Post-displacement community resilience: Considering the contribution of indigenous skills and cultural capital among ethnic minority Vietnamese

Abstract

Despite an improving regulatory framework and policies governing compensation and resettlement, the majority of the millions displaced worldwide each year by hydropower dam construction continue to experience marginalisation and impoverishment, suggesting that external financial support must be supplemented by strengthened community-based resilience. In order to understand more about the innate resources of displaced rural communities, we applied a community resilience approach to two resettled Co-tu ethnic minority villages in an upland area in central Vietnam to identify their community capitals and their application in improving livelihoods and living conditions. We found that weak human and financial capital constrained the ability of the resettled residents to adopt new livelihoods or migrate to seek employment. Reduced forest and river access also problematised responses to a lack of agricultural land. However, traditionally strong village affinity and social networks were retained. In addition, indigenous skills such as housing construction, honed by a highly mobile traditional lifestyle, allowed residents to construct culturally significant structures like community houses and modify or augment received housing stock. These elements of social and cultural capital eased the process of post-resettlement adaptation. We conclude that governments should reassess current resettlement policies that prioritise financial compensation and should incorporate awareness of the adaptive resilience and limitations fostered by indigenous knowledge and practices in resettlement action plans.

Interrogating resilience: toward a typology to improve its operationalization

“…Wilson (2012bWilson ( , 2013 and Singer et al (2015) maintain that exogenous drivers acting across institutional scales can function to either strengthen or weaken some capitals important for community resilience, and that this is significant for the practical application of resilience concepts, given that these drivers can affect policy corridors, and therefore transformational pathways. Cross scale interactions, evidenced through the likes of climate adaptation planning, also demonstrably affect community economies, cultural practices, and social networks meaning that those with particular capitals become more or less vulnerable than others (Crane 2010, Singer et al 2015, and therefore that some groups are better able to take advantage of change than others. Many community resilience assessments (e.g., Daze et al 2009, Bours et al 2013, Tyler et al 2014) now explicitly consider crossscale drivers of community resilience, particularly around governance and planning, in a perceived attempt to ensure the concept is practically relevant.…”

The cultural, family and community factors for resilience in southeast asian indigenous communities: A systematic review

“…Tatau, Sarawak, Malaysia held consultations with every longhouses before making a decision (Barney, ). The members of the Co‐tu community in Vietnam were also ready to provide assistance to other members of the community when necessary (Singer et al, ). Community members in the villagers of the provinces of Prey Lang were also found to participate in decision‐making processes by selecting community representatives at interprovincial networks (Verkoren & Ngin, ).…”

Dam-Forced Displacement and Social-Ecological Resilience: The Barra Grande Hydropower Plant in Southern Brazil

“…Farmers who were resettled in collectives found themselves having to innovate to cope with the high costs imposed by the new models of production. They set up agricultural production associations (FA) in order to receive funding from BAESA, which denotes some level of self-administration (SINGER; HOANG; OCHIAI, 2015). According to one interviewee working in the agricultural sector in Esmeralda, the associations thus set up became a new element in the political scenario, previously marked by the presence of small holders (farmers possessing between 20 to 40 hectares) and large property owners, whose main source of income was the leasing of their land.…”