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.

Living with Floods

Residential clusters and dykes in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam
Jane Chun Refugee Studies Centre University of Oxford

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 Ministers 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 Peoples 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 Peoples 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 Vietnams 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 grassroots level. Strengthen coordination with other programs, taking into consideration the broader development context of MD. Increase funding at central and local levels.