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:
- to apply the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) system in the northern areas of LAOS
- 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
- 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:
- 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
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:
- How is community-based forest management emphasized in the REDD system?
- Are the goals of the project realistic or attainable, given the implementing activities provided in the project plan?
- 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