THE CENTRAL HIGHLANDS POVERTY REDUCTION PROJECT
Dak Nong, Dak Lak, Gia Lai, Kon Tum, Quang Ngai & Quang Nam
[Draft 2]
[THIS DRAFT IS FOR CONSULTATION ONLY, PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE]
August 2013
List of Tables, Figures and Boxes 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 5
Abbreviation 6
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 10
1.1 Context of the Social Assessment 10
1.2 Assessment Objectives 11
1.3 Assessment Methodology 11
1.3.1 Theoretical framework 11
1.3.2 Data collection tools 16
1.3.3 Sampling procedure and sampling size 17
CHAPTER 2: KEY FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSMENT 19
2.1 Vulnerable groups, livelihoods capital and external factors that increase the vulnerability 19
2.1.1 Vulnerability of Project’s target groups 20
2.1.2 Accessibility to livelihood funding of target groups in project areas 24
2.1.3 Some environmental/external factors contribute to the vulnerability of disadvantaged groups in project areas 39
2.2 Organizational structures and processes 42
2.2.1 Organizational structures having potential effects on the success of the Project implementation 43
2.2.2 Policies, processes and institutions: their levels of impacts on the participation and benefits of vulnerable target groups 47
2.2.3 Some cultural, ritual practices affecting the Project implementation 53
2.3 Verifying the suitability of the CHPov Project’s livelihood strategies 57
2.3.1 Remarkable feedbacks on infrastructure development supports 57
2.3.2 Remarkable feedbacks on livelihood development supports 59
2.3.3 Remarkable feedbacks on capacity building activities and project management 61
CHAPTER 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 63
3.1 Conclusions 63
3.2 Recommendations 65
3.2.1. Recommendations to ensure the participation and benefits for vulnerable target groups 65
3.2.2. Recommendations on other stakeholders that could have direct and indirect influences on the Project's success 67
3.3. Notes to the report 69
References 70
Appendix 1: Consultation guidance framework 71
Appendix 2: List of provinces/districts/communes in CHPov Project 75
Appendix 3: List of interviewees and participants in group discussions 76
List of Tables, Figures and Boxes
Table 1.1: Glossary of key terms used in the SLA framework 13
Table 2.1: District poverty rates in project areas, 2010 20
Table 2.2: Access to utilities (electricity, water, and sanitation) by ethnic groups (2010) 22
Table 2.3: Poverty rate by genders of household heads in project areas (2010) 23
Table 2.4: Access to utilities (electricity, clean water, sanitation) of households in project areas, clustered by genders of household heads (2010) 23
Table 2.5: Land ownership and usage, by ethnic groups (2010) 24
Table 2.6: Land ownership and usage, by genders (2010) 25
Table 2.7: Number of laborers in households in project areas, by ethnic groups (2011) 28
Table 2.8: Number of workers in households, by genders of household heads (2011) 28
Table 2.9: Quality of workforce in project areas – the highest qualification/education of household heads (2010) 30
Table 2.10: Labor quality reflecting in qualification/education of household heads, by genders (2010) 31
Table 2.11: Infrastructure serving agricultural production in project areas (2010) 32
Table 2.12: Households’ access to financial capital in (July 1, 2011) 34
Table 2.13: Households’ access to financial capital, by genders of household heads (July 1, 2011) 36
Table 2.14. Ownership of telecommunication devices and TVs in project areas, by ethnic groups (2010) 38
Table 2.15: Ownership of telecommunication devices in project areas, by genders of household heads 39
Figure 1.1: Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) 11
Figure 2.1: Ethnic presence in Project areass 20
Figure 2.2 Poverty rate by ethnic groups, 2010 21
Figure 2.3: Proportion of land used for different crops (%), by genders of household heads (2010) 26
Figure 2.4: Percentage of children with malnutrition in project areas (2011) 29
Figure 2.5: Proportion of households owning agriculture machines and equipment in project provinces (2010) 33
Box 2.1: Limited access to land and water in project areas 27
Box 2.2: Discussions on division of labor between men and women in project areas 29
Box 2.3: Discussions on qualification/education of EM groups in project areas 30
Box 2.4: Discussion on saving practices of disadvantaged groups in project areas 34
Box 2.5: Community spirit is an important social capital of migrant EMs in project areas 37
Box 2.6: Discussion on impacts of migrant waves 41
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The consultants conducted this survey and developed the “Social Assessment” for the Poverty Reduction in the Central Highlands Project (CHPov) under the mandate of the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) and World Bank (WB). During our research, we have received enormous and continuous supports from related agencies, officers at all levels and local people in the surveyed areas.
First, we would like to express our great appreciation to the Ministry of Planning and Investment, the Project Preparation Units at the central, provincial and district levels and World Bank for their insightful comments and generous supports for the research team.
We would also like to thank the People Committee at all levels, representatives of Departments/Boards/Sectors in 6 project provinces for providing and sharing practical, specific and useful information to develop this report. At the same time, the research team is grateful to receive supports from the local authorities to set up necessary arrangements for our work in the field and introduce the team to local people and businesses in the surveyed areas.
Finally, we would like to extend our special thanks to the local people for their invaluable time participating in our interviews, focused group discussion and their activeness in providing information for the research team to complete our key findings and verifying the accuracy of such statements related to the social issues of the CHPov.
Due to time and resource constraints, this Assessment may not cover all aspects that could influence the implementation of the CHPov. For further improvement of research, analysis and impact evaluation, we hope to receive constructive comments from those interested in the content of this report.
Abbreviation
ADB / : / Asia Development BankAgribank / : / Vietnam Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
AusAID / : / The Australian Agency for International Development
CPO / : / Central Project Office
CDB / : / Community Development Board
CEMA / : / Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs
CH / : / The Central Highlands
CHPov / : / Central Highlands Poverty Reduction Project/ the Project
EM / : / Ethnic Minority
FLITCH / : / Forests for Livelihood Improvement in The Central Highlands
FS / : / Feasibility Study
GoV / : / Government of Vietnam
GSO / : / General Statistics Office
IFAD / : / The International Fund for Agricultural Development
ISP / : / Supporting program for Program 135-II in Quang Ngai
M&E / : / Monitoring and Evaluation
MARD/DARD / : / Ministry/Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
MIS / : / Management Information System
MOC / : / Ministry of Construction
MOF/DOF / : / Ministry/Department of Finance
MOLISA/DOLISA / : / Ministry of /Department of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs
MOST / : / Ministry of Science and Technology
MOT / : / Ministry of Transport
MPI/DPI / : / Ministry/Department of Planning and Investment
NGOs / : / Non-governmental organizations
NTM / : / National targeted program on building a new countryside
ODA / : / Official Development Assistance
OP / : / Operation Policy
P135 / : / The Program 135
P30a / : / The Program 30a
PDO / : / Project Development Objective
PIM / : / Project Implementation Manual
PMU / : / Project Management Unit
PPC / : / Province People’s Committee
PPU / : / Project Preparation Unit
ToRs / : / Term of references
RPF / : / Resettlement Policy Framework
UN / : / United Nations
UNDP / : / United Nations Development Program
USD / : / United States Dollar
VBSP / : / Vietnam’s Bank for Social Policy
VHLSS 2010 / : / Viet Nam Household Living Standards Survey 2010
VND / : / Vietnam Dong
WB / : / World Bank
WB3 / : / Forest Sector Development Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Project Development Objective (PDO) of the Poverty Reduction in the Central Highlands Project (CHPov Project) is to “increase the livelihood opportunity for poor households and communities in 26 districts of 06 provinces in Project area”, comprising of four components:(1) infrastructure development, (2) livelihood development, (3) connective infrastructure development, capacity building and communication, and (4) project management. The Project is deployed in 26 districts, located in 6 provinces: Dak Nong, Dak Lak, Gia Lai, Kon Tum, Quang Nam and Quang Ngai. Implementing agency of the Project is Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) and the Donor is World Bank (WB). Estimated project duration is 5 years (2014 to 2018) with total project budget amounting USD165 million; of which USD 150 million (90%) is from the ODA fund, and USD 15 million (10%) is counterpart fund of the Vietnamese Government.
Project beneficiaries are poor households, of which the poor ethnic minorities (EM) people and women are the vulnerable target groups that are most concerned in this project. Among these target groups, there are several differences in terms of poverty characteristics, level of vulnerability and stakeholders’ opinions on potential impacts of the Project on them. Thus, a Social Assessment is of necessity and has been conducted in order to collect data to form the foundation for the formulation of policy framework with the engagement of all stakeholders, ensuring that they all contribute sufficiently to the designing and formulating of project implementation mechanism. The objective of assessment study is to produce an overall analysis on various strategies/measures/methods to ensure that project objective is suitable to the social context with specific objectives as follows: (i) identify and describe the target groups bearing the risk of being eliminated and not be able to benefit from the Project; (ii) identify major stakeholders in the Project and their potential influence to the project implementation; (iii) identify procedures, institutional and cultural features affecting the participation of the beneficiaries; (iv) testify the suitability level of the livelihood enhancement strategies; and basing on that, (v) propose recommendations on intervention strategy, project designing rules to ensure that all the vulnerable target groups will be able to participate sufficiently in and benefit from the Project’s interventions as expected.
In order to realize the above-mentioned objectives, this Assessment is designed basing on the theoretical framework of Sustainable Livelihood Approach (by DFID and AusAID), the findings are resulted from secondary statistics and primary data collected from survey sites within the project areas (using qualitative tools such as in-depth interviews, focus group discussions). Main findings of this Assessment include:
Regarding vulnerable target groups, study shows that inhabitants in project areas are poorer than average levels of the locality and the country. VHLSS 2010 reveal s that the poverty rate in project areas (rural area) is 2.5 times higher than the average rate in rural area nationwide and average income in project areas is only as 70-80% high as that figure nationwide. From ethnological perspective, EM groups are poorer ones (compared to Kinh people). From gender perspective, the group of female-headed households is poorer than male-headed ones.
At the same time, the study shows that the access of disadvantaged groups ( EMs, female-headed households) to the livelihood resources (natural resource, human resource, capital resource, financial resource and social resouce) is more limited than others. Additionally, natural disasters, epidemics, uncontrolled migration to project areas (particularly in recent years) also impact largely and negatively to the life and livelihoods of benefited groups in the Project area.
Regarding organizational structure, it can be classified into five categories: (1) Entities leading the implementation process of the Project (People’s Committee at multiple levels with the direct participation of Chairman or Vice Chairman of People’s Committee, who play the decisive role to the success of the Project); (2) Entities implementing the Project (special attention have been drawn regarding capacity and human resource at MPUs at all levels); (3) Entities supporting the project implentation (departments, sectoral agencies and mass organizations (Women’s Union, Farmer’s Union); they can only participate effectively in project implementation if there is consistent direction from People’s Committees as well as sufficient consideration regarding their current roles, capcacity, and workload); (4) Communal entities (currently, their roles has not been given adequate importance. The project activities will enhance their role gradually); (5) Other entities (e.g.: private manufacturing sector, service providers play a significant role in project activities. However, they are confronting certain difficulties in linking players, seeking local labors qualified to the job requirement of the Project, etc.)
Regarding mechanism, procedures and policies, the implementation of the Project is subject to the concurrent existent of several poverty reduction policies/ programs in the project area. Though these activities are fairly diversified, they remain limited in terms of resources, approaching methods (lacking the participation of stakeholders), etc. Additionally, targeted communities still remain their communal gathering characteristics with the village autonomy and the important influence of village heads, the heavy rituals, customs and festival, the outdated ways of living and manufacturing from the old time when there was not much pressure on their living, as well as stereotype about the Project targeted groups (particularly local EM groups). These factors will have certain disturbance to livelihooddevelopment actitivies of the Project.
Regarding the suitability of the Project, feedbacks are collected on three areas: (1) the project support to infrastructure development, (2) the project support to livelihood enhancement/development, and (3) the activities to enhance capacity. Generally, the feedbacks have high opinion on the proposed project design, intervention methods and projection on major activities of the Project. It is agreed upon that the construction of infrastructure will be implemented in the direction to support livelihood development. However, it needs a clearer and more detailed instruction on some issues such as the linkage among constructions, biding methods with the engagement of community, regulations on the employing of local labors, etc. In terms of livelihood development activities, there arise quite a few concerns and questions regarding the collective production models. The most concerned issue is how to avoid the formality and ineffectiveness of the former collective production (namely cooperatives) model. Content and scope of the support need designing to be suitable to EM people with special attention is drawn to technical assistance, repeated training, new production model introduction, providing breeds and agricultural materials. The question about sustainability also needs special concern of stakeholders. Regarding the capacity enhancement and project management, the most prominent concerns are on the importance of capacity enhancement, delegating specialized officers beside part-time positions and the participation of commune level as investment owner.