The National Library of Australia has begun subscribing to Khwamsangop: Siang khong pongkan khwamsangop pasason, a Lao national newspaper, issued by the Ministry of National Security for the past 11 years. It reports on law enforcement agency investigations and prosecutions of crime and security matters. Stories cover provincial and district news, as well as VIP and foreign affairs related news. Some of the 20 pages are in colour. An interesting piece from the 13-17 April  2009 issue discusses vehicle accidents in Viengchan (image below). Figures for the first quarter of 2009 include 930 vehicles damaged (373 seriously damaged), 325 people injured, 63 seriously injured, and 60 fatalities. This is very informative about the real state of traffic safety in Viengchan.

[This post is provided by the National Library of Australia as part of our Book Zone feature. For further information on the featured publications contact Saowapha Viravong at sviravong@nla.gov.au]

There are many factors that drive these sorts of agricultural transformations. Many observers of the uplands of southeast Asia have expressed concern about the various pressures that undermine local systems of resource management and subsistence production. But, while not dismissing these external pressures, it can often be useful to return to agro-economic basics. Farmers in the southeast Asian uplands, like farmers all over the world, usually adopt new crops because they perceive that they will be more profitable than their current alternatives. Of course, innovation carries an array of risks. Some of these risks are particularly intense in relation to tree crops, where long term investments (that have involved years of deferred income) can be wiped out by climatic misfortune (such as severe frost), market disruptions or regulatory intrusion. Farmers sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes they badly miscalculate. Sometimes they are unlucky. And sometimes they go broke.

But they still try to make decisions that will improve their livelihoods. And one of the reasons that rubber is proving popular in north-western Laos is that it is increasingly looking like a profitable agricultural alternative. A recent paper by Vongpaphane and Cramb published in Agroforestry Systems provides some results of detailed economic and ecological modelling of rubber production in Luang Namtha province. Here is an extract from the conclusion:

These results show that, given current and likely future market conditions, investment in smallholder rubber production in the uplands of Northern Laos can be highly profitable. The results from the discounted cash flow analysis for the study village help confirm that the expansion of rubber planting in that village is based on good economic returns. Therefore, rubber can be considered as having considerable potential for poor upland farmers, in line with the government policy of stabilising shifting cultivation and supporting new livelihood options for poverty reduction. This should be given prominence in current policy discussions about the desirability of granting large-scale foreign concessions for rubber planting.

The spatial analysis indicates that the potential for rubber in the study village is not an isolated case; there is a considerable area in Luangnamtha Province that appears to be economically suitable for smallholder rubber. It is important to note that the maps presented are very rough approximations and should not be used for the government’s land-use planning and allocation process, especially where farmers are uncertain about reducing their dependence on shifting cultivation. The role for government, as in other countries where smallholder rubber has played a significant role in rural development, is to ensure the provision of good quality planting material, to assist financially during the long investment period when no income is generated, and to continue investing in roads and marketing infrastructure, especially feeder roads to enable those in less accessible areas to participate.

I am sure this won’t be the last word on the issue. Other New Mandala readers who have worked on rubber in northern Laos, or on comparable agricultural transformations in other parts of southeast Asia, are very welcome to contribute your views.

The Bangkok Post reports on an address given by James Bond (Chief Operating Officer of the World Bank Group’s Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency) to the Mekong River Commission.

Here is an extract from Bond’s speech:

The third consideration is properly mitigating the impact on the environment and the people affected. While stakeholder participation and engagement is important throughout all the processes that I have mentioned, it is especially important when social and environmental impact is being managed. Communities need to have a say in this process, as well as civil society organisations and partners. Best practice programmes need to be implemented and this is when it is useful to tap the global and local knowledge that is available.

 For example, Laos can draw on the lessons that have and are emerging from the Nam Theun 2 project. The preparation of NT2, with the numerous studies conducted and the at-length consultation processes, paved the way for more participatory, transparent and improved hydropower developments in Laos. These lessons can be evaluated and replicated in future projects so the best social and environmental programmes are put in place in order to effectively manage impact.

Were any New Mandala readers at the meeting? Exactly what were the Nam Theun 2 lessons that Bond was referring to? From my point of view the key lesson is this: produce a mountain of social assessment paperwork and hope that no one will notice just how unsustainable the package really is.

I am very excited to announce the publication of the quite monumental “Recherches nouvelles sur le Laos” (New Research on Laos) edited by Yves Goudineau and Michael Lorrillard (Paris and Vientiane: L’École française d’Extrême-Orient, 2008). It has about 29 articles (some in French and some in English) covering many aspects of Lao Studies from archaeology to anthropology to religious studies to history to art (as well as some on politics and development). This major book has been in development for 5 years and is essential to anyone interested in Laos or the history of mainland Southeast Asia in general. It is available from EFEO. Please recommend your libraries to order it or pick it up for yourselves!

Here is the table of contents. Make sure you bookmark page 183!

The shrinking of forest areas has affected the country’s energy production. Officials say electricity produced by their country’s numerous dams was down 15% last year because there were not enough water in dam reservoirs, forcing Laos to buy back electricity from Thailand.

Forests use lots of water, they don’t produce it!

[This post is provided by the National Library of Australia as part of our Book Zone feature. For further information on the featured publications contact Saowapha Viravong at sviravong@nla.gov.au]

The latest report from the “panel of experts” (engaged by the World Bank to monitor the project since 1997) contains some disturbing information. Here is a key extract:

There was undoubtedly an initial improvement in resettler living standards following physical relocation to the new sites. The available evidence is that this has started to reverse, a conclusion that would have been less tentative if the required monitoring systems had been in place and available for analysis at this time.

Reversal occurred first in the Pilot Village (Ban Nong Boua) where the first resettlers arrived in 2002. During the next three years living standards improved but in 2007 they began to decline. Following their relocation, living standards and the quality of life also improved initially in the other villages because of the greatly improved standard of housing and a significant improvement in people’s health which is an important success associated with the NT2 Project. But an overall living standard decline now appears to be occurring in most villages and standards can be expected to stagnate or decline further during most of 2008.

Stagnation can be expected because of delayed implementation of the Project livelihood program. Further decline is likely if dam closure occurs as scheduled because, unlike the situation during 2007, resettlers will be unable to cultivate the drawdown area in rice during the 2008 rainy season, there is a continuing die-off of buffalos from disease and starvation in many villages and a gradual reduction in employment opportunities associated with the Project’s construction phase. (pages 11-12)

It’s good to be wise after the event.

In their report in early 2005 the panel of experts expressed frustration with the ongoing debate about the resettlement action plan:

With over 100 years of combined experience on large dams in late industrializing countries, the POE is unaware of any safety net plans that are more “state of the art” than those that have been prepared for the Nam Theun 2 Project. …  [I]t makes no sense, for example, for the Bank to require more detailed and acceptable livelihood options for resettlers on the plateau as requested by senior Bank management in late 2004. … What is important is that a diversified set of feasible livelihood options have been prepared in the form of a state of the art Resettlement Action Plan which includes production, consumption and sale of irrigated produce associated with 16 (counting Ban Nam Pan) resettlement villages, reservoir fisheries restricted to resettlers, current fishers and their descendents, use of the reservoir drawdown area for agriculture, fishing and grazing; livestock management; forestry controlled by the resettlers’ own organization, and some wage labor with special attention paid throughout to improving (not just restoring as allowed by World Bank Guidelines) resettlement livelihoods and to vulnerable households. … It is time to complete an appraisal process that should have been completed at a substantially earlier date and to get on with NT2 project implementation! (pages 8-9)

One wonders how panel of experts defined  “state of the art.” I suspect it was measured in terms of kilograms of paper.

As I pointed out in my 2005 review of resettlement (and other social aspects of the dam) for the Australian government, the action plan prepared by the World Bank was transparently inadequate. These inadequacies were clearly evident in the data and modelling contained in the plan itself:

[T]he agricultural component of the resettlement package is weak, largely as a result of poor soil quality in the resettlement area. This is compounded by the small size of the agricultural plots, which are provided as a standard allocation of 0.66 hectare regardless of household size or current land ownership. It is quite clear that the agricultural package will not be capable of meeting subsistence requirements for the majority of households. It is also clear that a substantial number of households will receive less land than they currently farm.

The agricultural problems associated with the resettlement program are recognized by the proponents and they have put forward a range of other livelihood activities to supplement incomes. These include fisheries, forestry, wage labour and various craft and business activities. However, the local viability of these options is unproven and it seems that the assumptions behind the proposed business activities, in particular, are highly optimistic. Moreover, even with the proponent’s assumptions built in, it is evident that the livelihood packages will not meet livelihood targets for substantial numbers of households. More generally, the dramatic livelihood transition that is envisaged appears ambitious. Most people to be relocated currently depend on subsistence agriculture and forest product collection but they are expected to rapidly adopt mixed livelihood packages with a strongly commercial orientation. (page 28)

Two key points I made about the agricultural livelihood package are worth emphasising. First on soil quality:

Detailed soil surveys have not yet been undertaken except in the pilot village area. The result of that survey was that “the soils in the resettlement area are very poor. Nutrient content is very low and organic matter is also low. The area has limitations for agricultural production, at least until the nutrient content is increased and a higher level of organic matter is reached in the soils. This would be a long process, which could take 10 years or more.” (SDP K: 3) Other general surveying suggests that soil quality is poor throughout the entire resettlement area (SDP 19:11), though with some better soils located in the northern resettlement sites.. (page 31)

And, second, on irrigation viability:

General irrigation planning has been undertaken for each of the resettlement sites. This makes clear that full development is dependent on initial irrigation system development being “feasible and sustainable” (SDP 22:1). There are significant concerns about high levels of infiltration in the generally sandy soils of the resettlement area (SDP 22:6). The amount of land with sufficiently high clay content to support irrigated paddy production is not clear. The irrigation planning assumes such areas would be available adjacent to the farm plot areas (SDP 22:25). Irrigation planners express significant doubts about the viability of dry season paddy- “unless there is significant clay content in the soil it is recommended that dry season paddy rice irrigation is not considered.” Dry season rice trials at the demonstration farm were not successful (SDP 22:6). (page 31-32)

It is hardly surprising that the panel of experts has now reported (page 14 of their latest report) that irrigation requirements have not been met!

And given the specific problems that have emerged in relation to livestock it is worth quoting what I wrote on this issue:

The Social Development Plan specifies that each non-livestock holding household would be allocated two large livestock (SDP 21:2). This is an important component of the livelihood scenarios for average, smaller and small households where it makes up, respectively, 18, 23 and 28% of total income. Several issues relating to this livelihood component warrant consideration. (1) The Social Development Plan indicates that almost 60% of households currently own no large animals (SDP 11:19). The viability of these households effectively managing large livestock after resettlement is not explored in detail. Nor has the social and technical rationale underlying high levels of non-ownership been explored. (2) Inundation would greatly reduce the area available for livestock grazing. Sustainable management of anticipated livestock numbers appears dependent on a comprehensive program of fodder improvement, however, this is constrained by the low level of soil fertility (SDP 21:34). (3) Given that over 500 currently non-owning households would be allocated two large animals there would be a substantial increase in current livestock numbers unless the herds of large owners are reduced. Given fodder constraints, this is signalled as a possibility, but the social viability of this action is not explored nor is compensation proposed. (pages 33-34)

Let me emphasise that my comments were based on a detailed review of the resettlement action plan that the panel of experts described as “state of the art.” The inadequacies were glaringly apparent for anyone who took the time to read through the mountain of documents.

The stuff-up that is now unfolding was entirely predictable.

A report released by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry last week said that Laos plans to plant trees covering at least 25,000 hectares this year.  This is a part of the bigger plan to reforest covering up to 53% of Laos by the year 2010 and at the same time Laos also plans to restore forests in the area of 2.5 million hectares damaged by heavy deforestation. Authorities have launched effort to reclaim the forests by urging cooperation from all sectors.

Commentators often assume that tree planting is a good thing. But considerable caution is warranted. There can be substantial social impacts as agricultural lands – or fallow plots in shifting cultivation systems – are taken over by enthusiastic tree planters. And extensive tree-planting can also have negative environmental impacts. As Tim Forsyth and I wrote in our recent book on environmental management in Thailand:

[S]ome caution is warranted in relation to extensive tree-planting programs, either in the form of plantations, orchards, or initiatives in watershed “rehabilitation.” Contrary to popular belief, increased tree cover is likely to reduce the annual water yield of upland catchments rather than increase water supply. If the objective is to secure larger supplies in major downstream hydroelectric and irrigation schemes, the initiatives are very likely to be counterproductive (Aylward 2000:18). There is also a good chance that extensive tree planting will reduce dry-season flow, because the medium- to long-term benefit in terms of enhanced infiltration on reforested soil may well be limited and strongly outweighed by short- to medium-term increases in the level of water “lost” due to the increased evapotranspiration.  … Bruijnzeel’s (2004:208) finding should sound a warning note to those committed to upland reforestation: “the conclusion that already diminished dry season flows in degraded tropical areas may decrease even further upon reforestation with fast-growing tree species seems inescapable.” (Forest Guardians Forest Destroyers, page 115)

Tree-planting is a good and wholesome activity but there needs to be careful definition of the environmental objectives of such programs and some sober assessment of whether or not those objectives are likely to be met.

This new study by Soren Ivarsson is an important contribution to the growing body of academic literature on Laos. Challenging conventional nationalist histories that seek to trace the origins of the nation back into the mists of time, Ivarsson argues that the origins of Laos can be found in the colonial contact zone between Thailand and French Indochina. Grant Evans provides this endorsement:

Ivarsson’s book is a path breaking study of Lao nationalism and the emergence of the modern idea of Laos. This subtle cultural and political history is informed not only by the author’s understanding of Laos, but also by his deep knowledge of Thailand, the foil for Lao nationalism. It will inspire others to launch similar detailed investigations into the country’s past.

Creating Laos is published by NIAS Press.

As with any of the books we feature, if any New Mandala readers want to make more extended comments, feel free to post your thoughts here or you can email us a full review.

Occasional New Mandala contributor, and ex-ANU researcher, Sarinda Singh has written two reports on trade in natural resources in the border regions of southern Laos and Cambodia. Here is a summary of the reports from TRAFFIC:

Two reports recently launched by TRAFFIC reveal the critical importance of the trade in natural resources for rural livelihoods in Cambodia and Lao PDR.

“We asked local people about the kinds of natural resources they traded, what trade routes they used, how the trade varies over time and how important it is in meeting their subsistence needs,” said Sulma Warne, Co-ordinator of TRAFFIC’s work in the Greater Mekong sub-region.

Local people from four villages and 20 camps in Attapeu province, Lao PDR, and seven villages and 9 camps in Stung Treng province, Cambodia, were asked about the fish, other wildlife and non-timber forest products (NTFPs) they use. Information was also gathered from local markets.

In both regions, fish was regarded as the most important natural resource, with people often gathering other wildlife products during fishing activities in Attapeu. Monitor lizards and turtles were also traded in significant amounts, though these were reported by villagers to be declining particularly in Stung Treng. …

Rapid economic development in both regions has led to increasing affluence, which is fuelling the demand for an ever-diminishing supply of natural resources. The greatest threat to wildlife at both sites, however, results from improved access. This follows major road construction in Attapeu, and more roads and bridges are under construction in Stung making previously inaccessible sites now much easier to reach, and wild plants and animals easier to extract and transport. …

Local laws and management practices regarding wildlife trade were examined, and revealed official perceptions of the trade vastly underestimate its extent and hence its significance for both local livelihoods and biodiversity conservation. …

Links to executive summaries of both reports are available on TRAFFIC’s site.