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

June 21-22, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, Contribution to Poverty NTFP contributes a substantial share for a household food consumption and cash income: –NTFP income ranked 3 rd at national level, but 2 nd 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, Thank you !