Navigating Water Challenges In Vietnamese Mekong Delta: How Can A Shift In Water Management Help? – Analysis

LONG READ

 October 2, 2025 

By East-West Center

By Thong Anh Tran and Ming Li Yong

Water Scarcity as a New Challenge

The Anthropocene era has witnessed increasing climate change risks globally, particularly in countries of the Global South.1 This is notably evident in the Mekong region, where water infrastructure development has been pursued to support agriculture-driven national economic growth. These efforts, combined with the rapid development of upstream hydropower dams and climate change events (e.g., El Niño and droughts), have created critical challenges to the Mekong water systems. The storage of vast quantities of water in hydropower dam reservoirs in China,2 for example, has disrupted downstream water flows and the transport of sediment essential for sustaining riverine deltas.3 Located in the southernmost region of the Lower Mekong Basin (LMB), the Vietnamese Mekong Delta (VMD) is heavily affected by these complexities.

Water scarcity has become a critical issue in the LMB in recent years.4 The VMD, for example, has seen the recurring disruption of water flows over the past few decades.5,8 This unprecedented phenomenon places increasing pressure on agrarian communities and their livelihoods.6 It is, therefore, crucial to understand how water scarcity has precipitated a paradigm shift in water management to achieve water security while safeguarding agriculture-based livelihoods for the agrarian communities across the delta.

Evidence presented in this paper was drawn from the case studies conducted in two provinces within two distinct ecological zones of the VMD: An Giang Province in the floodplains (upper delta) and Ben Tre Province in the coastal zone (lower delta). An Giang has faced severe impacts from the upstream climate and infrastructure development dynamics, illustrated by the recurring disruptions of Mekong river systems. Meanwhile, Ben Tre grapples with the increasing intensity and complexity of saline intrusion.7 These evolving ecological challenges in both localities have jeopardized the freshwater supply essential for the water-depen- dent livelihoods of agrarian communities.

Water scarcity in the VMD can be attributed to several factors. At the regional level, climate change and upstream hydropower development have presented critical challenges, such as fluctuating water flows, to the delta. Additionally, the 180-kilometer-long Funan Techno Canal, which aims to create a navigation route between Cambodia’s coastline and the Mekong River near Phnom Penh, is likely to exacerbate issues of saline intrusion in the Mekong Delta by altering river flows.8 Water loss from this large-scale project is likely to exacerbate existing water scarcity issues in the delta. At the delta scale, it is also important to mention the sustained efforts of the Vietnamese government to invest in water infrastructure across the delta. Following the state-led “rice everywhere” campaign,9 an extensive network of infrastructure, including low and high dykes, canals, and sluices, has been constructed. While these efforts aimed to promote national and regional economic growth, drive rural modernization, and boost household income in rural areas, they have inadvertently intensified pressure on the delta’s water regimes and rural livelihoods.

The VMD’s waterscapes have undergone substantial transformation. With the intersecting transboundary and in-situ climate and develop- ment impacts, water scarcity will become a critical issue in the delta. The transformation of water- scapes and associated livelihood systems in the VMD can be attributed to water infrastructure development policies. This traces back to the flood-expulsion policy of the late 1990s, during which a network of lateral canals was constructed to channel the excessive volumes of floodwaters from the floodplains to the West Sea (Gulf of Thailand).10 The primary aim of this policy was to eliminate flooding in the region and to create “safe” zones for intensified rice production in the floodplains.

Similar efforts were undertaken in the coastal zones through the construction of large-scale water infrastructure. This underscores the state-led “freshening coastal zones” policies that were conducted in two phases.11 The first phase took place in the Ca Mau Peninsula, demonstrating the national government’s initiative to transform brackish coastal zones into permanent freshwater zones for rice production, supported by extensive dike systems.12 The second phase involved a more ambitious transformation of the coastal zones, including the conversion of rivers into reservoirs, as exemplified by the Ba Lai system in Ben Tre Province.13 This “highly modernist” approach to water management aimed to ensure year-round water availability to meet growing demands of agricultural production and domestic use, while addressing the incremental rate of saline intrusion during the dry season. However, in some areas, rural communities lack necessary resources, knowledge, or capacity to adapt to changing water conditions. While securing a sufficient water supply in the coastal zones remains a significant challenge,14 livelihoods are expected to become increasingly vulnerable to environmental impacts.15

Water governance under the conventional “command and control” framework in the VMD presents significant challenges in achieving effective water management. There is insufficient participation by relevant stakeholders in water management decisions. This top-down and technocratic approach often results in institutional inertia, leading to delayed responses to the evolving water dynamics of the Mekong River.16 Additionally, the heavy reliance on water engineering systems can contribute to the overuse and mismanagement of water resources.17 However, acknowledging these institutional limitations provides an opportunity to develop new pathways for learning and adapting to the delta’s changing waterscapes.18

Insights from our case studies in An Giang and Ben Tre Provinces suggest that conventional “grey” infrastructure systems, such as dikes and sluices, remain central to local water management strategies. Despite their widespread implementation, there are concerns among environmental experts about their ability to address emerging water challenges, such as water scarcity, and to ensure sustainable water security in the delta. These cases highlight the paradoxical outcomes of decades-long water control policies. While these policies aimed to manage water resources to support rural communities’ livelihoods, the unintended environmental repercussions of disrupting natural flood patterns have put livelihood systems under pressure. On a broader scale, the national government’s sustained efforts to transform the VMD into a highly productive agricultural frontier have drastically reshaped its waterscapes, turning it from a water-abundant to a water-scarce delta.

The recurring complexities arising from anthropogenic changes to the Mekong River’s water regime in recent years have thus prompted broader policy learning and adaptation efforts at the government level. This has led to the implementation of an adaptive management approach, which is defined as a structured cycle of knowledge accumulation through conceptualizing, monitoring, reflecting, learning, and adapting.19 From an adaptive management perspective, the shift in water management in the VMD first became evident with the redirection of policy focus from the floodplains to coastal zones, driven by the heightened environmental risks of saline intrusion and its associated impacts on the environment and farmers.20 In the VMD, water scarcity compounds livelihood challenges already intensified by land subsidence, sand mining, and rising sea levels in the coastal zones,21, 22 creating additional hardships for local communities.23 At the household level, a significant transition has already taken place— from “living with floods” to “living with saline intrusion”—reflected in the innovative agricultural practices rural farmers have adopted to adapt to changing environmental conditions.24

These adaptive efforts are reflected in a corre- sponding shift in the local government’s mindset and priorities, emphasizing water retention as a pivotal strategy to support local economic devel- opment. This transition highlights the evolution of water management—from expelling water to retaining it—under the compounded challenges of climate change and upstream infrastructure devel- opment. The previous policy of expelling excessive floodwaters to the West Sea has failed to address emerging water challenges, such as water scarcity and saline intrusion, which is now a critical issue. This approach revealed significant shortcomings in water management by underestimating the economic benefits that floodwaters could bring to local communities.

The paradigm shift from water expulsion to water retention presents evidence of learning and adaptive policy actions in tackling the draw-backs associated with the former. Water scarcity has become a driving force that prompts a paradigm shift towards achieving water security in the VMD. In alignment with the Vietnamese government’s climate-resilient and sustainable development strategies stipulated by Resolution 120 on “Climate Resilience and Sustainable Development of the Mekong Delta Region,”25 ensuring a consistent, year-round water supply to sustain agriculture-based livelihoods has emerged as a new priority. Within this context, water retention plays a crucial role in addressing emerging water challenges at both local and transboundary levels. This strategic emphasis on water security marks a significant shift from the long-standing national policy focus on food security, which has dominated the VMD’s development agenda for many decades.

The water retention approach prioritizes water quantity over quality to tackle water scarcity. Given the severe impacts of water shortages on farming communities in recent years, this approach is perceived as a practical solution to secure water availability for agricultural production and household consumption during the dry season. In particular, it supports the adoption of diverse water management strategies, including the construction of freshwater reservoirs and the use of natural wetland systems in peripheral areas of the delta to retain water.26 This reflects a policy shift towards integrating grey and green infrastructure solutions in water management.27 In An Giang Province, for example, water retentions are achieved through household ditches, dike compartments, canals, and natural wetlands such as Bung Binh Thien Lake. In Ben Tre Province, schemes like the Ba Lai Reservoir enable the storage of significant freshwater volumes to support crop production and household needs. However, concerns remain about the efficiency of such large-scale reservoirs due to high construction costs, space requirements, location suitability, and high evaporation rates.28

Various eco-friendly water retention approaches have been widely adopted to secure freshwater availability. Traditional water retention practices in the VMD demonstrate that rural inhabitants have extensive experience in harvesting rainwater during the rainy season and storing it for household use during the dry season.29 These methods include using cisterns, cement tanks, and other storage tools, as well as large plastic bags for convenient freshwater storage. These approaches help minimize reliance on groundwater pumping, which is common among coastal residents. Excessive groundwater extraction is a major contributor to land subsidence and associated environmental issues, including salinization and coastal erosion.30

To secure the sustainable future of the VMD, we should not await the outcomes from negotiating with upstream Mekong countries; we need to store water at hand. While considerable emphasis is placed on retaining freshwater through water retention approaches to ensure long-term water security in the VMD, water quality has received comparatively less attention. This is particularly critical in intensive rice production areas, where rural farmers heavily rely on agrochemicals and synthetic fertilizers to boost rice productivity. Although local agricultural institutions promote the application of innovative farming models, such as “3 Reductions, 3 Gains” or “1 Must Do, 5 Reductions,” which seek to reduce the application of water, fertilizer, and pesticides while sustaining rice yields,31 hidden competition among rice farmers persists. Many farmers continue to believe that increased application of agrochemicals and fertilizers would result in higher crop yields. These conventional practices, as a result, have induced the widespread application of these agricultural inputs on rice fields, causing the substantial contamination of both surface and groundwater resources.32

Referring to the concept of water security defined by Grey and Sadoff (2007, p. 545) as “the availability of an acceptable quantity and quality of water for health, livelihoods, ecosystems, and production, coupled with an acceptable level of water-related risks to people, environments, and economies,”33 this paper argues that the persistent reliance on these conventional farming practices, coupled with the quantity-oriented water management policy in the VMD, has overlooked the operational role of water quality, which is equally vital to the livelihoods and well-being of rural communities. Consequently, this approach fails to ensure the long-term water security of the delta.

Recognizing the Multiple Dimensions and Values of Water

From a water security perspective, it is also crucial to recognize the multidimensional nature of water security and the economic values of different types of water—freshwater, brackish, and saline. Effective management of these resources should be based on a fair recognition of how they can be used for various livelihood activities, especially in the coastal zones. This approach facilitates the reconciliation of state-led water management with farmer-led livelihood strategies, contributing to ongoing efforts towards achieving sustainable water security. Recent evidence highlights the potential of sustainable farming systems, such as rice-shrimp farming and organic farming, as viable alternatives to mitigate environmental impacts.34 These systems not only help sustain household income but also reduce carbon emissions associated with conventional agricultural practices. In the longer term, this opens pathways for the commercialization of organic and clean agricultural products in the delta.35

An adaptive learning approach in water management emphasizes the need for local governments to change their perception of water resources and acknowledge the equal contribution of freshwater, brackish, and saline water to ensuring sustainable livelihood strategies in the new environmental context. This was exemplified in Ben Tre Province, where freshwater was prioritized to support the local economy.36 While the essential role of freshwater is recognized, considerations should also be given to brackish and saline water. These resources have remained undervalued and marginalized in rural development policies.37

The case of Ben Tre Province highlights the critical role of freshwater in local economic development. In freshwater zones, shrimp farming is prohibited due to concerns that wastewater from shrimp ponds may negatively affect neighboring areas where freshwater-based crops are grown. However, the local government’s prioritization of freshwater over brackish and saline water overlooks the interests of shrimp farmers. From the perspective of the latter, shrimp farming offers significantly higher incomes compared to freshwater-based commodities, such as fruits and bananas, which are often susceptible to recurring market volatility. In response to the government’s ban, shrimp farmers have engaged in forms of “everyday politics” to assert their rights and advocate for their interests in shrimp farming as a sustainable livelihood option.38

We often encounter the market instability of agro-commodities. Crop investment is costly. Cultivated in the saline and acid sulphate soil conditions, coconut trees, for example, cannot grow well—unlike other areas, here it takes about six or seven years for a coconut tree to produce fruit. Recognizing the values of brackish and saline water is essential for diversifying and enhancing the livelihoods of coastal communities and boosting local economies, particularly in the face of increasing water challenges in the VMD. This calls for greater attention to resolving the competition between the local government and farming communities, as exemplified in the case of Ben Tre Province. It is therefore essential to underscore the importance of incorporating the economic values of all water resources into local development agendas, grounded by the shared understanding between these actors. This policy reframing will enable local governments to address farmers’ livelihood aspirations while simultaneously attaining agreed-upon strategies for effectively managing the water complexities.

Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

This article highlights a paradigm shift in water management in the VMD to address the compounding effects of climate change, upstream hydropower dam operations, and local water infrastructure development. Emerging water challenges, such as water scarcity and saline intrusion as highlighted by the case studies, have incrementally aggravated the challenges faced by rural house- holds in responding to changing water conditions and sustaining water-based livelihoods. This shift—from water expulsion to water retention, and more broadly, from a focus on food security to water security—holds critical policy significance for tackling long-term climate and development challenges in the VMD.

The reframing of water policy towards water security in the VMD needs to focus on the following key areas: First, from a water security perspective, it is essential to integrate water quality into local water management policies, which have traditionally prioritized water quantity. Second, while freshwater takes precedence in local government’s water management policies, particularly in relation to agricultural production, the importance of brackish and saline water should not be overlooked. Instead, these resources must be recognized as essential contributors to coastal livelihood systems. It is equally essential to include local level water development policies within the broader institutional efforts for achieving sustainable development in the VMD in the long term. This necessitates improved spatial and sectoral coordination as stipulated in the Prime Minister’s decisions39 on regional and provincial integrated planning of the delta in the periods of 2021–2030, with a vision towards 2050.

It is widely acknowledged that coastal communities are in the best position to understand local ecosystems and utilize their capacity to support their livelihoods. These communities possess a wealth of valuable experiential knowledge gained from generations of living with saline water in coastal zones. Local institutions need to adopt a more open, flexible, and participatory approach that facilitates the inclusion of community-held knowledge into local water management and adaptation policies, and coordinates the co-development of governance arrangements to deal with environmental complexities. This collaborative approach can create space for local governments and agrarian communities to engage in meaningful dialogue, enabling them to articulate and recognize their respective interests and values. It also fosters a shared understanding of how water management can maximize economic benefits for local communities while promoting sustainable water use and protecting aquatic environments.

On the regional scale, local governments in the VMD need to engage more proactively in dialogues with key stakeholders, including the Vietnam National Mekong Committee, Mekong member countries, International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs), as well as other international agencies. This collaboration is vital for coordinating regional efforts to address challenges posed by climate change and infrastructure development, which have transboundary water implications, and for articulating these issues to a broader public. This endeavor aligns with the principles of the 1995 Mekong Agreement, which encourages compliance with guidelines for the reasonable and equitable use of the Mekong River’s waters by the countries in the LMB. Moving forwards, the Mekong River Commission should also play a proactive role as a platform through which Vietnam and upstream countries can collaboratively work to diagnose and mitigate the transboundary environmental impacts of water resources infrastructural development in the LMB while simultaneously advancing more pre-emptive strategies to ensure long-term water security in the VMD.

Research for this article was made possible by the Henry Luce Foundation and the Seed Fund for Research and Training (SFRT) Program of the Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA).

About the authors:

• Thong Anh Tran, Ph.D., is a human ecologist with extensive work experience in mainland Southeast Asia. His research investigates climate and development dynamics in the Mekong region, with a particular focus on (transboundary) environmental governance, agrarian transitions, livelihood resilience, climate change adaptation, social learning, rural innovations, and institutional change. He contributed to the conceptualization, methodology, investigation, and writing of this article. His email address is thong.tran@anu.edu.au.
• Ming Li Yong, Ph.D., is a Fellow in the Research Program at the East-West Center. She studies transboundary water governance and hydropower development in the Mekong River Basin and has conducted research on community-based natural resource management, civil society movements, institutional governance arrangements, and public participation. She contributed to the editing and validation of this article. Her email address is yongm@eastwestcenter.org.

Source: This article was published by the East-West Center

Endnotes:

1. Eckstein, D., Künzel, V., Schäfer, L. and Winges, M. (2019). Global climate risk index 2020. Bonn: Germanwatch.
2. Hecht, J. S., Lacombe, G., Arias, M. E., Dang, T. D., and Piman, T. (2019). Hydropower dams of the Mekong River basin: A review of their hydrological impacts. Journal of Hydrology, 568, 285–300.
3. Phung, D., Nguyen-Huy, T., Tran, N. N., Tran, D. N., Doan, V. Q., Nghiem, S., Nguyen, N. H., Nguyen, T. H., and Bennett, T. (2021). Hydropower dams, river drought, and health effects: A detection and attribution study in the lower Mekong Delta Region. Climate Risk Management, 32, 100280.
4. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and AWP (Australian Water Partnership). (2023). Managing water scarcity in Asia and the Pacific—A summary: Trends, experiences, and recommendations for a resilient future. Rome and Canberra: FAO and AWP.
5. Le, A. T. (2020). Analysis of flood and drought variability in the Mekong River Delta in the last 20 years. Journal of Science and Technology, 62(11), 22–27.
6. Tran, T. A., and Cook, B. R. (2024). Water retention for agricultural resilience in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta: Towards integrated ‘grey- green’ solutions. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 40(3), 532–553.
7. Park, E., Loc, H. H., Binh, D. V, and Kantoush, S. (2022). The worst 2020 saline water intrusion disaster of the past century in the Mekong Delta: Impacts, causes, and management implications. Ambio, 51(3), 691–699.
8. Yang, H., Liu, D., Xiao, H., Thompson, J.R., Flower, R.J., Sophal, H., & Avent, T. (2025). Better plans are needed for mitigating the ecological impacts of Cambodia’s Funan Techo Canal. Nature Ecology & Evolution.
9. Biggs, D., Miller, F., Chu, T. H., and Molle, F. (2009). The Delta machine: Water management in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta in historical and contemporary perspectives. In F. Molle, T. Foran, and M. Käkönen (Eds.), Contested waterscapes in the Mekong region—hydropower, livelihoods, and governance (pp. 203–225). London: Earthscan.
10. Tran, T. A., Tran, D. D., Vo, O. V, Pham, V. H. T., Van Tran, H., Yong, M. L., Le, P. V., and Dang, P. T. (2024). Evolving pathways towards water security in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta: An adaptive management perspective. Ambio, 1–15.
11. Tran, T. A., Tran, H. V., Pittock, J., and Cook, B. R. (2022). Political ecology of freshening the Mekong’s coastal delta: Narratives of place-based land-use dynamics. Journal of Land Use Science, 17(1), 471–486.
12. Benedikter, S. (2014). The Vietnamese hydrocracy and the Mekong Delta— Water resources development from state socialism to bureaucratic capitalism. Berlin: LIT.
13. Tran, T. A., Tran, H. V., Pittock, J., and Cook, B. R. (2022). Political ecology of freshening the Mekong’s coastal delta: Narratives of place-based land-use dynamics. Journal of Land Use Science, 17(1), 471–486.
14. World Bank and ICEM (International Center for Environmental Management). 2022. Climate Resilient Rural Water Supply in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Volume III: Resilient Infrastructure Recommendations for Water Supply in the Mekong Delta. Washington DC: World Bank
15. Wassmann, R., Phong, N. D., Tho, T. Q., Hoanh, C. T., Khoi, N. H., Hien, N. X., Vo, T. B. T. and Tuong, T. P. (2019). High-resolution mapping of flood and salinity risks for rice production in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Field Crops Research, 236, 111–120.
16. Tran, T. A., and Tortajada, C. (2022). Responding to transboundary water challenges in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta: In search of institutional fit.Environmental Policy and Governance, 32(4), 331–347.
17. Vörösmarty, C. J., McIntyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., Glidden, S., Bunn, S. E., Sullivan, C. A., Liermann, C. R., and Davies, P. M. (2010). Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature, 467(7315), 555–561.
18. Schoeman, J., Allan, C., and Finlayson, C. M. (2014). A new paradigm for water? A comparative review of integrated, adaptive and ecosystem-based water management in the Anthropocene. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(3), 377–390.
19. Fabricius, C., and Cundill, G. (2014). Learning in adaptive management: Insights from published practice. Ecology and Society, 19(1).
20. Akter, T., Hoque, M. A. -A., Mukul, S. A., and Pradhan, B. (2024). Coastal flood induced salinity intrusion risk assessment using a spatial multi-criteria approach in southwestern Bangladesh. Earth Systems and Environment, 1–19.
21. Akter, T., Hoque, M. A. -A., Mukul, S. A., and Pradhan, B. (2024). Coastal flood induced salinity intrusion risk assessment using a spatial multi-criteria approach in southwestern Bangladesh. Earth Systems and Environment, 1–19.
22. Park, E. (2024). Sand mining in the Mekong Delta: Extent and compounded impacts. Science of the Total Environment, 924, 171620.
23. Tran, T. A., Dang, T. D., Nguyen, T. H., and Pham, V. H. T. (2021). Moving towards sustainable coastal adaptation: Analysis of hydrological drivers of saltwater intrusion in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Science of the Total Environment, 770, 145125.
24. Tran, T. A., Nguyen, T. H., and Vo, T. T. (2019). Adaptation to flood and salinity environments in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta: Empirical analysis of farmer-led innovations. Agricultural Water Management, 216, 89–97.
25. The Vietnamese Government. (2017). Resolution No. 120/NQ-CP on “Climate Resilient and Sustainable Development of the Mekong Delta”, dated 17 November 2017. Hanoi: The Vietnamese Government Office.
26. Tran, T. A., and Cook, B. R. (2024). Water retention for agricultural resilience in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta: Towards integrated ‘grey- green’ solutions. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 40(3), 532–553.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Wilbers, G. -J., Sebesvari, Z., Rechenburg, A., and Renaud, F. G. (2013). Effects of local and spatial conditions on the quality of harvested rainwater in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Environmental Pollution, 182, 225–232.
30. Minderhoud, P. S. J., Middelkoop, H., Erkens, G., and Stouthamer, E. (2020). Groundwater extraction may drown mega-delta: Projections of extraction-induced subsidence and elevation of the Mekong delta for the 21st century. Environmental Research Communications, 2(1), 011005.
31. Connor, M., Tuan, L. A., DeGuia, A. H., and Wehmeyer, H. (2021). Sustainable rice production in the Mekong River Delta: Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of the integrated technology package “One Must Do, Five Reductions” (1M5R). Outlook on Agriculture, 50(1), 90–104.
32. Tran, D. D., Park, E., Tran, T. A., Vo, T. T., and Le, P. T. (2023). Socio-hydrological trade-offs arising from triple cropping in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta: Revisiting environmental impacts and adaptation pathways. Environmental Technology and Innovation, 29, 102987.
33. Grey, D., and Sadoff, C. W. (2007). Sink or Swim? Water security for growth and development. Water Policy, 9(6), 545–571.
34. Binh, N. T., Tien, L. V. T., Minh, N. A., Minh, N. N., and Trung, N. H. (2021). Drivers of agricultural transformation in the coastal areas of the Vietnamese Mekong delta. Environmental Science and Policy, 122, 49–58.
35. Tho, L. C. B., and Umetsu, C. (2022). Rice variety and sustainable farming: A case study in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Environmental Challenges, 8, 100532.
36. Tran, T. A., Tran, H. V., Pittock, J., and Cook, B. R. (2022). Political ecology of freshening the Mekong’s coastal delta: Narratives of place- based land-use dynamics. Journal of Land Use Science, 17(1), 471–486.
37. Tran, T. A., and Pittock, J. (2024). When water policies derail livelihood aspirations: Farmers’ agency in everyday politics in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Environmental Sociology, 10(3), 267–278.
38. Ibid.
39. Prime Minister of Vietnam (2022). Prime Minister’s Decision on Approved Planning of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta from 2021–2030 and Visions towards 2050, Decision No. 287/QĐ-TTg, dated 28 February 2022. Hanoi: The Vietnamese Government Office.

East-West Center

The East-West Center promotes better relations and understanding among the people and nations of the United States, Asia, and the Pacific through cooperative study, research, and dialogue. Established by the U.S. Congress in 1960, the Center serves as a resource for information and analysis on critical issues of common concern, bringing people together to exchange views, build expertise, and develop policy options.