Conclusions
The project was aimed at estimating the economic value of wetlands and wetland resources, and analyzing the legal and institutional frameworks relating to wetlands and the resources found therein. The research was conducted in a participative way, involving various stakeholders in the process, and included awareness-raising and training activities. The main conclusions are summarized below.
Overall, the region is richly endowed with wetland resources, with industrial and service sectors just emerging. However, to some extent, wetlands in the region have not been sustainably managed. The project results suggest that this is caused by a sectoral rather than holistic approach
to management, lack of both quantitative data on wetlands and information on wetland management, and lack of active involvement of stakeholders in wetlands management. Faced with this challenge, the project team incorporated an awareness-raising element into the research process. Participants who were involved in the research now recognize that wetlands are a major source of wealth in the Mekong Delta; they regard them as important natural environments that are key to rural development and social equity.
Natural resources in wetland areas consist not only of ecosystem components, such as land, water, forests, wildlife, aquatic biological resources and waterbodies, but also their environmental functions, such as water distribution, prevention of saltwater invasion, fish migration and sedimentation. To date, these values have not been properly understood or accurately estimated.
In this context, this project has demonstrated that accurate valuation could help generate options for wise use and sustainable management of wetlands and their resources. It was noted that natural resources would continue to drive the region’s economy for decades to come; therefore, research to support wise use and sustainable management of wetlands is crucial. From a regional perspective, these processes are governed by the entire river system. From a local perspective, these processes are central to the livelihood of the majority of the population, be they farmers, fishers, aquaculturists, mangrove and inland wetland forest dwellers, boat operators on the river and canal network, or a manager of a bird sanctuary welcoming ecotourists.
There have been rapid changes to the environment and natural resource management systems in wetland areas of the Mekong Delta, especially since the Doi Moi in 1986. Natural resource management was observed to be moving in two directions. One is exploitation for economic activities—for example, the reclamation of wetlands for agriculture, the expansion of the area dedicated to shrimp ponds in the coastal mangrove forests, the expansion of the canal and dike network, and the development of infrastructure. The other is the natural resource and environmental protection programs, which focus on the establishment of national parks and natural reserves.
A review of the inventory and classification of wetlands shows a wide diversity of wetland
types, from inland depressions to coastal areas.
However, it is clear that existing terminology has not been consistently applied in official documents. The most recent classification, although comprehensive and based strongly on ecology, has not been very useful in local management because it was not accompanied by appropriate guidelines. Such guidelines would have demonstrated how to develop measures for wise use and sustainable management of different types of wetlands.
In many cases, agricultural development in the Mekong Delta is seen as central to rural development. This perspective emerged in a period when the country faced food security problems, and was continually supported by agricultural development agencies. In the study sites selected for this research project, agriculture, although a dynamic sub-system of natural resource management, was not regarded as the optimal use of land and was not the most important economic sector. Farmers seemed to be more able to operate in the market than were government agricultural agencies; in the Mekong Delta, except for the alluvial and the ridge zone, a large proportion of land with soils classified by government as ‘problematic’ for agriculture has been converted by local farmers to aquaculture.
An overly sectoral approach to natural resource management has seen two major trends develop in Vietnam. On the one hand, agriculture and aquaculture have been perceived as a response to rural economic growth and poverty alleviation, leading to short-term exploitation of natural resources while ignoring long-term consequences.
On the other hand, natural resource management has been confined to protected areas or ‘hot spots’, resulting in ‘islands’ of protected areas surrounded and negatively impacted by external development and influences. Natural resource management in Vietnam has not been regarded in the larger context of land use and resource management; this has resulted in separate and contradictory results.
The limitations of the sectoral approaches have been manifested by the failure of government projects. Conflicts relating to resource use have also resulted. For example, conflict has arisen when local villagers, pursuing the economic opportunities of shrimp farming, have destroyed the dikes built for the prevention of salt invasion into agricultural land.
In spite of the potential offered by wetlands and government assistance, many rural communities in the Mekong Delta remain mired in poverty.
Resources are often mismanaged and degraded, and new production systems are not well developed. The main assumption made here is that mismanagement is a result of a lack of awareness of wetlands’ values. Consideration of the relationship between resources, the economy and the policy and legal framework in wetland management remains a challenge.
Recommendations
1. Improve data and information use and develop management support tools.
Improved links between the generation of data and information, particularly at the district level, and the acquisition of data and information related to end-user needs would assist decision-making. Decision-support tools that improve information capture would also assist decision-making at the district level, and new methods and tools for information management would increase the effectiveness and efficiency of sustainable wetland management practices.
2. Promote institutional linkages and develop forums and networks for sustainable management practice for wetlands.
Wetlands are open systems that are currently managed by various stakeholders. An integrated approach is required to address the issues of multiple stakeholders and resource users in wetland areas. Networking has proven to be a powerful tool to promote this approach. Networking would provide a channel for not only sharing experiences and capitalizing on empirical data, but also for the re-negotiation process among wetland user groups. These user groups are not confined by administrative boundaries (commune, district and even country);
therefore, networking should be extended to cover regional trends that can affect the livelihood of local people. A local level forum would enable stakeholders to share perceptions about wetland management issues. Wetland development projects might be more successful if they involved both forum facilitators and networking aimed at sustainable management practices.
3. Develop local co-management systems.
Although a process of land use privatization has been implemented, many wetlands remain as a common resource. Production on private land often relies on common property resources, such as saline water for aquaculture, fresh water for rice production, and dilution and transport of non-point pollution. As a result, access to and control over common property resources becomes a major issue, especially for rural people, since these common resources are often integral to the production of rice and fish. Recent trends however have shown opportunities for co-management. Since wetlands are open systems, co-management can help in the development of good management practices by helping to overcome the current problem where too much emphasis is placed on planning and not enough on monitoring. For wetland development projects, the concerns are not only on monitoring performance of the system but also on the ecological impacts.
A set of locally-based criteria and indicators can be used to activate a participatory approach in natural resource management.
Such systems, however, require that relevant issues are brought to the fore and clarified, and appropriate approaches to involving local wetland users in the monitoring process are developed and implemented, so that information can be captured with sufficient accuracy and depth.
Acknowledgements
The preparation of the regional project was made with the valuable assistance of Dr Magnus Torell, who served at the time as Project Leader at the WorldFish Center. The project concept was discussed with regional colleagues at several workshops. In the implementation of the Vietnam Component, consultations were made through several national and provincial workshops. The research group would particularly like to acknowledge the support of Mr Nguyen Hong Toan, Secretary of VNMC.
Research activities have been supported by various national, provincial and district agencies, especially the VNMC, the MOST, the Provincial People’s Committee of Ben Tre, the Provincial People’s Committee of Long An. The input of Dr Blake D. Ratner of the WorldFish Center was highly valued.
References
Anh, Nguyen Ngoc. 2001. Water management in the Mekong Delta. Paper presented at the Workshop on Wetland Studies, Hanoi, 5-6 October 2000.
CSA (Canadian Space Agency). 2000. Remote sensing data of the flood in the Lower Mekong Basin.
Communications Directorate, Canadian Space Agency, 6767 Route de l’Aéroport Saint-Hubert, Québec, J3Y 8Y9, CANADA.
MONRE (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment).
2004. Environmental Status Report for 2003. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Hanoi.
Thinh, Phan Trong. 2002. Wetland classification as a tool for wetland inventory and management in the Mekong Delta. Paper presented at the Workshop on Wetland studies, Hanoi 5-6 October 2000.
UNESCO. 1994. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, Iran 2.2.1971), as amended by the Protocol on 3 December 1982 and the amendments of 28 May 1987, as of July 1994. Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs, UNESCO. [Online].
Available: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ramsar/key_
conv_e.html [2001, July 19].
Appendix 1. The Research Group
The Wetland Management Research Group (WMRG) was established with the participation of various institutions, including faculty members of NLU’s Fisheries, Forestry and Economics Department, the Sub-Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (Sub-FIPI), the Sub-Institute for Water Resources Planning and Management (Sub-IWRPM), and the Research Institute for Aquaculture (RIA-2). The WMRG was divided into two sub-groups to implement the two components of the research. The Policy, Legal and Institutional component was led by Ngo An, a researcher of the Sub-FIPI, and the Economic Valuation component was led by Dr Dang Thanh Ha from Nong Lam University. Members of the Economic Valuation working group include researchers from different disciplines. In addition, the economic working group collaborated with local staff from DOSTE, DARD, DOF, and PC of Thanh Phu District.
(1) Research coordination
Dr Trinh Truong Giang (NLU)
Mr Nguyen Chi Thanh (Sub-FIPI)
Mr Hoang Huu Cai (UAF) (NLU)
(2) Policy, Legal and Institutional Research Sub-group
Mr Do Quang Tien Vuong (RIA-2)
Dr Le Quang Thong (NLU)
Dr Nguyen Van Tu (NLU)
Mr Ngo An (Sub-FIPI)
Mr Nguyen Ngoc Anh (Sub-IWRPM)
Mr Pham Gia Hien (Sub-IWRPM)
Mr Pham Trong Thinh (Sub-FIPI)
(3) Economic Valuation Research Group
Dr Dang Thanh Ha (NLU)
Dr Le Thanh Hung (UAF) (NLU)
Mr Le Ba Toan (UAF) (NLU)
Mr Nguyen Duc Binh (UAF) (NLU)
Mr Nguyen Tan Chung (UAF) (NLU)
Mr Tran Ai Quoc (UAF) (NLU)
Mr Tran Kim Hang (RIA-2)
Mr Tran Van My (UAF) (NLU)