Before 1991 At present

(2000) Reasons

70% of households eat maize as staple food

Only 7% eat maize. Rest eat rice.

New rice variety give higher yield. The same with new maize. People can sell maize to have money to buy rice

Changes in staple food in Ban Quang village, Bao Thang district (Source: Village PESEA-report) 1992-1996 At present

(2000) Reasons

100% use rice

90 % use rice

People from other areas moves to here. There is little paddy rice land for them. They have no capital to develop livestock, so cannot buy food

14

2.4 Forest products and forestry resources

Wood

Year 1970

Year 1980

Year 1990

Year 2000

Fokenia sp x x 0 0 Talauma(Gioi x x Little Little Eugenia sp x x Little Little Cinnamomum x x x Little Quercus sp x x x Little Machilus sp x x x x Cunnighamia 0 0 x x Non-timber products Honey x x x x Mushroom x x x x Rattan x x Little 0 Orchid x x x Little Medicinal trees Panax pseudo ginseng x x x 0 Against snake tree x x x x Lime-pot tree x x x Little Coptis teceta x x x Little Cardamon x x x x Alaliacea tonic x x x x Wild animals Tiger x x 0 0 Wolf x x 0 0 Monkey x x 0 0 Bear x x 0 0 Wild boar x 0 0 0 Grouse x x x Little Mountain goat x x 0 0 Barking deer x x x 0 Snake x x x x X = available, 0 = not found

Natural forests areas in Ta Chai village have decreased over time. The main reasons given in the village PESEA are. • “Clearing land for

terraced fields • Forest fires • Need for firewood and

construction timber • There were no forest

contracts with households for protection”

“Birds and animals havedecreased because of: • forest loss • hunting” Wild products from the forest, eg. medicinal plants, have been an important source of income in Ta Chai village (see section 4.2). And during recent years cultivation of cardamon has become an important income source, particularly for better off households.

Changes in wild forest products in Ta Chai village, Sa Pa District (Source: Village PESEA-report 2000)

a) Wild forest products Original natural forests have decreased in all the six villages. Wildlife and some non-timber products have disappeared, or have become scarce. This pattern is seen in all the six villages. Ma Tra village, Sa Pa district (Source: Village PESEA-report)

1970 1980 1990 2000 Timber Gioi Vang Tam Voi Thuoc Gie

x x x x

few few few few

0 0

few 0

0 0

few 0

Non-timber Bamboo Rattan Honey

x x x

x x x

few few few

0 0 0

Wildlife Bird Leopard Fox Wild pig Wild chicken Deer Monkey

x x x x x x x

few 0

few few few few x

0 0

few 0

few 0 0

0 0

few 0

few 0 0

“Timber trees have disappeared because of felling. Bamboo and rattan decreased because of slash & burn for agriculture land. Birds were hunted. And other animals disappeared with the natural forest”

15

b) Household tree planting and management Both FCP and MRDP have given a lot of support to households to plant fruit and forest trees. The type of fruit and forest seedlings supported varied between the districts.Temperate fruit trees and indigenous species suitable in upland areas were extended in Bac Ha, Muong Khuong and Sa Pa. While more sub-tropical fruit and forest trees were encouraged in Bao Thang. Province and district staff did an assessment of forest models: a) home gardens (mainly fruit trees) and b) forest gardens (mainly timber trees). This assessment and the wealth/well-being ranking and the livelihood analysis show that home gardens with fruit trees now often provide additional income, particularly in better-off households. Plum trees in Bac Ha, and cardamon in Sa Pa, are now major income sources in the PESEA-villages! (4.1 and 4.2).

Assessment of forestry models by province/district staff (Source: Province workshop)

Type of model

Description Results and experiences

Proposals

Home garden

* Many households have this model. * Upland species: Plum, pears, Chinese apple * Midland species: Longan, litchi, mango,

* Yield is stable. * High income

* Assist farmer in selling and processing product

Forest garden

* In some pilot areas. * Upland species: Various local trees * Midland species: Styrax, Mangletia

* Some rich households have invested in this model.

*Assist farmer in selling and processing product

Example from Sa Chai village, Muong Khuong district (Source: village PESEA-report 2000)

Forest land and home gardens in Sa Chai village were allocated with Red Book in 1997. 60% of the village area is now considered to be forest land. About 1/3 of this area is natural forest, and 2/3 plantation forests. MRDP supported land allocation and also assisted with training and provision of seedlings. The timber species are too young to harvest, but provide some firewood. Some better off households now sell fruits from home gardens, like plums.

Before 1997

2000 Reasons

30% of the households had planted forests

80% of households have plantation forests

* Land is allocated to households * Assistance from project

Residence and land for garden is not allocated yet

All households have home gardens and residence areas

* Land is allocated to households

Mainly indigenous forest trees found

“Sa Moc”, and other timber species are planted

* Provided by subsidies from programmes such as 327 and MRDP

Mainly local varieties of fruit trees

New fruit tree varieties, eg. pear, persimmon and mandarins have been planted

* Assistance from projects

16

2.5 Water Changes in water situation was discussed both in the village PESEAs and during the provincial workshop.

Changes in availability of water 0=low availability, 5= high availability

Sa Pa, Bac Ha districts

Muong Khuong, Bao Thang

Province, district staff

10 years ago

Now (2000)

10 years ago

Now (2000)

10 years ago

Now (2000)

Domestic use/drinking

2

4

2

3

3

4

Water for crop production

3

4

2

2

3

4

Water for drinking and household purposes (Source: all six PESEA-reports)

When people have discussed water availability they have mainly talked about changes in the water supply system and less about changes of water availability in streams and rivers. Many programmes are mentioned to have supported improved water supply, through wells, tanks and pipes – eg Red Cross, Government, and UNICEF. However, the PESEAs show that domestic water is still a real concern in tthree villages in spite of improvements. The general pattern is that a higher elevation means more problems - both within villages and between villages. In Ta Chai village (Sa Pa) 30% of the households are said to experience water shortages during the dry season because they have “house located in high position”. Some households here have been supported with tanks by UNICEF, but the rest take water directly with bamboo pipes from the streams. And in Ma Tra village (Sa Pa) 70% of the households are said to lack water in the household for part of the year, “by high terrain, and must take water from other location” The remotest village - Sa Chai village in Muong Khuong - appears to have the biggest problem. All households here have water problems for five months, during the dry seasaon. Water availability is said to have decreased since 1990 due to “destruction of forests in watershed area”. In the midland village of Ban Quan (Bao Thang) 90% of the households have wells, but quality of wells is clearly related to poverty status. Better-off households have good brick wells while poorer households have simple dug wells

Water situation has improved during the last ten years. Water supply to households have improved, and also irrigation systems

Water for crop production and irrigation (Source: six PESEA) Access to irrigated paddy fields is clearly important, and also varies both between and within villages. The wealth/well-being ranking shows that poorer households usually have less access to wet rice fields and that water /irrigation is a main factor to determine quality (2.2 and 4.1). In eg. Ma Tra village one indicator for better-off households is “have enough rice fields and terraced fields for production” Where water is short land use may change to less demanding crops, if they can provide an economic return. In eg. Na Pac Ngam (Bac Ha) some terraced rice field areas were planted with plum trees instead because of “difficulty in water source, to get high income and decrease labour”.

17

Example of water situation in two villages Doi 2 village, Bac Ha district (Source: Village PESEA-report 2000) In Doi 2 village, streams have water all year round. 10 years ago about 70% of all households used to carry water from the streams, but nowadays all households have piped water at home throughout the year. 2.6 Livestock development

Domestic water source 1990 (HHs)

2000 (HHs)

Reasons

Gravity flowing water, bamboo pipes

30% 0%

Water from well 0% 0% Water from pipe supply system, and tanks

0% 100%

Water from house roofs 0% 0% Carry home from stream 70% 0%

Government supported the village with a big tank to keep water for dry season, and connected with water pipe system.

Map of water system in Ta Chai village, Sa Pa (Source: Village PESEA-report 2000)

Ta Chai village, Sa Pa district (Source: Village PESEA-report 2000) “In Ta Chai village, households use water from streams, connected to households with pipes. UNICEF has supported 14 households with water tanks. 70% have enough water for the whole year or a surplus. For 30% get the water sources dry water sources for part of the year” “About 20%of the village area is one-crop rice fields.4 ha of terraced rice are irrigated from Coi Gao and Quay Chieu streams. Fields in the valley are also irrigated from small streams.”

18

The general pattern in the six villages is that particularly smaller livestock (pigs, chicken, ducks) have increased - except in the two Sa Pa villages. Investment in smaller livestock is a common use of credits, and an important way of diversifying household income and food sources. The situation for larger livestock is more complex. Buffaloes and cows have increased in both the upland village of Sa Chai (Muong Khuong) and the midland village of Ban Quan (Bao Thang). In both villages the explanations given are similar. Buffaloes are needed for animal traction when agriculture intensifies. And cows are bred for income by a few richer households, as markets are expan- ding. “Market for beef is developed with good price – so cows have increased” (PESEA Sa Chai). In Sa Chai more traction is needed as shifting cultivation is reduced, and fields become more permanently used. “ Previously there was little need for traction work, when land was cleared for planting on good forest soils. Now the allo- cated land need to be improved” (PESEA, Sa Chai). In Ban Quan it is more a case of the poorer households now being able to either borrow money or afford to buy buffaloes. “More poor households in the past had no buffalo labor, they had to exchange their own work to borrow buffaloes from households with buffaloes. Some farmers have now borrowed funds to buy buffaloes”. In the remaining villages, large livestock have decreased or remained stable. In the Bac Ha-villages some households have sold buffaloes, as need for Traction decreased when part of the paddy land was converted from rice cultivation to plum tree growing (see 2.1). A major problem in both Sa Pa villages is foot & mouth disease, which have caused a large reduction of large animals during the last five years. Even small livestock have also decreased a lot, because of diseases. Livestock are therefore less important as income source here compared to the other villages. L ivestock management: fodder sources and ways of keeping

Livestock and diseases (Source: Lao Cai –PPA)

The PPA found that livestock diseases have serious effects on poor households in several ways, and that lack of knowledge on animal husbandry techniques and lack of veterinary services are serious problems.

• Losing a buffalo means that the household will have to borrow one (usually in exchange for labour) from neighbours or relatives. As a result they plant late (and therefore get less harvest) and also have less time to work on their own land or sell their labour for other income. This is a serious economic shock for the households

• Losing small livestock, like pigs and chicken, is also a common problem . These are important for both income and consumption, and “as coping mechanism in times of need”. Small livestock are sold to pay for weddings and funerals, or eg to get money to pay for treatment if somebody falls sick.

• Livestock development is a common use of credits, but many poor households are reluctant to borrow money for fear that the animals will die. Then they would risk still having to repay the loan, while not having the income.

• Lack of knowledge on livrstock keeping, can also create poor sanitary conditions – particularly where animals are not kept in separate pens, sties or stables. Then both animal and human diseases can spread more easily.

19

The PESEAs and the workshop discussions show that management practices are changing and becoming more intensive. Free grazing of cattle was more common before. With allocation of forest land, and reforestation of slopes, free grazing is decreasing. The trend is also towards keeping animals more separate from humans. Several of the villages near the border are concerned about thefts, and therefore keep the animals in or close to the house. Workshop discussions The workshop participants discussed and scored how feeding and management of large livestock (buffaloes and cows) had changed over time.

10 years ago

Now (2000)

10 years ago

Now (2000)

10 years ago

Now (2000)

Free grazing

5

3

5

2

5

3

Restricted grazing

2

3

1

4

1

3

Stall feeding (pigs mainly)

2

5

2

5

4

5

0= not at all 5= very common

Sa Pa, Bac Ha district

Muong Khuong, Bao Thang

Province, district staff

Buffaloes, cows and horses are now more often be kept in separate stables.

“In previous times buffaloes and cows mostly ate grass from the forest. Now the cattle eat grass at hime, and some stored rice straw in the winter” (PESEA in Sa Chai)

Doi 2, Bac Ha district: Feeding of large animals (Source: Village PESEA-report)

Mode 1990 Now (2000)

Reason

Restricted grazing 30% 100% No more grazing area

Free grazing 70% 0%

Feed at home 0% 70% Mainly pigs

Doi 2 village, Bac Ha: Keeping animals in separate sheds (Source: Village PESEA-report) Livestock kind

Before 1994

Now (2000)

Reason

Buffalo 60% 80% Better hygiene

Horse 0% 30% Less theft

“In the past (buffaloes) were mainly allowed to range freely. Now they are mainly allowed to (allocated) forests, only when they have baby. In the farming season farmers cut additional food for them and carry back” (PESEA- Ban Quan)

20

Fish farming Fish farming is only discussed in two of the village studies: Ban Quang in Bao Thang district, and Ta Chai in Sa Pa. In both villages fish farming has increased during the last five years. With clear responsibilities for management (see eg the Ban Quan example below) and more household ponds, fish farming has become more productive. But at the same time,fishes in stream sand rivers have decreased.

Fish farming in Ban Quan village, Bao Thang (Source: Village PESEA report)

“In the past fish in the natural rivers were plentiful in both quantity and types, but at present they have been reduced. There are less numbers and less types. People have been fishing with elctric tools and mines so fish have decreased. Fish cultivation has taken place in the Na Quynh reservoir for several years by the household managing the reservoir. The reservoir is part of the irrigation system, and there is fresh water in the reservoir all year round. In the past the reservoir was managed by the cooperative, but not well managed. In 1994, the reservoir was repaired, and a household made a bid for the management. The reservoir is now better managed and this household get income and benefits from fish production, producing 1000 kg fish /year. Since the project came seven households have constructed small fish ponds. They are connected to household irrigationsystem. Most of them are new, and produce about 50-60 kg fish/year. This serve for daily meals and consumption, but fish are not sold. The fishes cultivated are mainly carp and Tilapia.”

Fish farming in Ta Chai village, Sa Pa district ( Source: Village PESEA-report)

“In Ta Chai village fish farming has increased, since the project came. Most ponds have been recently dug. They produce maybe 20-25 kg fish/year. Some households ahave a bit bigger ponds, that produce around 75 kg/year. The fish is used mainly for family consumption.” Water is enough for the hoseuholds with fish ponds. Everyyear in may and June there are fish diseases spreading from other villages. Mainly carp and black carp are produced.” Changes in number of ponds

Before project

Year 2000

Small ponds 5 25 Big ponds 10 15

21

Section 3. Development of local institutions

This section looks more in detail into changes and development of “social and human capital”, with focus on local imanagement of MRDP. This includes assessments of skills and capacity of Village, Commune and District management 3.1 MRDP management at village, commune and district levels

Roles & responsibilities include: Village Management Group (VMG) • Most VMGs have three members. This would typically

include the village head, village accountant and village extension worker

• From MRDP the VMG-staff normally receive annual management training, technical training, and 50,000 dong in monthly allowance.

• Participatory annual planning, resulting in village development plans • Organise implementation of plans • Assist in technical training courses • Distribute material and in-puts • Manage MRDP savings & credit fund (if there is one in the village). The

S&C management group may be partially different from the VMG. • Documentation, reviewing and report-writing

Commune Management Group (CMG) • CMGs were introduced in Lao Cai year 2000, with the

Commune & Village Development Budgets • There are usually three members. • From MRDP the CMGs receive management training,

and 50,000 dong in monthly allowances

• Assist in developing annual commune plans, and in compiling annual village plans for MRDP-support

• Financial management decentralised to some communes (where budgets have been transferred to villages and communes)

• Reporting of commune use of MRDP-funds, and compiling village-level reports (where budgets have been decentralised).

District focal point • The district extension centre is the MRDP focal point

in all four districts. • The district level management board oversees

activities

• Support villages and communes to plan, implement and monitor all activities

• Technical and management training • Setting up models and trials M f d f & ill (i t f )

22

3.2 Development of management, technical skills and support capacity

In the workshop, the participants from Village and Commune Management Groups discussed their own skills and capacities. They also assessed capacity of the district extension. District and province staff discussed in a separate group. All groups discussed and scored the same set of skills. 1= weak skills/capacity. 5= very good skills/capacity

Assessment of Village Management Groups

Issue Sa Pa + Bac Ha

Muong Khuong + Bao Thang

Province/ district staff

• Holding village meeting (ability to gather and lead the meeting fruitfully)

4

4

3

• Spreading information about MRDP-opportunities to all households in the village (including poorer households)

4

5

3

• Giving attention to special needs and priorities of poor households during planning of activities.

5

4

5

• Annual participatory planning (PRA) 5

4 3

• Women's formal representation in the VMGs*

2 1 2

• Giving attention to women's special needs and priorities in planning of activities.

3

3

1

• Manage and control implementation of plans (including distribution of inputs from project)

5

5

4

• Transfer of technical knowledge (training capabilities)

5 4 3

• Accessing and providing information on markets

3 2 2

• Self-financing and/or accessing other sources of funds (outside MRDP)

2 3 1

• Report-writing and documentation. 2

3 1

* O 10% f G

All levels and all districts agreed that VMGs were good at: • Giving attention to needs of poor households • Managing and controlling implementation

of village plans

In addition, the groups with village and commune representatives found that they were good at:

• Holding village meetings • Spreading information about

MRDP in the village • Annual PRAs • Technical training.

However, the group with province and district staff gave lower score

All agreed that the weakest points are: • Including women in VMGs* • Report-writing and documentation • Self-financing and accessing funds

outside MRDP

23

Commune Management Groups The group with village and commune level representatives from Muong Khuong/Bao Thang did not have time to discuss and assess the commune management groups

Issue Sa Pa + Bac Ha

Province/ district staff

• Ability to make commune development plan and lead village planning.

4 4

• Financial management ability (village and commune development funds)

3 4

• Ability to follow up and monitor project activities.

3

3

• Women's formal representation in the commune management board

1 1

District–level capacity

Issue Sa Pa + Bac Ha

Muong Khuong + Bao Thang

Province/ district staff

• Ability to co-ordinate extension activities

5 4 5

• Ability to co-ordinate forest management and protection

3 5 3

• Ability to co-ordinate community credit activities

3 5 3

• MILS follow up, monitoring and review

4 5 4

• Designing and setting up models 5 3 4 • Ability to plan and follow up

village/commune planning at district, commune and village levels

4

4

4

All levels agreed that the CMGs had quitegood capacity to make commune plansand support village planning, but thatmonitoring and reporting skills are lessstrong. The percentage of female members in theCMGs is a bit higher than at villagelevel, but still quite low (20%). FemaleCMG-members are often Kinh people ,and not from ethnic minorities.

Both commune & village level and the district & province group thought that the district staff worked well and that they had particularly good capacity to:

• co-ordinate extension activities • do MILS follow-up and reporting

A real constraint noted was time constraints, and also difficulties to reach remote locations.

24

3.3 Strong and weak points of the organisations at different levels The three groups were encouraged to discuss more in detail and identify the strong and weak points of each level. Each group came up with different suggestions. The table below shows that the groups discussed both the strong & weak points (ie the capacity) of each level, and the strengths & weaknesses of MRDP support to that level.

Discussion groups Discussion groups Strong points Sa Pa

Bac Ha MK, BT

Province/ District

Weak points Sa Pa,

Bac Ha MK, BT

Province/ District

VMG

• Know clearly about customs of their village

• Very enthusiastic • Get training by project • Have monthly subsidy from

project • Annual planning • Guiding the implementation

x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x

• A lot of tasks at the same time

• Busy with their family work

• Low monthly subsidy from project

• Weak financial management

x x x

x x x

x x x

CMG

• Very enthusiastic • Get training by project • Monthly subsidy from project

x x x

x x x

• Low education level x x

District

• Follow up and monitoring village, commune planning

• Get training by project

x x x x

• All activities are usually late compared with plan

• Not enough staff • Not enough equipment

x x

x x x

The main strengths of the VMG are: • Know the local customs • Are enthusiastic

Main strengths of MRDP support to VMG/CMG: • Training • Allowances

The main weak points of VMG/CMG are: • Have a lot of other

tasks/duties • Busy with household/-

farming tasks • Low education level

A strong point of district level is follow-up and monitoring of village/commune planning. Main weak points are: • Late implementation • Lack of staff

25

Section 4. Socio-Economic changes

This section looks at changes in the socio-economic situation inthe eight villages. We also try to high-light what kind of strategiesfor getting food, income and make ends meet that different typesof household use, ie what kind of livelihood strategies people use. The main topics included are:

Changes in well-being and village socio-economic situation Livelihood strategies and household situations Markets and marketing opportunities Women´s situation Reasons for poverty

The analysis is based on examples from villages and households(from the PESEA-reports). Summaries of discussions andcomments from the province workshop give a more general pictureof trends within the districts and in the province. Additional information has been taken from the following reports:

• MRDP, 1999, “Lao Cai – a Participatory Poverty Assessment”, with Lao Province, the World Bank and DFID (UK)

• MRDP, 2001, “From self-subsistence to cash earnings in an open market economy: An evaluation of promotion of ethnic minority handicraft project, Ta Phin commune, Sa Pa, Lao Cai province”

”Well-being”

We have tried to understand the changes through using theconcept of “well-being”. Well-being is the state of beinghealthy, happy and prosperous. Often people think ofpoverty just in terms of lack of wealth - lack of money, lackof food, bad house etc. But there are many other factors thatcan influence a household’s sense and state of well-being,which means that all the five types of “capital” areimportant. For example, a household that can borrow food from aneighbour is less at risk than a household who has no one toturn to. Quality and type of land influences how much youcan produce. And level of skills and education are alsoimportant.

Method for wealth-ranking/well-being Farmers themselves have grouped the households into different categories, where Category I is the most well off, and Category IV the poorest. Criteria (or indicators) for each category were then agreed on by each village. The criteria vary from village to village and most villages have changed the criteria over the years!! Duringthe PRAs from 2000, villages were also encouraged to broaden criteria to include all five types of capital – including e.g land, health, and education.

26

4.1 Village Examples of Socio-Economic Changes

General trends and changes There is a clear shift up-wards in wealth/well-being categories, and a clear increase in Category I and Category II households. This means that there are clearly fewer really poor (Category III and IV) households.

It should be noted that the mid-land village of Ban Quan in Bao Thang district has the highest number and percentage of poor households. There are many permanently poor households in the village, that eg. lack land resources.

The village samples also show that there are positive changes within each category. These changes within categories have been highlighted for each village. The participants in the province workshop also discussed typical changes within categories (see Table next page). A summary of typical changes indicators for each category (from village studies and workshop discussions) is made on the next page.

The village samples also show that even if there are many differences between the areas, the criteria and indicators for the poorest category are still very similar across the sample. The poorest households have mainly seen an improvement in food security, and some improvements in production techniques. But many households in the poorest category have remained poor since the first PRA – ie they are permanently poor.

At the same time the better-off households have accumulated both money and assets. They have diversified their production and income sources. They can also afford to give priority to education of their children.

This shows that there is tendency that the gap between the categories is growing!!

27

Main change indicators and improvements within categories - according to workshop participants

Groups Cate-gory

Main change indicators

SP+BH

MK+BT

Prov/ dist. group

1 -Solid house (tiled roof or cement roof). -Saving money >= 5 million vnd/year -Have annual production plan -Help poor households. -Home & forest garden start to have outputs.

x

x

x x x

x

x

x x x

x

x x

2 -Wooden house with tiled roof, enough of furnishing. -Surplus of food. - Development of perennial fruit garden areas and plantation forests. - Get land use certification (Reed book”)

x

x x

x

x

x x

x

x

3 -Sufficient food.

-Wooden house(not temporary house). -Get land use certification. (“Red book”) -Participated in some training courses. -Have annual working plan.

x x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x x

x

x

4 - Shorter period of food shortage - More clear annual working plan. -Participated in technical training -Temporary house, few furnishings. -Start to change old ways of thinking

x x x x

x x x x

x x x x x

During the province workshop in October 2000, the participants discussed the indicators that show changes within wealth-ranking categories. Village and commune people discussed separately from the province and district levels. Sa Pa and Bac Ha participants formed one group, and Bao Thang and Muong Khuong one group. Commonly mentioned change indicators in the village reports have also been added below (high-lighted): Within Category 1:

• More accumulation of capital • Better house • Income from home & forest gardens • More livestock • More assets • More and better (electric) tools • Education of children

Within Category II • Surplus of food • Development of home & forest gardens • More assets • Education of children

Within Category III • Enough food • Now have annual production plans • Have participated in training courses • Have better house • Start livestock development • Some more assets

Within Category IV • Shorter period of food shortage • Participated in training courses

28

Bac Ha district: Doi 2 village, Ban Pho commune

Doi 2 is a H’Mong village that was supported by FCP1994-1996. During that period there was no socio-economic development in the village, and the results ofwealth-ranking remained the same. But since thenthere has been a big charge, and conditions havecleararly improved for a large number of households. The PESEA shows that many household have movedtwo, and sometimes even three (from IV to I) ”steps”in four years. Reasons for the improvement given bythe village include: Assistance from FCP withtechnical training, fruit tree seedlings, fertilisers, andcredits; Learning production experience from eachother; Credits from other institutions; Policies of theGovernment; Applying intensive farming bothincreasing number of crops and yields; Sustainableincome from planting plum trees. In 1994 there were no trees of value around the house,but now home gardens and forestry gardens (where”tam hoa” plum is mainly plantad) have beendeveloped. Plum has become amajor income sourcefor the better-off households

2 2 3

86 7 7

22

10 9 9 10

23 23 23

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

1994 1995 1996 2000

No.

of H

Hs Category 1

Category 2Category 3Category 4

Cate-gory

PRA 1 1994

(41 households)

PESEA (PRA 4) 2000

(48 households) I

2 households – 4% • House with tiled roof. Have tea

chairs and table. Bl. & white TV • One buffalo, one horse • Larger land area • Maize harvest: 2 tons/year • Children go to school • Some money for accumulation • Able to plan production • Some accumulation of money

8 households- 16,5% • Permanent wooden house, good beds,

colour TV • 1-2 buffaloes, 1 horse • >200 plum trees • Concrete water tank • Children go to school • Maize harvest: 4 tons/year • Able to plan/manage family economy • Brick husbandry shed • Accumulate money

II

6 households –16% • House with thatched roof • One/no buffalo, one/no horse • Large land area • Maize harvest: 1,5 tons/year • Enough food

22 households – 46% • House with tiled roof. Bl &white TV • One/no buffalo, one/no horse • 100-200 plum trees • Enough food. • Able to plan/manage family economy • Some accumulate money

III

10 households -24% • Temporary house • Children have little chance of

schooling • Little land • Maize harvest: 1 ton/year • 2-4 months lack of food • One or no buffalo

10 households –21% • Tiled roof or normal house • Children have little chanc eof

schooling • One or no buffalo • Little land area • 1-2 months food deficit

IV

23 households -56% • Temporary house • No buffalo or horse • Unable to plan and manage

household economy • Children don´t go to school • 4-6 months food deficit

8 households - 16,5% • Temporary house • No buffalo or horse • Unable to plan/manage family

economy • Children do not go to school • 3-4 months of food deficit

29

Bac Ha district: Na Pac Ngam village, Ta Chai commune This Tay village was also supported by FCP 1994-1996, but PRAs were continued during 1998 and 1999.. The wealth/well-being ranking does not include all households in the village, but only those that were involved in FCP-activities. Socio-economic conditions have improved a lot in this group. Since 1999, there are no Category IV households remaining. In the PESEA-report the village explain that the main reasons for the improvement are:

• Intensive farming, more crops • New seeds of maize and rice • Application of science and technology

in production • Income from large scale cultivation of

plum • Project support with seedlings, training

and production planning

Cate-gory

PRA 1 1994

(50 households)

PESEA (PRA 4) 2000

(50 households) I

5 households – 10% • Rice harvest: 1-2 tons/year • Maize harvest: 1-2 tons/year of

grain • Solid wooden house • Rice husking machine • 1-2 buffaloes, 1-2 horses • Cupboard, table & chairs • Motorcycle • Plum harvest: 5 tons or more/year • Accumulate money • Know production plan

16 households- 32% • Rice harvest: 1-2 tons/year • Maize harvest: 2 tons/year of grain • Solid wooden house • Rice husking machine • 1-2 buffaloes, 1-3 horses • Cupboard, table & chairs. Colour TV, video • Motorcycle • Plum harvest: 8 tons or more/year • Accumulate money • Have large land area for production • Know how to apply science and technique in

production. Have production plan

II 31 households –62% • Rice harvest: 0,5-1,5 tons/year • Maize harvest: 0,5-1 ton/year • Plum harvest: 1-5 tons/year • 1 buffalo, 1 horse • Solid wooden house • Cupboard, tables&chairs

26 households – 52% • Rice harvest: 1-2 tons/year • Maize harvest: 0,5-2 ton/year of grain • Plum harvest: 4-8 tons/year • 1 buffalo, 1-2 horses • Solid wooden house. • Cupboard, tables&chairs. Colour TV, video • Have production plan

III

9 households -18% • Rice harvest: 0,4-1 ton/year • Maize harvest: 0,4-0,8 ton/year

Plum harvest: 0,5-1 ton/year • Wooden house • Food shortage 1-2 months

8 households – 16% • Rice: 0,5-1 ton/year. Maize: 0,4-0,8 ton/year • Plum harvest: 0,5-1 ton/year • Wooden house. Cupboard, table& chairs • Enough food • Video, Bl. & White TV

IV

5 households -10% • Rice: 0,2-0,4 ton/year • Maize: 0,2-0,4 ton/year • Have small land area • Plum harvest: 0,2-0,6 ton/year • Wooden house

NOBODY since 1999

511

16 16

3127 26 26

9 7 8 85 50 0

0

10

20

30

40

1994 1998 1999 2000

No.

of H

Hs Category 1

Category 2Category 3Category 4

30

Bao Thang district: Ban Quan village, Ban Phiet commune

Ban Quan village is close (9-10 km) to Lao Cai town, along the good road to Ha Noi. Tay people are in majority, followed by Dao, and some Kinh households. It´s a border village to China. In 1979/80 (during the war) people were evacuated from the village. Starting1992 people were officially encouraged to return. Other programmes in the village include programme 135 (construction work) and Red Cross (eg. wells, sanitation and women´s club). Some of the households who moved in were returning families, but most were new to the village area. In total there are now about 150 households in the village. The PRAs cover only those households that have been supported by MRDP. The socio-economic conditions have improved the last years, particularly for the households in Categories I and II. For the households in Category IV there is little change. “For two years there was little rain, so harvests were low. Therefore there was little improvement in food security, and some people have more problem this year (2000), compared to 1999” (VMG-head).

Cate-gory

PRA 2 1998

(75 households)

PESEA (PRA 4) 2000

(77 households) I

3 households – 10% • Brick house or permanent

wooden house • Radio, TV, expensive

bed, wardrobe, table&chairs

• Enough food • Accumulate >1million

VND/year • 2 buffaloes or cows (or

more)

7 households- 9% • Firmly built brick house • At least 3 cattle • Have milling machine and other

electric equipment, motor-cycle • Colour TV • Have large cultivated land • Children go to school • Know how to develop production • Have brick well • Accumulate 5-10 million VND/year

II

16 households –62% • Wooden house with tiled

roof • Radio • 1 buffalo • Lack food 1-2 months

15 households – 19,5% • Brick house or wooden house • 1-3 cattle • TV, bicycle • Children go to school (at least

finish primary) • Have brick well • Enough food, but no surplus

III

35 households -18% • Temporary house • No buffalo, cow • Lack food 2-4 months

36 households – 46,5% • Simple brick house • 1 cattle • Bicycle. No TV or electric

equipment • Children go to school • Have brick or earth well • Lack food 1-2 month

IV

21 households -10% • Temporary house • Lack food 5-7 months • Work as hired labourers

19 households – 25% • Simple and small house • No or little land • Have to work as hired labourers • Children go rarely to school • No cattle, TV, bicycle • Have earth well

Household of Mr Trien Van Man and Mrs Dang Thi Thuy (Category II) The household moved to the area in 1990, fram Cam Duong town. “We have 4 sao with paddy, a home garden with fruit trees, forest land, and cassava-plots. We get money from the rice and the cassava, and also from livestock. We sell some firewood from our forest area. MRDP has supported us with 100 fruit tree seedlings (longan, lichee and mango), technical training in rice cultivation and growing fruit trees, and visits to model farms in other areas”

31

Muong Khuong district: Sa Chai village, Pha Long commune Sa Chai is a Nung village. About 20% of the households are H’Mong. The village is the furthest away from a district and province town, but quite close to the Chinese border. The PRA covers the households originally involved in MRDP-activities, and not the whole village. There is no data available on criteria from the first wealth-ranking 1996. But it is clear that there has been an improvement in the socio-economic situation since 1996. There are more Category I households, and only three remaining Category IV households.

Cate-gory

PRA 1 1996

(33 households)

PESEA (PRA 4) 2000

(32 households) I

• 6 households – 18,2% 11 households- 34,5% • Motorbike • Television • Small hydropower machine • House with tiled roof • 3 or more buffaloes, horses • High income

II

• 8 households – 24,2% 9 households – 28% • Roof with tiled house • Black and white TV • Small hydropower • 1-2 buffaloes • Some surplus food • Food income: 250 kg/person/year

III

• 12 households –36,5% 9 households – 28% • House with tiled roof • 1 buffalo, 1 horse • Food shortage 1-2 months • Food income: 200 kg/person/year

IV

• 7 households – 21,1% 3 households – 9,5% • Temporary house with thatched roof • 1 or no buffalo • Food shortage 3-5 months • Food income: 150 kg/person/year

Rich and poor households in Sa Chai According to the village PESEA-report: “Poor households collect firewood and sell it. They sell other things from the forest such as bamboo shoots. They also sell labour. They have received subsidies from the government for new varieties and fertilisers so they now produce more food” “Better-off households sell pig and chickens. They do small business in the markets, and have services. Their household economy is getting better. There is more interaction with the outside society, more market goods, convenient transport”

6

9

15

11

8 8 9 9

12 12

79

75

3 3

02468

10121416

1996 1997 1999 2000

No.

of H

Hs Category 1

Category 2Category 3Category 4

32

Sa Pa district: Ma Tra village, Sa Pa commune

Cate-gory

PRA 1 1993

(73 households)

PESEA (PRA 4) 2000

(86 households) I

19 households – 26% • Big house • Many cattle, poultry • Large are with fertile land • Received larger area for tree

planting • Sufficient labour force • Enough food • Enough furniture

28 households- 33% • Large brick house • Many cattle, goats, pig, chicken • Many farming fields • TV, cassette, electric generator • Enough capital • Production plan

II

21 households – 29% • Average size house • 1 buffalo, 2pigs • Small, far away, infertile land • Lack of production tools • Received smaller area for tree

planting • Financial deficit

39 households – 45% • Brick house • Cattle, goats, pigs, chicken • Enough food • Have enough rice fields and terraced

fields for production • Lack of production technique

III

14 households –19% • Small and deformed house • Small, far away, infertile land • Too many children • Unable to plan/manage family

economy • Lack of labour • Lack production tools

12 households – 14% • Wooden house • Enough fields, but bad soil • Not much livestock • Neglect in working • Food shortage 1-2 months • Lack of capital and production

techniques

IV

19 households – 26% • Small and deformed house • Few live in caves • Many small children • Illiteracy • Landless • No production tools • Chronic food shortage

7 households – 8% • Small wooden house • Many children • Food shortage 2-4 months • Lack capital, production plan and

techniques

This H´Mong village is quite close to the district centre. The village has been supported by FCP/MRDP since 1993, with eg. technical training (fruit tress, crop production etc), land allocation, a Savings & Credit scheme, and introduction of potato cropping. The conditions in the village have improved a lot since then. There are now only a few (seven) Category IV households left. Most of these are new households that have separated from their parents, or have moved in. Agricultural production has intensified, together with planting of fruit trees. Other important new income sources are cardamon and embroidery. Women now spend quite a lot of time on handicraft production. The closeness to Sa Pa town makes it easy to sell products to the tourists there.

19 19

28 2821

24

39 39

14

27

12 1219 16

7 7

05

1015202530354045

1993 1997 1999 2000

No.

of H

Hs Category 1

Category 2Category 3Category 4

33

Sa Pa district: Ta Chai village, Ta Phin

commune This Dao village has ben supported by MRDP since 1997. Support has included eg. agricultural training, and models such as new rice varieties, potato and fruit trees. Many of the women are involved in the handicrafts scheme in the commune, that is supported by MRDP. The PRAs and the PESEA have included only the households originally supportd by MRDP, and not all households in the village. Information about original household criteria is not available However, one can see that there has been a lot of positive changes since 1997. Only eight households now lack food for part of the year, and more than 80% produce enough or a surplus. Important income sources are food production, livestock, cardamon and embroidery

Cate-gory

PRA 1 1997

(44 households)

PESEA (PRA 4) 2000

(44 households) I

8 households – 18%

11 households- 25% • Have large brick house • Have large field area • Many buffaloes, cows, pigs, chicken, goats • Motorcycle and electric generator • TV, radio, sewing machine • Cardamon area • Enough to eat all year • Accumulation of money and enough labour • Know the way of production

II

16 households – 36,5%

25 households – 56.5% • Brick house • Enough field to cultivate • Buffalo, cow, pig, chicken, goat • Electric generator, radio • Nearly enough food • Lack of labour • Lack of production techniques

III

12 households –27,5%

6 households – 14% • Wooden house • Small field area • Small quantity of buffalo, cow, goat • Food shortage 1-2 months • Lack capital, production plan and techniques

IV

8 households – 18%

2 households – 4.5% • Small house • Lack field or bad soils • No buffalo or cow • Food shortage 2-4 months • No capital, no production techniques • Neglect in working

8 711 11

1620

25 25

12

6 6 6811

2 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1997 1998 1999 2000

No.

of H

Hs Category 1

Category 2Category 3Category 4

33

4.2 Livelihood strategies

A) Changes in income sources & costs of households in Ta Chai village, Sa Pa district (Source: Village PESEA-report 2000)

10 years ago

Now (2000)

Reasons for change

Opportunities for income

*****

*****

• Agriculture is main income source

**** *** • At present: Damaging disease *** • Developed during last five years

*** ** • At present: forest products are rare *** **** • Area with growing has increased

Well to-do households • Selling food • Livestock • Embroidery • Wild forest products • Cardamon • Fruit trees ** * • Soil erosion, low productivity

*****

**

• Earlier, selling of forest products (eg medicinal herbs) to China was important

*** **** • Using new varieties has increased yields **** *** • Spreading of disease

** * • Bad soil ** **** • Cardamon area has expanded

Poor households • Wild forest products • Food/agriculture • Livestock breeding • Fruit trees • Cardamon • Work as labourer **** ** • Earlier they must sell labour many days

Cash needs

***

***** ** ****

• Investments in agricultural production and

breeding have increased ** *** • Need more day by day

Well to-do households • Invest in agriculture • Livestock production • Tools, equipment • Hire labour to work ** * • Difficult at present to find willing people

*****

*****

• Do not produce enough food

*** • Have knowledge and use new varieties ** ****

* • Were self-supporting earlier * *** • Permanent need

Poorer households • Buy food • Buy seeds • Buy fertilisers etc • Fodder • Production tools, • Medicines * • Lacked money and knowledge earlier

* = Not important, not common; ***** = Very important, a lot

All the six PESEA-reports show that poorer and richer households do not have the same ways of getting income and food for their families. Their options are different, bacuase they may for example not have access to equal amount of land. Their livelihood strategies are therefore not the same. Opportunities may also vary between different areas and districts. Here we have therefore included examples from two villages to illustrate some common patterns and trends, but also some difference between areas:

a) Ta Chai village in the mountain district of Sa Pa, and

b) Ban Quan village from the midland district of Bao Thang

Both examples give a general overview from each village. The overview includes a scoring of importance of different income opportunities and costs for better-off and poorer households. Then two specific households from each village are also described.

Richer households get money from cardamon, food production and livestock. Embroidery is an additional income source. The remaining eight poorer households still sell labour, and have to buy food. It used to be common to collect medicinal plants and sell to China, but this has decreased in importance.

34

Two households in Ta Chai village, Sa Pa (Sourse: Village PESEA report 2000) The well-off husehold of Mr Ly Phu Nhuan

This Category I household is quite a large family with several generations living together. There are six dependants, and six who can work so they have plenty of labour resources. There are 20 pigs and 4 buffaloes belonging to the household. They also have plenty of land:

• 1,2 ha rice fields (average in the commune is 0,3 ha) • 2 ha maize • 2 ha regeneration forest • 0,5 ha yellow bamboo • Cardamon 2,5 ha

Income sources Expenditure

(Rice 5.000.000) (Rice/maize 11.000.000) (Maize 6 000.000) Other food 1.010.000 Pigs 2 000.000 Clothes 6.000.000

Chicken 2 000.000 Production tools 200.000 Peach, plum 500.000 Family equipment 300.000 Cardamon 12.000.000 Production in-puts 2.320.000 Eucommia trees 200.000 Medicine 200.000 Bamboo 100.000 Marriage/funerals 600.000 Yellow bamboo 150.000 Transportation 400.000 Potato 1.000.000 Total 28 950 000 22 030.000

Surplus: 6 920

The household get their food and income completely from agricultural and livestock activities. They produce enough food (rice and maize) to last for the whole year, but no surplus. The most important additional income source is cardamon. Livestock (pigs and chicken) are also important. The household is not involived in embroidery. The main costs are clothes and production in-puts (seeds and fertilisers).

35

Income sources Expenditure

Rice 2 600 000 Food (rice/maize) 6 900 000 Maize 2 200 000 Soap 100 000 Cardamon 1 500 000 Clothes 1 500 000 Embroidery 300 000 Production eqipment 200 000 Chicken 800 000 Family equipment 100 000 Sold labour 200 000 Medicine 150 000 Salary 1 000 000 Petroleum 150 000 Forest products 200 000 Production input 650 000 Marriage, funeral, Tet 350 000 Total 8 800 000 10 100 000

Shortage: 1 300 000

The Category 4 household of Ly Phin Vang There are several generations in this houshold too. In total there are 11 members, of which six are dependants, and five are fit to work. They have only two buffaloes and four pigs. One person is member of the VMG and get a small allowance for this. They also have less land than the Category I household:

• 0,5 ha rice • 1,5 ha maize • 1 ha regeneration forest • 0,2 ha cardamon

The households gets income from a variety of activities, undertaken by the different hosuehld members. The most important income sources are cardamon-production and livestock. They don´thave so much land for cardamon as the category I household. They also get some additional income from collecting and selling forest products, from working as unskilled labourers, and from embroidery. The household does not produce enough food for the whole year, and buying additional maize and rice is a major expenditure (2.500.000 VND/year). Clothes for the 11 household members is another big cost. Production in-puts such as seeds and fertilisers add to the costs.

36

b) Changes in income sources & costs of households in Quan village, Bao Thang district (Source: Village PESEA-report 2000)

10 years ago

Now (2000)

Reasons for change

Opportunities for income

*****

***** • Better off households

pay more attention to crop production

*** ***** * *** *

• Recently fruit tree processing has been more developed

*** **** • Across border market

Well to-do households • Food production • Fish cultivation • Fruit trees • Processing fruits • Business and services • Forest products * **

***

***

***** ** • No other sources, forest not allocated

* *** ** ***** • Poor can borrow for

breeding **

Poor households • Selling labour • Wild forest products

• Food production • Animal breeding

• Fruit trees • Forest planting *

Many of the better-off households are involved in business and services Fruit trees and fish cultivation have expanded in Ban Quan village, particularly among better-off households

Many poorer households still depend on selling labour. Some have borrowed money to start small livestock production. Some poorer households collect products from the forest and sell, but less than before

37

The Category IV household of Mr Ly Van Min The household of Mr Ly Van Mi and Mrs Nguyen Thi Cuc is the poorest in Ban Quan village. Apart from the husband and wife there are two small children in this Dao household. Last year a third child fell into a water-well and died. The neighbours collected rice for them to make a funeral. Mr Min is from Lau Muong village, but moved. He was married before but had no children so he divorced. Then he came to Ban Quan village looking for work snd settled . The couple has been married since 1996, and they got the household land from Mrs Cuc´s father. The father lived in another area before the China-ear, but came to the village around 1990. His daughter, Mrs Cuc, suffered from a brain disease when she was two: so is not very quick in thoughts. They have no livestock at all and very little land:

• less than 1 sao wet rice • 0,4 ha of cassava (borrowed from the father)

They have not been supported by any programme, but get rice from the rice association, some money from the women´s association and help from neighbours and relatives. They don´t dare to take loans because it´s too risky.

Income Expenditures

Cassava, 400 kg 40,000 Food 1,360,000 Rice 100 kg 200,000 Clothes 40,000 Selling labour 1,200,000 Medicines 40,000 Total 1,440,000 Total 1,440,000

The household can only produce food for one month. Food for the remaining 11 months need to be bought, or received in support from others. They never eat meat, only, cassava and a some rice & vegetables. Their main income source is for Mr Min to work in otherhouseholds as labourer, presently about 6 km away. Mrs Cuc maily looks after the children and does not work much in the fields. The house is very small and simple, made by some sheets of bamboo. There is no electricity, and the floor is of earth.

38

The better-off household of Mr Trieu Van Man

This Category II household in Ban Quan also belong to the Dao ethnic group. There are five persons in the household. The two sons are in grade 6 and 7. The daugher left school after grade four, and work in the household. The house is next to the main road. They moved to the village from Cam Duong town in 1990. Their house is large, with electricity and cement floor. They have 1 buffalo and 3 pigs, and some chicken. They have several fruit trees. They also have quite a lot of land:

• 4 sao wet rice (0,15 ha) • 0,4 ha maize field • 0,4 ha fruit trees • Bamboo • 2 ha Styrax-trees • 3 ha cassava

From MRDP they have received eg. 100 fruit tree seedlings (longan, lichees and mango), and technical training on fruit tree growing and rice cultivation. The husband has participated in a study tour to other model farmers

Income Expenditure (Wet rice, 1.8 ton 3 600 000) (Daily meals 3 600 000) Cassava, 20 tons 3 600 000 Other food, 2 400 000 Pigs 200 kg 2 000 000 Clothes 500 000 Maize 300 kg 450 000 Education 500 000 Chicken 40 kg 800 000 Medicines 300 000 Firewood 480 000 Weedings/funerals 500 000 Fertilisers/seeds 1 500 000 Total 9 330 000 Total 8 800 000

Surplus: 530 000

The households get income and food from a variety of agricultural and livestock activities. They produce more food then they need, so they sell the surplus. The cassava produced can be sold to China or to Lao cai-markets. They also give some cassava to the pigs they raise. Livestock –pigs and chicken – also give quite a lot of income. For additional money they collect and sell firewood from their forest planations with Styrax. The main expenditures are additional food items (sugar, salt, fish sauce etc) and agricultural in-puts. They also spend money on education, clothes and weddings/funerals in equal parts.

39

4.3 Development of markets and market opportunities

Muong Khuong, Bao Thang districts

Home Village markets

Commune markets

District market

Product

B. Now B. Now B. Now B. Now Vegetables etc. 0 3 0 3 2 4 4 5 Staple food 0 2 0 0 2 4 4 5 Fruits 1 4 0 2 3 4 4 5 Timber 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non-timber products

0 4 0 0 0 5 3 5

Ind. products: +Cinnam. + Tea + Sugar

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

2 2 0

4 4 3

2 3 3

5 5 4

Reasons for change

-Policy changes - Market demands - for increased living standard and increased production - Road system become more convenient

Province, district staff group

Home Village markets

Commune markets

District market

Product

B. Now B. Now B. Now B. Now Vegetables etc. 1 1 1 3 2 5 4 5 Staple food 1 1 0 2 2 5 4 5 Fruits 2 4 0 3 4 5 4 5 Timber 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non-timber products

1 3 0 1 0 3 3 5

Ind. products: +Cinnam. + Tea + Sugar

0 0 0

3 2 2

0 0 0

0 2 0

0 2 0

0 3 0

2 2 0

3 5 1

Reasons for change

- Developed market mechanism -Good road system - Increased living standards

During the workshop, each group discussed how and why opportunities for buying and selling different goods had changed during the last ten years. Scores were given from blank to five. Blank/zero = no selling/buying. 5=buying/selling very common. B = Before (10 years ago). N = Now (2000) A) Opportunities for selling various products Marketing opportunities have developed at all levels. Note that “home-selling” exist of two kinds. 1) Middlemen and cooperative coming to collet and buy industrial products (cinnamon, tea etc) from the households. 2) And other people from the village buying products like vegetables and fruits.

Sa Pa , Bac Ha district: Opportunities for selling

Home Village markets

Commune markets

District market

Product

B. Now B. Now

B. Now B. Now

Vegetables etc. 1 3 2 3 2 5 4 5 Staple food 1 2 0 1 2 5 4 5 Fruits 1 3 0 2 3 5 4 5 Timber 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non-timber products

1 4 0 2 0 3 3 5

Ind. products: +Cinnam. + Tea + Sugar

0 0 0

3 2 2

0 0 0

0 2 0

0 2 0

0 4 0

2 2 0

3 5 1

Reasons for change

- Market machanism has developed -Better transportation and communication. - Increased market demand due to increased living standard and increased production

40

b) Where are different products available?

Sa Pa, Bac Ha district In village Commune District Province Outside

province Purchased goods

B. Now B. Now B. Now B. Now B. N. Seedlings 0 2 0 4 1 4 2 5 4 5 Breeds 0 2 1 4 1 4 3 5 4 5 Fertilizers pesticides

0 0 0 3 3 5 4 5 4 5

Tools 0 1 1 2 2 5 3 5 4 5 Food-stuff 0 1 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 Clothes 0 0 1 3 2 5 4 5 4 5 Household appliances

0 0 2 4 1 5 5 5 4 5

School items

0 0 1 2 2 4 4 5 4 5

Medicines 0 1 3 4 1 4 4 5 4 5 Reasons for change

-Market mechanism, the prices are of different levels, a lot of goods - New seedlings, breeds need more in-puts -Higher living standard (more demand , to enjoy...)

Muong Khuong, Bao Thang district Village Commune District Province Outside Purchased

goods B. N. B. Now B. Now B. Now B. Now Seedlings 0 3 0 4 2 4 3 5 4 5 Breeds 0 2 1 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 Fertilizers, pesticides

0 0 0 3 3 5 4 5 4 5

Tools 0 0 1 2 2 4 3 5 4 5 Food-stuff 0 2 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 Clothes 0 1 1 3 3 4 4 5 4 5 Household appliances

0 0 2 4 4 5 5 5 4 5

School items

0 0 1 2 2 4 4 5 4 5

Medicines 0 2 3 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 Reasons

-Market mechanism and new policies -Intensive technique applied in production

Province, district staff group

Village Commune District Province Outside Purchased goods B. N. B. Now B. Now B. Now B. Now Seedlings 0 2 0 3 1 4 2 5 5 5 Breeds 0 2 1 3 1 4 3 4 4 5 Fertilizers, pesticides

0 0 0 3 3 5 4 5 4 5

Tools 0 1 1 2 2 5 3 5 4 5 Food-stuff 0 1 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 Clothes 0 0 1 3 2 4 4 5 2 3 Household appliances

0 0 2 3 2 4 3 3 3 3

School items

0 0 1 2 2 3 3 4 3 2

Medicines 0 1 2 3 2 5 2 3 2 2 Reasons

-Market mechanism, a lot of goods -Higher living standard than before. -Intensive technique applied in production, and more in-puts are needed

Bac Ha, Bao Thang, Sa Pa districts have good market development and more products are becoming available - particularly in commune markets:

• Bac Ha is a famous plum area, tourism is developing • Bao Thang is near the province town, and has a

convenient road system • Sa Pa is a well-known tourist area

Muong Khuong district has a weaker market development because of difficult accessibility. Both selling & buying across the border to China is very important – especially for border communes!!!

41

Example of market opportunities for villagers in Sa Chai village, Muong Khuong district (Source: Village PESEA-report 2000)

Marketing opportunities have increased also in the remote village of Sa Chai in Muong Khuong. Village markets have developed. “10 years ago there were only district and commune markets with difficult transportation and poor merchandise”. At present there is convenient transportation and easy to sell things. Dealers come to communes and villages to buy” (PESEA-report)

Market map from Sa Chay PESEA-report

42

Example of market opportunities from Ban Quan village, Bao Thang district (Source: Village PESEA-report) Ban Quan village is close to Lao Cai town on the main road to Ha Noi. Middlemen come easily to the village and buy products such as cassava, pig & poultry, and timber. In the commune market food stuff (eg. fish sause, salt), medicines, tools and school items can be easily found. There are also several other markets not far away, so there is a good choice. Maize and cattle can be bought from Muong Khuong district. And at the Ha Khau market on the border, villagers can buy Chinese products such as clothes and electric tools cheaply. And other items, eg. fruits and cassava, can be sold there.

Ban Quan village market map….

43

4.4 Changes in women´s situation

Discussions during the province workshop The participants in the workshop discussed how women´s situation had changed during the least ten years. Each district group talked about changes in health, literacy, workload etc. A scoring from 1 to five was made. 1= very little/bad situation, and 5= a lot/ very good situation. Remember: Most of the participants in the discussions were men! The workshop participants found that women´s situation have improved during the last 10 years, and that women gradually are getting more important roles in social activities. A limitation noted by the participants is that 10 years ago, the women did not go to school so now their basic knowledge is low.

Sa Pa, Bac Ha group

Muong Khuong, Bao

Thang

Province, district staff

Issues

Before Now Before Now Before Now 1. School attendance of girls

2 5 2 5 2 5

2. Holding formal positions (in village and commune)

2 2 1 3 1 2

3. Workload 5 3 4 3 3 3 4. Access to credit 1 4 1 3 2 4 5. Literacy among women

1 5 1 4 2 4

6. Health situation 2 4 2 5 2 4 7. Influencing decision-making within household.

2 3 1 4 3 3

8. Participation in village social events

1 4 1 3 3 3

Women and poverty (Source: Participatory Poverty Assessment, Lao Cai, 1999)

A less positive picture of women´s situation can be found in the Lao Cai PPA from 1999. The PPA showed that:

• Women have long working hours and work harder then men. Even if men may help more nowadays, women still have heavy work loads taking care of the families, cooking, fetching water, working in the fields, and taking care of livestock

• This means that they have less time to relax, socialize and participate in meetings and eg. literacy classes and other training.

• Women have less access to school and education and drop out earlier than boys. Illiteracy is much more common among women

• Women have more problems with health due to having many children, ie. not resting enough after birth, not getting adequate and nutritious food. They are also over-worked.

• Domestic violence is common.

• Women inherit less or no land

• Ethnic minority women have little control over household money, and usually cannot spend money without husbands permission.

• Women have little say in decision-making, particularly women in remote minority areas. If their husbands want them to have more children they cannot use birth control. They seldom have a role in village affairs, or hold formal positions

44

Daily and seasonal work of women in Ban Pho 2, Bac Ha district (Source: Village PESEA report-2000) All the village PESEA-reports confirm that women work hard and long hours, and that they have a high responsibility for food production. Seasonal work load – linked to the cropping cycle - also clearly varies. Time Daily schedule

• Prepare breakfast. Feed chicken and pig • Go to work: on slope fields, rice fields or garden • Cooking and having lunch • Go to work (fields) • Back home. On the way come back home collect

firewood. Wash clothes • Cook dinner. Feed the pigs. Have dinner. Take care

of children

4-5 am 7 a.m 11 a.m 2 pm 6-7 pm 7-8.30 10 pm • Go to bed

Month* Seasonal work responsibilities Score** • .Slash and burn; Tet festival 2 • Sowing maize and pumpkin 3 • Sowing maize; Weeding soy bean 4 • Ist maize weeding; Sow hill rice; • Harvest plum fruits

5

• Transplant rice; Harvest soy bean • Harvest plum fruits

5

• Sowing summer soy bean 3 • Start harvesting maize 3 • Harvesting maize 3 • Harvesting rice 4 • Harvest rice and summer soy bean 4 • Repair house; Weddings 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 • Prepare soil for spring soy bean 4

* Lunar calendar. **A scoring from 1-5 of seasonal workload was made.

Socio-Economic impacts of the handicrafts scheme in Ta Phin commune, Sa Pa district (Source: Ha & Son, 2001, “Evaluation of Promotion of Ethnic Minority Handicraft Project, Ta Phin commune, Lao Cai”) During 2001 a special study was made for MRDP to evaluate the support to a handicrafts scheme in Ta Phin commune including a handicrafts shop. Dao and Hmong women from al villages in the commune are involved in the project. The report found that when women make a clear economic contribution to household economy they gain both in self-respect and status:

• Handicraft production has created jobs for the women that they can do when they have a gap time-wise

• Men´s willingness to take over some of the household

activities have increased. Some men now help out with cooking, washing up, livestock raising and looking after children, so that the women can spend more time to embroider. A few men have even started to embroider themselves.

“My wife is making money for the family.. so to give her more time for embroidery, I don´t mind taking time to wash

her underwear” (H´mong man)

• Women have earned more respect now that they make money, and can take more part in household decisions on eg. use of money, or if they should have more children.

• The women have also gained in confidence. They enjoy

to meet at the club/shop, and discuss different things and exchange experiences.

45

4.5 Why are people poor?

A) Views of workshop participants Reasons for poverty were discussed during the workshop. First each group made suggestions on different possible reasons for why people are poor. The suggestions varied between the three groups. Then the groups scored their suggestions. 1=not very important reason. 5 = very important reason.

Sa Pa+ Bac Ha

Muong Khuong +Bao Thang

Province and district staff

1.Lack of technology and information

1 2 1.5

2. Lack of land for cultivation and bad method of cultivation

2 4 3.5

3. Many children

1 5 2.5

4. Waiting for support from Government

4 4 2.5

5. No planning on how to spend money

4 5

6. Not changing backward cultivation practises

5 4 3

7.No annual production planning

2 5

8. Risk (suffer from disease, illness)

3 3 4

9. Social evils

5 5 4.5

10.Lack of capital

3 5 4

11. Illiteracy

2 1

12. At remote areas: difficult accessibility 1.5

The province has many different ethnic groups, each with separate language and life-style. Education levels are low so it is difficult to introduce new technologies. Traditional pactices therefore remain, particularly among poor.

“Social evils” are becoming a serious problem. Reasons are the low education level in combination with complex social conditions. Lao Cai is a border province to China, and there is also growing influence and effects of tourism in Sa Pa and Bac Ha .

Lack of capital, using traditional cultivation practices and “social evils” are the three most important explanations for poverty according, to the participants. Poor households also more at risk, and can cope less well when eg diseases occur.

46

b) Reasons for poverty according to PESEA- village studies

Less access to resources The criteria in the wealth/well-being ranking in combination with the household examples show that those in the poorest category often have less access to all the “ five types of capital”, that are important for well-being: Natural capital: • Less access to good quality land, and cannot produce enough

food. Most of the PESEA-studies in Lao Cai and all the household examples show clearly that the poorer households have less access to irrigated paddy land. And that the quality of land they have is often bad and that it is far away.

• Do not grow so much fruit and/or forest trees. It is evident that poorer households in Lao Cai often have less forest land, and less opportunities for growing trees.

• Less access to good domestic water, and eg. no good wells. The wealth/well-being ranking from Ban Quan village in Bao Thang, and Doi 2 village in Bac Ha both mention lack of wells and water as indicators for poor households.

• Do not have large livestock (eg. buffaloes for ploughing), and have less small livestock. All PESEA-reports show that the poorer households do not have as much livestock as the better-off households

• Depend more on wild forest products for income, eg. the poorer households in Ta Phin, Sa Pa depend to alarger extent on collection of medicinal plants for selling to China. And in Sa Chai village, Muong Khuong, the poorer households collect bamboo and firewood and sell.

Human capital: • Lack labour, but have many dependants. Ma Tra village in Sa

Pa, and also the workshop participants mention that having many children is typical for poor households. The PPA from Lao Cai takes up women-headed households as a special case

case where labour often is a problem. • Bad health or illness, that can be costly to treat. This is not clear

from the PESEAs and the household examples, but clearly shown in the PPA. It is also mentioned by the workshop participants.

• Lack information & knowledge, and have low education. Less access to media (TV). Less ability and knowledge both to plan for household economy and use improved techniques are mentioned in most of the PESEA-reports, and also by the workshop participants.

• Less possibility to support education of their children. Doi 2 village in Bac Ha district and Ban Quan village in Bao Thang both say that better-off households educate their children to a higher extent.

• Sell their unskilled labour to get money to buy food. Most PESEA-reports and household examples show that selling labour is an important way of getting income for the poorest households

Material capital (physical assets): • Lack good house, adequate furniture, production tools and

household goods. No, or only simple, means of transportation (eg. bicycle). Quality of hosue and furniture are important criteria in all the PESEA wealth/well-being ranking examples.

Financial capital: • Lack of capital for investment, and lack of other assets that can be

sold for money: buffalo, pigs, etc. Social capital (and relationships): • Costs for weddings/funerals take a higher proportion of income,

than for better-off households. • Coping through borrowing food or money from neighbours and

relatives. This is clearly shown in the Lao Cai PPA, and also mentioned in eg. the Category IV example from Ban Quang village in Bao Thang district.

• Less active in meetings and village social life

47

4.6 Important changes: What are the reasons?

The participants in the workshop selected some key indicators showing socio-economic improvements. Each group was free to select the indicators they found most relevant. For each indicator they discussed a) possible contribution from MRDP to the change, and b) other factors and reasons behind the change.

Programme (FCP/MRDP) support Other factors – outside MRDP Changes

Make annual production plan for the

household

Approach with new technologies so farmers

have known how to use fertilizer, new varieties, new technique in production.

Living standard has been improved

( both in economy and spirit)

• Traning on planning household economy

• Technical traning in crop cultivation.

• Providing in-puts such as tree seedlings and livestock.

• Study tours. • Document of technical

guidelines.

• Government policy to

encourage agriculture development.

• Government policy to support remote areas, poor households to economic development.

• Government policies and

support to vaccination of livestock .

• Health care for mothers and babies.

48

Section 5: Conclussion After discussing a lot of things the workshop participants gave a a general assessments of what has happened in the villages and communes supported by MRDP (ie not all villages and communes in Lao Cai):

From 1996 up to now, besides the helping of Vietnam government, MRDP have been playing an important role for development in poor villages in Lao Cai. Economic development: The villages have been supported with making production plans, improved farming technique, seedlings, breeds, and capital. so now there are no poorest Category household sin some village- Most still have poor households but food shortage has decreased to only one or two month per year (four or five month before). Social situation: Spirit life (well-being) has improved. Farmers can now watch TV, listen to radio. They spend less money and time on marriage, funeral. More children can go to school with improved situation – before they must go to the fields and work. Environment situation: The forests have been protected and developed so the water is maintained all the time. A growing problem is that using a lot of pesticides have resulted in water pollution.

49

Annex 1. List of Participants at the PESEA workshop of Lao Cai province, October 2000

Name Position

Location (village/commune/district)

Ngo Duc MRDP-coordinator DARD, Lao Cai Ninh Anh Vu DARD, Lao Cai Pham Van Hung Bao Thang To A Ty Bao Thang Nguyen Van Duong Bao Thang Ms. Sin Thi Hoa Bao Thang Nguyen Van Thanh Muong Khuong Su Khai Dan Muong Khuong Sen Chan Pin Muong Khuong Vang Seo Leng Muong Khuong Nguyen Tien Hong Bac Ha Hoang Trong Cuong Bac Ha Cu Seo Pao Bac Ha Ms. Do Thi Chinh Bac Ha Cu Seo Ho Bac Ha Thau A Chung Bac Ha Cu Seo Seng Bac Ha Ly Seo Phu Bac Ha Ms Pham Thi Duc Sa Pa Chao Sanh Tinh Sa Pa Ly Phu Sieu Sa Pa Chau A De Sa Pa Chau A Pao Sa Pa Giang A Co Sa Pa Ly Sai Pao Sa Pa Ma A Giao Sa Pa Mr Nguyen Quang Dung Adviser MRDP-PBO, MARD, Hanoi Ms. Maria Berlekom Adviser MRDP-PBO, MARD, Hanoi