Impact of Production Privatization on Onfarm Water Management in the Red River Delta, North Vietnam.

Abstract

In the transition to a market economy, in the rural Vietnam areas, the right to conduct production subjectively has been returned from cooperatives to the farm households. This individualization motivates the farmers to carry out their farming practices effectively. However, onfarm water management, because of physical interdependency among the farmers, can hardly be effectively carried out without cooperation of all the interdependent farmers. This paper, based on case studies of the main types of onfarm water management prevailing in the Red River Delta, analyses the changes in onfarm water management in the transition. It is found that, while the farmers carry out farming practices individually, the diminishing of the cooperative's role in onfarm water management is the main cause of the onfarm facilities' damages and unreliability of water supply to downstream area.The downstream farmers, depending on the changes in the role of cooperative in water management, take different countermeasures.In the best cases where the cooperatives can mobilize resources for a supplemental water supply, the farmers have to spend much more money and labour than the upstream farmers. In the other cases, they could not do anything other than to suffer from water shortage and delay water fee payment.The equity policy in water distribution and cost payment would enable the downstream farmers to invest in water recycling, thus increasing the system's efficiency. The integration at the village level of hamlet traditional organizations would be an effective body for onfarm water management.

Pro-poor intervention strategies in irrigated agriculture in Asia: poverty in irrigated agriculture: issues and options: Vietnam.

“…Research on the impact of production privatization of on-farm water management in the Red river delta of North Vietnam (Tuan et al 1996;Tuan and Satoh 1998) has shown that during the centralized economy, the Cooperative, formed on the village base, was an effective body for mobilization and involvement of farmers in irrigation and drainage construction and in on-farm water management. Due to this, major achievements in irrigation and drainage have been gained at both the system level and the farm level.…”

“…In 1965, the government initiated the formation of hamlet-level agricultural Cooperatives. In 1970, the hamletlevel Cooperatives were consolidated into village-level Cooperatives, which were thought to better match the needs of irrigation and field construction (Tuan et al 1996). The overall effect saw per capita food production decline from 305 kg in 1961-1965to 253 kg in 1966-1975.…”

“…The Cooperative has become a strictly service organization. In some cases, where strong leadership prevailed the Cooperative maintained a degree of influence in the village affairs (Tuan et al 1996). Cooperatives were largely able to maintain their importance where service required a scale beyond the household level, such as irrigation.…”

“…Cooperatives were largely able to maintain their importance where service required a scale beyond the household level, such as irrigation. Currently, the Cooperative's water management role is to deliver water from the turnout of secondary canals to the last-level permanent canals (Tuan et al 1996).…”

“…There have been two implications for water management due to the change in the role of the Cooperatives: 1) more effective Cooperative-led management of irrigation at the farm level, and 2) weak Cooperative action leading to poor farmer-led management of irrigation (Tuan et al 1996). Where Cooperative leadership was strong and water supplies were ample, the Cooperative was able to hold on to its water management duties.…”