Presentation for a meeting with development partners organised by the Land issues Working Group, Vientiane 23 May 2016

1. Andrew Bartlett, Helvetas, 25 May 2016

2. Welcome to Xieng Khuang!

3. Welcome to the maize boom

4. Here are some maize fields

5. More maize fields

6. …as far as the eye can see

7. A Toxic Landscape - literally

8. Exposure of women and men

9. Toxic chemicals

10. Types of herbicide
All 4 herbicides are included on the list of Highly Hazardous
Pesticides (HHPs) produced by the Pesticide Action Network

11. Amounts being used
Shopkeepers in Nonghet District reported selling 95
tonnes of herbicide in 2015 maize growing season,
with a retail value of US$ 408,000
Data from the farmer interviews in the same
District indicate that the av. HH growing maize is
buying 81 litres of herbicide per season. Once
diluted, each family is spraying more than 16,000
litres on their fields, using 4 or 5 times the
recommended rates.
In total, farmers in Kham and Nonghet sprayed 19
million litres in the past 12 months.
This includes enough paraquat to kill one million
people

12. A Toxic landscape – ecologically

13. Ploughing steep slopes…

14. … leads to erosion

15. How much topsoil is lost?
It has been estimated that 100 tonne of soil is
lost per hectare per year under mechanised
maize cultivation.
This is a conservative figure, accounting for
less than 1 cm of soil.
But it adds up to a loss of 6 million tonnes of
topsoil lost in Kham District in the past 5
years.
The loss of soil fertility results in a rapid drop
in yields, eg. from 7 t/ha to 3 t/ha over a 5
year period.

16. Coping strategy – clear more land

17. Loss of biodiversity is also high

18. The Toxic Landscape - socially

19. Agrarian transition
Traditional systems of communal land
management have broken down. Local
authorities report an increase in conflicts
The transition to cash cropping has often
resulted in rural households getting into debt
with traders and/or government
Interviews with villagers indicates that none of
them want their children to be farmers.
Students also say they want to leave.
Are we also seeing the emergence of different
classes of farmers: those who buy labour and
those who provide it?

20. Driving forces
The pull of global markets, incl. meatification of
diets -> strong demand for cheap animal feed ->
mining of increasingly marginal soils.
The push of policy to modernise farming, incl.
eradication of shifting cultivation -> promotion of
technology that will improve labour productivity ->
greater adoption of mechanisation, hybrid seeds
and agro-chemicals
The governance context that prioritises short-term
economic gain over health and enviro impacts ->
weak regulation -> availability of banned products
and unsafe practices

21. Where do we go from here?

22. Some responses
FAO and SAEDA have been promoting ‘risk
reduction’ and organic production to reduce or
eliminate the use of harmful chemicals
CIRAD has spent more than a decade promoting
‘conservation agriculture’, which aims to enhance
soil fertility and reduce erosion
Other experts believe the answer is smaller areas
of more profitable production, thus allowing
regeneration of forests, and/or a return to shifting
cultivation which can be managed more sustainably
None of these options has gained traction in Xieng
Khuang

23. Conceptual relief: wicked problems
Wicked problems are not just complex,
they also consist of elements that are
contradictory and unpredictable
The understanding of these problems is
contested; there is a lack of agreement
about causes and responses
Wicked problems are resistant to
resolution. They cannot be effectively
addressed by simple interventions.

24. There are no short-term technical
fixes for the Toxic Landscape
Pandora’s box has been opened. A
transformation of historic significance is taking
place in the uplands.
The situation is ‘beyond planning’… but we
must assume that action can be taken to
improve outcomes for certain sections of
society.
A few days training will not “solve the
problem”, especially if we focus on symptoms
(eg. excessive use of herbicides) rather than
causes (eg. markets, policy and governance).

25. Social learning
 Social learning holds more promise than simple training
 This is a process where all parties learn together, and
may include participatory action research, multi-
stakeholder platforms, and local policy negotiations.
 A integrated program of social learning in the maize
area could involve:
 Participatory land use planning
 Communal management of natural resources
 Collaborative assessment of diverse alternatives to maize
 Cooperative approaches to market engagement
 EFICAS is trying something like this…
…. but can the approach be facilitated at scale?

26. Or should we focus on the future?
 Perhaps it is too late to make significant changes to the
current situation in the uplands. Instead of trying to
play catch-up with current problems, maybe we should
focus on the next generation.
 This could involve eco-schools programmes, supporting
youth networks, fostering creative thinking, vocational
training, investing in rural SMEs.
 The objective is to give young people from rural areas
more options, and the ability to solve their own
problems
 For this to happen, we need a shift in the focus of
agriculture development…
 … to cultivating people rather than crops.