culas how anthropology and agriculture can cooperate ca conf 12 2012 proceedings.pdf

8/11/2019 Culas How anthropology and Agriculture can cooperate CA Conf 12 2012 Proceedings.pdf

1/16

Conservation Agriculture

and Sustainable Upland Livelihoods

Innovations for, with and by Farmers

to Adapt to Local and Global Changes

The 3rd

InternationalConferenceon Conservation Agriculture

in Southeast Asia

PROC

EED

INGS

Hanoi . 10th> 15thDecember 2012


2/16

The 3rdInternational Conference on

Conservation Agriculture in Southeast Asia

Conservation Agriculture and Sustainable Upland

Livelihoods

Innovations for, with and by Farmers to Adapt to Local

and Global Changes-

Proceedings

Hanoi, VietnamDecember 10-15, 2012

www.conservation-agriculture2012.org


3/16

The opinions and views expressed in this publication by the individual authors do not necessarily reect those

of any institution involved in this conference

Front cover: Patricia Doucet (CIRAD)

Document design: Patricia Doucet, Martine Duportal, Damien Hauswirth (CIRAD)

English revision (abstracts and keynotes): Matthew Stevens (Science Scape Editing)

English revision (portfolio and texts): Peter Biggins (CIRAD)

Printed by: Tran Cong Co. Ltd., H Ni, Viet Nam

Co-published: by CIRAD, NOMAFSI, University of Queensland

CIRAD, 2012

ISBN CIRAD: 978-2-87614-687-7

EAN CIRAD: 9782876146877

Distributed by CIRAD, UPR SIA - TA B 01/07, Avenue Agropolis, 34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France

Tel.: +33 4 67 61 56 43; [email protected]

Northern Mountainous Agriculture and Forestry Science Institute (NOMAFSI),

Phu Ho Commune, Phu Tho town, Phu Tho Province, Vietnam

And

University of Queensland, Centre for Communication and Social Change,

School for Journalism and Communication, Brisbane Qld 4072, Australia


4/16

iConservation Agriculture and Sustainable Upland Livelihoods

The 3rdInternational Conference on Conservation

Agriculture in Southeast Asia

Conservation Agriculture and Sustainable Upland Livelihoods :Innovations for, with and by Farmers to Adapt to Local and Global

Changes

Proceedings of the Conference held in Ha Noi, Vietnam

December 10-15, 2012

Editors

Mr. Damien Hauswirth (CIRAD - UPR SIA)

Dr. Pham Thi Sen (NOMAFSI)

Mr. Oleg Nicetic (University of Queensland)

Dr. Florent Tivet (CIRAD - UPR SIA)

Pr. Le Quoc Doanh (MARD)

Pr. Elske Van de Fliert (University of Queensland)

Dr. Gunnar Kirchhof (University of Queensland)

Mr. Stphane Boulakia (CIRAD - UPR SIA)Mr. Stphane Chabierski (CIRAD - UPR SIA)

Dr. Olivier Husson (CIRAD - UPR SIA)

Mr. Andr Chabanne (CIRAD - UPR SIA)

Dr. Johnny Boyer (CIRAD - UPR SIA)

Dr. Patrice Autfray (CIRAD - UPR SIA)

Mr. Pascal Lienhard (CIRAD - UPR SIA)

Mr. Jean-Claude Legoupil (CIRAD - UPR SIA)

Mr. Matthew L. Stevens (ScienceScape Editing)

Organized with the nancial support of

Co-published by


5/16

ii The 3rdInternational Conference on Conservation Agriculture in Southeast Asia - Hanoi 2012

Citation

Hauswirth D., Pham T.S., Nicetic O., Tivet F., Le Quoc D., Van de Fliert E., Kirchhof, G.,

Boulakia S., Chabierski S., Husson O., Chabanne A., Boyer J., Autfray P., Lienhard P.,

Legoupil J.-C., Stevens M. L. (eds) 2012. Conservation Agriculture and Sustainable UplandLivelihoods. Innovations for, with and by Farmers to Adapt to Local and Global Changes -

Proceedings of the 3rdInternational Conference on Conservation Agriculture in Southeast

Asia. Held in Hanoi, Vietnam, 10th-15th December 2012. CIRAD, Montpellier, France;

NOMAFSI, Phu Tho, Viet Nam; University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 372 p.

With the kind assistance of

Special thanks toMatthew Stevens, ScienceScape Editing, Sydney, Australia

Peter Biggins, CIRAD, Nogent sur Marne, France

Christine Casino, CIRAD UPR SIA, Montpellier, France

Patricia Doucet, CIRAD, Montpellier, France

Martine Duportal, CIRAD, Montpellier, France

Ccile Fovet-Rabot, CIRAD, Montpellier, France

Philippe Radigon, CIRAD, Montpellier, France

Tran Thi Chau, CIRAD Regional Direction, Vietnam

Ronald Jeff Esdaile, Agricultural Consultant, Sidney, Australia

Samran Sombatpanit, WASWAC, Thailande

Li Hongwen, China Agricultural University, Conservation tillage research Center, China

Gunnar Kirchhof, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Nguyen Thi Thanh Thuy, NOMAFSI

Minh Thi Le Do, NOMAFSI

Dieu Huong Le, NOMAFSI

THINK SOILSTM

Agro-Ecosystems Soil Management Solutions

www.thinksoils.org


6/16

74 The 3rdInternational Conference on Conservation Agriculture in Southeast Asia - Hanoi 2012

Keynote 2: Understanding and using socioeconomic

data on ethnic farmers to prepare for implementation and

scaling up of CA projects

Christian Culas*1

1CNRS EHESS, Centre Norbert Elias, Marseille, France

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Our objective was to analyze limitations of information on the sociocultural

and economic situation of ethnic groups in the mountains of Vietnam to betterimplement CA programs in Vietnam.

CA implementation in a difcult or hostile environment

Conservation agriculture (CA) remains a controversial agricultural innovation,and its practical application is highly dependent on the understanding and directmotivation of farmers.

For example, the keynote to Chapter 6 of this conference says: The rst is that

CA concepts and principles are counterintuitive and contradict the common tillage-based farming experience. We can add that the objectives of CA are also opposed,at least in part, to the dominant view of the Vietnamese authorities that agriculture

must advance through equipment and chemicals. Both tools are symbols of anidealized modernity, as expressed in major state projects designed to transformlives and behaviours in rural areas, such as Nng Thn Mi (Building a newcountryside1). In Vietnam, most attempts at integrated farming, agroforestry andpermaculture are tolerated but are considered marginal and condential activities,

without high economic potential. Under these conditions, CA projects should pay

better attention to human and social components.My presentation is not intended to stay on the marked paths of political correctness.

As I show below, it is through an empirical and critical approach to ethnicpopulations local realities that we can nd an anthropological key to the design

and implementation of CA projects.

Communication between agrarian specialists and anthropologists

If the rst element to facilitate the application of CA at the local level depends

on knowledge of the farmers local reality, the second necessarily depends onexchange and communication between agrarian specialists and anthropologists.

1 See http://newcountryside.gov.vn/0201/31/CONTENTS-OF-THE-NATIONAL-TARGETED-PRO-GRAM-on-NEW-RURAL-DEVELOPMENT-FOR-PERIOD-2010---2020.htm


7/16

75Conservation Agriculture and Sustainable Upland Livelihoods

My feeling is that many specialists in agriculture and technology look to new tools,methods and maybe social sciences because they understand that even the besttechnical approach is not efcient for introducing the new concept of CA without a

global understanding of the socioculturaleconomic context. More or less clearly,agrarian specialists express the importance of the human factor in agriculturaldevelopment projects. Studying and analysing these human factors is one of theresponsibilities of social science.

But social science and exchanges between interdisciplinary specialists faceimportant constraints:

Few social science research projects in ethnic mountain areas in Vietnam

focus on socio-agricultural dynamics and changes. For example, at this conference,a few authors are geographers, socio-economists, journalists and experts incommunication, but some disciplines, such as sociology and anthropology, are notrepresented here.

Few projects take a multi-disciplinary approach from the project design

stage. Usually, development projects seek social science support when they startto encounter problems. In these cases, social science is the re brigade of the

project. But by this stage, social scientists can save only part of the project, andusually it is too late to give substantive help.

Communication and exchange between social science specialists andagricultural specialists is often weak or problematic and always limited in time.

From the point of view of agricultural specialists, social science literature isnot easily readable, and when they can understand it, they complain that it hasno practical application in the project. From the social science point of view,development ofcers frequently request recipes for how to work with this social

reality, while the social science approaches try only to explain keys part of the localreality. Of course, every piece of social reality is complex and is articulated withother parts. The challenge is trying to build a bridge between the complexity of socialreality and what the project needs to know to avoid serious misunderstandings.

There are not many ways to build this kind of bridge: learning to listen to differingpoints of view, learning to express these views in an understandable way for non-specialists, long and regular exchanges between different specialists, and buildingmutual trust in these exchanges.

Studying mountain ethnic groups in Vietnam as catalyst for research in

development

This paper focuses on projects in ethnic mountain areas in northern Vietnam. This

a very small focus in comparison with the many agrarian issues faced in South-

East Asia. The idea is not to look for situations representing a qualitative point ofview. Instead, by addressing the problems of knowledge production from extreme,atypical and marginal situations we can see more clearly the nature and causes ofthese problems. Agriculture and society among ethnic groups in Vietnam are two

marginal axes within South-East Asian studies.


8/16


These two axes will be catalysts to highlight other problems of knowledge about

agricultural projects encountered elsewhere in South-East Asia2.

Some issues to justify the failure of development projects in the ethnic

context

This section describes some issues or topics that are used as evidence of the failures

and problems of development projects in ethnic populations in Vietnam. From thesefocused topics, we can put forward some more general principles that we can apply

to other topics that also explain the failures of projects. I discuss 3 topics that are

among the most frequent and that are advanced as the main causes of problems

in reports of project development and in the scientic literature: language barriers,cultural barriers and participation.

Language barriers3

Language barriers are typically summarised as Because ethnic populations dont

understand enough Vietnamese language, they cannot participate (or participateenough) within development projects. From my 15 years of anthropological eldexperience in ethnic villages in many provinces in northern Vietnam, I can observethat most adults can speak enough Vietnamese to understand a project meetingin their village. So even if a few people are not uent in Vietnamese, this doesntsignicantly affect a projects implementation and results. Moreover, this assertionof causality between a lack of linguistic knowledge and the participation and

performance of a project is not based on any serious, comprehensive and thoroughstudy4. It is therefore a preconceived idea that seems obvious to many development

ofcers, local government leaders and researchers.

Because this assumed link of causality is repeated in the vast majority of reports and

articles, it has managed to become the norm, even the scientic truth, of projects.

In contrast, anthropological surveys reveal many difculties in communicationbetween project staff and ethnic populations. For example, in many interactions with

state authorities and development projects (the two are often equated by ethnic

populations), some ethnic populations say they do not understand Vietnamese, thusallowing them to protect themselves from the intrusion of projects they dont want.

They create a distance in communication with external agents.

The real problem is that they dont want to speak Vietnamese in certain situations.

2Agriculture and mountain ethnic groups are important topics in current research. For example, in thepapers presented at this conference, 18 (~35%) concern agricultural matters among ethnic groups in

the uplands of Vietnam and Laos.3 Inability to speak Vietnamese, and some traditional cultural practices, are emphasised as obstaclesthat prevent ethnic minorities from being better integrated into the economy and taking advantage ofthe new opportunities provided by the Doi Moi in numerous qualitative studies (Baulch et al. 2010: 37).... Experiencing language and other cultural barriers causing constrained access to information,education, development initiatives and services (van de Fliert et al. 2010: 330).4 Methods of survey most commonly used (e.g. questionnaire, quick survey, participatory rural appraisal,focus group) are not sufcient to adequately describe such situations.


9/16


This distancing, evident in all anthropological surveys, must be understood as a form

of exible resistance, creating an appearance of incompetence. However, it is notmentioned in reports of development projects written by international consultants or

by Vietnamese experts. In this regard, the weight of political correctness and culturalpreconceptions still weighs on the production of data on ethnic societies in Vietnam.

Cultural barriers

The vast majority of reports5on development show the culture of ethnic minorities

of Vietnam as an important variable limiting their economic development. However,this assertion is not based on any serious sociological or anthropological surveys.

It is only the product of impressions and the integration of hierarchical categories

in effect in most Vietnamese social conceptions and media (Nguyen 2010). Noneof the authors who argue that the culture of ethnic groups is one of the reasons for

their underdevelopment can give a clear denition or scientic concept of culture,or scientic arguments about the cause and effect relationship between a specicculture and its level of development.

Some comparisons may seem to conrm this causal link in Vietnam. For example,differences in levels of economic development between the Kinh (demographic

majority) and other ethnic groups (minorities) are explained simply as because they

have different cultures. However, this comparison, which lies at the heart of the

causal link, loses its demonstrative power when we compare the same ethnic group,

with the same language and culture, in neighbouring countries. For example, the

Hmong are ranked at the bottom of the ladder of economic development in Vietnam,as supported by their backward cultural behaviours and their lack of openness to

modernity6. In contrast, in Thailand and Laos, the Hmong show better integration

in agriculture, local commerce and services7. In this case, the cultural variable is

used to induce two opposite results in two different contexts. To better understand

the factors of development, it is necessary to introduce another variable here: the

type of relationship between the state and ethnic populations. Without going into

details, we can say that the relationships between the Hmong and the state are very

different in all three countries.These remarks on language and culture as supposed explanatory criteria require

researchers to broaden their arguments and to better integrate local views on the

basis for underdevelopment.They also allow 2 more methodological ndings:

5IBRD / World Bank 2009. This culturalist approach is present in almost all economists reports on ethnicgroups (Baulch et al. 2008). la gographie des richesses naturelles sajouterait un facteur culturel propos, en loccurrence, des populations ethniques minoritaires dont les croyances et pratiquesseraient moins propices une utilisation rationnelle des ressources productives (To the geography

of natural resources would be added a cultural factor, namely, the ethnic minority populations whosebeliefs and practices are less conducive to the rational use of productive resources) (Nguyen and Trinh1999).6 New policies for Hunger Eradication and Poverty Reduction [Program 135, supported by the WorldBank] that began in the late 1990s continue to focus on issues such as nomadism and backwardnessas the faults of minorities that prevent them from developing. (McElwee 2004: 204).7See Culas and Engelmann (2008).


10/16


New dimensions

The researcher (anthropologist or agronomist) must incorporate new dimensions in

the analysis of human relationships: for example, the political dimension of social

relations. The quality of relations between the state and local people is an important

cause. This dimension is always present but is often forgotten in the descriptions andanalyses. The notion of politics is used here in its sociological sense: construction

and management of collective human relations in a specied space and time.

The heuristic advantage of this concept is that it forces us to take into account the

phenomena of tension, conict, negotiation and thus power and authority in allhuman interactions. Flexible resistance of certain ethnic populations (I dont want

to speak their language in this situation) dealing with external pressures (projects

imposed without local demand and sometimes against needs) is typically an act of

everyday politics. This type of resistance is expressed without a leader, an institution(no formal or ofcial group), promotion or the need to justify it.

Willingness to deal with changes

These remarks also raise questions about an important dimension that is often

neglected in the description and analysis of ethnic populations: their willingness and

desire to deal with all the changes that affect them.

The ofcial reports of the Vietnamese ministries and agencies, reports of internationaldevelopment projects, and books and articles by development specialists make very

little mention of the wishes, concepts of development and conceptions of wellbeing

among the targeted populations. This literature lends the impression that these

people are largely without will and conceptions. The empirical match between these

texts and reality is very low.

I quote a few lines from a text published in 2010 by a group of authors, most of whom

are attending this conference. The introduction concentrates in a few lines most of the

explanatory arguments advanced to justify difculties in the economic developmentof ethnic populations in mountain areas of Vietnam (van de Fliert et al. 2010):

Ethnic minority communities located in remote and marginal mountainous areas

have largely been unable to benet from the developments as a result of a range ofcomplex factors aggravated by a communication disconnection with the mainstream

agencies of development ... . Vietnam has 53 ethnic minority groups, accounting for12.6% of the total population, who for the greater part inhabit the mountainous areasin the North West and North East regions and the Central Highlands. In 2006, 52% ofethnic minority people were reported to live in poverty in comparison with 10% of theKinh majority group ... . Main reasons for this disparity are, in summary, differences

in assets, capacity and voice. These relate to ethnic minorities having fewer physical(land, capital, credit) and social (education, health, access to services) assets,

being mostly located in geographic remote areas with limited physical mobility, and

experiencing language and other cultural barriers causing constrained access to

information, education, development initiatives and services ... .


11/16


Here I would like to introduce a few angles to analyse arguments that justify the

difculties of ethnic groups in development:

Ethnic minority communities located in remote and marginal mountainous areas have

largely been unable to benet from the developments ... . Geographical and political

distance from the centre could explain their inability to benet from development. Itwould be interesting to have the perspective of villagers (with deep surveys) on what

development means for them. In all cases, studies see ethnic people only from the

perspective of the centre: the state, the national capital, the provincial capital, the

Kinh majority. This situation of political and administrative control is a real problem

when we know that in all the provinces of northern Vietnam, mountain ethnic groupsform a large majority8.

... A communication disconnection with the mainstream agencies of development.

Indeed, there are major communication problems in all development projects,especially in ethnic areas. But, of course, we cannot attribute the responsibility

for these problems only to the ethnic populations. Development agencies and

Vietnamese authorities, as essential partners in all projects, also have a role. Todiscuss the direct responsibility of development agencies and the authorities in the

malfunction of projects requires them to agree to talk about everyday politics. But

development agencies and authorities try to avoid everyday politics at all costs.

Under these conditions, how can we understand these situations without basic data

on the relationships between the social groups interacting in the projects?

Van de Fliert et al. (2010) explain or justify the disparities in terms of developmentstandards by:

fewer physical (land, capital, credit) and social (education, health, access toservices) assets

concentration in remote areas with limited physical mobility

language and other cultural barriers restricting access to information, education,development initiatives and services.

Some of these assertions are contradicted by local realities. For example, inmountainous areas, the area of land, and even arable land, per household is much

greater than in the deltas of the Red and Mekong rivers (World Bank 2007). The set

of criteria presented, with the backing of references from international donors (as

scientic guarantee?), are covered under natural conditions (located in remote areas),or these situations are imperative for ethnic populations (having fewer physical ...

and social ... assets, ... and experiencing language and other cultural barriers causing

constrained access to information, education, development initiatives and services.)

In these criteria, we note the underlying idea of a form of passivity among ethnicpopulations.

8 In Lao Cai province, 65% of the population are ethnic groups; Dien Bien Phu province, 79%; Ha

Giang, 80%; Lai Chau, 86%. Thus, we must question the expression ethnic minority at least at the

provincial and district level.


12/16


This idea of passivity is often euphemistic in the ofcial discourse of donors,

although it is expressed more directly in Vietnamese texts9.

What is the level of consistency (or reliability10) between these criteria and theirexplanatory capacity and the local realities to which they refer? We do not have

enough space to answer this here, but this should be one of the rst questions to askwhen we evaluate and use eld data or analyses produced by other researchers.

In many situations, ethnic populations must accept what is imposed by projects.Moreover, has anyone ever seen a project that asks the target populationswhether or not they want the project as it is designed? But formal acceptance doesnot mean full respect for the objectives, purposes and methods of the project. Inmost projects (when possible), local people will modify it to suit their needs. Suchtransformations (misappropriations) of projects are among the most remarkable

signs of participation. But the project will not record these adaptations (even if theyare effective), because they are outside the terms of reference and the logicalframework. Yet despite the failure to report most such transformations, they arekey to adapting a project to local capacities. In this context, de Certeau et al.(1981) speak of tactics of compromise as opposed to strategies to impose.

It is necessary to grasp the game of power and authority between the differentstakeholders in order to understand the articulated reality of a developmentproject: that is, all social, technical, economic, political and symbolic interactionsthat construct and transform the project.

Van de Fliert et al. (2010) suggest political relations as differences in assets,

capacity and voice. Voice is a direct reference to the possibilities of expression,

and making ones voice heard is one of the actions of everyday politics. The notionof voice is articulated in the notions of loyalty (compliance without discussion)and exit (rejection of constraints by avoidance and distancing) (Hirschman 1970).Voice is also a key to the participatory approach so often put forward in projects.

Participation as an action in everyday politics

I also discuss the use of the terms participation and participatory approach tojustify the role that the project wants to play in the target populations.

In the case of CA projects, the notion of participation is essential, because farmersmust have strong condence in a project in order to radically change the way

they think and act. Here, efciency can come only from an active and motivated

participation. For this reason, it is necessary to distinguish between the publicdiscourse on participation to satisfy donors and a more contextualized approach,probably less formal and more exible, about real modes of involvement in a

project.

9In Vietnam there is also some direct pejorative characterisation of ethnic groups by Vietnamese Kinh.

(Nguyen 2010; Culas 2010, 2012; Culas et al. 2012).10The epistemology of anthropology usually talks about empirical adequacy (Olivier de Sardan 2008).


13/16


The notion of participation and all its variations was imposed in the early 2000s by theIMF and the World Bank, in association with notions of ownership, accountabilityand governance, in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. Thereafter, the vastmajority of Vietnamese projects, even top-down projects such as the Programme

for Socio-economic Development in Communes faced with Extreme Difculties11in Vietnam, included a participatory component. But we must not confuse the

public expression of participation by a project and the real practices. Much ofthe discourse on participation is only intended to satisfy the demands of donors,without being practically connected with the local reality of the project. Internationaldonors impose participation on states as a condition of aid. States then impose iton their projects and perhaps their population. This top-down imposition is contraryto the idea of participation, and yet is the usual form of the design and installationof projects in Vietnam.

When we study how development projects are designed, we see that they arebased on a very low and still insufcient set of knowledge of local situations.

For example, no project is designed on the basis of discussion, exchange andnegotiation with the target populations. Development ofcers, donors and the state

decide on the objectives and methods of the project. All project objectives respondrst and foremost to national and international constraints that are completely

external to the local situations that the project is designed to transform. Moreover,the modes of participation are themselves determined by project experts and notby the population itself. Thus, the use of the term participation must be questionedin depth in the vast majority of projects.

One of the bases of research in social sciences is that collective action is part ofa panel of specic norms, those of different local actors (Chauveau et al. 2001;

Olivier de Sardan 2009): state, private companies, development projects, NGOs,farmers etc. Collective action makes sense only in the negotiation or articulationof conict with these different norms. Participation (positive or negative) is only

one aspect of the interaction between actors from different groups. If we viewcollective action only through a single normhere the Vietnamese government

or development projectwe cannot understand the extended sense of collective

action. It is possible to take the norm of the state or development project as areference, but it should not be forgotten that this norm is locally connected and isoften in competition with othersless shown, less established, less verbalized but

equally decisive in the choice of local actors.

These issues illustrate the main reasons for the economic underdevelopmentof mountain ethnic groups. But other themes and arguments could be analysedwith the same empirical and critical approach to assess their empirical match with

observed reality (Olivier de Sardan 2008).

11Also known as P135. Approved by Decision 135/1998/QDTTg, Prime Minister, 31 Jul 1998.


14/16


15/16


Culas C. 2010. Nghin cu s trao i v kin thc v tp tc a phng trong qun lmi trng min ni Vit Nam: Nhn t quan im nhn chng hc (Study of discourseson local knowledge and practices on environment management in Vietnam mountains:an anthropological perspective). In: Lng VH, Ng VL et al, eds. Hin i v ng thica truyn thng Vit Nam: Nhng cch tip cn nhn hc (Modernity and dynamics oftradition in Vietnam: anthropological approaches), 292324. Quyn 2. T. P. H Ch Minh,

Nh Xut Bn i Hc Quc gia Thnh Ph H Ch Minh.Culas C. 2012. Relations entre lhistoire de la gestion des espaces agricoles et

lenvironnement au Vietnam: logiques de production des rglementations et ambigut deleurs applications. In: Ferrari O, Bourg D, eds. Politiques environnementales en Asie du SudEst. Enjeux, pratiques et idologies (in press). Karthala IRASEC, Paris and Bangkok.

Culas C, Engelmann F. 2008. Le nouveau march Hmong de Luang Prabang : tude delinitiative conomique locale et des rseaux des montagnards au Laos. In: Goudineau Y,Lorrillard M, ds. Recherches nouvelles sur le Laos, 403429. cole franaise dExtrme-Orient, Vientiane.

Culas C, Razandrakoto M, Roubaud F. 2012. Ownership and participatory processes:

from global motto to local challenges. The case of a key poverty reduction program in ethnicminority areas of Vietnam. In: Local Politics and Global Impacts (in press). University ofChicago Press, Paris.

de Certeau M, Giard L, Mayol P. 1981. LInvention du quotidien. 1: Arts du faire. Gallimard,Paris.

Hirschman OA. 1970. Exit, voice and loyalty: responses to decline in rms, organisations,and states. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Kerkvliet BJT. 2005. The power of everyday politics: how Vietnamese peasants transformednational policy. Cornell University Press, New York.

Kerkvliet BJT. 2001. An approach for analyzing statesociety relations in Vietnam. Sojourn16(2): 238278.

Kerkvliet BJT. 1995. Villagestate relations in Vietnam: the effect of everyday politics ondecollectivisation in Vietnam. Journal of Asian Studies 54(2): 396418.

Le QD, Ha DT, Chabanne A, Husson O, Julien P. 2003. Towards an agro-ecology researchprogram for upland agricultural development. In: Le QD, Nguyen VB, Ha DT, eds. Uplandagricultural development current status and orientation, 8495. Agricultural PublishingHouse, Hanoi.

McElwee PD. 2004. Becoming socialist or becoming Kinh?: Government policies for ethnicminorities in the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. In Duncan C, ed. Civilizing the margins:Southeast Asian government policies for the development of minorities, 182213. CornellUniversity Press, New York.

Nguyn QP, Trinh QT. 1999. May van de ly luan va thuc tien ve dan toc va quan he dantoc o Vietnam (Some theoretical and practical issues on ethnicity and ethnic relations inVietnam). Nha xuat ban Chinh Tri Quoc Gia (Maison ddition Politique Nationale), Hanoi.

Nguyen VC. 2010. Representation of ethnic minorities on mass media: analysis of therepresentation of ethnic minorities on several popular newspapers in Vietnam. Institute ForStudies of Society, Economy And Environment. Research team from Academy of Journalismand Communication and Institute for Studies of Society, Economy and Environment, Hanoi(online).

Olivier de Sardan J-P. 1998. Anthropologie et dveloppement, essai en socio-anthropologiedu changement social. Karthala, Paris.

Olivier de Sardan J-P. 2000. Rendre compte des points de vue des acteurs: principesmthodologiques de lenqute de terrain. In: Lavigne Delville P, Sellamna NE, Mathieu M,eds. Les enqutes participatives en dbat, 419449. Karthala, Paris.


16/16

84 The 3rd International Conference on Conservation Agriculture in Southeast Asia - Hanoi 2012

Olivier de Sardan J-P. 2003. Lenqute socio-anthropologique de terrain: synthsemthodologique et recommandations usage des tudiants. tudes et Travaux n 13.Lasdel (Laboratoire dtudes et recherches sur les dynamiques sociales et le dveloppementlocal), Niamey, Niger. (http://www.ird.ne/lasdel/pub/13 methodologie.pdf)

Olivier de Sardan J-P. 2008. La rigueur du qualitatif. Les contraintes empiriques delinterprtation socio-anthropologique. Anthropologie Prospective n 3. Bruylant-Academia,Louvain-la-Neuve.

Olivier de Sardan J-P. 2009. The eight modes of local governance in West Africa, 2nded. Working Paper No. 4. Africa Power and Politics Programme, Overseas DevelopmentInstitute, London. (http://www.institutions-africa.org/leinfo/20100104-appp-working-paper-4-the-eight-modes-of-local-governance-in-west-africa-by-jp-olivier-de-sardan-nov-2009)

Thai TM, Neef A, Hoffmann V. 2011. Agricultural knowledge transfer and innovationprocesses in Vietnams northwestern uplands: state-governed or demand-driven? SoutheastAsian Studies 48(4): 425454.

Tran DT, Mai TC, Nguyen HN. 2008. The assessment of the erstwhile and existing planningprocess for improving participatory planning in Ha Giang, Phu Tho, Thai Nguyen and Bac

Giang provinces. Plan International Vietnam, Hanoi.van de Fliert E, Pham TV, Do TMH, Thomas P, Nicetic O. 2010. Out of comfort zones, into

realities: research for development with upland ethnic minority communities in north westVietnam, 113. 9th European IFSA Symposium, 47 July, Vienna.

World Bank. 2007. Understanding ethnic minority poverty in Vietnam. Country SocialAnalysis Study. World Bank.

culas how anthropology and agriculture can cooperate ca conf 12 2012 proceedings.pdf

Documents