DIFFERENCES IN IMPLEMENTation OF COMMUNITY-BASED COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN THE TAM GIANG LAGOON, THUA THIEN HUE, VIETNAM CROSS-CASE Studies IN QUANGTHAI AND DIENHAI COMMUNES By
Ho thi huong lan
DR. PIERLUIGI MONTALBANO DR. THAI THANH HA
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
at the Roskilde University of Denmark
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT To complete this thesis, I have received much support from all my lecturers, my supervisors and my colleagues under Asia-Link Program as well as my University in Hue City, Vietnam. I would like to acknowledge my debt to them for giving me valuable knowledge, information, experience and advices. I am especially grateful to my respectable lecturer, Prof. Dr. Pietro Masina, who takes profound interests for Asia-Link program’s students and me. Besides, many heartfelt thanks go to my supervisors, Dr. Pierluigi Montalbalno and Dr. Thai Thanh Ha, who guided and gave invaluable comments to me during the process of doing the thesis. Finally, I would like to thank the EU ASIA-LINK Project for giving me a chance to attend this program.
ABSTRACT As a big lagoon system with a diversified ecology, Tam Giang lagoon brings back the livelihoods for the local people who live in or around this area. In recent years, this lagoon system has seriously been affected, leading to exhausted lagoon resources by the appearance of the utilization of the destructive gears and overexploitation. This paper focuses on exploring the process of implementation of CBCRM in two communes: Quang Thai and Dien Hai. The purpose of this study is to find the differences in using CBCRM between the two communes basing on the comparative outlook. Through combining of quantitative and qualitative techniques in PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal) method, the result of the study reflects the differences in the process of implementing CBCRM in the communes depending on the signification of each community. After that, this paper gives some solutions which tend to improve the local people’s livelihoods and conserve the lagoon resources in these communes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TITLE
TITLE PAGE....................................................................................................................i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................ ii ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLE, FIGURE AND DIAGRAMS .........................................................vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... vii
LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................5
2.1. Community based natural resources management .....................................................5 2.2. Sustainable livelihoods ...............................................................................................9 2. 3. Empirical data through applying PRA in CBCRM from previous researches ........14 3.
3.1. Designing the conceptual framework for comparing the differences in implementing CBCRM in two communes .............................................................................................17 3.2. Used methods ...........................................................................................................18 4.
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ..........................................................29
4.1. The sketchy situation of the socio-economic development in Tam Giang lagoon area.......................................................................................................................29 4.2. Fishing and CBCRM in Trung Lang village, Quang Thai commune ......................33 4.3. Fishing and CBCRM in Dien Hai commune............................................................39
4.4. Differences in implementing the lagoon resources management between Quang Thai and Dien Hai communes ........................................................................................................45 5.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................57
5.1 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................57 5.2 Recommendations .....................................................................................................59 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................61 APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................63
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES and diagrams Table 1 .............................................................................................................................10 Table 2 .............................................................................................................................32 Table 3 .............................................................................................................................37 Table 4 .............................................................................................................................47 Table 5 .............................................................................................................................51 Table 6 .............................................................................................................................53 Table 7 .............................................................................................................................54 Table 8 .............................................................................................................................56 Figure 1............................................................................................................................20 Figure 2............................................................................................................................25 Figure 3............................................................................................................................26 Figure 4............................................................................................................................30 Figure 5 ...........................................................................................................................31 Figure 6............................................................................................................................35 Figure 7............................................................................................................................44 Diagram 1 ........................................................................................................................17 Diagram 2 ........................................................................................................................37 Diagram 3 ........................................................................................................................49 Diagram 4 ........................................................................................................................55
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CBCRM
Community-based Coastal Resources management
Community-based Natural Resources management
Canadian International Development Agency
Fixed Gear Group
International Development Research Centre, Canada.
Mobile Gear Group
Participatory Rural Appraisal
Vietnamese dong (local currency)
INTRODUCTION Tam Giang - Cau Hai is a complex lagoon system locating in Central coastal and belonging to Phu Loc, Phu Vang, Huong Tra, Quang Dien and Phong Dien districts. This lagoon system is one of the largest Asia lagoons. It includes a series of lagoons which are stretched on the Northeast and Southeast of Hue City. Cau Hai is the largest lagoon belonging to the Southeast. There are three lagoons in the Northeast area, one of them directly opens to the sea. The farthest Northeast lagoon is Tam Giang or Thanh Lam which opens on Perfume River and connects East Sea past to Thuan An estuary. The third lagoon, Thuy Tu lagoon, is linked to Thanh Lam and Cau Hai lagoon. The complex lagoon system, Tam Gang, is considered a favorable environment for many varieties of fish and mollusk. It especially adopts and retains organic substance from neighboring rivers. These nourish flows ensure the high productivity of coastal resources exploitation as well as the development both of natural exploitation and aquaculture on the lagoon (Nguyen, et al 1998). The complex lagoon system covers about 22,000 ha with a length of 68 km along the coast. There are 31 communes with 236 villages having settled around the lagoon. Approximately, 300,000 residents in these villages earn their income by exploiting lagoon resources in this area (Ton, et al, 2000). Moreover, fishery exploitation is considered a field that brings about the high economic value and contributes to development of the local people’s livelihoods in lagoon fishery communities. Nevertheless, in the recent years, the population growth has put more and more pressures on the lagoon resources. The demand of exploitation has highly increased, leading to
overexploitation phenomenon. In this area, the population rate is annually estimated of 2,6% higher than that in other areas in Viet Nam (Nguyen, et al, 1998). Besides, the use of illegal destructive fishing apparatus such as electric fishing, eel rake... has affected on fishery resources. According to the local people in this area, the exploitation output in recent years is approximately 1/3 of the output before 1997*. In the situation of the resources gradually exhausted, the Governmental Organization (GO) and Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) have implemented some policies to conserve their own natural coastal resources and maintain the sustainable livelihoods for the local people. One of these policies is community-based coastal resource management (CBCRM). It has been implementing since 1995 under the project entitled “Management of Biological Resources of Tam Giang Lagoon” funded by the Canadian International Development Research Center (IDRC) and The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) (Veronika & Gary, 2000). In reality, Tam Giang - Cau Hai is a complex lagoon system which includes many lagoons having a close relationship with the sea and the land; biological and physical characteristics of Tam Giang - Cau Hai lagoon have created a unique brackish water ecosystem with a diverse range of resource in different communes (Nguyen, et al 1998). Therefore, there are some difficulties in managing resources base on community in this lagoon system.
*. Source: From primary data of the research.
At present, there are three communes applying CBCRM under the support of the Government and IDRC Project: Quang Thai, Phu Tan and Vinh Ha communes. For the others, they managed by themselves or by way of community-based management spontaneously. As a result of preliminary survey, it seems that there are differences in implementing CBCRM between the communes applying CBCRM scientifically and the others instinctively using it. I wonder whether the differences in the management ways will affect to the result of gaining sustainability or not? With these reality issues, I would like to carry out a study with the following Research question: “HOW THE DIFFERENCES IN IMPLEMENTING COMMUNITY-BASED COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (CBCRM) BETWEEN COMMUNITIES IMPACT ON SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS?” The specific objectives of this study: -
To explore and find out the differences in the implementation of community-based coastal resources management in Quang Thai and Dien Hai communes.
To appraisal the degree of acceptable local people and the impact of communitybased management on the sustainability of local people’s livelihoods in these two communes.
This research focuses on exploring the process of the CBCRM implementation in Quang Thai and Dien Hai communes basing on the comparative outlook. The main reason for choosing these two communes is to find the differences in implementing CBCRM. Thus, I chose randomly one of three communes being applied CBCRM under the support of GO and NGOs and compare it with a commune among the remaining communes doing CBCRM
spontaneously. Basing on the results of this study, I would like to find out the suitable management ways which tend to adapt the features of each area in order to gain sustainability. The thesis comprises 5 chapters. Chapter one briefly outlines the thesis statement, the rationale for the study, the objectives and scope of the study. Chapter two deals with the review of literature. All the theories involved in the research question will be presented in this chapter. The purpose of this chapter is to systematize all the basis concepts and theoretical foundation relating to the research topic. Chapter three outlines the research methodology used in this thesis and presents the utilization of various techniques in qualitative method as well as quantitative method. Chapter four presents analyzed data and the results of the research. In this chapter, we get to know the overview and history of the two communes: Quang Thai and Dien Hai, the process of exploitation and CBCRM as well as the differences in implementing CBCRM between the two communes. Chapter five concludes the study with a summary of the findings and some recommendations to the national government, NGOs, local leaders as well as villagers who live in or around the Tam Giang lagoon.
1. Community-based natural resources management. In recent years, many scholars have successfully gained results in demonstrating the relationship between environmental degradation and the issues of social justice, rural poverty, and indigenous rights. With the purpose of conserving the natural resources, the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have worked with local groups and communities and national and transnational organizations to build and extend new versions of environmental and social advocacy which link social justice and environmental management agendas. One of the most significant achievements has been the promotion of community-based natural resource management programs (Berkes, 1989). Community-based natural resource management programs are mainly based on the premises that “local population have the greater interest in utilizing sustainability of resources than does the state or distant cooperate managers” (Brosius, Tsing & Zerner, 1998, p.158). In addition, local communities are more cognizant of the difficulties of local ecological processes and practices; therefore, they are more able to effectively manage those resources through local or “traditional” forms of access. By nature, the model of community-based natural resources management is often advocated as a mean of exploiting local knowledge and wisdom for gaining sustainable development (Johnson, 2001). We can associate communitybased natural resources management with some various kinds of terms for instance community resources management, co-management, community-based coastal resources management and
so on. However, these variety terms are defined differently depending on the context and country involved (Carson, 2002). Toby Carson's concept of community-based resources management is as follow: Community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) is characterized by local communities playing the central role in identified resources, defining development priorities, choosing and adapting technologies and implementing management practices (Carson, 2002, pp.353-354).
Fundamentally, community-based natural resources management is the management of natural resources through agreeing, developing and implementing a plan that is always be relevant to local communities. Community-based resources management is not the new way to manage natural resources in Asia. Indeed, community-based management and its policies have been utilized popularly in India and some countries in Asia since 1920s. However, in the process of implementation, self-managed local communities have not been promoted due mostly to local dependence of central control (Pomeroy, 1995). Historically, community-based natural resources management has been re-emerged and considered as a way of management tending to utilize the indigenous knowledge and experience of the local people. In another hand, community-based management has become a common strategy for improving management of natural resources and empowering local communities through co-management, decentralization, democracy and right-based approach (using local knowledge, establishing common property regimes, sharing responsibility and authority between government and local community) (Pomeroy, 1995). * Co-management Conceptually, co-management is performed as the cooperation of management among various degrees of responsibility and authority from the central government to the local community. It is considered as a middle course, which links national level and local level
concerns by the efficiency and equity as well as self-governance, self-regulation and participation (Pomeroy, 1995). According to Toby Carson: Co-management requires that communities and government work together to manage the resources. This means that there must be power sharing between the government agencies and citizens with a stake in the common pool of resources. Co-management emphasizes bottom-up rather than top-down process, is participatory and user groups play an active role in the decision-making (Carson, 2002, p.353).
Through co-managing in both vertical way from the national government to the local community and horizontal way among the neighboring areas, which own the common resources property, the government will have a close and united management. Furthermore, the efficiency of co-management is measured through sharing management responsibility and authority among persons participating in the management. This reflects decentralization on the process of the management, which has become an important underlying principle. * Decentralization In this context, decentralization has been promoted as a means of breaking the power of central government and shifting the burden of service delivery onto local participants. Cheema and Rondinelli defined decentralization as: “transfer of planning, decision-making, or administrative authority from the central government to its field organization, local administration units, semi-autonomous and parastatal organizations, local government or NGOs” (Cheema and Rondinelli, quoted from Mohan & Stokke, p. 249). Decentralization is considered as the commitment of power, authority, and responsibility from the central government to lower levels or to local communities. Co-management requires the central government delegate clearly by sharing power with local government and organizations. Therefore, with the aim of managing natural resources based on community, decentralization is understood as the division of power for the participants in different levels,
which rests on the basis of right-based approach. The state government has transferred property right or utilizable right for the lower government and local communities. This means that the government has given the rights for the local people to bring into play self-control in theirs. Accordingly, the participants in local communities who have received property right or utilizable right of natural resources and have recognized their responsibility and authority to manage well their own resources. Because of the differences in terms of culture, custom, religion and geography, the indigenous knowledge and experience play an important and decisive role in successful management. It is said that: "Every country has its customs", "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". By using their indigenous knowledge and experience, the local people are able to build suitable ways to manage natural resources in their area. The indigenous knowledge and experience are provided by the participation of the local communities. Some experts in natural resources management in Southeast Asia stated that if there were no cooperation of local people to make laws and regulations, the management would not effective (Kuperan & Mustapha, 1994). Moreover, due to decentralization, the local people have their democracy in the process of management. They contribute their voice in planning, decision-making and controlling their resources. Consequently, community-based natural resources management with the community participation is considered as a way to conserve natural resources, reduce poverty and gain sustainable livelihoods. In fact, the participation of local people plays an important role in managing the utilization and conservation of natural resources. The local people, who have their knowledge, experience and especially, a high spirit in attempt to maintain their own resources, are given the opportunities to define their own objectives involved in decision-making and adoption of solutions (Raintree & Hoskin, 1990). Cernea defined the local participation as "empowering people to mobilize their own capacities, be social actors rather than passive subjects, manage 8
the resources, make decisions and control the activities that effect their lives" (Cernea, quoted from Carson, p. 355). Eventually, CBNRM emphasizes the role of the local community in directly controlling over the utilization and conservation of local resources in a sustainable manner. CBNRM has been considered as a strategy for maintaining empowerment, poverty reduction in order to gain sustainable livelihoods (DFID, 2004). 2. Sustainable Livelihoods. As mentioned, the main purpose of applying community-based natural resources management is to gain sustainable livelihoods. It means that the government should create opportunities for the local people in the community to join in the management of the natural resources. Based on the community, the government can be able to manage those natural resources effectively through exchanging ideas, information or learning from local people. Moreover, nobody but the local people is able to understand deeply their problems; therefore, they can rely on their own daily experience to solve them. It is considered as the foundation to gain the sustainability in livelihoods. What is a sustainable livelihood? Conceptually, a sustainable livelihood is defined as following: A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base (Chambers and Conway, 1992, p.296).
Indeed, CBNRM tends to promote the participation of the local people through receiving empowerment, democracy, property rights or utilization rights transferred from the national government and contributing their responsibility and authority to the natural resources management. Therefore, its affect on the livelihood of the local people is assessed basing on
five capitals: natural capital, human capital, social capital, financial capital and physical capital. The changes of the local people's livelihood are shown in the following table: Table 1: Livelihood rights matrix CAPITAL ASSETS
Right to healthy environment
Right to own property
Right to education
Women's right to bank loans, mortgages and other forms of financial credit
Freedom of association
(Moser, 2004, slide: 17) * Social capital Conceptually, social capital is considered as coordination for the mutual social benefits, usually characterized by trust, cooperation, involvement in the community, and sharing which are formed from bonding social capital and bridging social capital. Besides, social capital enhances the benefits in investing of the physical and human capital and it is considered as a key component to build and maintain democracy in the society. (Putnam, 1993, p.1). According to Pierre Bourdieu, there are differences among three forms of capital: economic capital, cultural capital and social capital. From this point of view, he defined social capital as following:
Social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 248).
Hence, social capital is one of five important capitals reflecting the existence of a sustainable community. Social capital will be stronger if the relationship among the people in that community is closer. This means that the people live in the community have to be quite willing to help and share the difficulities with one another in their life. They all tend to have the same norm, trust and a high agreement in any community activities. In my opinion, this is the first foundation for a sustainable society in practice and the sustainable development in general.
* Physical capital According to Wikipedia, physical capital mentions of any non-human assets which are made from the human and are used in the prodcution (www.en.wikipedia.org). Physical capital includes the basic infrastructure and public goods, for instance water and waste systems, roads, bridges, bike paths, energy systems, commercial and other structures which are needed to provide the livelihoods (Curtis, 2003). Infrastructure is commonly a public good that is used without direct payment. Infrastructure consists of the following components which are usually essential for sustainable livelihoods: convenient transport; the resident and shelter must be secure; the water supply and sanitation is adequate and clean; affordable energy and the chance to get communications (www.aplivelihoods.org). All of these components bring the human good conditions to meet their basic needs and a capacity to maintain their livelihoods
in the life. The strength of physical capital is a necessary basis for the development of the remaining capitals in the community. * Natural capital
According to the Wikipedia, natural capital involves in the natural resources including land, flora, water, fauna and the Earth’s biosphere which are considered as a source of raw materials to the production (www.en.wikipedia.org). Curtis’ point of view, supposes that natural capital means the local ecosystem. Hence, the conservation of the natural capital is considered as a central point of sustainability. From this point, the utilization of the natural resources must effectively go together with the conservation of them. Because of the limited and ungenerable resources, people should have their responsibilities in the exploitation and preservation of the natural capital by using the relevant techniques and methods.
* Human capital
From Wikipedia, human capital is considered as a way of the definition and the categorization of the human’s skills and their capacities which are used in their occupation and contributed to the local economy (www.en.wikipedia.org). In broader point of view, eco-local human capital is described by Ehrenfeld as follows:
By human capital, I means the skill in agriculture, crafts, academic learning, mechanics, the arts, and all the other necessary human occupations. Also, I mean the community fostering skills of judgement, patience, consideration, and knowledge (Ehrenfeld, 2002, p. 80).
Indeed, human skill is enhanced through apprehending the knowledge and acquiring the experience. With the aim to conserve the natural resources, human’s skill is a neccesary
capital to built their self-reliance and help them find out relevant solutions to improve their livelihoods in the process of gaining sustainability.
* Financial capital
Financial capital is the fifth capital in all capitals which are considered as the assetment foundation to the sustainable community development. Financial capital also plays an important role in creating self-reliance for the people in the community. Through supporting the finance or credits, the local people have many chances to use that capital for investing in their occupation to improve their livelihoods. The more people access the credit, the more selfreliant they become in coping their daily needs.
In summary, through adopting and applying CBNRM, the local people have changed in their livelihoods. However, the utilization of CBNRM through the transference of responsibility and authority, property or utilization right has put the local communities on facing with the challenges with the increase of empowerment. This requires the local people to try their best in making decisions locally and apply relevant ways to manage their own natural resources. 3. Empirical data through applying PRA in CBCRM from previous researches.
In recent years, participatory approach has been raised as a new concept and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) has been considered as a popular set of qualitative research tools for developing participation (Chambers, 1994). Many researches have been successfully conducted by the application of PRA technique.
Principally, PRA is an instrument to “enable the local people to share, enhance and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act” (Chamber, 1992, p.1). With PRA, the local people have a chance to share, exchange their ideas, work together and own useful information to solve their problem through their participation in the community. In reality, PRA has been applied on natural resources management in the many fields, for instance, soil and water conservation, forestry, fisheries, wildlife, etc; and has surely gained some successes (Chambers, 1992). Carson’s conclusion of his research on “CBNRM” in Cambodia showed that “one of six related components should be mentioned in CBNRM is participation which is considered as the most important component must be fulfilled in practice not just in theory” (Carson, 2002, p.361). Furthermore, Pomeroy in the study on “Community-based and Co-management institutions for Sustainable Coastal Fisheries Management in Southern Asia” has proved that “the better way to manage resources is the local resources users and community should be involved in the management of resources and access rights are distributed more effectively and equitably”, through analyzing case studies in Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam (Pomeroy, 1995, p.158). Besides, Johnson (2001) with his research on “Community Formation and Fisheries Conservation in Southern Thailand” and Mhlanga (2002) in the research on “Community-based Management of Animal Genetic Resources” as well as Addun & Muzones (1994) through their research on “CBCRM: Tambuyog’s experience in the Philippines” have emphasized the role of community participation as a key to gain sustainability. Those researches’ results have affirmed the importance of the local people’s participation in sustainable management of the natural resources in community. Nowadays, many relevant programs and projects have been using CBNRM principles under the variety of levels:
Community Forestry and Plant Propagation projects in Takeo Province (Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) and IDRC).
Management of Biological Resources in Tam Giang Lagoon (IDRC and CIDA).
Community-based fisheries management in Samoa
Community forestry Projects in Kompong Chhnang and Banteay Meanchay provinces (Concern Worldwile).
Participatory Management of Mangrove Resources Project in Koh Kong Province (MoE and IDRC).
The above evidences have shown that the application of PRA in CBNRM is extremely needed in order to gain sustainable use. However, CBNRM is revitalized in interrelation with the development of new legal, administration, institutions to fulfill currently social and cultural structure as well as politic and economic in the community (Pomeroy, 1995). Therefore, CBNRM needs to be suitably implemented in correspondence to the characteristics of each community.
METHODOLOGY 1. Designing the conceptual framework for comparing the differences in implementing CBCRM in two communes.
PROCESS OF IMPLEMETING COMMUNITY-BASED COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Compare QUANG THAI COMMUNE
DIEN HAI COMMUNE
Diagram 1: Conceptual Framework for comparing the differences in implementing CBCRM in two communes.
With the comparative outlook, I would like to carry out the study to explore and find out the differences in implementing CBCRM in two communes: Quang Thai and Dien Hai. At the same time, I would like to base on these differences to appraise these affects to how the livelihoods in two communes are. 2. Used methods Based on the research question and objectives combine with the conceptual framework, I focused on appraising the process of implementation of CBCRM in Tam Giang lagoon basing on comparative outlook. The used methodology has been developed from participatory approach named PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal). The main reason I decided to choose PRA is that “it is more shared and owned by local people” (Chambers, 1992, p.1). Moreover, there have had some applications in natural resources management (soil and water conservation, forestry, fisheries, etc.) where PRA has been used. Through using PRA, it was proved that there were a high validity and reliability in sharing information from the rural people (Chamber, 1992). Eventually, I decided to utilize this methodology because I would like to emphasize the importance of listening to the ideas that derive from local people in that area. Such points of view are formed in their daily life, experience, desire and expectation. Through using participatory methodology, I tried to learn with and from local people by letting them give their problems out in managing natural resources. By so doing, their difficulties would be solved through developing new ideas that can be useful for them to face their problems. However, in order to get highly confident and valuable information I did the triangulation by colleting data from various sources and levels of society and used some different methods at the same time in the same key informant. The following methods were used in the study: * Collecting the secondary data 17
With the purpose of rapidly assessing the community, I contacted the director of Department of Fishery Resources Protection to ask him about the current situation of fishing in the Tam Giang lagoon. Through talking to him, I had an overview on local people’s life and their occupation in that lagoon system. In addition, I got general information about the way to manage coastal resources exploitation that had been using in that area by the local government and villagers. After that, I collected secondary data about coast resources management in Tam Giang lagoon from Department of Fisheries of Thua Thien Hue, Department of Science Technology and Environment of Thua Thien Hue and CIDA & IDRC projects. Based on annual reports from Department of Fisheries of Thua Thien Hue, Department of Science Technology and Environment of Thua Thien Hue on the process of fishing and the exploitation management, I gathered a lot of information on advantages and disadvantages as well as opportunities and challenges in exploiting and managing lagoon resources. From these data, it was revealed that there are presently three communes applying CBCRM scientifically under the financial support of the government and CIDA & IDRC Project, for instance Vinh Ha, Phu Tan and Quang Thai. The remaining communes had been instinctively applying CBCRM. In my opinion, there are differences in doing CBCRM between the two kinds of community. Accordingly, I decided to choose randomly Quang Thai commune in Tam Giang lagoon as a representative for the above three communes. For the second group, I determined to pick Dien Hai as a delegate commune to compare with Quang Thai. The reason I selected Dien Hai commune was simply that it belongs to Tam Giang lagoon, hence its biological and physical characteristics are similar to Quang Thai. It seems to be more favourable to find out the differences in implementing CBCRM between these communities. * Building the rapport up the community.
In participatory research, the first important thing is to build the rapport up the community. First and foremost, I contacted with the local government in each commune to get their helps in finding the key informants or participants who represent of the villagers to supply the information and tell about the local people’s expectations and the difficulties that are existing in their life. The key informants are often commune officials, head of fishing groups, the experienced and the eldest people in these villages. With the cooperation of the key informants, I conducted the research conveniently in these communes. * Focus group interview
Figure 1: Focus group interview with the fishermen group
I carried out the preliminary survey through focus group interview with separate levels: local leaders group and fishers group (participatory group). The purpose of interviewing these groups was to recognize exactly the research problem by letting local leaders and villagers present their problems, which emerged from their life and works. By interviewing focus group with different levels, I expected to understand the ideas from each group and the perception of each group on the natural resources management. The following guideline was used in interviewing leaders group and villagers group: 1. Appraising the gained results of aqua culturing and exploiting lagoon resources in recent years. 2. When was the model of CBCRM applied in this area? - Who implemented? - Who participate? - The beneficiaries they got when they exploit and manage the protection of lagoon resources. 3. Assessing the process of implementing CBCRM in this area. * What are the main activities to manage lagoon resources with the participation of local people? - To take soundings the fishermen’ opinion of their desire and expectation - To divide the water area for the local people and give them the right to exploit ground (though limited) - To set up the self-management group by the villagers - To build up the constraints between local government and fishermen through a formal text or verbal undertaking.
- The forms of propaganda being applied to reduce the use of destructive fishing ground in this area. Who participate in propaganda? - To hold training courses on exploiting and conserving lagoon resources for the local people. Who attended these courses? How are their changes of perception before and after joining these courses? What is the degree of holding training courses in this village? * Who are the participants in carrying out the above activities? What are their beneficiaries when they do those activities? - The power and responsibility of the participants in solving arisen problem in the process of exploiting and protecting lagoon resources. - Who monitored and managed the implementation of those activities? Who nominated them? What are their impacts on lagoon resources management in community? 4. Appraising the degree of villagers’ acceptance to those activities in CBCRM in this commune. 5. The impacts of applying CBCRM on the fishers’ livelihoods before and after appearing the destructive fishing gears through five capitals: Financial, human, natural, physical and social capitals. Based on the supplied information from local leaders and villagers, it was revealed that there were differences in applying CBCRM between these two communes. As a result, I would like to elucidate this problem by comparing the differences in applying CBCRM and the results of the application of CBCRM in the two communes due to these differences. That is the reason why I decided to do the thesis with the title: “Differences in implementation of community based coastal resources management in the Tam Giang lagoon, Thua Thien Hue province, Vietnam. Cross-case studies in Quang Thai and Dien Hai communes”. * Doing the timeline 21
With the intention of getting an overview on the villages’ history and the fishery exploitation process of fishermen in the two communities, I carried out the timeline with the eldest fisher who had a lot of experience in fishery exploitation in each village. In Quang Thai commune, I was accompanied with an aged fisherman who was the head of Fishery Union in this area one year ago. In Dien Hai commune, I contacted with the eldest villager having been the head of the village’s fishing grounds. Through interviewing both of them, I got the information about a historical perspective on the fishery and the management of lagoon resources in these communities. The following questions were used in the process of doing the timeline: 1. The process of natural resource exploitation in this lagoon: - When did it begin? - What are the gears using to exploit? - How is the local people’s perception of exploiting and protecting lagoon resources in this area? - What are the ways being used to conserve coastal resource in the two communes? - Who are the managers of the fishing ground in this area? How to manage the exploitation? - When was the fishery aquaculture applied in this commune? Who was the first person applying aquaculture in this lagoon? Or which organization supported to apply that model of aquaculture? Or where did it derive from? 2. The destructive fishing apparatus: - When did the destructive fishing gears appear? - How is the degree of using those gears in this lagoon? - Who often use them? The density of frequent utilization of those gears. 22
- What are the roles of local government in intervening the utilization of those apparatus? - What are the manners being applied to reduce the use of those gear absolutely by this local community? -
Who have been implementing those manners?
3. What are the beneficiaries of fishers from joining the community management in this commune? 4. The changes in the fishers’ livelihoods before and after using the destructive fishing gears through five capitals: Financial, human, natural, physical and social capitals. * Drawing the resource map Resources mapping was conducted in each commune with the local people’s participation. By drawing a resource map with the help participation of villagers, I am aware of the general scheme of fishing grounds being used in each village and how to manage this lagoon resource through dividing water area for the fishers. It can be seen from the data collected that unequal accessibility to fishing grounds seems to result in unequal benefits between fishing groups. In addition, conflicts also appear on neighboring communes when the villagers in these communes exploit illegally fishing grounds of each other.
Figure 2: Drawing the resource mapping with the participation of local leader * In- depth interview With the aim to clearly understand the manner to do CBCRM of the local people in the two communities and to find out exactly the conflicts existing in these areas, I carried out an in-depth interview with the representatives of local leaders, fixed gear group (FGG), mobile gear group (MGG), farming-fishing group (FFG) and vulnerable people in each commune. By means of interviewing those representatives individually, I listened to all their ideas deriving from their experience, desire and expectation in their daily life. As a result of talking to the villagers, it was learnt that there were undoubtedly differences in implementing CBCRM between the two communes, thus the perceptions of local people about CBCRM were also different. Accordingly, the ways to cope mechanism of the villagers in each community were not the same.
Figure 3: In-depth interview with the representatives of mobile gear group The guideline for in-depth interview is as the follows: 1. Personal information of interviewee: age, gender, marital status, character of occupation and family. 2. The fishing grounds being used by interviewee, the average household’s income everyday. 3. Does the household join in aquaculture? When? How many fish coops does this household have? How much money does the household get from aqua culturing in a coop every year? 4. The perception of the household about the destructive fishing apparatus. How many gears called “the destructive fishing apparatus” have been used in this village? Who use those gears? 5. What are the sanctions that the local government uses to prevent villagers from doing the destructive fishing gears? What are the household’s ideas of those sanctions?
6. The household’s definition of CBCRM? Does the household participate in the lagoon resources management in this area? The advantages and disadvantages in CBCRM in this area? What are the problems existing on the coastal resources management in this commune? 7. The division of water area for the fishers in this commune? The degree of the interviewee’s satisfaction about the fishing grounds being used. 8. The percentage of the household’s attendance the training courses on aqua culturing and exploiting lagoon resources? Which organizations arrange these training courses? Who are the trainers? Who are the trainees? How are their changes of knowledge before and after attending these training courses? 9. Their ability of accessing to the financial capital? Which sources? Interest rate? How is the average of loan per time? 10. What are the household’s suggestions on CBCRM to the government? * Interviewing the fishers by using questionnaire In order to check the value of the collected information from qualitative methods and to illustrate collected data by quantity, I implemented individual interviews using a questionnaire of 37 open-ended questions. It was expected that detail answer to the 37 questions of interviewees could bring about sufficient information to make the research question clear. In each commune, I decided to choose 50 households as representatives of each fishing group by using stratified random method based on 2 elements: the significance of work and income.
* Analyzing collected data by applying SPSS
In order to deal with the research problem, I used Statistical Products for the Social Services (SPSS) to process the data, then interpret the analyzed data through descriptive statistics and compare means with the paired-samples T test. * Triangulating Especially, during the investigation process, I always did the triangulation to confirm the value and the reliability of the collected information by different ways: Methodological triangulation: investigating the same problem with unlike methods, for instance using focus group interview with separate groups, in-depth interview in the qualitative method and do the quantitative method by using questionnaire. Data triangulation: using diversified sources of information by combining secondary data from the reports in different levels: Province - district - commune and primary data through indepth interview, focus group interview and using questionnaire. The above system of used methods has helped me carry out the research and collect the sufficient information to find out the answer to my research question.
CHAPTER FOUR Data analysis and discussion 1. The sketchy situation of the socio-economic development in Tam Giang lagoon area. Thua Thien Hue’s lagoon area, Tam Giang, is a big lagoon system, which plays an important role in the socio economic development in the area. It is a system of lagoons stretching along the coast of Central Viet Nam with the length of 68 km, covering about 22,000 ha of water area. This system derives from O Lau River estuary in the North to the Cau Hai lagoon to the South. Totally, there are 42 communes belonging to 5 districts of Thua Thien Hue province with the population of over 350,000 persons, accounting for about 30.1% of the population of Thua Thien Hue province. There are about 250,000 persons directly involving in the lagoon Over 17,500 labourers work as fishers. This lagoon system links to 49,000 ha of delta and 19,000 ha of the Central coastal. The population density of this area is about 600,000 persons per square kilometer. The structure of farming household covers nearly 50%, fishing household about 30%, and the remaining 20% is of industry, small-scale industry, forestry, trade and construction. In this lagoon area, agriculture plays the most important role but farming production is still underdeveloped and affected by natural conditions and lagoon environment. This leads to low productivity of farming production; therefore agricultural products have not become main goods of this area yet. Meanwhile, fishing keeps an important position and is considered as an essential occupation that brings about remarkable income for the local people. It involves 2/3 of the population in this lagoon area.
Figure 4: The geographical mapping in Thua Thien Hue province With nearly 22,000 ha of water area, Tam Giang lagoon system retained a source of abundant gene of over 600 species. Specifically, there are 43 algae used for agar-agar producing industry, 12 species of shrimp, 18 species of crap and many species of other valuable crustacean. Especially, 23 species of fish have a high value commodity among 230 species in this lagoon area. Thus, this lagoon is considered as a big and essential source of income for the local people in or around the Tam Giang area. For the last several years, the GO has implemented many relevant policies on exploiting the coastal resources by encouraging the local people to join in fishing. As a result, fishery has significantly developed and the local people’s life has gradually been stable and improved since then. We can recognize the role of fishery in the development of the socio economic situation in the Tam Giang lagoon area through Table 2.
Table 2. Some criteria reflecting the process of fishing development in Thua Thien Hue province and the lagoon area in the period of 1999-2003.
Unit of count
Year of 1999 Quantity
Year of 2001 %
Year of 2003 %
1. Total area of fishing ground in the whole Ha 2,651 100.0 3,566 100,0 4,565 100,0 province - Whereas: fishing ground in lagoon area Ha 2,021 76.24 3,024 84.80 3,875 84.89 2,.GO* of fishery in the whole province Ton 1,467 100.0 2,551 100.0 5,001 100.0 - Whereas: GO* of fishery in lagoon area Ton 1,064 72.53 2,135 83.69 3,966 79.30 3. GO*of Agriculture-Forestry-fishery (AFF) in Million 10,377,227 100.0 15,393,207 100.0 22,129,711 100.0 the whole province VND “ 313,133 33.14 423,472 36.35 549,397 40.28 Whereas: GO* of AFF in the lagoon area * Whereas: -GO of fishery in the lagoon area “ 150,592 48.09 252,702 59.67 377,994 68.80 -GO* of Agriculture-Forestry in lagoon area “ 162,541 51.91 170,770 40.33 171,403 31.20 Note: GO*: Gross output Source: Statistical Yearbook, 2003 and the annual report of Fishery Department in Thua Thien Hue province.
Average growth (%)
172,20 191.75 340.90 372.74 113.25 175.45 251.00 105.45
Figure 5: Map of the Tam Giang lagoon system, Thua Thien Hue province
It can be seen from Table 2 shows that fishery has remarkably been developed in terms of both the fishing ground and gross output in the period of 1999-2003. The average growth of the fishing ground in the whole province from 1999-2003 is 172.20%; whereas, fishing ground in the Tam Giang lagoon is significantly expanded with its average growth of 191.75%. This proved that fishery is a branch which has many advantages and is being paid much attention to by the GO and the local people. Moreover, gross output of fishery is rapidly increasing in both the whole province and the Tam Giang lagoon area. The average growth of gross output in the whole province in the period of 1999-2003 is 340.90% and in the Tam Giang area is 372.74%. Besides, we can see that the density of gross output of fishery and of agriculture-forestry-fishery in the Tam Giang lagoon has been clearly changed during the period of 1999-2003. For instance, the gross output of fishery in 1999 occupied 48.09% in the total gross output of the agriculture-forestry-fishery, but this criterion was 68.80% in 2003 with the average growth in this period was 251.00%. With the figures mentioned, it can be said that fishery plays an important role in the socio-economic development of the whole Thua Thien Hue province in general and in Tam Giang area in particular. 2. Fishing and CBCRM in Trung Lang village, Quang Thai commune Quang Thai commune, Quang Dien district is mostly in the North of Tam Giang lagoon system. It is the poorest commune among 31 communes locating around this lagoon system. There are 6 hamlets in this commune in which 5 purely do farming and only one does both farming and fishing called Trung Lang hamlet. Due to the poor farming land, the main income of the villagers in Trung Lang is mostly from fishing in the lagoon area of nearly 1000 ha from the Northwest to the Southeast along the coast. Trung Lang has originally settled in the lowland belonging to Lai Ha and Phong Lai since 1905. At first,
there were only 8 sampan households and 4 farming households who did not own land. At this time, under the management of Lai Ha village, the sampan households living into community close by on the lagoon calling Vạn Ông Chánh. These households lived in a small hamlet, which was rather isolated from the neighboring villages. Over time, the population of this hamlet rapidly increased with 124 households in 1985, 124 households in 1998 and there are presently 153 households. For the most part, Trung Lang fishers are divided into 3-production groups based on the nature of their works and the used fishing gears. The first group is called FGG, the used apparatus were mainly Fish Corral (Nò sáo) and Fish Aggregating Device (FAD) (Chuôm). The second group, MGG, includes the villagers who used to operate trawl, gillnet and push net, etc. The majority of the third group, FFG (Fishing-Farming Group), are the villagers who did farming and fishing by using some gears the same as Group 2. Fish corral is, according to the fishermen, a gear that brings back a higher and more stable income than the other gears. Households have had these fish corrals from generation to generation and they have their rights of use, though limited, to exploit on their own water area. However, in order to have a fish corral, the villager have to invest a large sum of money at least 5 million (VND) to buy bamboo, nets and etc. The fish corral used to make into isosceles triangle on the fishing ground. The average height of a triangle is about 350m. Therefore, at that time, the number of people having their own fish corral is very small, accounting for about 23% of the total number of households in this commune. The remaining households (77%) are briefly MGG and FFG. For these MGG and FFG members, they used to exploit fishery on the remaining fishing grounds in this lagoon. Their incomes were very low and not stable; therefore, they often meet 32
with economic difficulties. A part of them are sampan people who do not own any land and live unstably on their boats on the water.
Figure 6: Fish corral of FGG in the Tam Giang lagoon In the past, there was a head of fishing groups in charge of managing and collecting taxes from fishermen for exploiting in this lagoon. Historically, the number of fishermen was still not abundant; hence the output of villagers from fishing daily was very high. Besides, the used gears to fish were so rudimentary that the degree of their impact on the exhaustion of lagoon environment was insignificant. After 1975, the population rapidly increased, leading to more and more fishermen. Furthermore, in 1990s, the phenomenon of using the destructive fishing gears began to appear and the villagers used them frequently in this lagoon. Accordingly, the lagoon environment had a sign of seriously downgrading, resulting in low the fishing outputs in comparison with
the last several years. Thus, the villagers, especially who used mobile gears, fell into economic difficulties in living “from hand to mouth”. Even though the government banned the utilization of the destructive fishing gears, in order to meet their needs, some households still used illegal gears to exploit at the shallow depth of 3-5m or used electric fishing in the nighttime. Therefore, water plants, mosses gradually reduced, and the life of many breeds of fish were also affected seriously. In reality, the government implemented some methods to minimize using those gears. Since 1995, under the control of the national government, the local government has conducted of CBCRM under the Project “Management of Biological Resources in Tam Giang lagoon” funded by CIDA/IDRC in order to conserve lagoon resources and solve some difficulties in the villagers’ life. The research team, including members from CIDA/IDRC, the aquaculturists from the Department of Fisheries-TTH province, professors from the colleges of Hue University coordinated with the local government to carry out CBCRM in this area. Firstly, they contacted to the villagers and learnt about the people’s desire and expectation, which involved utilizing fishing grounds. Through holding some meetings with the local people, they had many chances to talk to the villagers and exchanged ideas. Based on the villagers’ expectation and the government’s water area project, the research team along with the local leaders conducted to divide fishing grounds for all the villagers in Trung Lang hamlet. The purpose of this division was to give the rights of use for the villagers in the scope of their own fishing grounds. This is a way to imprint on the local people a belief on the local government and they would keep their own water area better by themselves. Through this division, the villagers were embedded their role and responsible in protecting lagoon resources. Besides, together with this division, the 34
research team’s members hold some training courses about aquaculture techniques on the fresh water with the participation of local people. Owing to the limit of the number of trainees in each course, the villagers took turns joining these training courses. It was to ensure that all the villagers attended and comprehended fully knowledge. These training courses were hold annually under the support of the local government and NGOs. This enhanced the fishers’ self-reliance in their works and helped them to manage their life. As a result of dividing fishing ground, members of FGG were able to keep their own fixed fishing grounds to continue doing fish corrals. For the remaining water area, the local government selected some relevant places to divide for the villagers in order to develop aquaculture. All the fishermen who have their expectation on aquaculture satisfied with their divided part of fishing grounds. By choosing the experiment area to aquaculture, the local leaders and research team helped the villagers have opportunities to utilize knowledge and experience in applying the model of aquaculture in the realities of their daily life.
Diagram 2: The resources mapping after implementing the fishing ground division in Quang Thai. With the aim to manage the lagoon resources based on the participation of villagers, the local government along with Department of Fisheries-TTH Province has formed the Fishing Union branch in this village. Members of the executive committee of the Fishing Union branch are the people selected through annual meeting with the presence of all the fishers. They are the representatives of the villagers to propose ideas to the local government, to share and exchange experience with other fishers, and to find out the market for selling aquatic products. In addition, the Fishing Union branch has created a self-management group to monitor and control the utilization and exploitation on the Quang Thai lagoon. The fee of each member in Fishing Union branch is 1000 (VND) per month, which is collected to spend on some activities, for instance meetings and visiting people who are sick or in difficulty situations. At present, the Fishing Union
branch has 131 members as representatives of 131 households out of the total number of 153 households in this village. 22 remaining households who do not join in Fishing Department are the disable and elderly persons. The amount of money collected from members’ contribution is not abundant. It is only enough for spending on union’s activities. Therefore, members of the executive committee get no income from doing this work even though the villagers select them. They are voluntary to join in organizations in this village in order to maintain livelihoods as well as lagoon resources in this area. Along with the above activities, the project has supported finance for the Fishing Union branch to deploy broadly the model of aquaculture. In addition, Fishing Union branch, coordinating with the local government and Women Union in the commune, has created conditions for the local people to conveniently access credits. Consequently, the fishermen are satisfied because they can have a fairly stable income every year due to applying aquaculture on this lagoon. It can be said that aquaculture is considered as an alternative to improve fisher’s income and decrease exploitation pressure in the lagoon. This is a solution for the development of aquatic products based on exploitation together with conservation of lagoon resources with the support of local government policy. Nonetheless, in the recent years, there has not had co-management among the communes, resulting in the increase in the use of the destructive fishing gears. Even the members in the self-management group or the villagers have not had any way to inform the government of the persons using those gears because they are always afraid of feuding from these persons. That is a difficulty in managing well the lagoon resources in Quang Thai. 37
3. Fishing and CBCRM in Dien Hai commune Dien Hai commune, Phong Dien district is at the farthest side in the North of Tam Giang lagoon. Dien Hai lagoon is stretched from the Northeast to the Southeast along the coast, opposite to Quang Thai lagoon area. Approximately, this area covers over 1,000 ha. Receiving the fresh water from rivers and the salinity water from the Thuan An estuary, Dien Hai lagoon is considered as a favorable area to develop aquaculture both in the fresh water and the brackish water. With many deep rivulets where many breeds of fish and shrimp dwell in following the water flow, this lagoon is rich with plenty of fish and shrimp. Besides, this area has a large fishing ground, which is considered as an advantage place to develop fish corrals. At present, nearly 70% of households are FGG in this commune. Formerly, most of the fishers were sampan people who moved here from other areas. They lived on their boats in this lagoon. At that time, since they migrated to this lagoon, they were not accepted as members of villages, thus they live in groups called van. Van is a traditional unit which includes sampan people living together as relatives or friends. Similar to Quang Thai commune, the sampan households in this lagoon were divided into production groups: FGG and MGG. Each group was a van, which had a head as representative of the members in van to manage van activities, for instance organizing rituals, protecting the rights for members. Initially, sampan people all lived and managed their works on the lagoon by boats. After that, van was accepted as an administrative unit belonging to the management of the villagers on land in Dien Hai commune. Hence, the head of each van has his responsibility to collect taxes through fishing to pay for the local government.
In the process of utilizing the water area, for the FGG, they set up their fish corrals on their fixed water area and lived near their area on boat. Thus, they easily managed their fishing grounds by themselves. For the MGG, they lived near the FGG’s boat and exploit the lagoon resources on the remaining fishing grounds of the lagoon. As a result, they cooperated with each other in managing their exploitation and conserving lagoon resources. Thanks to living on the lagoon with their relative and friendly neighbours for a long time, sampan people had a deeply high spirit and solidarity. They were always willing to help one another when someone met with unlucky problems in his life. This is a typical feature of the traditional custom of the sampan people in the lagoon. In 1985, there was a big storm taking place in this area and threatened the life of the sampan people. With the purpose of keeping the villagers’ life safe, the local government has implemented to resettle sampan people on the land around the lagoon. After resettling, their life became safer and more stable. Besides, the government has grouped the fishermen into three hamlets: Hamlet 1, hamlet 7 and hamlet 8. From this time, sampan people met with difficulty in lagoon exploitation management because of living far from their own fishing grounds. In addition, in recent years, the population has increased, leading to more and more pressure the destructive fishing gears appeared and were used popularly in this lagoon, thus they causing damage to the lagoon environment in this area. According to the villagers in this lagoon, the output they have gained in recent years is approximately ¼ compared with that before. The physical lagoon diversification in this area has formed the differentiation of the coastal resources management. For the aquaculture in the brackish water, the local government has localized into net enclosures (ao vây) and invited tenders for the utilization of these net enclosures. These net enclosures are separated from the lagoon 39
using a breakwater. Therefore, aquaculture in this area rarely affects on water environment in the lagoon. The people who get the right to use the net enclosure have to practice aquaculture, manage their works by themselves and pay annual taxes to the local government. With the natural exploitation on the lagoon, the local leaders assign powers to the head of each group to control the fishermen’s utilization of the lagoon resources and collect taxes from these people. A part of the collected taxes would be paid to the local government; the remaining is used to afford some activities in the village. Every year, on the occasion of Cau Ngu ritual (21/1 in Lunar Calendar), the villagers in Quang Thai and Dien Hai communes with the representative of the head of each group often worship to hope they will get luck in their work. At present, differ from Trung Lang, Quang Thai commune, the management of lagoon resources in Dien Hai is mainly decided through the role of each group’s head with the common motto “the ruling of the King has to yield to village custom”. Especially, to the FGG, fishermen have a high spirit to build up verbal undertakings about exploiting and conserving lagoon resources. All members are forced to do as they pledge. The content of the verbal undertakings is commonly constraints of members’ responsibility in utilizing and protecting lagoon resources through announcing and banning the utilization of the destructive fishing gears. Because the head of each group is the eldest and experienced person, all of the villagers always respect him and comply with his ideas. Hence, the sense of members’ responsibility is very high and all of them determine to protect their own lagoon area. According to the villagers, “protecting the lagoon resource means keeping their rice for today and for the next generation”. In order to manage the aquatic resources, members in FGG have formed a self40
management group under the support of the local government. The self-management group includes volunteers to join in managing the exploitation and protection of the lagoon resources. They do not get any economic benefits from doing those activities. Currently, there is no sentry box and transports for the self-management group on the lagoon. Each household in FGG has to build a sentry box to manage their own fixed fishing grounds. The self-management group has the responsibility of monitoring and controlling the utilization of the destructive fishing gears and illegal exploitation from the villagers and the outsiders. Therefore, when a member of the self-management group finds out people using the illegal gears to exploit, he could use any motorboat of the households in this village to catch them. This proves that members in FGG have a highly mutual agreement and they all support the role of a self-management action in order to protect lagoon resources as their own property. Under close monitor of the selfmanagement group, the use of illegal gears of the local people in this lagoon has reduced. However, due to lack of the sentry box and modern motorboats on the lagoon, volunteers sometimes failed to catch keep up with the outsiders. In addition, there is no co-management among communes’ government around the lagoon. Therefore, the illegal exploitation still takes place frequently. This causes the task of the selfmanagement group become more difficult. Conflicts and fights among the neighboring villages often occur on the lagoon. For the MGG, the villagers exploit spontaneously lagoon resources on the remaining fishing grounds in this area. They usually use gillnet, push net, dragnet, eel rake and clam collecting (by hand). Their income is not high and unstable, depending on the type of fishing gear, available labors and the availability of lagoon resources. However, after 1995, the aquatic resources have been declined because the density of 41
exploiting is increased and the utilization of the destructive fishing gear is more frequent in this area. Fishermen usually follow the old rule that “land is private, water area is public”, thus the phenomenon of illegal exploitation of aquatic resources not only takes place in Dien Hai commune but also in Quang Thai commune even though the Government has divided boundary of water area for each commune. Moreover, due to their daily needs, some villagers use illegal gears to fish, thus the aquatic resources are affected seriously. As a result, the output is very low and sometimes it is not enough for the villagers in MGG. From 1995, in order to solve the difficulties in meeting the villagers’ needs, most of the villagers in the MGG learnt the experiences of the villagers in other communes and applied the model of aquaculture in the lagoon area. With the remaining fishing grounds, the villagers chose suitable places in the aquatic water to build up fish coops. However, the water area for aquaculture was not enough for cultivating, thus the distance between the fish coops were too short, affecting on the efficiency of breeding fish. Sometimes, the villagers did know whether to laugh or cry because all the fish they raised became ill and died. They recognized that the reason for this failure was mainly the influence of the fish living environment. In the summer, the temperature increased highly, making the density of salinity increase, which was a main cause of diseased fish. Besides, the distance between the coops was too close, causing the living environment of many breeds of fish to be polluted. Accordingly, the villagers usually had to face heaps of difficulties. Furthermore, the time for aquaculture was rather long, thus their livelihoods still depended on daily exploitation in the lagoon.
Figure 7: A kind of fishing of the MGG in the Tam Giang lagoon In the recent years, the local government banned using some gears such as eel rake, nets (with lead) making more and more villagers in MGG meet with difficulties. Presently, about 60% households are FGG and MGG, accounting for about 40% of families in Dien Hai commune. With the division of administrative management, most of the villagers in the FGG belong to Hamlet 8 and the remaining households live in Hamlet 7. Most of the MGG is isolated group living at group 4, Hamlet 1 including some sampan households who have just migrated there in the recent years. With this division, fishermen are all presently residing in different areas, thus the social relations among the fishers between two fishing gear groups fade away in this village. The conflicts begin rising between FGG and MGG as a result of the following reasons: Firstly, the number of households in FGG increases, leading to narrower the fishing grounds for exploitation of the members in MGG.
Secondly, because FGG’s income is high and stable, members in this group have contributed much for this commune. Therefore, the local government believes them. With the high unanimity of the members in FGG made the strength to they are able to control to the MGG when any member in this group exploit around their fish corrals like “survival of the fittest”. Although FGG has a limited right to own their water area that the utilization of fixed fishing ground passed on through inheritance or buying from the previous owners. Thirdly, MGG’s life is very difficult; no chances to go to school, lack of knowledge and limited degree of understanding are the main causes that made them fail to think comprehensively. They hardly recognized their mistakes. Sometimes they felt dissatisfied with the appropriation of fishing grounds in FGG and the local government because their ideas were not appreciated. It can be seen that since the villagers applied aquaculture on the lagoon, they have gained an extra income they have never had before. This has contributed to improve the life in MGG and make a belief for them in the life. 4. Differences in implementing the lagoon resources management between Quang Thai and Dien Hai communes. Dien Hai has a large fishing ground favourable to develop fish corrals, thus the number of households in FGG occupies a high proportion (over 70%) of the total number of households in this area. Originally, most of the villagers have their own fishing grounds transfered from father to son. This natural exploitation way has deeply formed their fishing habits. The kind of fishing ground property in this area is called common property. However fishermen are limited in their own water area which is used to make a fish corral. As earlier mentioned, FGG is a kind of natural exploitation which 44
brings back a high and stable income for the villagers. Furthermore, FGG is considered as a natural exploitation way and its impact on the lagoon environment is inappreciable. Consequently, this kind of fishing ground property is relevant with the characteristics in Dien Hai. Differ from Dien Hai commune, Quang Thai is the poorest village in Tam Giang lagoon system. Most of the villagers in Quang Thai are members in MGG, thus their income are not high and stable as that of Dien Hai villagers. The fishing ground in this commune is not large enough to easily develop fish corrals. Originally, the kind of fishing ground property in this commune follows the way “opened access resources property” calling “common property”. With this kind, the villagers are able to access freely the fishing ground to maximize their benefits by overexploiting or using the destructive gears. The pressure of the overexploitation together with the utilization of the destructive gears has made the lagoon environment exhausted. Eventually, the local government and NGOs implemented the division plan for the villagers, which shifted from common property to limited property. In order to divide the fishing ground equally for the villagers, the local government holds a referendum about their expectation in using fishing grounds and assigned powers to their rights to utilize their own water area. Through this division, the local government gave villagers the powers and rights to utilize and conserve the lagoon resources by themselves. This proves that there has been decentralization in management from the national government to the local community in Quang Thai through sharing the responsibility and authority from the high level government to the lower government. Therefore, the villagers are as beneficiaries embedding their authority, responsibility and obligation in the exploitation and
conservation of coastal resources. And they are also satisfied with their own fishing grounds. Nonetheless, the majority of members in MGG in Dien Hai who came from the other areas after 1985 have to do exploitation on the remaining fishing grounds. With the remaining limited area, the villagers do not have much water area to exploit and practice aquaculture. Therefore, the conflict appears between the FGG and MGG in utilizing fishing ground within Dien Hai lagoon. The degree of the villagers’ satisfaction from dividing water area in these two communes can be seen as follows: Table 3. Compare the degree of villagers’ satisfaction about the division of Fishing grounds in two communes.
- The degree of villagers’ satisfaction
Paired Sample T Test
Note: 1: Very satisfied; 2:Satisfied; 3:No ideas; 4:Not satisfied; 5: Not very satisfied *** With the significant level α= 1%
Table 3 shows that all the villagers in Trung Lang are satisfied on the division of fishing grounds being divided by the local government. For Dien Hai, means of degree of the villagers’ satisfaction is 3.14 showing that the degree of villagers’ satisfaction in Dien Hai is lower than in Trung Lang. With the significant level α=0.01, the result of paired sample T test shows that there are differences between these two communes about the degree of satisfaction in dividing fishing grounds. Due to these differences, we can recognize that the relationship between FGG and MGG in each commune is not similar. In Quang Thai commune, all the villagers are
satisfied with the division of fishing grounds and they embed their responsibility in using and protecting their own water area. Most of them join in the Fishing Union branch, exploring the constraints among the members to help each other and sharing experiences. This emphasis on social capital forming from social relation of these groups in the village and it also reflects democracy among the villagers in Quang Thai community. Differ from Quang Thai, there are more conflicts between FGG and MGG because of unequal utilization of fishing grounds. Furthermore, the difference in the income between two groups leads to the contrary of their position in the society. Thus members of MGG do not have their voice in the community. On the other hand, their ideas are almost weightless in comparison with those of the FGG. Within group, they have good social relations among members through cooperating together to protect their own fishing grounds, share experiences and help each other. In reality, members within group are relatives, thus they usually have mutual love and interdependence. Unfortunately, the conflict on utilizing water surface always exists between two groups. Hence, social capital formed between FGG and MGG is very weak. In addition, we can recognize the difference through analyzing the structure of fishing management between Quang Thai and Dien Hai communes. It can be seen from Diagram 3 that one of the advantages in managing coastal resources in Quang Thai is that the local community has received concerns of the national government and NGOs. Under the management of the national government and with the support of the IDRC/CIDA Project, Department of Fisheries, Department of Coastal Resources Protection and Fishing Union Branch of the province, the fishers in Quang Thai have adopted and applied the model of aquaculture in their livelihood to improve their income. The local people's participation in Fishing Union Branch of the 47
commune has enhanced their spirit. The democracy of the members has been promoted in the community because they have chances to contribute their ideas to the decisionmaking process in the local community. This reflects the co-management between the state government, NGOs and the local community in this commune. National Government
Fishing Union Branch of Province
QUANG THAI commune
Trung Lang Hamlet
DIEN HAI commune
Fishing Union Branch
Head of FGG
Group 4, Hamlet 1
Head of MGG
Diagram 3: The structure of fishing management in Dien Hai and Quang Thai Along with the division of fishing grounds, the government and NGOs have disseminated the model of aquaculture for the villagers in Quang Thai. This division is a form of transference from the opened access resources property to limited access. 48
Accordingly, the villagers have to adopt a suitable livelihood with their own limited fishing ground. The distinguished thing between fishing management in Quang Thai commune and Dien Hai commune is the unification of the fishing management. The Fishing Union branch of Quang Thai commune controls all the fishermen, including FGG, MGG and FFG. Thus, the embracement of the whole of community is very high. All villagers have to build up the responsibility constraints among members through a text, which is based on the high agreement of all members. Through coordinating with the hamlet government, most of the policies are implemented consistently and concentrative. This reflects the strength of management in Quang Thai and proves that co-management is promoted in this community with the participation of NGOs and the government. Differ from Quang Thai, the role of the government and NGOs is not strong in Dien Hai. Either, the local community has not had many chances to receive supports from GO and NGOs. Therefore, co-management is very weak. The way to manage is a traditional way that is mainly based on religious beliefs. Thus, such a way of management like “imperial power bends to suit rural custom” is always existed. This is not a good thing to control independently between FGG and MGG because the phenomenon of “survival of the fittest” would be taken place in this area. Nevertheless, the intervention of the local government in managing fishing is also a weakness. Therefore, the villagers usually rely on others and their self-consciousness is very low. Although all villagers in the two communes are clearly aware of the harmful degree of the destructive fishing gears, the phenomenon of using those gears still occured. The proof is that electric fishing was carried out frequently in Quang Thai with the participation of not only outsiders from the neighboring villages but also local 49
people. However, those who used the destructive fishing gears were mainly outsiders in Dien Hai commune. This proves that the formed rules within a production group in Dien Hai are considered as their advantages in management. All the constraints among members within group are mainly verbal undertakings. However, with the management of a limited area, they are able to control the villagers’ activities closely, hence local people’s self-consciousness is very high. Table 4. Compare the degree of villagers’ perception in utilizing the destructive fishing apparatus between Dien Hai and Quang Thai communes. CRITERIA
Paired Samples Test
Degree of villagers’ perception in using electric fishing
Degree of villagers’ perception in using eel rake
Note: 1: Very harmful; 2:Harmful; 3:No ideas; 4:Not harmful; 5: Not very harmful ** With the significant level α = 5%
As a result, we see that most of the villagers in the two communes are aware that the degree of harmfulness in using electric fishing is very high. Even if there is no significance of paired samples test, the mean of evaluation also shows this difference. Essentially, the local leaders in the two communes have implemented some policies to decrease the number of villagers utilizing the destructive fishing gears, for instance pecuniary penalty and confiscating the gears and boats even though in some cases the government destroyed the collected destructive gears. However, due to weak co-management among neighboring communities, the prevention of using electric fishing is too difficult.
Table 5. Compare the degree of utilization the destructive fishing apparatus between Dien Hai and Quang Thai communes. CRITERIA
Paired Samples Test
Degree of the insiders’ participation in commune (a)
Degree of utilizing the destructive fishing gears (b)
Note:(a) 1: Very abundant; 2:Abundant; 3:Moderate; 4:Not abundant; 5: Not very abundant (b) 1:Everyday; 2:few times in a week; 3:some times in a month; 4:once in some months * With the significant level α = 10% ***With the significant level α = 1%
From Table 5, we can recognize that there is a difference in the use of the destructive fishing gears to exploit the lagoon resources. In fact, the villagers in Quang Thai commune have used electric fishing stealthily because the local government banned it. According to the villagers in Quang Thai, because of relax management, the local government has not been able to prevent the outsiders from the neighboring communes from doing electric fishing. Some local people followed the outsiders to exploit lagoon by that way. Besides, the linkage among the villagers in Quang Thai was very weak and their capacity to cooperate with the local government was still not very strong, thus it is difficult for them to against the outsiders. Unlike Quang Thai, most of the villagers in Dien Hai are originally sampan people who lived on boat for a long time, thus their linkage is very high. They usually combine forces against the outsiders who use the destructive gear to exploit the lagoon. With the significant level α=0.01, it is proved there is a difference about the degree of the insiders’ participation to use the destructive
gears in the two communes. Moreover, with the significant level α = 0.1, the degree of utilization of the destructive gears in the two communes is also different. Moreover, there is a difference in implementing CBCRM in these communes, specifically in holding training course of fishing. Under the support of the Project, Universities and the local government, the local people in Quang Thai have adopted and applied the model of aquaculture on the fresh water. Through some training courses, the villagers have apprehended the techniques well to raise fish in the lagoon area. This shows that the knowledge of the villagers has been enhanced. Accordingly, the human capital has changed positively, making them more self-reliant in their life. Differ from Quang Thai, the model of aquaculture was not applied popularly in Dien Hai. With the aim of meeting their daily needs, a number of villagers in Dien Hai have learnt the experience about aquaculture on the fresh water from other villages to apply. It can be said that lack of chances to attend training courses is also a disadvantage for the villagers to practice aquaculture well and maintain MGG’s livelihoods in Dien Hai. Table 6. Compare the degree of attendance the training courses on aquaculture between Dien Hai and Quang Thai communes. CRITERION
Paired Samples Test
Degree of attendance the training courses
Note:(a) 1: Every month; 2:once in few months; 3:once in a year; 4:once in few years * With the significant level α = 1%
Table 6 shows that the villagers in Quang Thai have more opportunities to join the training courses on aquaculture than those in Dien Hai. The paired samples test with the significant α = 0.01 has demonstrated this distinction. The next difference is reflected on the capacity of borrowing capital of the villager in Quang Thai and Dien Hai. The result shows that there is no clearly distinction in accessing capital between these two communes. The local people in Quang Thai can be able to borrow money from various sources, for instance Fishing Union branch of the commune (supported by the project), Women Union and Farmer Union. Although the amount of loan money is not much, (average under 3 millions VND) they get a special treatment from different organizations, thus their satisfaction on interest rate differs from the villagers in Dien Hai. A number of the villagers in Dien Hai have their permanent house, thus they can directly borrow money from the Agriculture & Rural Development Bank by mortgaging their house with rather high interest rate and the average value of a credit is over 5 millions VND. With the significant level α = 0.05, this difference is shown in Table 7 by testing the two communes. Table 7. Reflecting the capacity of accessing capital of the villagers CRITERIA
Paired Samples Test
The capacity of accessing capital (a)
The average loan amount one time (b)
The degree of acceptation on interest rate (c)
Note: (a) 1: Very advantageous; 2: advantageous; 3: No ideas; 4:Not advantageous 5:Not very advantageous
(b) 1: Under 3 millions VND; 2: 3-5 millions VND; 3: over5-10 millions VND; 4: over 10 millions VND (c) 1: Too High; 2: High; 3: Moderate; 4:Low; 5: Too low * With the significant level α = 5%
In the final analysis, it is shown that the above differences in the process of implementing CBCRM have affected on sustainable livelihoods of the fishermen in the two communes. In particular, there are changes in five capitals in each commune, however these changes are not the same in these two areas. Before 1995, there were approximately 80% households living in temporary houses around the lagoon in Quang Thai. Since the villagers applied the model of aquaculture, their income has increased and they invested in building their solid house and buying furniture. Survey results show that 66% households who have applied the model of aquaculture have permanent house and TV, motorbike by using their income from aquaculture. It can be said that aquaculture is considered as an alternative way to increase extra income for the local people in order to help them solve their difficulties in their life. From the diagram 4, we can see that 54% of the villagers in Dien Hai have not applied the model of aquaculture yet, whereas all the local people in Quang Thai have earned their extra income from aquaculture. Instead of exploiting the natural resources in the lagoon only, the villagers in presently combine both the exploitation and aquaculture on the water area. In general, although the model of aquaculture has not developed popularly in Dien Hai, it brings about the benefits for Dien Hai villagers.. The outcome of the paired samples T test in the below table proves this.
The average of income per month in Quang Thai 2
The average og income per month in Dien Hai
Note: 1.00: under 600000 VND; 2: over 600000-1200000 VND; 3: over 1200000-1800000 VND; 4: over 1800000-2400000 VND; 5: over 2400000-3000000 VND; 6: over 3000000. Missing area: including people who have not applied aquaculture in their fishing yet.
Diagram 4: Reflecting the average of extra income from aquaculture in the two communes.
Table 8. Reflecting on the extra income of the villagers from aquaculture in the two communes. CRITERION Average of villagers’ extra income per month per head
Paired Sample T Test
Though the paired samples test is not significant, this result shows that the average amount of extra income that the villagers earn from aquaculture in Trung Lang is higher than that in Dien Hai. However, the income from aquaculture has helped improve the poor people’s life in both Quang Thai and Dien Hai. This proves that the income from aquaculture is considered as an extra income for the villagers and an alternative way to reduce the pressure of exploiting in the lagoon.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Conclusions Through analyzing the process of implementing CBCRM in Quang Thai and Dien Hai communes, the following findings have revealed: Firstly, it can be seen that the division of fishing grounds is considered as a sound policy which local government has carried out to give the rights of use for the local people. Owing to the property right or the utilization rights of fishing grounds, the villagers have comprehended their authority by themselves, thus they embedded their responsibility and duty in their own fishing grounds in particular and in the system of lagoon resources in general. In addition, because the signification of Quang Thai lagoon is not the same with that in Dien Hai area, the division of fishing grounds in Quang Thai is the best solution for the villager’s livelihood as well as for conservation of lagoon resources. However, for Dien Hai, the large fishing ground is a strong point to develop fish corral which is a kind of fishing lightly affect on the lagoon resources. Although the variety of property is different in these communes, all of them are considered as suitable ways to maintain lagoon environment. Secondly, culture is considered as a decisive dimension to determine the way of management in each area. The existence of the village regulations or norms in Dien Hai impresses a belief and strength in the community. With the management mottos “every country has its customs” or “imperial power bends to suit rural customs”, the villagers
in Dien Hai have conserved their own lagoon by eliminating the utilization of the destructive gears in their village. Furthermore, the village regulations are truly efficient if they are taken into consideration by the local government to make a consistent and comprehensive policy. Nonetheless, the impacts of the local government’ role on the lagoon resources management in Quang Thai have weakened the villager’s self-reliance. Hence, the utilization of the destructive gears still occurs in the lagoon area. Thirdly, beside the division of fishing grounds, the local government along with the other organizations has created some favorable conditions for the villagers in Quang Thai to apply the model of aquaculture broadly. Under the support of the project, the local leaders have hold training courses to introduce the techniques of aquaculture to the villagers. Moreover, through Women Union and Farmer Union, the local government has facilitated the fishermen to borrow credits. These are main advantages that the villagers in Quang Thai have got. Thanks to these policies, the villagers seem to be enhanced in their capacities, making them more self-reliant. Fourthly, one of the difficulties that till exists in Dien Hai is the gap between FGG’s income and MGG’ income. A number of the villagers in Dien Hai are members in MGG who are facing with their difficulties in the life because of lacking the fishing ground. It is very hard for them to manage their life because they lack of support from the government and NGOs. Thus, the policy-makers need to consider helping them solve their problem in the livelihoods. Briefly, the differences in implementing CBCRM in Quang Thai and Dien Hai have shown the advantages and disadvantages in their management. Based on the
characteristics of each commune, the policy-makers should have relevant strategies to support the villagers in meeting with the difficulties in their daily life. In the scope of this study, I focus on exploring the differences in the process of implementation of CBCRM in Quang Thai and Dien Hai communes and find out how those differences affect on sustainable livelihoods in each community. However, the impact of the differences on sustainable livelihoods of the local villagers has not been deeply reflected due to the limited time and author’s ability. 2. Recommendations Through contacting with the villagers in the two communes during the research, I understood thoroughly their thoughts and expectations in their life. The implementation of CBCRM tends to gain the sustainability for the local people’s livelihoods, thus the government has to derive from the local people’s legitimate aspiration to carry out the policies of CBCRM. With the representative of the local people in the two communes, the following petitions are suggested: Firstly, with the purpose of gaining the sustainable livelihoods and lagoon resources, right-based approach is considered as a solution that the government and NGOs need to take into account. Secondly, the government should promote co-management between GO and NGOs, among the local governments in communes locating around the lagoon in order to have a comprehensive policy. The stronger the co-management is, the higher the local people’s belief is. It is the strength of management of the lagoon resources based on community.
Thirdly, the government should have some policies to eliminate the utilization of the destructive fishing gears by supporting self-management groups. For instance, the investment of sentry box on the lagoon and transport for self-management groups should be done so that they can monitor well the villagers’ exploitation as well as the outsider’s. In addition, self-management groups need to pay more attention to monitoring closely the utilization of the destructive fishing gears and combine with the local government to implement coercive solutions. Another important thing that to be considered is that the GO should create jobs for the people who used the destructive gears in their livelihoods. It is a relevant way to help them escape from their shortsighted thoughts. Fourthly, the government should coordinate with other organizations to create favorable conditions for the local people to increase their knowledge, experiences and ability to access credit. These are sound base for them to be able to overcome their difficulty life. Finally, aquaculture can be considered as an alternative solution to increase income for the villagers in the lagoon area. Therefore, aquaculture should be applied popularly to improve the villagers’ livelihoods.
REFERENCES Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project (2001), www.aplivelihoods.org Addun. Raymund P.
& Muzones. Dennis M. (1994). Community-based Coastal
Resources management: Tambuyog’s experience in the Philippines. Berkes, F. and Farvar, M. T. (1989). Common Property resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development. Belhaven Press, London. Bourdieu, Pierre (1986). The Forms of Capital. In John Richardson, Ed. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241-258. Brosious, J. P., Tsing, A. L. and Zerner, C. (1998). Representing communities: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resources Management. Society and Natural Resource 11, 157-168. Brzeski, Veronika J. and Newkirk, Gary F. (2000). Lessons From the Lagoon: Research towards Community-Based Coastal Resources Management in Tam Giang Lagoon, Viet nam. Coastal resources Research Network (CoRR), Canada, 2000. Carson, Toby. Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Chapter 30. IDRC/MoE. pp. 353-362 Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion. p. 296. Brighton: IDS. Chambers, Robert (1992). Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and Participatory. IDS Discussion Page 311, IDS, Sussex, 1992. Chambers, Robert (1994). Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): analysis and experience. World Development. 22(9) 1994, pp 1253-1268.
Chambers, Robert (1997). Beyond “Whose reality Counts? – New Methods We Now Need” Coastal Communities Network, (1996). Community-based Co-management Resource Guide Curtis, F. (2003). Ecological Economics: Analysis Eco-Localism and sustainability. Elsevier Science B.V. p. 88. USA DFID, (2004). Introduction to the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, London: Department for International Development. http://www.livelihoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_pdfs/section1.pdf (accessed 25 September 2004). Ehrenfeld, D. (2002). Swimming lessons: Keeping a float in Age of Technology. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Mohan, G & Stokke, K (2000). Participatory development: the dangers of localism. Third World Quarterly; Vol. 21, No. 2, pp 247-268, 2000. Nguyen Chu Hoi et al (1998). Coastal Lagoon Management in Central Vietnam, Pager presented at a workshop. Johnson, Craig. (2001). Community Formation and Fisheries Conservation in Southern Thailand, Development and Change Vol. 32 (2001), 951-974, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Kallie, J.Y., Taua. A. and Faasili, U. (1999). An assessment of community-Based management of subsistence in Samoa. Marine Resources Assessment Group Workshop on Aspects of Coastal Fisheries resources Management, Fiji. Kuperan, K. and Mustapha, N. (1994). Small-scale coastal fisheries and comanagement. Marine policy, 18(4): 306-313. 61
Mam, Kosal (1996). Community-Based Resource Management: General concept and Implication for Cambodia. Prepared for the workshop on coastal fishery management organized by NEAP and MoE. Moser, Caroline. Is Asset-Based Development Changing Institutional Approaches to Development? USAID Office of Poverty Reduction Workshop, Asset Building for Sustainable Livelihoods, Slide 17, (2004). Pomeroy, Robert S. (1995). Community-Based and Co-management Institutions for Sustainable Coastal Fisheries Management in Southeast Asia. Ocean and Coastal Management 27 (3): 143-162. Putnam, R. (1993). The prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life. The American Prospect, 13, Spring 1993. Raintree, J. B. and Hoskins, M. W. (1990). Appropriate R and D support for forestry extension. ICRAF reprint No. 65, Reprinted from Planning Forestry Extension Programmers: Report of a regional expert consultation, FAO, Bangkok, 1988. pp 48. Rittibhonbhun, Niti and Pisit Chansanoh (1993). Community-Based Mangrove Rehabilitation and Management: A Case Study in Sikao District, Trang Province, Southern Thailand. Regional Development Dialogue, Vol.14, No.1, Spring 1993. Ton That Phap et al (2000). A review of collected information on Hue lagoon system, Unpublished report. Wikipedia, the fee encyclopedia (2004) www.en.wikipedia.org
APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE THE PROCESS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
I. GENERAL INFORMATION Q1.1 Name:
Address: House size:
(Number of people in household, including person interviewed)
Q1.2. House’s situation: Permanent house
Q1.3. Building time: Before 1985
Q1.4. Facilities and appliances Before 1985 Electricity: Electricity fan: Refrigerator: Indoor toilet: Radio/Cassette player: Television: VCD/Karaoke:
Motorbike: Other: II. SPECIFIC INFORMATION Q2.1. Main occupation of household before 1995: Mobile fishing
Aquaculture Q2.2. Main occupation of household after 1995: Mobile fishing
Aquaculture Q2.3. Average of daily household’s income from fixed fishing:
a. Number of fish corrals
b. Fish corral’s income per day
Q2.4. Compare present output from a fish corral with before: Higher
over two fold
Q2.5. Proportion of comparison: Half as much again as before
Q2.6. Which forms does the household’s fishing ground belong to? From father to son
buy from another owner
divided by the local government
Q2.7. The degree of the local people’s satisfaction of their own fishing ground using to aquaculture: Very satisfied
satisfied Q2.8. Information about aquaculture of fish.
Square of coop (m2):
Number of coops:
Duration of aquaculture (month):
Distance of coops:
Cost of each coop:
Fish variety (VND)
Cost of coop repair/year (VND)
Cost of food/coop/year (VND)
Income of each coop: -
Proportion of survival fish:
Harvesting output/coop (kg):
Q2.9. Which forms of gear did your household use to exploit? Electric fishing
Q2.10. Your perception of the degree of the above gears impact on the lagoon resources: Very harmful
Not very harmful
Q2.11. Rank the above gears basing on the degree of harmfulness: (1: the best harmful, 2...) Electric fishing
Q2.12. When was above gears popularly used in this lagoon? Before 1985
Q2.13. Which benefits did your household get from using these gears: High income
Gears used easily
Coping their daily needs
Q2.14. Who are the people used those above gears? The local people in this community
The outsiders of this community:...........
Q2.15. At present, how is the degree of utilization of those gears in this village? Very frequently
frequently Q2.16. How is the density of the exploitation by using those gears in this village? Every day
A few times a week
A few times a month
A few times a
year Q2.17. Which ways did this community use to diminish the utilization of those gears? Propaganda Verbal undertaking
Set up self-management group
Build a pledged text
Coordinate with the neighbor villages
Q2.18. Which ways did the local government play an important role in the implementation in the community? Propaganda Verbal undertaking
Set up self-management group
Build a pledged text
Coordinate with the neighbor villages
Q2.19. Which ways did the local people play an important role in the implementation in the community? Propaganda Verbal undertaking
Set up self-management group
Build a pledged text
Coordinate with the neighbor villages
Q2.20. Are the above ways really effective to eliminate the utilization those gears (the destructive gears)? Yes
Q2.21. What should we do to eliminate the utilization of the destructive gears? Intensify propaganda by anyway
Investment of transport and sentry-box,
Build a pledged text
Coordinate with the neighbor communes
Divide the fishing ground equally for the local people To create jobs for the people who used the destructive gears Other ways:............................... Q2.22. The degree of frequent attendance in the training courses on the exploitation or aquaculture: Every month
once a few months
Once a few years
once a year
Q2.23. Which organizations did hold the training courses? The local government
Department of Fishery/Branch of Fishery Protection
Other:................. Q2.24. The household’s capacity in borrowing money: Very convenient
convenient Q2.25. Which sources of finance could the household loan? Through the local government
Through Women Union
Other:........................ Q2.26. How much does the household borrow averagely per time (VND)? Under 3 millions
over 5-10 millions
Over 10 millions
Q2.27. The household’s opinion of interest rate: Too high
Q2.28. In order to improve capital access, please give some suggestions: ...................................................................... Q2.29. Other suggestions: .......................... Thanks for your cooperation!