Course:CONS370/Projects/Changing livelihoods: How the H’mong People circumvent new government policies and interventions in Lào Cai, Vietnam

From UBC Wiki

This Wikipage examines the impacts of changing government policies on the livelihoods of the H’mong People, one of the 54 ethnic groups who currently reside in Lào Cai Province, upland northern Vietnam[1]. In particular, it analyzes how the policies have influenced H’mong’s land ownership, economic prosperity, political power, traditional practices, and customary rights. This page will explore the ways in which the H’mong have circumvented statutory policies in the midst of persistent socio-economic integration attempts by the State. Recommendations such as mandatory consultation and educational curricula reforms are also made to ensure adequate representation of ethnic minorities in policy-making and relevance of State policies to ethnic minorities’ cultures.

Keywords: Vietnam, H’mong, agriculture, Forestland Allocation Policy, Law on Forest Protection and Development

Introduction

Location of Lào Cai Province in northern Vietnam

Geographical context and administrative arrangements

Lào Cai Province is located in the northern mountainous region of Vietnam, bordering the Yunnan province of China[1]. There are ten districts in the province, with each district divided into smaller communes, villages, and hamlets[1]. Each unit has a People’s Committee, the administrative body that represents the Communist Party[1]. The H’mong and other ethnic minorities such as the Dao and Tày have historically occupied the province’s upland regions, whereas the ethnic majority Kinh occupy the more urbanized lowland areas[1].

Historical and cultural context of the H’mong People in Vietnam

The H’mong originally resided in the southern portion of Yunnan province, China[1]. Due to increased tension with Han Chinese, they migrated to Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand between the 18th and 19th centuries[1].

The H’mong traditional society is made up of patriarchal kinship groups where individuals are tied through blood or alliance[1]. Each household has land rights that are passed down through a patrilineal inheritance system[1][2][3]. These rights are not defined by geographic locations, allowing households to own land in other villages or districts[1][2][3].

In terms of food systems, the H’mong traditionally practiced semi-subsistence swidden agriculture[4]. Rice is their staple crop, supplemented by corn when rice cultivation is difficult or supply is limited[1]. Swidden cultivation of cassava and potatoes was also practiced to provide additional safety nets during rice shortages[1]. The H’mong also relied on forests for food, timber, medicinal plants, and cardamom cultivation[1]. In addition, before its ban in 1992, opium was cultivated as an important cash crop that allowed the H’mong to participate in trades of industrial goods and foods[1][5].

History of Government Policies

Timeline outlining government policies and interventions during the Collectivization and Đổi Mới periods
The Collectivization Period (1954 - 1986)
1950s Land collectivization Shifted all ownership of land and water to the State[1].
Creation of output contract system Stated that households need to set aside a portion of their production to give to farm cooperatives that were formed by the State[1].
1972 Government Ordinance of Forest Protection Declared forests as being owned by the State while proclaiming that it is both the State's and its citizens' responsibility to protect forests[6].
Đổi Mới (1986 - present)
1987-1988 Land Law and Resolution 10 Initiated large-scale decollectivization as households became the main production unit[1].
1991 Law of Forest Protection Stipulated the allocation of forest lands, defined as ‘land with forests or barren land intended for forestry uses'[6]. Forests were categorized into protection, special-use, and production forests[6].
1992 Program 327 Marked the first implementation of the Forestland Allocation (FLA) policy aimed at rehabilitating barren lands[6][7].
Opium and swidden agriculture ban Banned all forms of swidden practices, and the production and sale of opium[4].
1993 Land Law (Amended) The State started leasing agricultural and forest lands to individual households and organizations, providing them with Red Book Certificates[1].
1997 Permanent logging ban Permanent logging ban imposed in special-use forests and a 30-year logging ban instituted in critical watersheds[4].
1998 Program 661 Replaced Program 327 and aimed at afforesting 5 million hectares of land and protecting existing forests[8].
1998-1999 Subsidy programs The State started subsidizing commodities such as hybrid seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, kerosene, iodized salt, and basic medicines in upland communes and ethnic minority areas[4].
2001 Decision 08 Regulated the management of each forest category and specified the rights and benefits conferred to FLA participants[6][9].
2002 Hoang Lien National Park establishment Banned most human activities in the forests that fall within the park[1][4].
2004-present Law on Forest Protection and Development (previously Law of Forest Protection) Allowed participants of the Forestland Allocation Policy to own forests at no fees and recognized communal ownership of lands[6][10][11].

Tenure Arrangements

In the late 1980s, Vietnam transitioned from collectivized lands to household farming[12]. The goals of this transformation were to diversify and strengthen rural and ethnic minority economies, and to alleviate State responsibility for land management[12]. This ongoing era is called Đổi Mới (translation: Economic Renovation)[1][4][13].

Since the initiation of Đổi Mới, numerous laws and policies have been created to increase individual and private control through land allocation by the State[1][14]. In particular, the Land Law and the Law of Forest Protection have played significant roles in shaping forestland ownership[14][15]. These laws have repeatedly been amended since their inception between the late 1980s and early 1990s[14][15].

Vietnamese Red Book Certificates that grant land use rights

Land Law

The first Land Law (1987) and Resolution 10 (1988) were passed to shift the responsibility of production from farm cooperatives to individual households as an attempt to address the failures observed in the cooperative system during the Collectivization period[1][14].

The Land Law was reformed in 1993 to integrate the rural economy into national markets through the issuance of the Red Book Certificates, which grant land use rights to certificate holders[1][14][15]. Under this law, the State owns the land and grants certificates of varying duration to its citizens, with agricultural lands leased for 20 years and forest lands leased for 50 years[1][14].

Several revisions to the Land Law were made since 1993[14]. However, major changes occurred in 2003 and 2013, with State rights and control increasing at each subsequent amendment[14].

Law of Forest Protection

The Law of Forest Protection (1991) classified forest lands into 3 categories: production, protection, and special-use[6].

Production forests are mostly allocated to households and private companies, and allowed for timber harvesting under the condition that the lands remain under forest cover[3][6][15][16].

Protection and special-use forests are mostly allocated to government organizations for land and water resource protection and biodiversity conservation[6][15][16]. Special-use forests are usually located in national parks, conservation forests, or are used for social, cultural, and research purposes[6]. Timber harvesting is restricted in protection and special-use forests, with most human activities banned in special-use forests[1][15].

The Law was amended in 2004 and renamed as ‘Law on Forest Protection and Development’ (LFPD), allowing Forestland Allocation Policy participants to have ownership rights over plantation production forests [6].

The National Assembly of Vietnam, where legislations are discussed and passed

Forestland Allocation Policy (FLA)

The Land Law and the LFPD provided the legal framework for the implementation of the FLA[7][8]. Forestland use rights are distributed to 8 user groups, allowing broader use by households, organizations, and non-State enterprises[6][15][16][17].

The policy was developed due to 3 main reasons:

  1. Increasingly serious disputes between government and ethnic minorities regarding land rights[6][10]
  2. Insufficient government resources causing forest degradation to be at an all-time high[6][10].
  3. Global movements toward involving local communities in forest management[6][10].

The FLA aims to restore degraded forests and improve livelihoods by increasing local participation in forest management[6].

The FLA was first implemented through Program 327 in 1992[6]. Under the program, recipients could secure 1-year contracts for forest protection and planting[6]. They were allowed to cultivate and harvest agricultural crops on forest lands, and harvests were shared with the State[6].

Program 327 was replaced by Program 661 in 1997[8]. In addition, the State issued Decision 08 in 2001, which specified the management of each forest category and allowed FLA recipients to be forest contractors or forest owners[6][9][17]. Contractors receive short-term contracts of up to 3 years, whereas forest owners receive longer-term contracts of up to 20 years[6]. Contractors only receive use rights, while forest owners may have property or ownership rights over forests under the LFPD[6][11].

Bundle of Rights

Bundle of rights conferred to households by the 2004 Law on Forest Protection and Development[7][11]
Rights Production forest Protection forest Special-use forest
Forest Owner Forest Contractor Forest Contractor Forest Contractor
Natural Forest Plantation Forest Natural Forest Plantation Forest Natural Forest Plantation Forest Natural Forest
Access Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Withdrawal/use Limited (not allowed for endangered, precious, or rare plant species) Yes No, or depends on an agreement with the forest owner[17] Depends on an agreement with the forest owner Limited (allowed only for dead, fell, or diseased trees, or trees in high density area; not allowed for endangered, precious, or rare plant species) Limited (allowed only for supportive trees in high density areas or major trees that have reached exploitation standards) Limited (allowed only for dead or fell trees; not allowed for endangered, precious, or rare plant species; not allowed to change natural landscape; not allowed to hunt, trap, or catch animals)
Exclusion Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Management Limited (management plan needs to follow guidance and be approved by People’s Committee) Yes No No No No No
Alienation No Yes No No No No No
Duration Up to 20 years Up to 3 years Up to 3 years Up to 3 years
Bequeath Yes Yes Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear
Extinguishability Yes (except when owners fail to meet the objectives of the LFPD or when owners died without an heir) Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear

Affected Stakeholders & Power Analysis

The H’mong

H'mong women in their traditional clothing

The H’mong People account for 20% of the population of Lào Cai, mostly residing in the highlands[18]. Agriculture and forestry are deeply important for the H’mong due to their semi-subsistence farming practices[1]. The H’mong has high importance and influence on what happens on the land in the region as they directly impact and depend on the land.

Despite their large population size in upland Lào Cai, there is no distinct and organized pan-H’mong cooperative, which means households have very little legal or political influence in Lào Cai[5][19]. They are under-represented in government positions, and poor government communication and top-down approaches to policy-making often leave the H’mong greatly disadvantaged[2][5].

Despite the absence of a united front speaking out against government policy and erasure of H’mong ways of life, individual and group actions within communities have proven effective for protecting H’mong interests[5]. Many H’mong individuals often circumvent policy through infrapolitics and intentional demonstration of non-compliance toward State policies[5]. Examples of this non-compliance strategy include deadwood collection for firewood in the Hoàng Liên National Park (HLNP), in addition to the cultivation of cardamom in special-use forests[4][20]. Similar actions have been seen with mandatory education, as some H’mong villages would come together to cover for households that wish to educate their children on traditional livelihood practices at home[5].

Forest-dependent H’mong

Cardamom fruit and flower

Policies such as the Law of Forest Protection disproportionately affect H’mong living near special-use forests[21]. Among these groups are the H’mong whose traditional territories overlap with forests now designated as part of the HLNP. Within the HLNP, the H’mong account for 71% of the population present, which means they have high influence on what happens on the land[21]. Due to the fact that HLNP houses a large portion of State-classified special-use forests, the H’mong in the region now suffer from reduced legal access to traditional medicines and other forest products[19]. Additionally, the logging ban within special-use forests prevents the H’mong’s traditional timber gathering for firewood and construction purposes[19]. Even in programs meant to increase local involvement in forestry, such as the the FLA, poor communication often prevents ethnic minorities such as the H’mong from participating[6].

The passing down of knowledge: H’mong youth and elders

As power dynamics and politics change in the Vietnamese highlands, it becomes difficult to bequeath traditional knowledge and practices[22]. H’mong elders in upland Vietnam expressed concerns that there has been a loss of traditional knowledge being passed on to younger generations[22]. Many elders attribute this decline to the rapid change in young people’s cultural understanding of the world, an issue exacerbated by mandatory education that focuses on Kinh cultures and ideologies[23][22]. In addition, H’mong elders consider direct interaction with and exploration of forests to be the best way of learning about traditional medicines and edible plants - aligning with what Leanne Simpson calls 'land as pedagogy'[22][24]. However, the increase in restrictions on NTFP harvesting have limited  such educational practices[19][25].

The Dao and the Tày

The Dao and the Tày are two other prominent ethnic minorities who reside in Lào Cai Province[18]. Similar to the H’mong, they are also negatively impacted by government restrictions on timber felling and opium farming[26]. Despite the difference in their livelihood portfolios, all 3 ethnic minorities have faced similar difficulties due to government policies and loss of forest rights during collectivization[26]. The Dao and Tày have only recently begun regaining minimal rights as local authorities realized the potential for economic growth through cassia production, a common crop cultivated by the Dao and Tày[26].

These stakeholders are of high importance because upland Lào Cai is the traditional and ancestral land that they have relied on for many centuries. But their influence is low because they lack the political power and representation[18][26].

Household forest owners

The LFPD and the FLA increased ownership rights to some forest-dependent households[6][10][27]. However, most household forest owners are Kinh, allowing them to practice forestry that ignores many customary rights and traditions of ethnic minorities, including the H’mong People[27].

While the few ethnic minority households who are forest owners have more rights than non-owners, their influence is still limited by the government[6][10][27]. Since the H’mong communities’ management plans need to be approved by the State, they often find themselves more constrained in their ability to continue some customary practices once ownership is granted[6][10][27]. In this case, household forest owners have moderate power and importance because they can design a management plan for their forests, but this plan needs to align with the State’s economic and political vision[7][11].

These stakeholders also have high influence because they have economic interests in the forests: they depend on the forests for subsistence and/or lease forests to forest contractors[7][11].

Interested Stakeholders & Power Analysis

The Kinh

Kinh in the government

Among the different ethnic groups in the Lào Cai province, the Kinh are best situated to benefit from programs such as the FLA and increased accessibility to the highlands[6][23]. This is reinforced by the disproportionately high representation of Kinh within the Vietnamese municipal government[2][5]. This allows Kinh individuals in the municipal government to have high influence because policies are often more relevant to Kinh cultures[28]. In addition, Kinh government officials can own forests, making them high-importance stakeholders who wield real power[28].

Kinh traders

The majority of traders in Lào Cai are Kinh[19]. Government ownership of public city markets has limited the ability for many ethnic minorities to participate in such markets, as ethnic minorities often live outside of cities and cannot rent space within them[19]. Due to the greater density of Kinh in urban areas, many H’mong often rely on Kinh intermediaries and sell their produce to Kinh wholesalers[18][19]. In some districts, this chain of trade has allowed some traders to exploit H’mong individuals for the illegal gathering of timber and other forest products for massive profits when sold at national borders[19][29]. This has contributed to expanding economic inequalities between the Kinh and H’mong, with the potential to cause further exploitation and influence over minority livelihoods[19][23][29].

Due to the Kinh mostly being more strongly concentrated in urban population centres, their livelihoods are less affected by agricultural and forest policy than those of ethnic minorities[18][19]. They are also relatively low-influence stakeholders as they are not directly dependent on the land[18]. However, they have high importance on matters of policy development given their presence as the ethnic majority group and high government representation[2][5].

Household forest contractors

Under the LFPD, household forest contractors only obtain access and exclusion rights, along with limited use rights determined based on their agreement with the forest owners[7]. Household forest contractors have high influence as they are directly dependent on forest resources and are key players in the commodity chain. However, they have low power in decision-making due to their lack of management rights over forests and the relatively short duration of their contracts[7].

The Vietnamese government

Traditional fabric (thổ cẩm) of different ethnic minorities, including the H'mong, in Vietnam

The Vietnamese government is highly invested in the integration of ethnic minorities into Kinh practices with hopes to improve the country’s economy[4]. Decollectivization and Đổi Mới were organized with this goal in mind, instead of protecting historical tenure and traditional practices, which resulted in increased distrust and discontent toward the government by many H’mong communities[4][5]. When the State does take interest in supporting cultural practices, it is often for superficial or economic reasons, such as commodifying or appropriating minority cultures for tourism purposes[2][4]. For example, practices deemed as economically valuable and 'tourist attractions', such as alcohol distillation, have been advertised and supported[2].

Decisions on reforestation and land protection, such as the ban on logging and swidden agriculture, were ultimately decided by the majority Kinh government without H’mong consultation[13]. Under the Collectivization era, forest lands came under official government ownership, and rights to forest use were organized in temporary leases[1][6][14]. The government has full control over the agreement and terms upon which these leases are made, and may terminate them at any point at which they determine the area is needed for public interests or economic development[11]. While more recent law and policy amendments extend toward forest ownership for households participating in the FLA, the decisions on how this devolution process occurs is strictly controlled by the government[27].

In summary, the Vietnamese government has high importance and power due to their economic interests on forestry and agricultural practices in Lào Cai. They also have high influence in determining land ownership and creating policies.

Non-government organizations (NGOs)

NGOs working with ethnic minorities in Lào Cai often exist with the goal of expanding H’mong opportunities and livelihood portfolios[2]. For example, the Vietnamese NGO ‘Craft Link’ has attempted to bolster H’mong culture and close the economic gap between the H’mong and Kinh by supporting the making of traditional crafts through marketing and fair trade practices[30]. The selling of handicrafts has helped diversify H’mong livelihood practices while working in accordance with the government objective of commodifying ethnic practices to improve the highland’s economy[2][19]. However, while initiatives to improve the economic situation of the H’mong do seek to improve the H'mong's quality of life, they often fail to address the underlying inequality[2][19]. And no NGOs exist to advocate for increased rights or representation of the H’mong[2][19].

Overall, NGOs hold little to no significant power and influence in Vietnam and are often compliant with the objectives of the Vietnamese government. This stakeholder also has low importance because they do not depend and directly impact the land.

Assessment of Success and Failure of Government Interventions

Vietnamese lining up to purchase goods subsidized by the State during the Collectivization era.

Land collectivization (1950s-1980s)

The decade-long land collectivization program in the 1950s stripped many H’mong individuals of their lands and ignored many customary access rights to forests[1][4][12]. This created many conflicts between the H’mong in Lào Cai and the Vietnamese government in the urban capital of Hanoi[1][4]. Additionally, many Kinh individuals were moved to traditional H’mong lands to make ‘barren lands’ more productive[1][3]. Positions of authority in the region were also given to Kinh People[20]. This discrepancy in power could also partly be explained by the different governance systems of the Kinh and the H’mong. While the Kinh believes in hierarchical government structure with strict laws and rules, H’mong communities value elder knowledge and flexible rules[22].

Nonetheless, collectivization in the upland regions of Vietnam was limited as H’mong communities in Lào Cai were relatively isolated[5][6]. Restrictions to forest access and use were in place, but H’mong households could still carry out most of their traditional ways of life[5][6].

The beginning of the Đổi Mới era and the first Land Law (late-1980s)

During Đổi Mới, first Land Law (1987) and Resolution 10 (1988) were passed[4][13]. At this stage, citizens did not have ownership rights, only use rights[1]. While the Law and Resolution proved somewhat successful in improving the rural economy, the generated financial benefits did not flow to H’mong and other ethnic minorities communities[12][23]. Most lands were allocated to Kinh People as they have the legal papers and speak the formally-accepted national language[1][4][13]. Economic policies during Đổi Mới led to many conflicts regarding land reclamation by ethnic minorities as villages struggled to redraw old territory boundaries that the collectivization process had erased[12].

Law of Forest Protection and other forest restoration policies (early-1990s)

In the early 1990s, forest degradation throughout the country became evident[4][6]. Since the country’s reunification in 1975, post-war logging and environmental damages caused by Agent Orange degraded much of Vietnam’s forests[4]. By 1992, Vietnam had lost 12,000 hectares of its forests and the country was in dire need for forest restoration[6].

In response to forest degradation, the Law of Forest Protection (1991) and Program 327 (1992) were developed and implemented[4][6]. The State redefined ‘State forests’ and claimed management for all forests’ timber production (by the State Forest Enterprise) and forest conservation (by the Forest Inspection Department)[3]. As a response to governmental bans, the H’mong limited their practice of swidden agriculture, grew less opium, and felled less logs, but these activities were still practiced[1][20]. Many H’mong individuals also sought food such as potatoes in the mountains, while others replaced opium with cardamom, another lucrative product and cash crop[4].

The Law’s reclassification of forests into special-use, production, and protection forests, also conflicted with the existing forest classification used by the H’mong[3]. For example, forest reclassification meant that forest areas reserved for H'mong's traditional weddings were no longer accessible because they now fall into the State's classification of special-use forests[3].

The amended Land Law and the permanent logging ban (mid- to late-1990s)

Terrace rice fields in Lào Cai Province

The Land Law was amended in 1993, and Kinh citizens were given rights that resemble private property without property ownership[1]. Unfortunately, H’mong communities and other ethnic minorities were not made aware of this Certification system due to lack of communication from the State and language accessibility[1][4][13]. It can be argued that deliberate efforts were made so that ethnic minorities did not know they could hold a Red Book Certificate[10]. Nonetheless, given that the government regime at that time was only in power for less than 20 years, the blame may mainly be placed on inexperience and lack of effective communication from the government to communities in isolated regions.

Conflicts between the H’mong and the State were enhanced by the permanent logging ban in special-use forests (1997) that overlapped with H’mong territories[1]. By then, regulations were much stricter and the H’mong could no longer practice swidden agriculture, even at small scales[4]. Many H’mong individuals who continued to grow opium and practice swidden agriculture recalled violent threats from Kinh police officers, and others were arrested and deemed as criminals on their own traditional, ancestral lands[4].

Governmental subsidy programs for ethnic minorities (late-1990s)

By the late 1990s, the government initiated their subsidy programs in Lào Cai with aims to economically support ethnic minorities and prevent them from harvesting forest products[4][20]. The most prominent subsidy program was that of the hybrid rice[4][20]. For the most part, this subsidized rice had higher yields, thus provided food security to many H’mong families[4]. While the majority of the H’mong said that their cash flow has increased, many individuals also revealed that their purchasing power remained the same due to inflation[4]. Some also said that they were worse off because they could no longer access traditional and culturally significant forest products[4]. In addition, as hybrid rice seeds can only be obtained from the government, many H’mong individuals feared that they might become too dependent on the State’s support[4].

As a response, many H’mong households continued to grow a small portion of H’mong rice in their farms[4]. This rice has a much lower yield but “tastes better”, and continued to be used in H’mong ceremonies[4]. Many elders see H’mong rice as a way to maintain their identity and as a symbolic reminder for their children[4][22].

Overall, the subsidy programs were not carefully catered to the affected communities[4][20]. The government never consulted the H’mong communities and assumed that ethnic minorities needed to be financially rescued[4][31]. Phrases such as “Để miền núi bắt kịp miền xuôi” (translated: “So that the uplands can catch up with the lowlands”) further amplify existing conflicts and distrust between ethnic minorities and the State[31].

Forests in the Hoàng Liên National Park

Hoàng Liên National Park (early-2000s)

The establishment of Hoàng Liên National Park (HLNP) in 2002 was a pivotal point in the Vietnamese State’s conservation agenda[1][4][20]. Despite explicit restrictions, many H’mong households continued to cultivate their traditional cardamom within special-use forests, where conditions are favourable[20]. Some H’mong individuals stated that park officials usually turned a blind eye when cultivated cardamom was removed from the park, they just had to make sure no other forest products were harvested[20]. More noteworthy were the violent conflicts that arose among H’mong cardamom cultivators[20]. Many said that cardamom was susceptible to theft, and since cardamom property security was legally non-existent in the National Park, no meaningful solutions could be carried out besides increased surveillance[4][20]. Despite the risks, many H’mong households continue to cultivate cardamom due to its value[4].

The Forestland Allocation Policy (FLA) and the Law on Forest Protection and Development (LFPD) (since early-2000s)

The most recent FLA policy was developed in the early 2000s[4][10]. Participants of the FLA have management rights to an allocated land and/or forest in the government’s land bank[10]. The FLA requires contract holders to sustainably manage their allocated forests and contribute to the nation’s economic growth[6][10]. The legal owner of forestlands is the State, thus the contract could be terminated at any moment, and the lands returned to the State[10].

Conflicting interests persist between the government (prioritize forest restoration), Kinh contract holders (prioritize economic profits), and ethnic minority contract holders (prioritize regaining land and use rights)[6][10]. Nonetheless, only some ethnic minorities are aware of this program, thus, the majority of FLA participants are Kinh businessmen[6].

In 2004, the LFPD allowed FLA contract holders to have ownership over forests and forest products[6][10]. This granted powerful rights to Kinh contract holders, while the majority of H’mong communities remained unaware of the policy[10]. However, after numerous inputs from minority individuals, the LFPD was later amended to statutorily recognize communal ownership of forests, which aligns with traditional ethnic minority governance and ownership systems[6].

Recommendations: Route Map for Progress

Inclusive representation

The them-versus-us mindset has racialized the landscape of Vietnam where upland ethnic minorities are seen as “backward (lạc hậu), low (thấp), and primitive (nguyên thủy)” by the Kinh[31]. This asymmetric power dynamics justifies the dismissal of H’mong teachings by the government via enforcement of mandatory schooling that follows the Kinh curriculum[5]. This has led to high levels of drop-outs and low literacy rate within the H’mong community[4]. Perpetually, H’mong communities continued to be unaware of or are unable to participate in new policies and land programs due to this low literacy rate[4][5].

This can be solved with more ethnic minority representation in different aspects of society. For example, culturally relevant educational curricula that teach content in ethnic minority languages such as Việt-Mường, Tày-Thái, and Kađai can be developed[32]. More importantly, legally and socially validating ethnic minorities’ language systems would also place ethnic minority cultures in the same standing as the majority Kinh culture[33][34]. This would reduce the effects of landscape racialization and needs for ethnic minority youth to abandon their cultures for “better education” and “better job prospects”[33][34].

In addition, the majority of government policy-building and research studies often divide the Vietnamese population into the Kinh majority and a monolithic category for ethnic minorities[28]. Therefore, ethnic minority representation in the legal decision-making body should increase. This can be done through enforcing affirmative action and translating legal documents to ethnic minority languages to increase accessibility.

Effective communication: Streamlined & reciprocal

One of the largest problems in Vietnam is the lack of a communication method that effectively delivers new policies, laws, and programs from the government to isolated ethnic minorities[1][6]. This is especially important as land and forest laws in Vietnam undergo constant amendments[1]. An inclusive communication method that accommodates different language systems needs to be developed to bridge this gap. Additionally, it should not be a one-way street where information is only delivered from the government to ethnic minorities. Communication should be transparent and reciprocal. It should be mandatory that the Vietnamese government consult ethnic minorities and practice Free, Prior, and Informed Consent. This would empower ethnic minorities through the creation of meaningful opportunities to voice their concerns and give inputs to new to-be-passed laws.

National Assembly of Vietnam building in Hanoi

The role of the State

The FLA and the LFPD have great potential in devolving land rights to local ethnic minorities[4][10]. With training programs designed to align with H’mong realities and worldviews, forest devolution would give ethnic minorities more rights and allow them to develop long-term plans for sustainable economic development that coincide with their traditional practices. But more importantly, the State must end land insecurities of ethnic minorities by granting them them legal access to their ancestral lands.

Government support for locally-run businesses would also provide employment opportunities within local communities, eliminating the need for emigration for education or jobs, especially among youth[33][34]. With land and forest devolution, ethnic minorities would gain more autonomy over the activities on their territories and be able to preserve their traditional practices[1].

Lastly, the government should also standardize trade markets to prevent exploitations from Kinh traders and ensure that exchanges between the stakeholders are just and equitable[20].

The role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

Most existing NGOs that ally with ethnic minorities only focus on economic development and poverty alleviation without proper and prior consultation with the affected communities[23]. Rather than supporting ethnic minorities to conform to the government’s definition of ‘success’[23], NGOs should aim to equip ethnic minorities with the appropriate tools to define their own ‘success’. For example, increasing legal literacy may help ethnic minority individuals become more aware of the most up-to-date government policies and bureaucratic procedures.

NGOs should also act to advocate for more representation of ethnic minorities in Vietnam by establishing relationships and creating new allies for Vietnamese ethnic minorities in national or international conferences. More ambitiously, NGOs can raise global awareness of ethnic cultural practices and appeal to international organizations to support ethnic minorities in claiming more powerful rights.

Concluding statement

Since the Collectivization era, the government has created and amended policies without consulting with or seeking consent from the H’mong or other ethnic minorities[13]. The existing support is one-sided and irrelevant to the cultural context of ethnic minorities[5][13]. These policies have significantly negatively affected the livelihoods of ethnic minorities in Lào Cai, including the H’mong[1][4]. Despite this power asymmetry, the H’mong are able to disregard and circumvent government policies through non-compliance or modified traditional practices. Ultimately, showing reciprocity and the vulnerability to learn from ethnic minorities is perhaps the single most powerful action that the government can do to show respect to ethnic minorities and their responsibility as the sovereign-state.

References

  1. 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.28 1.29 1.30 1.31 1.32 1.33 1.34 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.38 1.39 1.40 Tugault-Lafleur, C. (2008). Diversifying livelihoods: Hmong use and trade of forest products in northern Vietnam [Master’s Thesis, McGill University]. Retrieved from https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/8w32r827h
  2. 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 Bonnin, Christine (2015). "Contestations in the production and trade of upland alcoholic spirits in Northern Vietnam". Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia. 30 (3): 819–859.
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Sowerwine, Jennifer (2004). "Contestations in the production and trade of upland alcoholic spirits in Northern Vietnam: Negotiating property relations in policy, meaning and practice". Conservation and Society. 2 (1): 97–136 – via JSTOR.
  4. 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.37 4.38 4.39 Turner, Sarah (2012). ""Forever Hmong": Ethnic Minority Livelihoods and Agrarian Transition in Upland Northern Vietnam". The Professional Geographer. 64: 540–553 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
  5. 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 Michaud, Jean (2012). "Hmong infrapolitics: A view from Vietnam". Ethnic and Racial Studies. 35 (11): 1853–1873 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
  6. 6.00 6.01 6.02 6.03 6.04 6.05 6.06 6.07 6.08 6.09 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.24 6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 6.29 6.30 6.31 6.32 6.33 6.34 6.35 6.36 6.37 6.38 Dang, Phung (2020). "Forestry Policy and Legitimacy: The Case of Forest Devolution in Vietnam". Journal of Asian and African studies. 55: 848–862 – via Sage Journals.
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Dang, Phung; Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid; Arts, Bas (2017). "The institutional capacity for forest devolution: The case of forest land allocation in Vietnam". Development Policy Review. 35 (6): 723–744 – via Wiley Online Library. line feed character in |title= at position 50 (help)
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 Dang, Phung; van der Zouwen, Mariëlle; Arts, Bas (2019). "Challenges of forest governance: The case of forest rehabilitation in Vietnam". Public Organization Review. 19: 425–452 – via Springer. line feed character in |title= at position 52 (help)
  9. 9.0 9.1 Vietnam National Assembly. (2001). Decision No.08/2001/QD-TTg of January 11, 2001 Issuing the regulation on management of special-use forests, protection forests and production forests, which are natural forests, National Assembly (2001). http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/vie26308.pdf
  10. 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 10.15 Nguyễn, Q.T., Đỗ, A.T., Lương, Q.H., & Vũ, H.T. (2017, March). Giao rừng cho cộng đồng và quản lý rừng cộng đồng: Rà soát việc thực hiện và đóng góp điều chỉnh Dự thảo Luật Bảo vệ và Phát triển Rừng [Forest devolution and management of community forests: Examination of the implementation and suggestions on how to improve Law on Forest Protection and Development]. Retrieved from https://nature.org.vn/vn/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Giaorungchocongdong_RECOFTC.pdf
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 Vietnam National Assembly. (2004). Law on Forest Protection and Development No.29/2004/L-CTN of December 11, 2004 on law promulgation, National Assembly (2004). http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/vie50759.pdf.
  12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Kerkvliet, Benedict; Selden, Mark (1998). "Agrarian Transformations in China and Vietnam". The China Journal. 40: 37–58 – via JSTOR.
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 Po, June; Langill, Jennifer; Turner, Sarah; Michaud, Jean (2020). "Distilling culture into commodity? The emergent homemade alcohol trade and gendered livelihoods in upland Northern Vietnam". The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology. 21 (5): 397–415 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
  14. 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 Ellett, Rachel; Phan, Diep (2020). "The emperor's law stops at the village gate". Journal of Southeast Asian Economies. 37 (3): 233–250 – via Project MUSE.
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 Nguyen, Thu; Masuda, Misa (2018). "Land use after forestland allocation and the potential for farm forestry in a mountainous region of northeast Vietnam". Small-scale Forestry. 17: 485–503 – via Springer.
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 To, Phuc; Dressler, Wolfram (2019). "Rethinking 'success': The politics of payment for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam". Land Use Policy. 81: 582–593 – via Elsevier Science Direct. line feed character in |title= at position 79 (help)
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 Dang, Phung; Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid; Arts, Bas (2018). "Forest devolution in Vietnam: From rhetoric to performance". Land Use Policy. 77: 760–774 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 Roche, Yann; Michaud, Jean (2000). "Mapping ethnic groups in Lao Cai Province, Vietnam". Asia Pacific Viewpoint. 41 (1): 101–110 – via Wiley Online Library.
  19. 19.00 19.01 19.02 19.03 19.04 19.05 19.06 19.07 19.08 19.09 19.10 19.11 19.12 Tugault-Lafleur, C., & Turner, S. (2009). Of rice and spice: Hmong livelihoods and diversification in the Northern Vietnam uplands. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265200778_Of_Rice_and_Spice_Hmong_Livelihoods_and_Diversification_in_the_Northern_Vietnam_Uplands
  20. 20.00 20.01 20.02 20.03 20.04 20.05 20.06 20.07 20.08 20.09 20.10 20.11 Tugault-Lafleur, Claire; Turner, Sarah (2009). "The price of spice: Ethnic minority livelihoods and cardamom commodity chains in upland northern Vietnam". Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography. 30 (3): 388–403 – via Wiley Online Library.
  21. 21.0 21.1 Hai, Nguyen; Hoi, Nguyen; Hoa, Tran (2008). "Territorial organization for ecotourism development in Hoang Lien National Park, Sapa District, Lao Cai Province". VNU Journal of Science. 24: 1–9 – via VNU repository. line feed character in |title= at position 55 (help)
  22. 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 Whitney, Cory; Min, Vang; Giang, Lê; Can, Vu; Barber, Keith; Lanh, Tran (2016). "Learning with elders: Human ecology and ethnobotany explorations in northern and central Vietnam". Human Organization. 75 (1): 71–86 – via ResearchGate.
  23. 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 Baulch, Bob; Truong, Chuyen; Haughton, Dominique; Haughton, Jonathan (2007). "Ethnic minority development in Vietnam". The Journal of Development Studies. 43 (7): 1151–1176 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
  24. Simpson, Leanne (2014). "Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation". Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society. 3 (3): 1–25.
  25. Turner, Sarah; Bonnin, Christine; Michaud, Jean (2015). Frontier livelihoods: Hmong in the Sino-Vietnamese borderlands (1st ed.). Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.
  26. 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 Derks, Annuska; Turner, Sarah; Hạnh, Ngô (2020). "Bastard Spice or Champagne of Cinnamon? Conflicting Value Creations along Cinnamon Commodity Chains in Northern Vietnam". Development and Change. 51 (3): 895–920 – via McGill University.
  27. 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 Sikor, Thomas; Thanh, Tran Ngoc (2007). "Exclusive versus inclusive devolution in forest management: Insights from forest land allocation in Vietnam's Central Highlands". Land Use Policy. 24 (4): 644–653 – via ScienceDirect.
  28. 28.0 28.1 28.2 Målqvist, Mats; Hoa, Dinh Thi; Liem, Nguyen Thanh; Thorson, Anna; Thomsen, Sarah (2013). "Ethnic minority health in Vietnam: a review exposing horizontal inequity". Global Health Action. 6: 1–19 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
  29. 29.0 29.1 Nguyen, H., Truong, H., Duong, T., Hoang, C., Pham, C., Nguyen, V., Nguyen, L., Luong, H., Hoang, H., Nguyen, H., Luong, T., Hoang, H., Dinh, C. and Pham, D., 2002. Assessment of The Special-Use Forest System And Its Management In Lao Cai Province. [online] Hanoi: Danish International Development Agency. Retrieved from: http://www.ethosspirit.com/uploads/2/2/8/3/22832778/environment_assessment_of_the_special_use_forest_system_and_its_management_in_lao_cai_province.
  30. Craft Link (April 12, 2021). "About Craft Link". Craft Link. Retrieved April 12, 2021.
  31. 31.0 31.1 31.2 Briain, Lonán (2018). "On Becoming Vietnamese". Musical Minorities: The Sounds of Hmong Ethnicity in Northern Vietnam. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–28. line feed character in |title= at position 40 (help)
  32. National ASEAN 2020 Committee (n.d.). "Hình ảnh cộng đồng 54 dân tộc Viêt Nam [Cultural display of the 54 ethnic groups in Vietnam]". ASEAN Vietnam. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
  33. 33.0 33.1 33.2 Phạm, T.T., Hoàng, N., Phan, T.P., & Vũ, T.T. (2013). Đi Tìm Chữ Mông: Nghiên cứu cùng cộng đồng Mông thôn Giàng Tra, xã Tả Phìn, huyện Sa Pa [Searching for the H’mong language: In Collaboration with the H’mong community in Giang Tra Village, Ta Phin Commune, Sapa District], Vietnam, 2013(Report No. 1). Retrieved from http://isee.org.vn/.
  34. 34.0 34.1 34.2 Lê, T.L. (2019). Khai thác văn hoá tộc người H’mong ở Sapa để phục vụ hoạt đồng du lịch [Exploiting the H’mong Ethnic Culture in Sapa to serve tourism activities] [Master’s thesis, Hanoi National University]. Retrieved from https://lib.hpu.edu.vn/handle/123456789/32136.


Seekiefer (Pinus halepensis) 9months-fromtop.jpg
This conservation resource was created by An Hoang, Vaniartha Vaniartha, Grace Williams. It has been viewed over {{#googleanalyticsmetrics: metric=pageviews|page=Course:CONS370/Projects/Changing livelihoods: How the H’mong People circumvent new government policies and interventions in Lào Cai, Vietnam|startDate=2006-01-01|endDate=2020-08-21}} times.It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0 International License.