The Lao government's forest strategy aims to increase national "forest" cover to 70% by 2020 from the current estimated 41%. At the same time national strategic priorities for inviting foreign investment have led the government to allocate an estimated 13% of Lao's forest land to concessions during the period of 2002-09. Dryland dipterocarp forests (DDF) represent a unique forest ecotype that is under particular threat to conversion. The frequently stunted appearance of these slow-growing forests contribute to their being undervalued, and there is increasing pressure to permit conversion of such "low value" forests for (predominantly) foreign investment in export-oriented commercial agricultural or tree cropping plantations.
Our analysis comparing case studies of forest resources use, incomes and vulnerability in three villages associated with production forests, sugarcane concessions and eucalyptus concessions in Savannakhet Province challenges these assessments. We discuss the extent to which the conversion of DDF forests for many such concession models should be regarded as a high-risk strategy with the significant potential for "maladaptation" outcomes.
CIFOR Scientist Aaron Russell with Joost Foppes and Southone Ketphanh on 4 June 2013 at the panel discussion "Trade-offs between large-scale and small-scale land commercialisation and impacts on forest commons" at the 2013 IASC conference held on Mount Fuji in Japan.
For more information, please click here: http://www.cifor.org/events/upcoming-events/iasc.html
Clinical Pharmacy Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
Impact of forest commons and agro-forestry concessions on household resilience in Southern Laos
1. Aaron J.M. Russell, Joost Foppes, Sounthone Ketphanh
(a.russell@cgiar.org)
14th IASC Conference, Kitafuji, Japan (Jun.4, 2013)
Using Forests to Enhance Resilience to Climate Change “ForCC”
Impacts of forest commons and agro-forestry concessions on
household resilience in Southern Laos
TFESSD
2. Laos - overview
• Landlocked nation
in SE Asia
• 41.5% forest cover
• High importance of
NTFPs
• Development focus
on FDI & land use
intensification
3. Forestry policy context
7th Nat. Socio-Economic Devt. Plan (2011-2015)
• National 8% economic growth annually
• Reduce poverty to 19% of pop. and 11% of households
by 2015
• Foreign investment in land: $8-8.75 billion 2011-2015,
• Establish 500,000ha tree plantations by 2020
Forestry Strategy 2020
• Restore “forest” cover to 65% by 2015, 70% by 2020
“Participatory” Forest Management (PFM)
Relatively new, many challenges, limited resources
Dry dipterocarp forests (DDF) largely excluded
4. The land grab in Laos
Land grab in 2000’s (Heinimann and Messerli 2012):
• 2600 land deals in Laos that cover 1.1 million ha (5%
of the nation’s land)
• FDI dominates (> 72%) the land leases granted (esp.
Vietnam, China and Thailand)
• 1990s – primarily in Northern Laos
• Late 2000’s acceleration in Savannakhet due to the
“East-West Economic Corridor”
5. DD Forests vs concessions on Lao PDR
DDF village
Sugarcane village
Eucalyptus village
9. 1. How will climate change impact
on livelihood resilience?
2. How do DD forests contribute to
resilience of communities?
3. What are the impacts of DD
forest conversion to sugar cane
and eucalyptus plantations on
resilience?
Q. How do forests enhance resilience of the
agricultural sector to climate change?
10. Projecting scenarios on impacts of
climate change and land-use change
Baseline
DD Forest – NTFP
& rice
Commercial
agrictulture
Tree cropping
Present
Climate
1st CC/LUC
Scenario
2nd CC/LUC
Scenario
Forest Governance/Land Use Alternatives
ClimateScenarios
Baseline Baseline
11. 1. Participatory Rapid Appraisal
(PROFOR Poverty-Forests Toolkit)
• List/rank sources of cash/non-
cash income by land category
• 6 focus groups per village (3
wealth classes, 2 gender)
2. Household socioeconomic survey
(strat. random sample)
• 3 wealth classes x 4 HH
3. District, province stakeholder
validation workshops
Research Methods – in 3 villages
13. Cash income disparities
Household Cash Income poor middle rich average
SUFORD village (kip) 1,041,750 2,062,250 8,430,000 3,873,833
Eucalyptus village (kip) 3,842,500 7,037,500 13,476,500 8,118,833
Sugarcane village (kip) 4,302,000 5,343,500 10,157,500 8,077,000
average (kip) 3,062,083 4,814,417 10,688,000 6,689,889
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
PSFM Eucalyptus Sugarcane
cashincome(kip)
HH Cash Income between 3 villages
14. Questioning the myth of the forests-
poverty nexus
Average Household
Income DDF village
Eucalyptus
village
Sugarcane
village
Avg
cash income 3,873,833 8,118,833 8,234,500 6,689,889
non-cash income 8,234,500 5,769,125 4,323,958 5,607,861
total hh income 12,108,333 13,887,958 12,558,458 12,297,750
US$ equivalent $ 1,514 $ 1,736 $ 1,570 $ 1,537
% non-cash 32% 58% 66% 54%
% from forest 38% 26% 38% 35%
22. Labor contribution to household income
greatest in concessions
All Income Sources DDF Eucalyptus Sugarcane ALL
Income from Forest 38% 38% 26% 35%
NTFP/wood sales 2% 2% 5% 3%
→livestock sales 19% 21% 11% 18%
→NTFP non-cash 16% 15% 10% 14%
Other Income 62% 62% 74% 65%
→labor income 8% 29% 33% 25%
→remittances 1% 5% 13% 7%
agriculture sales 1% 1% 1% 1%
→Rice consumed 38% 25% 22% 29%
→Other crops consumed 14% 3% 6% 3%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
23. Lessons learned on concession economics
assessment of benefits from different concession models
24. Sugar cane seems to be a high risk
investment in DDF areas…
…not clear which is primary source of challenge.
25. Little employment in eucalyptus
Eucalyptus plantation company
declined interview
About 30 persons were
employed out of 246 labor
forces available in 85
households (12%)
Company only needs this labor
3 months per year
Compensation is 20-25,000 kip
per day, without lunch
This is lower than local labor
rate (30,000 kip/day)
Most household labor income
derived outside the concessions
26. Lessons learned on economics of large
scale concessions
Bad soils in DDF make sugarcane and eucalyptus
uncertain investments
Poor documentation, data availability, government
oversight heighten conflicts
Employment offered by concessions is seasonal
and insufficient for everybody
Privatization of remaining DDF out of fear may
be lost to concession claim.
Little forest left for communal use.
28. Tentative conclusions regarding
HH resilience
The forest community relies most on non-cash
whereas concession communities rely most on
cash income, but overall incomes are close
(counter to poverty-environment nexus theories)
All communities and wealth classes rely
significantly on forests for non-/cash income
(confirms expectations).
Rice consumption appears adequate everywhere
with excess in the concession villages (??), but
very different yields.
Highest NTFP consumption among middle wealth
group in more forested communities (sampling?
Literacy/numeracy?).
29. Tentative conclusions regarding
HH resilience
Concession communities report shortages in
seasonal availability of forest products:
• negative impacts on dietary diversity and
household cash needs – but have similar levels
of forest produce consumption
(overall pessimism due to loss of commons vs??)
The poor in concession communities rely most on
migrant and day labor income (not surprising).
Forests provide significant buffer for major shocks
to all in forested communities, wealthy in
sugarcane concession through livestock (more
significant than expected, but how to model?).
32. Priority questions for policy
makers/planners
How much paddy land should be allocated per household or
per capita to ensure future food self-sufficiency?
How much DDF forest should be preserved per household or
per capita to allow for a minimum buffer to shocks?
What criteria could be applied to ensure that companies can
demonstrate the viability of concessions?
Where concessions are allocated what amount and form of
compensation would assist communities in replacing the lost
forest benefits?
What institutional monitoring and arbitration/adjudication
mechanisms are needed to safeguard the interests of local
stakeholders and the state?
Lacking any of the above, how does the government plan to
address demand for employment as rural livelihoods are
undermined?
34. • Agricultural intensification on
land already under cultivation is
essential (require improved
practices, services, infrastructur
e and research).
• Forests critical in supporting
sustainable agricultural
livelihoods.
• Increases in crop yields alone
will not protect forests, active
stakeholder engagement is key.
• Poor
transparency/coordination, moni
toring, adjudication by govt
institutions regarding concession
allocation = tragedy in forests.
• A “landscape approach” is
particularly promising
Conclusions
35. Annual DDF Ecosystem services values
Dry Forest Ecosystem Services Annual returns kip/ha $/ha
Livestock sales 88,214 $ 11.03
NTFP sales and consumption 33,510 $ 4.19
Timber for house construction 24,000 $ 3.00
Firewood consumption 8,706 $ 1.09
Domestic water use 10,857 $ 1.36
Total value provisioning services 165,288 $ 20.66
Erosion control (25 % of rice production) 210,455 $ 26.31
Total value regulatory services 210,455 $ 26.31
Actual contribution to HH income 375,743 $ 46.97
Potential from timber sales (110 -yr cycle) 55,273 $ 6.91
Potential annual carbon value 28,435 $ 3.55
Total option values 83,708 $ 10.46
Overall potential value 459,451 $ 57.43