Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Alleviation - APFNet

In addition, rice production was reported to increase, narrowing down the gap of rice shortage from
seven months in 2008 to four months in 2010. Even though rice production was still not enough,
villagers no longer experienced starvation. They filled the gap with maize or cassava. Trading made
rice accessible. Health care and education services were also improved. More children attended schools
and the rate of illiteracy among the young generation was dramatically reduced. Figure VI.6 reflects
improved people’s livelihoods in the areas.
According to WMPA’s wealth rankings in 2008 and 2010, eight households moved from medium to
rich class, 37 households or 16% were freed from the poor category and could move up to medium
class, resulting in a reduced number of poor households. However, the significant increase in number of
households in middle class within two years is suspected to have resulted from resettlement.
In conclusion, the compensation from NT2 used by the WMPA to conserve and improve livelihoods
of people living in NBCA provided significant contributions to poverty reduction in the areas. The
impact on livelihoods would be certainly more obvious in a longer period, if the effort is continued. By
that time, it is foreseen that there will be more income opportunities emerging and people will be less
dependent on agriculture and forest resources.
Outlook for Forestry and Poverty Alleviation
Poverty is the key problem in Lao PDR. Forest resources provide a significant contribution to poverty
reduction, especially for the majority of poor people who live in rural areas and whose livelihoods depend
on forest resources for survival. Examples discussed in this study confirm that there are both direct
and indirect contributions provided by forests and forestry to poverty alleviation. Direct contribution
can be seen in the forms of food, income, medicine, other materials for household subsistence. Indirect
contribution is in the form of the contribution to national income that the government partially uses for
infrastructure development, such as road access, education, health care, electricity network, which in
turn contribute to poverty alleviation.
However, the magnitude and sustainability of the contribution depend on the type and size of forests
and forestry. The contribution of natural forests is more relevant to rural poverty, providing diversity
and exceeding the contribution from plantations. Examples of the contribution from natural forest
resources in traditional forestry illustrate how much rural people benefit from forest products for their
survival. However, the contribution from the investments in commercial plantations does not show
significant impact to poverty alleviation, especially for rural poverty, even though it is important for
the national economy and forest policy targets. On the other hand, in many cases, the large plantations
(through land concessions) exacerbate poverty as in the cases of the rubber investments in Champascak
and Saravan Provinces.
In conclusion, forests and forestry provide significant contributions to poverty alleviation in Lao PDR,
but the contribution decreases as deforestation continues.
Lao PDR experienced rapid deforestation in the last two decades. In the 1990s, deforestation was mainly
attributed to shifting cultivation, a traditional upland farming system practiced mostly by poor farmers
in mountainous areas. Shifting cultivation had poverty implications in the past, simply because it was
then the only livelihood option that ensured food security in mountainous areas. This practice involved
the clearing and burning of forests before cultivating upland rice. Recognizing the negative effects of
shifting cultivation on natural forests, the GoL tried hard to stop the farming practice from the early
1990s onwards through the implementation of livelihood alternative projects and programs. But despite
a massive reduction in the cultivation area, the absolute eradication of this practice targeted by the end
of 2010 did not happen.
With the absence of better upland livelihood alternatives and with rural people needing rice for their survival,
shifting cultivation is foreseen to continue for a while. To tackle this chronic and complex concern, the GoL
has incorporated solutions in the 7th NSEDP and targets to eradicate the practice by 2015.
202