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

Laos - overview

• Landlocked nation in SE Asia

• 41.5% forest cover

• High importance of NTFPs

• Development focus on FDI & land use intensification

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

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”

DD Forests vs concessions on Lao PDR

DDF village

Sugarcane village

Eucalyptus village

DD Forests in Lao PDR

forests’ invisible actors and values

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?

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

Clim

ate

Scen

ario

s

Baseline Baseline

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

Forest area available per household

Cash income disparities

Household Cash Income poor middle rich averageSUFORD 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

PSFM Eucalyptus Sugarcane -

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

HH Cash Income between 3 villagesca

sh in

com

e (k

ip)

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%

costs/benefits for whom?

will we lose nutritional diversity?

Higher NTFP consumption by 1)middle, 2) poor wealth classes…

Village Wealth group Area of forest (ha/capita)

Consumption of wild foods

(kip/capita) ($/capita)

PSFMpoor 2.59 198,000 $ 24.75middle 2.56 510,581 $ 63.82 wealthy 2.45 40,122 $ 5.02

Eucalyptuspoor 0.81 171,429 $ 21.43 middle 1.02 495,262 $ 61.91 wealthy 1.08 219,769 $ 27.47

Sugarcanepoor 0.19 264,568 $ 33.07 middle 0.20 181,232 $ 22.65 wealthy 0.36 101,667 $ 12.71

Average 1.05 238,988 $ 29.87 …and annual consumption between villages similar

(excl. seasonality effects)

High rice consumption among wealthy in concession villages, and most have enough…

Village Actual Norm Riceconsumption paddy rice balance to norm

kg/capita kg/capita kg/capitapoor 0.36 319 350 -31middle 0.37 332 350 -18wealthy 0.17 360 350 10poor 0.53 360 350 10middle 0.32 297 350 -53wealthy 0.79 558 350 208poor 0.70 322 350 -28middle 0.29 290 350 -60wealthy 0.38 596 350 246

0.44 404 350 54Average

Wealth group

Area of rice

paddy

PSFM

Eucalyptus

Sugarcane

…again, seasonal shortages are a concern

Livestock for resilience to shocks

Livestock assets as a measure of resilience to shocks…

HH Livestock assets/Annual cash income poor middle rich AvgSUFORD village 143% 334% 396% 359%Eucalyptus village 96% 110% 128% 96%Sugarcane village 2% 114% 168% 118%

Household Cash Resilience (years) poor middle rich AvgDDF village 1.4 3.3 4.0 3.6Eucalyptus village 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.0Sugarcane village <0.1 1.1 1.7 1.2

…poorest forced to sell livestock first. (Current livestock far above carrying capacity in

concession villages)

TFESSDintact forests keep communities together and reduce outmigration

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%

Lessons learned on concession economics

assessment of benefits from different concession models

Sugar cane seems to be a high risk investment in DDF areas…

…not clear which is primary source of challenge.

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

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.

forest loss results in tragedy of remaining commons

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?).

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?).

ignorant communities and poor legal institutions contribute to conflict and vulnerability.

Poor coordination and data sharing limits planning

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?

TFESSD

• Agricultural intensification on land already under cultivation is essential (require improved practices, services, infrastructure 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, monitoring, adjudication by govt institutions regarding concession allocation = tragedy in forests.

• A “landscape approach” is particularly promising

Conclusions

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

Village participatory land use planning map – DDF village