TABI input on: Stabilisation and Development of upland rice cropping and villager forestry systems as a crucial component in Upland Development in the LAO PDR

1. Stabilisation and Development
of
upland rice cropping and villager
forestry systems
as a crucial component in Upland
Development
1

2. PROPOSAL:
The “upland crop/bush fallow” based
farming system must be:
1: Recognized – acknowledged - as an
important component of both current
and near/medium term future upland
livelihoods systems.
2: Stabilised – and this can be done !
3: Focused on, developed, not ignored
2

3. Contents of Presentation
1: Reasons to acknowledge „hai‟ In Upland
Development.
2: Neutral Carbon footprint of rotational
upland systems.
3: Upland crop/bush fallow system can be
“stabilised”.
4: Reasons to focus or “develop” hai as a
component of Upland Development
5: Improve strategy for role of forest
management in the uplands
3

4. 1: Reasons that we must acknowledge
„hai‟ in Upland Development
1.1 The “Eradication Policy” has not been
fully successful
1.2 Rice growing is - “ipsi facto” – one of
the best – and most direct route to
“food security”
1.3 Upland Rice is even exported as a
“cash crop”
1.4 Bush Fallows are an crucial element
4
of multifunctional landscapes

5. Despite > 10 year of SC Eradication Policy, SC
remains the main upland agricultural practice
Shifting cultivation dominated
landscapes between 2001 - 2009
5 K. Hurni et al, 2013
K. Hurni et al, 2012

6. Data from Agricultural Census 2011
MAF, Lao Ag. Census 2011
 The Agricultural Census even suggests an increase of
upland area, and a slight reduction of population
6 involved in it

7. 1: Reasons to acknowledge „hai‟:
1.1 The “Eradication Policy” has not been
successful
1.2 Rice growing is - “ipsi facto” – one of
the best – and most direct route to
“food security”; and
1.3 Upland Rice is even exported as a
“cash crop”
1.4 Bush Fallows are an crucial element
7
of multifunctional landscapes

8. Example for 1.3: Rice is “still” the main
cash crop in many upland villages
N = ~1200 HH
Source: TABI survey 2012
8

9. 9

10. Example for 1.3 : Trucks „exporting‟ upland rice
from „upland‟ Ponsai District, 2011
Photo of rice exports from Ponsai
10

11. 1: Reasons to acknowledge „hai‟:
1.1 The “Eradication Policy” has not been
successful
1.2 Rice growing is - “ipsi facto” – one of
the best – and most direct route to
“food security”
1.3 Upland Rice is even exported as a
“cash crop”
1.4 Bush Fallows are an crucial element
11
of multifunctional landscapes

12. 1.4: Bush fallows an important source of
NTFPs (2nd after forests)
Where are NTFP‟ are collected?
Based on survey in 100 villages in Phonexay, Chomphet and Phoukoud district
Source: TABI survey 2012
12

13. 13

14. Medicinal plant in upland rice and bush fallow
rotational fields
14

15. 2: Neutral Carbon footprint of rotational
upland systems
Carbon in rotational systems
needs both a landscape as
well as multi-temporal
perspective
Also for possible REDD PES
schemes, this perspective is
crucial, else rotational
systems can not fit into the
REDD systems
15

16. There is significant carbon in rotational
upland systems
?
B.G. carbon
1Y cultivated 5Y fallow
Source: Inoue, 2010
• Even if only 5 years fallow there is only a slight decrease of carbon over
time (without fallow improvements) ( ~ 55 t/ha)
• Ongoing research suggests that below ground carbon (B.C.) may
16
even be considerably higher than shown above

17. 3: Upland crop/bush fallow system can be
“stabilised”
2.1 See TABI FALUPAM (Maps below) for examples of
stabilised upland rotational rice cultivation.
2.2 However, “stabilised” as of today means enough
land for current number of farmers
2.3 Thus, new generation can, and will, find other
livelihood activities such as:
(a) Processing and marketing of products – will
actually become more feasible due to (i)
improved road network and (ii) improved access
to electricity.
(b) Some of the younger generation will move to
17 urban industrial centres.

18. 3.1: Example of stabilised upland cropping:
Huay Jia Village, Ponsai District, Luang
Prabang Province.
Before 2012 After 2012
Data: pre and post FALUP
18

19. Example 3.2: stabilised upland cropping:
Donekham Village, Ponsai District, Luang
Prabang Province.
Before 2012 After 2012
19

20. Example 3.3:stabilised upland cropping: Mien
Village, Phoukodt District, Xieng Khouang Province
20

21. Example 3.3: stabilised upland cropping:
Mien Village, Phoukodt District, Xieng Before 2012
Khouang Province
21

22. Example 3.3: stabilised upland cropping:
Mien Village, Phoukodt District, Xieng After 2012
Khouang Province
22

23. Example 3.4: stabilised upland and
lowland cropping: Kheung
Village, Phoukodt District, Xieng Khouang
Province, 2012
23

24. 4: Reasons to focus on and develop “hai” as a
component of Upland Development
4.1. Difficulties in finding alternatives – and they take a
long time to develop - and while developing
alternatives, villagers still need rice !! So, resolving the
‘upland rice’ question then provides ‘energy’ and
‘time’ to focus on ‘alternatives’.
4.2. Loss of flat cropping land – loss of wet rice paddy
and of aquatic products food/income due to
hydropower projects means resettlers have only
one option for food-rice sufficiency - to feed their
families – and that is upland rice. There are many
examples – and this will only increase in the future
•See map of villagers planned for relocation in LPB
24

25. Nam Tha 1
The over 120 hydropower
project at different stages of
planning will lead to
resettlement of probably
more than 400/500 villages
(some have already moved)
25

26. Villages in pink will have to relocate
into the uplands
Nam Tha 1
To-be-resettled villages (pink) will loose
access to flat and wet rice paddy land in valley
and have to move further into – and rely on -
the uplands = shifting cultivation !!
26

27. 5: Need to Improve the role of forest
management and development in the uplands
Fact: Forest lands are a very significant component of
the uplands. Some even hope they will get to 65 to
70 % of the total Land Area !!!
Thus: Forest must be a crucial component of the UDS
However:
The delineation (in the law) of “national
protection forest” is a “drawing board” zoning, is
confusing, and has little, often no. basis in realty
on the ground.
Thus: Must start by improving the legal and
administrative definitions of ‘forest categories’
27

28. Explanation of the
inappropriate National
Protection Forest Zones
• Lacking spatial planning and
incoherent sectoral
approaches means that
almost 2500 villages are
locted in the so-called
“national protection forest”
(almost 1 mil. people)
• Even further to this – as
villages are relocated due to
hydropower dams (eg here
is Nam Seuang 2 dam in LPB
) they will all move further
into the „national protected
forest‟
28

29. Proposed (more relevant and actual)
definition of forest categories
Management Responsibility
Forest Management Category National Provincial/District Village Private
Production/Utilization Forest
Production Forest Reserve Yes Yes
Managed Utilization Forest Yes plant/regenerate
Conservation Forest
National/Provincial Park Yes Yes (assist)
Biodiversity Conservation Park Yes Yes (as above)
Watershed Protection Forest Yes Yes
Historical/Cultural Forest Yes (as above)
..other
Plantation Forest Yes Yes
Spirit/Cemetery forest Yes Yes
29

30. Current Scenario > Future Vision for UDS
Current: „mushrooming‟ of land concessions &
leases in Laos the last decade
Future Vision:
„mushrooming‟ number of villagers with
stabilised upland cropping and forest zone
plans approved and all granted secure tenure
...and the new generation taking over from
30 there !!

31. 31

32. Thank you very much for your attention!
Contact TABI: chris.flint@tabi.la
32