Lao PDR Poverty-Environment Nexus Case Study: Non Timber Forest Product (NTFP )

1. Lao PDR Poverty-Environment Nexus Case Study: Non Timber Forest Product (NTFP) By Phouthone Sophathilath National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Prepared for Sub-regional Workshop on Poverty and Environmental Nexus June 21-22, 2005

2. Presentation Outline Study objectives Study sites Findings Enabling policy, legal, institutional framework Status and trends of NTFP Management & Uses Market NTFP contribution to poverty eradication Recommendations June 21-22, 2005

3. Study Objectives • To examine status & trends of NTFPs in relation to resource availability, marketing, and cultivation at national and local levels • To study environmental, poverty and policy linkages of NTFP and its potential contribution to poverty eradication June 21-22, 2005

4. Study sites: Namo (Oudomxay): Nakham, Nahom, Houaypord, Kewchaep Phouvong (Attopeu) Vomgxay, Houaykout, Taoum, Phouhom Study Sites June 21-22, 2005

5. Policy, legal and institutional framework • NTFPs - an alternative for poverty eradication, shifting cultivation stabilization, and forest conservation; • GoL promotes sustainable NTFP management and utilization, domestication, processing, marketing, but not been widely extended to real practices: • Lack of specific regulation, procedures, methodologies • Lack of supporting mechanisms for NTFP processing and marketing • Increasing interests in NTFP development and research and Information sharing and networking initiated, but still lack of market information, capacity for extension • Lack of clear roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, especially within Government sectors leading to weak coordination June 21-22, 2005

6. Status (from national Survey) • Species reported = 37 • Commercially importance: • Nationally importance = 13 (2 fallow spc.) • Regionally importance: 8 in 2 regions and 5 in one region • Rattan & Cardamom are important in all regions • Commercial importance very by locations, depending on market availability influenced by road access Forest species Fallow species June 21-22, 2005

7. Trends • NTFP resources are declining, esp. Forest species decline, but fallow species increase, and the same applies for sale quantity • Price of all most all species increase • Very limited domestication of NTFP Increased Decreased June 21-22, 2005

8. Management and uses • NTFP managed is mainly based on customary rules (openly accessible for HH consumption, but not for sale) • No NTFP inventory and Management system • Quota allocation is based on a rough quantity estimate • Use of depleted harvesting techniques and methods was observed • Limited NTFP processing for value addition and commodity production June 21-22, 2005

9. Marketing • Market for NTFP is increasing and controls harvest • Market chains are diverse, mainly goes through middlemen with few direct trading • Uncontrolled NTFP trading cross international borders was observed • Village NTFP marketing group initiated, but not been well expanded. • Existing taxation system does not fully support NTFP trading (too many steps and inconsistent) June 21-22, 2005

10. Contribution to Poverty • NTFP contributes a substantial share for a household food consumption and cash income: • NTFP income ranked 3rd at national level, but 2nd in poor districts • Average in come from NTFP/HH/Yr • Average: 508, 000 kip • Namo: 772,000 kip • Phouvong: 237,000 kip • Contribution to food consumption is not exactly known, but observed a lot. June 21-22, 2005

11. Contribution to Poverty Reduction • HH with different healthiness involved in benefiting from NTFP differently • All most all surveyed HH benefited from NTFP (90% in North; 72% in South), but the poor tend to be more dependent June 21-22, 2005

12. Who (use) and earn most Study factors: • Settlement (highly significant) • Upland rice area (highly significant) • NTFP cultivation (marginally significant) ? • Membership of NTFP Marketing Group (highly significant) • Direct trading (highly significant) Taxation • Wealth (marginally significant) Households make more income when: • Living in older villages • Having more upland rice area • Member of NTFP Marketing group • Selling NTFP to traders June 21-22, 2005

13. Living in older villages • Old villages: • More knowledge of resources • More trust to traders • Better organized • New villages: • loss access to traditional NTFP • Less familiar with NTFP in new areas • Less known by traders • Spent more time on settling in and June 21-22, 2005

14. Having more upland rice area • NTFP from fallow land? Only some ! • More familiar, knowledge, spent more time, being closer to NTFP sources • Less rice -more need on NFTP for rice substitution (between paddy & Upland field) • Kmou received higher income from NTFP, who are doing shifting cultivation in a larger area June 21-22, 2005

15. Member of NTFP Marketing group (MG)/Selling NTFP to traders • MG Normally sell products directly to traders • More bargaining power • Know more about market situations June 21-22, 2005

16. Recommendations • Enhancing legal framework for sustainable management, utilization and marketing, by development of practical guidelines, and harmonization of inconsistent regulations; • Conducting NTFP assessment, developing sound management practices, and control illegal trades and unsustainable practices in a participatory manner; • Establishing NTFP coordinating body and NTFP marketing and information network; • Institutionalizing NTFP management, cultivation, processing and marketing into rural development alternatives (village development plan); June 21-22, 2005

17. Recommendations • Promoting NTFP domestication, e.g. integrating NTFP cultivation into (Upland) farming system for shifting cultivators, as well for those in new resettlement; • Promoting NTFP marketing in conjunction with community organizing (marketing group) and local capacity building; • Promote NTFP processing for value addition • Enhancing NTFP research and extension June 21-22, 2005

18. Thank you ! June 21-22, 2005