SYMPOSIUM ON BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD SECURITY · Symposium on Biodiversity for Food Security 5...

SYMPOSIUM ONBIODIVERSITY FORFOOD SECURITY

Proceedings 14 October, 2004

Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryVientiane, Lao PDR

Acknowledgements

Front and back cover photos: FAO-IPM

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent thoseof the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

The Symposium on Biodiversity for Food Security was organized as a joint effortbetween the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and theMinistry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (LaoPDR). The editing and printing of the Proceedings of the Symposium have been madepossible through financial support from the Government of Sweden. Special thanks aredue to Mr. Claes Kjellstrom, First Secretary of the Embassy of Sweden, for his assistance.

Sincere appreciation is due to His Excellency, Dr. Siene Saphangthong, Minister forAgriculture and Forestry, for his Opening Remarks and participation in the Symposium.Furthermore, the Symposium and its Proceedings would not have been possible withoutthe substantive contributions of all the authors who presented their papers during theSymposium.

The support received from Dr. Bounthong Bouahom, the Director General of theNational Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI), in organizing and hostingthe Symposium is gratefully acknowledged. The assistance of the members of theorganizing committee of the Symposium Committee is also greatly appreciated. Inaddition, valuable inputs were provided by the staff of Lao IRRI, the Department ofInternational Cooperation and Investment (DICI) and by other officials in the Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry.

The contribution of the International Rice Research Institute, particularly Dr. William G.Padolina, Deputy Director General for Partnerships, helped mark the celebration of theInternational Year of Rice, 2004.

The assistance of Dr. Leena M. Kirjavainen, the FAO Representative in the Lao PDR, andof her staff, greatly facilitated both the organization of the Symposium and thearrangements for compiling and editing the proceedings. The technical facilitation andglobal perspective of the importance of biodiversity for food security was provided byMs. Linda Collette, Senior Agricultural Officer (Plant Genetic Resources) from FAOHeadquarters in Rome, Italy.

It is hoped that this report will provide the Lao Government, its development partnersand other interested stakeholders with a better understanding of the country’s richagricultural biodiversity and its critical contributions to the country’s food security.

Contents

Preface

Dr. Siene Saphangthong

ForewordDr. Leena M. Kirjavainen

The International Year of Rice 7William G. Padolina

Biodiversity, Agriculture and Food Security 9Linda Collette

Biodiversity Use and Conservation in Asia Programme: 21The Lao PDR ExperienceNormita Ignacio

The Importance of Crop Biodiversity for Food Security 28in the Lao PDRBounkong Soumivonh

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 29Somsanouk Phommakoth

Livestock Biodiversity for Food Security 32Soukanh Keonouchanh

NWFP Use and Household Food Security in the Lao PDR 35Joost Foppes and Sounthone Ketphanh

Aquatic Resources, Food Security and Nutrition in the Lao PDR: 44A Case Study from Attapeu ProvinceRichard Friend, Eric Meusch and Simon Funge-Smith

Home Gardens in the Lao PDR – 52Linkages between Agricultural Biodiversity and Food SecurityPernille M. Dyg and Saleumsy Phithayaphone

Rural Livelihoods, Biodiversity and Market Forces 60John B. Raintree

Appendices 71

Preface

Global biodiversity, despite its importance in feeding the world, is being gradually eroded and peopleon five continents, including in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, are struggling against hungerand poverty.

The biodiversity of the Lao PDR is globally significant. The country is mega-diverse, and a primarycentre of origin and diversity for cultivated rice (Oryza sativa L.) and other crops. The economy andpeople’s livelihoods are highly dependent on utilizing the biodiversity of natural resources, especiallyfor food, shelter, medicines and energy. However, despite our wealth of diverse natural resources, theLao PDR is a poor and least developed country with low life expectancy, low education attainment,low incomes, and high prevalence of malnutrition among children, with 40% of children under fiveyears of age being underweight. At least 28% of the entire population are undernourished.

In recognition of the great economic, social and cultural value of biodiversity and the importance ofits conservation, the Lao Government has developed a number of policies and strategies to sustainablyuse, develop, and conserve agricultural biodiversity. The Strategic Vision for the Agriculture Sector(2000-2020) and The Poverty-Focused Agricultural Development Plan provide long-term goals withfollowing objectives:

• Achieving food self-sufficiency.• Increasing export of agricultural products through crop diversification.• Commercialisation and processing of production (cash crops, livestock, forest products).• Stabilising slash-and-burn agriculture by land allocation for upland farmers, terracing, and supporting

alternative agricultural activities including agro-forestry and animal husbandry.• Construction of irrigation systems to increase rural incomes and stabilise food supply by expanding

irrigation and improving its operation and maintenance.• Promoting agriculture and forestry research: studies and surveys of agricultural, forest, land and

water resources, rehabilitation of research stations, and development of new technologies.• Human resource development (upgrading of technical skills, vocational training etc.)

The Lao PDR became a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1996 and is developing aNational Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. While the government, along with several internationalpartners and stakeholders, has undertaken direct action to achieve the sustainable use, developmentand conservation of agricultural biodiversity, in crops, most of the effort has been focused on rice. Asyet, very little development and conservation efforts have been undertaken for other crops traditionallyused by farmers. Research to improve understanding of crop-associated biodiversity, soil flora andfauna, pollinators and organisms providing other ecological functions, is extremely limited. In otherareas, the conservation and sustainable use of non-wood forest products* has been initiated as a pilotproject while efforts have also been made to enhance current management of fish and other aquaticresources, and to address environmental impacts. The lack of scientific data and information makes itdifficult to get a clear picture of the current status of domesticated agricultural biodiversity and toidentify opportunities to improve the use of the available diverse resources.

In the country’s current state of development, improved management of agricultural biodiversity isessential to achieving food security and reducing poverty, particularly in rural areas. Improving the

Dr. Siene Saphangthong, Minister of Agriculture and Forestry

Symposium on Biodiversity for Food Security

5

contribution of agricultural biodiversity through enhancing knowledge and improving managementcapacity in the agriculture sector are government priorities. However, the support of internationalpartners is needed to achieve globally agreed commitments to food security and poverty alleviation.Significant and strategic investments are required.

This situation calls for a comprehensive National Agricultural Biodiversity Programme to act as aframework and long-term strategy for implementing a coordinated approach to better using, developingand conserving agricultural biodiversity. Recently, the National Agricultural Biodiversity Programmehas been formulated through a partnership of NAFRI, FAO and UNDP to support two of the mainnational development priorities: achieving food security and improving the livelihoods of ruralcommunities; and enhancing the capacity of all stakeholders involved to ensure the sustainable use ofnatural resources.

I hope that the megabiodiversity of the Lao PDR will be properly managed, conserved and sustainablyused to grow food and so ensure healthy livelihoods for Lao people, and I wish that cooperationbetween governments, international organizations and the private sector can be strengthened to supportbiodiversity and so conserve our environment.

* In this volume, non-wood forest products, or NWFPs, is the term used to describe naturalgoods harvested from the forest that are not used for firewood nor are part of the timbertrade. In the Lao PDR, these are more often referred to as non-timber forest products, orNTFPs. The difference between the terms is only that charcoal, firewood and other wooduses are included in the term ‘NTFP’ but excluded by ‘NWFP’.


6

ForewordDr. Leena M. Kirjavainen, FAO Representative

This Symposium on Biodiversity for Food Security, organized jointly by the Ministry of Agricultureand Forestry and FAO, is the second such event to be held in the Lao PDR in connection with WorldFood Day. Every year, FAO celebrates its ‘birthday’ on World Food Day, October 16, in commemorationof its founding in 1945. The theme for this year, ‘Biodiversity for Food Security’, celebrates the role ofbiodiversity in food security around the world. In the Lao PDR, as elsewhere, combinations of multiplequality foods can help people to lead active and healthy lives. At present, there is still much work to dobefore sufficient food and nutrition are available for all people in the country.

The biodiversity of the Lao PDR is most impressive. The country has been identified as one of 10centres of highest biodiversity in the world and Lao people already make extensive use of this diversityin the agricultural sector, the most important sector in the country’s economy. The most importantcrop is rice, representing 80% of the agricultural landscape and about 80% of the total intake ofcalories of most people. More than 3,000 varieties of cultivated, wild and weedy rice have been foundaround the country, with glutinous ‘sticky’ rice, the major staple in the Lao diet, accounting for 85% ofthese varieties. Additionally, over 700 species of wild plants are utilised for food and other uses, and ofthe more than 1400 species of wild animal identified, 90% are used in one way or another by the localpeople. Aquatic resources provide essential protein and account for 43% of the total animal proteinconsumption.

Unfortunately, many people still suffer from hunger and micronutrient deficiencies in the Lao PDR.Studies have indicated that about 40% of children suffer from chronic malnutrition and 13% of adultsare chronically undernourished. Lack of vitamins can cause children serious health problems, such aspermanent blindness and under-development of the brain. To improve this situation, more advice isneeded on home gardening, food preparation, food handling and food safety. Basic nutrition needs tobe included in all training and extension curricula from village literacy programmes to college leveleducation.

Conserving biodiversity is another key element in fighting hunger and malnutrition and promotingfood security, balanced nutrition and healthy livelihoods. FAO estimates that about three-quarters ofthe genetic diversity of agricultural crops have been lost over the last century. Currently just fourspecies - wheat, maize, rice and potato - provide half of the world’s energy from plants. As aconsequence, food supply becomes more vulnerable and there are fewer opportunities for growth andinnovation in agriculture. Also, there is less capacity for agriculture to adapt to environmental changes,such as global warming, or to the appearance of new pests and diseases. The world’s biodiversity isunder threat and this could severely compromise global food security.

The purpose of this symposium was to increase participants’ awareness of the links between biodiversityand food security in general, and in the Lao PDR in particular. The symposium provided an opportunityto share information and knowledge, to build networks and to recommend how to preserve biodiversity.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute(NAFRI) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry for organizing the Symposium. I am confidentthat this event will lead to concrete results and successes.


7

Rice is the one thing that defines Asia - morethan politics, culture or religion. As we search forthings that will bring us together in these troubledtimes – rather than drive us apart or divide us -rice unites the nations of Asia. That’s because eachand every day, no matter where we live, we all sitdown and share a bowl of rice – nothing is moreessential to the average Asian.

It is our common heritage, our common culture,and our common food. Not only that, it is thevery foundation of national stability and foodsecurity in each of our countries. Interestingly, itis the American newspaper, the Washington Postthat has perhaps best explained the essential natureof rice to the world, describing rice productionsimply as “the most important economic activityon the planet – more vital than oil production orbanking, more important than tourism ortelecommunications”.

For these reasons, the foresight and vision of theUnited Nations and the FAO to declare 2004 asthe International Year of Rice, must be warmlyapplauded and recognised as a decision of greatimportance and significance. Put simply, it willallow us to once again put rice at the centre ofcultural and economic development instead ofleaving it on the sidelines, where it has beenpushed by other concerns over the past fewdecades. Not does the International Year of Ricepresent the rice producing nations of Asia with agreat opportunity, but it also helps highlight theenormous challenges facing rice and its future inthe region.

In the Lao PDR, agriculture is still the principaldriving force of the economy and rice is the singlemost important crop in the country. Progress hasbeen achieved towards self-sufficiency but manychallenges still face us today. As food is essentialto maintaining the productivity of the population,rice must be kept cheap and accessible to the poor.However, as the income levels of the poor remainlow, they continue to spend a considerable portionof their daily income providing rice for the family.

William G. PadolinaThe International Year of Rice

Thus we face the challenge of generatingtechnology which will lower the cost ofproduction, thereby increasing the profit of ricefarmers and lowering the cost to rice to consumers.

To put it simply: rice is in crisis. At a time ofabundant supplies and record low prices, somemay laugh at such a statement, but please allowme a few sentences to explain. Not only is therice industry facing a crisis in the supply of suchessential resources as land, labour and water, butmost importantly of all no nation has found asustainable solution to the problem of providingdecent livelihoods for rice farmers. As a result,the rural rice communities of many Asian nationsare increasingly restless. They remain trapped inpoverty and in urgent need of new strategies andfresh ideas to help them improve their lives. Ournations want to provide rice to our citizens at afair and appropriate price, and at the same timeto guarantee the hard working and neglected ricefarmers of the region a chance to make a decentliving. This is a huge and unprecedented challenge,but there is some good news.

For the past 40 years a huge network of ricescientists, researchers and extension people hasbeen built up all over Asia, much of it with moneyfrom western donors. In many nations, thesescientists are as well trained and have as muchexpertise as their colleagues elsewhere. To put itsimply, Asia’s rice scientists are world class. In turn,these scientists are connected to a regional andinternational network of researchers and institutesof which IRRI is a leading member. Theseconnections in the past have guaranteed that Asia’srice farmers have had direct access to the world’smost promising new ideas and technologies forrice.

Clearly the system works and works well, butthere’s just one problem. For more than fourdecades this vital system that provides crucialknowledge and technologies to Asia’s rice farmershas been mostly funded - and influenced - bywestern nations. Now however, after achieving so


8

much, these generous donors are taking theirmoney and resources elsewhere. For those talentedAsian scientists who are already - some byunemployment - being prevented from using theirknowledge to help the region’s farmers, thisworrying decline in support for rice research hasalready reached critical if not crisis level.

As our friends from China would surely advise usthough, in every crisis there is an opportunity. Hereis our chance to seize the initiative in resolvingthe problems facing our rice farmers andconsumers. We have the tools and organization,but in many cases the tools are blunt and out ofdate, and the organization is severely under fundedand resourced. While we all have our own strongnational research systems for rice, next year willgive the rice producing and rice consuming nationschance to build a regional vision for rice thatrecognises not only our common problems butalso our shared ambitions.

Photo: IPM Project/FAO

We need to work hard to guarantee that the Asiaof the future not only continues to be swathed inthe luminous green of a million paddy fields, buthas rice consumers buying an affordable, nutritiousproduct, and rice farmers earning a decent living.Poverty must become a distant memory.

In summary, the International Year of Rice shouldfurther strengthen the collaborative effort betweenIRRI and the Lao PDR to help the rice farmersand consumers of Asia achieve better lives. If wecan achieve this, then the entire region will benefit.In the same way that Rice Is Life for the Asia oftoday, the Asia of the future has no life withoutrice.

William G. Padolina is Deputy Director Generalfor Partnerships at the International RiceResearch Institute in Los Baños, Laguna, thePhilippines.


9

Biodiversity, Agriculture and FoodSecurity Linda Collette

Photo: IPM Project/FAO


10

Biological diversity, as described by theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD), refersto “the variability among living organisms fromall sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marineand other aquatic ecosystems and the ecologicalcomplexes of which they are part; this includesdiversity within species, between species and ofecosystems.”

Approximately 1.4 million plant and animal specieshave been so far identified on the Earth, andpeople rely on this variety of life for food, shelter,goods, services and livelihood. Hence, biodiversitysupports all life and is a global asset. Yet despitethis, biodiversity is being threatened atunprecedented rates. The greatest harm is causedby damage to natural habitats in a number of ways,for example through pollution, urbanisation,deforestation and conversion of wetlands.Mismanagement of agriculture, forestry andfisheries further accelerates this destructiveprocess.

In agricultural ecosystems, maintenance ofbiodiversity is important for the production offood, and to conserve the ecological foundationsthat sustain rural livelihoods. Agricultural biodiversityis a broad term that includes all components ofbiological diversity of relevance to food andagriculture, and all components of biodiversitythat constitute the agro-ecosystem – the varietyand variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms. Agricultural biological diversity isdescribed at the genetic, species and ecosystemlevels, and covers both cultivated and wildorganisms. Increasing international attention isbeing given to agricultural biodiversity, and to thevalue of biodiversity in maintaining agriculturalsustainability – especially sustainable livelihoods.

At the gene level, diversity in plants and animalsis particularly important for adaptation to a rangeof farming conditions and environmental stresses,such as extremes of temperature, drought, soilsalinization, pests and diseases, and water quality.

The Role and Importance ofAgricultural Biodiversity

The availability of a broad pool of geneticresources also contributes to breeding of crop andanimal varieties for improvements in productivity.Conservation of genetic diversity within eachspecies is essential. Modern agriculture hasencouraged many farmers to adopt uniform high-yielding types of plant or animal. But when foodproducers abandon diversity, varieties and breedsmay die out - along with their specialised traits.This rapidly diminishing gene pool worries experts.Having a broad range of unique characteristicsallows plants and animals to be bred to meetchanging conditions, while giving scientists the rawmaterials they need to develop more productiveand resilient crop varieties and breeds. Rather thana single crop variety that guarantees a high yield,farmers in developing countries are more likely toneed assortments of crops that grow well in harshclimates, and of animals with resistance to disease.For the poorest farmers, diversity can be the bestprotection against starvation. Consumers alsobenefit from diversity through a wide choice ofplants and animals. This contributes to a nutritiousdiet, particularly important for rural communitieswith limited access to markets.

At the species level, the diversity of organisms inecosystems contributes to important ecosystemfunctions such as nutrient cycling, pest and diseaseregulation, and pollination. The production of adiverse range of species also contributes tolivelihood security and the optimisation ofavailable resources. A rich variety of cultivatedplants and domesticated animals is the foundationof agricultural biodiversity. Yet humans dependon just 14 mammal and bird species for 90% oftheir food supply from animals and four species -wheat, maize, rice and potato - provide half ofour energy from plants.

Ecosystems depend on biological diversity fortheir resilience. Diversity reduces vulnerability(environmental, economic and social) andenhances the adaptability of ecosystems tochanging environments and needs. Biological


11

diversity in agricultural ecosystems also contributesto wide ecosystem services such as biologicalcontrol, pollination, maintenance of water quality,soil health and erosion control, carbonsequestration and climate change control.Biological diversity at the ecosystem level alsocontributes to recreational and cultural functionssuch as educational and spiritual values, aestheticsand ecotourism.

Biological Diversity for Agriculture

Biodiversity benefits natural and agriculturalsystems in three different ways: for productivity,adaptation, and maintenance of ecosystemfunctions:

(i) Productivity:Conservation and management of broad-basedgenetic diversity within domesticated species havebeen improving agricultural production for 10,000years. However, naturally diverse populations havebeen providing food and other products for muchlonger. A wide range of species provides manythousands of products through agriculture andfrom the harvest of natural populations. Highproduction levels are sustained throughmaximising the beneficial impact of ecosystemservices for agricultural, modified and naturalecosystems.

(ii) Adaptation:A diverse range of organisms contributes to theresilience of agricultural and natural ecosystems,their capacity to recover from environmental stressand their ability to evolve. Informed adaptivemanagement of agricultural and naturalbiodiversity, above and below ground and underwater secures sustained production.

(iii) Maintenance of ecosystem functions:Essential functions such as nutrient cycling,decomposition of organic matter, crusted ordegraded soil rehabilitation, pest and disease

regulation, water quality, and pollination aremaintained by a wide range of biologically diversepopulations in natural ecosystems and in and nearagricultural ecosystems. Maintaining this diversityof species and building on and enhancingecosystem functions reduces external inputrequirements by increased nutrient availability,improved water use and soil structure, and naturalcontrol of pests.

Hence, biological diversity is fundamental toagriculture and food production, and people relyon the variety of food, shelter, and goods for theirlivelihood. Nonetheless, humans are placingincreasing pressure on species and theirenvironments, endangering not only many plantand animal species, but also essential naturalprocesses (such as pollination by insects and theregeneration of soils by micro-organisms). To feeda growing population, agriculture must providemore food. However, it is also essential to increaseits resilience by protecting a wide array of lifeforms with unique traits, such as plants that survivedrought or livestock that reproduce in harshconditions.

Global efforts to conserve plants and animals ingene banks, botanical gardens and zoos are vital.An equally important task is to maintainbiodiversity on farms and in nature, where it canevolve and adapt to changing conditions orcompetition with other species. As custodians ofthe world’s biodiversity, farmers can develop andmaintain local plants and trees and reproduceindigenous animals, ensuring their survival. Morethan 40% of land surface is used for agriculture,placing a large responsibility on farmers to protectbiodiversity. By using appropriate techniques likeno-tillage agriculture, reduced use of pesticide,organic agriculture and crop rotation, farmers canmaintain the fragile balance with surroundingecosystems.


12

Agriculture for Biological Diversity

Conversely, agriculture and farming also providesbenefits for biodiversity in three different ways:

(i) Delivery of ecosystem services:Agriculture occupies more than one-third of theland in most countries, and agricultural systemsmanaged sustainably as ecosystems contribute towider ecosystem functions such as maintenanceof water quality, waste removal, soil moistureretention with reduction of runoff, waterinfiltration, erosion control, carbon sequestration,pollination, dispersal of seeds of wild andendangered plants, and refuge for species duringdroughts.

(ii)Incentives for conserving biological diversity:The different populations needed by agriculture,such as pollinators and beneficial predators, needhabitat diversity to survive. Agriculture thereforeprovides incentives to preserve areas such ashedgerows and field borders. Farming of aquaticspecies often occurs in natural water bodies. Thusaquaculture provides incentives to protect theaquatic environment from adverse impacts, forexample from pollution and water diversion. Theneed for adaptation and the potential forimprovement in productivity provide an incentivefor conserving a diverse range of genetic resourcesboth in and ex situ.

(iii) Ecological knowledge:Much human knowledge of biodiversity, itsimportance, and functions has been gained andwill continue to be gained across cultures throughagriculture practices.

Recognising the essential role of biologicaldiversity in food security, and also that the world’sbiological diversity is being threatened, the themeof the FAO World Food Day 2004 is “Biodiversityfor Food Security”. One of the aims of WorldFood Day 2004 is to highlight the role ofbiodiversity in ensuring that people havesustainable access to enough high-quality food tolead active and healthy lives.

Conserving biodiversity for agriculture requiresefforts on many fronts including measures topreserve the environment, better education,increased research, and government support.There are a number of fora addressing the issuesof declining biodiversity, food security, agriculture,conservation of biological diversity, and thesustainable utilisation of biological diversity. Thecurrent global institutional context represents oneof collaboration and synergies, whereby differentinitiatives complement one other.

Commission on Genetic Resources for Foodand Agriculture (CGRFA)

The Commission on Genetic Resources for Foodand Agriculture (CGRFA) is a permanent forumwhere governments discuss and negotiate mattersrelevant to genetic resources for food andagriculture. The CGRFA deals with policy andsectoral and cross-sectoral matters related to theconservation and utilisation of genetic resourcesfor food and agriculture. As part of its role, theCGRFA develops and monitors the GlobalStrategy for the Management of Farm AnimalGenetic Resources and the Global System forPlant Genetic Resources. One of the elementsof this ‘Global System’ is the Global Plan ofAction for the Conservation and SustainableUtilisation of Plant Genetic Resources for Foodand Agriculture, which comprises a set of activitiescovering capacity-building, and the in situ and exsitu conservation of plant genetic resources. It isa rolling plan that is monitored, reviewed andupdated by the CGRFA.

In 2001, the CGRFA adopted the InternationalTreaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Foodand Agriculture, which was then adopted by theFAO Conference (Resolution 3/2001). TheInternational Treaty then entered into force in2004. This legally binding instrument is crucial forsustainable agriculture. It provides a frameworkfor national, regional and international efforts toconserve and sustainably use plant geneticresources for food and agriculture - and for sharingthe benefits equitably, in line with the Conventionon Biological Diversity.

The International Context


13

conserve forests. Codes have been developed forthe Asia-Pacific and West and Central Africanregions as well as national codes, for example forChina.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

In recognition of the importance of biologicaldiversity for agriculture, the Conference of theParties (COP) of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity decided to “establish a multi-yearprogramme of activities on agricultural biologicaldiversity aiming, first, to promote the positiveeffects and mitigate the negative impacts ofagricultural practices on biological diversity in agro-ecosystems and their interface with otherecosystems; second, to promote the conservationand sustainable use of genetic resources of actualor potential value for food and agriculture; andthird, to promote the fair and equitable sharingof benefits arising out of the utilisation of geneticresources” (COP decision III/11). At its FifthMeeting, COP adopted its multi-year Programmeof Work on Agricultural Biodiversity (decisionV/5), and invited FAO to support its developmentand implementation:

(a) To support the development of nationalstrategies, programmes and action plansconcerning agricultural biodiversity, in line withdecision III/11 of the Conference of the Partiesto the Convention on Biological Diversity, and topromote their integration in sectoral and cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies.

(b) To build upon existing international plans ofaction, programmes and strategies that have beenagreed by countries, in particular, the Global Planof Action for the Conservation and SustainableUtilisation of Plant Genetic Resources for Foodand Agriculture, the Global Strategy for theManagement of Farm Animal Genetic Resources,and the International Plant Protection Convention(IPPC).

(c) To ensure harmony with the other relevantprogrammes of work under the Convention on

The Treaty contains two important and uniqueelements. First, it recognises the enormouscontribution made by farmers in all regions ofthe world towards the conservation anddevelopment of plant genetic resources, andidentifies ways of protecting and promotingfarmers’ rights. Second, it establishes a multilateralsystem of access and benefit sharing. This ensurescountries have access to the most important plantgenetic resources needed for food security. Itidentifies a range of benefits to be shared on amultilateral basis: information exchange,technology transfer and access, building capacityat local levels, and monetary and other benefitsof commercialisation. Benefits are directed mainlyat developing and transition economy countries,to help ensure they will have the capacity toconserve and sustainably use their own geneticresources as well as any they may obtain underthe multilateral system. FAO helps to providepolicy guidelines that regulate the conservation andsustainable use of biological diversity.

Other Selected International Fora andInstruments Related to Agriculture, Forestand Fisheries

The aim of the International Plant ProtectionConvention (IPPC) is to protect plants by settingstandards for pest control. The Conventionprevents the introduction of pests, includinginvasive alien species that may out-compete localplants or animals. It entered into force in 1952.The FAO Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries, adopted in 1995, sets out principles toconserve, manage and sustainably use living aquaticresources. The Code works to protect the world’smarine, coastal and inland waters with due respectfor biodiversity and the ecosystem. FAOencourages all countries to implement thisvoluntary Code, including provisions with bindingeffects, for example on conservation andmanagement measures for vessels on the high seas.The FAO Model Code of Forest HarvestingPractice was published by FAO in 1996 toencourage improved management to help


14

Biological Diversity, including those relating toforest biological diversity, inland water biologicaldiversity, marine and coastal biological diversity,and dry and sub-humid lands, as well as with cross-cutting issues such as access and benefit-sharing,sustainable use, indicators, alien species, the GlobalTaxonomy Initiative, and issues related to Article8(j).

(d) To promote synergy and coordination, and toavoid duplication, between relevant programmesof various international organizations and betweenprogrammes at the national and regional levelsestablished under the auspices of internationalorganizations, while respecting the mandates andexisting programmes of work of each organizationand the intergovernmental authority of therespective governing bodies, commissions andother fora.

Programme of Work on AgriculturalBiodiversity – Programme Elements(Decision V/5 of the CBD)

The CBD Programme of Work on AgriculturalBiodiversity is composed of four ProgrammeElements. These are:

(i) Assessment:To provide a comprehensive analysis of status andtrends of the world’s agricultural biodiversity andof their underlying causes (including a focus onthe goods and services agricultural biodiversityprovides), as well of local knowledge of itsmanagement.

(ii) Adaptive Management:To identify management practices, technologiesand policies that promote the positive and mitigatethe negative impacts of agriculture on biodiversity,and enhance productivity and the capacity tosustain livelihoods, by expanding knowledge,understanding and awareness of the multiplegoods and services provided by the different levelsand functions of agricultural biodiversity.

(iii) Capacity Building:To strengthen the capacities of farmers,indigenous and local communities, and theirorganizations and other stakeholders, to managesustainably agricultural biodiversity so as toincrease their benefits, and to promote awarenessand responsible action.

(iv) Mainstreaming:To support the development of national plans orstrategies for the conservation and sustainable useof agricultural biodiversity and to promote theirmainstreaming and integration in sectoral and cross-sectoral plans and programmes.

The Lao PDR is home to a great array ofbiodiversity. It was identified as one of Vavilov’s“Centres of Origin” of domesticated plants andanimals, among the ten centres of highestbiodiversity in the world. Lao people maketremendous use of this diversity, particularly inthe agriculture sector, which by far is the mostimportant economic sector in the country.Agriculture accounted for over 49% of total GDPin 2001. Over 80% of the labour force is employedin the sector, which is largely comprised ofsubsistence agriculture characterised by low inputsand low outputs. Agricultural biodiversity alsoincludes non-domesticated food resources, bothaquatic and terrestrial plants and animals. In theLao PDR, a wide-range of wild plants and animalscontribute significantly to day-to-day basicnutrition of both rural and urban residents.

The most important crop is rice, and significantinvestments have been made in using, developingand conserving rice genetic resources. Apart fromrice, farmers grow starch crops such as maize andtuber crops (sweet potato, cassava, taro and yamsand so on), depending on the area, and vegetables

Biodiversity, Agriculture, FoodSecurity and Livelihoods

The Lao NationalAgricultural BiodiversityProgramme (NABP)


15

and industrial crops (mung bean, soybean, peanut,sugar cane, cotton and coffee).

Livestock production is extremely important withabout 89% of all farm households raising one ormore species. In 2001, the main livestockpopulation consisted of approximately 1.2 millioncattle, 1.05 million buffalo, 1.4 million pigs and124,000 goats. About 95% of the livestockpopulation consists of indigenous animals (pig,buffalo, cattle and goat). Buffalo and cattle are keptfor draught power, cash income and meat. Cattle-breeding provides important income for somefarmers.

The total poultry population is estimated at 16million, and consists predominantly of chickens.Ducks, geese and turkey are also raised. Poultryprovide an extremely important source of proteinas well as being a source of income generation,and thus play a key role in the livelihoods ofvillagers, particularly in remote areas.

The major livestock production system in Laos isthe smallholders’ production system. In recentyears, some commercial pig and poultryenterprises have emerged to serve urban centres,but traditional smallholder systems are based onfree range grazing of harvested or fallow lands.Uncontrolled breeding is common and little efforthas been made in genetic improvement. Indeed,efforts to better use and develop indigenous animalgenetic resources in the Lao PDR are far behindthe investments that have been made to developplant genetic resources, in particular rice geneticresources. There is enormous potential tosignificantly increase the contribution of livestockto food security and rural development throughinvestments in genetic and managementimprovement and control of animal diseases.

Many Lao people use a wide-range of non woodforest products. Over 700 species of wild plantsare collected for food and other uses. Plants usedfor food include wild vegetables, bamboo andrattan shoots, tubers, wild fruits, sugar palm andmushrooms. While a number of traditionalpractices are employed to prevent the depletion

of non-wood resources, the overall sustainabilityof these resources is unclear. Significantdeforestation in some regions is affecting the statusof many wild plants and animals while regulatoryand enforcement regimes for the use of naturalresources are weak or non-existent.

Over 1,400 species of wild animals have beenidentified in the Lao PDR, and it is estimated thatas many as 90% of them are used in some way bylocal people. This includes numerous species offish, frogs, snakes, shrimp, soft-shelled fresh waterturtles, and crabs. For rural people, fish and otheraquatic animals are an easily accessible andinexpensive source of food, constituting the majorsource of protein. A fisheries survey in LuangPrabang Province estimated the averageconsumption of all fish and aquatic products tobe 29 kg per person per year, with fresh fishaccounting for 16-22 kg/capita per year. Fish andaquatic animals account for 43% of total animalproduct consumption (Sjorslev 2000).

There is limited information and data on the catchand consumption of aquatic animals other thanfish, but a recent field study in southern Laosconfirmed both the diversity of aquatic species inrural diets and the dependency of Lao people onthese resources. The Lao Agricultural census lists78% of agricultural households as engaged infishing activities. From this figure alone it is clearthat fishing is an essential part of Lao rurallivelihoods. Collection of aquatic resources is anactivity widely practiced within communities.

To maintain this rich aquatic biodiversity there isa need to better manage rice production and fishculture and to understand how the systems areinter-connected. Intensification of agriculture anduse of chemicals will have an inevitable impacton aquatic biodiversity and livelihoods and theseimpacts must be managed. Replacement of theseresources through fish culture is not guaranteed,since access to suitable land for pond constructionis limited, and the open-access feature of the ricefield is lost with private fish ponds. Loss of aquaticbiodiversity would most affect the poor, who arereliant on such resources.


16

Household agricultural production systems makean extremely important contribution to foodsecurity and diet in Laos, and have the potentialto contribute further. A variety of vegetables andtropical fruits are grown and small livestock areraised in and around home gardens. The typicalmeal in rural households consists of glutinous ricecomplemented with small portions of vegetablesand fish or other aquatic animals. This diet isextremely low in fat and although it is varied andmeets the energy requirements of most people,various studies have documented that malnutritionrates in the country are among the highest inSoutheast Asia. Micronutrient deficiencies are alsocommon, as are high levels of anaemia/irondeficiency among women.

Studies on food security and nutrition indicate anurgent need for progress in the nutritional statusand overall health of the population. Expandedand improved household integrated agriculturalproduction systems have the potential tocontribute to better nutrition and significantlyimprove food security. Some efforts to develophome gardens (in association with nutritioneducation) and encourage increased productionof fruit and vegetables have been initiated, andneed to be expanded and further developed.

Given the role and importance of biodiversity toLao agriculture and livelihoods, a NationalAgricultural Biodiversity Programme (NABP) wasdeveloped by the government and its partners in2003. The NABP recognises that essentialinformation and management capacity to mostbeneficially use, develop, and conserve agriculturalresources is lacking or non-existent and thatimproved management of agricultural biodiversityis a means of achieving food security and reducingpoverty, particularly among the rural poor.

The NABP provides a long-term perspective forimproved management of agricultural biodiversityand has been designed to be integrated withimplementation of the National Biodiversity

Strategy and Action Plan, the Strategic Vision forAgriculture Sector (2000-2020), the NationalGrowth Poverty Eradication Strategy – Poverty-Focused Agricultural Development Plan, andother related sustainable development strategiesand plans. It is consistent with the government’sstated priorities of achieving food security andimproving the livelihoods of rural communities.

The NABP is comprised of seven maincomponents, the first five of which dealspecifically with interventions and considerationsat the thematic level.

Component 1: Crop and Crop-associatedBiodiversity (C-CAB)Improved management of crops and crop-associated biodiversity is essential to achievingfood security and rural development goals in theLao PDR. Existing threats to plant geneticresources must be addressed in a systematic waythrough participatory processes. This will requirea long-term commitment to better assessingresources, to improving management practices atthe farm/village level, to building overall capacityin research and extension services, and tosupporting infrastructure.

The primary interventions required to improvethe contribution of C-CAB to food security andrural development in the Lao PDR include:

• Improving understanding of C-CAB as wellas production systems and agro-ecosystemsthrough improved information and monitoringsystems, documenting and disseminatingsuccessful management practices, andincreasing awareness of the value of plantgenetic resources for food and agriculture andC-CAB.

• Strengthening the capacity of farmers tomanage C-CAB.

• Enhancing efforts to conserve plant geneticresources for food and agriculture using bothin situ and ex situ conservation measures.

Implementation Aspects

The Lao National Agricultural BiodiversityProgramme


17

• Improving the infrastructure to support cropresearch and management.

• Establishing an enabling policy environmentthat promotes sustainable production anddiversification of subsistence and industrialcrops.

• Improving post-harvest technologies andfacilities.

Component 2: Livestock Development andManagementAnimal genetic resources are among the mostvaluable and strategically important assets that thecountry holds. Indigenous animal populationscould contribute far more to food and agricultureproduction than they currently do. Betterutilisation and development of animal geneticresources could enhance the contribution oflivestock to food security and contribute to ruraldevelopment and the alleviation of poverty.Indigenous breeds are particularly valuable as theyare adapted to local production conditions,especially climatic stress, low quality fodder andendemic diseases.

Training is essential in many areas of livestockmanagement, including characterisation,performance recording and evaluation,reproduction, housing and feeding. Greaterinternational support, especially to building localmanagement capacity, is crucial to developmentof the livestock sector.

The primary interventions required to improvethe contribution of livestock to food security andrural development in the Lao PDR are:

• Undertaking a detailed evaluation of currentlivestock management practices in order todevelop and implement plans for improvedmanagement of each of the main livestockspecies, including developing protocols forphenotypic and performance characterisation.

• Developing national cattle, buffalo and pigbreeding improvement programmes thatinclude community-based approaches tolivestock genetic improvement.

• Analysing disease threats to the indigenouslivestock populations and developing nationalvaccination protocols for each species.

• Implementing genetic improvement strategiesto enhance production of indigenous poultry.

• Implementing pilot projects to enhance the useof small livestock animals as valuable sources ofprotein in the diet of subsistence farmers, whilebetter utilising vegetable by-products and waste.

• Strengthening existing institutions in thelivestock sector, including further developinghuman resource capacity in NAFRI/theNational Livestock Research Centre, trainingstaff at PAFO, DAFO and NAFES, and at thevillage level; and through needed infrastructuredevelopment.

• Improving dissemination among farmers ofknowledge on best livestock managementpractices for the major species, throughestablishing a database within the NAFRI/National Livestock Research Centre, providingeducational materials to farmers, and providingextension services.

• Identifying areas in the livestock sector thatrequire legislation and regulation and thendeveloping a relevant legal and regulatoryframework.

Component 3: Non-Wood Forest Productsand other Terrestrial BiodiversityComponent 3 is to ensure the continuedcontribution of non-wood forest products(NWFPs) to food security, nutrition, and ruraldevelopment through improved management ofthese essential national resources. This would beachieved primarily though effectiveimplementation of Phase II of The WorldConservation Project “Sustainable use of Non-Timber Forest Products Phase II,” in collaborationwith the government. Phase II builds upon anumber of significant outputs that resulted fromthe first phase of the pilot project (1995-2001).The aim of the second phase is to:• Help the government expand the capacity of

rural development agents to facilitatesustainable use of NWFPs.


18

• Expand the highly successful pilot phasemodels for harvesting, domesticating,processing and marketing specific NWFPs.

• Apply research on important NWFP speciesthat have not yet been studied.

• Overcome constraints in government capacitythat currently impair development of nationaland provincial sustainable use strategies,monitoring programmes, and regulationsconcerning the trade in NWFPs.

The envisaged outputs of the second phaseinclude:

• Improved understanding of NWFPs relevantto food security and sustainable livelihoods.

• Improving understanding of humanmanagement of and economic markets forNWFPs.

• Sustainable and profitable participatorymanagement (harvesting, processing,marketing, domestication and cultivation) ofNWFPs at pilot project sites (both sedentaryand rotational cultivation).

• Tested mechanisms for regulation ofconsumption and trade in NWFP resourceswith a view to strengthening legal and policyframeworks.

• Stronger institutional and human capacity atthe community and national levels to promotethe sustainable use of NWFPs.

• A national level information exchange system(clearing house mechanism) on NWFPs.

• Collection of endangered NWFP species forconservation and development.

Due to the importance of this diverse resourceto food security and livelihoods, sustainableutilisation of NWFPs is a key component of theNational Agricultural Biodiversity Programme.

To be able to maintain this rich biodiversity thereis a need to manage the paddy field’s combinationof rice production and fish culture. Sustained andstrategic investments are required to ensure the

sustainable use of aquatic resources in the LaoPDR in key areas, including:

• Understanding the role of aquatic resources infood security and sustainable livelihoods.

• Strengthening institutional and human capacityat community, provincial and national levels topromote the sustainable use of aquaticresources.

The issue of food security and nutrition iscomplex. Nutritional status depends upon anumber of factors including access to nutritiousfoods, understanding of nutritional requirements,local health and sanitary conditions, foodpreparation and storage, and environmentalaspects such as the prevalence of parasites. Anumber of studies on Lao food security andnutrition indicate the need to improve thenutritional status and overall health of the humanpopulation. FAO, under the Special Programmefor Food Security in cooperation with the LaoGovernment and with funding from theGovernment of Japan, has initiated a five-yearproject to help small farm units improve foodsecurity and livelihoods. Projects aimed atimproving household agriculture production andfamily nutrition, such as home gardening projects,have enormous potential to significantly improvefood security and address the complex issue ofnutrition.

A well-managed home garden or householdagricultural production system can provide familiesand communities with fruit and vegetables, herbsand spices, and animal proteins and fats. Theaddition or increase of root vegetables and tubersin a diet can supply necessary proteins, fats, ironand vitamins. Green leafy vegetables are essentialfor vitamin A, E, and C, plus folic acid and certainminerals. Additionally, green leafy vegetables,seeds, and legumes are a good source of protectivefatty acids. Seeds (legumes, beans etc) also aresource of protein and micronutrients, and shouldbe promoted in the diet. Meat from chickens,rabbits, pigs, goats and other small animals can

Component 4: Sustainable Use andConservation of Aquatic Biodiversity

Component 5: Household-based IntegratedAgriculture Production Systems


19

provide families with proteins, fats andmicronutrients that ensure proper growth anddevelopment in children, and improved health andwell-being in adults.

Demonstration sites offer on-site education,helping householders to understand nutritionalrequirements and make necessary adjustments infeeding their families, such as improving foodpreparation and storage, and composition ofmeals. Establishing demonstration sites as livinglaboratories and schools is perhaps the mosteffective way to promote and improve bothhousehold agriculture production and nutritionaleducation, as villagers can learn from seeing andare likely to follow successful examples in theircommunity. In-village demonstration sites alsoovercome transport problems that wouldotherwise prevent many villages from participatingin education and awareness building initiatives.

Interventions to address food security andnutritional needs must be carefully designed tomeet local conditions and traditions. Participatoryplanning and implementation is a must. Toenhance the development and expansion ofhousehold-based integrated agriculture productionsystems or home gardens in the Lao PDR, thefollowing strategic approach is recommended:

• Assess the impact of home gardens on thesustainable livelihood of people in order tostrategically plan expansion and improvements.

• Expand and improve home garden productionin targeted households to increase the amountand variety of nutritious foods.

• Continue assessing the health and nutritionalstatus of people and undertake a nutritioneducation campaign to increase awareness ofneeds and opportunities to improve nutrition,in particular through home gardens.

• Promote women’s contribution to foodproduction and preparation: nutritionknowledge, food processing and preservationtechnologies including storage and marketing.

• Provide inputs such as nutrition training atdistrict/sub-district levels and communitylevels, nutrition linked food preparation

practices, programmes to increase usage ofuncultivated foods, and demonstrations onprocessing of wild fruits, lesser used parts ofplants, and indigenous foods.

The last two components concern ManagementArrangements and Integrated ParticipatoryPlanning Approaches, also covering a number ofcross-cutting issues.

This is to provide overall policy direction for theNational Agriculture Biodiversity Programme andto establish a management unit for effective,efficient and coordinated implementation ofprojects and activities under the programme.

Effective management arrangements are essentialto ensuring that implementation of activities isconsistent with government policies and priorities,and to provide advice on priorities. A managementunit is needed to undertake planning, to ensureadherence with established policies, to coveradministrative functions, and other day-to-dayactivities supporting the NABP. Managementarrangement must also be established to promoteand accommodate a variety of national andinternational partnerships, and to ensureopportunities for meaningful involvement of allstakeholders in planning and implementation. Thefollowing arrangements are recommended toensure effective management:

• Policy guidance and overall coordination• Programme management• Advice and mobilisation of resources• Participatory planning and implementation• Programme duration and review

Component 7 is to ensure that the NABP isintegrated into the social, economic andenvironmental context of the Lao PDR, and thatactivities optimise positive outcomes whilepreventing or mitigating adverse effects.Implementation of the NABP must take placewithin a broad land use and resource management

Component 7: Integrated ParticipatoryPlanning Approaches

Component 6: Management Arrangements


20

context, in order to reduce adverse impacts andconflicts among diverse interests. Some of the keyrequirements for achieving this include:

• Ensuring the involvement of all stakeholdersin planning and implementation of theProgramme to account for multiple land useobjectives.

• Understanding both the opportunities andconstraints that exist in particular regions,landscapes and ecosystems.

• Undertaking environmental impactassessments to ensure that developments donot adversely affect adjacent or otherecosystems.

• Implementing sound environmentalmanagement practices in order to protectagricultural biodiversity from waste andpollutants such as oils, pesticides and otherchemicals that can damage crops, livestock,aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna, andecosystem functions and services.

• Preventing the introduction and spread ofinvasive alien species.

The Role of the NationalAgricultural BiodiversityProgramme

The aim of the NABP is to ultimately enhancethe government’s capacity to manage agriculturalbiodiversity, and it is hoped that many activitiesand initiatives will become institutionalised andthus be sustainable over the long term. The NABPis a strategic approach and framework to betteruse, develop and conserve agricultural biodiversityin support of national priorities for food securityand rural development.Indeed, the Lao NABP provides a clear exampleof how both agricultural and environmental issuescan be addressed and operationalized in symbiosis– at different levels and through engaging differentsectors and stakeholders. At the operative level,the NABP provides a clear work plan that outlinesoutputs and activities that will have a positive

impact for beneficiaries. The NABP provides areplicable example of a process and outcome(document) for the implementation of biodiversityand agricultural priorities that fit with a numberof international processes, in particular theProgramme of Work on Agricultural Biodiversity(CBD decision V/5).

Reference:Sjorslev, J.G. ed. 2000. Luang Prabang fisheriessurvey, assessment of Mekong FisheriesComponent Project. MRC Fisheries Programmeand LARReC, Vientiane.

Linda Collette is a Senior Agricultural Officer inPlant Genetic Resources at FAO Headquartersin Rome, Italy.

Prepared on behalf of theFAO Inter-Departmental Working Group onBiodiversityVia delle Terme di Caracalla00100 Rome, Italy

Sources of information used in the preparationof this paper include material published by FAOfor World Food Day 2004 (developed by theFAO Inter-Departmental Working Group onBiodiversity), and the “National AgriculturalBiodiversity Programme in the Lao PDR”.


21

Biodiversity Use and Conservationin Asia Programme: The Lao PDRExperience

The Threat to AgriculturalBiodiversity

Normita Ignacio

Alarming trends of biodiversity loss, includingerosion of plant genetic resources, livestock,insect, and soil organism diversity, pose a seriousthreat to global food security. This danger istriggering conservation efforts from variousorganisations, government agencies, researchinstitutions, and intergovernmental bodies. Whileearlier initiatives were concentrated onconservation of forests, coastal wetlands and otherwild uncultivated areas, increasing attention is nowbeing given to agricultural biodiversityconservation. This is in response to the growingconcern over agricultural biodiversity loss broughtabout mainly by changes in production systems.More than 90% of crop varieties have been lostfrom farmers’ fields in the past century. In placeof these varieties, consumers are being providedwith more homogenous and uniform foodcommodities produced from a limited range ofvarieties developed and owned by plant breedingcompanies and biotechnology corporations(Mulvany and Berger 2003).

Equally alarming is the issue of reduced access toand use of agricultural biodiversity by farmers andlocal communities. The rapid integration offarming communities to the market economy, andthe increasing uniformity of growing conditionsbrought about by modern farming systems, limitboth the options available to farmers and theirinnovative capacities to improve their agriculturalmanagement systems. Farmers have generallybecome dependent on external agricultural supplysystems.

Aside from the variety of ecosystems and bioticand abiotic stresses, the diversity of human

communities and needs also creates agriculturalbiodiversity. This diversity, especially within foodcrops, has been developed and maintained throughevolution, selection and adaptation in farmingsystems in highly variable and often marginalenvironments where farmer knowledge and skillsare applied. However, the important role offarming communities is not recognized by manyplant genetic resource (PGR) conservationprogrammes, whose main strategy is collection ofseed samples from fields and storage in gene banks.While this strategy can be an important securityback-up, it has limitations. Storage in gene banksfreezes evolutionary process or adaptation tochanging environment. Moreover, seeds in coldstorage have been reported to be under-utilisedand generally inaccessible, especially to farmers.

Likewise, the formal crop improvement effortshave many shortcomings. The highly centralizedtop-down approach of most formal breedinginstitutions has led to genetic uniformity and thenarrowing of viable options available to farmers.The formal sector has failed to adequately meetthe needs and requirements of resource-poorfarming communities.

These are some of the concerns that theBiodiversity Use and Conservation in AsiaProgramme (BUCAP) is trying to address. BUCAPis a regional programme coordinated by theSoutheast Asia Regional Initiative for Community

BUCAP: The Programme


22

Empowerment (SEARICE), a non-governmentalorganization based in the Philippines. BUCAP isconducting field work in Bhutan, the Lao PDRand Vietnam, three countries rich in theagricultural biodiversity offered by differentecosystems and nurtured by farmer managementsystems. These are countries with different formsof centralized states which are currently embracingpolitical and economic decentralization, andvarying degrees of integration into the globalmarket.

Bhutan, being the farthest from global marketintegration, has a subsistence agricultural systemwhile Vietnam’s agricultural system is highlyintegrated into the global market. The Lao PDRfits in between Bhutan and Vietnam, with itsagricultural system gradually moving into theglobal economy. As such, the challenge is how toavert genetic erosion as farming communities shiftfrom subsistence rain fed farming to market-oriented irrigated farming. There is an urgent needto protect the diverse resource base whilesustaining the economic growth that is the primaryreason for integrating with the global market.

Global market integration is inevitably pushingagriculture into industrialized systems, oftenleaving small-scale farmers at the mercy of strongmarket forces. Hence another big challenge is howresource-poor farming communities – who havebeen managing the rich agricultural biodiversity –will not be left vulnerable by the opening up ofmarkets. This calls for strengthening the capacitiesand recognising the roles of men and womenfarmers in managing agricultural biodiversity.

As the roles of farmers in agricultural biodiversityconservation, development and utilization areincreasingly recognized, the role of agriculturalextension systems shifts from transferringtechnologies to facilitating learning anddevelopment among farming communities. Thisrole shift requires different knowledge, skills andattitude, and it is therefore vital that extensionsystems be given the capacity to sustaincommunity-based agricultural biodiversitymanagement.

BUCAP attempts to address the three-foldchallenge of conserving agricultural biodiversity,strengthening farmers’ agricultural biodiversitymanagement systems and building the capacitiesof local institutions to sustain these processes.

At the core of BUCAP are the farmers. WhileBUCAP is about the conservation and sustainableuse of PGR diversity, it is also and even more so,about the empowerment of local farmers. Theover-all objective of BUCAP is to strengthen thecapacity of farming communities so that farmerscan control the conservation and development oftheir plant genetic resources.

Farmers play a vital role in PGR conservation.Preferences for specific characteristics such ascolour, taste, height, growth duration and otherqualities influence their decisions on whether toselect or discard a particular variety of crop. Theirdecisions in turn affect the genetic diversity ofcrop populations. Conserving the genetic diversityof rice, the staple food, is crucial to sustainingagricultural systems and maintaining national foodsecurity. At the same time, small-scale farmers seerice production as a way to earn cash from localand national markets. Hence farmers’ conservationefforts are always linked with crop developmentand utilization. BUCAP emphasises this link andso, aside from strengthening the capacity offarmers to manage agricultural biodiversity,BUCAP also helps farmers become profitable inthe changing market systems.

BUCAP’s main strategy is to decentralizeagricultural research, focusing first on seeds andthen implementing participatory plant breeding(PPB) and participatory varietal selection (PVS)to help farmers gain control over their PGR. Thisis done through employing Farmer Field Schools(FFS) on plant genetic resources conservation,development and utilization (PGR CDU) both asa learning methodology and an organizing tool.

BUCAP Strategies andApproaches


23

A complementary strategy is to mainstream boththe concept of farmers as community PGRmanagers (breeders, researchers, keepers andusers), and the process of stakeholderparticipation in agricultural biodiversitymanagement. This is achieved through a multi-stakeholder approach to project implementationand management, and by establishing strong linkswith various players in agricultural development.

FFS is a season-long group learning methodology,whereby farmers discover on their own, throughsimple field experiments, potential solutions to fieldproblems. The group may consist of 20-30 farmers,usually participating in regular sessions (weekly orbiweekly depending on the group) for the wholeduration of crop production. Extension workersor trainers provide technical inputs and facilitation(Nguyen Tien Dung and SEARICE 2003).

The steps in FFS are based on communityorganizing and adult education principles, adaptedfrom the integrated pest management programme.Through hands-on exercises, farmers are able todevelop their skills in PGR CDU. Specific sessionsallow farmers to discuss among themselves andinteract with trainers to raise their awareness onthe value of PGR conservation and management.The ensuing field studies are meant to deepen thefarmers’ understanding of the different processesinvolved in PGR conservation and developmentand to enhance PGR management skills throughactivities such as plant selection, rehabilitation,breeding, varietal evaluation and seedmultiplication.

Similarly, the field days usually conducted at theend of FFS are learning events as well as a sharingand advocacy tool. Farmers manage field daysthemselves, thus boosting their confidence anddeveloping their managing skills. Moreover, sincethey get the chance to share their experiences withan audience including government authorities,their skills in articulating their concerns and PGRmanagement expertise are enhanced in theprocess.

Farmer Field Schools

Multistakeholder Approach

BUCAP is designed in such a way that differentstakeholders are actively involved in projectimplementation. This involvement helpsstrengthen the support system as differentinstitutions begin to recognize the important roleof farmers in PGR management. In Laos, BUCAPis coordinated at the national level by a teamcomposed of the Plant Protection Centre of theDepartment of Agriculture, the AgriculturalResearch Centre (ARC) of the NationalAgriculture and Forest Research Institute, andOxfam Solidarity Belgium. At the provincial level,it is implemented by the agricultural extensionunits, the secondary agricultural schools in LuangPrabang and Champasak, and the farmers.

This multi-stakeholder set-up aims to facilitate thelinkage between the formal (state) and informal(farmers) sectors involved in agriculturalbiodiversity management system. It allows actorsfrom the different institutions to interact directlywith farmers. This direct interaction promotesdeeper understanding of the work that farmersdo, as well as of their specific concerns and thedifficulties they face. At the same time, farmersare able to establish direct links with relevantsupport institutions, giving them easy access toresources they need. Overall, this approach allowsthe different stakeholders to work togethertowards a common goal of protecting agriculturalbiodiversity and promoting farmers as managersof agricultural biodiversity.

The activities and institutional formations at thevillage level are linked and targeted to influenceprovincial agricultural biodiversity managementconcerns. In turn, provincial activities are gearedto contribute to national policy formulation. Thespiral, interconnected, and micro-macro link ofactivities from the local to the national level is akey element in BUCAP’s advocacy strategy. Thisvertical movement allows the various stakeholdersto articulate their concerns at different levels andin different forms (SEARICE 2003). In Laos, thishas yet to happen as the project team focusedfirst on strengthening activities on the ground.

Micro-Macro Linkages


24

The combined strategies and approaches ofBUCAP have contributed to increasing the geneticdiversity of rice in farmers’ fields. In the Lao PDR,farmer partners have already selected 394 linesfrom 523 segregating lines they used in the project.Of these, 42 lines are considered promising. Theyhave likewise selected 294 varieties out of 366varieties they evaluated. Farmers have alsodeveloped varieties by crossing desirable parentmaterials - Lao farmers have so far made 35successful crosses. The parents of the materialsdistributed to farmers were as much as possiblefrom diverse origin (both traditional varieties andimproved varieties).

The introduction of farmer-developed varietiesdescribed above increases rice genetic diversity infarmers’ fields. The PGR materials provided tofarmer partners by formal institutions like ARCfurther increase the diversity of materials fromwhich farmers can select. Likewise, active seedexchanges among farmers, not only within thecommunity and within the country but also acrossthe region, increase the diversity of materials thatfarmers can work on. Diversity has increased asfarmers started planting new materials on top ofwhat they already had.

Contrary to ex situ conservation, BUCAP allowsthese diverse materials to evolve in theheterogeneous, complex and marginalenvironment of farmers’ fields so that thematerials continue to generate new combinationsand maintain genetic variation.

There are already 391 farmers actively involved inPPB and PVS. BUCAP is now implemented in 21villages across four provinces. This cadre offarmers has the skills, knowledge and appreciationof on-farm PGR CDU. Thirty-seven farmers out

Increasing Rice Genetic Diversity inFarmers’ Fields

Results of BUCAPInterventions

Farmers and Extension Agents withAppreciation of PGR Conservation andKnowledge and PGR Management Skills

of this pool have been trained as trainers and arecurrently helping train other farmers.

A pool of trainers involving 20 extension agentsprovides technical backstopping to these farmers.The continuous training of trainers on PGR CDUand facilitation techniques, including the processfor self assessment is a BUCAP intervention thatenhances the capacity of the existing governmentextension service to carry out a community-basedPGR CDU programme and organize farmers.

To supplement these direct training interventions,extension agents are also sent to BUCAP partnersin other countries to learn from others’experiences. Regular summary meetings andplanning workshops are held to guide extensionagents in BUCAP implementation and give theman opportunity to share results and difficulties inextension work.

In the course of BUCAP implementation, modelsfor securing local seed supply were developed bythe farmers themselves. Farmers disengage fromthe seed market and re-engage on their own terms,under a farmer guarantee system. The farmerswere naturally drawn into improving the supplyof seeds in their villages. Traditionally, the demandfor seeds is addressed through small farmer seedexchanges and selling. However, since thistraditional practice is not systematic or recognisedby the government, many farmers still depend onsupply from state seed companies. Often, thesupply from state seed companies is inadequatein both quantity and quality and farmers re-usetheir varieties. This would be ideal if not for thefact that the old varieties deteriorate and mostfarmers are not equipped with the skills torehabilitate the seeds. With BUCAP research,farmers develop their skills and in effect producetheir own seeds (SEARICE 2002). Some farmerseven produce a surplus for distribution in othercommunities. In the dry season of 2004 forinstance, Lao farmer partners were able to multiplyand sell more than two tonnes of seeds.

Schemes to Secure Local Seed SupplySystem


25

Development of ParticipatoryMethodologies for Community-based PGRCDU

In the course of implementing BUCAP, newmodels, tools and approaches were developed:

The FFS curriculum on PGR CDU is oneimportant tool developed by BUCAP. The FFSsteps on PGR CDU have been used by other newprogrammes in Indonesia and Cambodia. Themanual/field guide for this FFS was developed in2002 and published and distributed in 2003. Thismanual was continuously improved and adaptedin the context of the three partner countries. Thetraining of trainer module has evolved throughthe years as more field experience was gained.Trainers developed and improved existingexercises for the FFS on PGR CDU. To nurturethe local culture, trainers encouraged farmers tocompose their own songs, poems and art worksrelated to BUCAP. This is part of the IntegratedPest Management legacy, where local art andliterature are part of the FFS process to encouragemore active participation (and local ownership)of the programme.

BUCAP developed field studies as pre- and post-FFS activities for farmers. Unlike in Integrated PestManagement, where after the FFS the farmers areusually left on their own to practice in their ownfields and occasionally conduct field experimentsas a group, with BUCAP follow-up activities toFFS are crucial. The development of varieties orthe rehabilitation process takes several seasons toachieve. Thus farmers who decide to engage inBUCAP activities continue as a group in thesucceeding seasons.

Field studies as a pre-FFS activity are undertakenby the BUCAP team to develop the capacity andconfidence of trainers and farmers who willconduct BUCAP activities (line selection, seedrehabilitation, plant breeding, varietal comparison)for the first time. Trainers have to go through thefield studies first to familiarise themselves with thecore activities of BUCAP before running a fullseason FFS.

• Farmer Field School on PGR CDU

• Field studies as pre and post FFS activity

• Farmers Field Day as advocacy tool

Near the end of the season and with assistancefrom trainers, farmers conduct a Farmer’s FieldDay (FFD), when they invite local officials andfarmers (from within and from outside theircommunity) to their fields. They report theirprogress and encourage the invitees to assess theirwork. During FFDs farmers try to convince localofficials to support (with materials or skillssupport) promising activities. FFD is a form ofcommunity monitoring on the progress ofBUCAP. It also fosters links between officials andthe farmer groups involved in BUCAP activities.

Another major methodological development ofBUCAP is the conduct of Farmers TechnicalConferences (FTC), where farmers present thetechnical results of their work to an audience ofresearchers, development workers, localgovernment officials and other farmers. The ideawas taken from scientific conferences held todiscuss the results of research. Instead of scientistssharing among themselves, in FTC farmers sharetheir experiences not just with other farmers butto a broader audience.

The FTC is another event where farmers developPGR management capacity. They learn from eachother’s experiences, get opportunities to articulatetheir concerns, lobby support from governmentauthorities, and show their accomplishments tovarious stakeholders, including researchers. Theproject team is currently preparing for first FTCto be conducted in the Lao PDR.

BUCAP has developed the use of PGR maps tomonitor movement and changes in a community’sPGR use over time. The farmers maintain thesemaps and update them regularly. The PGR mapcan be a starting point to further develop aparticipatory methodology and protocol forcommunity rights protection of genetic resources.The whole process of project self-assessment isan evaluation tool that considers the perspectivesof all stakeholders, especially farmers’ views,through community self-assessment exercises.

• Farmers Technical Conference

• Participatory impact monitoring andevaluation tools


26

• PGR maps as initial community PGRregistry

The rice PGR maps which farmers involved inBUCAP generate also function as a form of PGRregistry in the community. In the light ofincreasing pressure on biopiracy and patenting oflife forms, the local registry is currently beingexplored in some countries as a form ofcommunity rights protection for PGR resources.With BUCAP, the modelling for a communityregistry is not a deliberate action but comes aspart of the FFS activity. To date, the PGR mapswhich BUCAP farmer partners in the Lao PDRmaintain are limited to rice.

Instead of the usual excursion with shallowinteraction, BUCAP partners developed study tourmodules with hands-on activities – evolvingsomething like a roving training. Unlike training,which confines participants in a hall withoccasional field visits, the study tour spends moretime in the field and instead of the trainers comingto the hall, the participants are the one who seekthe trainers, mostly farmers.

This method also strengthens the idea of havingcommunities as living learning centres/resourcecentres. For example, a community will be visitedbecause of its experience in seed rehabilitationfield studies. The visit strengthens the community’sidentity as a learning resource centre for seedrehabilitation of rice.

In designing the study tours, the host trainers andfarmers identify communities or people to visitfor certain expertise – a local inventory of learningresources. The participants of the study tour mayrecall such an inventory for future reference andnetworking. Learning resources are networked toform a coherent module. As participants visitdifferent community learning resources, they bringwith them and share information from the othercommunities share. In the case of BUCAP, wherestudy tours are between countries, the avenue forsharing and networking is broader. A number offarmers from Laos have already visited BUCAPpartners in other countries and have participatedin learning exercises as part of the study tours.

• Study tours as educational method andnetworking activity

• Student internship programmeGranting internships to agricultural students towork with farmer partners at BUCAP sites isanother participatory methodology. A studentinternship programme was developed in PakseAgricultural College. Students are fielded inBUCAP sites as part of their training on extensionand research. Through this process the internsare exposed to FFS as an extension methodology,giving them a better understanding than if theyonly worked in school. Technically, theirunderstanding of PGR CDU is enhanced. As aparticipatory methodology, internship allows forcloser interaction between students (who will soonbe professionals in government agencies) andfarmers. It also encourages the involvement ofthe youth sector in BUCAP. In this process,BUCAP activities serve not only the farmers butthe students as well. Pakse Agricultural College isnow a learning resource for this type of internshipprogramme. Modules on PGR CDU are alreadyintegrated in the curricula of both Pakse andLuang Prabang Agricultural Colleges. Theinternship programme and integration of PGRCDU modules in curricula is a way of increasingthe human resource pool in the Lao PDR.

BUCAP activities are designed to recognisefarmers’ contributions to PGR management andencourage initiatives by the farmers themselves.The activities also generate awareness amongresearchers that farmers are now doing breedingwork for themselves and not just selecting fromstable varieties. In the process, the otherstakeholders gain acceptance, recognition andprovision for local ownership of PGR.

The researchers, extension agents and trainers whoare involved or have been part of BUCAPimplementation have come to recognise thatmaterials developed by farmers are alreadyfarmers’ own PGR materials. They even encouragethe farmers to name the varieties after their villageas an expression of the collective recognition andownership of materials. Even materials distributedby ARC from which farmers selected arerecognised as farmers’ varieties. Pongvand and

Recognition of Farmers’ Contribution inPGR CDU


27

Strengthened Links between InstitutionPlant Breeders/Gene Banks and Farmers

Khamthingkeo varieties (PV1, KTK2 and so on)for instance, are varieties selected by farmers inPongvand and Thingkeo villages, both in LuangPrabang province.

In the Lao PDR, the ARC is part of the nationalteam, which steers and directs implementation ofBUCAP in the country. It provides technicalbackstopping and PGR materials to the farmers.The ARC also acknowledges BUCAP (FFSspecifically) as a parallel process for institutionalbreeding. Researchers at ARC have includedBUCAP when presenting the work of theirinstitution, especially in outlining the plantbreeding process ARC is undertaking. BUCAP hasnow become part of the regular process at ARC.

References

Nguyen Tien Dung and SEARICE. CIP-UPWARD. 2003. Conservation and SustainableUse of Agricultural Biodiversity: A Sourcebook.International Potato Centre – Users’ Perspectiveswith Agricultural Research and Development, LosBaños, Laguna, Philippines.

Mulvany, P. and Berger, R. CIP-UPWARD. 2003.Conservation and Sustainable Use of AgriculturalBiodiversity: A Sourcebook. International PotatoCentre – Users’ Perspectives with AgriculturalResearch and Development, Los Baños, Laguna,Philippines.

SEARICE. 2002. BUCAP Annual Report(unpublished).

SEARICE / CIP-UPWARD. 2003. Conservationand Sustainable Use of Agricultural Biodiversity: ASourcebook. International Potato Centre – Users’Perspectives with Agricultural Research andDevelopment, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.

Normita Ignacio is the BUCAP Coordinator forSEARICE, Quezon City, The Philippines


28

The Importance of Crop Biodiversityfor Food Security in the Lao PDR

Agricultural biodiversity is essential for the survivaland the well-being of Lao people. The biodiversityof the Lao PDR is globally significant and unique,emerging from the convergence of three mega-diversity centres – India, China and Southeast Asia.The Lao PDR is a primary centre of origin anddiversity for cultivated rice and other crops.Despite being almost entirely dependent onagricultural biodiversity, which includes crops,livestock, non-wood forest products, and aquaticfood resources, Lao people lack the essentialinformation and management capacity to mostbeneficially use, develop, and conserve theseresources. Indeed, the information base foragricultural biodiversity is so inadequate that itgreatly impairs the use and development of theseresources.

Improving the management system for agriculturalbiodiversity is essential to achieving food securityand reducing poverty, particularly among the ruralpoor, but will require significant investment.Improving the knowledge base and enhancingmanagement capacity in the agriculture sector is anational priority, and needs the support ofinternational partners if it is to be achieved. TheNational Agricultural Biodiversity Programme hasrecently been formulated to support twogovernment development priorities: to achievefood security and improve the livelihoods of ruralcommunities; and to enhance the government’scapacity to ensure the sustainable use of naturalresources. The programme has been designed tobe integrated with implementation of the NationalBiodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, the StrategicVision for Agriculture Sector (2000-2020), and theNational Poverty Eradication Programme –Poverty-Focused Agricultural Development Plan.It is also consistent with other national sustainabledevelopment strategies and plans.

The National Agricultural Biodiversity Programmeconsists of five main thematic components, twoof which concern crop biodiversity development

Bounkong Soumivonh

(crop and crop associated biodiversity and householdagriculture production systems).

Rice, the staple food in the Lao PDR, is the mostimportant crop, accounting for 80% of both theagriculture landscape and total calorific intake.More than 3,000 rice varieties have been identifiedso far. Significant investments have been made inusing, developing and conserving rice geneticresources. The country is famous for its variousfragrant rice varieties and its diversity in glutinousrice and the majority of Lao people prefersteaming these varieties of sticky rice as their staplefood.

Household agricultural production systems makean extremely important contribution to foodsecurity and diet in the Lao PDR, with a varietyof vegetables and tropical fruits grown, and smalllivestock raised in and around home gardens. Inspite of these assets, malnutrition rates in Laosare among the highest in the Southeast Asia: tento fifteen percent of children suffer from acutemalnutrition, and 40% are underweight; 13% ofLao adults are chronically undernourished;micronutrient and vitamin A deficiencies arecommon in women and children, as are high levelsof anaemia/iron deficiency among women.

Studies on food security and nutrition in the LaoPDR indicate the need for significantimprovements in the nutritional status and overallhealth of the population. Expanded and improvedhousehold integrated agricultural productionsystems have the potential to improve nutritionand significantly contribute to improved foodsecurity. Efforts to develop home gardens andencourage increased production of fruit andvegetables need to be expanded and furtherdeveloped.

Bounkong Soumivonh is Deputy Director at theHorticulture Research Centre of the NationalAgriculture and Forestry Research Institute,Vientiane.


29

National Biodiversity Strategyand Action Plan

Internationally, the Lao PDR is party to a numberof multilateral agreements relevant to theconservation and sustainable use of biologicalresources. The Convention on Biological Diversityis global in scope. It covers the full range ofbiodiversity, aimed primarily at the conservationof biological diversity, the sustainable use of itscomponents, and the fair and equitable sharingof the benefits generated from the use of geneticresources. At national level, major initiativesinclude the National Environmental Strategy, theForest Sector Strategy (under preparation), theAgriculture Sector Strategy and Decree 164 toestablish the nation’s Protected Area System.Achieving the goals set by the Socio-EconomicDevelopment Vision and the National Growthand Poverty Eradication Strategy will be ratherdifficult without a stabilised environment andsustainable utilization of natural resources. TheLao Government acceded to the InternationalConvention on Biological Diversity in 1996 andcommitted itself to developing a nationalbiodiversity strategy. The Lao PDR’s NationalBiodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)aims to protect biodiversity resources and ensuretheir sustainable use.

Biodiversity is the variety of all life forms – thedifferent plants, animals and microorganisms, thegenes they contain, and the ecosystem of whichthey form a part. Biological diversity is constantlyaltering, never static. Biodiversity emphasises theinterrelatedness of the biological world andtherefore covers terrestrial and aquaticenvironments. The Lao PDR is rich in biodiversitywith an estimated 8,000–11,000 species offlowering plants. Lao fauna comprises a reported166 species of reptiles and amphibians, 700 speciesof birds (another 100 are reasonably likely tooccur), 90 known species of bats and over 100species of large mammals. In the IndochinesePeninsula, despite limited surveys, 87 families offish have been identified in comparison to 74

Somsanouk Phommakoth

families in the whole of Africa and only 60 inSouth America. About 500 indigenous fish speciesare reported to live in the Mekong and itstributaries in the Lao PDR. The centre of originof glutinous rice types is recognised to be withinthe Lao PDR and northern Thailand.

Human activity has been changing the Laoecosystem for a long time. Modification andconversion of natural ecosystems,overexploitation of biological resources anddestructive harvesting techniques, and knock-oneffects or externalities from other productionprocesses are the main contributors to changes indistribution and abundance. The NBSAP comesat a time, when the Lao Government is workingtowards poverty eradication and sustainabledevelopment. In the context of the Lao PDR,sustainable use of natural resources – and inparticular the county’s rich biodiversity – may holdone key to reducing poverty. The country’seconomy depends mainly on natural resources andmaintaining the productivity of these importantresources and biodiversity remains central to anynational development strategy.

Maintaining and conserving biodiversity stands formuch more than just protecting wildlife andhabitats in specifically designated areas; it providesseveral benefits. Biodiversity is the primary sourcefor the fulfilment of basic needs and provides abasis for adaptation to changing environments.An environment rich in biodiversity offers Laopeople the widest range of options for sustainableeconomic activity, for human welfare and foradaptation to change. Biodiversity makes a majorcontribution to national economic activity, growth,and government revenues. Biodiversity forms anintegral part of rural livelihoods and povertyalleviation and plays an important role insupporting urban and commercial production andconsumption in key sectors of the economy.Biodiversity conservation supports a wide range


30

of economic activities and uses, including irrigatedagriculture, medium and large-scale hydropower,fishponds and aquaculture and urban water supply.

Benefits arising from conservation of the nation’sbiodiversity are not restricted to the sustainedharvest of resources. Biodiversity provides crucialecological services through basic activities such aspollination, seed dispersal and pest control. Thisis true of all types of creatures: mammals, birds,fish, reptiles, amphibians and especiallyinvertebrates (such as insects and spiders etc). Bothwildlife, especially invertebrates, and plants,together with bacteria and fungi, carry out thecritical daily (hourly) waste disposal and nutrientrecycling functions - the building blocks of thefood chains that sustain the web of life. Themaintenance of hydrological cycles, climateregulation, soil productivity, nutrient recycling andpollutant breakdown are other important services.They are undervalued but fundamental to ourquality of life and economy.

Another benefit of conservation is avoidance ofcosts incurred through degradation of ecologicalsystems. Biodiversity conservation and catchmentprotection help preclude downstream damagecosts arising from increased flooding and canensure dry-season water supply. Redressingenvironmental degradation can be prohibitivelyexpensive. Biological diversity is important forcultural identity throughout the country. The LaoPDR is a multi-ethnic society with a culturaldiversity unparalleled in the region. The groups’social systems, cultural characteristics and identitiesare linked to their language, geographical area andsurrounding ecosystem, their interaction with thisphysical environment (e.g. forests, rice fields,wetlands or rivers), and their access to materialgoods. To date, in the Lao PDR as in many othercountries, there has been little appreciation of theimportance of biodiversity in economic terms, andconservation has often been seen as anuneconomic or unproductive use of land, fundsand other resources.

Universities, scientific and other researchorganizations will have to play an enhanced role

in extending our knowledge and understandingof biological diversity. The loss of biodiversitycannot be slowed unless the underlying causes areunderstood and directly addressed. The NBSAPcovers terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity andconcentrates on conservation of indigenousbiodiversity. The NBSAP provides a bridge toconnect current efforts in the effectiveidentification, conservation and sustainablemanagement of the country’s rich biodiversity andthe framework for cooperative protection ofbiological diversity, within the context of sustaineddevelopment and poverty eradication.

The Goal of the NBSAP is to:

Implementing the NBSAP requires cooperationand coordination from all levels of governmentand Lao society. In addition, public awareness,education and community involvement are criticalelements for the conservation of biologicaldiversity. The knowledge and experience of localand indigenous people must be taken intoconsideration and fully used. Awareness needs tobe extended to stimulate the sense of communityinvolvement and ownership. All sectors of the LaoPDR will share the costs and benefits of

Maintain biodiversity as a key to povertyalleviation and to protecting the current assetbase of the poor.

Main Objectives:1 Identify important biological diversity

components and improve the knowledge base.2 Manage biodiversity on a regional basis, using

natural boundaries to facilitate the integrationof conservation and utilization orientedmanagement.

3 Plan and implement a biodiversity-specifichuman resource management programme.

4 Increase public awareness of and encourageparticipation in sustainable management ofbiodiversity.

5 Adjust national legislation and regulations andharmonise them.

6 Secure the NBSAP implementation.7 Promote country needs-driven international

cooperation.


31

conserving biological diversity. Costs include theestablishment and implementation of PAs andspecific conservation programmes, and the costof opportunities foregone. On the other hand,significant economic benefits are to be gainedfrom acting now, namely future opportunities forsustained resource use and considerable futuresavings in the cost of rehabilitating species andecosystems.

The Lao Government accepts responsibility forprotecting the nation’s biological diversity for thebenefit and welfare of the population now and inthe future. Objectives listed in the NBSAP willrequire time to be achieved; the necessary actionswill be implemented within the country’seconomic and budgetary constraints. Thegovernment recognises the need for strongcooperation with international partners in orderto bring about the objectives introduced in theNBSAP.

Somsanouk Phommakoth is Head of theInternational Environment Division at theScience, Technology and Environment Agency,Vientiane.


32

Livestock Biodiversity for FoodSecurity

Livestock biodiversity is fundamental to agricultureand food production in the Lao PDR. Thelivestock and fisheries sub-sector contribute about18% of GDP and these activities play an integralpart in smallholder farming systems, whichproduce over 95% of the nation’s livestock. About50% of farm level agricultural income is based onlivestock and local breeds provide food security,traction, transport and animal manure to sustainsoil biodiversity.

Most of the Lao population practice agriculturalactivities based on rice cultivation integrated withlivestock production and fisheries. Thegovernment’s national development policy focuseson poverty reduction, in particular on incomegeneration in the rural areas. For the livestocksector, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestryhas set a target of increasing livestock productionto three times the current level by 2020. At presentthe great majority of livestock production comesfrom smallholders with minimum managementpractices, resulting in low productivity.

Soukanh Keonouchanh

Government policy aims to increase productivityof all agricultural commodities to satisfy nationalfood security following population growth: thecountry needs to produce enough food fordomestic consumption with a surplus for futureexport. Research and development are requiredto make sure that increases in productivity are inharmony with the sustainable use and conservationof natural resources.

Indigenous animals make up more than 90% ofnational meat consumption. Domestic animalsform the wealth of rural communities, providingdraught power for land cultivation, fertilizer fromorganic manure and essential animal protein inthe diet.

Figures have been projected for world food supplyand demand, trade, prices and food security untilthe year 2020, based on an updated version ofIFPRI’s international model for Policy Analysisof Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IFPRI2001). If governments make no major changes intheir agricultural and economic policies and

Future Meat Demand and Food Security

Photo: © UNDP/Kees Metselaar 2005

Livestock Production


33

Animal Head Growth rate over last decade

Cattle 1.24 million (incl. 13,400 exotic cattle) 6%

Buffalo 1.11 million, 2%

Pigs 1.65 million (incl. 195,600 exotic pigs) 3%

Goats 0.13 million 3%

Poultry 19.47 million (incl. 0.88 million broiler chickens; 0.46 million laying hens and 1.57 million laying ducks)

6%

Table 1. Approximate livestock population in 2002

Table 2. Status of livestock biodiversity

Types Breeds Pop. size million Characteristic Survey Breeding

programme Cross

breeding

Buffalo Swamp 1.11 Not yet No No

Cattle

Asian yellow Brahman,HF

1.20 0.012 Described No No

Goats 0.127 Not yet No No No

Swine Native 1.41 4 types Yes

Poultry Native Exotic Native

0.19 15.27 3.05

LW,LR,DR Not yet Layers

No No No

Source: DLF 2000

Report 2002 Report 2003 Forecast 2004 Forecast 2010 Population Buffalo meat Beef Goat meat Pork Poultry Egg Milk Fish Total

5,525,990 5.72 5.25 0.22 6.90 3.40 1.97 0.06 15.47 39.30

5,679,060 5.76 5.48 0.23 6.92 3.47 2.10 0.05 15.85 39.85

5,836,370 5.71 5.62 0.24 6.92 3.60 2.20 0.05 16.96 40.40

6,500,000 3.50 4.10 0.50 9.30 7.10 8.00 1.10 16.60 50.00

Table 3. Future meat demand and food security in the Lao PDR (kg/capita)

Source: National Statistics Centre and Department of Livestock and Fisheries, 2000

Source: Department of Livestock and Fisheries (DLF) 2003

investments, and if population grows at the United Nations’ medium projection rate, the world’sappetite for meat will jump enormously. The demand of 209 million tonnes of meat in 1997 may riseto 327 million tonnes by the year 2020, a 57% increase. Most of this increase will occur in developingcountries, with China alone accounting for more than 40%.


34

Major Constraints for the Livestock SectorSocio-economic constraints:• Limited government support services, e.g. in:

research and extension.• Insufficient competitive marketing network.• Lack of access to credit and input.• Inadequate communications and transport

links.

Technical constraints:• Severe animal disease, including hemorrhagic

septicaemia, foot and mouth disease, hogcholera, Newcastle disease.

• Insufficient technological packages andtechniques for different production andfarming systems.

• Animal nutrition: low quality natural grasses,limited pasture land for ruminants.

• Underutilisation of crop residues and by-products as ruminant feeds: pig and poultryindustries mostly depend on import of feedfor exotic breeds.

• Limited information and study on domesticanimal genetic resources.

• Lack of skilled manpower at all levels.

Livestock Development StrategiesThe livestock development action programmeaims to improve:• Livestock production through improved

husbandry and farming system research.• Feed resources.• Animal genetic resources (AnGR).• Reproduction techniques.• Meat processing.

Livestock Biodiversity Management Policies• To develop and use more livestock biodiversity

for food security, environmental developmentand meeting market demand.

• To promote public awareness of livestockbiodiversity.

• To identify and understand the geneticresources of each important farm animalspecies.

• To identify, prioritise and conserve uniqueAnGR.

• To identify and seek international assistance inAnGR.

• To participate in the FAO global strategy.

Government policy is addressing the urgent needto maintain and better use livestock biodiversityfor more efficient and sustainable food productionand long-term food security. It is crucial that thecountry first establishes precisely what geneticresources are available and then takes action todevelop the most efficient breeding schemes.Import of genetic material is not easily controlledand local resources can be destroyed very rapidly,particularly for species with short generationintervals. The loss of indigenous genetic materialcould have dire consequences on local foodsecurity and nutritional intakes, as exotic materialrequires greater input than those usually availablein small farmer holdings, resulting in difficultiessatisfying consumer demand in and around urbanareas.

ReferencesBouahom, B. 2000. “Animal genetic resources inthe Lao PDR: Current status and productionsystem”. Rep. Soc. Native Livestock 18: 11-16.Country Report. 2004. Animal GeneticResources Management in the Lao PDR.DLF. 2004. Annual Report.

IFPRI. 2001. 2020 Global food outlook: Trends,Alternatives, and Choices. http://www.ifpri.cgiar.org/.

Vercoe, J.E., Coffey, S., Farrell, D.J., Rutherford,A. & Winter, W.H. 1997. ILRI in Asia: anassessment of priority for Asian livestock researchand development. Nairobi.

Soukanh Keonouchanh is Director of theLivestock Research Centre, National ofAgriculture and Forestry Research Institute,Vientiane.

Conclusions


35

Recent field surveys have revealed the highproportion and high variety of gathered forestproducts in the daily diet of rural Lao families.Over 450 of these edible Non-Wood ForestProducts (NWFPs) have been recorded so far:edible shoots and other vegetables, fruits, tubers,mushrooms, small water animals, wildlife etc. Thediversity of NWFPs consumed reflects the richagricultural biodiversity of the rural landscape inthe Lao PDR. In valuation studies, the directcontribution of NWFPs to food security is roughly50% that of rice, the staple food. NWFPs alsocontribute indirectly to food security, as they canbe sold to buy rice in times of shortage. NWFPsare estimated to contribute 40-50% of the cashincome of Lao rural households, making themthe most important safety net or coping strategyfor the rural poor.

The availability of this safety net is declining rapidlywith rapid deforestation for timber and conversionof forests to agriculture. The challenge is to adoptland use systems that will keep enough forests inthe landscape and allow poor people access toforest resources. Another option is to domesticatewild species in agro-forestry systems and gardens.Many examples can be found of local farmersexperimenting with ways to grow wild plants. Laoforest foods also have niche market potential forexport of gourmet foods. Awareness-raisingstrategies could be applied to maintain popularpride in this rich Lao cultural tradition of havingsuch a diverse range of natural food products. Thepaper concludes with recommendations forresearch, extension and policy.

Food security is often equated with rice production(Rigg and Bouahom, 2002). Glutinous rice isdefinitely the staple food of Lao people, but thereis a growing recognition that food productsgathered from forests and wetlands are equallyessential for food security in rural areas.

NWFP Use and Household FoodSecurity in the Lao PDR

Joost Foppes and Sounthone Ketphanh

NWFPs and Food Security

Gathering of Non-Wood Forest Products(NWFPs) is an important element in the livelihoodof most Lao rural families, especially those livingin the uplands. NWFPs contribute in two ways tofood security (see figure 1):· Direct consumption of forest foods· Selling NWFPs to buy rice in times of shortage

FOODSECURITY

WELL-BEING FORHOUSEHOLDS AND COMMUNITY

FOREST FOODRESOURCES

DIRECT

Family consumption

INDIRECT

Exchange, sale and gifts

Figure 1. Forest foods and food security link forestresource management to well-being

Recent field surveys have revealed the highproportion and high variety of gathered forestproducts in the daily diet of rural Lao families(Clendon 2001, Meusch et al. 2003, Krahn 2003,Bush, in press, Anoulom, in press). Over 700 ofthese edible NWFPs have been recorded so far:edible shoots and other vegetables, fruits, tubers,mushrooms, small water animals, wildlife etc. (table1). The diversity of NWFPs consumed reflectsthe rich agricultural biodiversity of the rurallandscape in Laos.

Direct consumption ofNWFPs for food security

The Diversity of Lao Forest Foods

Source: Clendon 2001


36

Table 1. Main categories of forest foods recorded in field surveys

Source: Baird et al 1999

For most Lao families living in rural areas, aquatic animals (fish, frogs, shrimps, snails, shell fish etc.)and smaller land animals (birds, rodents) are considered to be forest products as well, contributing thebulk of animal protein in the diet. Table 2 illustrates the importance of non-fish aquatic animals or‘other aquatic animals’ (OAA) from an unpublished study among mainly lowland villages in Savannakhetprovince.

Mung ka tai hed NWFP Photo: Forestry Research Centre, NAFRI

No. Category No. of products Examples

1 Fruits, seeds 87 Sugar palm fruits, Baccaurea berries, Irvingia nuts 2 Leaves 86 Barringtonia, Lasia, Azadirachta, Centella 3 Shoots 23 Bamboo shoots, rattan shoots, palm hearts 4 Tubers, roots 22 Yam tubers (Dioscorea), galangal roots 5 Mushrooms 16 Ear mushrooms, Shii-take, Termite mushrooms 6 Flowers 4 Sesbania, Butea, ALL PLANTS 238

1 Fish 300 Cyprinidae, Pangasiidae, Siluridae, Notopteridae 2 Birds 63 Dove, partridge, pheasant, bulbul, estrilda 3 Mammals 54 Squirrel, wild boar, rat, civet cat, mouse deer 4 Reptiles,

amphibians 41 Frog, monitor lizard, snake, turtle

5 Molluscs 7 Freshwater shrimp, crab, snail, shell fish 6 Insects 5 Red Ant Eggs, bamboo grub, dung beetle

All ANIMALS 470 TOTAL 708


37

Category Kg/family/year % Fish from wild fisheries 31 17% Fish from fishponds 26 14% Processed fish (dried, fermented) 35 19% TOTAL FISH 92 50% OTHER AQUATIC ANIMALS 90 49% TOTAL ANNUAL CONSUMPTION 182 100% Source: Bush, in press

Forest Foods as a Main Source of Food SecurityA detailed study on consumption of forest foods in three Salavan villages (Clendon 2001) showedthat:· Food security is an acute concern of most families in the study area· All families in the three villages collect forest foods on a daily basis· Villagers consume a great variety of forest foods,· Forest foods are the most important source of food besides riceThe amount of forest foods gathered per family per week varied from 3 kg in the dry season to 7 kgin the wet season. Main products gathered were bamboo shoots, frogs, fish, insects, mushrooms andgreen leaves (figure 2).

Figure 2. Quantities of forest foods gathered per family per week, Ban Khamteuy, Salavan, 2001

Source: Clendon 2001

Table 2. Consumption of aquatic animals in Savannakhet

D ry Seas on

0 500 1000 1500

F ruit

G reen leaves

M ushroom s

B am boo shoo ts

Insects

F orest anim als

F ish

Frogs

G ram s/H H /W eek

R ainy Season

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Fruit

G reen leaves

M ushroom s

B am boo shoots

Insects

F orest anim als

F ish

Frogs

G ram s/H H /W eek


38

Contributing to a Healthy Diet

In the Salavan study, rice was found to be the mainsource of carbohydrates (82%) in the diet(Clendon 2001). Rice is also a key source ofprotein. The diet of these relatively poor familiesmet 100% of daily requirements for energy(carbohydrates, fat, proteins), 150% for protein(although most from rice, not from higher qualityanimal protein). Nutrients far below dailyrequirement levels were Vitamin A (10%), VitaminC (30-40%), Calcium (10-35%) and Iron (70-90%).The daily requirement calculations were based onthe standards used in Thailand, as none have beenissued in the Lao PDR. Similar data on deficienciesin Vitamin A and Iron have also been found innorthern Laos (Kaufmann 1997).

Although the diet is seriously deficient inmicronutrients, forest foods are an importantsource of the micronutrients that are available.Forest foods were found to provide 4% of energy,20% of total protein intake (but 73% of totalanimal protein), 40% of calcium (small fishprovide the main source of calcium), 25% of iron,40% of vitamin A and vitamin C (4% and 17% ofthe RDA respectively), (Clendon 2001).

Poorest households do better than average (over60% of intake of vitamins A and C came fromthe forest), due to their relatively higher intake ofplant food. The better-off households havenegligible intake of vitamin C during the dryseason, when most of their forest food is meat.

Table 3. Forest foods as nutrient sources


39

McLennan 2004). The overriding pattern in theuplands is that rice shortages are structural: at anygiven point in time there will be a number of poorfamilies facing acute rice shortage.

The main coping mechanism for poor familiesfacing acute rice shortages is to borrow rice. Thedebt is repaid with rice from the following year,by hiring out labour, by selling livestock or byselling NWFPs. Upland farmers have to buy orborrow rice to cover a shortage of three monthsor more. In Kaufmann’s Luang Namtha study, thisis equivalent to about 545 kg of husked rice, worth

Table 4. Two estimates of cash and non-cash income per family per year of rural upland households, with specialemphasis on the role of NWFPs

Sources: Foppes and Ketphanh 2004, Rosales et al 2003. Original values were converted to US$ equivalents tocompensate for currency changes of Lao Kip over time.

The Indirect Contribution ofNWFPs

Coping with Rice Shortages

NWFPs also make an indirect contribution tohousehold food security when they are sold formoney to buy rice during shortages. Kaufmann,1997, surveyed 470 families in Luang NamthaProvince (Nale and Sing districts). She found thatfor the average family over a period of ten years,there will be three to four years with bad yields(five to six months with enough rice to eat), fiveto six years of average yield (nine months per yearwith enough rice to eat), and one to two years ofgood yield (no shortage). The same pattern hasalso been found in other case studies (Clendon2001, UNDP 2001, Foppes and Ketphanh 2003,


40

around US$55. The average cash income ofinterviewed families in that study was estimatedat around $100. In other words, it is safe to assumethat roughly 55% of cash income was used to buythe missing rice, either directly or as laterrepayment on a loan. NWFPs contributed onaverage 61% of cash income among respondents(74% in Nale, 48% in Sing district), or around $60per family. Therefore, almost all of the incomederived from NWFP selling was used to buy rice(55/61 or 90%).

This example has been confirmed in several otherstudies (table 4). In Luang Namtha, cash incomefrom NWFPs may have increased over the last sixyears. An on-going study found average cashincome from NWFPs to be $123 per family inLuang Namtha district in 2003 (Anoulom, inpress). The main conclusion of these studies isthat selling NWFPs to buy rice in times ofshortages is a key food security mechanism amongrural families, especially poor families in uplandareas.

What is the value of NWFPs directly consumedby Lao villagers for subsistence use? In the Salavanstudy, the value of forest foods was estimated tobe 11-19% of the total value of food consumed.For poor families, this figure was 50% or more.Other studies put the value of NWFPs consumedin the household as roughly the same as that ofthe amount of rice consumed (see table 4).Together, rice and forest foods account for 80%of all subsistence ‘income’ in the family economy.

The average share of cash income derived fromNWFPs (50%) seems to be similar to the shareof cash income spent on buying rice (also 50%)in several field studies. This indicates that NWFPsare a key source of indirect food security as well.How many Lao families are dependent on NWFPsfor food security, either through directconsumption or by selling NWFPs to buy rice? Arecent study by the World Food Programme inthe Lao PDR estimates that 2,245 villages can beclassified as poor and 3,682 villages were identified

as vulnerable to food insecurity. Compared to anestimated total of 9,931 villages in the country in2003, this means 23% of the entire populationcan be classified as poor and 37% as vulnerable tofood insecurity (McLennan 2004). That is morethan one third of the Lao population.

For these villages, NWFPs remain a key copingstrategy during food shortages. As many of themare located in upland areas, possibilities forimproving rice production may be limited. It istherefore critical that these villages maintain accessto NWFP resources as their main safety net in timesof food shortages. Villagers, government agenciesand foreign donor projects should therefore try to“integrate forest management into their ruraldevelopment strategies to promote povertyreduction and food security” (McLennan 2004).Such a strategy might lead to the followingactivities at village level:

Various field surveys report a decline in theavailability of wild NWFP resources (Foppes andKetphanh 2000).

Table 5 illustrates the way villagers report suchdeclines. The main reasons for decline areincreased market pressures on NWFP resources,loss of forests due to commercial logging andconversion to agriculture, rapid population growthand massive population movements during andafter the war of 1964-1975, and growing insecurityon land tenure and access rights, despitegovernment efforts to regulate this.

Trends and decline in NWFPavailability for food security

· Securing access rights to forests for villagers,and capacity building for villagers to manageforest resources in a sustainable manner.

· Supporting plantations of forest foods andincreasing their productivity by improved seedselection and management.

· Strengthening (women’s) producer groups andmicro-enterprises for the production andmarketing of forest food products for incomegeneration, etc.

The Larger Picture


41

On the positive side, a number of new systems forNWFP production are evolving, e.g. agro-forestsbased on domestication of NWFPs, communitybased aquatic resource management, (single-)community based NWFP harvesting rules andmulti-village NWFP conservation rules (Foppes andKetphanh 2000). Typical examples include:domestication of cardamom (Amomum villosum),edible rattan shoots (Calamus tenuis) and broom grass(Thysanolaema maxima), harvesting rules for rattans(Calamus sp.), wildlife and fish, marketing of edible‘bitter’ bamboo-shoots (Indosasa sinica).

The key factors that drive this process of localintermediate forest development are the importanceof NWFPs in the rural economy, the wealth of‘indigenous technical knowledge’ on NWFPs andforests, increasing market penetration, innovativeand enterprising attitude of local forest users andthe support of facilitating projects/programmes.

These systems could be a very good basis forsustainable, community-based forest management.They provide local adaptability, a good risk aversionstrategy, nutritional diversity, a safety net functionin times of emergency and a stimulus to socialcohesion. They also provide a basis for food securityand poverty alleviation, give strong incentives forbiodiversity conservation and contain potential forthe development of a strong and sustainable forest-based industrial and trade sector.

Local people can develop solutions, but often onlyif assisted by strong technical and marketinformation exchange networks. The recentlyestablished network of NWFP organizations inthe Lao PDR may become a powerful engine forsupporting local innovators (Ketphanh et al 2004).

Judging by current trends it seems that forestresources will diminish further, populations andmarket pressures will grow rapidly, agriculturaldevelopment in the uplands is slow and economicgrowth is likely to bypass rural areas. With thispattern, it is likely that many rural families willcontinue to face food insecurity for some years tocome. To keep the safety-net function of forestfoods as a coping strategy, it is vital that forestmanagement be linked to rural development andfood security strategies. Some recommendationson how this could be done are given below. Moreresearch is needed on how to enhance productionand measure the impact of forest foods better.Capacity building and extension programmes areneeded at all levels to raise awareness and make itpossible for people to act. National policy makers,foreign aid donors and consultants need to domore to incorporate forest foods and forestmanagement in their food security agenda.

Recommendations

Table 5. Changes in off-takes per effort units for three key NWFPs over ten years (1989-1999), assessed byvillagers of Ban Nong Hin, Champasak, 17/2/1999.

Source: Foppes and Ketphanh 2000


42

• Set up systems to record and support exchangeof local knowledge regarding domesticationand ecology of wild plants and animals.

• Identify and protect genetic resources offorest food species.

• Develop nursery and multiplication systemsfor key species, agroforestry trials to identifybest practices for production of key speciesin gardens, and farming systems research tointegrate domesticated NWFPs in long-rotation hill farming systems.

• Special feasibility studies to assess thepotential for product development of littleknown product groups, e.g. edible insects.

• Studies to monitor changes in quality andquantity of forest foods in the diets/consumption patterns of the ruralpopulation.

• Studies to explore the overlap between ‘food’and ‘medicine’ properties of many forestfoods, as a basis for healthy lifestyles.

• Build programmes for networking and trainingsupport for local innovators who want todevelop new production and managementmethods for wild foods in forests and inplantations.

• Train district/province extension officers fromthe services of Agriculture, Health, Educationand the Lao Women’s Union, to raise awarenesson the role of NWFPs in food security,biodiversity, and culture.

• Train village communities to manage forestresources in a sustainable way (forestmanagement and conservation education).

• Develop training and extension materials toraise awareness on the way wild foods supply abroad range of nutrients in our diet;incorporate this in the curriculum of universitystudents.

• Place NWFP activities centrally in livelihood-based strategies.

• Apply rapid appraisal tools to identify the roleof NWFPs in livelihoods and food security.

• Give local communities clear access rights toforest resources to ensure their food security.

• Include NWFP use indicators and criteria inlivelihood assessment studies.

• Promote networking between agencies andvillage groups, local innovators and the privatesector at district and province levels.

• Develop strategies to enhance food securitybased on wild foods from forest and wetlands,in combination with rice-based strategies.

• Integrate forest management into ruraldevelopment activities to promote foodsecurity from forest products.

• Apply economic forest valuation studies torural development policy.

• Secure intellectual property rights for LaoNWFPs in a context of conservation ofbiological/genetic diversity.

• Promote unique Lao cuisine based on wildfoods as a high quality healthy alternative forgourmet markets in the world (can becombined with a ‘one-village-one-product’trade promotion strategy).

ReferencesAnoulom Vilayphone & Takeda Shineya, inpress. NWFP Gathering of Khmu community afterimplementation of Land Allocation Programme: acase study from National Biodiversity ConservationArea, Northern Lao PDR. Graduate School ofAsian and African Area studies, Faculty ofForestry, University of Kyoto.

Baird, I. G., Inthapaysi, V., Kisouvanlad, P.,Philavan, B. & Meunsouphan, B. 1999. The Fishesof Southern Laos. Lao Community Fisheries andDolphin Project, Ministry of Agriculture andForestry, Vientiane.

Capacity Building to Enhance FoodSecurity

Extension at village and District Level

Food Security Strategies at Macro Level

Further Research on NWFPs and FoodSecurity


43

Bush, S., in press. Culture and Capture Fisheriesin Lao PDR.

Clendon, K. 2001. The role of forest foodresources in village livelihood systems, a study ofthree villages in Salavan Province, Lao PDR.IUCN-NWFP Project, Vientiane, 2001.

Foppes, J. & Ketphanh, S. 2000. Forest Extractionof Cultivation? Local solutions from Lao PDR.Paper presented at the workshop on theevolution and sustainability of “intermediatesystems” of forest management, FOREASIA,28 June- 1 July 2000, Lofoten, Norway.

Foppes, J. & Ketphanh, S. 2004. NWFPs forpoverty reduction and shifting cultivationstabilization in uplands of Lao PDR. Paperprepared for the NAFRI Workshop onPoverty Reduction and Shifting CultivationStabilization in the Uplands of Lao PDR:Technologies, approaches and methods forimproving upland livelihoods, January 27-30,2004.

Kaufmann, S. 1997. Nutrition and Poverty inethnic minority areas of Northern Laos, a casestudy of Khamu and Akha communities in Nalaeand Sing districts. Health and Nutrition Team ofMuang Sing and Nalae, February to May 1997.

Ketphanh, S., Sengdala, K., Virayasakultorn, V.,Nicholson, K., Victor, M., Greijmans, M. &Foppes, J. 2004. Networking on Non-Wood ForestProducts (NWFPs) in Lao PDR. Report of aworkshop held at the Lane Xang Hotel,Vientiane, 9 July 2004. SNV/RECOFTC/NAFRI/FRC.

Krahn, J. 2003. From Bears to Beer? Cooking upDietary Change in Lao Upland Kitchens. TraditionalFood System and Dietary Change of the Katu inSekong Province, Lao PDR. Cultural ResearchInstitute, , Vientiane and Bonn University,Faculty of Agriculture, Institute for AgriculturalPolicies, Market Research and EconomicSociology, with the Unit World FoodEconomics and Institute for Food Chemistry,Muenster University, Faculty of Anthropology.

McLennan, K. 2004. Lao PDR: Analysis of forestdwelling populations and vulnerability to foodinsecurity at the village level. VAM-VulnerabilityAnalysis and Mapping, World Food Programme(WFP) Lao Office, Vientiane, 2004.

Meusch, E., Yhoung-Aree, J., Friend, R. & Funge-Smith, S.J. 2003. The role and nutritional value ofaquatic resources in the livelihoods of rural people– a participatory assessment in Attapeu Province,Lao PDR. FAO Regional Office Asia and thePacific, Bangkok, Thailand, Publication No.2003/11.

Rigg, J. & Bouahom, B. 2002. Food Security andSustainable Livelihoods in the Lao PDR. CountryReport, see also website: www.ssc.ruc.dk/inco/activities/deskstudies/Desk%20study%20Laos.pdf

Rosales, R. M. P., Kallesoe, M. F. et al. 2003. Theeconomic returns from conserving natural forestsin Sekong, Lao PDR. Vientiane, IUCN Asia,Regional Environmental EconomicsProgramme (REEP).

UNDP. 2001. National Human DevelopmentReport Lao PDR 2001, Advancing Development.UNDP Lao Country Office, Vientiane.

Joost Foppes is an advisor on NTFPs with theNetherlands Development Organization, SNV,and Sounthone Ketphanh is Deputy Director ofNAFRI’s Forestry Research Centre, [email protected] [email protected]


44

Aquatic Resources, Food Securityand Nutrition in the Lao PDR:A Case Study from Attapeu Province

There is growing interest in the Lao PDR in usingwild food resources to address food security andpoverty alleviation issues. While considerableemphasis is placed on rice security, both as a keydevelopment strategy for poverty alleviation andas an indicator of poverty and vulnerability, locallivelihoods usually depend on rice and a range ofother resources, including aquatic life. How canthese wild foods be included in poverty-focusedinterventions? While considerable work has beenundertaken on the role of non-wood forestproducts (NWFPs) in rural livelihoods in the LaoPDR, there has been relatively little effort toaddress the use of aquatic resources,1 which remainlargely invisible to development planners.

The relationship between rice and aquaticresources is of particular importance. Increasedrice production is one of the main priorities ofLao development policy, but intensifying ricefarming through conversion of wetland areas,development of irrigation systems, and the useof high yielding varieties and supplementary inputscan have negative impacts on wild aquaticresources. While there is clearly a need to developrice production, it is equally important to ensurethe continued viability of the wild aquatic resourcesfound in rice fields, floodplains and adjoiningwetlands. The loss of these resources will notnecessarily be offset by increased rice production,and may have a greater impact on poorer people.Moreover, there are considerable opportunities forimproving food security and nutrition throughmanaging these aquatic resources.

This paper is largely based on a participatoryassessment of the nutritional value of aquaticresources in rural livelihoods, undertaken as a jointinitiative between IUCN, FAO and LARReC inAttapeu province (see Meusch et al 2003)2. The

Richard Friend, Eric Meusch and Simon Funge-Smith

assessment was carried out during two missionsby a multi-disciplinary team in three villages inAttapeu. The study applied a range ofparticipatory methods to identify species andhabitats of aquatic resources but also in order toopen discussion with local people about their rolein diversified livelihoods, and their contributionto household food security. The study also appliedmore quantitative methods includinganthropometric assessment and a food frequencysurvey to assess nutritional issues.

The main objective was to gain betterunderstanding of how people living in riceproduction areas use aquatic resources, and toconsider the nutritional importance of theseresources. Motivated by a concern that the valueof aquatic resources is not fully recognised, andthat opportunities for improving rural livelihoodsthrough management of aquatic resources are notalways realised, it is intended that this paper willcontribute to the discussion of appropriate foodsecurity strategies for the Lao PDR.

Despite the diversity of aquatic resources in Laos,their significance in local livelihoods and theirpotential for poverty alleviation and nationaldevelopment has often been overlooked. Evidenceof the importance of fisheries and aquaticresources in the livelihoods of Lao people can befound in many forms – the ubiquitous padek(fermented fish paste) that accompanies mostmeals, the vast range of fish traps that can befound in markets or as decorations, and the largenumbers of people who can be seen taking to thecanals, streams, floodplains and rice fields after aheavy rain. Much of the range of aquatic resources

Invisible Resources


45

can also be seen in the markets of Vientiane. Apartfrom the wide range of fish species there are alsofrogs, insects, crabs, molluscs and shrimps, and awhole host of aquatic plants.

Lack of information on aquatic resources has beenrecognised as a constraint in the Lao PDR andthe Mekong region as a whole (see Souvannaphanhet al 2003). A recent review undertaken by FAO(Coates 2002) has pointed out that currentinformation on fisheries and aquatic resources inthe Mekong region is seriously limited. The reviewfound that traditional methods for assessing theproduction of aquatic resources have had limitedsuccess and that there is an urgent need forimproved approaches to collection and analysisof data. The very nature of these resources andthe ways in which they are harvested posesignificant challenges to information gathering.Aquatic resources production is highly seasonaland highly variable from one year to the next. Thisdiversity and variability is not easily captured innormal assessment approaches and considerableinvestment would be required to improve theseinformation systems (Souvannaphanh et al 2003).

In order to assess the significance of aquaticresources it is important that they are placed inthe context of a wider portfolio of livelihoodstrategies. Although most rural people regardthemselves as rice farmers, rural households areengaged in a wide range of activities that allcontribute to livelihood strategies and well-being.In Attapeu these activities include rice farming,raising livestock, and home gardening. Thisdiversity of activity is essential for coping withthe seasonality of agricultural production as wellas the availability of other resources.

Very few rural people in Attapeu considerthemselves as ‘fishers’ even though a great manyengage in at least some form of fishing activity oraquatic resource harvesting. In addition, asignificant proportion of time is spent making andrepairing fishing gear, and in processing catch.Women and children are actively involved in theseactivities. The vast majority of aquatic resourcesharvested are consumed within the household,

with only a small proportion of higher valuespecies and specimens reaching the market. Thustheir economic value is not immediately apparentand is difficult to calculate.

The study was carried out in three villages inAttapeu province. While the full range of theassessment’s findings is presented in the originalreport, this paper concentrates on the implicationsfor biodiversity, nutrition and food security.

Tamoyot Village, in Sanamsai District, consists of28 households and approximately 158 people.Most of the people are of the Su ethnic minority,one of the many Mon Khmer groups that makeup the Upland Lao or Lao Theung. Tamoyot is afairly remote village, located about 13 kilometresfrom the district town of Sanamsai. The peopleof Tamoyot are relatively poor and make a livinggrowing upland rice and foraging in the forest andwetlands. Food shortages are common, and manyhouseholds only produce enough rice to last a fewmonths. Most households rely heavily on fishingand foraging in local streams and swamps tosupport their livelihoods. There has been an effortto promote paddy rice production, but the peopleare reluctant to make the changes required to shiftfrom their traditional upland cultivation.

Saisi Village, Xaisetha District, lies on the banksof the Se Komon river. The village has a verylong history and is home to 200 households witha population of 1,062. The villagers are ethnic Laoand make a living producing paddy rice, growingvegetables, and fishing in the Se Komon. Thevillage has easy access to the provincial and districttowns and therefore good links to markets. Mostfamilies produce enough rice for consumption andsome have a surplus for sale. However, manyfamilies still suffer from rice shortages in certainmonths and have to rely on alternative sources.

Major Findings

Tamoyot Village

Saisi Village


46

Gayeu Village, Samakhisai District, is located nearthe provincial town on the main road to Sekongand Pakse. The village consists of 78 householdsand 428 people, mostly from the Oyi ethnicminority. Gayeu is located at the foot of amountain, on the plain between the mountain andthe Se Kong river. The villagers have a history ofproducing paddy rice and have a highly developedsystem of terraced rice fields that extend to thefoot of the mountain. Although this rice land isconsidered productive, many households stillexperience shortages of food. They supplementtheir livelihoods by fishing in a nearby oxbow lakeand the river, and have developed unique systemsof trap ponds in their paddy fields.

The assessment illustrates that a wide range of foodsources contribute to overall food security, and thatlivelihood strategies attempt to manage a wide rangeof resources. The study also aimed to assess therelative importance of aquatic resources and different

Gayeu Village

food sources for villagers of different wealth status.Villagers themselves developed their owndefinitions and indicators of wealth and povertywithin the village, and identified households thatfit into different wealth categories. While the criteriadiffered between the three villages, common factorsin determining wealth and poverty included foodsecurity and availability, livestock ownership, typeof house and labour available within the household.

While livelihood activities are largely commonbetween different wealth groups, their relativeimportance is differs markedly, as indicated in table1. Most significantly, men and women from‘better-off ’ households attached relatively lowimportance to fishing and did not even includecollecting aquatic animals in their list of priorityactivities. In contrast, men and women from‘worse-off ’ families considered both activities tobe priorities with greater importance attached to‘collecting aquatic animals’.

Table 1. Priority of Activities

Source: Meusch et al 2003


47

Although rural people themselves find it difficultto calculate their own aquatic resource production,they are consistently able to identify a wide rangeof species that are regularly consumed. In Attapeu,local people identified a wide range of aquaticbiodiversity, referring to fish, eels, frogs, freshwatershrimp, snakes, snails and turtles. The availabilityof these resources differs between the threevillages, with 66 species reported in Tamoyot and102 species identified in Saisi. Other aquaticanimals reported included several species of crabs,shrimp, frogs, shell fish, turtles and various typesof insects. In some cases, these animals (especiallyfrogs, shrimp and crabs) are as important tohousehold consumption as fish.

A wide range of aquatic habitats are utilised inAttapeu. Each environment supports particularaquatic organisms and is targeted in specific waysby local people. The main categories of aquaticenvironments are rivers and perennial streams,perennial ponds, marshes and oxbow lakes, as wellas seasonal ponds and streams, and also rice fields.

The rivers and perennial streams are importanthabitats for a wide range of fish and aquaticanimals. The nature of these environments meansthat harvesting their resources often requires arelatively high degree of specialisation, withadditional investment in gear (including boats) andlabour. Those that are not able to make theseinvestments are restricted to less intensive fishingalong the edges of the rivers. The remainingaquatic environments are more accessible usingless specialised gear. As such, these environmentsare of particular importance for poorer people.As common property resources, many of theseaquatic environments again have particularimportance for poorer people who by definitionhave less access to private lands.

Rivers and perennial streams are key features inthe lowlands of Attapeu and very importantsources of fish and other aquatic produce. Theyare characterised by large amounts of water andsustain a range of aquatic organisms throughoutthe year. They are subject to very large annualfluctuations in volume and flow between the rainyand dry seasons. Being permanent, they serve asthe dry season refuge to a broad range of fishesand aquatic animals, but also provide habitat to anumber of species that are strictly riverine.

Due to the changing nature of the environmentcaused by the fluctuation in water flows, and theseasonal activities of fish, some of which aremigratory, fishing in rivers requires specificknowledge and equipment, such as boats, specialnets and other gear. Much of the simpler, cheaperand more common ‘household gear’ has limitedapplication in the river. Households that lack themeans to purchase boats and equipment, and thelabour to use the special gear (typically strongmales), are limited to accessing resources alongthe edges of the rivers with smaller gear duringperiods of lower water, and assisting othersduring peak fishing periods. Those who can fishin the river are subject to seasonal scarcity, butare able to access at least some fish throughoutthe year.

Perennial ponds, marshes and oxbows are fairlycommon in the lowland floodplains of Attapeu.They receive excess water during the rainy seasonand hold it throughout the dry season. These waterbodies are usually shallow and vary greatly in sizeover the course of the year, expanding during therainy season and receding during the dry season.In many cases, they function like an “aquatic lung”(similar to the Cambodian Great Lake), receivingwater directly from a rising river or stream duringthe rainy season, and then draining back into theriver or stream as the water level drops.

Rivers and Perennial Streams

Summary of AquaticEnvironments

Perennial Ponds, Marshes and Oxbows

Table 2. Numbers of aquatic species reported

Source: Meusch et al 2003


48

Fishing in perennial water bodies such as ponds,marshes and oxbows is typically less specialisedand requires less investment than fishing in rivers.When the water recedes and seasonal water bodieshave dried or been harvested, people turn topermanent water bodies with various types of gear,including small-scale household gear. Becausethese water bodies are typically shallow (or haveshallow areas), they are easy to access with smallgear and are conducive to collecting aquatic plantsand animals by hand. As such, these areas are oftenof particular importance for poorer people.

These water bodies serve as refuges for fish andother aquatic organisms during the dry season,and are the source of many floodplain fishesduring the rainy season. The key species found inthese water bodies differ from those in the riversin that the species are mainly ‘floodplain fishes’rather than those found in rivers and streams (withthe notable exceptions of riverine fish that aretrapped when the water recedes following periodsof flooding). Because the water is relatively fertileand shallow in areas, many types of aquatic plantsand non-fish organisms like molluscs, crustaceans,amphibians and reptiles are typically abundant.

These water bodies make up a very important andoften overlooked source of aquatic resources. Inthe lowlands, seasonal rains inundate wide areasfor much of the year, typically from June untilOctober. Fish from perennial water bodies migrateout to take advantage of these newly-created waterbodies for feeding and reproduction. Migrationtakes place through seasonal streams that drainthe plains into the rivers. Fish use these streamsfor dispersal at the beginning of the rainy seasonand for return migration at the end of the season.Rice fields and seasonal ponds play a similar rolein local hydrology, holding water higher in thewatershed for longer periods than would otherwisebe possible. In the case of rice fields and man-made seasonal ponds, this type of water harvestingis aimed at extending the productive phase of theaquatic environment (in the case of rice fields, atleast long enough to produce a crop of rice).

Rice Fields, Seasonal Ponds and SeasonalStreams

Several species of fish and aquatic animals haveevolved to take advantage of these temporaryaquatic environments. At the beginning of therainy season, they quickly disperse and reproduce(or in some cases reproduce and disperse) to fillthe empty ecological niches in the newly inundatedareas. Very soon after the rains begin, the newlydeveloped systems are populated with variousorganisms that have been dormant or relativelyinactive in permanent water bodies during the drypart of the year.

A great deal of household fishing activity isfocused on these temporary water bodies fromthe beginning of the rainy season (June) until thewater bodies dry up (Nov-Jan). Much of thisharvesting is done with simple, inexpensive gear,requires few specialised skills, and is accessible topoorer people. Fishing effort focuses on migrationpathways to and from water bodies, and can beespecially productive when fish are moving outof the floodplain back to permanent water bodies.

Harvesting aquatic resources and managing waterand wetland habitats are important componentsof diversified livelihood strategies and considerabletime is dedicated to these activities. The seasonalnature of rice production and other crops is suchthat local people need to employ a range ofstrategies in order to be able to adapt.

Diet and nutrition are key factors affecting health,food security and poverty in Laos. Anunderstanding of diet and nutrition is particularlyimportant for vulnerable groups such as poorerhouseholds, and those with special needs such aspregnant and lactating women and children lessthan five years of age.

Nutritional status results from the interaction ofa number of variables, as shown in figure 1. Thisconceptual framework was used as the basis forunderstanding the link betweens health andnutrition and aquatic resources. In this framework,

Maintaining Food Diversityand Security


49

the aquatic resource base is the foundation uponwhich food is acquired and is expressed in termsof variety and certainty of acquisition: frequencyas well as quantity and quality.

Both the acquisition and use of food (foodbehaviour) are influenced by community andhousehold variables, which include familyeconomics, social structure and organization,markets and cultural beliefs. The interaction of foodacquisition and food behaviour under the influenceof community and household variables ultimatelyaffects nutritional status. Underlying this interactionis the important aspect of health, since poor healthcan limit an individual’s food acquisition,consumption and efficiency of assimilation/use.These all influence nutritional status.

Diets in most households are insufficient in bothquantity and quality, consisting mainly of ricesupplemented with insufficient amounts of animalproteins, and lacking important micronutrientssuch as iron, iodine and vitamin A. This is acontributory factor to poor health and lowproductivity, and constitutes a significant threatto women and children. Women’s health andnutrition is lower than that of men. Weaknutritional status and dietary habits are importantfactors in determining the health of pregnantwomen and infants. Beginning life with poornutrition presents a serious threat to healththroughout a person’s life.

Figure 1. Nutritional status interaction

Linking Aquatic Resources to NutritionalStatus

The report also pointed to a number of dietarypractices that may contribute to the poornutritional status of many local people. Forexample, the widespread practices of not feedingcolostrum to new born babies and of feeding riceto new born babies both have nutritional andhealth impacts that may have permanentimplications in a person’s life.

Food security is not only about availability of foodsbut also variety and quality of food sources. Aswell as the availability of rice, the availability ofaquatic resources is an important factor indetermining food security and nutritional well-being. Aquatic animals constitute the main sourceof animal protein in these protein poor diets.There are no viable alternatives to these aquaticresources, which constitute the main coping strategyfor dealing with periods of rice shortage. However,there are no coping strategies for dealing withshortages of aquatic resources. Any degradationof these resources is therefore likely to have furthersignificant impacts on an already fragile health andnutritional status. Once again, the impacts of anysuch degradation of aquatic resources are likely tobe felt most severely by poorer people.

Although degradation of aquatic resources isdifficult to verify, the view that aquatic resourcesin Attapeu are in decline was commonly voiced.A number of explanations were provided for this,such as growing pressure due to populationgrowth, more widespread use of modern, efficientgear, increased market penetration and growingdemand for aquatic resources, and alsoenvironmental degradation. Greater weight was

Managing Food Diversity


50

given to increased fishing effort rather than toenvironmental degradation.

Managing both human fishing effort and aquaticenvironments is essential. Aquatic resourceproduction depends on a number of factors.Maintaining habitats that are important forbreeding, spawning, migration and dry seasonrefuge is critical for ensuring the viability of aquaticresources. This has implications for local land useplanning and agricultural development strategies.Increasing rice production through the conversionof ponds, marshes and other floodplain resourcesmay have impacts on the wild aquatic resources.

While the discussion of aquatic resources andfisheries tends to focus on the potential threatsof degradation there is also considerable potentialfor improving rural livelihoods through the wisemanagement of aquatic environments and aquaticresources. Although there is considerable localexperience of managing these resources, therehave been few development initiatives that haveaimed to harness this experience. Protectingimportant breeding and spawning grounds anddry season refuges may not only preventdegradation but also increase production.

The study in Attapeu illustrates the fundamentalimportance of a range of livelihood activities andresources. Although the role of aquatic resourcesis highly important, assessing their full significancerequires an understanding of wider householdlivelihood strategies.

Obtaining information on aquatic resourceproduction and values is notoriously difficult: acombination of different approaches is required.Local participatory approaches are mostappropriate for monitoring and assessment, alongwith supporting consultation about appropriatemanagement. The complexity, diversity andseasonality of aquatic resources are such thatregular monitoring can only be undertaken with ahigh degree of local participation.

Implications

There is currently a lack of reliable informationthat assesses the economic value of aquaticresources. This type of information is essentialfor policy makers and development planners toassess different development options(Souvannaphanh et al 2003). Where economicvaluation techniques have been applied, the fullvalue of economic resources becomes apparent.Assessing the economic and nutritional value ofaquatic resources, combined with an economicassessment of the viability of alternative foodsources, would provide important evidence oftheir full value and contribute to assessingdevelopment options.

There is already some experience in the Lao PDRand the Mekong region of managing criticalaquatic environments, including dry seasonrefuges, breeding and spawning grounds, and ricefields, in order to ensure the sustainability ofstocks. Opportunities for testing these initiativesin Attapeu should be explored and pursued. Inorder to address nutrition and health it is alsorecognised that it is important to consider dietaryhabits, child rearing practices, and preparation andstorage of foods. An integrated approach isrequired to combine management of aquaticresources with education and access to adequatehealth care services. Improvements in nutritionand health would have dramatically positiveimpacts on rural people in Attapeu.

Aquatic resources and rice are both fundamentalto food security, nutrition and health, particularlyfor poorer people. As the main animal proteinsource in poor diets, aquatic resources are vital tomaintaining people’s health and well-being.Management of water resources and aquaticenvironments is therefore essential. Whileincreasing rice production is important andnecessary, care should be taken to ensure that thisdoes not negatively affect wild aquatic resources.

Many of these recommendations will be taken upunder the work of the Mekong WetlandsBiodiversity Conservation and Sustainable UseProgramme in Attapeu. The programme isaddressing similar issues at demonstration sites in


51

Cambodia (Stoeng Treng), Thailand (SongkhramRiver), and Vietnam (Plain of Reeds), where it willsupport community-based management,sustainable livelihood activities, health andeducation, and networks of resource users toassess and monitor the natural resource base.

1

ReferencesCoates, D. 2002. Inland Capture Fishery Statisticsof Southeast Asia: current status and informationneeds. FAO, Bangkok.

Meusch, E., Yhoung-Aree, J., Friend, R. & Funge-Smith, S. 2003. The Role and Nutritional Value ofAquatic Resources in Livelihoods of Rural People: Aparticipatory assessment in Attapeu Province, LaoPDR. FAO, Bangkok.

Souvannaphanh, B., Chanphendxay, S. &Choulamany, X. 2003. ‘Status of InlandFisheries Statistics in Lao PDR’ from FAO/MRC (2003) New Approaches for theimprovement of inland capture fishery statistics inthe Mekong Basin; Ad Hoc Expert Consultation.FAO, Bangkok.

Richard Friend is IUCN Programme Managerfor the UNDP/IUCN/MRC Mekong WetlandsBiodiversity Conservation and Sustainable UseProgramme; Eric Meusch works with the WWFLiving Mekong Initiative and Simon Funge-Smith is Aquaculture & Inland Fisheries Officerat FAO RAP, Bangkok.

Photo: Eric Meusch, WWF Lao

‘Aquatic resources’ as used here includes fish,amphibians, some reptiles, various invertebrates (prawns,crabs, snails, insects), and numerous varieties of wildaquatic plants.

2 The study was carried out in the preparatory phase ofthe UNDP-GEF/IUCN/MRC Mekong WetlandsBiodiversity Conservation and Sustainable UseProgramme (MWBP), under which Attapeu province isthe Lao demonstration site. The assessment has beenused as a means of informing the development ofprogramme activities in Attapeu.


52

Home Gardens in the Lao PDR –Linkages between AgriculturalBiodiversity and Food Security

Pernille M. Dyg and Saleumsy Phithayaphone

FAO has developed a model for household-basedintegrated agriculture production systems, in shorthome gardens. This model, combined withnutrition education, has reduced malnutritionamong children under five and reliance on NTFPs.Home gardens are home to a large diversity ofplant species and are important in the conservationand domestication of plant genetic resources. Thebiodiversity found in such gardens provides

households with access to a large variety ofnutritious foods, thus providing opportunities forbetter nutrition, food security and an income. Oneof the components in the proposed NationalAgricultural Biodiversity Programme developed byFAO, UNDP and the National Agriculture andForestry Research Institute (NAFRI) is to furtherdevelop home gardens in support of improvedfood security and nutrition at the household level.

Photo: Home Gardens Project/FAO


53

The home garden model helps villagers improveproduction of vegetables, fruits and animal foodsin the front and backyards of their houses andcan enhance rural livelihoods and increase thedietary diversity and nutritional status of thepopulation. With these important opportunitiesin home gardening, there is a need to expand andimprove successful home garden models in theLao PDR in order to contribute to food security,poverty reduction and conservation of thecountry’s prime asset: its agro-biodiversity.

The Lao PDR has been identified as one of theplanet’s ‘Centres of Origin’ of domesticated plantsand animals, one of the ten areas with the highestbiodiversity in the world. Home gardens are hostto a large diversity of plant species and play animportant role in the conservation anddomestication of plant genetic resources. Thebiodiversity found in home gardens provideshouseholds with access to an array of nutritiousfruits and vegetables, medicines and otherbeneficial plants.

Home gardens are good examples of the closelink between biodiversity and food security. Whilethey are important micro-environments for in situor on-farm conservation of a wide range of plantgenes, they also provide essential sources of food,fodder, medicines, spices, construction materialsand income for rural households in many countriesaround the world. The International Plant GeneticResources Institute (IPGRI) has carried out anumber of case studies on plant genetic resourcesin home gardens and established clear linksbetween home garden diversity and householdfood security (Eyzaguirre and Watson 2001).

Many new crops have been developed ordomesticated in home gardens due to the closeinteraction between humans and plants in thissetting. Home Gardens also serve as informal plantintroduction and distribution centres: seeds andinformation are exchanged among gardens,

Agro-Biodiversity and FoodSecurity

families and local markets, which can enable newgenetic diversity to evolve. Furthermore, homegardens are a place for experimentation with newspecies and varieties, thereby playing a vital role incrop improvement and evolution. A centralfunction is, of course, as production centres, wherecrops that are eaten daily or need specific attentionare planted. Such gardens are home to thecultivation of species that are underutilised froma research and broader economic perspective, andthus play an important role in national agro-biodiversity conservation strategies. Because theyare an important place for use, introduction andexperimentation with a variety of species, homegardens are a refuge for genetic diversity. There isoften a great variety both in terms of species andalso within species. (Engels 2001)

Genetic diversity has an important impact on bothproduction aspects and food security. It is widelyrecognised that genetic diversity in a farmingsystem provides more crop stability in terms ofyields, which has an important impact on foodsecurity. Furthermore, it also enables moresustainable production methods, as the interactionbetween the diversity of plants lowers thedependency on chemicals and other externalinputs. This in turn provides a place where plants,animals, insects, micro-organisms and the soilinteract, thus maintaining the agro-ecologicalbalance and protecting the soil from erosion(Engels 2001; Trinh et al 2001).

Home gardens can also be important in preservingthreatened species. In China for instance, homegardens play a key role in relocating economicallyimportant swidden-fallow plants. As swidden-fallow cultivation systems are replaced bypermanent agriculture in Laos and other SoutheastAsian countries, villagers lose access to importantplants. In Yunnan, the Daka ethnic group usehome gardens to relocate plants formerlycultivated in the swidden fields. Daka homegardens are rich in trees and endangeredindigenous plant species, including medicines,wood, vegetables, fruits and ornamental plants thatwere formerly found in swidden fields. This doesnot only contribute to the preservation of


54

otherwise disappearing species, but alsocontributes cash income for households. As moreand more farmers appreciate the demand for wildvegetables in local markets, the percentage of cashincome from these plants is sure to increase (Fuet al 2003). The same case could apply in the LaoPDR, but so far there has been limited focus onthe practice of transferring plants from fallowfields to gardens.

Diversity of plant species makes an importantcontribution to improving the nutrition of ruraland urban families. Fruit and vegetables cultivatedin home gardens are rich in micronutrients andincrease diversity of diet, thereby preventingvarious diseases and malnutrition. This is especiallytrue when garden-raised meats are used to addimportant protein. Women are vital to themanagement, production and utilisation ofproduce from home gardens. This includesselecting and storing seeds, planting, weeding, andusing the produce in the household or selling it.Women’s role in conserving local varieties isimportant and their knowledge has been vital inresource enhancement. (Engels 2001).

Home gardens seem to be found in many areasof the country, although there is limited knowledgeabout their impact on food security andbiodiversity. Nevertheless, observations andexperience from projects indicate that there are anumber of different types of home gardens, andthat they vary in size, crops and techniques used.

A two-district survey of indigenous agro-forestrypractices by the Lao-Swedish Upland Agricultureand Forestry Research Programme (LSUAFRP)and the Northern Agriculture and ForestryResearch Centre recorded that in both districts,home gardens are well-known and widespread, andin almost every village there is some kind of homegarden present. In the two districts, Namo in

Types of Home Gardens and Use ofPlants/Crops

Home Gardens in the LaoPDR

Oudomxay Province and Phonexay in LuangPrabang Province, there are different kinds ofhome gardens but also similarities. Crops includefruit (papaya, banana, citruses, pineapples, mangoand jackfruit) and vegetables (eggplants, chilli,cabbage, beans) plus ginger, taro, bitter bamboo,peanuts and various medicinal plants. In one homegarden, in the mountains of Phonxay, more than50 different plants were grown (Sodarak et al 2003).Domestication of Non-Timber Forest Products(NTFPs) is common in home gardens. In onevillage, Ban Kuang, gardens are based on plantingbitter bamboo. The bamboo stems are collectedfrom the surrounding forests and planted closeto the houses between pineapples and fruit(Sodarak et al 2003).

Home gardens are found in all kinds ofenvironments, from mountain tops to close torivers in lowland areas. Some small gardens arefound on table tops and bigger home gardens aregrown on the ground, where vegetables areintercropped with rice or corn and fruits trees arecommon as contours along the borders of thegarden or scattered within the plot. The LSUAFRPalso documented that some farmers had developedhome gardens into larger gardens containingseveral production factors. These includeddifferent plants like teak, fruit trees, vegetables,rice, corn and cassava. In addition, the systemsalso contained protein sources such as fish ponds,pig and poultry raising. These systems are referredto as ‘advanced farming systems’ or ‘householdbased integrated agricultural production systems’,which are very productive but more difficult torun and require investments and available land(Sodarak et al 2003).

In 2002, FAO initiated an eighteen-month PilotProject on Home Gardens for ImprovedNutritional Well-Being to develop a model forhousehold nutrition garden production in the LaoPDR. The model includes small livestock andaquaculture, similar to the integrated agriculturalproductions systems described above. Theobjective was to establish a model to reduce the

FAO Pilot Project on Home Gardens forImproved Nutritional Well-Being


55

severe malnutrition prevalent in rural areas andimprove the nutritional well-being of thepopulation by increasing production andconsumption of nutritious foods, emphasisingfoods rich in micronutrients.

Malnutrition rates in the Lao PDR are amongstthe highest in the region: 40.7% of children sufferfrom chronic malnutrition (stunting), 15.4% haveacute malnutrition (wasting), and 40% areunderweight. Among adults, 19.2% are chronicallyundernourished. According to the 2000 NationalHealth Survey, deficiencies in vitamin A, iron andiodine affect about 9.1% of children (Ministry ofHealth and State Planning Committee 2001).Almost one and a half million of the populationwere categorised as ‘undernourished’between1997-99 (FAO 2003). The projectspecifically targeted households with childrenunder the age of five and women of reproductiveage, the groups most affected by malnutrition.

Prior to implementation, about 50% ofhouseholds in the target villages were involved inhome gardening within a limited area. However,the yield and quality of their produce was low dueto poor techniques and home garden care.Vegetables were only grown in the dry season andmet only 10-15% of household consumption. Theproject thus focused on improving the gardensthrough the use of a net house technique for year-round production of vegetables. This techniquestops heavy rainfall from damaging crops, preventsflooding of soil beds and provides shade fromthe hot sun. Home gardens were established bothon the ground and on table tops, enablinghouseholds to grow leafy vegetables throughoutthe year (FAO and DOA, MAF 2004).

More than 25 different species of fruits andvegetables were found in the home gardens beforethe project started, some of which were localvarieties. During the project, additional localvarieties were recommended, and farmers wereprovided with vegetable seeds and fruit saplings.Twenty-three different varieties of vegetables were

identified and promoted for their importantnutritional qualities, as well as fifteen varieties offruit and nine types of forest food, includingunderexploited indigenous fruits and nuts (FAOand DOA, MAF 2004).

Not only did the project improve existingtraditional home gardens, it also helped farmersto grow a variety of different leafy vegetables andother crops on a year-round basis with increasedyields and improved quality. After one year ofproject implementation, not only had the area forvegetable production increased, but the types ofvegetables had also become more varied. Beforethe project started, only 23% of the householdswere growing these vegetables in their gardens,but after the completion of the project, thepercentage had reached 75%. Increased homegarden production led to a significant reductionin the ratio of vegetables derived from the forest,which decreased by 17%, thereby alleviating thestress on over-harvested forest resources (FAOand DOA, MAF 2004). This is also likely to havea positive impact on time use and labour, reducingthe time women in particular spend on gatheringthese foods from the forest.

As a result of the increased production and accessto a larger variety of vegetable crops in theparticipating villages, the average daily productionof vegetables reached 245 grams per person,compared to the present national per capita dailyavailability of 64.3 grams. The various vegetablesgrown during the project contain a number ofessential nutrients with important nutritionalbenefits for combating malnutrition. These includevitamins A, B and C, iron, iodine, minerals, fibreand protein. In fact, nutrition was a keycomponent of the project.

In addition to crop production, other componentswere also included to enhance food and nutritionsecurity and provide income. The project helpedincrease farmers’ awareness and skills in fishfarming techniques. With better management ofponds, fish consumption increased, while

Other Farming Systems Components andNutritional Components of the Project

Main Findings and Implications for Agro-Biodiversity and Food Security


56

improved marketing boosted sales of fish. Poultryproduction (chickens and ducks) was also includedto enhance animal protein and energy in theprotein-deficient diets. This also helped familiesaccumulate income: for a three-month period atthe end of the project, each household had anearning of US$150 from the sale of poultry, aftermeeting the consumption needs of the household.

Nutrition education and food preparation activitieswere closely linked with the food production. Foodpreparation demonstrations were offered to thetarget households to increase the number of foodsused in daily meals. This programme managed toimprove nutritional practices in a relatively shorttime. Generally, households only consumed leafyvegetables one to three times per week or lessbefore the project, and similar patterns were notedwith the consumption of fruit, fish, eggs and meat.After 15 months the frequency of leafy vegetableshad increased to one to three times per day. Infantand young child feeding practices were alsomonitored to address the serious problem ofunder-nourishment among children under five.After six months of regular growth monitoring,combined with nutrition education,anthropometric measurements showed theprevalence of underweight children was declining.The final measurements in July 2004 recorded arate of 15.6%, down from 23.2% at the baseline(April 2003). For underweight children 24-35months old, the prevalence dropped from 33.3%to 5.6% post intervention.

The FAO project has developed an innovativehome garden model that integrates agriculturalproduction with nutrition awareness. The resultshave demonstrated that it can serve to:

• Increase food production with optimum useof available area

• Diversify food production• Increase food supply and availability• Meet the food and nutritional needs of

household members.

Home Garden Model for NationalImplementation and Links with Agro-Biodiversity

Presently all 204 households involved havedeveloped their own home garden within the areathey already had, and use their home grownproduce for the nutritional well-being of the familyand for extra income. The technical inputsprovided were training, extension services andtransfer of technology (field demonstrations). Acommunity garden was developed in each targetvillage, to serve as ‘model nutrition gardens’. Thesecould be considered as national models for larger-scale food production and would be undertakenby households that have bigger areas of land.

The inter-sectoral collaboration (agriculture, healthand education, Lao Women’s Union) fostered bythe project at district and provincial levels couldeffectively replicate the home gardens on a broaderscale. With input of seeds, fruit tree saplings, fishand frogs, and small livestock, plus nutritioneducation, home gardens are a cost-effectivemethod of promoting food security and nutritionat household and community levels in poor remoteareas of the Lao PDR.

While the project has contributed to enhancingagro-biodiversity and conserving local varieties offruits and vegetables, this promotion of diversifiedproduction has not been systematic and could befurther strengthened. The high levels of plantspecies and genetic diversity found in homegardens are important for in situ conservation ofa wide range of plant genetic resources, whichshould be taken into account more systematicallyin future research and development efforts onhome gardens.

In the country’s current development situation,improved management of agricultural biodiversityprovides an important strategy for achieving foodsecurity and reducing poverty, particularly amongthe rural poor. The National AgriculturalBiodiversity Programme was developed in thebeginning of 2004 to support two of the main

The National AgriculturalBiodiversity Programme andHome Gardens


57

development priorities for the Lao PDR: improvedfood security and livelihoods for ruralcommunities, and enhanced government capacityto ensure the sustainable use of natural resources.To achieve globally agreed commitments to foodsecurity and poverty alleviation in the Lao PDR,strategic investments are required. Thecomprehensive National Agricultural BiodiversityProgramme was developed by FAO, UNDP andNAFRI as a framework and long-term strategyfor implementing a coordinated approach to betteruse, develop and conserve agricultural biodiversity(FAO 2004).

One of the programme’s five thematiccomponents is ‘household-based integratedagriculture production systems’, which thedevelopment of home gardens can supply. Thiscomponent includes three main outputs:

1) Assessment of the impact of household-based integratedagriculture production systems (home gardens) onsustainable livelihoods of people. The FAO homegarden project has already documented thebenefits of home gardens on nutrition andimproved food security on a small scale. Theprogramme also calls for the identification anddocumentation of indigenous foods andcommunity food systems and theircontributions to micronutrients and nutritionin general. So far there is limited documentationof the nutritional value of indigenous foods.

2) Expansion and improvement of household-basedintegrated agriculture production systems in targethouseholds to increase the amount and variety ofnutritious foods, e.g. fruits, vegetables, small animals,fish and other aquatic resources. This includestraining household members and agriculturalstaff at all levels in household-based integratedagriculture production systems and harvest andpost-harvest processing. It also includesprovision of seeds, small animals, fish andgarden tools and assistance in marketing.

3) Improved understanding of nutrition: Plannedactivities include assessing household awareness

of nutritional needs, training extension staffin understanding nutritional needs anddeveloping nutrition education materials.Training on nutrition management and foodpreparation is also planned for families, whileenhanced awareness of nutrition needs andgaps is needed among policy makers (NationalAgricultural Biodiversity Programme in LaoPDR 2004)

Implementation of the Agro-biodiversityProgramme could thus build on FAO’s homegarden project, and expand its activitiesgeographically and thematically.

The home garden farming system not only ensureshousehold food security and improves nutrition,but can also foster conservation, domesticationand development of crops. The close linkagesbetween biodiversity and food security are evidentin home gardens, and although research anddevelopment of home gardens is still limited inthe Lao PDR, the work of LSUAFRP and FAOoffers important opportunities for furtherstrengthening these linkages. The NationalAgricultural Biodiversity Programme offers aframework for supporting and implementingresearch and development of home gardens andstrengthening the linkages between agro-biodiversity conservation, nutrition improvementand household food security.

The following arguments are offered in supportof such action:

• Home gardens can play a key role indomesticating NTFPs and relocating fallowplants from swidden fields. Therefore, moreresearch and projects should be launched tosupport the documentation and developmentof NTFP domestication and preservation offallow plants.

Conclusion andRecommendations


58

• Home gardens can make significantcontributions to dietary diversity and the foodand nutrition security of rural households.There is a need to upscale the FAO pilot projectconcept and methodologies, as well as othersuccessful home garden experiences, forreplication across other rural areas.

• The FAO pilot project on home gardens, andother agricultural projects and policies, oughtto take agricultural biodiversity considerationsinto account when promoting new crops orproposing changes to existing farming systems.If agricultural biodiversity concerns are notmainstreamed at the project and policy levels,adverse effects will inevitably result.

• Indigenous foods are important for the foodsecurity of many rural households and are likelyto contribute micronutrients and othernutritional qualities. However, this needs to bedocumented and supported through moreresearch. Increasing the limited knowledge ofindigenous food nutritional qualities couldenable more promotion and marketing of suchproducts.

• Nutrition education should be an integralcomponent of community developmentactivities, so as to promote increased awarenessand consumption of the varied diet requiredto meet dietary nutrient needs.

• Community networks are needed to monitornutrition and promote food security, nutrition,health and home economic improvements.Accordingly, as part of communityempowerment and capacity building, a criticalmass of community members should beorganized and trained in strengthening rurallivelihoods and nutrition improvement.

References:Engels, J. 2001. “Home gardens – a geneticresources perspective.” In Home gardens and insitu conservation of plant genetic resources infarming systems. Proceedings of the SecondInternational Home Gardens Workshop. 17-19July, Witzenhausen, Germany. Watson andEyzaguirre (Eds), IPGRI.

Eyzaguirre, P. & Watson, J. 2001. “Homegardens and agro-biodiversity; an overviewacross regions.” In Home gardens and in situconservation of plant genetic resources in farmingsystems. Proceedings of the SecondInternational Home Gardens Workshop. 17-19July, Witzenhausen, Germany. Watson andEyzaguirre (Eds), IPGRI.

FAO. 2004. National Agricultural BiodiversityProgramme in Lao PDR.

FAO. 2003. Nutrition Country Profile – Laos. FAO,Rome, Italy

FAO & Department of Agriculture (DOA),MAF, 2004. Report – Pilot Project on thePromotion of Home Gardens for ImprovedNutritional Well-being TCP/LAO/2902 (A).

FAO RAP. 1998. Women in Agriculture,Environment and Rural Production. FAO FactSheet, Lao PDR. FAO Regional Office for Asiaand the Pacific. Bangkok, Thailand.

Fu, Y. et al 2003. “Relocating Plants formSwidden Fallows to Gardens in SouthwesternChina” Economic Botany 57 (3) pp. 389-402. TheNew York Botanical Garden Press, Bronx, NY.USA.

Ministry of Health & State PlanningCommittee .2001. Report on National HealthSurvey – Health Status of the People in Lao PDR.Vientiane, Lao PDR.


59

Sodarak, H. et al 2003. Indigenous agroforestrypractices in two districts in the northern part ofLao PDR. Lao Swedish Upland Agriculture andForestry Research Programme and NorthernAgriculture and Forestry ResearchProgramme.

Trinh, L.N. et al 2001. “Role of home gardensin the conservation of plant genetic resourcesin Vietnam.” In Home gardens and in situconservation of plant genetic resources in farmingsystems. Proceedings of the SecondInternational Home Gardens Workshop. 17-19July, Witzenhausen, Germany. Watson &Eyzaguirre (Eds), IPGRI.

Souvanthalisith, S. 2002. Gender Role and theUse of Land under Land Allocation: Case Study ofLand Allocation Project in Luang Prabang, Lao PDR.AIT, School for Environment, Resources andDevelopment. Thailand.

Photo: IPM/FAO

Ms. Pernille M. Dyg works as Food Security andAgricultural Development Officer for FAO inVientiane.

Mr. Saleumsy Phithayaphone, of theDepartment of Agriculture, MAF, is formerNational Project Director with the FAO PilotProject for the Promotion of Home Gardensfor Improved Nutritional Well-Being.


60

John B. Raintree

Rural Livelihoods, Biodiversity andMarket Forces

‘Livelihood’ is simply the way people make a living.UNDP and others have defined sustainablelivelihood as “the capability of people to make aliving and improve their quality of life withoutjeopardising the livelihood options of others,either now or in the future.”

‘Employment’ refers to an income-earning job,usually in a specific workplace. However, noteveryone that makes a living has a job. A job canbe part of a livelihood strategy, but until recentlymost people living in rural areas of the Lao PDRearned their living directly from the land, pursuingvarious subsistence and income-earning activitieswithout having a job, selling their labour, or earninga wage. Most upland households have multi-livelihood strategies, engaging in many differentactivities to achieve a viable household economy.In order to cope with environmental andeconomic uncertainties, they maintain a diversityof on-farm and off-farm activities, combiningfallow farming with hunting-and-gathering,horticulture, animal husbandry and forestry topiece together an adequate living. A livelihoodstudy in a village in Nan District of Luang Prabangfound that households engage in no fewer thaneight and sometimes as many as 15 distinctlivelihood activities. Economic diversity ischaracteristic of traditional livelihood systems.

Biodiversity is the foundation of traditionallivelihood systems in rural Laos. The IUCNwebsite lists the ways in which biodiversitysupports livelihoods:· It provides many and diverse subsistence

requirements that a rural community needs forsurvival, including food, fodder, fuel, housing/agricultural material, cultural and spiritualsustenance.

· It provides an element of livelihood stability— the failure of one element of biodiversitydoes not lead to collapse, since alternativeelements are usually available.

· It allows local communities a degree of self-reliance and independence from the market andgovernment, since many goods and servicescan be obtained locally.

· It provides a variety of products which can bebartered and sold in markets by ruralcommunities, thereby enabling them to gainaccess to goods and services that they are notable to get locally (Kothari).

Contrary to what some central planners believe,it is not necessary to ‘give’ rural people theirlivelihoods. They are not members of a proletarianclass whose only option is to work for wages inthe factories of the wealthy. The only situation inwhich it might be necessary to ‘give’ rural peoplea means of livelihood is if something happens totake away the economic diversity that characterisestheir traditional livelihood system, or to destroythe biodiversity on which it is founded. Anenlightened government would focus most of itsefforts on trying to assist rural people in pursuingtheir own livelihood strategies and achieving theirown livelihood objectives. Rural people are adynamic element in the economy of the Lao PDRand poor people are part of the solution not theproblem.

In rural Laos, food security is usually defined as‘having enough rice to eat’. The household is thesovereign decision-making unit in respect tomatters of livelihood and survival. A good way ofunderstanding the inner workings of the livelihoodsystems is to analyse how households organize themeans of production at their disposal in order tomeet the essential needs of the householdeconomy. Rural households pursue a hierarchy ofstrategies in achieving their food securityobjectives. Following is the basic picture thatemerges from diagnostic research in the LaoSwedish Upland Agriculture and Forestry ResearchProgramme (LSUAFRP) research areas in LuangPrabang and Oudomxay:


61

Source: John Raintree, Socio-economics Unit, LSUARFP, NAFRI

Table 2: Household Livelihood Systems -Diagnostic Results (perceived problem areas in bold)

Table 1: Household Strategies for Food Security. HH Objective: To have enough rice to eat every day

The diagnostic research at the LSUAFRP sites revealed the following problems within the livelihoodsystems:

Source: John Raintree, Socio-economics Unit, LSUARFP, NAFRI

ecirnwoworgoT–1ygetartSyddapniecirworG~

niecirworG~ iah

eciryubotyenomtegoT–2ygetartSeciryubotyenomrofllesotsPFWNtcelloC~

eciryubotyenomrofllesotsporchsacworG~eciryubotyenomrofllesotkcotsevilllamsesiaR~

yenomrofllesotstcudorpyrtsudniegattocecudorP~eciryubotyenomtegotedartniegagnE~

eciryubotyenomrofruobalylimaflleS~

ecirtegottbedotniogoT–3ygetartS)yticorpiceresool(sruobhgiendnasevitalermorfecir'worroB'~)yticorpicertcirts(kcabdiapebotsahtaht'naol'ecirevieceR~

sdoofelpatsrehtoetutitsbusoT–4ygetartStaeotsdoofdliwtcelloC~

,sporctoor.g.e(taeotsdoofrehtoworG~ auedkam ).cte,ytaeotsdoofrehtoyubotyenomteG~

SDEENCISAB SMETSYSBUSNOITCUDORP)smetsysbuSsdeeNcisaBfostnenopmoC(

)dlohesuohehtybyltceriddemusnocstuptuo(sdeeNtceriD

DOOF doofdesahcrup,sPFWN,hsif,kcotsevil,sporC

YGRENE desahcrup,sPFWN,rebmiT

RETLEHS senicidemdesahcrup,stnalplanicideM

ENICIDEM egattoc,sPFWN,kcotsevil,sporchsacmrettrohS+seirtsudni

HSAC sporcdeef,seudiserporc,egarof,sessarG

TNEMTSEVNI/SGNIVAS slairetamdesahcrup,sporc,rebmit,sPFWN

)dlohesuohehtybdemusnoceratahtstuptuognicudorprofstupnirojam(sdeeNtceridnI

KCOTSEVILROFDEEF doofdesahcrup,sPFWN,hsif,kcotsevil,sporC

EGATTOCROFLAIRETAMWARYRTSUDNI desahcrup,sPFWN,rebmiT


62

Figure 2 analyses these livelihood systems problems below, based on an analytical synthesis of the datafrom the LSUAFRP research sites, together with the findings of the national Participatory PovertyAnalysis, which may be regarded as the people’s poverty analysis.

Figure 1: Months of Rice Shortage

Figure 2: Causal diagram of the aetiology of livelihood systems problems

LSUAFRP has been assisting NAFRI to diagnose and address problems in rural livelihood systems innorthern Laos. Food security has emerged as an issue in many of our research villages.

Livelihood Systems in Trouble


63

This analysis reveals three major causal complexesor syndromes responsible for these problems:

• Declining productivity in swidden-basedupland farming systems

• Declining productivity of non-wood forestresources

• Failure of alternative income sources totransform the rural economy

Localised population pressure is the ultimate long-term driving variable behind the ‘swiddendegradation’ syndrome depicted in the causaldiagram, but the government’s relocationprogramme and constraints arising from the landallocation process have accelerated the problemby adding an artificial dimension to the factor ofreduced land availability. For whatever reasons itoccurs in different localities, once land shortageforces reduced fallow cycles, soil fertility beginsto decline and weed and pest problems increase,as farmers return with increasing frequency tocultivate the same worn out plot of land. Labourshortages within the household compound the

problem, as labour requirements increase for eventhe meagre yields that can be obtained. As thenumber of months of rice shortage increases,poor health and the need to mortgage the comingrice crop and sell family labour to obtain moneyto buy rice further add to the downward spiral.Without a sufficient rest period to rejuvenate theland, this downward spiral is inevitable unless thereis a major change in upland farming technology.

Figure 3: Food security - the land and labour problems

During the diagnostic research in research villagesit was found that, under the government’s targetsfor village merging and relocation of populationfrom the highlands in accordance with the focalarea strategy, the population of roadside villagesis increasing dramatically. Villages are beingamalgamated into larger villages with the idea ofmaking it easier to provide basic services (water,medical care, schools, etc.). So far, not many ofthe expected benefits have been realized, butpopulation pressures have increased dramaticallyin the relocation villages.

Not all of the localised increase in populationpressure is due to relocation, however.Spontaneous migration also plays a part. Havinga house near the road is something that appealsto many highland people. Nevertheless, forwhatever the reason, the movement of populationdown out of the highlands and its concentrationin target villages has placed severe pressures onlocal livelihood and biodiversity resources.

This pressure is experienced in two ways, first as adecline in per capita agricultural land, which hasdirect impact on months of rice shortage for manyhouseholds. A rough estimate would place theamount of available land for these families ataround 50% of the basic livelihood requirement.As one villager put it, “Each year the people mustborrow or rent land.” The same applies to livestockraising. A Lao Soung men’s focus group inHuaymaha, Phonxay, reported that they used toraise cattle, buffalo, goats and poultry in their oldvillages in the highlands but that there was no landfor raising animals in the new village by the road.


64

The other major impact is a decline in NWFPsavailable for collection. This has a severe impacton the primary cash-mediated food security strategyand has resulted in reduced economic diversity. Asa resident of Ban Pangdou, Nambo District,explained, “It’s difficult to earn money because thenumber of things to sell has decreased.”

People are quite interested in new cash crops andeven in shifting to a market-oriented livelihoodstrategy based on cash crops, if possible. Thisinterest is growing directly out of their experiencein struggling to cope with the degraded conditionof the swidden agro-ecosystem. One family in BanHuaymaha said that the weeding situation wasbecoming so difficult that they intended to juststop trying to grow rice and only focus on cashcrops like Job’s tears. A woman in a focus groupin Huaymaha said, “Women need lowland rice,weaving and raising animals instead of hard workweeding upland rice four times a year! It wastes alot of time.”

This might sound like the central planners’ dreamcome true – farmers being forced by land scarcityto give up growing upland rice and shift to rice

paddies, cash crops and livestock for the market –but paddy land is severely limited in manymountain areas and market-oriented productionis not so clearly a solution to the problem of foodsecurity and poverty when upland markets arepoorly developed. We need only recall the crashof the Job’s tears market in 1999-2000 in LuangPrabang to understand this. The situation hasimproved somewhat with the arrival of newprocessing and marketing capacity in LuangPrabang (a private sector initiative from Taiwan),but there is no guarantee that boom and bustcycles will not recur with this or any othercommodity under the prevailing conditions ofweakly-developed market systems in most ruralareas.

In fact, there is no lack of technical options. Theroot constraints on the adoption of cash cropalternatives are:

• Poor access to markets• Lack of extension support• Insufficient affordable creditThese are the problems that must be solved ifalternatives are to be widely adopted by villagers.

Figure 4: Constraints to cash crop adoption


65

Villagers are actively searching for new solutions.To assist them in this search, NAFRI researchersin LSUAFRP are pursuing on-farm experimentswith farmers on a long and growing list oftechnologies. It would be a mistake to think ofthis as a researcher-driven process. In reality,although researchers may occasionally suggestsomething new that meets with farmers’ approval,the surest path to success with farmers is toprovide research support to the farmers owninitiatives. Some of the best examples of this areseen in the enterprising village of Ban Nambowhere the level and variety of market gardeningactivities is notably higher than in other researchvillages. As much as 36% of the households inNambo own river gardens, compared to a highof 10% in the other research villages, and asurprising 45% own paper mulberry gardens. Still,the land is not enough. A number of enterprisingHmong farmers in the village have bought orrented land for market gardens in other villages.(Unfortunately, the entrepreneurial activities ofthe Nambo villagers are experienced by the othervillages as additional land pressure.)

Why is Nambo so different?

There are several factors:

• Growth of population is due to spontaneousmigration rather than relocation.

• It is the site of a Ten Day Market.• It was founded by a very enterprising Hmong

man, who has actively sought out expert advicefor his farming experiments and has providedencouragement and financial support for theentrepreneurial activities of other villagers.

In fact there is no lack, either of innovative spiritor interest in new alternatives in the rural areas.One of the biggest surprises from the earlyresearch work by the Land ManagementComponent of LSUAFRP, following the farmingsystems diagnosis in Namo District, Oudomxay,was the finding that farmers were quite interestedin growing rubber. Reportedly, the search for newcash crop alternatives had prompted a group ofHmong farmers in Namo District, Oudomxay, to

The Search for Solutions

Villagers inspect a new seed variety from researchersPhoto: NAFRI

One of the first growers of off-season tomatoes in NamboPhoto: NAFRI


66

visit their relatives in Luang Namtha to see whatinteresting cash crops were there. They returnedfrom their visit with the firm conviction thatrubber would be a good crop for Namo and askedfor assistance from the District Agriculture andForestry Extension Service (DAFES). DAFESthen approached the National Agriculture andForestry Research Institute (NAFRI), who thenstarted to provide research support on rubber,beginning with socio-economic studies.

Rubber planting for the Chinese market isbecoming very popular in the north. It is beingdriven by vigorous private sector initiatives fromChina and being met by enthusiastic responsefrom government officials and farmers alike. Newrubber planting developments are proliferating,with deals being made and seedlings going intothe ground at an astounding pace. The VientianeTimes has announced that rubber will soon bethe biggest export crop in the Lao PDR! The factthat all this is occurring without out any evidenceof a feasibility study or systematic planning isshocking to western observers. The first reactionfrom the international assistance community, quitenaturally, is one of concern for livelihoods systemsand biodiversity resources in the north.

To fill the ‘planning gap’, two donor-sponsoredprojects have studied rubber developments in theLao PDR. The LSUAFRP, supporting NAFRI,and the GTZ project in Luang Namtha arecollaborating closely and beginning to providesome answers. The two burning questions are: “isrubber planting good for livelihoods?” and “is itgood for biodiversity?” This paper will attemptto provide an early indicative answer to thesequestions, but conclusive evidence and moredetailed proposals must await completion of thecurrent research.

To answer this question, is it important to firstunderstand how rubber has actually started in the

Is rubber planting good for livelihoods?

The Rubber Planting Boomin Northern Laos

north. Recent fieldwork by NAFRI’s Socio-economics Research Unit (Khamphou et al 2004)has discovered that rubber cultivation in LuangNamtha began with a self-organized farmers’ studytour to learn about cash crop alternatives inThailand, Myanmar and China. In Thailand, theyfound orange and sweet tamarind but concludedthat these crops required too many expensiveinputs to be suitable for poor farmers in LuangNamtha. In China they found other types oforange and rubber. On returning home theydiscussed their observations with the othervillagers and the conclusion was that rubber wasthe best choice, since it required labour, but notmuch in the way of capital. Labour-intensiveproduction was not regarded as a problem byHmong farmers who had experience with opiumgrowing and judged the two crops to be similar intheir labour requirements.

They then set up a second study tour to China,this time accompanied by Provincial Agricultureand Forestry Extension Service (PAFES) officials,to learn how to prepare land, to plant and takecare of rubber, and to see where they could sell itand how much they might earn from a hectare ofrubber. They concluded that rubber is a reasonablecrop for their village. On returning home, theyorganized a meeting with villagers and found 30families willing to try growing rubber. They dividedinto four groups, selected very active families tobe the head of each group, and exchanged labourwith the group for land preparation. They alsocreated a village committee to take responsibilityfor insuring that the same technical standards werefollowed in regard to land preparation, planting,spacing, etc. When the time came to tap therubber, they approached a Chinese rubber tapperliving in Luang Namtha to train the villagers(Khamphou et al 2004). The local government hasbeen providing low-interest loans to villagers forrubber plantation establishment since 1994 andthe experience of growers has been positive.

Recently a whole new level of rubber planting hasemerged, based on Chinese support. The fullextent of this support has yet to be documentedbut an indicative glimpse is provided by the


67

example of the Luang Namtha RubberDevelopment Co., a joint venture between theSino-Lao Rubber Co. and the Luang NamthaPAFES. PAFES was given a 40% equity stake inthe new company (with a capitalization of US$ 1million) by a grant from the Chinese government.The company will provide clone rubber seedlings,technology, extension and marketing, and will alsooperate a research facility to support the newnorthern rubber varieties (Khamphou et al 2004).

Most significant, perhaps, is that the three rootconstraints on adoption of cash crop alternativesidentified in the causal diagram are all effectivelyaddressed by this Chinese-style joint venture. Whatelse can we point to in the Lao PDR that has suchfavourable characteristics for farmers?

The planting boom is not as unplanned as onemight have feared, but is there really enoughmarket demand to support conversion of land torubber plantations on a large scale in Laos? Almostcertainly there is.

Although the market for rubber in developedcountries is basically saturated and is not expectedto grow, in ‘New Asia’ (India, ASEAN andespecially China) it is booming. The price ofrubber, which had long been declining has madea U-turn in and is still rising steadily. It has been

What is driving the rubber boom?

projected that the price of rubber will continueto rise for at least ten years before it starts to leveloff, and then it will fluctuate like a normalcommodity. There is a huge opportunity for newrubber plantations close to demand centres inAsia. As a result, rubber is no longer considered asunset industry in Malaysia, and the main rubbermanufacturing countries of China, Thailand andMalaysia are again encouraging new plantations.Production is growing to meet the rising tide ofrubber demand, as China builds a national roadsystem and manufactures tyres for the vehicles thatwill travel those roads.

Conventional rubber plantations appear to offergood income opportunities for small farmers.Rubber is not hard to grow and yet providesabundant employment opportunity. Moreover,unlike some other plantation crops, it does notappear to be associated with poverty. In a recentsurvey in northeast Thailand, rubber farmersreported being better off with rubber thanwithout it. The internal rate of return for rubberplantations is quite reasonable at about 20% perannum.

What is especially interesting, both from alivelihood and a biodiversity conservation pointof view, is that rubber growing in any of its formsappears to offer better employment opportunitieson less land than the normally availablealternatives, as indicated in the following table.

LAND USE LABOUR

REQUIREMENT (man-days/ha)

RETURNS TO LABOUR

(relative to minimum wage)

EQUIVALENT POPULATION

SUPPORT (pop/km)

Clone rubber agroforests 150 1.0 - 1.7 80 Clone rubber monoculture 133 1.7 71 Traditional rubber agroforests 157 1.0 59 Intensive short-fallow upland rice 98-104 1.05 54 Extensive long-fallow upland rice 15-25 0.75 11 Note: The estimate of population support capacity is based on the assumption of 150 work days/ year/person and 80% of the land available for productive land use. This is indicative data from Sumatra, Indonesia. Equivalent data is not available for Laos. It is the relative differences that are important.

Source: Adapted from Murdiyarso et al n.d. and Tomich et al 1998, 2001

Table 3: Employment Opportunities offered by rubber and alternative crops


68

The most interesting possibility for the Lao PDRwould be clone rubber agroforests, for this is thetype of rubber cultivation that would offer notonly the highest economic returns but also thehighest economic diversification and, hence, thegreatest safety for Lao villagers. This option hasother characteristics that make it suitable for theless labour-intensive conditions prevalent in Laofarming:

“Ongoing research on various forms of rubberagroforestry demonstrates that selected high-yielding clones can be successfully established insmallholder systems at substantially reducedmanagement intensity, compared with themonoculture plantations for which they wereoriginally selected. Weeding intensities of 1-3times per year are sufficient for good rubbergrowth, and this needs only be done within therows of rubber trees. It was also found thatfertilizer application could be reduced oreliminated. The main constraint to rubberestablishment appears to be pig and monkeydamage, which can be controlled by fences,bamboo shafts around individual trees, or regularguarding of the plots” (Murdiyarso et al n.d.).

Sunderlin (1997) has called attention to the findingthat “There may, in fact, be a strong associationbetween smallholder tree crop production anddeforestation”. Chomitz and Griffiths (1996)found that tree crops, and rubber in particular,may play a more important role in deforestationin Indonesia than subsistence-oriented shiftingcultivation.

However, a close reading of Chomitz and Griffiths(1996) with Lao conditions in mind reveals animportant difference. Deforestation by tree cropsubstitution in Indonesia occurs in the contextof a deep pool of excess labour, ever ready tomigrate to the forest frontier and often assistedto do so by transmigration programmes. This is acritical factor in the reported deforestation andthis is certainly not the situation in Laos. No onehas ever identified an excess labour condition inthe Lao PDR, and migration in the country tendsto be from forest areas to urban areas and

roadsides. Unless the Lao PDR opened its bordersto Vietnamese or Chinese migrants, there wouldnot be sufficient migrant labour to make theIndonesian scenario happen. In lieu of this, thehigher productivity of rubber would make itpossible to fully occupy the available labour supplyin a given rural area on a smaller percentage ofthe land, thus reducing the population pressureon other land, and possibly even allowing theregeneration of forest from degraded fallow land.This is what the studies of Murdiyarso et al andTomich et al studies show is possible.

Rubber-based intercropping systems are anagroforester’s dream come true. Among the manyrubber intercropping systems already practiced inAsia, we may list:

• Rubber + food crops - rice, maize, cassava,peanuts, banana.

• Rubber + cash crops - tea, coffee, sugar,pineapple, chilli, cardamom, lemon grass,medicinal plants. etc. This kind ofintercropping is found in some but not all partsof southern China.

• Rubber + livestock - cattle, sheep, goats.

The advantage of rubber intercropping is that itincreases and diversifies the farmer’s income. Inmany cases, it even increases the per hectare yieldof rubber by stabilizing the soil and preventingthe excessive erosion associated with rubbermonocropping on steep slopes, as in the case ofthe rubber-tea agroforestry system in China.

Source: CheoFigure 5: Comparative Rubber Yields


69

Is rubber planting good for biodiversity?

The price of rubber, like all commodities, can beexpected to fluctuate once it reaches an equilibriumlevel, but rubber offers many opportunities foreconomic diversification through intercropping.

The effects on biodiversity of different ways ofcultivating rubber could be mixed, but overall itseems that rubber planting under Lao conditionscould have a net positive effect on biodiversity ifit displaces short-fallow farming on degraded land.To the extent that rubber can act as a magnet forlabour by providing higher returns than alternativeactivities, it can relieve pressures on forests andallow regeneration of overexploited biodiversityresources. Reduced land pressure can restoresustainable NWFP collection opportunities, andin some areas might even allow return ofsustainable long-fallow farming practices, whichare themselves a major source of agrobiodiversity.If agroforestry techniques are adopted, theagrobiodiversity of the rubber plantations willautomatically increase. Contrary to normalexpectations about plantation crops and marketforces, the rubber planting boom, which beganas a farmer initiative, could mature into a majorregenerative force for biodiversity in northernLaos. Whether in fact this occurs will depend onhow and where the planting is done.

ReferencesBurger, K. & Smit, H.P. 2004. “Natural rubberplanting policies and the outlook for pricesand consumption”. In: Jewtragoon andPatthavut. Full Texts of the International RubberConference 200e. Thai Rubber Association.Chiangmai.

Cheo, R. n.d. Evaluation of the Impact of RubberTrees in China on the Rural Economy with SpecificFocus on Xishaungbanna, Yunnan and HainanIsland. http://natureproducts.net/Ecology/Rubber/Rubber.htm

Chomitz, K. M. & Griffiths, C. 1996.Deforestation, shifting cultivation, and tree crops inIndonesia: nationwide patterns of smallholderagriculture at the forest frontier. World Bank.Washington.

Cromwell, E. 1999. Agriculture, Biodiversity andLivelihoods: Issues and Entry Points. OverseasDevelopment Institute. http://www.ukabc.org/odi_agbiod.pdf

Fan Rende. 2004. “Chinese rubber industryafter China’s entry into WTO”. In: Jewtragoonand Patthavut. Full Texts of the InternationalRubber Conference 200e. Thai RubberAssociation. Chiangmai.

FAO. 1999. Sustaining Agricultural Biodiversity andAgro-Ecosystem Functions. Rome: Food andAgriculture Organization of the UnitedNations. (http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/EPdirect/EPre0063.htm).

Farida, A. Agricultural biodiversity and thelivelihood strategies of the very poor in ruralBangladesh. http://www.unu.edu/env/plec/cbd/Montreal/abstracts/Akhter.pdf

Gouyon, A. 1999. The Sustainable Developmentof Tree Crops and the Prevention of VegetationFires in South Sumatra, Indonesia: Jungle Rubber.European Union and the Ministry of Forestryand Estate Crops. Palembang.


70

Jewtragoon, P. & Wate, T. 2004. Full Texts of theInternational Rubber Conference 2004. ThaiRubber Association. Chiangmai.

Kothari, A. Biodiversity and rural livelihood. IUCN.http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/beyond_fences/4.9

Lim Sow Ching. 2004. “Re-positioning theMalaysian rubber industry”. In: Jewtragoon andPatthavut. Full Texts of the International RubberConference 200e. Thai Rubber Association.Chiangmai.

Murdiyarso, D., van Noordwijk, M., Wasrin,U.R., Tomich, T.P. & Gillison A.N.“Environmental benefits and sustainable land-use options in the Jambi transect, Sumatra,Indonesia”. Journal of Vegetation Science.

Jumpasut, P. 2004. “Global NR and SRdevelopment in the next decade: focus onNew Asia”. In: Jewtragoon and Patthavut. FullTexts of the International Rubber Conference200e. Thai Rubber Association. Chiangmai.

Phouyyavong, K., Phiasakha, V. & Saycocie, S.2004. Field report on rubber economic productionsurvey September 2004. SocioeconomicsComponent. Lao-Swedish Upland Agricultureand Forestry Research Programme. NAFRI.Vientiane.

San, N.N. and Deaton, B.J. 1999. “Feasibility ofintegrating sheep and crops with smallholderrubber production systems in Indonesia”.Journal of Agribusiness 17(2):105-122.

Schap, D. & Young, A.T. Enterprise andbiodiversity: do market forces yield diversity of life?http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj19n1/cj19n1-5.pdf

Sunderlin, W. 1997. “Shifting cultivation anddeforestation in Indonesia: steps towardovercoming confusion in the debate”.Network Paper 21b. Rural DevelopmentForestry Network.

Zheng Haishui & He Kejun. 1997.“Intercropping in rubber plantation and itseconomic benefit”. In: Agroforestry Systems inChina. Chinese Academy of forestry and IDRC.Ottawa. http://www.idrc.ca/library/document/090916/chap35_e.html#35

John B. Raintree is a consultant to the LaoSwedish Upland Agriculture and ForestryResearch Programme, Vientiane.


71

AppendicesThe symposium on Agrobiodiversity for Food Security, held on Word Food Day, 14October 2004.

A. List of Speakers

Photo: Thibault Ledecq/FAO

retsiniM,gnohtgnahpaSeneiS.rD.E.H FAM

evitatneserpeR,neniavajriKaneeL.rD RDPoaLniOAF

,DhP,dneirFdrahciR.rMPBWMreganaMmargorP NCUI

tsigolomotnE,nhaJyraG.rD ,etutitsnIhcraeseReciRlanoitanretnIsenippilihPehT-alinaM

,eertniaRnhoJ.rMrosivdAcimonocE-oicoS

yrtseroFdnaerutlucirgAdnalpUhsidewS-oaLIRFAN-margorPhcraeseR

daeH,htokammohPkuonasmoS.rM tnemtrapeD,noisiviDtnemnorivnElanoitanretnIAETS-tnemnorivnEfo

,ettelloCadniL.sMreciffOlarutlucirgAroineS

-ecivreSsecruoseRciteneGtnalPdnadeeSsretrauqdaeHOAF

,anilodaPylliW.rDlareneG-rotceriDytupeD

,etutitsnIhcraeseReciRlanoitanretnIsenippilihPehT-alinaM

rotceriD,hnahcuonoeKhnakuoS.rM ,)CRL(ertneChcraeseRkcotseviLFAM/IRFAN

rotceriDytupeD,hnahpteKenohtnuoS.rM FAM/IRFAN,ertneChcraeseRyrtseroF

,hnomivuoSgnohknuoB.rMrotceriDytupeD

,ertneChcraeseRerutlucitroHoekoddaHFAM/IRFAN


72

B. List of Participants

rotceriDyrtnuoC,kcawZenidlareG.sM lanoitanretnIERAC

rotceriD,alsgnauoDmahknahK.sM elruoplanoitanretnInoitarépooC)ESDIC(étiradiloSaltetnemeppolevéD

rotceriDyrtnuoC,relliMpillihP.rM ediwdlroWnrecnoC

,mahkgneivgnovarPkcasiraPgnauohP.rDyraterceStnenamreP FAM,eciffOyraterceStnenamreP

,ynamaluohChtedalpyaX.rMyraterceStnenamrePytupeD FAM,eciffOyraterceStnenamreP

rotceriDytupeD,htalahkkAmodahtnI.rM FAM,ICID

,enasihtohPamahpnuoB.sMevitatneserpeROAFtnatsissA OAF

dnaytiruceSdooF,gyDellinreP.sMreciffOtnempoleveDlarutlucirgA OAF

rosivdAemmargorP,qcedeLtluabihT.rM OAF

,alopiaKakinnA.sMreciffOnoitcudeRytrevoPdnaredneG OAF

,hnahThnAuTuV.sMreciffOlanoisseforPetaicossA emoROAF

reciffOkseDOAF,gnauhoaDhnavasmoS.rM FAM,ICID

egrahC-ni-reciffO,gnovaliSyamastaL.sM NCUI

nauX.rM diAhcruhCnaigewroN

evitatneserpeR,evEdnaloR.rM dnuFefildliWdlroW

rosivdAtnempoleveD,awelPsaihttaM.rM ecivreStnempoleveDnamreG-DED

,aynapahtnIymmuohP.rMhcraeseRerutlucirgAfodaeH IRFAN

lioSfodaeH,gnauhgnuohatgneSdolO.rMertneCnoitacifissalCdnaLdnayevruS IRFAN

,moduognohPenomasnahC.rMertneChcraeseRyrtseroFfodaeH IRFAN

daeH,alahtnuoBhnahcgnohT.rM IRFAN,ertneChcraeseRerutlucitroH

rotanidrooC,htarihtahaMmahkgnosiS.rM )IRFAN(PRFAUSL

naeD,htavasnosuoKhnahpgnohT.rM ,supmaCgnobaN,erutlucirgAfoytlucaFsoaLfoytisrevinUlanoitaN

naicinhceT,hnohpmuoKgnohtyalauoB.rM ygolordyHfotnemtrapeD

rotanidrooCPACUB,oicangIatimroN.sM senipillihPeht,ECIRAES

lareneGrotceriD,htaruonnahPhnavariV.rM FAM,POD

rosivdAPFTN,seppoFtsooJ.rM IRFAN/VNS


73

daeHytupeD,gnoviluosgneSyavasgneiV.rM ,ertneCnoitcetorPtnalP AOD

nisnuoB.rM MKCVJ

kuonasiaS.sM MKCVJ

,yasimtihtpahTenohpahpuoS.rMtnatsissAgnippaMsisylanAytilibarenluV PFW

daeH,nuokgnammaRhtidnaB.rM ygetartSdnayciloP,tnemeganaMnoitamrofnIIRFAN,noisiviDgninnalP

,ytnuommahkgnoVyamastehPrMlareneGrotceriD FAM,FOD

gnoeS-nUnoeJ.rD ACIOK CDAaeroKoaL-

gneivuoSgnoenuoB.rM

aradgneSenohkaskuoS.sM IPC

modarOyvahtuoS.rM

enosyakpehThnahpmahK.rM CRMT

dyS.rM CRWRC

,ysgnoranihtiSemehC.rMnoisiviDevitartsinimdAfodaeH FAM,POD

zednanreFatiragraM.sM

daeH,yamgneisisnIenosyaK ertneCnoisnetxEseirehsiFdnakcotseviL

lareneGrotceriDytupeD,gnovhtavaShnavaliS SEFAN

tseroF,rotceriD,gnuomahPylauoB.rMnoitatnalP & ertneCnoisnetxEnoitatseroffaeR SEFAN

atogN ecnivorPenaitneiV,ecivreSerutlucirgA

rotceriD,yalivismahKgneiL.rM ertneChcraeseRsecruoseRcitauqAgniviL

,kcasarihTkcunmoS.rDlareneG-rotceriDytupeD SEFAN

yalihpmahK.rM AOD

rotceriD,aynapahtnIimuohP.rM IRFAN

yraterceStsriF,mortsllejKsealC.rM,secruoserlarutaN( E )tnemnorivn

nedewSfoyssabmE

hniMnarTimajriM.sM FWW

reciffOlacinhceT,ydgnehPmohtnuoB.rD ,noitneverPdnaeneigyHfotnemtrapeDhtlaeHfoyrtsiniM

,enohpayahttihPysmuelaS.rMrotceriDtcejorPlanoitaN FAM,AOD

emmargorPfodaeH,alisgnauoDgnauoK.rM IRRIoaL


74

,rotciVleahciM.rMrosivdAsecivreSnoitamrofnI PRFAUSL

,grebssoMvatsuGlraC.rMrosivdAtnemeganaMemmargorProineS PRFAUSL

lareneGrotceriD,yaxgnIgnueP.rM ,lennosrePdnanoitazinagrOfotnemtrapeDFAM

lareneGrotceriD,ahpuoBgnovastehP.rM FAM,noitagirrIfotnemtrapeD

lareneGrotceriD,ayiruoSenohkanahaM.rD FAM,FLD

lareneGrotceriD,gnovaddaLgneivuohP.rM FAM,noitcepsnIfotnemtrapeD

lareneGrotceriD,htinasmoShtarahtiN.rM FAM,ygoloroeteMfotnemtrapeD

lareneG-rotceriD,mohauoBgnohtnuoB.rD FAM,IRFAN

,yaxgnehpnahCpihtahtnoM.rDlareneGrotceriDytupeD FAM,IRFAN

forotceriDgnitcA,hnavahpehTgnovinaM.rMertneClatnemirepxEdnahcraeseR IRFAN,noisiviDtnemeganaMhcraeseR

daeH,gnovinaMyahpmahK.rM ygetartSdnayciloP,tnemeganaMnoitamrofnIIRFAN,noisiviDgninnalP

rotanidrooC,pokreuDsraL.rM ,tnempoleveDlaruRdesaBlanoitutitsnIecivreStnempoleveDnamreG-DED

ozioMdranreB.rM tnemeppolevéDteehcrehceRedetutitsnI

,oasmahkgnoVyalivgnoV.rMrotceriDtcejorPlanoitaN IRFAN

,htanahiSgnohtgnuohN.rMreganaMdleiFlanoitaN

tcejorPSFPS

rotceriDtcejorPlanoitaN,tehpaliStihciV.rM SEFAN

redaeLmaeT,notsniWdeT.rM ATI/310/OAL/PCG

,tsnrAlladnaR.rMreciffOtnempoleveDemmargorP LUA/191/SAR/PCG

resivdAemmargorP,nekaBdirgnI.sM tcejorPSFPS

,ikamolIannahitaK.sMtinUlatnemnorivnEfodaeH PDNU

,yaxgnovantehPoekgneiV.rMreciffOsnoitarepO knaBdlroW

reciffOnoitatnemelpmItcejorP,auoMueK.rM BDA

reciffOemmargorProineS,senoJleM.rM UE

resivdAyrtseroF,snamyerGnitraM.rM VNS

eduté'deégrahC,tahcaruDelimE.sM)tnatsissAtcejorP( DFA


75

rotceriD,onahamiShtenahtnahC.rM ,ICID FAM

,kcahcasaRenohpmahK.rM,feihCytupeD noisiviDsriaffAcimedacA

FAM,FOD

tsilanruoJ,ykcahC.rM noisiveleToaL

tsilanruoJ,atinnahC.rM noisiveleToaL

tsilanruoJ,mulnuoB.rM noisiveleToaL

yasnuoB CRA

tsilanruoJ,alinaM.sM eL repapsweNruetavoneR

tsilanruoJ,hnahcgneS.sM eL repapsweNruetavoneR

hnahcnuoB.rM AOD

kasmuelasiSannuokaR.sM ,tnatsissAemmargorP diAsuA

yasaloVenohcattihC.rM

gnuruGaneeB lapeNLF

,htalihtahpaSenohtuohP.rMtinUnoitarepooCfodaeH IRFAN

snahcSrednaVnitraM.rM NCUI

rednaxelAmiK TAIC/USC

,gnovuomahgniSmahkgnauoD.rMdaeHytupeD CERRAL,tinUhcraeseRecruoseRcitauqA

,mohpayasnuMgnoB.rMrotanidrooCemmargorP muigleB-mafxO

,htisammoKyaxmuelaS.rMlareneGrotceriDytupeD

,snoitazinagrOlanoitanretnIfotnemtrapeDsriaffAngieroFfoyrtsiniM

Photo: Thibault Ledecq/FAO


76

Across the world, more than 840 million peopleare currently food insecure: there is an urgent needto improve productivity. However, one of themost important issues raised was the relationship,and in some cases the conflict, between short-term productivity gains to improve food securityand long-term sustainability and conservation ofbiodiversity.

How can high-yield varieties contribute tobiodiversity? One argument was that thecultivation of high-yield rice varieties can enhancebiodiversity. Not all Lao households are self-sufficient when it comes to rice production.Households that are self-sufficient usually use highyield varieties. In addition, the introduction of highyield varieties usually reduces or at least maintainsthe area of land used for rice production: highyield rice varieties give bigger harvests from smallerareas of land and the remaining land can be usedto cultivate other species or can be left as naturalhabitat. It was argued that this process can actuallyenhance biodiversity at the farm level. This hasbeen the case in Bangladesh and Cambodia.Although the germplasms of local varieties arekept in gene banks, so they can be reintroducedwhen needed, some participants warned that ifhigh-yield varieties continue to be used on a largerand larger scale, there is a risk of losing traditionalvarieties.

IRRI researches traditional and high-yield ricevarieties and provides seeds from these to farmers.While high-yield varieties are diverse and grow infour different ecosystems, traditional varietiesmight be more resistant to natural catastrophes(floods and droughts) and are important inensuring food security. Similarly, there should bemore emphasis on local breeds of livestock, asthese have higher resistance to diseases.

A concern raised was that high-yield varieties oftenrequire more pesticide and fertilizer inputs, an issuethat needs addressing.

Studies from Bangladesh showed no significantdifference in yields, when rice fields were sprayedwith chemicals. Pesticides however can preventcatastrophe in the case of pest outbreaks, and theawareness of farmers on use of pesticides is ofutmost importance. Farmer Field Schools andeducational radio programmes can help in thisrespect. A local pesticide survey showed thatchemicals already banned in neighbouringcountries are presently sold and used in the LaoPDR.

It was stressed that it is governments who makethe choice to promote certain rice varieties andthat policy makers must be aware of theconsequences of taking such decisions.

Farmers also benefit from knowledge ofbiodiversity and while there have already beensome awareness raising programmes at districtlevel, through the National Biodiversity Strategyand Action Plan, more should be integrated intosocio-economic programmes. People in remoteareas also need more information on foods andnutrition, specifically on the contribution of fruitand vegetables to a balanced diet, and onprocessing and food preparation methods.

Household food security and nutrition areimportant concerns of both the Ministry ofHealth and the Ministry of Agriculture andForestry. The number of poor districts and villages

C. Issues raised by participants during discussions

1. Food security and biodiversity linkagesand trade offs – the case of high yieldvarieties

2. Ecological Aspects

3. Awareness Raising

4. Food Security and Nutrition


77

is high in the Lao PDR and the National HealthSurvey shows an alarming level of malnutrition.

In remote areas, seasonal forest foods are veryimportant due to their high carbohydrate andvitamin content. Many types of foods are available,but it can be hard to convince people to choosethe foods which contain important micronutrientsand vitamins. Vegetables, for example, are animportant source of iron. In remote areas, irondeficiency is a major cause of health problemssuch as anaemia. To promote good nutrition andimprove health, dietary guidelines need to bedeveloped based on seasonal availability. Furtherresearch and more attention are needed to addressfood intake and nutrition concerns.

NWFPs such as bamboo shoots hold greatnutritional and economic importance. Whilehouseholds in remote areas consume limitedamounts of vegetables, they often use more forestproducts and are likely to have a diet rich invitamins, minerals and trace elements.

The importance of linking rice cropping systemswith aquatic resources and livestock was stressed:people cannot depend on rice alone. Inrecognition of the importance of other crops,some projects, for example BUCAP, announcedplans to extend their activities to crops other thanrice.

The social and demographic structure of ruralcommunities is changing rapidly as more and moreyoung people move to urban areas. This processwill affect the future numbers of farmers and tosafeguard food security, exit strategies are neededfor rural populations.

Non-farming income, for example from NWFPs,enables many people to buy food. Somehouseholds face rice shortages for several monthseach year, and NWFPs, livestock, aquatic resources

and other sources of foods and income are oftentraded to buy rice. For example, bamboo shootscan be harvested all year round in the Lao PDRand families collect bamboo for both consumptionand export to Thailand and China. It is estimatedthat households earn between one to three millionKip per year from bamboo shoots.

The study and analysis of gender roles in NWFPactivities is of utmost importance as it is usuallywomen who collect and prepare food items fromthe forests. Nutrition education should be targetedat both men and women.

The issue of project sustainability was alsoaddressed during the symposium. In someprojects, for example the FAO home gardenproject, farmers sell their products and then usethe money to expand their activities. That project’sclose proximity to Vientiane Capital has made itan ideal demonstration site, enabling staff topromote the success of the home garden idea toNGOs and other projects working throughout theLao PDR.

5. Socio-Economic and Gender Perspectives

Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryPermanent Secretary OfficeP.O.Box 811,Vientiane, Lao PDRTel. (856 21) 412340,415358Fax: (856 21) 412344, 412343Email: [email protected]

The Second Lao Symposium on Food Security, “Biodiversity for Food Security”, was held on World Food Day 2004 atthe Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in Vientiane. More than 100 participants from the government, donoragencies, NGOs, international organiszations and the media attended to discuss the links between biodiversity andfood security. Speakers came from FAO Headquarters in Rome, IRRI in the Philippines, the National Agriculture andForestry Research Institute, SNV, IUCN, the Lao Swedish Upland Agriculture and Forestry Research Programme, theScience, Technology and Environment Agency and the Biodiversity Use and Conservation Programme in Asia(BUCAP).

The presentations covered all components of agricultural biodiversity, which are also included in the NationalAgricultural Biodiversity Programme: 1) crop and crop associated biodiversity; 2) livestock biodiversity; 3) Non-WoodForest Products (NWFPs) and other terrestrial food resources; 4) aquatic resources; and 5) household agricultureproduction systems (home gardens). Specific attention was given to rice in view of its crucial importance in the LaoPDR and in celebration of the International Year of Rice. Strategies and initiatives for biodiversity, and specifically foragricultural biodiversity, were presented to explore the relationship between food security and biodiversityconservation.

FAO Representation Office in the Lao PDRP.O. Box 1640Ban Phonsay, VientianeTel. (856 21) 413205, 414503Fax: (856 21) 414500e-mail: [email protected]

SYMPOSIUM ON BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD SECURITY · Symposium on Biodiversity for Food Security 5...

Documents

Transcript of SYMPOSIUM ON BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD SECURITY · Symposium on Biodiversity for Food Security 5...