crafting sustainability: managing water pollution in viet ... · crafting sustainability: managing...
TRANSCRIPT
Crafting sustainability: managing water pollution in Viet Nam’s craft villages
Sango Mahanty, Trung Dinh Dang & Phung Giang Hai
Abstract
The spontaneous growth of Vietnam’s 2,790 rural craft villages has been a mixed blessing. Specialising in ‘traditional’ crafts such as processed foods, textiles and furniture, as well as newer commodities, such as recycled products, craft businesses have expanded rapidly since Vietnam adopted the ’Doi Moi’ (economic renovation policy) in the mid-1980s. As with small scale rural industries in other developing countries, the expansion, modernisation and diversification of craft production in Vietnam presents significant development opportunities as well as environmental and social risks. This largely unregulated increase in industrial activity has reduced rural poverty and brought prosperity to rural entrepreneurs, but it has also generated dangerously high levels of pollution with attendant risks to human health. Since the 1990s, the Vietnamese government has developed several laws and initiatives to regulate industrial activities and control craft village pollution, such as the ‘polluter pays principle’. However, the small scale and dispersed nature of craft production has continued to defy effective management by the state, and pollution levels in craft villages have increased alarmingly. The Crafting Sustainability project aimed to provide a better understanding of the drivers of pollution, and policy approaches to better addressing them. Drawing on four cases study sites in the Red River Delta region of Northern Vietnam, this paper provides an overview of key findings and policy recommendations.
Discussion Paper 20
JUNE 2012
Crafting sustainability: managing water pollution in Viet
Nam’s craft villages1
Sango Mahanty, Trung Dinh Dang & Phung Giang Hai
Sango Mahanty ([email protected]) is a Research and Teaching Fellow in the Resource Management in the Asia-Pacific Program at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU.
Trung Dinh Dang ([email protected]) is a Research Associate in the Resource Management in the Asia-Pacific Program at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU.
Phing Giang Hai is Deputy Director of the Division of Strategy and Policy Research at the Institute of Policy and Strategy for Agriculture and Rural Development (IPSARD).
Mahanty, S, Dan, TD & Hai, PG 2012, “Crafting sustainability: managing water
pollution in Viet Nam’s craft villages,” Development Policy Centre
Discussion Paper 20, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian
National University, Canberra.
The Development Policy Centre is a research unit at the Crawford
School of Public Policy, The Australian National University. The
discussion paper series is intended to facilitate academic and policy
discussion. Use and dissemination of this discussion paper is
encouraged; however, reproduced copies may not be used for
commercial purposes.
The views expressed in discussion papers are those of the authors
and should not be attributed to any organisation with which the
authors might be affiliated.
For more information on the Development Policy Centre, visit
http://devpolicy.anu.edu.au
1 This research was undertaken by The Australian National University and the Institute of Policy and Strategy for Agriculture and Rural Development, Hanoi, and was supported by an Australian Development Research Award (ADRA0800080 Crafting Sustainability: addressing water pollution in Vietnam’s craft villages). We thank numerous participants for freely contributing their time and opinion, and Sophie Dowling for her excellent editing support and research assistance. Susan Mackay and Nanda Gasparini, former students of the Master of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development, respectively contributed important data on villagers’ perceptions of risk and recycled paper commodity chains.
Crafting sustainability: managing water pollution in Viet Nam’s craft villages
1. Introduction
Since the 1980s, when the Doi Moi2 reforms opened up the Vietnamese economy,
thousands of small to medium scale, informal craft manufacturing enterprises have
mushroomed in villages across the country (EPA 2009). Many of Vietnam’s 3,221 craft
villages3 are situated on major river systems, particularly the highly populated Red
River Delta region of Northern Vietnam. While the government has encouraged this
enterprise growth in order to address rural poverty and to counter rural-urban income
gaps and migration, regulators have struggled to manage the environmental impacts of
these burgeoning industries. Consequently, some 90 per cent of craft villages have
pollution levels well above the standards set by the national environmental protection
law (MONRE 2008; EPA 2009; The World Bank 2008)4.
Although pollution from craft production is relatively small compared to large-scale
industrial and urban waste, the associated health risks for producers and their
immediate neighbours make craft village pollution a matter of significant government
and community concern (MONRE 2008, 2006). This growing local and national concern
about water pollution in particular led the Australian National University and the
Institute of Policy and Strategy for Agriculture and Rural Development (IPSARD) to
collaborate on research to produce a better understanding of the causes of the problem.
The Crafting Sustainability project sought to identify and understand the drivers of craft
village water pollution at the village, district, provincial and national levels, and to
recommend measures to address such pollution, thereby improving the economic,
social and environmental sustainability of craft villages in Vietnam.
2 The implementation of the Doi Moi (economic renovation) policy in 1986 sought to transform the Vietnamese economy from a centrally-planned to a market-oriented one. 3 This number refers to recognised craft villages where at least 30 per cent of households are engaged in off-farm activities (National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 2011). Each craft village specialises in one of the following specific areas of production: (1) food processing; (2) textile and leather products; (3) construction materials and masonry; (4) recycled products; (5) traditional handicrafts; or (6) ‘other’ products (MONRE 2008, p. 4). 4 These documents note that water pollution overrides atmospheric and solid waste as a locus of community concern.
This paper is a synthesis of the study’s key findings and sets out recommendations for
future policy development on craft village pollution. The paper is organised into seven
sections. Section 2 provides an overview of the study design. Section 3 summarises
existing knowledge about water pollution from craft villages in Vietnam. Section 4
discusses how the specific characteristics of craft villages differentiate craft production
from larger scale industries and contribute to the growth of pollution. Section 5
examines local responses to pollution, which is largely driven by the competing
priorities of livelihoods and pollution management. Section 6 reviews how existing
governance weaknesses contribute to pollution, particularly the limited state resources
and capacity, weak coordination and low levels of local engagement. Section 7 concludes
and makes recommendations to inform future policy responses to water pollution from
craft villages.
2. Research overview
2.1 Conceptualising water pollution
Water pollution occurs when waste exceeds the absorptive capacity of a water body,
whether from identifiable point sources, or from diffuse non-point sources (Nguyen et al.
2003). However, the causes of this seemingly mechanical process are far more socially
complex.
From an economic perspective, pollution is a negative externality that arises because the
environmental and social costs of pollution are treated as external to the production
process. Because the polluter does not need to bear the costs of pollution, reducing
pollution is not a factor in their production choices (Nguyen et al 2003, p. 8). This line of
thinking has given rise to the ‘polluter pays principle’, where polluting industries are
made to bear the cost of measures to prevent and control pollution, thus giving them an
incentive to reduce polluting behaviour (Colby 1991; Fischhendler 2007). This
approach has also been embraced by Vietnamese regulators, in the form of a ‘pollution
fee’. As with many developing countries, weak capacity and corruption has been a
barrier to operationalising this in practice (Fritzen 2006; O’Rourke 2004), particularly
as the approach was designed to regulate large industrial firms rather than small scale
industries. Furthermore, determining an appropriate price can be problematic where
the social costs of pollution are poorly understood, some pollutants have no safe levels,
and the interests of future generations cannot be readily quantified (Glazyrina et al
2006).
Given the sustained increase in levels of pollution in craft villages over the past two
decades, it is reasonable to suggest that the polluter pays approach has not succeeded in
mitigating pollution, at least in the craft village context. In recognition of these
limitations, our study took a broader approach to the analysis of pollution and its
causes. Drawing on commons research, we understand water quality to be a ‘common
pool resource’ (CPR), where the use of water as a sink for wastes cannot be easily
prevented (known as ‘low excludability’), and the reduction of water quality by one user
reduces it for others (known as 'subtractability' [see Ostrom 2009; Sarker et al 2008]).
In commons theory, the challenge in managing CPRs lies in devising effective collective
arrangements and rules (institutions) to manage the CPR and to address resource
related conflicts (Ostrom 1992; 2005).
River systems are large and diffuse CPRs that cannot be solely managed through local
self-governance, for instance by individual villages. Water quality in a river basin is thus
a ‘complex commons’ whose management requires coordination between users in
different localities through ‘nested’ systems of governance and mutually supportive
institutions at the local, regional, national and even international level (Ostrom 2005,
2009) 5. Management challenges are amplified in complex CPRs. For example, allocating
responsibilities to the lowest competent level of governance requires knowledge about
capacity, and the ability to adapt arrangements to strengthen or work around differing
capacities (Marshall 2007). Additionally, multi-scale governance does not emerge in a
political vacuum (Armitage 2008; Dowsley 2008), but is shaped by the power and
positioning of different social actors, social organisation, the knowledge held by
different actors and how such knowledge is valued (Mosse 1996). As such, horizontal
and vertical relationships at different levels can exert a significant influence on the
functioning of multi-scale governance (Berkes 2008; Dowsley 2008).
5 The coordination of resource appropriation, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution and governance, at multiple levels of governance is one of Ostrom’s eight principles of robust CPR governance (Ostrom 2005). Multi-level governance links the local to higher levels of social and political organisation in order to address multiple management objectives, knowledge systems and collaborative problem solving (Berkes 2008).
Based on this conceptual underpinning, our study examined the institutions and
relationships between key actors (producers and different levels of government)
involved with craft village pollution. These relationships were studied horizontally (e.g.
within communities, and between agencies at a particular level of government) and
vertically (e.g. between craft producers and government, and between agencies at
different levels of government). In this paper we organise our discussion of the
challenges and options for multi-scale governance of craft village pollution around two
broad themes: (i) the characteristics and conditions within craft villages, and (ii) the
overall governance of craft village pollution.
2.2 Methods
We used a qualitative case study approach to gain an in-depth understanding of the
conditions in craft villages, and the perspectives of different stakeholders (producers,
non-producers, government officials and other key informants) on the causes and
governance of water pollution.
Four case study villages (see Figure 1) were chosen for in-depth study on the basis that
they:
1. Made products associated with high levels of water pollution (textiles, food
processing, recycled paper production)
2. Featured a range of different enterprise sizes (small to large); and
3. Were situated in provinces at varying distances from Hanoi.
This approach enabled us to compare how the causes of and responses to water
pollution varied in different craft village contexts. For instance, we could assess
differences between ‘traditional’ (albeit rapidly changing) craft villages with villages
that featured ‘new’ products and larger, more self-contained enterprises. We could also
explore the reach of government regulations at differing distances from Hanoi. All four
case study villages were located in the Red River Delta region of Northern Vietnam, an
area known for its high population density and concentration of craft industries, as well
as its high level of pollution.
Interviews and focus groups were held with a total of 113 participants from the four
case study villages and with commune, district, provincial and national government
officials. These interviews assessed the development of craft production systems over
time, changes to major livelihood activities, perceptions of pollution – its extent, causes
and impacts – and perceptions about rules related to pollution and their
implementation. Village participants were selected from differently sized enterprises
(small to large), positions holding important community knowledge (e.g. commune
officials, teachers, health workers) and households not involved in craft production. The
data was then analysed using NVivo software. An overview of the cases is provided in
Table 1.
Figure 1: Location map
This paper uses village names for Nha Xa, Phong Khe and Duong Lieu, but refers to the
commune name for Duong Noi, where two villages were studied. Nha Xa, a traditional
craft village on the Red River, features predominantly small household enterprises
involved in specialised stages of silk production. Water pollution in Nha Xa arises from
the dumping of bleach and dyes in village ponds and into the river. Duong Noi, also on
the Red River, produces printed polyester, cotton and knit textiles. Here, the
predominantly large-scale factories release untreated waste water and dyes into village
canals and the river. The recycled paper village of Duong O in Phong Khe has numerous
large and medium factories, as well as small household enterprises that sort and recycle
urban waste paper. The untreated waste water from Duong O workshops contains
cleaning, bleaching and dying chemicals. Duong Lieu produces cassava and arrowroot
starch, noodles and cakes, releasing waste water that is high in biological contaminants
into village drains and canals.
Table 1: Case study overview
Commune Duong Noi1 Phong Khe1 Moc Nam1 Duong Lieu1 Craft villages studied
2 (Y La and La Noi)
1 (Duong O) 1 (Nha Xa) 1 (Duong Lieu)
District, Province; distance from Hanoi
Ha Tay district; Hanoi City; 15 km
Yen Phong district; Bac Ninh Province; 32 km
Duyen Tien District; Ha Nam; 100 km
Hoai Duc District; Ha Noi city (formerly Ha Tay Province); 27 km
Population 17,000 8,546 (1,964 HH) 4,131 (1,211 HH) 11,000 (2652 HH) Product Polyester and
cotton textile Recycled paper Silk Cassava and
Arrowroot starch, noodles and malt
Number of craft enterprises
20 large and 9 medium; 800 small trading shops; 100 animal husbandry
7 large-scale factories with over 30 regular workers; 190 medium scale factories; countless smaller businesses sort, weigh, carry waste paper and trade the finished product
186 weaving households; 30 dyeing households of which 2 are medium scale; 30 trading households
500 cassava and arrowroot processing households; 300 starch filtering; 146 malt production; 150 noodle making; 20 trading households); 30 medium and large enterprises including 18 working in food processing
Number of interviews
18 27 + 1 focus group 43 + 1 focus group 30 + 1 focus group
Source: Commune records in Duong Noi, Phong Khe, Moc Nam and Duong Lieu, 2010
Our analysis draws on the above primary research, as well as information attained from
secondary research and policy documents.
3. Water Pollution in Craft Villages
In 2008 the Vietnam Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) released
a major environmental assessment of craft villages. This study6 found that almost all
craft enterprises and villages were releasing untreated waste, which was seriously
polluting and degrading the environment. Several different types of pollution were
attributed to craft production, including: water pollution, air pollution, soil pollution,
heat and noise pollution (See table 2). Our study focuses on water pollution, which is
accorded highest priority in the current policy discourse in view of its implications for
health and agricultural production.
Villages involved in food processing, animal husbandry and slaughter, silk and textile
production are primarily responsible for releasing large volumes of waste water which
contain high levels of organic waste and chemicals. The volume of waste varies between
enterprises and villages according to production levels and season. An earlier MONRE
study (2006:27) estimated that 458 craft villages released approximately 45,000 to
60,000 cubic meters of untreated wastewater per day into the Nhue-Day River sub-
basin. Villages producing recycled and metal products release lower volumes of waste
water, but with higher levels of toxicity.
Although the most significant pollution impacts are at the local level and immediately
downstream, craft village pollution does ultimately reach the river sub-basin and basin
level. However, at the larger river basin scale, craft villages are responsible for only a
small proportion of pollution in comparison with other sources. In the Nhue-Day River
sub-basin, the waste water from craft villages accounts for only four per cent of the total
waste water discharged (MONRE 2006, p. 28). Domestic waste, the industrial sector and
agriculture all contribute significantly more pollution to the sub-basin (See Figure 2).
6 MONRE (2008), ‘Bao Cao Moi Truong Quoc Gia 2008: Moi Truong Lang Nghe Viet Nam.’ Hanoi: MONRE (Ministry of National Resources and Environment).
Figure 2: Proportion of waste water discharged per sector, Nhue-Day River
sub-basin (2006)
Source: MONRE 2006, p. 25
Table 2: Craft product types and associated pollution
Waste types:
Air Water Solid Others
1. Food
processing,
animal husbandry
and slaughtering
Dust and
chemical
pollutants
Biological and
chemical
pollutants
Cinders and other solid
waste
Localised heat and
humidity
2. Textile and
dyeing, silk and
leather tanning
Dust and
chemical
pollutants
Biological and
chemical (dyes,
bleaches)
contaminants;
heavy metals
(Cr6+) from
tanning
Cinders and textile scraps;
unsafe chemical
containers
Localised heat,
humidity and noise
3. Handicraft
Heat (ceramics) - Ceramic Dust and
chemical
pollutants
Biological waste,
oils and dye
chemicals
Coal ash (ceramics) and
other solid waste
- Lacquer, stone
engraving
Dust and
chemical
pollutants from
solvents
Craft
villages 4
%
Farming and animal
husbandry 16
%
Domestic sector 56
%
Industrial sector 24%
4. Recycling
Heat (all)
- Paper Dust and other
chemical
pollutants
Biological and
chemical
pollutants (including acid,
bleaches, dyes)
Waste paper
- Metal Dust and other
chemical
pollutants (e.g. CO and acidic
compounds)
Heavy metals and
oils
Coal ash, iron waste,
small metal scraps
- Plastic Dust and other
chemical
pollutants
Biological and
chemical
pollutants, oils
Waste plastic and rubber
5. Building
material, stone
processing
Dust and other
chemical
pollutants
Chemical
pollutants
Coal ash, small stone
scraps
Heat, noise,
exposure to
vibration
Source: Dang 2005
3.1 Health impacts of craft village pollution
In craft villages, pollution is generally most concentrated at the site of disposal; in
waterways directly connected to craft enterprises (see Plate 1). The clustering of a large
number of small workshops creates multiple, individual sources of pollution within the
residential areas of craft villages. The pollution therefore poses the greatest risk to craft
producers themselves, workers and nearby residents (KEI and the World Bank 2003).
Almost all the usual pollution parameters in craft production workplaces, including
noise, light, toxicity, humidity, and temperature, are known to exceed national
standards. It is estimated that as many as 95 per cent of craft workers are exposed to
toxic airborne particles, 85.9 per cent to excessive heat, and 59.6 per cent to other toxic
chemicals (KEI and the World Bank 2003; MONRE 2008).
While systematic data is not available,
disease incidence in many craft villages
has increased, with the life expectancy of
craft villagers now reported to be ten
years shorter than the national average
(MONRE 2008).7 In 2003, a key study by
the Korean Environment Institute (KEI)
and the World Bank in the Red River Delta
found that the health status of craft village
residents compared very poorly with
agricultural villages, with higher levels of
eye, intestinal and skin disease and
respiratory conditions.8 Life-threatening
conditions such as cancer and heavy metal contamination are also more common in
craft villages engaged in plastic, lead and metal recycling (MONRE 2008). The health
impacts of craft pollution are considered more serious for women and children (See
Plate 2).
These growing health risks have propelled craft village pollution into the public eye,
attracting the attention of policy-makers and the media (see Box 1). Since 2000, the
national government has issued several decrees, regulations and laws to tackle the
growing pollution problem (see Section 6). These form the basis of Vietnam’s regulatory
system to address pollution in general and pollution from craft villages in particular, but
they face several implementation challenges.
7 Statistics from seven craft villages and seven non-craft villages in Ha Nam province showed that the incidence of skin, respiratory and intestinal disease among residents in craft villages is many times higher than that in non-craft villages. The rate of respiratory disease in craft and non-craft villages is 50 per cent and 40 per cent respectively. The rate of diarrhea was 80 per cent and 10 per cent respectively for craft and non-craft villages. For skin disease, 70 per cent of craft village residents suffered from these ailments compared with 20 per cent in non-craft villages (MONRE 2008). 8 In Dong Mai lead recycling village (Hung Yen province), 71.1 per cent of residents are reported to have mental illnesses associated with lead poisoning and 65.6 per cent to have respiratory disease. The rate of serious pollution-related issues is also high among children, in the form of disabilities such as lameness, polio, and blindness. An estimated 100 per cent of workers in this village suffer from chronic lead poisoning (KEI & World Bank 2003; Hoang et al 2004).
Plate 1: Waste water from dyeing paper is released into a basic drainage system in the village of Phong Khe.
In summary, there is mounting evidence that water pollution from craft villages is a
significant and growing problem, particularly at the village and district levels. Recent
research has confirmed that unchecked craft village pollution has serious implications
for human health in craft communities and among their immediate neighbours.
4: Characteristics of Craft Villages and Craft Production Systems
In Vietnamese policy terms, a craft village is defined as a rural village where (a) at least
30 per cent of households participate in craft activities; (b) businesses have operated
steadily for at least two years; and (c) villagers comply with government policies
(MONRE 2008). The government further differentiates between ‘traditional’ and non-
traditional or ‘new’ craft villages. A traditional craft village is one that has existed for at
least 50 years, reflects Vietnamese cultural identity, and sustains at least one traditional
craft and well-known artisan. In contrast, a new craft village has been more recently
Box 1: Media headlines express alarm about pollution
“Moi truong lang nghe suy thoai tram
trong” [Environment in craft villages
has seriously deteriorated] (Nguoi Lao
Dong, 21 April 2009)
“O nhiem moi truong nghe o Bac Bo o
muc bao dong” [Pollution in craft
villages in the Northern region reaches
the alert level] (Ha Noi Moi, 9 March
2007)
“O nhiem moi truong la nghe: thuc
trang dang lo” [Pollution in craft
villages: a worrying situation] (Ha Noi
Moi, 21 April 2009)
“Bao Dong Do o nhiem lang nghe” [A
red alert on pollution in craft villages]
(Cong An Nhan Dan, 27 August 2009)
Plate 2: A young girl with a pronounced tumour on her neck, one of several children with this condition in Nha Xa village.
established in response to market demand and the availability of input materials
(MONRE 2008: 4). The traditional craft village label appears to primarily be used for
reasons of ‘branding’ traditional craft products, and to support the retention of artisanal
knowledge in traditional craft villages.
According to these criteria, traditional craft villages in the Red River Delta in 1998
accounted for only 29.4 per cent of the total, while new craft villages accounted for 70.6
per cent (Nguyen et al 2003, p. 18).
Table 3: Number of traditional and new craft villages, Red River Delta (2010)
Province
Number of craft villages
Traditional craft villages New craft villages total
Thai Binh 14 68 82
Ninh Binh 20 141 161
Nam Dinh 29 61 90
Ha Nam 16 21 37
Hai Duong 30 12 42
Hung Yen 11 28 39
Hai Phong 15 65 89
Bac Ninh 21 27 58
Ha Noi 20 20 40
Ha Tay 20 68 88
Vinh Phuc 9 5 14
Total 215 516 731
Source: Figures provided by IPSARD and MARD, November 2011
Craft villages have been further classified according to their production focus. The most
widely-accepted classification comes from Dang et al (2005) and MONRE (2008), which
divides craft villages into six different categories: (1) food processing, including animal
husbandry and butchery, (2) textile production including dyeing, silk production and
leather processing, (3) the production of construction material and masonry, (4)
recycling, (5) handicraft production9, and (6) others. Figure 3 shows the proportion of
craft villages that were included in each of these categories as at 2008.
Figure 3: Breakdown of craft villages according to product type (2008)
Source: MONRE 2008, pp. 7-9
4.1 The historical development of craft villages
Craft villages have been part of Vietnam’s rural economy and society for many
centuries, emerging as peasants looked to supplement their income in response to an
oversupply of labour in the agricultural sector (Gourou 1955[1936]). For example, Dai
Bai bronze casting village in Bac Ninh has a history of over 900 years (MONRE 2008:3).
Many traditional products are still manufactured today, such as processed foods, tools
for agriculture and fishing, ritual goods, common household goods, construction
materials, paper and textiles (DiGregorio 2001, p. 62). In the early 1900s, Gourou
(1936) counted 180 specialised craft occupations and corresponding villages within the
Red River Delta region, employing more than 250,000 people, or about seven per cent of
the adult population (Gourou 1955 [1936]).
Before the 1945 revolution, craft villages produced diverse crafts and sold products
domestically as well as internationally (Dang et al. 2005, p. 22). After 1945 the major
political, social and economic transitions occurring in Vietnam also altered the
9 Handicrafts (thu cong my nghe) refer here to a specific type of craft product created by skilled artisans which are considered to be high art and command high prices.
Food processing, animal husbandry and butchery
22%
Textile production including
dyeing and leather processing
19%
Construction material production and masonry 5%
Waste recycling
4%
Handicraft production
32%
Others
18%
development of craft villages, particularly from 1954 to 1986 when craft production
was collectivised. Like peasants, artisans were organised within handicraft collectives
that manufactured products according to state plans and targets. Export markets were
mainly in other socialist countries. This strong, centralised market regulation led to the
disappearance of some crafts (Dang et al. 2005, p. 12). Although peasants and artisans
faced many financial difficulties when Vietnam’s centrally planned economy
approached collapse in the early 1980s, they were also able to supplement their
livelihoods through the informal production and marketing of crafts.
The Doi Moi reforms of 1986 opened up markets and opportunities for craft producers.
Collectives were dismantled, land was returned to households and price controls were
lifted (Kerkvliet 2005; O’Rourke 2004, p. 36). Craft entrepreneurs emerged, purchasing
machinery from disbanded collectives and setting up informal production spaces within
family homes and land plots. The option of employing family members and additional
labour enabled handicraft businesses to expand in size and number.
The development of craft villages was initially a spontaneous and locally-driven
process, with little government intervention and planning. Since 2000, the government
has initiated policies to promote the development of rural non-farming businesses in
general and craft villages in particular, largely due to the benefits they bring in terms of
reducing rural-urban migration and increasing rural employment and incomes (see
Table 4).
Table 4: Government polices related to the development of craft villages
Name Purpose Year enacted
Decision 132/2000/QD-TTg
Promoting the development of rural non-farming businesses
2000
Decree 90/2001/ND-CP
Supporting policies for SME development 2001
Resolution 15/TQ-TW
Accelerating rural industrialisation and modernisation in the period 2001-2010
2001
Decision 68/2002/QD-CP
Government’s acting plan to implement the fifth resolution of 9th Vietnamese Communist Party Central Committee
2002
Instruction 24/2005/CT-TTg
Continuous strengthening of the implementation of the fifth resolution of 9th Vietnamese Communist Party Central Committee on rural industrialisation and modernisation from 2001-2010
2005
Decree 66/2006/ND-CP
Promoting the development of rural non-farming businesses
2006
Circular 116/2006/TT-BNN
Guiding the implementation of Decree 66/2006/ND-CP on the development of rural non-farming businesses.
2006
Craft villages are viewed as a vehicle for rural industrialisation and modernisation, a
means to increase national and local budgets, to expand export revenues and reduce
rural poverty (Dang et al 2005). Yet it is primarily local entrepreneurship that has
underpinned the expansion of craft production in many provinces of Vietnam. The
majority of craft village businesses, being unregistered or informal, are unable to access
government support programs (Hansen et al 2009).
4.2 Production systems in craft villages
In his 1930s study of Red River Delta peasants, Gourou (1955[1936]) highlighted four
key characteristics of craft villages. First, the peasant household was the basic unit of
production in craft industries with family members providing most of the labour and
the family home or land plot serving as the production site. Second, individual
households tended to specialise in particular stages of the production process, for
example one household may prepare a raw material for further processing by another.
Third, craft industries were labour-intensive, with low capital inputs and simple
technology. Lastly, income from craft production was low and considered secondary to
farming income. Gourou (1955[1936]) also grouped village-based peasant industries
into two main types; one settled (generally producing goods) and the other itinerant
(generally providing services). While some of these characteristics of production can be
seen in craft villages today, rural craft industries have also undergone significant
changes, particularly since the Doi Moi era.
As with other villages in Vietnam, craft villages are much more than just clusters of
homes. Kinship and intra-village economic and social ties are important to their socio-
economic and administrative functioning, and to some extent have made Vietnamese
craft villages socially cohesive ‘corporate’ communities. Prior to the 1945 socialist
revolution each village enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy in setting rules to govern
its affairs and vis-à-vis other villages and the state (Kleinen 1999; O’Rourke 2004). For
villages with a craft specialisation, village rules excluded non-residents from learning
the ‘secrets’ of their craft occupation. In order to safeguard production secrets, skills
were passed down to family members only who lived within the village.
Today craft villages have more open interaction and exchange with others, but have
retained these tendencies to keep certain aspects of production secret and to rely
heavily on both family members for labour and close neighbours as production chain
partners. Despite having modernised and diversified their products in recent decades,
each craft village tends to specialise in a certain type of product and engage different
families within and outside it in different stages of the production chain. Thus the
‘monopolistic spirit’ of craft villages continues to organise craft production, not just in
terms of relying on insiders, but also in terms of maintaining industrial activities in
scattered home-based workshops and, to a certain extent, resisting regulation by the
state (Digregorio 2001, p. 40).
In the craft villages that we studied, production chains were typically decentralised,
complex and interdependent. For instance, in Phong Khe, a single roll of recycled paper
involved as many as nine production chain partners scattered in separate household
production workshops (See figures 4 and 5). These workshops were family-run, often
linked by kinship ties and had a long history of association. Thus, there was a high level
of mutual economic and social interdependence between craft producers in most cases.
In some villages, medium or larger enterprises tended to undertake all or most of the
manufacturing stages for a product under one roof, but these were the exception, rather
than the norm.
Figure 4: Production processes and relationships in Nha Xa village
4.3 Relationship of production systems to pollution
With the demise of collectivisation and the privatisation of land and craft enterprises in
the 1980s, craft production no longer took place in centrally planned, dedicated
workshops, but returned to the pre-1945 pattern of taking place in small residential
households. This important aspect of craft production has had significant implications
for the treatment and management of waste, particularly as craft enterprises rapidly
multiplied in the wake of the Doi Moi reforms.
Close social networks and relationships are a key point of difference between polluting
workshops in rural craft villages and large scale urban industrial factories. In craft
villages, the polluter is an ‘insider’, and therefore more easily accommodated by local
residents. Other craft producers ultimately depend upon polluting processes to ensure
that they can continue production, access markets and, thus continue to gain their share
of the value chain. In interviews, most villagers could easily identify the workshops that
were the main polluters. Although Vietnamese law enables affected persons to take
legal action against environmental polluters, priority was placed on maintaining social
networks and relationships of mutual economic interdependence (see Box 2).
Figure 5: Production processes and relationships in Phong Khe village
Commodity chain analysis can uncover where pollution occurs relative to profits along
the commodity chain. In Phong Khe, for example, large and medium scale recycled
paper producers released the most untreated waste water, and also happened to take
the largest share of profit from recycled paper production and trade (Gasparini 2009).
This was not the case with food and silk production which tended to involve
interconnected small scale household workshops. In Duong Lieu, food processing
workshops were identified as the main polluters but took a small share of the income
compared to others along the chain such as traders, malt and noodle producers. In Nha
Xa, the dyeing workshops were primarily responsible for pollution, but mainly had
small profit margins, similar to other producers. Meanwhile, urban traders took a
relatively large share of the profit from silk production.
The predominantly small scale, interconnected nature of craft production suggests that
an approach to pollution regulation and mitigation that targets individual businesses
may be ineffective (see Section 6). But in developing collective approaches to managing
waste within craft villages, the distribution of costs and benefits in production need to
be considered –which in some cases may extend beyond the village (e.g. to external
traders). Detailed commodity chain analysis can also help to identify and prioritise
which stages of production should be concentrated in dedicated village industrial zones.
4.4 Technology, capital and land
constraints
Old, low-cost and inefficient technologies
are often identified as the primary cause
of pollution in craft villages (Dang a&
Nguyen 2005; Konstadakopulos 2008; see
Plate 3). Most craft enterprises still use
old technology manufactured in the
1950s or 1960s and purchased from
disbanded collectives (Dang et al. 2005; interviews). As O’Rourke notes, technology that
ought to be consigned to a museum still remains in operation throughout Vietnam
(2004, p. 109). Inefficient machinery contributes to pollution as more inputs and waste
are associated with each unit of production (Dang et al 2005, p. 161; see Box 3).
Producers are unable to upgrade outmoded technology because of their significant
capital constraints.
The types and quality of input materials and energy sources used for production also
contribute to pollution. For example, waste recycling villages generally process waste
materials that contain chemicals. In textile villages, cleaning and dyeing activities use
large volumes of chemicals. Many small villages in the Red River Delta now recycle
heavy metals such as lead, with serious impacts on the local environment. For many
enterprises, the main source of energy is still either highly polluting coal or firewood
(Dang et al 2005; Konstadakopulos 2008).
Box 2: The interdependence of
small scale producers
We are dependent on each other.
- Small scale weaver, Nha Xa, July 2010
We don’t want to have quarrels with each
other; we want to live in harmony.
- Silk trader, Nha Xa, July 2010
The polluter is my relative.
- Small scale weaver, Nha Xa, July 2010
Plate 3: Technology from the 1960s producing recycled paper in Phong Khe
The substantial growth of craft villages and the expansion of craft production has also
depleted natural resources in surrounding areas, including local underground water
(e.g. in Duong Lieu), timber, clay, stone, grass, plants, seashells, metal, and animal horn
and/or bone. One study found that almost one third of craft villages in the Red River
Delta have problems sourcing raw materials (MARD-JICA 2003, pp. 62-3). Some
important resources, particularly timber, pig iron, and copper can no longer be found
locally, and many craft enterprises now depend on illicit, smuggled, or waste materials.
Box 3: Capital, land and technology constraints faced by craft village producers
“We know that if we apply new technology we could address 80 per cent of the pollution
and we could save the dead river. We use a lot of chemicals. We use waste material [in
production]; in order to make good quality products we need good machines and
technology but the capacity of family enterprises is limited.”
- Small enterprise owner, Phong Khe, July 2009
“Craft households use their homes as production sites and we all lack production space. On
average, the area of each house is about 80-100m2 and there are four people in a family.
We work and live in these narrow spaces, so pollution is unavoidable.”\
- Cassava processor, Duong Lieu, March 2010
As discussed in Section 4.3, the household remains the basic unit of production in most
craft villages, with family members providing the bulk of the labour and the family
home serving as a production site. Such scattered, unplanned, and small scale family-
based workshops make pollution regulation and treatment difficult as point-sources of
pollution may be dispersed over a wide area. Serious land shortages in craft village
communes make planning for village industrial zones and wastewater treatment
systems difficult. As a result, untreated waste is routinely discharged by individual
enterprises (KEI & World Bank 2003).
Lack of production space and land, shortage of capital, shortage of trained workers and
a lack of knowledge about the benefits of new technologies have all been identified as
key challenges to improved waste management (see Box 4). Capital shortages have been
reported in as many as 60-70 per cent of craft enterprises (Dang et al 2005). According
to a 1999 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) survey, the average
capital holdings of a craft enterprise was VND 35.8 million; only 12.2 million of this was
in the form of credit, such as a bank loan. It is estimated that craft businesses would
need available capital of between VND 50-100 million to expand their production, build
tailored premises and upgrade machinery and technology. Research by
Konstadakopulos (2008) found that 36 per cent of enterprises cannot find enough
trained workers, and almost all enterprises lack sufficient land on which to build a
workshop away from residential areas (ibid 2008, p. 57).
Box 4: Characteristics of craft villages pose challenges to waste management
“Craft villages have unique characteristics; production is scattered in residential areas and each household has a very small production space, less than 200 square meters, which is also used for other daily domestic activities and animal husbandry. The second characteristic is that population density is very high in craft villages. Road systems have been built and upgraded but still do not meet the needs of producers. Production is not spread evenly over the year but is concentrated in a few months or season. As a result, infrastructure such as roads and the drainage system are not able to support production and waste management.” - District official, Hoai Duc, March 2010
The recent global downturn has seriously impacted the availability of credit for craft
producers, both from informal sources such as money lenders and from banks. Rising
expenses have not only created an acute shortage of funds for craft businesses, but
access to loans has also become much harder.10 This limits the capacity of craft villages
to improve production technology and expand production. Where credit is available,
interest rates are high and only short-term loans tend to be available. As a
consequence, the vast majority of enterprises rely on their own limited resources and
must make use of existing technologies. This lack of capital perpetuates cramped
working conditions and environmental degradation (Konstadakopulos 2008, p. 26;
Dang et al 2005, pp. 166-169).
To help craft enterprises and other SMEs to overcome financial difficulties, the
government has issued credit policies providing loans and funding with preferential
interest rates. For example, Decision 193/2001/QD-TTG called for the establishment of
a SME Credit Guarantee Fund to provide financial support for SMEs. Direction
84/2002/TT-BTC guided financial support for the development of rural non-farming
jobs (World Bank 2008). However, because so few craft enterprises are formally
registered and the process of applying is bureaucratic and lengthy, only a small number
of craft enterprises have managed to access these government loans.
Box 5: Challenges in accessing capital
The government loans offer a monthly interest rate of 1.4-1.5 per cent but they are limited
and difficult to get. I could not wait for a government loan so I had to look for loans from
money lenders. These lenders give a higher interest rate of 1.8-2 per cent but I can borrow
the money when I need it. However, only people that the lenders trust are able to access
their loans.
- Silk trader, Nha Xa, July 2010
Although economic reform in Vietnam has significantly changed land ownership and
property rights, the land market is still not well developed, which makes it difficult for
enterprises to acquire more land for expansion. With land for production space at a
premium, many larger operations have developed workshops on their allocated family
farmland or ‘purchased’ the lease from others. This strategy of using houses and
farmland for production space gives craft enterprises an ‘illegal’ and informal status,
making it more difficult to access formal credit. It also makes them highly vulnerable in
land acquisition processes.
10 Vietnamnet News, Global downturn spells disaster for craft villages. (see http://english.vietnamnet.vn/social/2008/12/818317)
Plate 4: Demolition of workshops to make way for a new urban centre creates
uncertainty for craft producers in Duong Noi
Against a backdrop of high-speed urbanisation and industrialisation, land has become
scarce, valuable and a source of disputes. In the Vietnamese context, provincial and
district authorities are responsible for land management in accordance with national
laws. Land insecurity and related disputes between land users and state agencies are
common, particularly when the state reclaims land for commercial, industrial or
residential purposes (Kerkvliet 2006). Tensions over access to land were evident in the
four case study craft villages, and at times prevented craft businesses from investing in
improvements to their production systems. During our research, craft workshops in
Duong Noi were demolished to make way for new urban settlements and related
infrastructure on the fringe of Hanoi (see Box 6; Plate 4).
Box 6: Land insecurity creates investment uncertainty
“Due to urbanisation it is very difficult to retain the viability of craft enterprises, because of
the loss of land and removal of workshops. We are trying to create a zoned area – one is 4
Ha, another is 7 Ha – just planning so far but no implementation yet. Our enterprises are
now separated from residential areas – but with the new road system and urbanisation the
government has asked them to move to other industrial zones. You know the cost of
removing one enterprise with heavy machines is enormous. It can take six months to move
an enterprise. It cannot produce during that time. Infrastructure has not been established
yet so if they move they cannot operate.”
- Commune official, Duong Noi, July 2009
“My brother and I own an enterprise which has lost some land through compulsory land
acquisition. About 7 workshops were affected by road widening in this area. We lost one
third of our land and had to sell around 20 machines. We had bought these machines at 500
million dong per machine and sold them at 250 million dong – we lost a lot of money.”
- Medium-scale enterprise owner, Duong Noi, April 2010
5. Local Concerns and Responses to Pollution
5.1 Livelihoods
Producers revealed in interviews that livelihoods took top priority in their daily
decision making, even though they knew the risks associated with pollution. Producers
and workers often justified their actions by referring to a lack of alternatives, given the
need to secure their family’s livelihood, and to pay for their children’s education (see
Box 7).
Since the majority of producers had low profit margins and were solely dependent on
craft production for their livelihoods, maintaining market competitiveness left little
room for investment in the “luxury” of costly water treatment. This was seen most
clearly in Nha Xa (Moc Nam) where producers repeatedly cited the need to keep
production costs low in order to compete with producers in other parts of Vietnam and
also China. Phong Khe enjoyed a relatively unique position in the northern part of
Vietnam in having few competitors, but producers remained sensitive to the issue,
highlighting that unilateral action on water treatment was extremely unlikely.
Despite concerns about exposure to pollutants, producers frequently made decisions
based on cost and resource constraints. Nha Xa villagers said that in the past, natural
plant dyes were used to colour silk, but since economic liberalisation in the 1980s,
market demand had driven craft producers to manufacture brighter colours using
highly toxic chemicals, mostly originating from China. While many producers in Nha Xa
expressed a preference for dyes from Japan or Taiwan, regarding them as safer and of
higher quality, to reduce costs they usually used the less expensive but more dangerous
Chinese bleaches and dyes.
Another example of costs driving decisions about waste treatment was the fate of pilot
water treatment projects. Government agencies installed pilot water treatment facilities
for small groups of workshops in Nha Xa and at a few individual households in Duong
Noi. These facilities were designed to treat waste water to such a high standard that it
“could be used to raise fish.” However, after a few months, their use was abandoned or
reserved for official visits, due to their substantial running costs.
Local authorities were also conscious of the need to maintain local livelihoods and were
reluctant to regulate and fine craft enterprises because of concerns that any economic
impacts or job losses might lead to unrest and social disharmony. Lack of enforcement
of national laws at the local level was thus frequently attributed to conflicts of interest
between economic development and environmental controls. Investigations of pollution
were infrequent, and sanctions for pollution violations were not implemented (also
recognised in MONRE 2008, pp. 61-7). This conflict of interest, together with the small
scale, dispersed and informal nature of craft enterprises, has compounded the
Box 7: Prioritising livelihoods over health
“Doing this job, I have contact with toxic chemicals. Of course, I am afraid of chronic
disease such as cancer. Everyone can see and is afraid of this. But I still have to live with it
because of my livelihood. I need to raise my family.”
- Large scale dyeing workshop owner, Nha Xa, July 2010
“In fact, I am really afraid of cancer. Everything about dyeing is harmful but I still do it
because that’s my livelihood.”
- Medium scale dyeing workshop owner, Nha Xa, July 2010
“I am a dyer in a dyeing workshop. Because of working directly with chemicals, sometimes
I get sick and go to the hospital. The hospital staff have often asked me to stop doing this
work but I have to keep going. I know the chemicals are toxic, but there is no choice. I am
concerned about my health but need to work for this income otherwise we would die of
hunger. There is no choice.”
- Dyeing worker, Nha Xa, July 2010
difficulties faced by local authorities in implementing environmental laws, monitoring
pollution and enforcing compliance (O’Rourke 2004; Chapter 4).
5.2 Local responses to pollution: high awareness, low action
Low awareness of environmental issues is flagged as a contributing factor to pollution
in some studies and by the media in Vietnam. Although the link between education and
pollution is yet to be clearly established, low education levels are blamed for limiting
people’s ability to understand the causes of pollution, access and share information on
waste management, as well as reluctance to adopt new technologies. There is some
evidence that people in craft villages appear to be unaware of the damaging impacts of
their activities on their health. For instance, many enterprises do not provide their
workers with protective equipment or if they do, workers do not use it (Dang et al 2005,
p. 162; MONRE 2008).
Contrary to these perceptions, our research found that despite low levels of formal
education, craft villagers had high levels of awareness about the different forms and
causes of pollution and their impact on health, agriculture and other economic activities.
This was gained through their daily observations, personal, family and community
experiences, as well as exposure to discussions in the media, particularly television and
radio:
“The people started to get concerned about pollution in the village in 2000.
But there is no solution so far. Surface and underground water here is
polluted and now nobody dares use the pond or well water for domestic
use. In the past, water in the ponds was clear and children often swam in
them but now it’s polluted from chemical discharge. The water releases a
very bad smell – when it evaporates into the air the smell is really sour.
Now none of the children ever dare play or swim in the pond. If we eat
vegetables from the pond, we will get stomach ache and food poisoning.”
- Female weaver, Nha Xa, July 2010
Many informants in Duong Lieu, Nha Xa, Duong Noi and Phong Khe said that pollution
was responsible for a high rate of respiratory and intestinal disease; sleep disorders,
skin disease, and cancer amongst craft workers (see Plate 5). Craft village residents and
workers perceived and understood the pollution risk not only in relation to health but
also in terms of risks to animals and plants. Research by the Vietnam Agricultural
Science Institute found that craft village communities ranked environmental pollution
as the issue of greatest concern to them, followed by unemployment; lack of capital;
difficulty in accessing the consumer market; the use of dangerous agro-products and
animal disease (Nguyen et al 2003). Our focus group interviews confirmed these
findings. Nonetheless, awareness and action are two different things. Further analysis
shows that the daily decisions of individual craft households were shaped primarily by
the livelihood and resource constraints detailed above.
Plate 5: Working in bleaching and dyeing workshops exposes workers to
chemicals at extremely high temperatures, but they prioritise their families’
livelihoods over their health
In spite of high awareness of the adverse impacts of pollution, local actors have not
adopted any form of collective action in relation to waste treatment. So far community
engagement has been limited to expressions of discontent and complaints about
pollution that affect villagers’ health. The government has so far given little attention to
the role of communities in implementing standards for environmental pollution (see
Section 6.5).
In conclusion, access to land and capital, as well as livelihood imperatives and market
competitiveness were critical constraints for craft producers in taking action on waste
water treatment. Despite highly interdependent production systems, there was very
limited coordination amongst producers on matters related to pollution, although
producer associations might provide a basis for facilitating such coordination in the
future. The localised severity of pollution created the potential for local organisation on
waste water management. However, local institutions for managing water and waste
would first need to be designed, and participants’ concerns about reduced market
competitiveness addressed before local action to address pollution could be realised.
6: Assessing the Governance of Water Pollution
Numerous studies (including MONRE 2008) point to weaknesses in Vietnam’s
regulatory framework and the poor performance of the state’s environmental agency as
important underlying drivers of pollution. MONRE has attributed this to shortcomings
in the following areas: (i) regulatory design and enforcement; (ii) coordination (iii)
planning and infrastructure; (iv) resources and capacity; and (v) limited civil society
and local engagement.
6.1 Regulatory design and implementation
Although craft industries in Vietnam expanded rapidly in the wake of Doi Moi, laws to
regulate pollution did not appear until over a decade later (see Table 5 for an overview
of existing laws and regulations). The most important amongst these was the National
Environment Protection Law (2005) which outlines environmental protection
standards for craft villages and assigns enforcement responsibility to provincial
Peoples’ Committees. Additional regulations informed by the principle of ‘polluter-pays’
specify emissions standards (TCVN [Vietnam Standard]), pollution fees for discharging
waste water (Decree 67/2003/NĐ-CP) and penalties for administrative violations
concerning environmental protection (Decree No. 81/2006/NĐ-CP), as well as
guidelines for environmental impact assessment and the preparation of environmental
protection plans by enterprises (Decree 80/2006/NĐ-CP and Decree No. 21/2008/NĐ-
CP). Provincial Committees are also required to plan and zone craft activities (Decree
No. 66/2006-ND-CP).
Table 5: Laws and regulations related to craft village pollution
Name Purpose Year
enacted
Law on water
resources
Prohibits the introduction of waste water to water sources that
is not treated up to the permissible environmental standards
2003
Decree
67/2003/NĐ-
CP
Decree No.
26/2010/ND-
CP
Sets environmental protection fees for wastewater discharge
and environmental protection.
Decree No. 26/2010/ND-CP amends and supplements Clause
2, Article 8 of the earlier Decree (67/2003/ND-
CP) on environmental protection fees for waste water
discharge
2003/20
10
Decision
256/2003/QD-
TT
Prime ministerial Decision No 256/2003/QD-TTg approved
the strategy on environment protection by 2010 to 2020.
The Decision requires MONRE, as the main administrator, to
cooperate with other ministries to achieve the strategy
objectives.
2003
Resolution 41-
NQ-TW and
Decision
34/2005/QD-
TTg
The National Environmental Protection Strategy, Politburo
Resolution 41-NQ/TW on environmental protection and the
Prime Minister’s Decision 34/2005/QĐ-TTg underpin
Government action on Resolution 41-NQ/TW.
These documents incorporate environmental plans and
programs, including the early use of environmental
assessment in development planning
2004/20
05
National
Environmental
Protection Law
Article No. 38 emphasises environmental protection in craft
villages and assigns responsibility to provincial level Peoples’
Committees
2005
Regulations on
Environmental
Standard of
Vietnam:
Decision No.
35/2002/QD-
BKHCNMT,
Decision No.
22/2006/QD-
BTNMT;
Decision
These establish discharge standards for wastewater, air and
noise that all enterprises must comply with. Environmental
standards for water quality have been set up as follows:
- QCVN 08:2008/BTNMT -National Technical Regulation on
Surface Water Quality;
-QCVN 09:2008/BTNMT -National Technical Regulation on
Underground Water Quality;
- QCVN 10:2008/BTNMT -National Technical Regulation on
Coastal Water Quality;
- QCVN 11:2008/BTNMT -National Technical Regulation on
Waste water of Aquatic Products Processing Industry;
1995/20
05/2008
16/2008/QD-
BTNMT
(national
technical
specifications
on
environment)
- QCVN 12:2008/BTNMT -National Technical Regulation on
Waste water of Pulp and Paper Mills;
- QCVN 13:2008/BTNMT -National Technical Regulation on
Waste water of Textile Industry;
- QCVN 14:2008/BTNMT -National Technical Regulation on
Domestic Waste Water;
- QCVN 15:2008/BTNMT -National Technical Regulation on
Pesticide Residues in Soils.
Decree
66/2006/NĐ-
CP and
Circular
116/2006/TT-
BNN
Decree No. 66/2006/ND-CP on Development of Rural Trades
provides legal support and incentives to develop craft villages.
Article 7 gives provinces responsibility for planning craft
development, and requires new developments to comply with
environmental protection. Preferential land pricing, tax
concessions and subsidies are outlined to assist craft
producers in moving to industrial zones.
MARD Circular 116 on implementation of Decree 66 sets out
criteria for various types of craft villages.
2006
Decree No.
81/2006/NĐ-
CP
Sets penalties for environmental protection violations. Fines
for wastewater discharge above permitted levels range from
VND 100,000 to 70,000,000 (equal USD 5 to 3500).
2006
Directive
28/2007/CT-
BNN
MARD‘s Directive No. 28/2007/CT-BNN requires planning
and zoning to promote rural employment and to address
pollution in craft villages. It assigns responsibilities to local
authorities and Departments under MARD to improve
environment protection in craft villages.
2007
Decree No.
80/2006/NĐ-
CP, Decree
No.
21/2008/NĐ-
CP, Degree
29/2011/ND-
CP and
Circular
26/2011/TT-
BTNMT
Guides implementation of the Environmental Protection Law
via instructions on Environmental Impact Assessment,
environmental protection requirements and the preparation of
environmental protection plans
Decree No. 21 amends some articles of Decree No.
80/2006/NĐ-CP to better suit actual village conditions
The Decree 29/2011/ND-CP and MONRE’s Circular
26/2011/TT-BTNMT replace previous regulations on
procedures and requirements for the preparation of strategic
environmental assessment reports, environmental impact
assessment reports and environmental protection commitment
registrations.
2006/20
08/2011
Circular No.
08/2009/TT-
BTNMT
This Circular provides for the environmental protection and
management of economic zones, hi-tech parks, industrial
parks and industrial complexes at all stages of their
construction, particularly: formulation of construction plans;
investment preparation; investment approval; and
infrastructure construction. It specifies that state management
agencies must restrict the use of agricultural cultivation land
for production space; minimise adverse impacts on the
surrounding environments; ensure that solid waste and
wastewater are treated up to national standards and approve
environmental impact assessment reports.
2009
MONRE (2008) has found that although Vietnam has made impressive progress in
environmental regulations, the current regulatory arrangements for pollution in craft
villages is inadequate and unclear. Although Provision No. 38 of the 2005
Environmental Protection Law and other regulations mentions environmental
protection in craft villages, there are no concrete guidelines for its implementation, or
how it might apply in different craft villages. Former MONRE minister Pham Khoi
Nguyen has conceded that despite government efforts to protect the environment,
pollution from craft villages has continued to increase, resulting in severe impacts on
the health, social and economic activities of craft communities (Dan Tri news, 24 April
2009)11.
Our research confirms that the regulatory framework for craft pollution is complex and
inappropriately designed. Craft enterprises are treated as mini factories, able to be
individually monitored and regulated, and capable of meeting requirements to produce
environmental management plans and fees for the release of waste water. However, as
outlined in Section 4, craft enterprises are predominantly small in scale, informal in
legal status, and interconnected and dispersed throughout craft villages, which makes
monitoring and regulation far more challenging than the regulation of large scale
enterprises (see Box 8).
A range of implementation challenges were found in our study. As discussed in Section
5, local authorities were reluctant to strictly enforce pollution regulations because of
conflicting interests between economic development and environmental regulation.
Investigations of pollution events were infrequent, and sanctions for pollution
violations were rarely implemented, usually because the regulators were sensitive to
the livelihood imperatives faced by craft producers. There was little action authorities
could take over this non-compliance in light of the informal (unregistered) status of
most enterprises.
11 See http://dantri.com.vn/c25/s20-321114/nhieu-dong-song-dang-doi-mat-voi-an-tu.htm
Indeed, we found that more than any other factor, the registration status of enterprises
determined whether environmental protection agencies could impose pollution fines
(see Box 8). The situation differed in communities with larger enterprises. For example,
in Duong Noi, where there were many medium to large workshops, enterprises were
more likely to be registered and most of the production stages – weaving, dyeing,
printing and marketing –were undertaken by one enterprise. Here the government
seemed more able to regulate and charge fees to identified polluters. This enforcement
was strengthened after Duong Noi came under Hanoi City administration in 2009.
In summary, our research highlighted that the current ‘one size fits all’ regulatory
framework does not fit with the special characteristics, socio-economic situation and
constraints of craft villages and enterprises (see Box 9). A polluter-pays approach, that
sets fees for individual polluting enterprises, is not only inappropriate for the
economically marginal, poorly resourced, interdependent, small scale and unregistered
majority of craft enterprises, but is also proving impossible for government agencies to
enforce in practice.
Box 8: Regulation and monitoring challenges
“It is very difficult to control production because of the large number of production
households and the differences in production patterns of each household. If their
production is carried out regularly in a specific location, it would be much easier to
control. However, in this village, they produce in their homes and the timing is
unpredictable. Sometimes when the officers visit the house, production is over or has not
begun or has been shut down intentionally to avoid inspection, which creates a lot of
difficulties for us.”
- Commune official, Duong Lieu, March 2010
“The authorities are able to collect environmental protection fees only in industrial zones
but not for small households whose production is spontaneous and unregistered. If the
government does not invest in providing treatment facilities and infrastructure, they have
no rights or mechanism to collect these fees. In industrial zones, the management board
has the rights to collect the fees because they have invested in environmental treatment.”
- District official, Hoai Duc, March 2010
Box 9: Addressing the special situation of craft villages
“In order to deal with craft village pollution, at least three conditions need to be met. The
first is land, the second is capital and the third is technology. Pollution cannot not be dealt
with one of these conditions is not met. Government regulations can only be applied when
these factors are all met. Otherwise, craft villages have to change their occupation [if
pollution is to be reduced]. However, in order to change their occupation, there needs to be
good planning, training and other support policies that enable craft producers to shift into
another occupation. This is a difficult problem. Crafting has already become an essential
part of local people’s life and culture.”
- District official, Hoai Duc, March 2010
6.2 Coordination and delineation of responsibilities
Addressing an environmental issue like water pollution requires not only local action,
but coordination between different levels of government. In Vietnam, the central
government is responsible for national policies and laws for craft village development
and environmental management. The provincial government administers state budgets
and is responsible for planning, regulation and enforcement. The district government
also has planning and regulatory responsibilities, and deals with monitoring and
approvals. The sub-district or commune level of government comprises elected officials
from the constituent villages and carries out the day-to-day monitoring and reporting
on craft activities (MONRE 2008; Kerkvliet 2004).
MONRE (2008) acknowledges that coordination between levels of government has been
a challenge, in part due to an unclear delineation of responsibilities for environmental
protection in craft villages between ministries, departments, and local government. In
theory, the two ministries in charge of developing craft villages are the Ministry for
Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) and the Ministry of Industry and Trade,
while the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) is in charge of
environmental protection. In reality, coordination is weak, management tasks lack
definition and responsibilities overlap between ministries.
Lapses in vertical (between different levels of government) and horizontal (within one
level of government) coordination has already been identified as a major barrier to
environmental governance in Vietnam (Kerkvliet 2004; O'Rourke 2004;
Konstadakopulos 2008). MONRE has carriage of environmental management; MARD
(Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) is responsible for forest protection
and fostering rural development, including the promotion of handicrafts; MARD's
Department of Processing and Trade for Agro-Forestry-Fisheries Products and Salt
Production is responsible for planning and promoting craft development. The Ministry
of Construction is responsible for planning the construction of urban infrastructure,
industrial parks, economic zones, urban drinking water and waste water facilities; and
the MIT (Ministry of Industry and Technology) is in charge of managing industrial zones
and registered enterprises but not small enterprises in craft villages. At the provincial
level, responsibility for environmental management rests with the provincial offices of
MONRE (known as DONRE). However, the effectiveness of these offices varies greatly,
depending on factors such as the size of the province, its level of economic development
and the priority given by provincial leaders to environmental protection
(Konstadakopulos 2008; Le 2006: 24).
Our findings affirmed that this is a continuing reason for weak implementation of craft
village pollution policies and regulations. Furthermore, we found that the role of
commune authorities may be underutilised. Given their proximity to craft villages,
authorities at the level of the commune enjoyed the strongest relationships with
producers. Communes, however, had limited authority on issues of land and
infrastructure provision and monitoring, which were central to pollution management.
In interviews, commune officials said they lacked the staff and resources to monitor
pollution and enforce compliance (Commune official, Moc Nam, July 2010).
The preceding discussion highlights the inherent challenges of effective inter-scale
governance in environments where there are poor resources and coordination.
Although decentralisation in Vietnam creates the scope for more locally nuanced
implementation, in practice the weaknesses in coordination, capacity and resources
within and between levels of government undermines this possibility (Sikor 2001). In
particular, the role of commune authorities needs further consideration. An expanded
role could build on existing close relationships with craft producers, but would need to
be supported with appropriate resources and capacity building.
MONRE (2008) has recognised that a key area for regulatory improvement will be to
strengthen environmental management bodies at the commune, district and township
level, in order to reinforce the implementation of environmental protection laws and
regulation in craft villages (Dang & Nguyen 2005; MONRE 2008). Our research also
supports the view that the commune is a key level in environmental management
because commune officials understand the local conditions and activities of each
household, and are therefore in a better position to successfully implement workable
management solutions on the ground.
6.3 Planning and infrastructure provision
As described in Section 4, craft villages have undergone rapid, unplanned development,
leading to inadequate and late development of infrastructure as well as a lack of
planning for production. Many enterprises continue to operate in residential areas. In
most craft villages, craft enterprises have developed spontaneously in response to
market demand, with each enterprise determining the type and scale of production,
inputs and location of operation, without reference to any regulations or plans (Dang et
al 2005, p. 168; VACNE 2004).
In each of the four cases we found that the quantity of waste from craft villages far
outweighs the capacity of existing infrastructure such as drainage, waste storage and
treatment facilities, to manage it. Waste management pilot projects have been poorly
planned and conceived, with many falling over as soon as funding finishes, if not sooner
(see Box 10).
Box 10: The challenges of waste water treatment
Hoai Duc district invested in a treatment project in 1994-1995 by establishing the Mat Troi
Xanh company which was supposed to treat waste water and convert solid waste to make
bio-fertilizers. Since its establishment, the company has faced great difficulties because they
could not find market outlets for the bio-fertilizers. At the moment, the company treats less
than 10per cent of solid waste and cannot treat waste water. The amount of waste is now 10
times the amount in 1994 due to changes in production technology and production
expansion.
-Distict official, Hoai Duc, March 2010
In order to concentrate and treat pollution in craft villages, some provinces and cities
have initiated policies to develop industrial zones or production concentration areas for
craft villages. Such zones existed or were planned in the four case study communes
where this research was conducted. In one case, Duong Noi, urban expansion had
overridden plans for an industrial zone although producers were keen for such
production space to be made available. However, since being absorbed into the
boundaries of Hanoi, approval for the industrial zone lay with the City of Hanoi and not
commune authorities.
Where zones were being established, in general we found a lack of clear planning and
strategy for production and waste treatment. Infrastructure was often limited to roads
and electricity, and sometimes extended to drainage systems. In order for industrial
zoning to have an effect on water pollution levels, treatment facilities must be in place,
but nowhere did we find facilities for collective waste water treatment. As such, the
zones were concentrating, but not treating, pollution. This stemmed in part from
resource limitations as well as poor coordination and delineation of responsibilities and
budgets between different levels of government.
Where zoned village land was made available, it was generally taken up by medium to
large scale enterprises that saw an opportunity to expand their production base.
Smaller producers were less able to bear the costs of moving, and preferred the relative
convenience of working from home. In some cases, production secrets, for instance in
dyeing combinations or designs, fuelled a desire to keep production within the family
home, away from the view of competitors. Provincial authorities confirmed that
amongst those who were able to move, newly zoned land was often used to expand
rather than relocate production, with existing workshops in residential areas continuing
their production. We also found evidence that zoned land was not solely used for
production workshops, but also had residential dwellings, suggesting that land was
being diverted for non-production uses. In any event, the industrial zones in craft
villages did not have common waste treatment facilities, so at this time zoning has not
reduced the release of polluted waste water.
6.4 Limited government resources and capacity
Aside from limited resources, lack of technical capacity was raised as a major concern
by Provincial and District staff. According to recent statistics, 95 per cent of
environmental management staff from the district to village level lack environmental
qualifications (MONRE 2008). Professional development for staff is also very limited,
which contributes to weak understanding of national policies and inconsistencies in
dealing with environmental issues.
Provincial Departments of Natural Resources and Environment (DONRE) – key players
in managing water pollution – were found to be under-staffed, under-skilled, and lacked
the necessary resources to effectively monitor pollution or to plan and implement waste
treatment infrastructure. The environmental protection fees collected from polluting
enterprises were supposed to supplement the local government budget. Since they were
rarely collected, such fees could not bolster Provincial resources for waste water
treatment. Our findings reflect earlier studies on the limited allocation of funding for
environmental protection activities in Vietnam. Although the Government established
the Vietnam Environmental Protection Fund (VEPF) in 2002 to help localities and
enterprises invest in environmental infrastructure, investment has been poorly
organised, and is still lower than in other Asian countries (KEI and the World Bank
2003).
While the upgrading of production technologies rests with enterprises, the majority of
craft producers expressed the view that waste treatment technology was too capital
intensive for individual enterprises to meet. The government has persisted with a
model for waste treatment that transfers costs to individual businesses, despite the low
capital holdings, competitive pressures and interdependence of most craft enterprise.
Given this, an individualistic approach to waste treatment is unlikely to produce an
overall reduction in pollution (see Box 11). The government will therefore need to
retain a lead role in waste treatment in the craft village context, and allocate sufficient
resources to this function. This does not preclude some level of contribution from craft
enterprises, but this would need to be coordinated to ensure that enterprises
contributed collectively and equitable financial arrangements could be agreed, given the
capital constraints of most enterprises.
If craft village pollution is to be effectively tackled, then the government at all levels
needs to address deficiencies in technical capacity and in current policies and
regulatory frameworks. They also need to understand the root causes of pollution and
barriers to its effective management both within government and local communities.
Improved vertical and horizontal coordination, capacity building and policy design will
be essential to bolster environmental governance in general and effectively address the
situation of craft village pollution in particular (KEI & World Bank 2003).
6.5 Limited community engagement
In order to increase awareness and incorporate environmental protection into craft
village norms, MONRE (2008) recommends community engagement through education
and information dissemination. While education is important, the government’s
approach is currently limited to increasing awareness, rather than local empowerment
in decision making. Our study has demonstrated that local awareness of pollution, its
causes and its impacts are uniformly high amongst craft producers, but local collective
action to address pollution is low to non-existent. This suggests that community
engagement initiatives need to take a different approach, which focuses on improving
relationships between government and craft entrepreneurs, as well as better
coordination amongst craft producers to support collective strategies for pollution
management.
12 http://vtc16.vn/news/19/4583/Kho-khan-trong-xu-ly-o-nhiem-moi-truong-hieu-qua-tai-lang-nghe
Box 11: Who should pay for pollution treatment?
“It is the government who should treat the pollution, not me; we are just responsible for
concentrating the waste in one area. If the government subsidises us to install individual
treatment facilities, it will cause many problems. If one out of five households installs
treatment facilities, they would incur increased cost and would be not be able to continue
their business.”
- Craft Producer, VTC 16 news, 01/11/201112
Box 12: All stick and no carrot: poor relations between craft producers and government threaten the effectiveness of pollution reduction strategies
“We are dynamic and responsive but we cannot use all our capacity and potential. When
we joined the village industrial zone we had more space but production space was still
limited and this is difficult for enterprises. Also difficulties come from government policy.
We need support from government. However, the mechanism is not supportive . . . we need
support from authorities to survive, especially tax policies. We are turning waste into a
commodity and contributing to this country. But we find it very difficult to operate. State-
own paper companies use materials from forests and have support from the government
while craft village enterprises have no support. We buy material from garbage collectors
without receipts. That’s why we have to pay higher VAT tax.”
- Large scale paper enterprise, Phong Khe, July 2009
A study of Cat Que commune in Ha Tay (now part of Hanoi city) found that village
communities and local organisations, in particular the Elder’s Association, made a
significant contribution to local environmental management (Nguyen et al. 2003). In
two of the four communes that we examined (Duong Noi and Phong Khe) , there were
producer’s associations in place that facilitated coordination on a limited range of issues
such as price. These associations were not engaged in environmental management, but
could in the future provide a basis for local organisation and collective action regarding
pollution.
Effective collaboration between government and community requires a level of trust
and communication between these parties, as well as institutional arrangements and
tangible commitments of human, financial and technical resources. However, our study
found that (beyond the commune level) communication and trust between craft
producers and local regulators was low. Producers felt they were constantly being
targeted to follow new regulations, while receiving little support to secure their
livelihoods and tackle the pollution problem (see Box 12). Such weaknesses in the
relationship between the government and producers will need to be addressed as part
of any strategy to broaden community engagement in the management of water
pollution. Concerted efforts at consultation and negotiation of pollution management
strategies as well as actual financial commitments to infrastructure development on the
part of government would assist in improving relationships and dispelling mistrust.
7. Conclusion and policy implications
Based on our research findings, we propose that measures to address craft village
pollution need to work from a rich understanding of the social, political and economic
conditions in which craft enterprises are evolving, rather than applying scaled-down
versions of industrial environmental management policies. The current regulatory
framework does not appear to be based on in-depth knowledge and understanding of
conditions in most craft villages, nor does it seek to enrol producers or local levels of
government in building consensus and developing solutions to craft pollution. These
strategic failings, along with problems of communication, capacity and resourcing
across and between a complex array of responsible government agencies, has created
an ineffective top-down regulatory regime with poor levels of compliance, not only on
the part of craft producers, but implementing levels of government. A summary of
policy approaches that could improve the governance of craft village pollution follows.
Current regulations and policies do not recognise intrinsic differences between craft
enterprises and large industries. Such policies and regulations are more likely to
succeed if they are tailored to the small scale, financially marginal, dispersed and
interconnected characteristics of craft enterprises, rather than a scaled-down version of
regulations designed for large scale industry. One approach might be to set a size
threshold for craft enterprises to which particular regulations such as pollution
penalties, the requirement for environmental management plans, and supportive
measures apply. For example, while medium and large scale polluting enterprises may
be required to register and comply with environmental management plans, smaller
enterprises will need support to change. In the communities studied here, businesses
with over 20 employees, and holding business registration could be a relevant threshold
for the application of fees.
The overlapping jurisdictions and weak coordination cited in this paper need to be
addressed at several levels of government. Nationally, responsibilities need to be clearly
delineated between ministries dealing with craft villages (MONRE, MARD, MOIT, MOC,
MOF and their decentralised units), with ongoing coordination arrangements in place
(e.g. a working group or committee structure). Special attention could be given to the
future role of commune administrations in tackling environmental pollution,
particularly as facilitators of greater local engagement. This would include additional
resources (staff, funding) as well as training to build capacity of commune authorities.
The poor planning and development of industrial zones in craft villages is another area
for future attention, and will remain an important means to concentrate highly polluting
enterprises in order to treat their waste water. However, these land-constrained zones
need to more effectively target the most polluting types of craft villages and enterprises.
Value chain analysis and environmental impact assessment can help to identify the most
polluting stages of pollution and relevant workshops. Targeted enterprises will most
likely need support to relocate in the form of financial incentives and co-financing.
Importantly, there is a need to guard against industrial zones being used to expand
production or for residential purposes. They also need to be standardised and provided
with the necessary infrastructure and processes to treat pollution, rather than simply
concentrating it. In this context, pilot treatment facilities can be useful in testing new
and appropriate technologies; however they need to overcome the piecemeal and
ineffective pilot activities of the past. For instance, they might be trialled at the level of
an industrial zone rather than at an enterprise level, and should incorporate capacity
development and ongoing financing mechanisms to address the institutional and capital
constraints that have undermined previous pilots.
So far, the limited government investment in infrastructure has shifted the costs of
addressing pollution to capital-poor enterprises. In the future, it will be important for
government to take the lead in investment in and in coordinating the development of
waste treatment infrastructure, in collaboration with craft enterprises. As provincial
budgets are insufficient to develop the infrastructure and systems needed for water
treatment, central government investment should be considered, along with
mechanisms to support co-financing by craft producers. Incentives to craft producers to
encourage the uptake of cleaner technologies could also be effective, for example tax
incentives and loans with favourable interest rates.
The limited government capacity to implement current pollution regulations can be
dealt with in three major ways. Firstly, it is important to simplify, improve and tighten
the regulatory framework. Secondly, at every level of government, the capacity of
individual staff and organisations to develop and implement environmental policies and
regulations needs to be strengthened. Important areas for attention include institutional
coordination, incentive structures and ongoing staff development. Information on craft
village pollution and health impacts are insufficient and inconsistent, and more
comprehensive data is needed to inform and guide authorities and craft producers in
their decision making regarding pollution prevention and control. Finally, the illegal
import and use of unlabelled toxic chemicals and waste materials needs to be
controlled, if rural Vietnam is to avoid becoming a dumping site for international
wastes.
While the government cites community engagement as an important strategy, there is a
tendency to focus on awareness-raising rather than joint action. In order to strengthen
relationships between the key stakeholders (different levels of government, producers,
communes), a collaborative approach to addressing craft village pollution is needed.
This will involve further consultations with producers to ensure their livelihoods and
other interests are addressed in policies, thus gaining their commitment to policy
implementation. In particular, the role of civil society in managing environmental
pollution could be encouraged both within craft villages and externally.
8. References
Armitage, D 2008, “Governance and the Commons in a Multi-level world,” International Journal of the Commons, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 7-32.
Berkes, F 2008, “Commons in a multi-level world” International Journal of the Commons, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-6.
Colby, ME 1991 “Environmental management in development: the evolution of paradigms,” Ecological Economics, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 193-213.
Cong An Nhan Dan 2009 “Bao Dong Do o nhiem lang nghe [A red alert on pollution in craft villages],” Cong An Nhan Dan, 27 August <http://www.cand.com.vn/vi-VN/xahoi/2009/8/118604.cand>
Dan Tri News. 2009. <http://dantri.com.vn/c25/s20-321114/nhieu-dong-song-dang-doi-mat-voi-an-tu.htm>
Dang, KC 2005 “Project KC 08.09: nghien cuu co so khoa hoc va thuc tien cho viec xay dung cac chinh sach va bien phap giai quyet van de moi truong o cac lang nghe Viet Nam [Scientific and empirical study on development of polices and solutions to deal with environmental issues in Vietnam’s craft villages”. Hanoi: Institute for Environmental Science and Technology.
Dang, KC & Nguyen, TH 2005 “Wastewater from Production Activities in Craft Villages and Some Mitigation Solutions,” Institute for Environmental Science and Technology.
Dang, KC, Nguyen, NL & Tran, LM 2005. Lang Nghe Viet Nam Va Moi Truong [Vietnam's Craft Villages and Environment]. Ha Noi: Nha Xuat Ban Khoa Hoc va Ky Thuat.
DiGregorio, MR 2001 Iron Works: Excavating Alternative Futures in a Northern Vietnamese Craft Village. University of California thesis, Los Angeles.
Dowsley, M 2008 “Developing multi-level institutions from top-down ancestors,” International Journal of the Commons, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 55-74.
Environmental Police Agency 2009 Scientific Report on Preventing and Fighting Against the Violation of The Environmental Protection Law in Craft Villages, EPA (Vietnam Environmental Police Agency), Hanoi.
Fischhendler, I 2007 “Escaping the ‘polluter pays’ trap: Financing wastewater treatment on the Tijuana-san Diego border,” Ecological Economics, vol. 63, pp. 485-498.
Fritzen, S 2006 “Probing system limits: Decentralisation and local political accountability in Vietnam,” Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Administration, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1-24.
Gasparini, N 2010 Commodity Chain Analysis and the Design of Water Pollution Management Policies in a Paper Recycling Village in Vietnam, unpublished Master’s Thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.
Glazyrina, I, Glazyrin, V & Vinnichenko, S 2006 “The polluter pays principle and potential conflicts in society,” Ecological Economics, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 324-330.
Gourou, P 1955 [1936] The Peasants of the Tonkin Delta: a study of human geography. Human Relations Area Files, New Haven.
Ha Noi Moi 2007 ‘O nhiem moi truong nghe o Bac Bo o muc bao dong.’ Ha Noi Moi, 9 March 2007 <http://tintuc.xalo.vn/00954533767/o_nhiem_moi_truong_lang_nghe_o_bac_bo_o_muc_bao_dong.html>
Ha Noi Moi 2009 ‘O nhiem lang nghe: thuc trang dang so [Pollution in craft villages: a worrying situation]’ Ha Noi Moi, 21 April <http://tintuc.xalo.vn/00669101047/o_nhiem_lang_nghe_thuc_trang_dang_so.html>
Hansen, H, Rand, J & Tarp, F 2009 “Enterprise Growth and Survival in Vietnam: Does Government Support Matter?” Journal of Development Studies, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 1048-1069.
Korean Environment Institute & the World Bank 2003 Environmental Management for Traditional Craft Villages in Vietnam, Korea environment institute and World Bank.
Kerkvliet, B 2005 The Power Of Everyday Politics: How Vietnamese Peasants Transformed National Policy, Cornell Univ Press, New York.
Kerkvliet, B 2004 “Surveying local government and authority in contemporary Vietnam,” in Kerkvliet, B & Marr, D 2004 Beyond Hanoi: local government in Vietnam, ed., Singapore NIAS Press, pp. 1-27.
Kerkvliet, B 2006 “Agricultural land in Vietnam: markets tempered by family, community and socialist practices,” Agrarian Change, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 285-305.
Kleinen, J 1999 ‘Is There a ‘Village Vietnam’? Vietnamese Village Studies Reviewed,” in Dahm, B & Houben, V 1999 Vietnamese villages in transition: background and consequences of reform policies in rural Vietnam ed., Passau University, Southeast Asian Studies Centre, Passau, Germany.
Konstadakopulos, D 2008 “Environmental and Resource Degradation Associated with Small scale Enterprise Clusters in the Red River Delta of Northern Vietnam.” Geographical Research, vol. 46, no. 1, p. 51.
Le, VK 2006 Greening Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Evaluating Environmental Policy in Vietnam. Wageningen University thesis, Wageningen.
Luong, VH & Unger, J 1998 “Wealth, Power, and Poverty in the Transition to Market Economies: The Process of Socio-Economic Differentiation in Rural China and Northern Vietnam,” The China Journal, vol. 40, pp. 61-93.
MARD-JICA 2003 Study of Artisan Development for Rural Industrialisation in Vietnam, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Japan International Cooperation Agency, Hanoi.
Marshall, G 2007 “Nesting, subsidiarity and community-based environmental governance beyond the local level,” International Journal of the Commons, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 75-97.
MONRE, 2006 Environment Report of Vietnam, 2006: The Current State of Water Environment in Three River Basins of Cau, Nhue-Day and Dong Nai River System, MONRE (Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment), Hanoi.
MONRE, 2008 Environment report of Vietnam, 2008: Craft village environment'/'Bao Cao Moi Truong Quoc Gia 2008: Moi Truong Lang Nghe Viet Nam, MONRE (Ministry of National Resources and Environment), Hanoi.
Mosse, D 1996 “The symbolic making of a common property resource: history, ecology and locality in a tank-irrigated landscape in South India,” Development and Change, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 467-504.
National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 2011 Final Report on Results of Implementation of Policies and Laws on Environmental Protection in Economic Zones and Craft Villages, unpublished document, October 2011.
Nguoi Lao Dong 2009 “Moi truong lang nghe suy thoai tram trong [environment in craft villages has seriously deteriorated],” Nguoi Lao Dong, 21 April <http://www.nld.com.vn/20090421011215896P0C1002/moi-truong-lang-nghe-suy-thoai-tram-trong.htm>
Nguyen, DK 2011 Thang Long Journal, Department of Science and Technology, Hanoi, February 2011.
Nguyen, KQ, Tran, VT & Le, VL 2003 Project Vie/00/018/08: Assessing Participatory Rural Environmental Management in the Craft Villages (Cat Que Commune, Hoai Duc District, Ha Tay Province), Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute, Hanoi.
O'Rourke, D 2004 Community-driven Regulation: balancing development and the environment in Vietnam, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Ostrom, E 1992 “Community and the endogenous solution of commons problems,” Journal of Theoretical Politics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 343-351.
Ostrom, E 2005 Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ,
Ostrom, E 2009 “A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems,” Science, vol. 325, no. 5939, pp. 419-422.
Sarker, A, Ross, H & Shrestha, K 2008 “A common-pool resource approach for water quality management: An Australian case study,” Ecological Economics, vol. 68, no. 1-2, pp. 461-471.
Sikor, T 2001 “The allocation of forestry land in Vietnam: did it cause the expansion of forests in the Northwest?” Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-11.
Thuc, VQ 1951 L'Economie communaliste du Vietnam: Hanoi: Presses Universitaires du Vietnam. (Vietnamese version of the book can be found at http://viettems.com/files/Kinh%20te%20cong%20xa-Vu%20quoc%20thuc.pdf)
VACNE, 2004 Viet Nam Moi Truong Va Cuoc Song [Vietnam: Environment and Life]. Ha Noi: Nha.
Vietnamnet News 2008 “Global downturn spells disaster for craft villages,” Vietnamnet, 13 December <http://english.vietnamnet.vn/social/2008/12/818317/>
VTC 16 news 2011 “[Difficult to effectively resolve environmental pollution in craft villages],” VTC16, 09 November <http://vtc16.vn/news/19/4583/Kho-khan-trong-xu-ly-o-nhiem-moi-truong-hieu-qua-tai-lang-nghe>
World Bank 2008 Review and Analysis of the Pollution Impacts from Vietnamese Manufacturing Sectors, The World Bank: East Asia & Pacific Region/ Sustainable Development Department.