Living with FloodsResidential clusters and dykes in the

Mekong Delta, Vietnam

Jane Chun

Refugee Studies Centre

University of Oxford

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this paper are the views of the authors and do

not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), or

its Board of Governors, or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee

the accuracy of the data included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any

consequence of their use. The countries listed in this paper do not imply any view on

ADB's part as to sovereignty or independent status or necessarily conform to ADB's

terminology.

Framing the study: aims

investigate the capacity of current legal and normative frameworks – principally at the national level - to protect the rights of people vulnerable to environmental displacement

strengthening and enhancing national-level

different configurations of governance and

government

Framing the study: case studies

Global south focus

environmental displacement most severe

Kenya, Ghana, Bangladesh, Vietnam

representative sample of ‘environmentally-stressed’

countries

changing environmental conditions

internal and regional migratory impacts (Kenya and Ghana)

scenarios of slow onset change - rising sea levels (Vietnam and

Bangladesh) and desertification (Kenya and Ghana)

legal and normative rights protection apparatus

Framing the study: data collection & methods

Data Documents: legal and normative instruments; policy reports and

documents on environmental issues; local research publications; web

searches

Interviews: government policy makers; international and UN agencies;

NGOs, civil society and human rights organisations

Country reports country overview

recent and current migratory patterns, processes, policies

legal/normative protection and rights-based instruments related to

migration

initiatives to enhance norms and instruments; ‘compliance’ with 1998

Guiding Principles; capacity to address environmental displacement

obstacles to implementation

‘protection gaps’

Context: Vietnam

vulnerable to SLR and saline water

intrusion

1m SLR: inundate 9.3% of total land

surface

Mekong Delta would lose 37.8% of its land

6th highest proportion of population living

in LECZ

disaster-prone: annual average of 6-10

typhoons and tropical depressions

Source: Evers, H-D., Benedikter, S.,

Strategic Group Formation in the

Mekong Delta – The Development of

a Modern Hydraulic Society, Center

for Development Research (ZEF),

University of Bonn, February 2009.

Migration policies and rights regimes: Vietnam

Migration histories and politics shape the migration policies

and rights regimes for the environmentally displaced

history of state-managed internal migration

1976-1995: ~4.57 million people resettled (mostly short distances)

1994-1999: 2,105,000 people resettled

1999 census: 4.5 million migrants (spontaneous and resettled)

2009 census: 6.6 million migrants (excluding <6 months prior, seasonal

and unregistered)

household registration system – ho khau

regulate population mobility

residents and non-residents do not have same access to basic services

(health care, education, home ownership)

4 categories: KT1-4

‘Living with Floods’: Residential Clusters Programs

Policy to mitigate negative effects of annual floods

predecessors 1996-2001:

residential clusters

in An Giang province, 16,887 households were resettled in

residential clusters and dykes

loan program for poor farmers to raise housing

foundations

in An Giang province, 97,085 households received loans

(USD 316 each), but only 5-10% repayment rate

loans used for other purposes – making purchases and

paying off other debts

Living with Floods: Residential clusters and dykes

Residential cluster Residential dyke

‘Living with Floods’: Residential Clusters Programs

recognizes that while floods are essential to livelihoods and

economic development, flood risks should be mitigated

new policies and programs to relocate resource-poor

households living in flood-prone areas into new residential

clusters / dykes within Mekong Delta (since 2001)

Prime Minister’s decision on the ‘socio-economic development

of the Mekong Delta region in the 2001-2005 period’ (2001)

from 2001-2007, 1,043 residential clusters /dykes were built

containing 73,111 houses to accommodate 200,000

households.

plans to build 178 more clusters to house 57,257 households

by 2013

within provincial boundaries

Residential clusters/dykes: Preferential households

Removal of Canal Houses to Secure Environmental Sanitation

of An Giang province from 2006-2010

Five year interest free loan to purchase housing plot and

house frame. Repayment from Y6 to the end of Y10

Preferential households:

1. Households subject to preferential policy, poor households fleeing from

floods and bank erosion (with poverty certification).

2. Households that own land or houses in locations marked for residential

cluster / dyke construction, and as a result must vacate the premise for

site clearance.

3. Households subject to preferential hardship policy (without poverty

certification), without housing foundations for overcoming floods and

having only temporary accommodation.

4. Households of above target group but on the poverty line.

Residential clusters/dykes: Administrative process

1. Household lodges application.

2. Village self-management board deliberates.

3. Commune residential cluster / dyke Steering Committee

deliberates.

4. District residential cluster / dyke Steering Committee

deliberates.

5. District People’s Committee issues decision and signs

hand-over minutes of housing foundations and houses.

6. Household signs contract for buying foundation and house

on credit with a bank.

Residential clusters/dykes: Procedural issues

discrepancies in designation of who is poor or not poor

lack of community participation and low awareness among

community members

posting of drawings in local People’s Committee offices increased

input from community, particularly where there are community

members who knowledgeable on construction

difficult to gather people in one place at same time when they are

scattered and living in areas that are hard to access

Sources: Adam Fforde 2003, AusAID 2004, Dun 2009, Pham 2007

Results: Cons

loan-centered structure of program may push already poor

households deeper into poverty

lack of basic infrastructure such as schools, health care, or water

and sewage treatment facilities

dissolution of social assets / networks

removed from former livelihoods, competition with residents

makes securing job difficult and lowers wages

additional expenditures with per-urban lifestyle

unable to breed livestock or plant home garden

lack of ability to make repayments

Results: Pros

All surveyed households believed new houses were more sturdy and

comfortable because:

1. No need for evacuation during flooding season

2. No threat of house collapsing or children drowning in the

clusters / dykes

3. No concerns about diseases whereas before, they were in

constant contact with dirty (flood) water

4. Opportunities to enjoy urban living conditions such as clean

water, electricity, cultural exchange, markets, etc.

National Strategy for Natural Disaster Prevention,

Response and Mitigation to 2020

Vietnam’s national policy framework for DM

address sudden onset extreme climate events and minimize their

impact on sustainable development

leading agencies: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

(MARD) and the Central Committee for Flood and Storm Control

(CCFSC)

importance of community participation, mitigating loss of life and

household assets, and ‘living with floods’ strategy

includes relocation plan for 150,000 households; decrease

poverty rates in relocated areas by 15%

relocation plan not yet underway; central funding not yet available

Recommendations

To ensure sustainability and improvement in quality of life in

residential clusters/dykes, urban planning should be improved

taking into account housing and community infrastructure.

Participation of communities throughout process through

community meetings in accessible locations with clear visual

materials and explanations of conditions, with fair representation

of different groups. Consultation with both resettled and host

communities.

Develop clear criteria for assessment of resettlement process,

and continually monitor. This will also shed light on needs and

arising issues.

Increase funding to local mass organizations to assist at grass-

roots level.

Strengthen coordination with other programs, taking into

consideration the broader development context of MD.

Increase funding at central and local levels.