Agroforestry and livelihoods in Lao PDR: Case studies in

Napo and Haitai village, Vientiane Province

Group No 3

Participants: Bakeo Souvanhnalath, Khetsa Nanthavongdaungsy, Raksa

Suninthaboonrana, Marika Jokiaho, Dipjoy Chakma

Group work report for the course "Forest Landscape Restoration in the

Mekong River Basin" Laos and Thailand, 4-27 September 2009

Organised by the National University of Laos (NUOL), Vientiane, Laos

In cooperation with VITRI/University of Helsinki, and Kasetsart University,

Bangkok

Under the framework of the FORMEB project of the Finnish Ministry for

Foreign Affairs

Institutional Cooperation Instrument (ICI)

2

ABSTRACT

A field survey has been conducted to find out information on livelihood and agroforestry

of the study area. The study was carried out in two villages of Sangthong District viz,

Napo and Haitai. The study was carried out during 14-15th

September 2009. The study

was based on both primary and secondary data. For the primary data collection, socio-

economic survey of 10 villagers has been carried out with a semi questionnaire format.

Families were selected upon their dependence on agroforestry for their livelihood. In

addition, most of respondents were found illiterate. Paddy is dominant crop in

agricultural field and rice selling is the principle source of their income. Although there

are several source of income generation activities available like, cattle, buffalo raising,

NTFP collection, labour selling, etc. however, villagers overall income still quite low.

Both the villages require lots of infrastructure establishment to uplift socio-economic

condition. The gender role reveals that, the female working together with male is more

efficiently for contributing in the crop filed in various activities.

3

PREFACE

This study was carried out in Lao PDR, in the course of ―Forest landscape restoration in

the Mekong River Basin‖, organised by National University of Laos (NUOL) in

cooperation with VITRI/University of Helsinki, and Kasetsart University, Bangkok.

Our topic is Agroforestry and Livelihoods in Lao PDR. We wish to express our sincere

appreciation to the many individuals who have contributed to this final report.

Firstly, we wish to express our sense of profound gratitude and appreciation to our

honorable moderator Dr. Mohammed Elfadl, for his persistent guidance, constructive

criticism, encouragement and precious suggestions without which it would not be

possible to accomplish the work.

Secondly, we express our gratefulness to Professor Olavi Luukkanen, Mr. Adrián Monge

Monge, and Mr. Kasper and Kaad Hansen for providing us precious suggestions, papers

and documents, which are connection with this work.

At last, our gratitude goes to those respondents who have patiently answered our

questions during field survey and provided valuable information‘s.

Helsinki, October 2009.

Group Three

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page no.

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………….2

PREFACE ………………………………………………………………………………...3

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………..6

1.1. Definition of agroforestry…………………………………………………………….6

1.2. History of agroforestry………………………………………………………………..6

1.3. Benefits of agroforestry………………………………………………………………7

1.4. Negative effects of agroforestry………………………………………………………7

1.5. Socioeconomic aspect of agroforestry………………………………………………..8

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATUERE……………………………………….9

2.1. Lao PDR an overview………………………………………………………………...9

2.1.1. Location and political units…………………………………………………9

2.1.2. Human population and economy…………………………………………...9

2.1.3. Economy…………………………………………………………………..10

2.2. Institutions involved in development of agroforestry in South-East Asian Region...12

2.2.1. World Agroforestry Centre – ICRAF……………………………………………..12

2.2.1.1. Ongoing Agroforestry project in South-East Asia………………………12

2.2.2. AKECOP (ASEAN-Korea Environmental Cooperation Project)…………………13

2.2.2.1. Principle objectives of AKECOP………………………………………..14

2.2.2.2. Participating countries in AKECOP…………………………………….14

CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS…………………………………15

3.1. Study Areas…………………………………………………………………………15

3.2. Collection of secondary information………………………………………………..15

3.3. Site selection………………………………………………………………………...15

3.4. Primary data collection……………………………………………………………..15

3.4.1. Selection of the respondents………………………………………………15

3.4.2. Discussions with the respondents…………………………………………16

3.5. Data compilation and analysis………………………………………………………16

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS BASED ON CASE STUDIES………………………….17

5

4.1. Back ground of study site…………………………………………………………...17

4.2. Objectives of the study………………………………………………………………18

4.3. Brief description of the study sites…………………………………………………..18

4.4. Tribal races of the respondents……………………………………………………...18

4.5 Age class distribution of the respondents……………………………………………19

4.6. Agriculture…………………………………………………………………………..19

4.7. Crop production……………………………………………………………………..20

4.8. Livestock…………………………………………………………………………….20

4.9. Cropping Pattern…………………………………………………………………….20

4.10. Cropping pattern and working activity calendar…………………………………...21

4.11. Income……………………………………………………………………………...21

4.12. Gender issues………………………………………………………………………22

4.13. Main problems of the villagers…………………………………………………….22

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION……………………………………………………...23

5.1. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..23

5.2. Recommendations…………………………………………………………………...24

5.3. Limitations of study…………………………………………………………………24

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………..25

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1. Working activities of the villagers……………………………………………21

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig 2.1: ICRAF Centre country offices in South-East Asia…………………………….13

Fig 3.1. Flow chart depicting the selection of respondents……………………………..15

Fig 3.2: Map showing study areas………………………………………………………16

Fig 4.1. Age class distribution of the respondents………………………………………19

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Questionnaire for socio-economic survey in Lao PDR……………………27

Appendix 2: Participating institutions in AKECOP……………………………………..31

6

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Definition of agroforestry

Agroforestry is a collective name for land use systems and practices in which woody

perennials are deliberately integrated with crops and/or animals on the same land

management unit. The integration can be either in a spatial mixture or in a temporal

sequence. There are normally both ecological and economic interactions between woody

and non-woody components in agroforestry (World Agroforestry Centre, 1993).

1.2. History of agroforestry

Agroforestry is not new way of managing land, farmers, especially those in tropics, have

a long tradition of raising food crops, trees and animals together. In Europe until the

middle ages, it used to be a practice to clear fell derelict forests, burn the slash, cultivate

food crops for varying periods on the cleared areas and plant or sow tree species before,

along with or after the sowing of agricultural crop. This practice waned in Europe but

continued to exist in Finland up to the end of last century (Nair 1993).

In Asia, in the Hanunoo farming system some important tree species were left up while

clearing the land for agriculture. These trees provided shade for maturing grains of rice

and also provided food, medicines, construction wood and cosmetics to farm families

(Conklin 1957).

In general trees were an integral part of a farming system; they were kept to support

agriculture. The ultimate aim was not tree production but food production. However, in

the middle ages the concept changed and agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry were

separated under monoculture management system. This in the long run led to an

incredible reduction in forest cover and ecological imbalance and people once again

began to think about changing the land-use system more sustainable (Chundawat and

Gautam 1993).

7

Surveys conducted by the International council for research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) in

1978 indicate that some forms of agroforestry are prevalent in almost all the developing

countries of the world. One system is taungya, reported to have originated in Burma in

1856. Practice has since spread throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America. Taungya is a

Burmese world which literally means hill cultivation. Many of forest plantations in the

tropics, particularly in Asia and Africa, have been established by taungya system, which

indicated that agricultural crops and trees can be grown together. A second convincing

example of agroforestry is homestead farming in tropics (Nair 1980).

1.3. Benefits of agroforestry

Environmental benefits are for example reduction of pressure on forest, more efficient

nutrient recycling, better protection of ecological systems, reduction of surface run-off,

nutrients leaching and reduction of soil erosion, improvement of microclimate, such as

lowering of soil surface temperature an reduction of evaporation of soil moisture,

increment in soil nutrients through addition and decomposition of litter-fall, improvement

of soil structure through the constant addition of organic matter from decomposed litter

(Chundawat B.S. and Gautam S.K 1993).

Agroforestry can offer significant economic and social benefits to the farmer, as well as

the community level, the regional level and national level. Such benefits may include the

increment of outputs of food, fuelwood, fodder and timber; reduce the possibility of total

crop failure which is common to single cropping systems. These benefits include

improvement in rural living standards from sustained employment and higher incomes

due to improved and sustained productivity, improvement in nutrition and health due to

increased quality and diversity of food outputs (Chundawat and Gautam 1993).

1.4. Negative effects of agroforestry

Still agroforestry is not answer to all problems because it may have some negative effects

as well. All members of plant community use the same sources for growth like light,

nutrients, space and CO2, negative interactions through competition are likely to occur

(Etherington 1975, Grime 1979, Newman 1983). This competition can be separated in

8

real competition, caused by direct disturbance or apparent competition, caused by

exploitation of shared resources which is divided plants or shared predators (Cannell,

1990). Competition can cause reduce of crop yields.

1.5. Socioeconomic aspect of agroforestry

An agroforestry production is basically a land-use strategy that integrates agricultural and

forest production. Wherever population pressure is high and available land is

diminishing, agroforestry offers an opportunity for sustainable production in different

situations. Therefore, to achieve a desirable level of development in different situations,

the aim should be to improve the quality of the people, especially the poor and those

living a marginal subsistence (Chundawat and Gautam 1993).

When create a suitable agroforestry system availability of resources needs to be

considered, for example local resources. Agroforestry system may function better in

cooperation with more participants, need of community. These needs can be one or a

combination of many items, such as food, shelter, energy, water etc. Role of various

groups in the community need to be considered: if men, women and children have

specific roles in the society (Chundawat and Gautam 1993).

Is market structure suitable for farmers, and is community based work being paid enough

and divided equally? It has been said that markets or agroforestry products are not well

developed. What is the role of local and central governments in this? Credit for inputs

should go along with the development of markets for products and the management of

agroforestry. Are prices of products on egalitarian level for also to producer, and does

producer have legal conditions for ownership of land? Resource rights to land, trees,

animals and water are not well understood generally nor are management levels

associated with various production systems of crop, livestock or trees. Information

support, like farmer training does not exist in most areas. Technical and managerial skills

should be passed on to farmers and local households so that they can themselves take

over the land management effectively (Chundawat and Gautam, 1993).

9

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATUERE

2.1. Lao PDR an overview

2.1.1. Location and political units

Situated in the centre of the Indochinese peninsula between 13º54´ and 22º31´N and

between 100º05´ and 107º42´E, Lao PDR comprises 236,800 km2 of primarily rugged,

mountainous terrain. It is bordered on the west by Thailand, on the north by Myanmar

and china, on the east by Vietnam and on the south by Cambodia. The country is divided

into 18 political sub-units and the sub-units comprise 16 provinces (Duckworth et al.,

1999).

2.1.2. Human population and economy

Laos' population was estimated at 6.8 million in early 2009, dispersed unevenly across

the country. Most people live in valleys of the Mekong River and its tributaries.

Vientiane prefecture, the capital and largest city, had about 711,919 residents in 2006.

The country's population density was 27/sq. km.

About half the country's people are ethnic Lao, the principal lowland inhabitants as well

as the politically and culturally dominant group. The Lao are descended from the Tai

people who began migrating southward from China in the first millennium A.D.

Mountain tribes of Hmong-Yao, and Tibeto-Burman (Kor and Phounoy) as well as Tai

ethno-linguistic heritage are found in northern Laos. Until recently, they were known as

Lao Sung or highland Lao. In the central and southern mountains, Austro Asiatic (Mon-

Khmer and Viet-Muong) tribes, formerly known as Lao Theung or mid-slope Lao,

predominate. Some Vietnamese and Chinese minorities remain, particularly in the towns,

but many left in two waves--after partial independence in the late 1940s and again after

1975.

The predominant religion is Theravada Buddhism. Animism is common among the

mountain tribes. Buddhism and spirit worship coexist easily. There also are small

numbers of Christians and Muslims.

10

The official and dominant language is Lao, a tonal language of the Tai linguistic group.

Minorities speak an assortment of Mon-Khmer, Hmong-Yao, and Tibeto-Burman

languages. French, once common in government and commerce, has declined in usage,

while knowledge of English--the language of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations

(ASEAN)--has increased in recent years. The government is encouraging officials and

students to learn English. High school students are required to take either French or

English; the majority today chooses English. The government plans to introduce English

at the primary school level by 2010 (US Department of State, 2009).

2.1.3. Economy

GDP (2008 est.): $5.2 billion.

Per capita income (2008 est.): $765.

GDP growth rate (2009 est.): 4.5%.

Natural resources: Hydroelectric power, timber, and minerals.

Agriculture (39.2% of GDP, 2008 est.): Primary products--glutinous rice, coffee, corn,

sugarcane, vegetables, tobacco, ginger, water buffalo, pigs, cattle, poultry, sweet

potatoes, cotton, tea, and peanuts.

Industry (34.3% of GDP, 2008 est.): Primary types--copper, tin, gold, and gypsum

mining; timber, electric power, agricultural processing, construction, garments, cement,

tourism. Industrial growth rate (2008 est.): 11%.

Services (2008 est.): 26.6% of GDP.

Trade: Exports (2008 est.)--$1.033 billion: gold and copper, electricity, wood and wood

products, garments, coffee and other agricultural products, rattan, and tin. Major markets-

-Thailand, Vietnam, France, and Germany. Imports (2008 est.)--$1.278 billion. Major

imports--fuel, food, consumer, goods, machinery and equipment, vehicles and spare

parts. Major suppliers--Thailand, China, Vietnam (US Department of State, 2009).

2.1.4. Agriculture and forestry in Lao PDR

Agriculture is the mainstay of the economy of Laos. In the early 21st century the sector

generated nearly half the country‘s gross domestic product (GDP) and employed some

three-fourths of the population. The expansion of land under cultivation has been

impeded, however, largely by the vast quantities of unexploded bombs—dropped mostly

by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War—that litter potential farmlands.

11

Consequently, only a small portion of the country‘s total arable land area is cultivated.

The great majority of Laos‘s farmers are engaged in rice agriculture. Lowland farmers

generally plant irrigated paddy fields, while upland dwellers cultivate rain-fed swiddens.

Frequent floods and droughts cause significant year-to-year fluctuation in agricultural

yields. Although such weather calamities affect the lowlands more severely, those

regions have been more productive than the uplands, owing largely to accessibility of

new technologies, pesticides, fertilizers, more solid infrastructure, and market networks.

Many farmers in the uplands practice subsistence agriculture; however, a shift toward

market-based production has been gaining momentum, propelled primarily by

government modernization initiatives. In years with ―normal‖ harvests, Laos is self-

sufficient in rice production.

Principal crops other than rice include sweet potatoes, sugarcane, corn (maize), assorted

vegetables and fruits in smaller quantities, and tobacco. Coffee is cultivated mainly on

the Bolovens Plateau and is the only crop produced for export in substantial volume.

Opium production began decreasing dramatically in the late 20th century as a result of

aggressive eradication programs implemented by the government. Although opium

poppies are still grown in some hill areas, poppy cultivation for export is illegal.

Roughly two-fifths of Laos is forested, and the country‘s forest resources have provided

for several important wood-processing industries. Timber extraction, however, has been

banned periodically by the government for environmental reasons. Rapid deforestation

has been attributed primarily to logging operations and to the cutting of wood for fuel—

activities that have been further blamed for the erosion of hillsides, the silting of rivers,

and, ultimately, the increased severity of droughts and floods. The government has also

viewed swidden farming in the uplands as a major contributor to deforestation and has

adopted measures to encourage conversion to sedentary agricultural practices

(Encyclopedia Britannica, 2009).

12

2.2. Institutions involved in development of agroforestry in South-East Asian Region

2.2.1. World Agroforestry Centre – ICRAF

The International Council for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) was created in response

to a visionary study in the mid-1970s led by forester John Bene of Canada‘s International

Development Research Centre (IDRC). The study coined the term 'agroforestry' and

called for global recognition of the key role trees play on farms. This led to the

establishment of ICRAF in 1978 to promote agroforestry research in developing

countries.

During the 1980s ICRAF operated as an information council focused on Africa. It joined

the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in 1991 to

conduct strategic research on agroforestry at a global scale, changing its name from

Council to Centre.

ICRAF continued the process of institutional transformation by developing a science

culture, building excellent research facilities and doubling its financial and human

resources by 1996.

In 2002 the Centre acquired the brand name the ‗World Agroforestry Centre‘. The

‗International Centre for Research in Agroforestry‘ remains our legal name and we

continue to use the acronym ‗ICRAF‘. The new name reflects the fact that the Centre is

now recognized as the international leader in agroforestry research and development

(World Agroforestry Centre, 2009).

2.2.1.1. Ongoing Agroforestry project in South-East Asia

1. ACIAR Teak - Improving Economic Outcomes for Smallholders Growing Teak

in Indonesia

2. ALLREDDI - Accountability and Local Level Initiative to Reduce Emission from

Deforestation and Degradation in Indonesia

3. ASB – Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins

4. FESERLUI - Fair, Efficient and Sustainable Emission Reduction from Land Use

in Indonesia

13

5. NOEL - Nurseries of Excellence for Aceh

6. ReGrin – Rebuilding Green Infrastructure with Trees People Want

7. RUPES - Rewarding Upland Poor for Environmental Services

8. SEANAFE - Southeast Asian Network for Agroforestry Education

9. SRAS - Smallholder Rubber Agroforestry System

10. TUL-SEA - Trees in multi-Use Landscapes in South East Asia

Fig 2.1: ICRAF Centre country offices in South-

East Asia

(World Agroforestry Centre, 2009)

2.2.2. AKECOP (ASEAN-Korea Environmental Cooperation Project)

The ASEAN-Korea Environmental Cooperation Project (AKECOP) was launched in July

2000 in the wake of the ASEAN-Korea summit meeting in 1997 where environmental

problems were identified as a priority area of collaboration. The Project decided to put

into practice the research and educational programs on "Restoration of Degraded Forest

Ecosystems in Southeast Asian Tropical Regions" as an initiative work of environmental

collaboration. With the establishment of ASEAN-Korea Environmental Cooperation Unit

(AKECU) at Seoul National University under the guidance of the Ministry of

Environment of Republic of Korea (MOE) in August 2000, the project has created an

effective institutional mechanism to give impetus to implementation of the project

(AKECOP, 2009).

14

2.2.2.1. Principle objectives of AKECOP

This project is aimed at promoting environmental cooperation between Republic

of Korea and the member of ASEAN countries with special emphasis on sustainable

forest management and rehabilitation of deforested areas. The three main objectives of

ASEAN-Korea Environmental Cooperation Project are:

1) To provide ASEAN countries with opportunity to share Korea's practical

knowledge and experiences on how to deal with environmental problems

including deforestation;

2) To establish partnership between Korea and ASEAN countries by conducting

basic and applied science researches on biodiversity, sustainable forest

management, and agroforestry techniques in the tropical regions;

3) To develop and implement technologies for restoration of degraded forest

ecosystem and sustainable forest management in selected areas of the ASEAN

member countries;

(AKECOP, 2009)

2.2.2.2. Participating countries in AKECOP

Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam,

and Korea (Appendix 2) (AKECOP, 2009).

15

CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Study Areas

The present study was covered Napo, and Haitai village of Sangthong district under

Vientiane province of Lao PDR.

3.2. Collection of secondary information

The secondary information was collected from books, journal articles and other

documents available in the library, Forest Department, and the internet.

3.3. Site selection

On the basis of the research objectives, Lao PDR was selected first as study site, from

this - Napo and Haitai village; were selected randomly for data collection and observation

of agroforestry. The distances of these two villages from Vientiane by road are 79 km and

73 km respectively.

3.4. PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION

3.4.1. Selection of the respondents

5 respondents were selected by simple random sampling from each site for detailed

survey and to conduct semi-structured questionnaires. The survey was carried out in

September 14-15th

, 2009. Respondents were selected on the basis of their involvement in

agroforestry and other land use activities. Sampling procedure is presented below through

following flow chart:

Country District Village Respondents

(Selected on purpose) (Selected randomly) (Selected randomly)

Napo ………………………5

Lao PDR Sangthong

Haitai………………………..5

Total………………………………….10

Fig 3.1. Flow chart depicting the selection of respondents

16

Fig 3.2: Map showing study areas

3.4.2. Discussions with the respondents

Besides conducting questionnaires with the selected respondents, information was

collected by informal discussion with the respondents at their farms. During the

discussions, respondents showed us their farm lands and we have taken photographs of

their farm lands.

3.5. Data compilation and analysis

The collected data were compiled at the end of the surveys. Important data in the form of

text will be sorted manually and information found in the field documented in the notes

which will be presented in the form of text. Empirical data will be analyzed with the help

of MS Excel.

Study areas

- Napo

- Haitai

17

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS BASED ON CASE STUDIES

4.1. Back ground of study site

The Sangthong district is under the management of Department of the Forestry of Faculty

of Agriculture and Forestry, National University of Laos. In this area the degraded forest

will be rehabilitated and a field training programme will be implemented. The area is

called Training and Model Forest (TMF) and is about 20,000 ha in size.

An intervention area of 4800 ha had been defined and a management plan was elaborated

within the close co-operation of the DONGDOK department of forestry, the district

authority, the villages and the GTZ/KFW.

The area includes four villages in which the villagers will gain some social and economic

benefit through these implementations. The study on social – economic condition in this

area is the first step to monitor the implications for the local people caused by the project

activities.

Several surveys have been conducted already addressing different villages within the

TMF area, they have been done by different actors with different intensities and more

over the studies had been applying different approaches and methods. Therefore, it

become necessary to conduct a socio-economic study within the concerning four villages,

which will provide a detail description of the socio-economic condition within the area.

The investigation was carried out by the teachers.

The income of the villagers mainly comes from the Agroforestry, vegetable plantations

and rice. The price of rice now in Laos is quite low about 2000 kips/kg. The productivity

of rice is about 2-2.5 tons/ha/year. On average: the income for each family could be

5,000,000 kip/year and one third of these are coming from Agroforestry, about 250,000-

300,000kip/month.

18

4.2. Objectives of the study

The objectives of the study were

- To get the Agroforestry information within the TMF area.

- To observe the socio-economic condition of the villagers

4.3. Brief description of the study sites

The study was carried out within the Agroforestry area in two villages: Napo, Haitai.

Napo village is one of the village of Sangthong district and the distance

from district headquarter is about 9 km. The total number of household is

186 and average size of household is about 5.8 persons, which is slightly

lower than the average size of the country.

Haitai village is also one of the village of Sangthong district and it‘s about 3

km. from district headquarter. Haitai is bigger than Napo village. The total

number of household is 225 and average size of household is 5-6 person

The mean annual temperature is about 30°C. The absolute minimum

temperature is 12°c and the absolute maximum temperature is 41°C. The

annual rainfall varies from 1300-2100mm. The highest rainfall recorded is

in between June to August.

4.4. Tribal races of the respondents

The villagers in this area belong to two different ethnic groups, Lao Theung and Lao

Lum. Although there are two ethnics groups but Lao Lum is dominated in two villages.

Buddhist temples were settled in each village, this is an indicator that most of the people

living here are Buddhists. Lao Lum is mostly Buddhist, some families of Lao Theung

belong to other religions and only a few families are without religion.

19

4.5 Age class distribution of the respondents

There were significance differences between ages of respondents of two villages. For

Napo highest numbers of male respondents were found in 0-40 yrs age class, on the other

hand; highest numbers of female groups were found in 40-60 yrs age class.

For Haitai, highest numbers of male respondents were found in between 0-60 yrs age

class. On the other hand, highest numbers of female were found in 20-60 yrs age class.

Following chart shows age class distribution of the respondents.

Age class distribution

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Male Female Male Female

Napo Haitai

Name of village

Fa

mil

y m

em

be

r

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

Fig 4.1. Age class distribution of the respondents

4.6. Agriculture

According to the field survey data as mentioned above, about 74 % of the working

population were engaged in agriculture and different crops, the main agriculture practices

in these areas were crop cultivation and livestock. These are also principle economic

sectors in these areas; about 25% of total land areas are used for these purposes.

However, the productivity is quite low generally.

Due to the lack of irrigation in the area and the farmers are totally dependent on seasonal

rainfall during the wet season. Rice is grown in the paddy field only once a year. After

20

that paddy growing season, field is normally left for grazing to cattle and buffaloes. From

April to June people clear the land for crop cultivation by using the traditional systems

slash and burn. In terms of farm management, fertilizers and pesticides are used during

growing period.

4.7. Crop production

The major crop cultivated in these areas is rice. This crop occupies about 90 % of total

crop cultivation area. The average farm size of lowland paddy rice is 0,94 ha/household

with a yield of about 3,5 Tons per ha/year, According to the field survey, the average

annual rice production is 3,100 kg/household and the total production in two villages is

291,000 kg/year.

4.8. Livestock

The Livestock raising provides a good source of households‘s consumption and cash

income. Major livestock raised in the study areas are cattle, buffalo pig, goats and

poultry. Populations of livestock in these areas are 445 buffaloes, 174 cattle, 240 pigs and

17.388 poultry.

4.9. Cropping Pattern

As mentioned above, the major crop cultivated in these areas is rice in both systems;

slash & burn and, low land area. The favourite additional crops are cassava, maize in

slush & burn area and on the other hand, onion, vegetable are cultivated in the low land

area during the dry season. The fruit trees are also grown in the home gardens which

were previously slash & burn area.

21

4.10. Cropping pattern and working activity calendar

Major cropping pattern and different working activities during the whole year of these

two villages are presented in the following table.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec

Paddy

Swidden

Gardening

Livestock

Fishing

Hunting

Labour

selling

NTFP

collecting

Handicraft

Table 4.1. Working activities of the villagers

Villagers engaged in paddy cultivation from the beginning of rainy season in June to

December and they engaged in Swidden cultivation from March to November. Gardening

is also dependent on rainfall. On the other hand, villagers are engaged in livestock

raising, fishing, hunting, labour selling activities all the year round. Moreover, they

collect NTFPs before rainy season from January to May and they engaged in handicraft

production from January to October.

4.11. Income

Regarding the income source of the villagers here, rice selling is dominant in family‘s

income. The proportion of villagers who sell rice is 50% in Napo, followed by 27% in

Haitai village. There are no particular cash crops cultivated in the area. It is similar

among the two villages that the second income sources are buffaloes and cattle. However,

some families generate income from livestock and off-farm activities. In addition, a few

families have income source from Non timber forest product like bamboo, rattan. The

result of the calculation of field survey shows that, the average income of the two villages

is quite low.

22

4.12. Gender issues

Women perform alongside with men in working and decision making. Besides that, the

use of child labour is very common. However, women have less opportunity to study,

because of the tradition and family requirement in terms of labour. The major working

area is the agriculture in which mainly human labour is used rather than machinery. The

minor working areas are foodstuffs collection like hunting, fishing, mushroom and so on.

4.13. Main problems of the villagers

Elephant attack: is common every year. They damage crop field and houses of the

villagers.

Water unavailability: Water scarcity is significant in both the villages. From the

field survey, it is found that only one pond is available for five household to

accomplish daily activities.

No market access: Due to unavailability of perfectly competitive market, farmers

are not getting the exact price for their production. In addition, middlemen are

dealing with the villagers for marketing of their products. As a consequence,

villagers are not able to uplift their condition through selling of products.

Roads are not good enough: Good road network system is very essential to

develop socio-economic condition of the rural poor. But these villages don‘t have

any good road network, that‘s one of the main obstacles to improve their socio-

economic condition.

Schools are not adequate: There are only a few primary schools available in these

villages, but they don‘t have higher secondary school. So, to increase literacy rate

Government of Lao and other NGO‘s can establish higher education facility in

these villages.

No Hospital: due to unavailability of modern health centre, villagers often face

severe problem when any serious disease occur.

23

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

5.1. Conclusion

Once Swidden cultivation was practiced in the hilly area of these villages extensively, but

now days due to change of geographical, cultural condition of the people swidden

cultivation is done less. Swidden cultivation is indigenous peoples main land use system.

Geographical condition and weather of the study areas are also suitable for swidden

cultivation.

Although, many scientists have found that swidden cultivation is the main reason for

degradation of hilly environment, but it is still the main production system of villagers

livelihood though a number of measures has taken by government and donor agencies to

rehabilitate the village people but most of them are end without creating any positive

result. Though it is a destructive practice but it also a heritage of the local tribal people.

So, we should preserve it by improving the swidden cultivation system. At the same time,

there is huge potentiality of agroforestry in these study areas. This will help reestablish

the soil fertility and improve the economic conditions of the villagers. Although, it is not

a subject where over night miraculous results can be obtained or expected however,

concentrated efforts are likely to pay dividends at the end.

From the study it was also found that, agroforestry is very useful practice for the

villagers. Because they can produce whatever required in their field. In addition, to

conserve existing natural forest, villagers have to adopt agroforestry. Finally, Respective

governmental departments and other Non-governmental organizations have to take

initiative to disperse agroforestry more widely in these two villages.

24

5.2. Recommendations

As swidden cultivation has been one of the serious causes of deforestation along with

converting forest area into sterile and eroding soil mass, needs immediate attention and

must be guarded against particularly in certain badly affected areas. Though it is the main

land management by villagers for their livelihood, but some suggestions are given, to

prevent them from swidden cultivation and adopt agroforestry. These are –

Villagers should be encouraged to adopt settle farming, i.e. agroforestry.

Agroforesty needs to be adopted not only as a means of improving the quality of

life of the villagers but also as a means of increasing and improving the quality of

plantations.

Agroforestry can be dispersed by a judicious combination of publicity (regarding

miseries brought about swidden cultivation), education and legal measures.

Creation of employment opportunity in the villagers.

During fallow period nitrogen fixing trees can be planted in the field. This will

reestablish good quality soil than spontaneous species.

Government and non-government agency should take step to work extensively to

increase agroforestry in these two villages with available funding.

5.3. Limitations of study

The present study was covered only two villages of Sangthong district. Due to some

limitations the researchers couldn‘t collect and compile all the information that required

for the study. However, it is wise to outline the limitations of the present study here:

Research on agroforestry required more time. Two days field visit is not enough

to obtain a good result. But, if someone interested to work in future in this arena,

he/she can have a look at this report.

Lack of educational knowledge of the villagers was a major problem during data

collection. That‘s why; they couldn‘t manage to supply enough information‘s

regarding agroforestry and other topics.

Although, there were limitations to collect data however, villagers were really

cordial and helpful with the researchers.

Finally, future extensive research on this study would be done with more time and

fund.

25

REFERENCES

Cannell, J.H. 1990. ―Apparent‖ versus ―real‖ competition in plants. In: Grace J.P and

Tilman D. Perspectives on plant competition, p. 9-26. Academic press, New

York, USA. In: Nair P.K.R. 1993. An introduction to agroforestry, p. 249-250.

Kluwer academic publishers.

Chundawat, B.S. and Gautam S.K. 1993. Textbook of Agroforestry. Aspee college of

forestry & horticulture, Gujarat Agricultural University.

Conklin, H.C. 1957. Hanuloo agriculture. FAO, Rome, Italy. In: Nair P.K.R. 1993. An

introduction to agroforestry, p. 3. Kluwer academic publishers.

Duckworth, J.W., Salter, R.E., and Khounboline, K. (compilers) 1999. Wildlife in Lao

PDR: 1999 Status Report. Vientiane: IUCN-The World Conservation Union /

Wild life Conservation Society / Centre for Protected Areas and Watershed

Management.

Etherington, J.R. 1975. Environment and plant ecology. John Wiley, London, UK. In:

Nair P.K.R. 1993. An introduction to agroforestry, p. 249. Kluwer academic

publishers.

Grime, J.P. 1979. Plant strategies and plant ecology. John Wiley, London, UK. In: Nair

P.K.R. 1993. An introduction to agroforestry, p.249. Kluwer academic publishers.

Nair, P.K.R. 1980. Agroforestry species – A crop sheet manual. International council for

research in agroforestry.

Nair, P.K.R. 1993. An introduction to agroforestry. Kluwer academic publishers.

26

Newman, E.I. 1983. Interactions between plants. In: Lange O.L., Nobel, P.S., Osmond,

C.P. and Ziegler, H. Physiological plant ecology III. Encyclopedia of plant

physiology, Vol 12C. Springer, Berlin, Germany. In: Nair P.K.R. 1993. An

introduction to agroforestry, p.249. Kluwer academic publishers.

Internet sites:

US Department of State, 2009. Background Note: Laos

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2770.htm.

Encyclopedia Britannica, 2009.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/330219/Laos/52506/Agriculture

forestry-and-fishing

World Agroforestry Centre, 2009.

http://www.worldagroforestry.org/af/index.php

AKECOP (ASEAN-Korea Environmental Cooperation Project), 2009.

http://nicem.snu.ac.kr/akecu/introduction/intro1.htm

27

APPENDICES

Appendix 1:

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY IN Lao PDR

1. No: ……………………………….

2. Name of the respondent: ………………………………………………………..

3. Address: …………………………………………………………………………

4. Age:………………..yrs

5. Sex: M/F

6. Ethnic group: ………………………

7. Occupation: Permanent/Temporary

Primary: …………………………………….

Secondary: …………………………………..

8. Status in the family: Head/spouse/member

9. Age of the family (in no.)

a) < 5 yrs: M ……………, F ……………, Total …………….

b) 5-20 yrs: M ……………, F ……………, Total …………….

c) 20-35 yrs: M ……………, F ……………, Total …………….

d) 35-50 yrs: M ……………, F ……………, Total …………….

e) > 50 yrs: M ……………, F ……………, Total …………….

10. Educational status of the family (in no.):

Illiterate (Below class…….): ……………………………………………………

Literate (Above class….): ………………………………………………………

Primary: …………………………….

Secondary: ………………………….

Higher secondary: …………………..

Graduate: …………………………....

Post graduate: ………………………..

11. When did the village start to do land use planning?

…………………………………..

28

12. Different kinds of land use and the land allocated for them:

……………………….... (hectare)

………………………… (hectare)

………………………… (hectare)

………………………… (hectare)

………………………… (hectare)

13. Species planted in the Agroforestry plot:

…………………………………………………………………..…….

…………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………

14. Previous species before Agroforestry:

…………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………..

15. How was the shifting cultivation done (felling, burning, cultivation) and when

was the area burned (month, year)?

…………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………

16. What was there on the burned area before shifting cultivation?

……………………………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………………

17. Is there any NTFP‘s ……….(yes/no)

29

18. If ―yes‖ role of NTFP‘s..............................................................................................

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………

19. How many kinds of livestock‘s are available?

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………

20. How livestock‘s are feed?........................................................................................

21. Engaged in Agroforestry plantation: …………………………… yrs

22. Activities in the Agroforestry plot (12 months):

Month Activities

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

23. Is there any use of Fertilizer? (Yes/no)

Chemical: …………………………………………………………………………..

Organic: …………………………………………………………………………….

30

24. Is there any cooperation with the neighbours/other communities/villages? What

kind?

………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………

25. Silvicultural system followed in the plot

....................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................

26. Income from Agroforestry?........................................................................(kip/year)

27. To whom do you sell your products? Foodstuffs/timber/NTFP/livestock‘s?

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

28. Are you satisfied with your income (enough money/fair price)?

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

29. Are there any conflicts about agriculture or forest land in your village/region?

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

30. If you had the management rights of the forest land close to your village, how

31. would you manage this forest?

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………

32. Constraints and Opportunities:

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………

31

Appendix 2: Participating institutions in AKECOP:

Country Name of the institutions

Cambodia - Forest & Wildlife Research Institute, Dept. of Forestry & Wildlife,

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

- Dept. Natural Conservation and Protection, Ministry of Environment

Indonesia - Faculty of Forestry, Bogor Agricultural University (IPB)

Lao PDR - Forest Research Centre, National Agriculture and Forestry Research

Institute, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Malaysia - Forestry Research Institute Malaysia, Ministry of Primary Industries

Myanmar - Forestry Research Institute (FRI), Ministry of Forestry

Philippines - College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Philippines Los

Banos

Thailand - Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University

Vietnam - Forest Science Institute of Vietnam, Science Technology and Product

Quality Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Korea - College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University

- College of Agriculture, Chungbuk National University

- College of Life Sciences & Natural Resources Sangji University

- College of Natural Sciences, Chonbuk National University

- College of Natural Sciences, Kangwon National University

- Department of Environmental Horticulture, University of Seoul

- Korea Forest Research Institute

- Korea National Institute of Environmental Research

- The National Instrument Centre for Environmental Management

- School of Life Sciences, The Catholic University of Korea