Steve Bass et al. (2010) Viet Nam’s development priorities to date aim at high rates of economic growth – but in ways that constrain integration of environment objectives

The prevailing development narrative in Viet Nam is to achieve middle-income status through economic growth, under conditions that (it is assumed) will also reduce poverty en route. This is in spite of environmental damage becoming apparent and export markets increasingly demanding sustainably produced goods. Viet Nam’s market orientation excites competition between provinces to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), which continues to drive a ‘race to the bottom’ in ignoring environmental standards; state-owned enterprises (SOEs) continue to ‘steal from the future’ by polluting air and water. Heavy costs are imposed on the environment, with much natural resource degradation and pollution, which in turn explains much entrenched poverty. The National Environmental Performance Assessment (n.d.) is consequently gloomy, noting how water and air quality having been static or deteriorating and big losses of biodiversity in particular.

Environment is not central to the economic growth philosophy, except that poverty is seen to be a cause of environmental degradation. Indeed, environmental problems are sometimes attributed explicitly to some ethnic minorities – suggesting that changing the resource use practices of poor people should be the priority. Various policy documents suggest that environmental protection to make up for recent ‘environment sacrifices’ can be ‘afforded’ only once middle-income status is achieved.

The ‘economic growth first’ narrative creates great pressure to ignore environmental considerations at all levels. Production, income and economic growth are the top targets by which officials will be assessed. The associated quantitative indicators are compelling and the lack of similar quantitative environment indicators does nothing to balance the growth incentive. Furthermore, the honourable notion of ‘victory means sacrifice’ would seem to justify acceptance of the idea of sacrificing environment in the medium term – why create only one ‘green job’ if two ‘polluting jobs’ can be created today and the resultant income used to clean up associated environmental damage later? This short-term drive for growth may indeed be efficient if environmental assets can later be rebuilt, or if environmental hazards did no lasting harm, but this is not always the case. Unlike Thailand, Laos, Malaysia, Indonesia, and other neighbours, Viet Nam’s environment was already highly degraded before the growth spurt of the 2000s. Without significant change, the likely outcome of continued degradation may resemble China’s – with its huge social costs.

Steve Bass, David Annandale, Phan Van Binh, Tran Phuong Dong,Hoang Anh Nam, Le Thi Kien Oanh, Mike Parsons, Nguyen Van Phuc,and Vu Van Trieu (2010) Integrating environment and development in Viet Nam: Achievements, challenges and next steps