Analyze

Characterization of loss from Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development (2018) within the Evaluation report on 10-year implementation of the national policy for ‘agriculture-farmer-rural’ development [ not available for public view] 

• “ Aquaculture households have lost 503.2 million VND (21,665 USD) per household, then fishing households 231.3 million VND (9958 USD) per household, and coastal service households 102.0 million VND (4392 USD) per household. Note that both fishing and fish farming households lost similar por- tions of their total income, around 98 percent, even as fish farmers earn twice that of fishers on average. In a country where the average yearly income of rural households is 130 million VND or 5600 USD (MARD, 2018), losing an average of 11,000 USD per household is significant.” (Truong et al., 2021, p 8). 

Characterization of the compensation schemes adopted by Vietnam’s government:

• “According to a report by the Ministry of Finance in 2018, the government was able to provide direct cash compensation to those identified as being impacted across the four provinces. This is because of the settlement with Taiwan Formosa Plastics for 500 million USD. In addition to cash, the Vietnamese government gave over 19,000 tonnes of rice to impacted households in the months following the fish kill. The government also monitored the safety of the ocean environment. As the government switched from emergency relief to recovery support, more programmes were introduced including loan access, scholarships for students, health insurance, and livelihood training pro- grammes. The government also worked with the Fisheries Department and other relevant agencies to build environmental monitoring systems, provide consistent water testing, engage in food safety monitoring, and work towards ecological rehabilitation of aquatic stocks” (Truong et al., 2021, p 10). 

“Environmental disasters have a tendency to further increase work precarity, particularly in places that are highly dependent on eco- logical resources (Marschke et al., 2020). Livelihoods, as such, may need to transform rather than persist in the face of crises (Alexander, 2013).” (Truong, 2021, pg 3)

“ Vietnam has struggled with ineffective environmental regulatory programmes or insufficient enforcement capabilities to ensure adequate protection of the environment as Vietnam develops (Fortier, 2010). Environmental impact assessments (EIA), in general, are viewed as bureaucracy rather than as an important aspect of the development approval process (Wells-Dang et al., 2016).” (Truong, 2021, pg 4)

The narrative of the text highlights the following key points extrapolated from survey responses and interview participants:

• Impacts of the Formosa disaster on households vary by livelihood strategies, and were particularly amplified for poorer households, women, and households without diversified livelihood strategies. 

• Coping mechanisms of households primarily involved reducing household expenditures, accessing loans, adopting a new livelihood strategy, and expanding existing livelihood strategies. However, adoption rates of these coping mechanisms vary across households with livelihoods across the service, fishing, and fish farming enterprises. 

• Compensation, though cited to have ignited protests from parties not qualified for restitution, did offer substantial help to those who were able to receive compensation. Additionally, compensation delivery was delayed (between one to two years after the incident was reported), further escalating impacts across families without savings. 

• Economic recovery of household income 30 months after the Formosa incident indicates that the majority of households have recovered their livelihood activities. However, this does not take into account families who are no longer in the region (out migrated following the disaster prior to the inception of this study).

Authors of the publication have affiliations to the Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry and the School of International Development and Global Studies at the University of Ottawa, Canada. The funding for this study comes from the Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development.

This policy applies to any persons who are considered refugees. Because this was after the Second World War, it was at first limited to people fleeing within Europe. Since then, its scope has widened and applies to people fleeing persecution and can be used today with respect to the current refugee problem. 

This policy was drafted by the United Nations. 26 countries and/or states were represented during this convention, including: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, US, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia. Cuba and Iran were also represented. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees participated, but was not given the right to vote on the matter. The International Labor Organization and the International Refugee Organization were also represented. Other NGOs were present as well. 

This policy is in reference to refugees seeking political asylum. Its initial aim was to define what a refugee is and outline how they should be treated and accepted. They acknowledge the problems relating to refugee travels and documents needed, problems regarding keeping family units together, as this is an essential right of a refugee. They also mention that refugees are a vulnerable group, and as such, require some degree of welfare services. They stress the importance of international cooperation and understanding that refugees need protection. Finally, they outline the treatment of refugees. This is an extensive document and policy, containing 46 Articles.  

The convention in 1951 was a response to WW2 and the vast amounts of refugees that existed as a result. States involved in the convention and the UN could decide to apply it to refugees not necessarily from WW2, but in 1967, the limits were removed and made it so that it could apply to any refugees, not just those from WW2. It has since been used during major refugee crises in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. 

While this policy doesn't directly address public health, it does concern the rights and protection of displaced persons. They recognize the stressful situations that refugees are in and that welfare resources will be needed to help them. They discuss housing rights and rights to public education. While these might not be medical treatments, they would help with public health and are associated with overall well-being of these refugees. 

The entirety of this document illustrates how vulnerable refugees are. They define refugee to be someone who has been persecuted for reasons of "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion." They discuss the fear that refugees feel and that they should be treated favorably, sympathetically, and like other citizens of the contracting state.