As part of AEPD’s ongoing advocacy and partnership-building work, we recently met with Phan Thanh Dong, vice chair man of ACDC, an association in which VAVA (Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange) is included, working at provincial level to support persons with disabilities and victims of Agent Orange/dioxin.

The meeting was an opportunity to better understand the current provincial support structure, the main challenges faced by victims and their families, and the potential for closer cooperation with AEPD. It also highlighted an important point: while organisations may work with similar groups, they can still bring different expertise, networks and ways of supporting vulnerable households.

A changing provincial structure

One of the first topics discussed was the recent reorganisation of the provincial structure. Four areas that had previously been organised separately are now brought together within one broader organisation: support to persons with disabilities, support to victims of Agent Orange/dioxin, advocacy, and the rights of children.

The provincial VAVA structure, which previously operated independently, is now part of this wider organisation following recent policy changes.

This new structure creates both opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, it may allow different forms of social support to be more closely connected. On the other hand, it also requires organisations working in similar fields to better understand where their roles overlap and where they can complement each other.

For AEPD, this is particularly relevant because both organisations work with persons with disabilities and vulnerable households, but often through different networks and with different groups of beneficiaries.

What support currently looks like

The meeting helped clarify the forms of assistance currently available to victims of Agent Orange/dioxin at provincial level.

Livelihood and economic inclusion are important areas of support. Beneficiaries may receive assistance to access loans, employment opportunities, career orientation or other forms of income-generating support. In some cases, this can also extend to caregivers, although direct victims remain the main priority.

The discussion also showed that economic support is not seen only as a question of income. Social inclusion and participation are also important. Beneficiaries are encouraged to participate in decisions affecting them and to play an active role in determining how support is used.

Health remains another major area of concern. As many victims grow older, access to medication and health support becomes increasingly important. Housing support can also be provided to vulnerable households, while broader efforts continue to address the long-term consequences of Agent Orange/dioxin exposure.

The provincial organisation also works with a range of other actors. These include local associations, the Red Cross, organisations representing blind people, and institutions linked to the Vietnamese People’s Army. International organisations such as Catholic Relief Services, Mines Advisory Group and the RENEW project were also mentioned during the discussion.

Local radio and newspapers are used to communicate activities, while some international support can reach the provincial level directly or through connections established by central VAVA structures.

The challenges are increasingly long-term

One of the clearest messages from the meeting was that the main challenges facing victims and their families are becoming increasingly long-term.

Ageing caregivers are a major concern. In some households, one person may be responsible for caring for more than one victim, sometimes over many years. As caregivers themselves grow older, this burden becomes increasingly difficult to sustain.

Existing centres for persons with disabilities can provide support, but resources are limited and access may depend on a number of criteria. Staff capacity is also constrained. As a result, many families continue to rely heavily on care provided within the household.

The ageing of beneficiaries creates a second layer of difficulty. As victims grow older, their health needs often become more complex and more demanding. Long-term disability can be compounded by age-related illnesses, increasing the need for healthcare, rehabilitation and family support.

Another challenge is the limited availability of resources at commune level. Local structures play an important role in identifying vulnerable people and maintaining contact with communities, but they often operate with insufficient funding. This can limit outreach, follow-up and the ability to respond to emerging needs.

These challenges reinforce the idea that victim assistance cannot be understood as a short-term intervention. It requires long-term systems of support that can adapt as the needs of victims and their families evolve over time.

Why cooperation with AEPD could make sense

A key part of the discussion focused on whether closer cooperation with AEPD could bring practical value. The potential complementarity is clear.

The provincial structure has specialised knowledge of Agent Orange/dioxin victims, their families and the local networks supporting them. AEPD, meanwhile, brings strong experience in disability inclusion, household-level support, livelihoods, community outreach and long-term follow-up.

Rather than duplicating each other’s work, the two organisations could potentially connect these strengths.

The meeting identified information sharing as one possible area of cooperation. Both organisations work directly with vulnerable households, and more regular exchange could help them identify unmet needs, avoid duplication and better understand which services are already available.

Another possible area is the sharing of practical experience. Both organisations face similar challenges around disability, livelihood insecurity, ageing caregivers and access to support. Comparing approaches could help identify solutions that have worked in different communities.

There may also be scope to co-support particularly vulnerable beneficiaries. In some cases, one organisation may identify a household that could benefit from the expertise or services of the other. This could be especially useful where several needs overlap, such as disability, health problems, caregiving responsibilities and unstable livelihoods.

From discussion to practical cooperation

The meeting did not aim to establish a formal partnership immediately, and this was probably an advantage. Instead, it allowed both sides to identify practical areas where cooperation could begin gradually.

Possible next steps include joint visits to vulnerable households, joint needs assessments, exchange of technical approaches, and identification of particularly vulnerable families who may benefit from coordinated support.

This approach would allow both organisations to learn from each other before developing more formal forms of cooperation.

For AEPD, the meeting was therefore useful not only because it created a new institutional contact, but also because it clarified where the organisation’s own expertise could add value.

AEPD’s community-based experience, particularly in disability inclusion, livelihoods and household support, could complement the specialised networks and knowledge of Agent Orange/dioxin victims held by the provincial structure.

The meeting showed that effective victim assistance depends not only on the amount of support available, but also on how well organisations connect their knowledge, resources and networks. Strengthening cooperation at local level may therefore be an important step toward more comprehensive and sustainable support for victims and their families.