Photo credit: Ronnie Vernooy (IDRC).

THE REGION AND THE ISSUES

Agriculture continues to be one of the most important sectors in Viet Nam's economy. It provides a livelihood for over 70 per cent of the population and contributes to the national economy through the export of rice, coffee, rubber and other agricultural products. Since the implementation of the doi moi or reform policy, Viet Nam's economy has changed significantly; from 1990 to 1997 the average annual growth rate was about 8 per cent. Since 1998, although the country was somewhat affected by the 1997 financial crisis in Asia, the gross domestic product (GDP) has still increased by about 6.5 per cent annually. Per capita income rose from USD 220 in 1994 to USD 320 in 1997, and now exceeds USD 400.

Despite the progress at the macroeconomic level, poverty persists and remains a challenge in the development of the country. Of the approximately 80 million people in the country, 29.6 million (37 per cent) have incomes below the national poverty line and are considered poor. The poorest people in Viet Nam are rural farmers living and working in the mountainous areas. Many factors, such as increasing population pressure, cultural values that differ between ethnic minority groups, difficulties in cross-cultural communication, and degradation of natural resources, make it difficult for those farmers to attain sustainable livelihoods.

Approximately three-quarters of Viet Nam's natural land area is classified as uplands and is home to 25 million people who belong to 50 of the 54 different ethnic groups in the country. In these areas low agricultural productivity, widespread poverty, changing migration patterns and the marginalization of Viet Nam's diverse ethnic minorities are indicators of the broader social and environmental challenges confronting the country's future development. In the uplands the main issue is poverty alleviation coupled with conservation of natural resources. Sustainable management of soil, water, forests and other natural resources is critical, not only for the local people but also for the nation as a whole.

In response to this critical need and the problems facing many communes and villagers in Thua Thien Hue province and other parts of central Viet Nam, the Community-based Upland Natural Resources Management (CBUNRM) project was developed at the University of Hue, with support from IDRC and the Ford Foundation. The project is being implemented by a research team from the Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry and other partners. Hong Ha commune was selected as the research site on the basis of its social, economic and natural conditions, which are typical and represent the upland situation for many communes in central Viet Nam. Through this project we wanted to gain a better understanding of the links between poverty, policies and resource degradation, and to test alternatives for improving agricultural production systems and building human, social and natural capital.

For example, some recent changes in forest policies are encouraging. Local authorities have been meeting with us and with villagers to discuss various possible joint management arrangements or agreements. One of our aims is to 'make policies work for the poor'. This requires involving different stakeholders at district, provincial and even national levels. The overall goals of the CBUNRM project are to develop materially better livelihoods for the poor in upland communities; to advance human resource capacities of various groups, including community members; and to make policies and programmes perform for the poor. We believe that one alternative is to develop and establish mechanisms that encourage the local people to generate locally adapted strategies for sustainable development. Such a human capacity building approach is at the heart of our work.

We are using a variety of communication tools and participatory methods, including appraisal, monitoring and evaluation. Over time, we have seen the degree of farmer participation increase and results being more readily and widely adopted. We have also learned that farmers adopt simple techniques more quickly. As farmers gained confidence in the researchers, they accepted suggestions more readily and expressed their own ideas more openly. Among the ethnic minorities in the uplands, conducting research with the participation of some farmers draws the interest of other farmers. Action research, in which farmers can see what is happening, increases their understanding and invites their opinions. This goes beyond just making recommendations. Using a participatory approach has helped us to direct attention to the role and needs of women. While men talk, it is often the women who do most of the work in the fields. Farmer participation is also useful in evaluating research results. Group meetings and on-farm workshops give farmers an opportunity for self-assessment.

A second pillar of our method is a community-based perspective. This approach provides an opportunity for building capacity at the community level: everyone benefits and confidence in local leadership increases. Strong and experienced leaders, in turn, can strongly influence the participation of all members. Encouragement of social activities helps build a sense of community and close relations between the researchers and the community. Strong leadership and a united community are important preconditions for implementing co-management of natural resources by the community and the government agencies.

RATIONALE FOR THE INTEGRATION OF SOCIAL AND GENDER ANALYSIS INTO OUR CBUNRM RESEARCH

Women around the world have less access to information, training and education. A global survey shows that women receive only 5 per cent of all agricultural extension services worldwide (FAO 1997). A survey in the Mekong Delta showed that 72 per cent of women's labour was in agricultural work; 82 per cent were responsible for housework. Their educational level was low and they did not receive much technical guidance (Luat and Son 1992). Compared with lowland women, those in the uplands have even less access to information and technology. There are many reasons for this. Women spend long hours working in the field and at home, their education levels are generally lower than those of men, and traditional perceptions about men's and women's roles hinder women's mobility and involvement in activities outside the home or farm.

Our study in Hong Ha (Hoang 2000) showed that women spent 10 times as much time doing housework than men. They also spend more time working in the field than men, but have a lesser role in decision making and less control over resources.

Development programmes designed and implemented by the government and rural communities do not consider social and gender factors. Among the many development programmes executed in the uplands, only a few pay attention to the role of women and their ability to contribute to community activities. In general, decisions about development are mainly made by men. To address this situation, our CBUNRM research project made capacity building for women and the poor one of the main targets. We think that building assets for the upland poor is a key approach to sustainable development.

The social and gender analysis (SAGA) research that we describe in this chapter aimed to strengthen the capacity of research team to integrate SAGA into CBUNRM research; enhance awareness of and sensitization to SAGA among researchers and development workers in their work with farmers; and help women and the poor solve problems by themselves to alleviate poverty and contribute to the sustainable development of their upland communities.

We formulated the following research questions:

1. How can the research team strengthen its approach to working with the poor and women, and improve their capacities?

2. How can researchers and district officers increase their awareness of the poor and women in the community, and do better diagnosis and planning, strengthen local organizational capacities in technology development, and improve extension services?

3. What are the constraints on such capacity building efforts?

4. What are the impacts of such capacity building on the livelihood of the upland poor and women?

THE RESEARCH SITE, TEAM BUILDING AND FIELDWORK

The Research Site

Our work was carried out in the Hong Ha and Huong Nguyen communes of A Luoi district, Thua Thien Hue province, Viet Nam. Hong Ha and Huong Nguyen are two of the 16 poorest communes in A Luoi district and among the approximately 1,200 designated 'poorest communes' in the country according to national poverty criteria. Hong Ha was the initial research site; Huong Nguyen is a new site, where lessons learned from Hong Ha will be evaluated and disseminated in cooperation with various agencies, particularly the provincial

Figure 6.1
The Viet Nam Research Site

Source: Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection.

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) (see Figure 6.1). The total land area of the two communes is about 47,000 ha. Most of this land is owned and managed by the state. In Hong Ha most of the land in and around the commune is now under 'watershed protection and management' by the Bo River Watershed Department (a government agency). In practice, this means that local people only have access to and control of about 1 per cent of the total land area for agriculture. The portion of agricultural land is very small and is used mostly to cultivate rice and cassava (Table 6.1).

Hong Ha and Huong Nguyen communes are the home of the ethnic minority groups Ka Tu and Ta Oi, who live in the uplands of Thua Thien Hue province (Table 6.2).

Local people depend largely on agriculture; most of what they produce is for home consumption. The traditional practice has been slash-and-burn farming; however, as land has become scarce and with the introduction of a government policy against this method, sedentary farming is now the common practice. Farmers are facing many problems as they try to convert to sedentary farming. Among the main ones are unfamiliarity with new production techniques, poor access to technologies and other inputs, and lack of knowledge about soil management practices, with resulting low productivity.

It is important to note that Huong Nguyen has been newly settled under a government programme, with only about 10 years of local history. Originally, Huong Nguyen villagers lived in a remote, inaccessible mountain valley with a very rich forest area near the Viet Nam– Laos border. When they were resettled, they were allocated unproductive imperata grasslands or wastelands that needed to be converted to agricultural fields, and this is a long and difficult process. They also received some farming tools and food to help them begin their new lives. So, unlike Hong Ha villagers, who moved back to their own homelands after the war, Huong Nguyen villagers were forced to resettle. Table 6.3 shows the intra-commune division of wealth.

Team Formation and Fieldwork

To carry out the research in these communes as part of our broader CBUNRM action research agenda, we established a SAGA team. It included lecturers from the Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry with various academic backgrounds (animal husbandry, agronomy, horticulture, forestry and aquaculture); lecturers from the Economic University who specialized in agricultural economics and policy analysis; and lecturers with sociology training from the Science University. This team developed and implemented a framework for integrating SAGA into the CBUNRM work in close collaboration with development workers and leaders in the communes. A research agenda was developed aimed at improving the research capacity in social and gender issues, in particular to better understand and work with the very poor. We also aimed to strengthen our ability to understand and cooperate with development workers from different line departments and other groups.

We found it difficult to get men and women farmers and other stake-holders to participate in the whole process of action research as they are more used to a top-down approach. Traditionally, researchers take the lead at all stages—identifying problems, implementing and evaluating solutions—and the level of farmers' participation is low or nil. We learned that a good participatory approach requires a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods. Patience is also required to allow time for learning. Meeting the practical needs of the farmers and increasing their confidence are key elements of any capacity building process.

A series of training sessions was organized to introduce and discuss approaches, concepts and ideas about SAGA. These sessions built on previous knowledge of participatory research concepts and skills in techniques as described earlier. Local leaders, researchers and development workers took part in the training sessions. At the commune level the participants included commune leaders, chairpersons of local organizations, such as the women's union and the farmers' association, and leaders of hamlets. Experts in social sciences, policy analysis and gender were invited to facilitate the training.

Our social and gender research methods included participant observation, participatory rural appraisal, formal survey techniques, the formation of farmer interest groups, and participatory monitoring and evaluation. We briefly discuss some of these.

Farmers' needs and abilities varied. We worked with women and the poor to identify what they need and what they can do. With our support, farmers then formed learning groups, in which they shared information about their practices and interests in terms of seeking improvements. These groups were built around agricultural commodities: rice, cassava, home gardens, fish and pigs. Each commodity served as an entry point to the larger farming system, so group interests were always broader than their main commodity. Several types of interest groups were formed based on the premise that farmers have different interests, aspirations and needs.

We carried out a survey and specific participatory rural appraisals among about 15 per cent of the households. Sixty families representing the various wealth categories were interviewed about a wide range of issues concerning their livelihoods. We also interviewed leaders of the commune, women union representatives and leaders, farmer association leaders and leaders of hamlets. In-depth interviews were carried out with case study families based on the main research interests or topics.

Throughout the research cycle we used participatory monitoring and evaluation to keep track of our efforts and assess both results and the participatory process. Data were recorded and shared with the various stakeholders. Indicators were developed to measure the access of women and the poor to technologies and other inputs (for example, knowledge). Two workshops were conducted in the villages with local people, researchers and extension workers to discuss the research results.

CONVENTIONAL EXTENSION PRACTICES UNDER THE LOOP

Traditional Extension Tools for Development Projects in Upland Communities

Training, study visits and local television programmes on extension issues are the main sources of information and knowledge for people in upland communities. Our survey showed that training sessions and study visits focus on agricultural production technology, such as animal production, crop production and forestry. Crucial information about credit, health care and education is almost absent. (Some information about family planning is provided by the women's union.) Access to training sessions and study visits differs by wealth category: the poor have fewer opportunities than the middle and better-off families (Table 6.4).

Both the men and women interviewed indicated that men attend technical training sessions more often than women, although women spend more time than men in most production activities. Opportunities also vary between families. Women in poor households have less opportunity to attend training than men (Figure 6.2) and, in general, women attend training sessions only in their hamlets while

Figure 6.2
Access of Men and Women to Training Courses

Source: CBUNRM survey, 2003.

men attend courses in the commune centre or farther from home. Study visits are attended mainly by men. During the interviews, most women said they are responsible for housework, and visiting is for men. Local leaders and the organizers of study visits do little to change this situation; in the interviews, we learned that they believe that men learn better than women and that is the reason they are selected for study visits.

Our survey showed that only 30 per cent and 36 per cent of women in the poor and middle socioeconomic groups have access to training courses. Women in the better-off group have better access to training—equal to that of men in the same wealth group. In particular, better-off women have more opportunity to attend training organized by the women's union.

Traditional Training Methods

Farmers said that training is important to them because their production system is changing from shifting cultivation to settled farming. They are eager to attend training events, but stated that the knowledge they gain from conventional training is below their expectations. In one of our appraisal exercises with women and men farmers, we learned that farmers are interested in farmer-to-farmer exchanges and specialized training in production methods; they also said that they are able to learn and share experiences more rapidly and easily by working with researchers in the field.

The training courses and sessions organized for the villagers cover most crops of importance to them. On the other hand, conventional training sessions are held by agencies that are 'pushing' a limited number of commodities, including sugarcane, rubber and high-yielding varieties. These courses and sessions are developed by outsiders and designed to benefit government-initiated commodity-oriented projects. We found that most farmers did not understand the contents. Only about 34 per cent reported that they are able to apply the technologies that come with these commodities.

Conventional methods of training consist of lectures in a meeting room at the commune centre far from the fields or farmers' homes. The content of the training sessions is prepared mainly by extensionists and is based on knowledge gained from books or developed by researchers. Extensionists design the courses and sessions based on criteria from government programmes (Figure 6.3). Group discussions and the use of visual methods are very limited; only about 5 per cent of all training courses use videos or group discussion.

Figure 6.3
Source of Decisions about Training Topics

Source: CBUNRM survey, 2003.

According to officials and leaders, the content of most of the conventional training is suitable to local conditions. They argued that farmers should be able to apply what they learn in their production practices, for example, in rice and maize. However, the farmers interviewed said that the time devoted to training is too short; they said that the trainers are usually in a hurry to finish the courses and go back to the city. Combined with the barrier of language and their low education level, this makes it difficult for local people to understand what is being taught.

Perceptions of Local Leaders and Extensionists Regarding Social and Gender Issues

According to the local people and commune leaders, traditional training does not consider gender and social sensitivity in the process of technology development with farmers. All interviewed extensionists said that they developed activities based on the existing programme and contended that this addresses the needs of local people. Some extensionists said that they did a survey to learn about the problems of the local people. They also told us that they are aware that gender, age and economic situation influence the efficiency of training. However, in practice, almost all extensionists do their work based on the assumption that only those in better-off households are able to attend training courses or apply the technologies demonstrated during courses. Local people conform this. According to them, extensionists are never concerned about age, gender and economic conditions of people in the training courses and development activities. They often work only with better-off farmers to develop the technologies they prefer.

Although local leaders do not participate directly in training activities, they support extensionists at the local level by helping them select participants and by providing a venue (classroom). We held semi-structured and in-depth interviews with representatives of the Commune People's Committee, the women's association and the farmers' association. All interviewed leaders said that only commune and village officers and households who have a high level of education and production experience could attend training courses, because only these people are able to understand the course content. Some leaders said that it is better to invite men to participate in training and discuss activities with extensionists because they a have higher education level than women. They added that these men would train other farmers and also tell their wives about what they have learned. However, our gender analysis clearly shows that women often spend more time than men in agricultural activities. This reality is completely ignored in training sessions and related development interventions.

Overall, gender and social sensitivity and knowledge of both extensionists and local leaders are still limited. More appropriate capacity building seems warranted.

BUILDING HUMAN RESOURCE AND SOCIAL CAPACITY AMONG WOMEN AND THE POOR

We learned from our work that agricultural production is an integral part of CBUNRM or any rural livelihood system. Natural resources management in complex uplands production systems requires that both private and collective resources be managed in a complementary fashion. Building assets (which include access and rights to natural resource use) is essential to the process of poverty alleviation. Assets include a broad array of resources that enable people and communities to exert control over their lives, expand choices and participate in their societies in meaningful and effective ways. For example: financial assets such as credit and savings; natural resources such as forests, non-timber forest products, wildlife, land and livestock; social assets such as the capacity to build productive relations and organizations in the community and with the outside world (or terminate these links when they are harmful); and human assets, including knowledge and skills needed to gain access to services, markets, health care and other opportunities.

Upland people are often deprived of these assets. Being poor makes people less secure in terms of their livelihood and also reduces access to education opportunities, health services and other government programmes. Our project involved working with local people to understand their situation, support local organizations and build the assets of individuals in the community. In most communes social assets are constituted in formal and informal organizations, such as the Commune People's Committee, the farmers' association and the women's union. Our project supported and worked with all three organizations very closely as they have long-established relations with farmers and the poor. Many meetings were held to allow us to understand their roles, functions, strong and weak points, and to formulate development plans with them to help build and empower the organizations and their members.

Training in Gender and Social Issues

Training was ranked very high by both women and men farmers. Training in social and gender issues was provided to commune leaders, representatives of organizations and leaders of hamlets. Participants analysed the roles and activities of men and women in their community and in each household. Appropriate training was also organized for agricultural extensionists and researchers. Social and gender experts were invited to facilitate training.

Forming and Supporting Interest Groups

This work started with a diagnosis of local women's and men's needs and interests through group discussion and a brainstorming exercise. Farmers with similar interests were invited to form a small group to engage in a joint learning effort to address concrete needs or opportunities and improve their livelihoods. The following groups were formed by farmers:

1. Rice production groups: Many farmers, both women and men, are interested in wetland rice production to achieve food security. At the start of our work, this topic was their number-one priority. Two groups were established in the villages.

2. Fish raising group: Ten poor farmers who have a fish pond but lack capital for investment and want to improve management techniques formed a group.

3. Pig raising group: Women formed this group, which started with 20 members, but by the second year had grown to 48.

4. Cassava and vegetable production group: Many poor farmers are interested in these crops and formed a group to experiment with new varieties and improve management practices (including post-harvest handling).

5. Home garden improvement group: Seventeen farmers joined this group, which has become very popular and now has more than 60 members.

In the following section we report on our experience—with particular focus on the lessons learned—working with the rice and pig production groups. Rice continues to be the most important commodity for farmers in many parts of Viet Nam. Pigs are of particular interest to women farmers who see them as a way of earning a bit of extra cash for their other family needs. Extra cash allows them to pay for medicines or care when someone in the family is ill or perhaps to buy books or other school supplies. When people in a village are desperate, there is often a social system that they can rely on, but having extra cash is also extremely important for women.

Rice Production Groups.

Each group initially consisted of no more than 15 farmers. Members began by discussing and explaining the problems they were facing and identifying possible solutions. The project team facilitated these discussions, using their scientific and technical knowledge to complement the farmers' local knowledge.

One of the problems identified was low rice yields. The group looked at the causes and discussed a range of solutions to be tested in their fields; for example, testing three new varieties (TH30, Khang Dan and D116), using the local variety as a control; applying various levels of fertilizer; and trying labour-saving transplanting and direct sowing methods.

Three to five farmers agreed to test one of the three options. Other group members participated in evaluation and learning meetings at least three times during the growing season: during planting and the experimental design stage; during the growth period; and at harvest time. At each meeting farmers developed their own criteria for monitoring and evaluating results and decided which varieties were performing well, how much and what type of fertilizer to apply, and which cultivation techniques to use. The results of on-farm monitoring and evaluation were shared with other rice farmers in the group as well non-members and other production groups. As such, the learning process was expanded to other farmers in the community.

Based on the lessons learned from these on-farm experiments with farmers, we believe that researchers should act as facilitators to help farmers develop solutions based on their own situation. Using our model, some farmers could then test new technologies while others monitor and evaluate the results and, thus, learn from those who are testing the options. The adaptability of options or solutions to more farmers should also be discussed by the farmers and supported by the researchers. The more familiar farmers become with new technologies and research results, the easier it will be for them to share lessons more broadly with others.

Pig Production Group.

Due to lack of agricultural land, farmers wanted to increase their incomes by raising livestock. Some years ago a number of projects had supported and introduced cattle to the commune. However, this only benefited middle and better-off farmers, who had sufficient money to buy better breeds or to pay herders to watch cattle. Poor farmers in Hong Ha and Huong Nguyen chose pig production as it is more suitable to their conditions. Pigs can be fed with farm products such as cassava, vegetables and other home-grown or collected feed. Some farmers had kept pigs in the past but their productivity was low. Pig production in upland conditions poses many problems, such as low performance of pigs, poor husbandry techniques, lack of suitable feeds and diseases.

Three experiments were carried out by different farmers: raising Mong Cai sows (a local breed favoured by farmers); raising cross-bred animals associated with the fattening of pigs for the market; and storing cassava roots and leaves as pig feed (cassava is widely grown). In addition, two farmers were trained in basic veterinary practices for one month in Hue. This was supplemented by follow-up training in the village with the help of researchers and students. Vaccinations were provided through veterinary service centres. Other group members visited the district market centres to gather information about the price of slaughtered pigs before they are sold to middlemen. The farmers decided to sell their pigs together to get a higher price.

Although these experiments were useful in building social capital, not all tests were successful. Mong Cai sows were provided to 10 farmers. Although the sows produced good piglets in the first year, after artificial insemination carried out by the university, subsequently insemination was not possible as there were no boars in the village. As a result, the farmers decided not to keep the sows. Instead, farmers now usually obtain piglets from nearby Huong Van, a lowland commune near Hong Ha where sows produce high-quality piglets. It is expected that some of the better-off farmers might begin to keep and breed sows and will then sell piglets to the others.

As members of an interest group, women and the poor have better access to credit from government banks or development projects. To build their capacity in credit management at the community and household level, we introduced a small revolving fund for each of the interest groups. Leaders and credit recorders in each group received training in credit management.

Coalition with Line Agencies

Cooperation between villagers and local organizations is important in enhancing villagers' management capacities (including their ability to negotiate). At meetings between farmers, women, extensionists and development programme officers organized in the communities during our project, villagers spoke out and requested support from the extension service and development organizations, and representatives of these groups informed villagers about the kinds of support they could offer. This type of encounter is instrumental in avoiding overlap or conflicts between organizations operating in a particular area. Farmers can also tell outsiders what they expect and how to organize activities more effectively. For example, a coalition between the extension service centre and the university could provide seeds and fertilizer to farmers (through the extension agency) and complementary technology training (through the university) at the same time. As another example: the province's animal and plant breeding enterprise could offer farmers fruit tree seedlings and the extension centre could organize a related study visit.

IMPACT OF HUMAN RESOURCE AND SOCIAL CAPACITY-BUILDING ON WOMEN AND THE POOR

What differences are these actions making? Based on our monitoring and evaluation efforts to date, our first conclusion is that the number of beneficiaries is increasing (Table 6.5).

The number of farmers in each group has increased because the interest groups are providing an opportunity for farmers to learn from each other. For example, some farmers had never kept pigs or fish before, but since becoming a member of the interest group, they have attended training courses, learned from other farmers, and are applying this knowledge in their own production practices. We also found that the participation of women and members of poor households in technical training courses is now high. Before our interventions, the ratio of male to female participants was 1.5:1, but after a year of effort more women than men are attending technical training.

In the past only about 30 per cent of all participants in training sessions applied new technologies—mainly the better-off farmers. Our 2003 survey showed that this number had increased to an average of 43 per cent across the different wealth categories. However, 14 per cent still said that they were unable to introduce or test new technologies. According to the farmers, they appreciate learning about new technologies through the training sessions and field visits, but they often continue to experience difficulties due to language problems and a lack of experience in testing new methods.

Holding meetings near the hamlets increased attendance and promoted active engagement, in particular by women. Even when women were unable to attend such meetings, they would drop in as observers, then discuss what they heard and seen with their friends later. Researchers and extensionists should allow themselves enough time to stay in the community overnight and even participate in farm work in some cases. One of the team's female researchers was able to do this quite often and found it a very productive way to learn and build social relations and trust. In Box 6.1 we present some reflections made by women about their increased participation.

Local leaders have become more aware of and knowledgeable about social and gender issues. The establishment of interest groups has made them understand villagers' conditions better and the characteristics of different groups and farmers in their communes. They have also increased their capacities to support development activities (from planning to implementation and evaluation). More and more women and disadvantaged groups are involved in community development programmes, for example, in credit groups, as members of interest

groups and in the agricultural land distribution process. The leader of one of the communes said:

In the past, because of local customs, very few women and poor participated in technical training and other activities but now they are members of interest groups. This allows them to attend these activities.

Extensionists and development workers have tended to follow what their plans tell them to do. Now they have started to learn and practice a participatory approach. Extension agents are paying more attention to gender and social conditions of farmers in villages. The quality of their work is improving with more participation of women and the poor. They have begun to select venues and times that suit farmers better, especially women. They are changing their training methods from lecturing to visual and field practices by interest groups. Their new approach is based on what farmers need instead of what farmers lack.

To sum up, the number of women and the poor participating in almost all the activities has increased. Our gender and social analysis capacity and awareness building seem above all to have improved the quantity of participation. The most successful production activities are among farmers in the better-off group. Therefore, the question for the research team is how to improve the quality of participation of the women and poor. This will require more time and effort.

FOSTERING A NEW APPROACH: CONCLUSIONS

Commune leaders have told us that our approach is very different from other projects. Giving poor farmers, including women, the opportunity to improve their understanding and address their interests builds confidence and skills. In the past the ideas, priorities and local knowledge of commune leaders and other local people were mostly ignored by rural development 'experts' (researchers and extensionists alike). Our work suggests that poverty reduction in heterogeneous upland areas of Viet Nam is much more effective using participatory tools and fostering adaptive learning.

Our study shows that rural women and the poor have less access to information and services than men and better-off households in upland communities. The burden of agricultural production and housework, traditional norms and customs, as well as a lack of social and gender sensitivity on the part of extensionists, local leaders and researchers are important factors that have led to this situation. Changes will not come overnight. Improving their livelihood is the first priority of the upland poor. Not all farmers have the same interest and capacity to improve their production practices and income generation; so participatory approaches must make special efforts to engage all local people, especially the women and poor. Successful new technologies can best be disseminated by structured farmer-to-farmer learning activities and by extension agencies that use participatory tools and methods.

Improving the knowledge, awareness and perceptions of local people and leaders, researchers and development workers regarding social and gender issues through training, working together and sharing information contributes to a better approach to working with the poor and women. However, although we have seen a significant increase in the number of women and the poor involved in local development activities, this may still not mean that their voices are heard.

Improving the quality of participation of women and the poor remains a research challenge. It requires appropriate skills, experience and attitudes of (outside) facilitators to create the environment in which they can speak out. In addition to modifying our behaviour, we also need to continue to increase our willingness, awareness and knowledge, and improve our attitudes. More time and effort are needed, not only by the research team, but also by others—in government and non-government organizations alike.

Training in social and gender awareness, and knowledge for development workers and researchers is an important way to contribute to improving the situation of the rural poor and women. However, increasing awareness and knowledge is not so easy. It needs a sound monitoring and evaluation mechanism and process. It will also require institutionalization of the concepts and practices of participation and empowerment in rural development activities at all levels, from the grassroots to the national government.

Setting up interest groups of women and the poor, and enhancing their management capacity are good ways to build human resources and social capital in upland communities. Due to similarities in culture, customs and language among members of upland communities, the establishment of interest groups is a suitable way for farmers to learn together—not only about technical issues, but also about such aspects as management and market information. Involvement in these groups also increases farmers' confidence, especially the poor and women, through interactions in meetings and field visits. The quality of this learning process depends largely on the capacity of the group leaders to create an environment for sharing knowledge, information and experience. The women's interest group proved to be a good medium for interaction and learning among women. In this process, the role of the local women's union is important in maintaining the group; therefore, strengthening the capacity of the women's union is also important.

Finally, capacity building for the poor and women requires a long-term joint effort by all social actors involved in rural development—local authorities, governments, non-government organizations, researchers and international supporters.

REFERENCES

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (1997). Gender: The Key to Sustainability and Food Security. Rome: FAO. Available at http://www.fao.org/sd/WPdirect/WPdoe001.htm  (viewed 17 November 2004).

Hoang Thi Sen (2000). Gender Roles in Agriculture and Forestry Production in Hong Ha Commune. In Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry, Community-based Upland Natural Resource Management Project Report 2000. Hanoi: Agricultural Publishing House.

Luat, N.V. and D.K. Son (1992). Progress Report on Farming Systems Research in the Me Kong Delta. In International Rice Research Institute, 23rd Asian Rice Farming Systems Working Group meeting, International Rice Research Institute, Manila.