Monday, May 12, 2014

Participatory Management and Reducing Deforestation in Lao PDR


PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT AND REDUCING DEFORESTATION IN LAO PDR
by Hazel Henrisha T. Chua and Antonio C. Antonio

x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x

Hazel Henrisha T. Chua (December 20, 2013):

For our second case, we consider a project that is currently being implemented in Laos.  Notably, the problems of deforestation and forest degradation are not unique to that country.  That's what makes this study interesting, as other upland areas in need of rehabilitation can use the guidelines and policies from the project plan for their own needs and purposes.

As you read the case, you will note the importance of participatory management in attaining the goals set out in the project.

Case No. 2: Participatory Land and Forest Management Project for Reducing Deforestation in Lao PDR

The study areas (indicated on the map above) are identified as having evergreen, broad-leaved forests.  Traditionally, farmers in the upland areas practiced slash-and-burn agriculture or shifting cultivation for rice production.  This method has been identified as one of the drivers of deforestation in the upland areas.

Due to changes in demand, farmers began producing cash crops and rubber trees.  With the goal of providing livelihood alternatives to stabilize areas subjected to shifting cultivation, the government of Laos (GOL) worked with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) to implement the Forest Management and Community Support (FORCOM) project.

The goals of the project are:
  1. to apply the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) system in the northern areas of LAOS
  2. to reduce the rate of deforestation or increase forest cover compared to baselines in sites where the project activities have been implemented for more than two years
  3. to improve the livelihoods of at least 50% of the villagers in sites where the project activities have been implemented for more than two years

The project implementation activities involve:
  1. designing the REDD system by improving the Community Support Programme Tool (CSPT)
  2. providing training for staff on the planning and implementation of the REDD system
  3. formulating village and forest land use plans with input from villagers
  4. studying the causes and prevalence of deforestation in the affected areas
  5. monitoring forest cover or carbon stock and socio-economic conditions
  6. assessing effectiveness of REDD system in the project implementation areas
  7. organizing workshops to share findings and results from the system

The project was implemented in August of 2009 and will continue through August 2014.  At that point, an evaluation will be conducted to determine whether the project is a success or not.

Points to Ponder:
  1. How is community-based forest management emphasized in the REDD system?
  2. Are the goals of the project realistic or attainable, given the implementing activities provided in the project plan?
  3. In your informed opinion, what do the following stakeholders need to do to increase the likelihood of success:

·         Government of Laos (including its implementing agencies, ie. Department of Forestry)
·         Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
·         Farmers and Villagers

 References:


x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x

Antonio C. Antonio (December 23, 2013):

Hi, Hazel...

Merry Christmas!

Thank you for including a foreign case study to your series.  This certainly will give us a comparative view of environmental concerns in another Asean member nation... Lao People’s Democratic Republic.  The fact that Lao PDR and the Philippines are located in the same proximate region, there should be similarities between the two countries.

Before attempting to answer the guide questions, please allow me to offer the following information on Lao PDR that will certainly help us to establish a profile of the Laotian... its history, culture, customs and traditions, demography, political mechanism, character and temperament. 

·         Lao PDR, together with China, Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea, is one of the surviving socialist states.  There is only one political party in Lao PDR... the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party (LPRP).  A Politburo dictates public policy.  A senior member of the Politburo and concurrently the secretary general of LPRP is normally designated as President the official head of state.
·         The ruling Politburo is dominated by military generals.
·         The political system in Lao PDR is strongly influenced by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
·         Geographic boundaries: Lao PDR is a landlocked country bordered by Myanmar and china to the northwest, Vietnam to the east, Cambodia to the south, and Thailand to the west.
·         Lao PDR was a French protectorate from 1893 and was granted independence by France in October 22, 1953 when a constitutional monarchy was established as its form of government.
·         After a long period of civil war, constitutional monarchy ended in 1975 when the Communist Pathet Lao movement came to power.
·         Lao PDR espouses Marxism at present.
·         Lao PDR society is multi-ethnic.  The Lao people, about 60% of the population and living mostly in the lowlands, are economically, politically and culturally dominant.   The other 40% of the population is composed of the various Mon-Khmer groups, the Hmong, and other indigenous upland tribes.
·         Prior to the colonial French period, Lao PDR was under a constant state of war among the different tribal groups.  Slavery was the price defeated tribes had to pay and the number of slaves was a status symbol for victorious tribes.
·         The post constitutional monarchy was also characterized by ruthless rulers.
·         Lao PDR also got involved in the war between North and South Vietnam as its border was used as supply lines by the North Vietnamese Army and the Vietcong.  South Vietnam’s (together with the US Military) incursions and carpet bombing runs into Lao territory added to the chaotic situation.
·         Lao PDR climate is tropical and influenced by the monsoon pattern.
·         Lao PDR seasons: Rainy (May to November) and Dry (December to April).
·         In 1993, about 21% of the land area in Lao PDR was allocated for habitat conservation.
·         Lao PDR is one of the 4 opium poppy growing countries known as the Golden Triangle.
·         The rivers in Lao PDR provide the most convenient transportation system.
·         Lao PDR population is estimated at 6.5 million in 2012.
·         35% of Lao PDR’s population lives below the international poverty line.
·         About 80% of the population of Lao PDR depend on agriculture for their livelihood.
·         About 70% of Lao farm households are self-sufficient in rice, being the primary agricultural product.
·         Average income in Lao PDR is US$ 1.25 per day.
·         Literacy rate in Lao PDR is 73%, estimated in 2010.
·         An 85-seat National Assembly of Lao PDR was elected in 1992 in an election marred by violence and wholesale cheating.  The National Assembly is commonly known as a rubber stamp for the dominant political party, LPRP and the Politburo.
·         The Lao People’s Armed Forces (LPAF) is poorly trained and funded and focuses more on border and internal security matters.
·         The Lao PDR government has a tight grip on all media outfits and strict censorship of all mass media information is being practiced.
·         Amnesty International documented several human rights violations (including cases of disappearances and genocide) even in modern-day Lao PDR.  Cross-border migration to Thailand still continues at present because of abuses from the military establishment in Lao PDR.

With these information in the background it is easy to assume that Lao PDR’s history is characterised by revolutions against foreign dominance, internal tribal and ethnic conflicts, oppressive and suppressive regimes, dictatorial leaderships and political turmoil.  All these seemingly negative socio-political conditions have made the Laotians both passive and active in terms of accepting the present dispensation and wanting to change the present socio-political landscape respectively.  On the economic side, many Laotians (especially those involved in upland/forestland activities) have engaged themselves in less than desirable livelihood activities such as illegal logging, illegal wildlife (flora and fauna) trade, and poppy plantations development which largely puts their business ethics on the unapproving side of other countries.  On top of all these illegal trades is one of the most corrupt government bureaucracies in the Asean region.

We already had lengthy discussions and studies of Philippine history, culture and political system and very little about Lao PDR.  Drawing comparative lines between Philippine and Lao PDR situations should help us understand and appreciate what we have and don’t have.  This will also give us a fresh perspective of our own cultural, political and socio-economic situation in comparison to other countries.  Here are some important and notable similarities and differences between the Philippines and Lao PDR:

SIMILARITIES:
  • Both countries have environmental issues particularly loss of forest cover to upland migration, land use conversion and growing population.
  • Illegal logging is a major problem in both countries.
  • The Filipinos (Christians) and Laotians (Buddhists) are both religious.
  • Both Filipinos and Laotians have strong family ties.
  • Both countries were occupied by foreign rulers (Spain, Japan and the United States for the Philippines and France for Lao PDR) and both countries had long struggles against foreign domination.
  • Both Philippine and Lao PDR societies are multi-ethnic.  Although tribal/family ties are more pronounced in the Philippines due to the confinement of ethnic groups to specific islands.
  • Climactic condition in both countries is the same... tropical and influenced by the monsoon pattern.  There are two basic seasons:  rainy and dry.

DIFFERENCES:

1.     The Philippines is an archipelago while Lao PDR is landlocked with no coastline except for a river system that traverses the country.
2.     The Philippines has more land area and forestlands.
3.     The Philippines is a democracy (espousing capitalism) while Lao PDR is a socialist state (espousing Marxism).
4.     Literacy rate in the Philippines is at 95.4% while in Lao PDR it is 73%.
5.     There are three independent branches of government in the Philippines while Lao PDR has a single Politburo.
6.     The Philippines uplands had marijuana plantations but not poppy plantations in the scale of what could be found in Lao PDR.
7.     The Philippines has a larger population estimated at 98 million compared to Lao PDR’s 7 million.
8.     Philippine society enjoys more political freedom than our brothers in Lao PDR.  Human rights violations are even more frequent in Lao PDR considering the disparity in total population between the two countries.

Going back to the guide questions (Points to Ponder )...

1.  How is community-based forest management emphasized in the REDD system?

Lao PDR joined the United Nations – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD) in October 2012.  REDD is an initiative to create a financial value for the carbon levels stored in the forest.  The UN, in promoting this program, offered incentives for developing countries to establish tree plantation with the aim and objective of promoting sustainable development by way of increasing the carbon sequestration capability in these new forestlands.  A subsequent but related program, the REDD+, expanded the coverage to include forest conservation and increasing forest carbon stocks.  These programs are viewed as instant solutions and a mitigating measure to the problem of climate change.

The UN-REDD objectives can readily be attained in Lao PDR considering the strong government command and control and the culture of fear that have been effectively ingrained in the consciousness of its citizenry.  The corrupt structure of government will, however, put to question the accuracy and effectivity of accounting for the actual carbon credits.  This will be a serious lookout for the UN.
In the Philippine setting, the community-based forest management (CBFM) program is anchored on a different concept... which is, the establishment of industrial tree plantation with the aim and view of utilizing the same after some period.  It is, for all intent and purpose, a livelihood development program.  In Lao PDR, as envisioned by the UN-REDD, the community-based forest management program is geared towards establishing permanent (non-harvestable) tree plantation for carbon credit purposes alone.  Whatever monetary gains from this program may not be readily felt and appreciated by the Laotian stakeholders who have on-the-ground involvement in the project.

It should also be noted that, in most countries, there are powerful political and economic interests that encourage logging... and therefore, continued deforestation and degradation.  In Lao PDR, political power is centered on the military which is viewed with distrust and disdain by a big segment of its population.  (I’m sorry but I’m having a tough time reconciling my thoughts on how the UN and Laotian government can possible succeed given their established unpleasant relationship with their upland dwellers.)

2.  Are the goals of the project realistic or attainable, given the implementing activities provided in the project plan?

The UN-REDD implementation activities involve:

·         designing the REDD system by improving the Community Support Programme Tool (CSPT)
·         providing training for staff on the planning and implementation of the REDD system
·         formulating village and forest land use plans with input from villagers
·         studying the causes and prevalence of deforestation in the affected areas
·         monitoring forest cover or carbon stock and socio-economic conditions
·         assessing effectiveness of REDD system in the project implementation areas
·         organizing workshops to share findings and results from the system

Generally speaking, the goals in most projects are attainable.  With the many UN initiatives mentioned that covers the more essential aspects of a project (such as funding, planning, training and monitoring and documentation, plus forest land use sub-plans, etc.), there remains no reason why the UN-REDD goals cannot be attained.  These, however, are generic implementation-planning items that can be found in most UN-REDD plans but may not be case-specific to Lao PDR.

What have been mentioned, however, are the initiatives from the UN... what about other considerations like (just to mention a few):  (1) The economic conditions of the stakeholders in the program; (2) The socio-political the attitudes of the stakeholders; and, (3) The (often peculiar) culture, customs and traditions of the upland stakeholders.  There should be more to this initiatives.  Besides, the primary factor/issue would be livelihood and resources and the equitable distribution of these resources.  Again, given the not-too-ideal relationships among the stakeholders, the UN should look beyond their generic planning and come up with more people/place specific ones.  I’m quite sure though that the UN, with its vast logistical and intelligence capability, have already considered the items I just mentioned.

3.  In your informed opinion, what do the following stakeholders need to do to increase the likelihood of success:

·         Government of Laos (including its implementing agencies, ie. Department of Forestry)
·         Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
·         Farmers and Villagers

Lumping up the government of Lao PDR, the JICA, and farmers and villagers as stakeholders in this case, the most likely contemptuous issues will be (a) land tenure, (b) deforestation and degradation safety nets, (c) transparency from all the institutions involved, (d) an accurate, reliable and believable monitoring of carbon and carbon credits, and (e) the bottom-line benefits and advantages that should accrue to the upland dwellers who are the most affected stakeholders.  If these issues can effectively be addressed, to the satisfaction of all concerned, the chances for success will be high.  The challenge of the UN is actually to get all stakeholders, especially the Laotian ones, to be “in the same loop and the same page” with no hidden agenda.  This is the essence of participatory management.

Just my little thoughts...

References:

x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x

Hazel Henrisha T. Chua (December 27, 2013):

Link to the Case No. 2: Participatory Land and Forest Management Project for Reducing Deforestation in Lao PDR - http://redd-database.iges.or.jp/redd/download/project;jsessionid=E113B0B0C1ED5E8B78BE50797A6AC807?id=77

x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x

Antonio C. Antonio (December 29, 2013):

Hi, Hazel…

Here's the latest on Lao PDR.  Please check on this link...

Happy New Year!

x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x

Hazel Henrisha T. Chua (January 2, 2014):

Hi Anton,

Thank you for the link. It looks like Laos has made good progress but is hounded by problems as it grows. More like "growing pains", and I do hope these will be addressed by their government soon.
Thank you for contributing to the discussion, Anton! Happy new year to you and to your family!

x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x           x

Hazel Henrisha T. Chua (January 16, 2014):

After considering three case studies of participatory management as applied to upland ecological systems, I’m sure that there are several conclusions you can draw with regards to the method and how it works as a whole.  Your thoughts and opinions would be very much appreciated, so please feel free to add your comment in this thread. To start things off, I’ll start by sharing what I think about participatory management.

First of all (and to state the obvious), the stakeholders play a huge role in determining the success or failure of the project. They are the main actors of the program. Government organizations and agencies only serve to act as guiding or implementing bodies, while the bulk of the action falls onto the shoulders of the stakeholders. Their efforts will be rewarded with success, which may come in the form of financial or cultural gains. At the same time, ecological rewards will be reaped by their future generations, provided the goal towards sustainability was met.

Secondly, another conclusion that I’ve come to is that it would be very difficult for participatory management to succeed without the proper support systems. In this case, it would be backing from concerned government organizations and institutions, as well as relevant bodies that would be able to provide assistance to the stakeholders as they embark on the project. For example, in Case No. 1, which discusses CBFM in the Philippines, the farmers encountered obstacles in meeting certain requirements of the program. Financial restraints and perhaps lack of information workshops also led to more difficulties in the long run. If there had been proper support systems,  then the stakeholders would have encountered less problems as they would be provided with the assistance that they badly needed.

Lastly, it’s important to recognize that participatory management, as its name implies, is a team effort. It is through the collective effort of the stakeholders and implementing bodies that success will be obtained. The underlying goal of such method is to give stakeholders a bigger role in managing resources that will undoubtedly affect their way of life and standard of living.

Share your thoughts below!

If you have additional resources or case studies to share, please feel free to do so.
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank those who took the time to read the cases, research, and share their opinions in this thread. Especially to Anton Antonio, Beth Villezar, and Zaldy Lumaan.


Thank you for adding your insightful thoughts and analyses to the discussion! 

No comments:

Post a Comment