Sustainable Agriculture, Food Security, Food Systems, & Climate Change
In The Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR)
Jenkins Macedo, MSc. MA. BSc.
2
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….2
2.2. The Sustainable Agriculture, Food Security & Climate Change Nexus……….9
2.2.1. Agriculture and Economic Development in Lao PDR……………...13
2.2.1.1. The Impact of Hydropower Development on Agriculture in
Lao PDR .......……………………………………………………...30
2.2.2. The Geography and Agro-Ecological Zones of Lao PDR………….55
2.2.2.1. Food Security and Food Systems in Lao PDR……………61
2.2.2.1.1. Food Availability………………………………..66
2.2.2.1.2. Food Accessibility………………………………71
2.2.2.1.3. Food Stability…………………………………...78
2.2.2.1.4. Food Utilization…………………………………83
2.2.3. The Role of Biochar in Agricultural Research for Development in
Lao PDR…………………………………………………………………...87
2.2.3.1. Biochar, Food Security and Climate Change……………..93
2.2.3.2. Biochar Research for Development and Policy
Implications………………………………………………………..95
2.3. Chapter Summary……………………………………………………………..98
3
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
The Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) is a sparsely populated, multi-
ethnic, landlocked, and Least Developed Country (LDC) located in Southeast Asia (SEA)
and strategically situated along the Great Mekong River (GMR) (WorldBank 2006a,
Eastham et al. 2008). Lao PDR is bordered to the west by Viet Nam, to the south by
Cambodia, to the east and southeast by the Kingdom of Thailand, to the north by the
People’s Republic of China (PRC), and northwest by Myanmar (Burma) (WorldBank
2006a). The agricultural and industrial sectors combined contributes about 75 percent of
the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) with the agriculture sector alone leveraging almost 50
percent of the combined allocated revenue (ADB 2004, WorldBank 2006a, Dyoulgerov et
al. 2011). The actual percent contributed to the GDP from the agricultural sector continues
to experience a steady decline annually, but the agricultural sector continues to be the
major source of employment, which employs four-fifths of the population (ADB 2004).
The Government of Lao PDR (GoL) continues to put emphasis on investing in the
agricultural sector to boost economic development by instituting land policy reforms to
accommodate changes to land acquisition and ownership to enhance agricultural
development and shy away unsustainable farming practices; such as, the traditional slash-
and-burn methodologies (ADB 2004, GoL 2004, IMF 2004).
Over the past few decades, Lao PDR continues to struggle with major challenges,
which include decreases in agricultural productivity, food insecurity, increase rural poverty
rates, deforestation and environmental degradation, climate change variability and risks
4
(Seidenberg et al. 2003, Foppes and Ketphanh 2004, Johnston et al. 2009, FAO 2011,
Keomany 2011). Climate variability, such as, persistent drought due to increased mean
surface temperatures, soil moisture declines and inconsistent rainfalls lead to floods in
some areas and drought in others. Soil fertility decline and the loss of agricultural land due
to environmental degradation, which result from shifting cultivation and deforestation
associated with logging and unexploded ordnances (UXO) on lands all served to impact
agricultural productivity and rural livelihoods (Seidenberg et al. 2003, Pavelic et al. 2010,
UNDP 2010b, a, Keomany 2011, Johnston et al. 2012a, Johnston et al. 2012b). The
climatic and geophysical variations have direct impacts on the environment, food security,
and rural poverty eradication. The poverty rates in highland areas compared to lowlands
are high, which resonates with low agricultural outputs in the highlands (WorldBank
2006a, Epprecht et al. 2008).
For example, rice, which is the stable food of Lao PDR and other cash crops have
suffered declines over the last few decades due to climate variability, poor farming
practices, soil degradation, water scarcity, and the lack of financial resources to
compensate farmers impacted (GoL 2004, Dyoulgerov et al. 2011, Keomany 2011).
Agriculture, if appropriately managed, is an important sector that could promote rapid
economic growth and development. The process needed to achieve sustainable economic
growth and development call for the judicious use of agricultural resources, including land,
water, forest, human, and financial capitals. The active engagement and collaboration with
key stakeholders at the district, provincial and national levels is critical to adapt to or
mitigate climate change variability and other change factors.
5
The Government of Lao PDR (GoL) considers agriculture as the main vehicle to
drive and achieve sustainable economic growth and development (GoL 2004, Delang
2006, Delang and Toro 2011, MONRE 2013). The focus on prioritizing and promoting
development through agriculture targets discouraging the ‘slash and burn’ farming system
that is common among rural smallholders, especially in the mountainous highland and
lowland areas (Roder 1997, Seidenberg et al. 2003, Bounthong et al. 2004, Evrard and
Goudineau 2004, WorldBank 2006a). The GoL states that a need for a paradigm shift from
the traditional farming system to modernize agriculture and the incorporation of rural
smallholders have the potential to achieve economic growth and development, while
ensuring environmental conservation and sustainability (GoL 2004, IMF 2004).
Given that economic development priorities are primarily shifted on agricultural
development and expansion, commercialized agricultural systems have started to compete
with the traditional farming systems for the available resources at the expense of rural
smallholders who have to adapt to the rapid economic transition and change (Fujita 2006).
The history of change and the normalization of political relationships and trade with
neighboring countries, which include Viet Nam, Thailand, Cambodia, and China have
triggered the prioritization of cash crop production, which ultimately positioned Lao
PDR’s economy into the regional markets of the Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS)
(Fujita 2006). The prioritization of cash crop production for the regional market was
reflected at the national level as rural smallholders across the country became actively
engaged in cash crop production boosting economic productivity, while benefiting from
state-sponsored programs and incentives (Fujita 2006).
6
The prioritization of cash crop production for economic growth and development
also resonates with the GoL efforts to combat rural poverty, to control shifting cultivation,
while decreasing forest and environmental degradation and increased surveillances on
narcotics (opium) production in the mountainous highland areas (Evrard and Goudineau
2004, Fujita 2006). The history of change in Lao PDR demonstrates that rural smallholders
are positioned at the center of development prioritization and the government’s efforts to
redefine space and the control thereof and the consequences on their livelihoods (Fujita
2006, Fujita and Phengsopha 2007, Fujita and Phanvilay 2008).
In the process of change for economic growth and development, smallholders are
impacted in several ways, including shifts in the demands and supplies of agricultural
goods, services and land (Ducourtieux et al. 2005, Fujita 2006, Thongmanivong and Fujita
2006), water resources availability and accessibility (Johnston et al. 2012a, Pavelic et al.
2014), education, communication, technology, and access to financial credit and capital
(Pavelic et al. 2010). The holistic integration of agricultural development objectives to
ensure economic development require putting in measures that explicitly account and
compensate for all indicators that impact the livelihoods of smallholders (Fujita 2006).
This chapter discusses sustainable agricultural development, as a potential strategy
to boost economic growth and development, while addressing the socioeconomic
vulnerability, which include poverty, food insecurity and environmental degradation (GoL
2004, UNDP 2010b, MONRE 2013). Agricultural development continues to be the
national target of the GoL to foster economic growth and development, thereby enhancing
7
the socioeconomic viability and livelihoods for rural households (Bounthong et al. 2004,
GoL 2004, Dyoulgerov et al. 2011, Keomany 2011).
The major goal for prioritizing agricultural development as the national target is
gear towards elevating Lao PDR from been a Least Developed Country (LDC) to
developing country by 2020 by combating poverty, food insecurities, climate change
vulnerability, while ensuring economic growth and environmental conservation (GoL
2004, IMF 2004, Keomany 2011, MONRE 2013). To that end, the GoL instituted land
reform policies to restructure the agricultural sector to transition from the traditional
farming system to modernize farming systems, which incorporates sustainable practices
and systems to conserve resources, while ensuring economic growth and development. The
GoL is mandated by the constitution as the prime owner of all natural resources, which
include land, water and forest (Fujita 2006, Fujita and Phengsopha 2007). The history of
land use and reforms is discussed further in a section in this chapter. Land reform is
paramount to agricultural development and economic growth.
The concept of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is interchangeably used with
sustainable agriculture and both concepts describe systems of agricultural development,
which refer to the judicious use of resources for the current needs of humanity without
degrading or compromising the needs for similar resources for future generations and also
attempt to account for their ability to adapt to climate vulnerability (FAO 2013). In Lao
PDR, the concept of CSA can be linked to the national targets to promote agricultural
development, which aims at eradicating poverty, achieving economic growth and
development, enhancing environmental conservation, while improving livelihoods by
8
mitigating climate change risks and vulnerability (GoL 2004, UNDP 2010a, FAO 2011,
2013). The GoL has targeted to preserve all natural resources for economic prosperity,
which include it’s forest systems and resources (GoL 2007, Hanssen 2007). The
sustainable allocation and utilization of natural resources for economic growth and
development is significant to the GoL (GoL 2004, WorldBank 2006a).
In 1995, Lao PDR rectified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) and a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol in 2003 (MONRE 2013). The
GoL is committed to achieve goals established in support of these international treaties.
Climate change variability and risks have been major constraints to smallholders, who
primarily rely on agriculture for their livelihoods (Johnston et al. 2010, Pavelic et al.
2010). Climate change variability and risks such as increasing mean surface temperatures,
soil moisture decline, prolong drought, variable annual and seasonal precipitation events,
increasing mean evapotranspiration rates, soil degradation and the depletion of fertile soils
all serve to impact smallholders’ ability to produce enough food (Johnston et al. 2010,
Pavelic et al. 2010, UNDP 2010a, FAO 2011, Johnston et al. 2012a). Other technical
constrains smallholders encounter include poor farm management practices and lack of
agricultural extension services to most rural areas, inadequate irrigation infrastructures and
management, financial credits and the avenue for investment at the local scale, education
and training in modern farming methods, markets and deflated prices for agricultural
produce, transportation, processing, and storage (UNDP 2010c, b, a, FAO 2011). The
process of addressing climate change variability and risks should involve concrete steps to
effectively solve each constraints identified and to ensure that smallholders receive the
9
needed technical and non-technical support to complement their efforts to adopt or mitigate
climate change variability and risks to improve productivity and livelihoods (Pavelic et al.
2010, Johnston et al. 2012a).
The challenges and opportunities specific to the implementation of CSA in the
context of Lao PDR are also given special attention. Specific interest is directed to the role
of this study in the current development and improvement of CSA in the rain-fed lowlands
of Lao PDR. The chapter concluded with highlights of major issues that were explored in
the literature and how this research contributes towards CSA, food security, and poverty
reduction in the context of climate change. This literature review builds on the works
completed by the GoL, research institutions, independent researchers, and non-state actors.
10
2.2. The Sustainable Agriculture, Food Security & Climate Change Nexus
The links between agriculture, food security and climate change have been
evidently established (Sanchez 2000, Lobell et al. 2008, FAO 2011, Kissinger 2011, FAO
et al. 2014). Studies have shown that agriculture contributes about 50 percent of the global
methane (CH4) emissions, while 20 percent of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are
attributed to land use changes linked to deforestation and environmental degradation
mostly in the tropical and sub-tropical eco-regions (Houghton et al. 1997, Sanchez 2000,
Palm et al. 2003, Johnson et al. 2007). Study also suggests that human-induced carbon
emissions has risen to about 3% per annual (Woolf et al. 2010), making ecosystems
vulnerable to persistent and severe climatic conditions (Solomon et al. 2009; Raupach et al.
2007). The increases in climate change events compounded by population growth in
developing countries call for urgent action to preserve natural resources to enhance
agricultural productivity in developing countries, given the levels of vulnerability pose to
rural communities who primarily rely on the natural environment and agriculture for their
livelihoods (Ehrlich et al. 1993, Gregory et al. 2005, WorldBank 2006a).
Lao PDR’s economy relies on agricultural production for economic growth and
development; however, climate change and climate variability amongst other change
factors pose significant risks to the agricultural sector, which could severely impact over
77 percent of rural population who depend on agriculture for their livelihoods (GoL 2004,
IMF 2004, WorldBank 2006a, Keomany 2011). Farmers in rural parts of the country have
started experiencing the effects of climate change in several ways including but not limited
to inconsistent rainfall, prolong drought, decreases in annual yield of major cash crops,
11
water scarcity, soil water depletion, and forest degradation (Chanphengsay et al. 1999,
Schiller et al. 2001, Pavelic et al. 2010, Dyoulgerov et al. 2011). The reciprocal effects of
decrease agricultural productivity is that rural families would have to work harder at the
expense of minimum outcome in terms of productivity considering both the biotic and
abiotic constraints associated with rice production (Schiller et al. 2001).
In view of the relationships between agriculture, food security and climate change
and the current trends of global environmental change, declining natural resources and the
projected population growth in developing countries should signal a need for a paradigm
shift from conventional agriculture to a more sustainable approaches, such as Climate-
Smart Agriculture (CSA) (FAO 2013, Caron 2015). CSA is a comprehensive
interdisciplinary framework, which utilizes scientific and applied knowledge across
multiple disciplines to effectively compensate for the efficient allocation, distribution,
utilization, and management of natural resources to foster economic growth and
development to meet the food security needs of a specific population, while ensuring
environmental protection and conservation (Caron 2015). While the underlying strategies
for implementing CSA approach differs from country to country, the major principal
component seeks to ensure food security, environmental protection and conservation
remain intrinsic component of any CSA framework at the country-level (Caron 2015).
Since smallholders rely on natural resources and the local environment for their
livelihoods, they are specifically susceptible to severe climatic events. The changes in the
local environment could alter the local ecosystems and other livelihoods safety net
engulfing smallholders in a visual cycle of continuous risks with limited opportunities to
12
cope with climate change (Ehrlich et al. 1993, Gregory et al. 2005). As such, the focus of
CSA as a national priority to drive economic growth and development should target rural
smallholders who are the main gatekeepers of agricultural productivity and also the
potential and first victims of climate change other change factors (WorldBank 2006a).
In the context of Lao PDR, the integration of agriculture as the main driver for
economic growth and development with the preposition of environmental conservation and
protection emphasizes the scope to which the GoL and partnered organizations are
committed towards combating climate change vulnerability, while improving rural
livelihoods to eradicate poverty and address food insecurity issues (GoL 2004, IMF
2004).The need to revert the current paradigm between agriculture, food insecurity, and
climate change cannot be underestimated given the current trends in global climate change
variability associated with anthropogenic-induced GHG emissions (IPCC 2013). The fact
that agricultural development has contributed to global GHG emissions and other forms of
environmental degradations (Johnson et al. 2007) present opportunities to revert the trend
through a paradigm shift to more sustainable approaches in the agricultural sector mostly
in developing countries where agriculture serves as the main driver for economic growth
and development and constitute the major source of income for rural population (Diop
1999, Johnson et al. 2007, Pretty 2008).
In Lao PDR for example, some traditional farming systems or approaches are
assumed to negatively reshape the forest landscapes like in the case of slash-and-burn or
shifting cultivation approach in northern Lao PDR, which has contributed to forest lost,
environmental degradation, changes in ecosystems, and the landscape (Roder 1997,
13
Seidenberg et al. 2003, Foppes and Ketphanh 2004). Given that agricultural productivity is
mainly aimed at economic growth and development, the conservation of the environment
and natural resources in also crucial to achieving food security for rural areas.
In the context of this study, the concept of food security builds on the definition
provided by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), which
defines food security as the condition which exist “when all people, at all times, have
physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets
their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (Schmidhuber and
Tubiello 2007, FAO 2014). It is against this definition that food security broadly defined is
concern with food availability, accessibility and utilization (Gregory et al. 2005,
Schmidhuber and Tubiello 2007). The question of how food security is impacted by
climate change and decline in agricultural productivity within the context of Lao PDR is
discussed in a separate section of this chapter. The concept of water security is link to food
security as water security brings into play water availability, accessibility and utilization.
This section explored the interconnections between sustainable agriculture as a
national priority for driving economic growth and development by the GoL to mitigate or
adapt to climate change variability and risks, while enhancing food security, eradicating
poverty and ensuring environmental conservation and protection (GoL 2004). Sustainable
agriculture, food security and climate change serves as the theoretical basis upon which
this study was conceptualized and implemented. Other relevant aspects of the sustainable
agriculture, food security and climate change nexus explored include land reforms policies
as they relate to the sustainable agriculture, food security and climate change nexus to
14
ensure economic growth and development (GoL 2004, Ducourtieux and Castella 2006,
Alexander et al. 2009, Delang and Toro 2011). The assessment of natural resources, which
include land and soil, forest, and water resources, key components of agricultural
productivity amongst others, were explored to understand how specific land reforms
policies contribute to enhancing the agricultural sector and improving the socioeconomic
viability of smallholders who are the main victims of climate change vulnerability and
risks (Ducourtieux et al. 2005, Ducourtieux and Castella 2006, Ribolzi et al. 2011,
MONRE 2013).
In the next few sections, each component is given independent assessments and
analyses within the context of Lao PDR with relevant comparisons building on similar
processes in other developing countries. The basis of the independent assessment is to
explore issues, which impact agricultural productivity and the livelihoods of smallholders
within the broader context of the economic growth and development objectives in Lao
PDR and how agricultural development is impacted by climate change variations.
2.2.1. Agriculture and Economic Development in Lao PDR
In Lao PDR, agriculture and economic development are practically inseparable
given that more than three-fourth of the population live in rural areas and predominantly
rely on agriculture for their livelihoods (WorldBank 2006a). Economic development
targets and goals are intrinsically aligned to and driven by agricultural goals and objectives
(GoL 2004). Government institutions and those of the private sectors, including academic
and research institutions, financial agencies, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs),
companies, and multi-national entities are committed to achieving specific development
15
targets to enhance and achieve economic growth and development. The GoL considers
agriculture as the primary mechanism to drive sustainable economic growth and
development. Compare to its powerful neighbors, which include China, Viet Nam,
Thailand, and Cambodia and due to its geographic locality, Lao PDR is strategically
situated at the hub of trans-national trade, transportation and communication, which are
essential and intrinsic development elements needed to boost and drive rapid economic
transition (Fujita 2006, Fujita and Thongmanivong 2006).
Established on an economy which predominantly relies on the agriculture and other
sectors for economic growth and development, it is critical to integrate all aspects of
agricultural development planning from the district, provincial, national, and regional
levels to address challenges that could impact the development processes. The most
important primary sectors, which contribute significantly to the GDP in Lao PDR include
agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and mining and other sectors, such as, logging, textile,
tourism, transportation, and hydropower (GoL 2004, Delang and Toro 2011, Oraboune
2011, MONRE 2013, MRC 2013). However, agriculture continues to be the single most
important sector, which has the largest proportion of employees in both the formal and
informal sectors compared to other areas of the economic development. National reports
suggest that approximately 80 percent of the population of Lao PDR still lives in rural
areas where agriculture is the dominant source of income and other forms of economic
activities and about 40 percent of people in rural areas are engaged in shifting cultivation,
which is the dominant form of farming (Moizo 2005, WorldBank 2006a). In fact, reports
also suggest that the agricultural sector alone contribute approximately 20 percent to the
16
GDP of the economy of Lao PDR (WorldBank 2006a, FAO 2011). The role of the
agricultural sector is crucial to achieve economic growth and development, but the
relationship between agriculture and economic development is not mutually exclusive of
other sectors within the economy. Each sector of the economy of Lao PDR complement
each other providing wide range of services to the population as well as revenue.
The agricultural sector serves as the bridge, which links other sectors, which have
strategic and targeted development objectives. For example, hydropower development in
countries along the Mekong River (MR) have started utilizing hydropower-generated
electricity for a variety of national and trans-national economic activities, which include
agricultural development and expansion, commercialized agriculture, the proposed
development of trans-national electricity grid systems, irrigation infrastructures, and the
provision of electricity to rural households by 2030 (Foran et al. 2010, Matthews 2012). At
the rural households’ level, the provision of electricity can be utilized for multiple
microeconomic activities, which could include the establishment of micro-businesses,
storage facilities for perishable agricultural produce, rice mills powering and processing,
and motorize-powered micro irrigation systems that are suitable and affordable for most
smallholders. The economic utilizations of hydropower-derived electricity at the household
levels in rural areas are enormous and dynamic, which aims to enhance smallholders’
resiliency against severe climatic events when surface water resources are scarce and the
potential for sustainable groundwater irrigation seem to be optimal alternative to the water
scarcity needs (Johnston et al. 2010, Pavelic et al. 2010).
17
Other change factors apart from climate change related variability and risks, such
as population growth, economic development, institutional governance of land and water
resources among others could in the short term pose significant challenges to agricultural
productivity and water availability, accessibility and utilization (Johnston et al. 2010,
Johnston et al. 2012a, Johnston et al. 2012b). Research has shown that institutional
governance of groundwater resources in Lao PDR has shown a paradigm shift towards the
utilization of groundwater as a potential source to address the water scarcity challenges and
needs during the hot-dry season (Johnston et al. 2012b).
The expertise and infrastructures needed to effectively support, monitor and
manage groundwater resources are still in the emerging stages in Lao PDR (Johnston et al.
2012b). Institutions such as IWMI, Water International (WA), the Mekong River
Commissions (MRC), Asian Development Bank (ADB) among others in partnership with
various state agencies, such as the Department of Irrigation, Department of Water of
Resources (DWR), Land and Natural Resources Management (LNRM), and NAFRI are
leading the way in the development of land and water resources, food and water security,
climate change, socioeconomic feasibility of diverse water-related research and
development (Johnston et al. 2010, Pavelic et al. 2010, IWMI 2014, Drechsel et al. 2015).
The GoL and partners are committed to ensure the conservation, protection and
sustainability of natural resources, including surface and groundwater resources, which
makes sense given that Lao PDR receives a significant volume of total water inflow
compare to other countries situated along the MR.
18
The process of targeting and promoting economic growth and development with
the focus on agricultural development in rural areas makes perfect sense given the
proportion of rural poor versus the number of farming households in those areas. The GoL
in partnership with key development partners provide a wide range of development
assistances, which target specific development goals and objectives. Development goals
and objectives in most cases complement each other to reinforce positive economic growth
and transitions at the household levels. The distribution of appropriate technical
information and resources to urban and rural communities by government institutions have
been highlighted in several reports as either poorly coordinated, ineffective or practically
non-existent in some rural settings, which include but not limited to the scientific and
technical understanding of climate change risks and vulnerability and the impacts on
agriculture, food security, poverty reduction, and the environment (WorldBank 2006a,
UNDP 2010c, FAO 2011, Keomany 2011).
The district and provincial level agricultural extension service providers of the
District Agriculture and Forestry Extension (DAFOE) and Provincial Agriculture and
Forestry Extension (PAFOE) both auspices of the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment (MONRE) and other sectors, which include the Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry (MOAF), Water Resources and Environment Agency (WREA) and research
institutions such as the National Agricultural Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI),
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), International Research Development
(IRD) continue to provide relevant and strategic assistance and support to rural farmers and
key development partners in the areas of research for development, the distribution of
19
relevant research findings to state and non-state partners as well as rural stakeholders
(MONRE 2012). The works of these state and non-state agencies are not only limited to
research, but also the implementation of research findings as solutions to those challenges
in the form of short and long term development projects.
According to the World Bank, Lao PDR is considered a low to middle-income
country and more than half of the 6.8 million people live on less than $2.00 per day with
bulk of their household income are generated from agricultural-related activities
(WorldBank 2015). Lao PDR is one of the poorest countries in SEA and ranked 143rd
amongst 175 countries according to the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI)
(WorldBank 2006a). Compared to neighboring countries along its borders, the GDP of Lao
PDR is significantly far behind that of the PRC, Viet Nam, Thailand, and Cambodia with
the exception of Myanmar. Agricultural activities are the main sources of income for most
rural communities and households in the highlands and lowlands areas (MONRE 2012).
Economic growth and development can only be attained through the appropriate utilization
of state and non-state resources at the national, provincial and district levels to encourage,
invest, train, and enhance the agricultural and economic potentials and the overall
productivity in remote areas, while improving the resiliencies of rural smallholders to
adapt or mitigate to climate change risks and vulnerability.
This section focuses on the agricultural sector, which has become the main engine
for setting economic growth and development priorities at the national, provincial and
district levels with the goals of eradicating poverty, improving food security, ensuring
environmental conservation, while combating climate change and climate vulnerabilities
20
(Ducourtieux et al. 2005, FAO 2011, MONRE 2013). In the past few decades, the GoL has
been successful engaging the international development communities including
governments of other countries for mutual partnership towards economic development and
prosperity with the focus on agriculture, environmental protection, transnational trade,
hydropower development, and collaborative research for development (Lestrelin 2010).
The waves of development organizations presence in Lao PDR can be attributed partly to
the government’s embracement and signatory to the United Nations Framework
Conventions on Climate Change (UNCCC) in 1995, the Kyoto Protocol in 2003 and other
similar international conventions against which the First National Communication (FNC)
was developed and submitted to the UNFCCC in 2000 in view of its commitment to
combat climate change risks and vulnerability by reducing Green House Gas (GHG)
emissions across all sectors of the economy, while putting in systems to manage, protect
and conserve natural resources sustainably (MONRE 2012, 2013).
The FNC is a comprehensive framework, which summarizes and outlines all the
technical and non-technical resources available at the disposal of the national, provincial
and district governments and opportunities needed to harness and achieve targeted
development objectives and goals (MONRE 2013). The FNC specifically communicates
national targets to reduce GHG emissions across all sectors, fostering environmental
conservation and protection (GoL 2007, Lestrelin 2010, MONRE 2012, 2013), while
ensuring sustainable economic growth and development by 2030 (GoL 2004, IMF 2004,
Hanssen 2007). The establishment of the first and second FNCs facilitated the discussions
and development of key policy actions meant to expand on specific components of the
21
FNC, which include the development of Enabling Activities II, a National Capacity Self-
Assessment (NCSA) and a National Adaptation Programme for Action (NAPA) to enforce
strategies outlined in the FNCs and in 2008 the National Steering Committee on Climate
Change Strategy (NSCCS) was established and headed by the Deputy Prime Minister of
Lao PDR (MONRE 2013). The NSCCS was approved in early 2010 by the National
Environment Committee (NEC) and armed with the vision to “secure a future where Lao
PDR is capable of mitigating and adapting to changing climatic conditions in a way that
promotes sustainable economic development, reduces poverty, protects public health and
safety, enhances the quality of the natural environment, and advances the quality of life for
all Laotians" (MONRE 2013). The role of the NSCCS is to work with other inter-
governmental agencies and the private sector to strategize climate change strategies that
could be transformed into policy (MONRE 2013). The NSCCS also prompted the
establishment of specific authoritative agencies responsible for monitoring and managing
climate change, which include the Water Resources and Environment Administration
(WREA), which serves as the focal point for all national matters related to climate change
and also serves as the designated agency for the implementation of the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) (MONRE 2012, 2013).
The agricultural sector in Lao PDR has attracted recognition from several key
development organizations and financial institutions paving the way for vast investment
opportunities and the expansion of agricultural production (ADB 2004, IMF 2004, UNDP
2005, WorldBank 2006a, FAO 2015). Yet the year to year yields of major cash crop, such
as rice continues to slightly decline in parts of the country with significant gaps in total rice
22
production and yields between the upland areas where total production is lower than the
rain-fed lowland areas (Schiller et al. 2001, Seidenberg et al. 2003). Research has shown
that more than 60 per cent of total rice yield in Lao PDR are produced on an annual basis
from the rain-fed lowland areas, while rice production in upland areas are mainly
constrained by water scarcity, land restrictions, hydropower-induced displacement,
resettlement of ethnic minorities, soil degradation, and topography (Schiller et al. 2001,
Vandergeest 2003). The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) amongst others is one
of the first research institutions to study and invest in rice research and development with
development assistance from the Australian, Swiss, Swedish, American, Viet Namese
among others (Schiller et al. 2001).
Lao PDR has an agrarian society meaning that most Laotian engage in some kind
of agricultural activities at the household and community levels to supplement the
households dietary and monetary needs (Ducourtieux et al. 2005, NSC 2010, Smith
2015a). According to the National Statistics Commission (NSC) previously known as the
Lao Statistics Bureau (LSB) of the 1,021,000 households that participated in the national
agricultural census in 2010, about 783,000 were identified as farming households, which
constituted 77 percent of all households that participated in the census (NSC 2010). The
number of farming households provincially continue to shrink due to increase climate
variability and increasing poverty rates in rural areas, which has prompted the internal
movement of people to other forms of trade. Smallholders switch between farming
practices to contract farming (Fullbrook 2007, Manorom et al. 2011), skilled and unskilled
labors, transportation, displacement due to targeted development operations (Vandergeest
23
2003, Delang and Toro 2011) or relocate to urban metropolis in search of better economic
opportunities. These internal processes have direct impacts on agricultural productivity;
given that, production increases are ultimately and fundamentally linked to the number of
farming households at the provincial and districts levels.
The traditional farming approach in Lao PDR has long been associated with the
slash-and-burn farming especially in the mountainous highland and rain-fed lowland areas
(Evrard and Goudineau 2004). As the name depicts, the slash-and burn approach works
such that farmers clear and burn prior vegetation before producing cash crops, which
include rice, cassava, peanuts, and other crops (Roder 1997, Evrard and Goudineau 2004).
Studies have shown that approximately 25 percent of the net CO2 and about 10 percent of
the net N2O emitted globally are associated with forest conversion in tropical and sub-
tropical areas and that the slash-and-burn farming practice plays an integral role in land
cover change and GHG emissions (Palm et al. 2003, CIFOR 2009). Report published by
the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN REDD) indicates that about 1.7
billion tons of carbon are emitted due to forest conversion and land use change, which
constitute about 17 percent of the total global carbon emissions surpassing the emissions
attributed to the transportation sector in developing countries (CIFOR 2009).
Reports also indicate that the forests of Lao PDR have transformed in recent
decades primarily due to commercial and illegal timbers harvesting, human displacement
and settlement, hydropower development, and shifting cultivation (WorldBank 2006a).
Lao PDR contains one of the ecologically and biologically diverse eco-systems in SEA,
24
which is at risk due to severe climatic variability, environmental change and human-
induced impacts, such as, Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) harvesting, logging, illegal
hunting, shifting cultivation, and hydropower development (WorldBank 2006a, GoL
2007). The Forestry Law of Lao PDR forms the underlying legal framework for forest
protection policies and measures to conserve natural forest resources, which facilitated the
establishment of the National Protected Areas (NPA) (WorldBank 2006a, GoL 2007).
The World Bank reports that approximately 20 per cent of land area (forestlands)
have been designated as NPA with 10 per cent of public expenditures allocated to the
protection and maintenance of NPA at the district, provincial and national levels
(WorldBank 2006a). Report also estimates that 42 per cent of the forestlands in Lao PDR
still remain, but is vulnerable to deforestation, which occurs at the estimated rate of 53,000
hectares per annual (WorldBank 2006a). The politics of designating forestlands as NPA in
Lao PDR also contributes to the increase of rural poverty and negatively impacts
agricultural productivity at the expense of rural smallholders who have to adapt to these
forest laws (WorldBank 2006a). The designation of forestlands as NPA once used by
smallholders for farming has resulted to unintended forced displacement and the
resettlement of rural villages to less favorable lands vulnerable to severe climatic events, a
situation which is out of their control. Smallholders had to relocate to remote and
mountainous areas further away from the NPA sites to areas with scarce and limited
natural resources. The relocated areas have limited water availability, agricultural lands,
fertile soils and other limiting factors, such as, poor road networks and markets. These
25
challenges pose significant risk to smallholders’ ability to adapt or mitigate climate change
risk and other change factors, which impact agricultural productivity and livelihoods.
There are 20 NPA designated forest ecological zones in Lao PDR, which covers the
total area of approximately 5.3 million hectares at the district, provincial and national
levels and constitute about 23.6 per cent of the total land area of Lao PDR (WorldBank
2006a). The World Bank reported that though the NPAs are situated in remote geographic
settings, humans’ impacts on the forest ecosystems are on the rise (WorldBank 2006a).
The main cause of forest and environmental degradation in NPA designated areas are a
mixture of anthropogenic-induced activities, which include population growth among
ethnic minorities, migration, displacement and resettlement, agricultural intensification,
illegal logging and hunting, and slash-and-burn farming systems (WorldBank 2006a). The
establishment of the NPA is in line with the Management of Forest and Forest Land
Decree (169) passed on November 3, 1993, which aims to provide specific guidelines at
the district and village levels to facilitate the management of forestlands demarcation for
natural resources management, protection and conservation (Hirsch et al. 1999). The
implementation of Decree 169 is heavily depended on the Agricultural Extension Officers
(AEO) at the DAFOE in each district as they represent the government at the district and
village levels (Hirsch et al. 1999). The provisions of technical training and logistical
resources for AEOs as well as smallholders continue to be a major concern for the
development of the agricultural sector in Lao PDR and in countries of the GMS. While the
demarcation of available rural forestlands is aimed at eco-systems protection and
conservation, rural smallholders are the ones who are directly impacted for which
26
resources should be available to compensate them. The process of enforcing forestlands
allocation and demarcation in rural areas is targeted towards discouraging the misuse and
destruction of forest resources and to get rural smallholders away from the slash-and-burn
farming practice, which is claimed to be one of the main causes of forest and
environmental degradation.
Studies also indicate that ethnic minorities in rural upland areas in northern Lao
PDR are targeted by the government’s land reform policy to discourage slash-and-burn
farming practice the resettlement of ethnic minorities (Evrard and Goudineau 2004, Baird
and Shoemaker 2005, 2007). Despite the motive of the GoL to discourage slash-and-burn
farming due to its “assumed” environmental implications on land and forest ecosystems,
slash-and-burn has also been attributed to the cultivation of opium in highland areas
prompting national security concerns, narcotic drugs production and distribution networks,
which pose significant challenge on the government and strategic development partners
such as international aid agencies and the US Government (USG) (Baird and Shoemaker
2005). Though not explicitly stated, the GoL hopes that the new land policy and the so-
called resettlement processes would disintegrate and interfere with the production and
distribution networks of opium production, trade and the illegal markets that are associated
with narcotic drug production (Evrard and Goudineau 2004, Baird and Shoemaker 2005,
2007). The authors found that resettling ethnic minorities from upland to lowland areas
could trigger “resettlement-induced mobility” due to the paradoxical effects triggered by
the tragic social processes of resettlement communities (Evrard and Goudineau 2004).
27
There are conflicting and competing views demonstrated in the literature that slash-
and-burn farming mostly practice among ethnic minorities farmers in the upland areas in
Lao PDR is the main cause of forest and environmental degradation (Singh and Singh
1980, Mackie 1985, Hillel 1992, Seidenberg et al. 2003, Moizo 2005). Those against slash-
and-burn argued that, the slash-and-burn farming is a contributing factor to deforestation
and other forms of environmental degradation (Singh and Singh 1980, Hillel 1992). These
studies argued that because rural smallholders are resistant to technological advancement,
are poorly equipped to communicate with others farmers on a timely manner, the land
tenure systems in these areas facilitated by the lack of financial credit and capital among
others serve to impact their readiness to adapt to new agricultural innovation and practices
away from shifting cultivation (Singh and Singh 1980, Mackie 1985, Hillel 1992). They
also argued the over the last few decades the fallow period continued to decrease due to
competing factors such as climate change, land reform policies, development processes,
displacement and resettlement, conflict, and land degradation as a result of UXO.
As a result, rural smallholders have limited choice but to return to previously
farmed plots within just few years. The decline in the fallow period, they claimed, impacts
the forest ability to fully develop. However, the view that slash-and-burn farming methods
leads to deforestation has been contested by other studies; given that, deforestation means
the permanent removal of existing forest ecosystems and that slash-and-burn farming
method does not “permanently” alter this process, but rather impact it temporarily
(Seidenberg et al. 2003). The authors argued that rural farmers allow the forest to
regenerate once the farming season ends and this fallow period last between 7 to 10 years.
28
Proponents of slash-and-burn claims that labeling slash-and-burn as the main cause of
forest and environmental degradation is attributing the dirty works of other economic-
driven activities, which include logging, hydropower development, commercial and
intensive agricultural farming.
Though slash-and-burn alters forest landscapes and ecosystems, the scale and
magnitude at which this is done is significantly less than large-scale land development,
such as, plantation farming, commercialized agriculture, and hydropower-induced
irrigation infrastructural development projects, and real estate development (Seidenberg et
al. 2003). The slash-and burn farming practice has long been the traditional farming
approach for centuries in SEA and in other parts of the developing world, which continues
to be practiced in both the upland and lowland areas (Satoshi 2004). In upland areas for
example, smallholders allowed the land to regenerate after each growing season, while
cultivating crops at a strategically selected forested area allowing the previous farmed land
to fully regenerate. Research has also shown that though slash-and-burn is the most
common form of farming practice amongst rural farmers, it has been sustainably done for
several generations allowing the regrowth of forest systems and also as a means to agro-
forestry (Satoshi 2004). In the case of ethnic minority farmers in the highland and lowland
areas, the extraction of non-timber forest products (NTFP) for livelihoods has also being
associated with the sustainable utilization of forest ecosystems through the slash-and-burn
farming technique during which specific trees are regenerated by the natural ecosystems
for consumption by rural minority, a form of agro-forestry (Ewel 1999, Satoshi 2004). It
has being argued that the land allocation and utilization policy currently being enforced by
29
the GoL would significantly impact rural ethnic minority cultural linkages to the natural
forest systems and the importance attached to these traditions (Satoshi 2004).
Unlike timber harvesting, the natural ecosystems and forest landscapes has
consistently remain in a check-and-balance relationship even when slash-and-burn until
extensive commercialized timbers extraction processes contributed to the degradation of
forest ecosystems in those areas (Foppes and Ketphanh 2004, Molnar et al. 2011). The
building of feeder roads networks into remote areas of the forest landscape to facilitate the
transportation of logs to processing areas before either been manufactured into useable
goods or exported. Timber harvesting is a big business in SEA, which is mostly controlled
by governments in partnership with contracting companies (Foppes and Ketphanh 2004,
Knape 2009, Molnar et al. 2011). The logging sector is the main culprit of deforestation in
Lao PDR, which is mainly owned and operated by companies outside of Lao PDR. It is
well understood why timber extraction in Lao PDR by Viet Namese contractors is not
seeing as surprise partly due to the mutual relationships between both governments. Also,
the vast majority of Viet Nam’s forest over the last few decades has disappeared due to
timber harvesting. Research has shown that most of the timber imported to developed
countries are exported from developing countries where they are illegally harvested and are
financed by major entities and governments (Prakosa 2003). Timber harvesting in Lao
PDR poses significantly vulnerability to rural ethnic communities, exposes the land to
severe erosion and permanently alters the ecological landscapes.
The development of the agricultural landscape is gaining significant momentum
due to investments from national and international organizations and other investors (Fujita
30
2006). The rapid economic transition; that is, using agriculture as the main premise to
achieve economic growth and development (GoL 2004) has direct impacts on rural
communities, such that, they are both victors and victims, constituting a win-loss situation
(Fujita 2006). Rural farmers who are not part of any farming group now have to compete
with the competitive forces of commercial agriculture and the unfamiliar territory
associated with the treacherous market forces (supply & demand) for agricultural goods.
These challenges are further reinforced and enhanced by the nation-state’s land
reform policies, which gives the state the ultimate control and power over land ownership
inherited from prior generations the unquestionable constitutional rights to tax, allocate,
and resettle any given rural population from targeted development sites (Fujita and
Thongmanivong 2006, Fujita and Phanvilay 2008, Fox et al. 2009). One example of the
impacts of hydropower dams on rural population is the hydropower-induced resettlement
of rural ethnic minorities directly planned and implemented by the nation-state’s, which
does not only impact agricultural productivity, but also the meaning of place (Vandergeest
2003, Evrard and Goudineau 2004, Moizo 2005, Fujita 2006, Fujita and Phengsopha
2007). The overarching goals of the current land reform policies of Lao PDR seeks to
reduce environmental degradation, while improving agricultural productivity, mitigating
climate change vulnerabilities, reducing rural poverty, and ensuring economic growth and
development (Ducourtieux and Castella 2006, Hanssen 2007, Fox et al. 2009).
31
Figure 1: Location of Hydropower Dams along the Mekong River Basin
Source: Mekong River Commission, 2010
2.2.1.1. The Impact of Hydropower Development on Agriculture in Lao PDR
The Mekong River Basin (MRB) has experience significant increase in hydropower
dams development (Sayatham and Suhardiman 2015). The main focus for investing in
hydropower is the economic benefits derived from the export of electricity. Figure 1 shows
the locations of hydropower dams along the MRB with Lao PDR accounting for most.
32
Lao PDR has the largest capacity of hydropower development given the geophysical
characteristics needed to maintain the sustainable management of water resources
requirements for hydropower dams’ development in the region. Reports suggest that as of
2012, Lao PDR commissioned 43 hydropower dams and 116 dams are in the planning and
construction stages (Bui and Schreinemachers 2011, Sayatham and Suhardiman 2015).
The Great Mekong Sub-region (GMS) is one of the most biologically and
ecologically diverse regions in SEA and the world at large (Foran et al. 2010, MRC 2013).
Figure 2 show environmental protected areas, wetlands and reservoirs of the GMS.
Figure 2: Environmental Protected Areas, Wetlands and Reservoirs
Mekong River Commission, 2010
33
The biological diversities of the Mekong eco-zones as well as its ecological diversity is
among some of the world’s most precious eco-regions with thousands of lives, which
include some unique fresh water fish species (Erlich 1988, MF 2015). Recent report
estimates that the biotic characterization of the Mekong Eco-region (ME) constitute about
20,000 diverse species of plants, 430 mammal, 1,200 bird, 800 reptile and amphibian, and
850 fish species (Goes and Hong 2002, UNESCO 2008). The Lower Mekong Basin is
characterized three distinct eco-regions, which feature many species of plants and animals
and plays an integral role in the nutritional needs of each eco-system as well as for human
consumption (MF 2015). Today, the Mekong River Basin (MRB) is vulnerable to be
impacted by climate change and other factors, such as, the development of dams for
hydropower generation, deforestation associated with logging and migration close to the
watershed due to forced displacement. The MR eco-climatic zone is characterized by the
monsoon with high rainfalls, which leads to severe flooding events during the wet-moist
season and extreme drought during the hot-dry season (ICEM 2009, MF 2015).
The MR commences its 4,800 kilometers adventurous journey from about 5,000
meters (m) off the plateaus of the mountainous ranges in Tibet caving its ways through six
sovereign states before eventually discharging approximately 475,000 million cubic meters
(m3) per year into the South China Sea via the southern edge of Viet Nam (Zalinge et al.
2003, Pearse-Smith 2012). The MR can be geographically sub-categorized into two water
basins; the Upper Mekong Basin (UMB) and the Lower Mekong Basins (LMB) (Zalinge et
al. 2003, Pearse-Smith 2012). The UMB flows through 2,400 km occupying the territories
of Myanmar and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) before ending its journey at the
34
“Golden Triangle”, the strategic bordering location between Lao PDR, Myanmar and
Thailand (Pearse-Smith 2012). The average contribution of the total water flow of the MR
expressed as a percentage is represented in Table 1.
Table 1: Estimated Percent Water Contribution from the Mekong River
Country Total Water Flow Percent of Water Contribution
China 16%
Cambodia 19%
Lao PDR 35%
Myanmar 2%
Thailand 17%
Viet Nam 11%
Source: Mekong River Commission, 1998
Research has shown that hydropower dams despite their economic viability in
terms of contribution towards economic growth and development also pose significant risk
to the biological, ecological and environmental diversities on which the hydropower
infrastructures are developed (Foran et al. 2010). The MR and other water resources along
its tributaries are not excluded from the potential and social risks that hydropower dams
pose to both the abiotic and biotic landscapes. In SEA, hydropower development projects
are on the rise, which are usually megaprojects with multifaceted development scopes and
are financed by leading financial development institutions; such as, the Asian
Development Bank (ADB), private companies and investors in partnership with national
governments (Jusi 2006, Molle and Floch 2008). The PRC is one of the major investors in
hydropower megaprojects situated on the UMB and other areas along the MR (Dugan et al.
2010). Of all the countries situated along the upper and lower sections of the MR, Lao
PDR possess the largest proportion of hydropower potential in terms of water resources
35
and the strategic topographical features at the catchment level conducive for hydropower
development and to ensure constant supply of available water resources (Jusi 2006).
Apart from electricity generation for trade and domestic use, hydropower dams are
also being used to enhance agricultural productivity through the improvement of irrigation
infrastructures at the district, province and national levels (Molle and Floch 2008). At the
village level and further away from major rivers, micro irrigation infrastructures are the
suitable alternatives to hydropower. This is because during the hot-dry season in Lao PDR,
the water levels and flow rates of major rivers seems to have decreased, which impacts the
available supply of water to conventional irrigation systems typical with dams constructed
for electricity generation as well as irrigation water supply. Groundwater has been cited in
the literature of having promising potential for constant water supply during the hot-dry
season when river regresses to the limits of their natural flow paths due to increasing
surface temperatures and inconsistent precipitation events, which impact the total volume
of water flow (Johnston et al. 2010, Pavelic et al. 2010, Johnston et al. 2012a).
Hydropower projects have in some areas contributed to the improvement of socio-
economic status and benefits to local communities both at the upstream and downstream of
dams through the “benefits sharing” concepts throughout Lao PDR (MRC 2013). The
water resources of Lao PDR and more specifically for the use of hydroelectric generation
serves as one of the integral assets including agricultural production amongst others, which
enhance economic growth and development (Jusi 2006). Hydropower dams across major
rivers in SEA and along the MRB pose significant risk to rural smallholders who rely on
the water resources as well as the rich bio-ecological diversity that are intrinsic to the
36
region and the deep cultural diversities of its peoples who substantially rely on the deep
richness of the MRB (Molle and Floch 2008, Matthews 2012, Pearse-Smith 2012).
In recent years, the export and trade of electricity generated via hydropower
installations in Lao PDR to neighboring Thailand has contributed significantly by adding
about 30 percent to the GDP with agriculture, fisheries and forestry combined estimated to
generate 70-80 percent (Jusi 2006, WorldBank 2006a). The first hydropower dam
constructed in Lao PDR was the Nam Ngum dam, which was developed on the Nam
Ngum River and still stand to date with approximately 41 years ago since it was
constructed (Jusi 2006). Reports have cited the impacts of hydropower dams on the eco-
biological and socio-cultural landscapes of surrounding environment (Schouten 1998, Jusi
2006). The construction of hydropower dams and diversion of the natural paths of
waterways also pose risk to aquatic lives (Schouten 1998). Following the construction of
the first Nam Ngum dam in 1995 on the Nam Ngum River (NNR), the GoL and partners
have planned and constructed two other dams, the Nam Ngum II and III on the same river,
which could have significant impacts on the river water quality for downstream dwellers as
well as the eco-biological diversity of the river and its natural landscapes (Schouten 1998).
Newer dams are constructed with advanced technologies compared to the previous, the
river water quality and aquatic lives still remains an issue of concern to policy makers,
critics and local stakeholders. Research indicates that an estimated 80,000 people live
along the NNR could be impacted by water diversion and other forms of environmental
degradation and resource extraction (Hirsch et al. 1999). The construction of hydropower
37
dams and diversion of water has also caused conflicts amongst rural communities and
ethnic minorities upstream and downstream of hydropower dams (Hirsch et al. 1999).
A classic example of conflicts over water, land and forest resources involves the
Nam Ngum Watershed (NNW) a tributary of the MR, which has over the last few decades
seen substantial increase in hydropower development projects on the NNR. The NNW is of
strategic economic importance and value to the GoL in the form of electricity generation
for commercialization at the domestic and international scale (Hirsch et al. 1999). The
watershed also provides resources to over 200 villages that inhabit the area with a
culturally and ethnically diverse landscape. While the NNW poses significant economic
value to the GoL, it also provides immediate resources for rural villages livelihoods in
terms of agricultural productivity, fisheries and non-timber forest products (Schouten
1998, Hirsch et al. 1999). Apart of electricity generation for foreign exchange and
economic development, the GoL is also involved in biggest fish catches operations in the
NNW areas, which provides most of the fishes sold at major markets in Vientiane, the
capital of Lao PDR and elsewhere in the country (Schouten 1998, Hirsch et al. 1999,
Dugan et al. 2010). Timber harvesting for domestic processing and export also characterize
some of the economic values of the NNW ecological and environmental landscapes to the
GoL (Hirsch et al. 1999). Conflicts in the NNW as demonstrated in other areas are
functions of several competing interests, which involves natural resources extraction at the
upstream and downstream and the potential difficulties arising from low agricultural
productivity directly or indirectly link to natural resources extraction, water diversion, the
internal movement of people, and population growth (Hirsch et al. 1999).
38
Over the last few decades, the GoL and partnered companies have invested in
several hydropower projects to boost economic growth and development (Foran et al.
2010, Pearse-Smith 2012, Thoummavongsa and Bounsou 2013). Lao PDR has a promising
potential in hydropower development to enhance agricultural productivity through
irrigation to improve rural livelihoods (Matthews 2012, MRC 2013). The investment in
hydropower development also aims at modernizing the agricultural sector in the
agricultural belt of the rain-fed lowlands and the water scarce highland areas, where annual
rice yields are repeatedly low. For example, hydropower development for electricity
generation and irrigation has become a parallel development priority with agriculture to
boost economic growth and development (Delang and Toro 2011). Smallholders situated at
the upstream and downstream of the proposed development sites are immediately impacted
by hydropower development projects in that communities are usually relocated to pre-
determined sites in order to allow the construction of the dams and associated
infrastructures (Foran et al. 2010, Delang and Toro 2011, Pearse-Smith 2012).
Hydropower development projects along major water resources have resulted into
the internal displacement of many rural households and in some instances entire farming
communities (Vandergeest 2003, Delang and Toro 2011). The rise of hydropower
development in Lao PDR facilitated the informal “institutionalization” of the resettlement
village policies by the GoL to ease the process of rehabilitation and reintegration of
communities impacted by such projects (Vandergeest 2003, Evrard and Goudineau 2004,
Ducourtieux and Castella 2006, Jusi 2006). The process of promoting internal
displacement and the subsequent resettlement of rural ethnic minorities under the pretext of
39
development has been discussed and challenged by several studies (Vandergeest 2003,
Evrard and Goudineau 2004, Baird and Shoemaker 2007, Fox et al. 2009). International
aid and development organizations are either intentionally or unintentionally aiding the
internal displacement and resettlement of rural ethnic minorities, which have resulted into
more complex challenges (Baird and Shoemaker 2005).
The GoL has provided five policy justification for the resettlement of rural ethnic
minorities, which include, reduction of shifting cultivation amongst rural ethnic minorities,
the eradication of opium production and distribution, internal national security concerns,
access and delivery of services, and lastly, cultural integration and nation-building (Baird
and Shoemaker 2005). Along with these five policy justifications for the internal
displacement and the subsequent resettlement of rural ethnic minorities, the GoL
implemented three development initiatives on resettlement and nation building that are
directly linked to the resettlement of rural ethnic minorities. The three development
initiatives underpinning the resettlement of rural ethnic minorities are Focal Sites (FS),
Village Consolidation (VC), and Land and Forest Allocation (LFA) (Baird and Shoemaker
2005). Focal Sites are designated areas, which host immense infrastructures for the
provision of development services to resettled ethnic minorities. FC in Lao PDR have also
received significant support from donor agencies and with their support the process of
development-induced displacement and resettlement of rural ethnic minorities are
achieved. Unlike FC, Village Consolidation (VC) is the process of combining small-
scattered rural villages with their entire distinct cultural, ethnic and tribal heritages with
other smaller villages to a much bigger and permanent settlement. VC are FS at a larger
40
scale and it is also a form of resettlement because people are being relocated from their
original homes to predetermined locations without their full involvement in the process
and exactly why they are being resettled in the first place (Baird and Shoemaker 2005).
Lastly, the Land and Forest Allocation (LFA) program initiated by the GoL through the
Forestry Law (GoL 2007), has specifically targeted rural ethnic minorities, such that, there
are less land available for shifting cultivators, which also triggers the resettlement of the
affected rural ethnic communities (Evrard and Goudineau 2004, Satoshi 2004, Baird and
Shoemaker 2005, Fox et al. 2009).
The resettlement of rural ethnic minorities in Lao PDR is classified as a voluntary
process; however, the claim of the voluntary nature of the development-induced
displacement and resettlement is questionable given the restricted levels of participation at
the decision-making, planning and implementation stages. It can be argued that the
resettlement process in Lao PDR is not voluntary as it claims to be because the decisions to
resettle rural ethnic minorities are not initiated by those communities impacted. The
resettlement of rural ethnic minorities is a process engineered by the state to control the
meaning of space and how resources are ultimately utilized at the expense of communities
impacted. The resettlement villages is an attempt of the GoL to re-engineer how economic
resources are preserve and utilize by the state in an effort to eliminate what is considered
the indiscriminate use of natural resources by rural ethnic minorities, while ensuring
economic growth and development. Several key questions remain unanswered relative to
the displacement and resettlement of rural ethnic minorities.
41
The question that remains unanswered is that can resettling rural households from
their previous location to a predetermine site compensate for all that are lost in the process
(Vandergeest 2003, Delang and Toro 2011). The ‘voluntary resettlement’ of communities
from targeted development sites, as it is legally framed, is an attempt by the GoL to ease
the process of development, while enhancing the reintegration and rehabilitation of the
resettled communities compensating for communities impacted by hydropower
development (Evrard and Goudineau 2004, Thoummavongsa and Bounsou 2013). What
are yet and may rarely be compensated for are the anxiety and stress arising from the
emotional, deep sociocultural, psychological, and environmental issues that resettled
communities have to cope with usually at their own expense (Foran et al. 2010, Delang and
Toro 2011, Matthews 2012, MRC 2013, Thoummavongsa and Bounsou 2013).
In Lao PDR, the links between land reforms policies is of particular relevance to
agricultural productivity due to the complexity and exacerbating impacts on agriculture,
rural poverty, food insecurity, and the livelihoods of smallholders. The resettlement of
rural communities is a traumatizing process to smallholders considering the cultural and
historical significance attached to their previous lands (Moizo 2005). Comparatively, the
resettlement process has direct impact on agricultural productivity since farmlands in
resettled areas are minimally-scaled or proportionate to the resettled population compare to
smallholders’ previous lands (Moizo 2005). Smallholders in resettled villages are given
land of some sort to conduct farming activities. The allocated cultivated land areas are
usually too small since the land has to be shared with other farmers and the issues of fertile
soils, access to available water sources, market, and other resources are basically control in
42
the resettled area. Further analysis needs to be conducted to assess to what extent the
internal resettlement of rural population due to hydropower and other development projects
increase or decrease rural poverty and whether the resettlement process empowers or
disempowers rural smallholders (Evrard and Goudineau 2004). Also, the stabilization
period of resettled communities take decades and the temporary provision of major needs
at a minimum scale has an limited effect to lessen the stabilization period compare to what
resettled communities had to forego in the process.
The agricultural sector has attracted numerous investment opportunities from both
the public and private sectors (Fujita 2006). The influx of development organizations with
their legions of development enthusiasts in Lao PDR along with local stakeholders are
heading the way in transforming the development landscape, specifically in the context of
agricultural development (Roder 1997, Dasgupta et al. 2005, Ducourtieux et al. 2005,
Baird and Shoemaker 2007, Alexander et al. 2009, UNDP 2010a). Development priorities
seek to improve the agricultural sector through financial investments, education and
training, technological advancements, and research for development (GoL 2004, IMF
2004). Generally, the development process involves restructuring the value and control of
space (Vandergeest 2003). The reshaping of space, place and the meaning thereof, a
product of development processes could either increase or decrease rural poverty. Due to
the complexity of development projects in the redesign of space and the control thereof, it
is important that the development process be well-planned and implemented especially
projects aim at impacting rural population. As a spatial process, development encompasses
the possibility that others outside the targeted development site to be victims of the
43
development process, even though they share integral sociocultural and environmental
linkages with those of the targeted development sites (Vandergeest 2003). Given these
limitations, development goals should be holistic and constitute an integral constituent of
the overall development plan of the targeted rural community and associated areas should
include communities located upstream and downstream of the development site
(Pravongviengkham 2011).
Economic growth and development priorities in Lao PDR are mainly shaped by the
influences from more powerful neighbors, which include Viet Nam, Thailand and PRC
(Hanssen 2007). For example, the Government of Viet Nam (GoV) and Lao PDR
established mutual commitment of brotherly friendship and cooperation to enhance
economic development. The ties between both nations goes far back during the era of the
Indo-China Wars, the war in Viet Nam and the United States involvement, which
subsequently led to the indiscriminate and sporadic bombardments of targeted areas in
parts of the northern, western and southern provinces in Lao PDR. The lands in those
areas were once used for agricultural productivity are no longer productivity due to UXO
and other forms of chemical contaminants as a direct result of the US bombardments
(Evrard and Goudineau 2004). However, due to the bombings the land in those areas are
not suitable for agricultural production and pose significant risks to local population who
has to live with the risk of activating unexploded ordnances (UXO).
The relationships between Lao PDR and Viet Nam are also symbolically
represented by several national projects jointly financed by the governments of Lao PDR
and Viet Nam and the national flags of both countries are raised together at major
44
government institutions throughout Vientiane, the capital of Loa PDR. Traditionally,
Laotian and Viet Namese consider themselves as close keens with almost similar cultural
and ethnic linkages especially along the bordering areas where there are significant
intercultural and ethnic mixes and interactions. Both countries have a commitment for
mutual cooperation to eradicate poverty, increase trans-national trade, and reduce the
impacts of climate change variability, while improving food security and livelihoods (GoL
2004, Ducourtieux and Castella 2006, Joseph et al. 2013). Viet Nam contributes
significantly towards promoting and enhancing agricultural development for economic
growth in Lao PDR. The relationship between Lao PDR and Viet Nam is not only limited
to the cultural and socioeconomic landscapes, but also transcends into the political sphere.
The political system in Lao PDR as a communist country is in part influenced by
the political systems of Viet Nam. The agricultural and economic systems in Viet Nam are
much more advanced and complex compared to Lao PDR, which has just recently started
major changes and transformation from the traditional farming approaches to more
complex and modern forms of agricultural production (Fujita 2006, Thongmanivong and
Fujita 2006). Both countries are also members of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN), an organization established which seeks the sociocultural, economic,
political, environmental, and stability of member countries as the primary focus of its
agenda fostering economic development, stability and research.
45
Figure 2: Map of Lao PDR's Village Level Vulnerability
Source: WFP, 2006
The GoL has identified 72 poor districts, which need to be targeted for prioritized
development assistance due to the nature and density of the poverty rates and other
vulnerability indicators, such as, topography, forest and environmental degradation,
transportation restrictions due to the terrain, and UXO (GoL 2004, WFP 2006, Epprecht et
al. 2008). Figure 1 shows the 72 poor districts according to the percentage of poor
households (WFP 2006, Epprecht et al. 2008).
46
The 72 poor districts were classified into two broader categories; that is, 47 poorest
districts were identified for immediate priority-level development assistance with high
risks and 25 districts categorized as moderately poor in the low risks spectrum. The take
home message from the district-levels poverty vulnerability is that, the 47 poorest districts
are densely clustered into mutually linked colonies generally situated in the mountainous
provinces, while the 25 moderately poor districts are mutually exclusive clusters located
between the poorest 47 and the 70 not poor districts. The association between poor districts
and those that are well off in Lao PDR mirrors similar trends in other developing countries.
The interesting factor of the pattern of poverty is how parallel the poorest districts are to
districts where poverty rates are significantly lower. The spatial and temporal differences
between the poorest, poor and those that are well off resonate with low agricultural
productivity, high increase in climate change risks, land and forest degradations, water
scarcity, soil fertility decline, and lower per capita expenditure at the districts levels
(Gansberghe and Vongsack 1993, Chanphengsay et al. 1999, Foppes and Ketphanh 2004,
Epprecht et al. 2008, Dyoulgerov et al. 2011).
The spatial differences serve as compelling evidence of the allocation and
distribution of resources, education, socioeconomic status, the availability of government
services and programs, and targeted development initiatives broadly between highland and
lowland provinces. The poverty rates seem to be relatively high in mountainous areas
compared to areas situated in the lowlands and along the Mekong corridor. The higher
poverty rate in the highland areas evidently correspond with low agricultural productivity
in those areas (WFP 2006, WorldBank 2006a). The poverty trends suggest significant
47
Figure 3: Map of Poverty Density in Lao PDR
Source: Epprecht et al. 2008
disparities between districts in the highland areas to those in lowlands. Rural poor districts
across Lao PDR are at the crust of agricultural development priorities and expansions.
Reports suggest that 77 percent of the current 6.8 million people live in rural areas where
rain-fed dominated agricultural systems constitute a fundament component of livelihoods
(WFP 2006, Alexander et al. 2009, Johnston et al. 2009, FAO 2011, Dennis et al. 2013,
WorldBank 2015). Figure 2 shows the poverty density of Lao PDR, a critical spatial issue,
which signals the urgent need for progressive actions in rural areas where poverty rates are
increasingly high (Dasgupta et al. 2005, Epprecht et al. 2008).
48
The evidence demonstrates that poverty density is higher in major cities, which also
suggest the movements of people from rural to urban areas in search of better economic
opportunities. The internal economic and involuntary movements of people could
potentially impact the agricultural sector as rural smallholders migrate to urban areas or
relocate due to development priorities organized by the GoL (Vandergeest 2003). The
World Bank (2006a) estimated that approximately 73.2 percent of the 6.8 million people in
Lao PDR live on less than US$2 per day, while the GDP is about $403.00USD. The
estimated statistics suggest that Lao PDR is one of the poorest countries in the Great
Mekong Sub-region (GMS) and ranked 143rd amongst 175 countries according to the
Human Development Index (HDI) (WorldBank 2006a). Compared to neighboring
countries, Lao PDR is trending ahead of Myanmar and a little close to Cambodia in terms
of economic development, while significantly trending behind more powerful neighbors,
such as, Thailand, Vietnam and China (Fujita and Thongmanivong 2006).
The poverty rate in upland areas are higher than other regions (WFP 2006,
Pravongviengkham 2011). The relationship between rural poverty and low agricultural
productivity in highland areas are directly linked to land and environmental degradation,
water scarcity, and climate variability (Pavelic et al. 2010, Pravongviengkham 2011,
Johnston et al. 2012a). Even though similar climatic changes and other forms of
socioeconomic change factors impact agricultural productivity in lowland areas, the
severity of these change factors in mountainous areas are extreme than the lowland areas.
The environment and the topography (terrain) of highland areas play a crucial role in
impacting agricultural productivity and the livelihoods of smallholders.
49
Figure 4: Map of Incidence of Poverty Rate per Village
Source: Epprecht et al. 2008
Figure 3 shows the incidence of village-levels poverty from the Lao PDR National
Statistics Commission (NSC) (Epprecht et al. 2008). It is not surprising that the incidences
of village-levels poverty rates are high in the northern and southern highlands close to Viet
Nam compared to the central plains, Mekong corridor and the southern lowlands bordering
Thailand and Cambodia. As previously noted, the widespread of poverty in the northern
highland and upland areas, the southern plateau and lowlands are facilitated by the
indiscriminate allocation and distribution of national resources.
50
Figure 5: Average per Capita Expenditure by District
This theory can be supported in part by the district-levels average per capita expenditure
presented in Figure 4. If we overlay the district levels per capita expenditure with the
incidence of village-levels poverty rates and vulnerability, it can be concluded that poverty
in those provincial districts are enhanced by the uneven allocation and distribution of
resources including financial capital.
Source: Epprecht et al. 2008
51
Figure 6: Major Roads Networks and Major Towns
Other factors such as topography, transportation, and climate variations are
competing challenges contributing to increase in poverty rates and vulnerability in the
highland areas compared to the lowland areas. Figure 5 shows the road networks of Lao
PDR, which illustrates that the road networks in the lowland areas are densely cluster
compared to the highland areas. The numbers of roads decrease with increasing elevation,
but increase with decreasing elevation.
Source: Epprecht et al. 2008
52
The geography of the northern and southern provinces poses significant constraints
to rapid agricultural development and expansion relevant to sustain economic growth. For
example, transportation in the highland provinces is constrained by limited road networks
due to the topography. Hilly and narrow roadways are some of the main challenges
characteristic of the roads in the northern and southern provinces. The physical geography
serves as a natural constrain for the regular moment of people and economic goods to and
from mountainous districts. The physical geographical challenges are exacerbated during
the wet season when underdeveloped roads become tougher to travel.
Studies have shown that rural poor communities across Lao PDR are extremely
vulnerable to climatic variations, which further pose significant risk to livelihoods
(WorldBank 2006a, Johnston et al. 2009, UNDP 2010c). Rural farmers heavily rely on
natural resources for their livelihoods, which is challenged by the increased in climatic
variability (Dyoulgerov et al. 2011, Lasco et al. 2011, MONRE 2013). Rural poor farmers
have limited chances within their physical, technical and financial capabilities to become
resilient to climate vulnerability (Pavelic et al. 2010, UNDP 2010b). Smallholders have
limited access to state-supported services, which makes their ability to cope with climatic
vulnerability unlikely (UNDP 2010c, a, b).
The GoL prioritized agricultural development as a component of economic growth,
which constitute one of the three pillars of socio-economic development goals including
socio-cultural and environmental preservation in the National Growth and Poverty
Eradication Strategy (NGPES) (GoL 2004, IMF 2004, MONRE 2013). The NGPES is the
policy framework which serves as the reference point for all economic development
53
programs that are formulated, executed and evaluated (GoL 2004, IMF 2004). The NGPES
has two specific socio-economic development priorities, established to elevate Lao PDR
from the LDC status by 2020 to promote and enhance economic development, food
security and poverty eradication (GoL 2004, IMF 2004). The two main economic
development goals are: (1) to enhance growth and development, and (2) poverty reduction
with emphasis on 47 targeted poor administrative districts (GoL 2004).
Agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors are key components of economic
development priorities; given that, most of the current revenue are generated from these
three primary sectors (GoL 2004, FAO 2015). The urban and rural poor predominantly rely
on the extraction of natural resources from agriculture, fisheries, and forestry sectors for
their livelihoods and food security needs (GoL 2004, IMF 2004). The strategic economic
development goals and priorities of the NGPES works to improve food availability,
utilization and accessibility of the rural poor, while improving smallholders’ productivity
potentials to enhance livelihoods to achieve economic development (GoL 2004, FAO
2011). Agriculture and economic development goals are the gateway for environmental
sustainability, conservation and protection, food security, poverty eradication, and climate
change adaptability and mitigation in Lao PDR (GoL 2004, Dasgupta et al. 2005, FAO
2011). The agricultural sector along with other industrial sectors contributes about 75
percent of the GDP (ADB 2004, Dyoulgerov et al. 2011, FAO 2011), which constitutes a
significant contribution to the national economic development goals. The GoL considers
agricultural productivity as the major frontier of sustainable economic growth and
development. The focus in prioritizing agricultural development has attracted multiple
54
development organizations, research institutions and non-profit organizations in both the
private and public sectors (Dasgupta et al. 2005). The rise in the influx of development
organizations in Lao PDR with diverse, competing, complementary, and overlapping
development goals have called into question the need to re-evaluate how resources are
allocated, utilized and managed to ensure sustainable economic growth and development
(ADB 2004, FAO 2011). For rural smallholders, natural resources serve as one of the
paramount coping mechanisms against climate vulnerability and risks and the initial source
of food and other resources (ADB 2004, FAO 2011).
Lao PDR and its neighbors situated along MR predominantly rely on agriculture,
fisheries and forestry for economic growth and development (ADB 2004, FAO 2011). The
MR along with other water resources forms a crucial role of the overall agriculture and
economic growth and development. The reliance on natural resources, such as, the land,
water and forest resources for livelihoods, economic growth and development would come
under significant pressure due to increased climate change variability and risks (FAO
2011, Keomany 2011, FAO 2013). Climate change variability and risks on rural
smallholders’ livelihoods and the economic prosperity of Lao PDR should alarm policy
and decision makers to focus economic development priorities on alleviating the
constraints pose by climate variability and risks on people and natural resources (MONRE
2013). It is against this background that the NGPES was formulated and the idea of
climate-smart agriculture gain significant momentum in SEA countries, which include Lao
PDR, Viet Nam, Thailand, and Cambodia (GoL 2004, FAO 2013, MONRE 2013).
55
The underlying economic development goal of climate-smart agriculture is to
ensure that economic development utilizes natural and human resources judiciously, while
meeting the food security needs of an increasing global population projected to add 2
billion people in developing countries (FAO 2013). The projected population increase in
developing countries would serve as significant constraints on declining natural resources,
which could inversely increase global poverty and exponentially impact the struggling
global food security agenda. To this end, climate-smart agriculture, a holistic, integrative
and comprehensive mechanism combines the economic, social and environmental
dimensions of sustainable economic development to enhance agricultural productivity that
is both climate and natural resources smart (FAO 2013). The implementation of CSA
framework in Lao PDR would significantly protect NPAs and the rich biodiversity from
the increasing degradation from illegal slash-and-burn farming, hunting and logging
(WorldBank 2006a, FAO 2015).
The agricultural sector in Lao PDR is credited for employing approximately 80
percent of the labor force, which consequently contribute about 50 percent revenue to the
GDP (ADB 2004, FAO 2011). Rice production continues to be the single most produced
food crop with huge production gaps reported between the rain-fed lowlands and the
upland areas (Roder 1997, Schiller et al. 2001, FAO 2011). The reported rice production
gaps are mainly due to climate change variability and risks, which include inconsistent
annual rainfalls, increased mean surface temperature, loss of soil fertility due to intensive
farming, commercialized farming, and poor farming practices (Helga and Yussefi 2006,
56
UNDP 2010c), and the excessive use of agro-chemicals (Chanphengsay et al. 1999, FAO
2011).
The establishment of the NGPES recognizes that the reliance on natural resources,
if not judiciously used, could trigger food insecurity, increase rural poverty and potentially
cause land, water and environmental degradation, which could inversely impact economic
development (GoL 2004, IMF 2004, FAO 2011). Agricultural production needs to be
sustainable in order to ensure economic growth and development, stability and to increase
resilience against climate variability and risks. The process to ensure that agricultural
production is sustainable means that key stakeholders within the public and private sectors
and smallholders have to be trained with the needed tools and skills to enhance their
capacity against all change factors, which include the environment and climate
(WorldBank 2006a, UNDP 2010c, FAO 2011). Smallholders are the ones who are at the
frontier of climate variations and are more vulnerable than others (WorldBank 2006a,
UNDP 2010c). Thus, the provision of technical trainings, logistics, financial investments,
technology, and other forms of support could increase the resilience of smallholders to
mitigate or adapt climate change risks and vulnerability.
2.2.2. The Geography and Agro-Ecological Zones of Lao PDR
Lao PDR land masses are mostly mountainous (WorldBank 2006a) and constitute
about two-thirds of the land surface area (ADB 2004, WFP 2006). The majority of the
plains are situated in the central and southern provinces where lowland rice are commonly
produced annually during the wet-moist season, while the northern, northwestern and
northeastern provinces are mountainous and mostly characterized with the production of
57
Source: WFP, 2006 Figure 6: Lao PDR Agro-Ecological Zones
upland rice and other cash crops, such as, coffee, cocoa, and cassava (ADB 2004, WFP
2006, FAO 2011). Unlike farming in the lowland, which benefits from irrigated surface
and groundwater resources, farming in the upland areas predominantly rely on
precipitation (rainfall). The lands in Lao PDR can be characterized into six agro-ecological
zones (WFP 2006). The six agro-ecological zones are: the Vientiane Plateau, the Bolovean
Plateau, the Central and Southern highland areas, the Mekong Corridor, the Northern
highland and upland areas, and the Northern lowlands and paddy areas (WFP 2006).
Figure 6 shows the six agro-ecological zones of Lao PDR. Each eco-region has distinct
characteristics, which sets it apart from the other.
58
The Vientiane Plains extends over three administrative provinces, which include
Vientiane, Bolikhamxay, and Khammuane provinces and mostly characterized by higher
plains and lowlands (WFP 2006, Pavelic et al. 2010). The altitude of the Vientiane Plains
range from 500 to 1,000 meters and annual precipitation also range from 2,500 to 3,000
mm with approximately 270 days growth period (WFP 2006).
The Bolovean Plateau is basically situated in the south and precipitation ranges
from 2,500 to 3,000 mm per year with altitude between 500 to 1,500 meters and includes
parts of Saravane, Sekong, Attapeu and forms a significant part of Champasak Province
(WFP 2006). The geography of the Bolovean Plateau is such that the zone is generally
characterized with savannah, forest, and grasslands. The lands of the Bolovean Plateau are
currently used for the production of major tree crops, such as, coffee, cocoa, tea, and
cardamom with fewer instances of upland rice production (WFP 2006). The estimated
population of the Bolovean Plateau is around 60,000 people. Livestock production is of
significance to the Bolovean Plateau basically because of the grassland and savannah
features. The Bolovean Plateau is also well known for its geographic features, which
include Tad Lo waterfalls located about 58 miles from Pakse, the capital of Champasak
Province. The Bolovean Plateau suffered significant bombardments during the Vietnam
War and the second Indochina War due to its geographical proximity to southern Vietnam.
The Central and Southern highland areas run parallel to the Mekong Corridor and
forms part of Khammouane, Savannakhet, Saravane, Sekong and Attapeu provinces (WFP
2006). The altitude of the Central and Southern highland areas range from 500 to 1,000
meters with annual precipitations ranging from 2,000 to 3,000 mm and the average
59
production days range from 210 to 240 (WFP 2006). The zone is generally characterized
with acid soils, which pose significant risk to the production of most crops. Unexplored
ordnance (UXO) prohibits the investment in large-scale agricultural productivity, which
poses additional risk to rural livelihoods (WFP 2006).
The Mekong Corridor (MC) is the densely populated agro-ecological zone in Lao
PDR with population of 1.5 million people (WFP 2006). The MC covers the banks of the
Mekong River along with the total areas of its tributaries. The altitude of the MC ranges
from 100 to 200 meters with annual precipitation ranging from 1,500 to 2,000 mm (WFP
2006). Due to the land characteristics of the MC, which is generally composed of lowlands
to moderate sloppy areas, most of the existing forests have been cleared for agricultural
productivity and other forms of developments including hydropower (WFP 2006, MRC
2013). The MC is one of the most important agro-ecological zones in Lao PDR with one of
the highest population growth rate, which is due to internal and cross-borders migration.
The Northern highland and upland areas is the extreme most section of the northern
province with altitude in the range of 1,500 to 2,500 meters and annual precipitation ranges
from 1,300 to 2,500 mm (WFP 2006). The northern highland and upland agro-ecological
zone covers the mountainous areas of Phongsaly, Luangnamtha and Bokeo in the interior
northwest, sections of Huaphanh and Xiengkhuang and eastern parts of Bolikhamxay
(WFP 2006). The lands of the northern highland and upland areas are mainly inaccessible
to most smallholders due to the extreme steepness of the slopes with high levels of erosion.
The cultivation of crops and rearing of animals seem to have great potentials in parts of the
northern highland and upland with moderate slope where the soils are fertile (WFP 2006).
60
The forest ecosystems in this zone has being extremely impacted due to shifting
cultivation, which is the predominant form of farming practice (Roder 1997, Seidenberg et
al. 2003, Bounthong et al. 2004, WFP 2006). Due to the topographical or environmental
extremities of the northern highland and upland areas, the human population density is
relatively low (WFP 2006).
The last agro-ecological zone of Lao PDR is the northern lowland areas, which is
composed of Luang Prabang, Phongsaly, Oudomxay and Xayabury Provinces. The annual
precipitation of the northern lowlands ranges from 1,500 to 2,000 mm with altitude ranging
from 500 to 1,500 meters. Similarly to the topographical and geographical features of the
northern highland and upland areas, the lowland areas are mainly mountainous with
lowlands intercepting, which contains fertile soils (WFP 2006). The natural forest of the
lowlands in the northern lowland areas has been removed for the cultivation of rice, which
now constitute a major environmental problem. The population density of the northern
lowland is higher than the northern highlands due to its favorability to agricultural land use
(Roder 1997, WFP 2006, Ribolzi et al. 2011). Studying the agro-ecological zones of Lao
PDR is crucial to understand the land use characteristics and dynamics of smallholders
relative to agriculture, the topography, environmental features of each zone, the mean
range of annual precipitation, altitude, and population.
A study conducted by the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2006 determined that
the Vientiane Province located in the central plains constitute the best agro-ecological zone
due its natural features, which include limited slopes associated with mountains as is
characterized of the highlands and lowlands of the northern province and parts of the
61
Table 1: Lao PDR Crop Calendar: Rice Production
southern province (WFP 2006). Table 1 highlights the seasonal crop calendar of Lao PDR,
with emphasis on the seasonal upland and lowland rice production developed by the WFP.
The evidence demonstrates that the months for rice production during the wet
season in the uplands are fewer than the months for rice production in the lowlands, which
is one reason why rice production in the uplands are lower compare to the lowlands in the
central and southern plains (Schiller et al. 2001, Seidenberg et al. 2003, WFP 2006). Other
factors, which impact rice production in both the lowlands and highlands, include
declining soil fertility (Chanphengsay et al. 1999, Schiller et al. 2001), poor farming
practices (Gansberghe and Vongsack 1993, Roder 1997, Seidenberg et al. 2003, Helga and
Yussefi 2006), climate change variability (Johnston et al. 2010, Johnston et al. 2012a), and
lack of financial capital and credit of smallholders to adapt modern farming methods
(Pavelic et al. 2010).
The investment and expansion of the agricultural sector in Lao PDR over the last
few decades along with large-scale commercial agriculture and the GoL prioritization in
agriculture has paved the way for sustainable agriculture, conservation agriculture, and
Source: WFP, 2006
62
organic farming in Lao PDR and other ASEAN countries (Gansberghe and Vongsack
1993, Helga and Yussefi 2006, Lestrelin et al. 2011, Lestrelin et al. 2012). Helga and
Yussefi (2006) estimated that there were 60,000 hectares of organic farms operating in Lao
PDR with only 5 organic farmers. The number of certified organic farmers has since
increased dramatically due to the interventions of development organizations, research
institutions and other community based organizations actively working with urban and
rural farmers to ensure best practices and innovative strategies are utilize to improve
productivity at the household levels, while also enhancing their resilience to climate
change, global environmental change and other change factors, such as social, political,
and economic.
2.2.2.1. Food Security and Food Systems in Lao PDR
Food insecurity is a global challenge that humanity continues to fight. Food
security involves food availability, accessibility, stability, and utilization (Gregory et al.
2005, Godfray et al. 2010a, FAO et al. 2014). Food insecurity is a global challenge as well
as poverty, hunger, climate change, conflicts, and forced displacement (UNDP 2006, FAO
2008). Studies have shown the links between food insecurity with climate change, poverty,
conflicts, and other forms of social, economic, and environmental constraints (Ehrlich et al.
1993, Oldeman 1998, Sanchez 2000, Stocking 2003, Vlassenroof et al. 2004, Gregory et
al. 2005). Food systems, which involve the production, processing, packaging, distribution,
and consumption of food is usually overlooked when discussing food security, agriculture,
and climate change (Ericksen 2008b, a, Ericksen et al. 2009). The discussion of food
security in the context of climate change and agriculture should incorporate food systems
63
and global environmental change (GEC). The integration of food systems and GEC outline
the challenges not only focus on climate change and agriculture, but how food systems
contribute to food security as well as the social and environmental issues as a consequence
of food systems processes (Ericksen 2007, 2008a). GEC also play an integral role when it
comes to food security and climate change. A significant number of GEC events are
associated with climate change, which could have devastating impacts agricultural
productivity, thus leading to food insecurity. GEC associated with environmental and civil
conflicts, forced migration and internal displacement, land and forest degradation, water
scarcity for agricultural production, amongst others could negatively impact food systems
(Ericksen 2007, 2008a, Ericksen et al. 2009). Food systems processes, when impacted by
climate change variability and GEC, could lead to poor agricultural productivity and
eventually triggers or causes food insecurity.
Studies indicate that food systems could lead to food insecurity as more severe
climatic events and GEC become unavoidable and directly impact the food systems
processes (Ericksen 2007, 2008a, Ericksen et al. 2009). The food systems approach to food
security is a holistic approach, which focuses on food systems that are vulnerable to
climate and GEC and how these impact food availability, accessibility, stability, and
utilization (Ericksen 2008a). Figure 7 shows the food systems approach and links to food
security as well as the social and environmental welfare (Ericksen 2008a). Food systems
activities produce outcomes that are directly link to ensure food security. When food
systems processes become impacted by climate, GEC and other drivers the outcome is
64
Figure 7: Components of the Food Systems Approach
Source: Ericksen, 2008
food insecurity. This is so because all of the activities outlined in the food systems
approach would be impacted and eventually lead to food insecurity.
Report indicates that since 1990, global hunger seems to be on the decline, while an
estimated 791 million people living in developing countries are chronically hungry, which
account for one in nine people (FAO et al. 2014). FAO estimated that there are about 805
million people globally who are chronically hungry, a reduction of 100 million people
previously reported from 2012-2014 (FAO et al. 2014). Studies also suggest that the global
population is expected to increase mostly in developing countries where the number of
hungry people continue to increase and poverty on the rise (Mink 1993, UNDP 2011). The
reduction of hunger and poverty requires a multi-disciplinary and holistic approach, which
65
involves all the possible factors, which contribute and reinforce hunger and poverty along
the political, sociocultural, economic, and environmental issues (FAO et al. 2014).
Report also suggests that the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (UN
MDGs) on halving global hunger in developing countries by 2015 was off track in Sub-
Saharan Africa due to technical and non-technical challenges, while significant progresses
were made towards achieving specific targets in SEA (FAO et al. 2014). With the end of
the MDGs and the launch of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in
2015, more needs to be done to fight global poverty, hunger, malnutrition, and thereby
reduce food insecurity (Caron 2015). As population continue to increase and global food
production continue to decrease due to climate variability and other bio-geophysical
factors, such as, increase prevalence of diseases, climatic and environmental constraints
associated with conflicts, severe weather conditions, water scarcity, energy, and the
increases of food prices all impact smallholders’ livelihoods who live at the margins of
society and are the immediate victims (Anderson et al. 2012). Thus, the discussions on
global food security should not exclusively focus on climate change and agriculture, but
also food systems and GEC (Gregory et al. 2005, Ericksen 2007, Ingram 2009, Vermeulen
et al. 2012).
Food availability, accessibility, stability, and utilization constitute the four main
pillars of the food security discourse (FAO et al. 2014). Food security should not be
exclusively discussed in the context of climate change and agriculture, but should
encompass other sectors relevant to ensure a food secure world in which assesses, monitors
and respond to all threats that could cause food insecurity. Research has linked food
66
insecurity to a wide range of change factors, which include climate change variability,
conflicts, environmental change and degradation, increases of food prices, land policies
and tenure systems, GEC amongst others (Ehrlich et al. 1993, Gregory et al. 2005,
Ericksen 2008a). Food security is also impacted by the increases in food prices, which
contributes an additional 100 million people globally that are chronically hungry (Mehra
and Rojas 2006). Water scarcities, land tenure systems, soil fertility decline, UXO amongst
others are some of the major causes of food insecurity (Gregory et al. 2005, Mehra and
Rojas 2006). For example, studies report that vast portions of land in northern Lao PDR
are degraded due to population pressure, land use change, shifting cultivation, and other
forms of GEC (Ducourtieux et al. 2005, Lestrelin and Giordano 2007, Lestrelin 2010).
Reports also indicate that the basic infrastructures needed to support people in northern
Lao PDR are poorly maintained including access to markets, roads and other services
compared to the lowland areas and the southern plains (Ducourtieux et al. 2005, Lestrelin
and Giodano 2007, Lestrelin 2010).
Food security should be an element of targeted development priority to sustained
economic growth and development. Agricultural development is a key component of the
national economic growth and development, which aims at enhancing the food security
needs of the poorest, while improving productivity and investments in farming
communities in rural areas to be resilient to climate change, GEC and other risks factors.
Reports indicate that in order to achieve economic growth and development, emphasis
should be focused on food security and food systems, which aims at maintaining and
fostering sustained political systems and a commitment to the fight and eradicate hunger
67
and poverty (Ericksen 2007, FAO et al. 2014). The political commitment is essential to
reduce hunger and poverty because it serves as the integral part of other important
components such as the economy, agriculture, and the environment conservation and
protection (FAO et al. 2014). The fight against hunger and poverty should be holistic and
should encompass all components previously discussed.
Global food insecurity is a complex problem, which leads to several physical
challenges and constraints as a direct result of overlapping processes from multiple sources
both human-induced and naturally occurring (FAO et al. 2014). Thus, the fight against
food insecurity should also be considered as a fight against hunger, poverty, climate
change, and GEC. The four fundamental dimensions of food security include food
availability, accessibility, stability, and utilization (FAO et al. 2014). For each dimension,
specific indicators were developed to assess the level of achievement to address food
security gaps and barriers (FAO et al. 2014). Each dimensions of food security is briefly
discussed within the context of climate change, GEC and food systems.
2.2.2.1.1. Food Availability
Food availability broadly refers to the quantity, quality and diversity of food
products that are readily available to a given individual or household. Food availability can
be measured or assessed by specific indicators, which include the sufficiency of the
nutritional energy supply, the proportion of food energy that are derived from cereals, roots
and tubers; the average protein intakes from both plants and animal sources and the
average cost (value) of food production (FAO et al. 2014). Food availability also entails
food production, distribution and exchange (Gregory et al. 2005). Food exchange refers to
68
Figure 8: Per Capita Food Production Variability of Lao PDR
Source: UNEP, 2015
the exchange of food for another food item or food for cash (Gregory et al. 2005, Ecker
and Breisinger 2012). Food exchange requires efficient trade networks and market
institutions, which could inversely impact food security at the national, regional and global
stages (Ecker and Breisinger 2012). Given that the per capita supply of food is insufficient
to meet the global demand of food for each individual warrant the complexity of global
food security and points to reason why food accessibility is an important dimension
(Tweeten 1999). Figure 8 shows the per capita food production variability from 1993 to
2013 in Lao PDR. The per capita food production variability shows that the issues of food
insecurity and poverty were relatively constant from 2004 to 2006 and peaked in 2007 and
started to rapidly decline in 2008 until the end of 2012.
69
Figure 9: The per capital food production variability -SEA
Source: UNEP, 2015
Similarly, the per capita food production trends can also be noticed in other
countries bordering Lao PDR, such a Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Viet Nam.
Figure 9 shows the per capita food production variability in Lao PDR compared with
Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Viet Nam excluding PRC. Viet Nam and Thailand
shows more favorable per capita food production variability than Myanmar, Lao PDR and
Cambodia. The evidence suggests that Cambodia and Lao PDR both have the highest per
capita food production variability. What this means is that, the higher the per capita food
production variability constant over time is one factor amongst others, which indicates
trends that could potentially need to food insecurity ultimately impacting the food systems.
70
Figure 10: Agriculture Value Added -Percent of GDP in the GMS
Source: UNEP, 2015
Agricultural production or farming is the main source of food products in Lao
PDR. In rural areas in Lao PDR, agriculture is the single major source of income and
support systems of farming households along with NTFP and other forms of off-farm
activities, which drive income to the family (Suhardiman et al. 2013, Maokhamphiou
2014). In the Great Mekong Sub-regions (GMS) agriculture has long contributed
significantly to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Reports also indicate that due to
climate change, GEC, land degradation, poor soil fertility, and farming systems, crop yield
continue to decrease (ADB 2004). Figure 10 shows the agricultural value added as a
percent of the GDP in Lao PDR, Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Viet Nam.
71
Figure 11: Percentage of Population below $1.25 USD per Day Consumption
Source: UNEP, 2015
Reports indicate that about 80 percent of the population of Lao PDR lives in rural
areas where poverty is a major issue (Ribolzi et al. 2011, Cavallo et al. 2013). Since 1992
the percent of the population that live below $1.25 per daily consumption continue to
steadily decline. Figure 11 shows the percentage of population below $1.25 per day
consumption in Lao PDR and bordering countries. The evidence demonstrates that 30
percent of the population of Lao PDR live below $1.25 per day consumption compare to
about 2% in Viet Nam and significantly lower in Thailand. Viet Nam and Thailand both
have rapidly developed over the last few decades in areas of infrastructure, roads,
industrial agriculture, trade, investments, and hydropower. Viet Nam and Thailand have
the lowest percentage of their population living below $1.25 per day.
72
2.2.2.1.2. Food Accessibility
The food accessibility dimension involves both the physical and economic access
to food security. The physical access to food entails all the physical features that are
necessarily needed to facilitate food access, which include infrastructures; that is, roads
density, railways, and transportation (FAO et al. 2014). Food access also involves
affordability, allocation and preferences (Gregory et al. 2005). The affordability is critical
to ensure that food is readily available and accessible at the household level irrespective of
the household’s socio-economic status, race, gender, ethnicity, and other conditions that
could impact food access, which could contribute to poverty and hunger.
Food access is critical to ensure food security and food systems that is significant to
eradicate hunger and poverty most especially in the developing world where other factors
such as, politics, the economy and market forces, civil and environmental conflicts, GEC,
and climate change all serve to impact food accessibility. These factors contribute to the
increasing food demands and supplies, thus, rendering food affordability impossible
especially for the vulnerable households who cannot afford the high prices for food items
and whose farming activities continue to be impacted by climate and GEC. Food
affordability does not only takes into account the financial ability to access food, but also
include the ability to access the needed food item preferences irrespective of the
households’ socioeconomic and bio-geophysical characteristics (Gregory et al. 2005).
Examples of bio-geophysical features that could impact food accessibility include, but are
not limited to the terrain, road networks, climatic patterns, water availability, and suitable
agricultural land amongst others. These factors long with the socioeconomic, cultural, and
73
political landscapes could further impact food accessibility at the district, provincial, and
national levels. Thus, approaches to address aspects of food accessibility should not only
be a national focus, but also incorporate into regional food security policies dimensions.
In developing countries, food affordability is crucial to ensure food security due to
the high unemployment rate, increasing poverty levels in urban areas, and population
growth, which put more pressure on limited natural and physical resources. The choice of
food affordability at the household level in rural areas is a competition, which is based on
trade-offs between other equally relevant decisions that the rural poor households with
limited access to available services and resources have to contain. That is, rural poor
households that are vulnerable to food insecure lives because they have to decide whether
the next households’ financial resources should be spent on education, healthcare, access to
safe drinking water or the continual investment in farming. With limited financial
resources, rural poor farming households in developing countries have to make decisions
added to the challenges pose by the market, climate, GEC, and other change factors. The
ability to afford the needed family dietary and nutritional needs is constrained by decisions
the family has to consider within the limits and scopes of their available resources.
Food affordability is crucial to improve rural poor households that are situated at
the margins of national development agendas and are the main victims of development
policies, which illegally exploit their lands, water and forest resources at the expense of
economic growth and development (Vandergeest 2003, Evrard and Goudineau 2004,
Ducourtieux et al. 2005, Fujita and Thongmanivong 2006). In Lao PDR for example, the
introduction of various land reform policies over the last few decades have resulted in mass
74
displacement of rural ethnic minorities and incapacitate them of their potential to actively
engage in farming activities once considered to be the main source of income and food
affordability (Vandergeest 2003, Evrard and Goudineau 2004).
The introduction of benefits sharing development concept in Lao PDR and as in
other developing countries provides the context for the continual extraction and
exploitation of natural resources from rural poor communities supported by the nation-state
in collaboration with trans-national corporations and development organizations as a
commitment to sharing the benefits (Daviau 2006, MRC 2013). The question to what
extend the benefits sharing concept is effective in reducing rural poverty and hunger to
ensure food security remains highly questionable and understudied.
In the case of hydropower dam development projects, the effectiveness of benefits
sharing method becomes even more complicated and complex when discussing
communities upstream and downstream of the proposed development site that should be
consider under the deal. Large portion of the conversations of the coverage of resources
allocated for the benefits sharing systems are held between the GoL and developed
partners with in most instances exclusive of local rural poor communities. The benefits
sharing system also serves as a form of corporate social responsibility and thus
accountability and transparency should be a vital role not only during the distribution of
allocated benefits resources, but should involve rural poor communities during the initial
discussions. The participation of rural poor communities outside of the actual discussion
has been narrowly focus on baseline households’ surveys, focus groups discussions, and in
some instances interviews held with few selected individuals from the affected rural poor
75
communities. While the benefits sharing method has provided some incentives for rural
poor farming communities impacted by planned development operations in an effort to
share the benefits extracted from those communities more needs to be done to ensure that
the GoL and partner development entities are transparent and accountable in the
appropriation, allocation, selection, and distribution of resources.
Lao PDR’s land reform policy targeted towards the relocation of entire rural
farming communities from strategic development sites tend to negatively impact their
capacity to a food security. Studies have indicated that the forced relocation of rural ethnic
minorities from forested areas to what is consider Focal Sites, has in fact led to various
problems, which include increase poverty rates, mental and emotional distress, trauma,
food insecurity, amongst others (Vandergeest 2003, Evrard and Goudineau 2004, Boillat et
al. 2015). The fight to eradicate slash-and-burn farming practice as the main cause of
deforestation and other forms of environmental degradation, when in fact, it is not, further
impairs rural farming households the ability to cultivate enough food to ensure that the
family has enough food for both consumption and marketing of surpluses (Roder 1997,
Evrard and Goudineau 2004).
The allocation and preferences of food access is paramount to ensure that the
household food nutritional needs are met, which meets their cultural and social wellbeing.
Climate change poses significant risk to not just food production and availability, but also
how vulnerable rural poor households’ access allocated food items that are preferential to
their dietary and nutritional needs and preferences. In Lao PDR, agricultural productivity is
the single most salient means of food production and accessibility and the only means
76
through which rural farmers are able to acquire needed food items. Most smallholder
farmers produce enough food for the sustenance of their families and sell surpluses into
local markets to generate some income for the households’ needs. Rural poor households
are experiencing hardships due to several change factors to their family’s food needs.
High food prices due to increase costs of human and material resources associated
with production, processing and distribution of food and other factors such as soil fertility
decline, climate change variability and risks, GEC, market availability, and transportation
restrict rural households the ability to afford the needed nutritional requirements to live
safely and healthily. Eckar and Breisinger (2012) noted that hunger and malnutrition
occurred not because of food scarcity, but rather due to food affordability and accessibility.
Food access largely depends on the family’s financial ability to purchase the needed food
requirement for their households (Garrett and Ruel 1999). If a given household has enough
resources at hand, part of the available resources can be used to purchase food during
periods of low productivity (Tweeten 1999).
Alternative discourse such as the food systems theory to food security suggests that
food access can be impacted by the food systems processes, which include production,
processing, packaging, distribution, retailing, and consumption (Ericksen 2007, Ericksen et
al. 2009). Food systems proponents argue that food systems could be negatively impacted
by change factors, including but not limited to climate change and GEC, which could lead
to severe consequences, such as food insecurity (Dahlberg 2005, Gregory et al. 2005,
Ericksen 2007, Ingram 2009, Vermeulen et al. 2012). Thus, a household may have the
financial capacity to purchase food items for the household’s consumption; however, their
77
financial capacity to survive could be impacted by the lack of food items on the local
market or due to inflicted prices of food items. In this case, the family may have the
financial ability, but may be limited or constrained by the scarcity of food on the available
market along with high demands from other consumers. Proponents of the food system
theory of food security argued that any impact along the food systems line could have
severe impact on rural poor households’ capacity to access the needed food items (Gregory
et al. 2005, Ericksen 2007, Ingram 2009, Vermeulen et al. 2012).
Food accessibility can be divided into two major groups depending on how food is
accessed as either direct access or economic access. Direct access of food involves food
that are produced by members of a household or family community with the available
human and material resources of the households (FAO 1997, Garrett and Ruel 1999).
Economic access also refers to when food items are purchased with the finances of the
household (FAO 1997, Garrett and Ruel 1999). Rural poor communities in developing
countries, such as Lao PDR sourced households’ food and income mainly through a
mixture of agricultural activities, such as crop and animal production with farming animals
bringing in the largest sum of household income. A given farming household could be
impacted by direct and economic access of food at any point in time. Access to food is a
condition that is crucial for human and national development (Cook and Frank 2008).
Reports indicate that access to food is paramount to both children and adults for
their emotional, psychological, cognitive, and developmental needs (Ehrlich et al. 1993,
Cook and Frank 2008). Food can be available, but direct and indirect forces could impact
access to food by a particular household or community. Understanding the processes to
78
access food and the barriers that prevent people is one of the major challenges of global
food security and food systems (Ehrlich et al. 1993). The problems of starvation, hunger,
and malnutrition mostly in LDC and developing countries are functions of food systems
that are impacted by climate change, GEC, economic instability, conflicts, agriculture
amongst others (Gregory et al. 2005, Ericksen et al. 2009, Vermeulen et al. 2012). Indeed
food accessibility is a paramount component to ensure food security; food systems can
either reinforce food security or cause food insecurity, if the food systems processes are
impacted by climate change, GEC, and other change factors that can have unintended
impacts on food security. It is against this background that the discussion on food security
should focus on other factors, such as, GEC and food systems rather than solely the
conventional discussions around climate change, agriculture, and poverty (Gregory et al.
2005, Ericksen 2007, 2008b, a, Ericksen et al. 2009).
In Lao PDR, rice is the main stable food items alongside other crops that are grown
for consumption and to supplement households’ financial needs by selling surpluses. Most
farming households in rural Lao PDR, which constitute about 70 percent of the population
rely on integrated agricultural productivity for their livelihoods (FAO 2011, Cavallo et al.
2013). Climate change, GEC, land reform policy, high prices for agricultural inputs
including tools, agrochemicals and fertility alongside with soil degradation, and other
change forces are constraining rural farmers’ resilience to provide the food requirements
for their families, which lead to poverty, hunger and other challenges.
79
2.2.2.1.3. Food Stability
Food stability is also one of the four main dimensions of global food security (FAO
et al. 2014). Food stability means that each household has constant supply of food
overtime and that issues that could impact their ability to access food are a function of
several change factors, which include economic, social, political, climatic, and
environmental forces (Ehrlich et al. 1993, FAO et al. 2014). To ensure that poverty and
hunger can be reduced globally, a stable source of food supply need to be realized by all
rural households irrespective of their socioeconomic status. Poverty contributes to and
reinforces hunger. Global hunger cannot be reduced or eradicated when there is poverty
and also poverty cannot be reduced when the number of hungry people keeps increasing
globally. An essential part to ensure that global hunger can be reduced means poverty at
the other end of the spectrum needs to be reduced because poverty and hunger are different
faces of the same coin. The number of hungry people in developing countries continues to
increase because the density and poverty rates in developing countries are high, which is a
function of population growth.
Report suggests that population growth is expected to increase in developing
counties where the proportion of hungry people is on the rise (FAO et al. 2014). Thus, to
ensure that food security can be achieved in the developing world, it is paramount to
ensure food stability at the household levels, which means that all systems, including food
systems, the economy, social, political, climatic, and environmental should be supportive;
such that, constant source of food are readily available and accessible by all households
irrespective of their economic potential to be able to purchase food. The process to ensure
80
that rural households have constant access to stable food supply should involve all
stakeholders in the public and private sectors. Governments’ institutions and policies as
well as partnered organizations should ensure that households’ food needs are met on a
daily basis by providing the necessary resources and services essential to meet the
households’ nutritional needs. Stable sources of food supply are essential to fight rural
poverty and hunger. Food stability is mainly focus on individuals who are extremely
vulnerable that their condition could hinder them the ability to have constant and consistent
access to food and other related resources (Schmidhuber and Tubiello 2007). Part of the
process of governments to ensure stable food supply is to address issues that can hinder
individuals and households ability to have access to stable food resources physically and
financially. Food stability can be classified into two sub-categories, which are based on
measureable indicators of food insecurity risks as well as external systems that could
directly impact food stability. These two metrics can be used to measure households’
levels of food stability vulnerability and risks.
The first sub-category of food stability are factors used to measure and monitor
exposure to food insecurity risks (FAO et al. 2014). Some examples of tools used to
measure and monitor exposure to food insecurity risks include, cereal dependency ratio,
total irrigated land area and the value of the staple food imports as a percentage of all the
merchandise exports (FAO et al. 2014). The second sub-category of food stability are
external factors used to measure and monitor food insecurity risks associated with major
economic, social and political vitality and instability that could hinder food stability (FAO
et al. 2014). Even though access to food is the most important of all the four dimensions,
81
food stability at the household levels account for the most crucial and critical dimension
when it comes to ensuring the households’ stable food and nutritional security needs.
Studies have shown that climate change is one of the main drivers of global food
insecurity, hunger, poverty, undernourishment, and malnutrition, which are evidently
linked to climate change and GEC (Schmidhuber and Tubiello 2007, Ericksen 2008a). The
food security and climate change literatures tend to exclusively focus on the links between
agriculture and climate change without a comprehensive analysis of other change factors
that could contribute towards food insecurity (Ericksen 2007, 2008b, a). Other change
factors such as GEC (e.g. diseases outbreaks, conflicts, water scarcity, etc.) impacts food
systems, which directly impact food production (Gregory et al. 2005). Global
environmental change has also shown to impact food security and food systems, which
could severely hinder the households’ food stability potential. Food stability also means
that the household is able to provide the needed food substances for their sustenance either
through physically engaging in agricultural productivity at the household level or by
purchasing the households’ food needs.
GEC has shown to not only impact food production and the livelihoods of
households in rural areas that are already vulnerable to extreme climatic and environmental
events (Ericksen 2008a, b, Ericksen et al. 2009). The process to ensure global food security
in the presence of GEC requires an integrated food systems approach, which is not solely
focus on the technical and non-technical fixes between agriculture and climate change, but
a wide range of systems which contribute or are impacted by global environmental change
and climate change (Ericksen 2008b, Ericksen et al. 2009). The fight against global food
82
security, poverty, and hunger should be holistic and integrated such that all factors
essential to address these issues are adequately taken into account in the process of policy
formulation and implementation. The discussion between food security and climate change
should be a multi-disciplinary in context and application, and should include all relevant
sectors of the economy to find a sustainable and measureable solution and outcome to food
insecurity (Gregory et al. 2005, Ericksen 2007, Ingram 2009, FAO et al. 2014).
Food systems in this study refer to all the processes that directly or indirectly link
to food production and consumption. Food systems involves production, processing,
packaging and storing, distribution, retailing and pricing, and consumption (Ericksen
2008b, Ericksen et al. 2009). These processes of food systems also significantly contribute
to food insecurity when impacted by change factors, such as, the economy, climatic and
environmental events (Ericksen et al. 2009). Thus, a holistic and more integrative approach
to food security should include climate and global environmental change, agriculture, and
food systems because these concepts and processes all impact each other (Ericksen 2007,
2008b, Ericksen et al. 2009).
In Lao PDR, rural households’ food stability is depended on several factors, which
include financial resources, human resources, land, agricultural activities, and other off-
farm processes, which could contribute to the households’ income and other needs. The
stable food in Lao PDR is rice mainly grown in lowland or in paddy rice fields year round
mainly in the lowland along the Mekong River Basin and upland seasonally. With
increases in the intensity, frequency, and duration of climatic and GEC events, the ability
of rural households to access the stable food supply is a great challenge. Most rural
83
households in the Vientiane Province and in other parts of Lao PDR rely on rain-fed
agriculture for their livelihoods (Johnston et al. 2010, Pavelic et al. 2010, Johnston et al.
2012a). Climate change and GEC are two of the main factors, which continue to impact
rural smallholders’ resilience to enhance their production to secure their household food
stability. These challenges are couple with the lack of financial credit and capital, soil
fertility decline, surface water scarcity during the hot-dry season, poor agricultural yield
due to inadequate farming approaches and methods all serve to negatively impact
smallholders’ ability to provide stable food for their households.
Food stability in Lao PDR is critical to ensure that vulnerable population, such as,
rural ethnic minorities who are the victims of the progressive land allocation reform policy
and the subsequent involuntary displacement as a result should be targeted with programs
and services to enhance their resiliencies. Those in urban areas with limited social and
economic capital necessary to support and facilitate the constant supply of stable food for
their households should also be targeted. Progress has been made in the area of sustainable
groundwater irrigation to improve agricultural productivity during the hot-dry season
(Johnston et al. 2010, Pavelic et al. 2010, Pavelic et al. 2014).
Reports also indicate that smallholders’ experienced severe and prolong drought
and in other instances intense precipitation, which caused flooding (Johnston et al. 2010,
Pavelic et al. 2010, FAO 2011, Johnston et al. 2012a, Pavelic et al. 2014). These climatic
and GEC factors not only contribute to food insecurity, but also severely impact food
systems causing food stability to be unattainable. The forced relocation of ethnic minorities
from their original settlements to Focal Sites with the goal of enhancing national
84
development and the conservation of NPA has led to unexpected social and environmental
implications against ethnic minorities (Evrard and Goudineau 2004, Satoshi 2004, Baird
and Shoemaker 2005, 2007, Delang and Toro 2011, Boillat et al. 2015). Some examples
include the increased rate of poverty amongst rural ethnic minorities that are resettled in
resettlement villages, insufficient agricultural land allocated to each farming households,
stress, and anxiety. The factors previously discussed have direct impact on food stability
and until solutions are put in place to address each factor, rural ethnic minorities will
continue to be the primary victims of food insecurity (Ericksen 2008b, Lasco et al. 2011).
2.2.2.1.4. Food Utilization
As previously discussed, food availability, food accessibility and food stability are
important components to ensure food security. In fact, food utilization cannot be attained
until all three dimensions named and discussed previously are satisfactorily achieved. To
that end, the first three dimensions of food security are primarily focused around the
households’ food production and acquisition potential that are essential to attain and
sustain healthy and safe lives (FAO et al. 2014). Food utilization is not only concern with
how food is utilized to ensure food security, but is also geared towards the enhancement of
healthy and safe lives (FAO et al. 2014). The ways in which food are utilized could either
improve the health and wellbeing of individuals and their households or could lead to
unintended negative health outcomes. In essence, available, accessible and stable foods do
not always mean nutritional, healthy and safe food. According to the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID), food utilization is defined as the process through
which food is properly used, processed and stored along with the existence and application
85
of adequate knowledge of nutrition and child care as well as the existence of sufficient
health and sanitation infrastructures and services (USAID 1992).
Nutrition is a term that is sometimes interchangeably used with food utilization.
One can argued that food utilization is the most relevant dimension of food security at
individual level of food consumption and highlights the sociocultural, economic, and
environmental constraints that inform the way food is utilized. Although food utilization is
of particular relevance in the fight against undernourishments and malnutrition, access to a
stable food supply trumps food utilization when it comes to the fight against hunger mostly
in humanitarian situations. The reason being that during humanitarian response to hunger
emergency in conflict zones, the initial response would more likely focus around
addressing acute hunger; that is, the provision of more calories to surgically improve
physical strengthen. This in no ways legitimizes that food distributed during humanitarian
response to hunger emergency in conflict zones do not contain adequate nutrition to foster
safe and healthy lives. The initial goal at this point is to bring hunger at a neutral point
such that the situation is neutralized before focusing on the more individualized nutritional
needs and preferences essential to each affected person towards recovery.
Food utilization is mainly concern with the nutritional value of food, which also
involves how the food was processed and stored as well as the health and sanitation
aspects, which relates to nutrition. According to the food systems approach, food
utilization is concern with the nutritional value of food, social values as well as food safety
(Ericksen 2007, Ericksen et al. 2009). Food utilization can be assessed at the individual
level and scale up to the household levels as well by assessing specific indicators, such as,
86
the individual or household dietary diversity, the prevalence of malnutrition as well as
child care practices (USAID 1992). Report suggests that nearly a third of children in
developing countries are underweight, which has being linked to poor nutritional uptake as
a result of food utilization preferences, which account for approximately 60 percent of
child deaths globally (WorldBank 2006b). However, most of the deaths occur in
developing and least developed countries where malnutrition associated with food
utilization continue to be an increasingly difficult public health concern.
Food utilization is the last dimension of food security, which focuses on how foods
are use for human consumption with emphasis on the nutritional, societal, and safety
values (Ehrlich et al. 1993, Gregory et al. 2005, FAO et al. 2014). Studies indicate that
climate and GEC are projected to impact individuals’ ability to utilize food effectively and
efficiently as more extreme climatic events occur, which could impact food systems and
food security (Gregory et al. 2005, Schmidhuber and Tubiello 2007).
Food utilization can generally be classified into two broader groups. The first group
focuses on aspects of food utilization that impacts individuals’ ability to utilize food,
which include access to water and sanitation (FAO et al. 2014). The second group of food
utilization is concern with outcomes of poor food utilization, which involves the nutritional
failures of children under the age of 5, such as stunting, wasting and underweight (FAO et
al. 2014). The aspects of food utilization along with measureable indicators of the other
dimensions of food security are of vital concern to developing countries that are more
vulnerable to extreme climatic events and GEC (Ehrlich et al. 1993, Ericksen 2008b, a).
87
Poverty couple with the number of hungry people raises key questions of how food is
utilized at the household and individual levels to contribute to nutrition.
The social implications of food utilization is very important and should be given
more attention across the political and policy decision making spectrum because it deals
with complex and challenging sociocultural aspects of food uses that are usually left
unstudied due to its sensitivity and subjectivity (Ericksen et al. 2009). The sociocultural
aspects that are crucial to secure that households utilize food effectively and efficiently
include social capital, human capital, political capital, employment, income, wealth, and
what constitute acceptable norms (Ericksen et al. 2009). Thus, the ability of households to
have available food, access to food, and food stability does not necessitate that food will be
utilized effectively; such that, it meets both the nutritional, societal and safety values of the
household (Ericksen 2008a, Ericksen et al. 2009, FAO et al. 2014). Studies show that the
ineffective utilization of food in developing countries account for undernourishment,
obesity, non-communicable diseases, and malnutrition, which could eventually lead to
death (Gregory et al. 2005, Schmidhuber and Tubiello 2007, FAO et al. 2014).
Comparatively, while malnutrition is unlikely to occur in developed countries as a
public health issue, obesity seems to be on the rise and also speaks into the ineffective
utilization of food. As indicated earlier, food utilization takes into account how food was
processed, stored and consumed to improve health and safety. Thus, obesity is a major
public health problem in the United States of America is partly due to food consumption
and the lack of physical exercise along with other factors including genetic.
88
2.2.3. The Role of Biochar in Agricultural Research for Development in Lao PDR
There are growing evidences, which suggest the economic and environmental
benefits of biochar use in agriculture to enhance soil quality and quantity, improve crop
growth, yield and soil organic matter (SOM), remediate degraded soils, reduce soil
nutrients leaching, improves soil water retention, while storing carbon, which contributes
negative carbon emissions (Lehmann et al. 2011a, Mekuria et al. 2013, Mukherjee and Lal
2013, Renuka et al. 2013, Ros et al. 2013, Smith 2015b). Further research needs to be
conducted on the suitable agricultural feedstock essential for sustainable biochar
production with high quality biochar properties relevant to improve soil, the appropriate
temperature and duration of pyrolysis process and the stability of biochar in the soil
(Woolf et al. 2010, Gurwick et al. 2013, Mašek et al. 2013).
Studies demonstrate that biochar addition to soil contributes to negative emissions,
which has been hailed to have promising potential to sequester carbon essential to mitigate
climate change (Paustian et al. 1997, Lal and Bruce 1999, Lal 2004a, Woolf 2008, Woolf
et al. 2010). Though biochar has the potential to mitigate climate change, carbon
sequestered through biochar addition to soil constitutes a fragment of the global emissions
(Paustian et al. 1997, Woolf et al. 2010). Biochar has so many advantages, but it would be
misleading to consider biochar as the only solution out there to solve the global climate
problem (Laird 2008, Smith 2015b). Biochar should not be viewed as the only means to
address climate change, but as part of an integrated system aim to reduce GHG emissions.
Other systems and approaches to fight climate change by reducing GHG emissions should
be invested and considered in collaboration with biochar. Investment in biochar research
89
for development should be considered in view of the win-win-win scope of biochar
addition in soil, which significantly reduce emissions, while improving soil quality and
quantity and enhance agricultural productivity, which contributes to the food, climate and
environmental security. The investment in biochar research should be focused towards
developing countries that mainly rely on agricultural productivity for a significant portion
of the GDP and are susceptible to climate change risks and vulnerability (O'Brien et al.
2008, Gornall et al. 2010, FAO 2011).
The thermo-decomposition of fossil fuels for energy generation, transportation,
agricultural production, and other uses are the main drivers of anthropogenic GHG
emissions, which contribute to climate change and global warming (Lal et al. 2011,
Schmidt et al. 2011, Vermeulen et al. 2012). Global GHG emissions can be effectively
mitigated with the collective and integrated implementation of emissions regulation and
strategies at the public and private levels and should include all possible sources of
emissions both upstream and downstream, processes and technologies that are put in place
to reduce GHG emissions (Molina et al. 2009, Brick and Lyutse 2010). Biochar is one of
several methods to sequester carbon through geologic means (Woolf et al. 2010, Gurwick
et al. 2012, Renuka et al. 2013). Other approaches to mitigate GHG emissions include
carbon capture and storage (IEA 2012, Hashimoto 2013), geo-engineering to revert climate
change by confining emitted GHG (Bengtsson 2006, Knight and Gardens 2010),
regenerative and precision agriculture with emphasis on sustainable food systems
(Dahlberg 2005, Pretty 2008, Hellwinckel and Ugarte 2009), and biochar use in agriculture
90
to store carbon in more stable forms (Woolf 2008, Woolf et al. 2010, Gurwick et al. 2013,
Mašek et al. 2013).
Indeed, there are other methods currently being considered to sustainably capture
and store carbon, while producing food more sustainably that would have far lesser
environmental, ecological and climate implications (Caron 2015). The investment in
biochar research for development is critical to understand the long-term effects of biochar
on soil physio-biochemical properties, compositions and the overall impacts on agricultural
productivity (Lehmann et al. 2006, Lehmann and Joseph 2009, Liang et al. 2010, Lehmann
et al. 2011b, Spokas et al. 2011, Cimo et al. 2014). The investment in biochar research is
also important to gather the empirical field-based evidences and to conduct statistical and
predictive analyses relevant to inform effective environmental policies. Information from
biochar research and development is also instrumental to inform future opportunities and
challenges that may exist to facilitate the development of appropriate technologies and
policies on environmental quality and management, climate change mitigation, food
systems and security, the costs-benefits evaluation of biochar use in agriculture and climate
mitigation (McLaughlin et al. 2010, Woolf et al. 2010, Lubell et al. 2011, Dennis et al.
2013, Schultz 2013). The use of biochar to improve soil quality, plant growth and yield
along with enhancing soil quality and quantity has shown to have promising potential
(Woolf 2008, Woolf et al. 2010, Ippolito et al. 2012).
The major challenges with biochar use in agriculture and climate change mitigation
is the scale at which biochar should be applied to the soil to reduce emissions (IBI 2010,
Brennan et al. 2014, Sharma-Sindhar 2014). The appropriate feedstock essential to provide
91
high quality biochar rich in soil nutrients and the stability of biochar in the soil are still
well understudied (Stone et al. 2010, Spokas et al. 2011, Chintala et al. 2014, Sharma-
Sindhar 2014). These challenges are also pose with other barriers when it comes to biochar
research for development in LDC like Lao PDR, which rely predominantly on agricultural
productivity for economic growth and development (GoL 2004, MONRE 2013).
The challenges of biochar remain contested at the heart of agenda of several on-
going research projects (Gurwick et al. 2013, Mašek et al. 2013). The evidences from
several studies have shown not only the agronomic benefits of biochar use in soil, but its
general impacts on soil quality, SOM, soil water availability (SWA), and soil nutrients
status (Van Zwieten et al. 2008, Woolf 2008, Tejerina 2010, Woolf et al. 2010, Khura et al.
2015). Sustainable biochar production requires that biomass use in the pyrolysis process
are only sourced from on-farm agricultural waste; such that, no other biomasses are used in
the production of biochar and its associate products (IBI 2013).
A multi-national study conducted in Lao PDR, Viet Nam, Thailand, and Myanmar
with funding from the ADB evaluated the agricultural biomasses potential for sustainable
biochar and bio-energy production, research and development in the SEA countries, which
assessed each country’s agricultural feedstock potential for both large and small scale
biochar production (ADB 2013). The study concluded that Lao PDR in particular has a
significant amount of farm animals (cattle) and crop (rice) biomasses, which can be used to
produce biochar without converting other biomasses into biochar and other bio-energy
products (ADB 2013). The abundance of agricultural feedstock or wastes in Lao PDR,
which includes rice husk, rice straw, cattle, and chicken manure serves as an opportunity
92
with the appropriate technology and investment to promote and enhance biochar-based
research for development in Lao PDR and neighboring countries (ADB 2013).
For example, use of biochar in soil has been empirically linked to foster several
advantages including but not limited to improving soil nutrient status (Nigussie et al. 2012,
Spokas et al. 2012), impacts crop yield (Lentz and Ippolito 2012, Alburquerque et al. 2013,
Mutezo 2013), restores soil organic carbon (SOC) (Lal 2004b, a, Lehmann 2007, Lehmann
and Joseph 2009), enhances plant growth parameters (Howard 2012), remediates degraded
soils of organic compounds (Delwiche et al. 2014), and retains soil moisture content (Asai
et al. 2009b, Conte and Nestle 2015).
Studies indicate that the nutrients characterization of biochar to increase soil quality
varies amongst biochar and is a function of the type of biomass used in the pyrolysis
process, the temperature at which the thermos-decomposed occurred, and the duration of
the pyrolysis process (Gaskin et al. 2008, Lynch and Joseph 2010, Sorenson 2010, Woolf
et al. 2010, Prakongkep et al. 2013). Studies found that, while biochar use in agricultural
research has a promising potential to promote sustainable food systems, food security,
environmental quality, and mitigate climate change by sequestering carbon in agricultural
soils (Lehmann 2007, Steiner et al. 2007, Lehmann 2010, Lehmann et al. 2010, Woolf et
al. 2010, Joseph et al. 2013). There is still a need to invest in long-term multi-year biochar
research to understand the long-term effects and stability of biochar in agricultural soils,
biochar soil-water interactions, biochar use to reduce soil-water salinity, scaling biochar
use in soil sustainably such that the food and energy security needs of humanity and the
93
environment are not jeopardize in view of the crisis initiated by biofuel use in the
renewable energy sector (Sharma-Sindhar 2014).
Several studies have been conducted in Lao PDR to primarily assess the biomass-
biochar potential as well as the economic and environmental benefits of biochar use in
agricultural research (Asai et al. 2009b, a, Hugill 2011, ADB 2013, Mekuria et al. 2013,
Hu et al. 2014, Vinh et al. 2014). The continue interest in biochar agricultural research and
development is gaining a lot of attention by scientists across multiple disciplines in the
areas of agriculture, environment, hydrology, climate change, and international sustainable
development. While biochar research is gaining significant attention and momentum
amongst scientists, there are still works that need to be done. While there are continual
interests in biochar research for development to mitigate climate change, improve
agricultural productivity and food security, there are gaps in the literature when it comes to
policies and regulatory standards to regulate how biochar is used in soil mitigate climate
change, while ensuring environmental quality, agricultural productivity, and food security.
Policy-makers rely on empirical evidence from experimental field research on biochar to
make decisions.
The investment in research and development of biochar-related technologies and
research are essential components that need to be thoroughly considered in the context of
agricultural development and economic growth. In Lao PDR, biochar research for
development is still in its infancy stages with fewer micro-level investments from the
private sectors through international organizations and government institutions (Hugill
2011, ADB 2013).
94
2.2.3.1. Biochar, Food Security and Climate Change
Studies have shown that climate and global environmental change (GEC) pose
significant risks to food systems and food security (Tilman et al. 2001, Gregory et al. 2005,
Ericksen 2007, Woolf 2008, Ingram 2009, Vermeulen et al. 2012). Climate change
variability such as inconsistent rainfall, prolong drought, declining soil moisture and soil
nutrients status couple with increasing global mean surface temperature all served to
impact agricultural productivity and livelihoods (Lobell et al. 2008, Pavelic et al. 2010,
FAO 2011, Lal et al. 2011, Johnston et al. 2012a, MONRE 2013).
The effects of climate change, GEC and other change factors are predicted to
impact developing countries already struggling with major social, financial and
environmental challenges, such as, financial crisis due to corruption and poor governance,
increasing population growth, inadequate health and sanitation infrastructures, civil
conflicts and forced displacement, and environmental degradation due to mining,
deforestation and commercial agriculture (Steininger et al. 2001, Tune and Chandler 2006,
Malhi et al. 2007, Godfray et al. 2010b). Progresses continue to be made to reduce GHG
emissions and to revert the global average surface temperature and biochar has shown to
have promising potential to mitigate climate change, while enhancing soil quality, crop
growth and yield (Chan et al. 2008, Woolf et al. 2010, Genesio et al. 2012).
In developing countries, population is estimated to increase significantly, while
resources needed to sustain the growing population are severely constrained by climate
change, GEC, economic recessions, and other change factors (Schmidhuber and Tubiello
2007, Ericksen 2008b, Detraz 2011, Dyoulgerov et al. 2011). Studies suggest that
95
developing countries could be faced with major climatic, environmental and economic
crisis, which could severely impact vulnerable and susceptible food systems and the
natural resource base, which could lead to negative outcomes, such as, significant decline
in agricultural productivity, persistent and more severe drought events, degraded soils,
increase poverty levels, sporadic outbreaks of diseases, and high cost of living due to
scarce and limited resources (Gregory et al. 2005, Godfray et al. 2010a, Godfray et al.
2010b, Arezki and Bruckner 2011, Mata 2012).
Studies also indicate that human-induced carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHG
emissions contribute to warming, which eventually lead to severe climatic and
environmental changes, which impact food systems and food security (Schmidhuber and
Tubiello 2007, Hansen et al. 2008, Woolf 2008, WRI 2013). The impact of climate change,
GEC and other change factors on food systems and food security is further amplified by
forced displacement or migration of people from mostly rural to urban areas (Morton et al.
2007). Current policy in the areas of disaster preparedness, response and recovery seems to
focus primarily on the impacts of disaster rather than the attempt to address the sources of
the problem (Lonergan 1998, Salehyan 2005, Morton et al. 2007). Climate and GEC could
pose significant challenge to global migration, if global mean surface temperature
continues to increase due to anthropogenic GHG emissions.
In recent years, environmental crisis, political upheavals and social unrests have
added more burdens to combat climate change (Adelman 2001, Salehyan 2005). The fight
against climate change should encompass other sectors of the economy as well the cultural
and social landscapes as these are interrelated (Fischer et al. 2005, Oreskes 2005). The
96
impact of climate change on global food security should not be viewed exclusively in the
context agriculture and climate change (Gregory et al. 2005, Ericksen 2007, 2008b,
Ericksen et al. 2009). Climate change is considered one of humanity’s nightmares due to
the widespread vulnerability and risks. Studies have demonstrated that biochar could play
an essential role to positively mitigate climate change vulnerability and risks by storing
carbon in the soil, while contributing to food security by ensuring that food production is
sustainable, efficient and safe for the environment. The role of biochar to ensure food
security to mitigate climate change has being extensively investigated by several studies
(Woolf et al. 2010, Mičeková 2012, Alburquerque et al. 2013, Filiberto and Gaunt 2013,
Preston and Leng 2013).
2.2.3.2. Biochar Research for Development and Policy Implications
Biochar research for development is relevant for the development and formation of
policy, regulatory standards and technologies to enhance soil quality and quantity, improve
crop growth and yield, to mitigate climate change, and to remediate degraded soils.
Biochar research is critical to ensure sustainable food security and food systems,
environmental conservation and to reduce anthropogenic-induced emissions. Lots of
researches have been conducted in the field of biochar; however, biochar policy and
regulatory standards are still in the developing stages, which makes it challenging and
complicated to effectively implement strategies at the national and global levels to enhance
crop yield, while sequestering carbon. Further research needs to be conducted to
understand the stability of biochar in soil ecosystems over a longer period and how that
contributes to climate change mitigation.
97
Globally, significant progress has been made in biochar research and development,
which is attributed to the fight against climate change, GEC, poverty reduction and food
security (Chan et al. 2007, Sohi et al. 2008, Shackley et al. 2010, Ippolito et al. 2012,
Dennis et al. 2013). Though researches on biochar use in agriculture and climate change
mitigation demonstrate promising potential (Lal 2004a, Laird 2008, Woolf et al. 2010),
investment in biochar research, development and technological advancement to make the
technology available to both rural and urban areas is critical to the formation and
advancement of policies and regulatory strategies for sustainable biochar use to combat
climate change and enhance agricultural productivity.
Studies have demonstrated that biochar use in agriculture, climate change
mitigation and GEC could lead to far lesser emissions compare to an economy that is
driven by the reliance on fossil fuel for economic growth and development (Hellwinckel
and Ugarte 2009, Delwiche et al. 2014, Peake et al. 2014). Investment in biochar research
for development is gaining gradual global momentum with several studies being conducted
at smaller scales in developed, developing and least developed countries with the goal to
promote global food security and combat climate change (Asai et al. 2009b, Hugill 2011,
Mekuria et al. 2012).
In Lao PDR, investment in biochar research for development is focus to ensure
food security through climate-smart agriculture, sustainable biochar production to mitigate
polluted soils, sequester soil carbon stock, soils restoration, soil water retention, while
reducing soil nutrients leaching (Asai et al. 2009a, Noguera et al. 2010, Hugill 2011,
Mekuria et al. 2012, Mekuria et al. 2013). Good policy on environmental sustainability and
98
ecosystems management relies heavily on sound empirical studies. Lao PDR along with
other ASEAN countries has the capacity to sustainably produce biochar from agricultural
residues at a larger scale (ADB 2013).
The feasibility of biochar technological availability in rural communities without
economic capital and financial credit is still poorly understood. Biochar production
technologies have to take into account the financial capability of rural households and
communities who are targeted to adopt the technology because rural farmers in developing
countries made up 70 per cent of the population who rely on farming. In Lao PDR is a
classic example (UNDP 2010c, Dyoulgerov et al. 2011, Keomany 2011).
For biochar systems to be sustainable not only should biomasses be acquired the
right way as outlined by the IBI (IBI 2010, 2013)
Biochar technologies should be locally accessible and local farmers are able to
afford the system. to make the biochar technology available to rural communities who are
at the forefront of abrupt climate vulnerability and risks (Dyoulgerov et al. 2011, FAO
2011). The research on biochar stability in soil, the scale at which biochar can be applied to
soil to enhance productivity couple with sustainable biochar production, technological
development, policy and regulatory frameworks, and the cost-benefits evaluation are still
understudied with diverse information (IBI 2010, 2013).
Different institutions have different approaches on selected technologies used to
produce, process and apply biochar to soil. While the diversification of biochar
technologies could have positive impacts on the advancement of biochar use to improve
agricultural productivity and mitigate climate change, it is essential to have policy and
99
regulatory standards in place to ensure that biochar technologies are used appropriately and
the deployment of biochar technologies in rural settings do not economically exploit those
rural communities. Local technologies that are used for sustainable biochar production and
application to soils are acknowledged; such that, rural smallholders are accredited for their
authentic contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation, sustainable agricultural
productivity, food security, and livelihoods enhancement.
2.3. Chapter Summary
In this chapter, we discussed that economic development and growth in Lao PDR is
driven mainly on agricultural development and the agricultural sector plays a crucial role
in rural livelihoods as about 70 per cent of the rural population depend on farming for their
livelihoods. Climate change vulnerability and risk pose significant harm to rural
smallholders and their livelihoods in Lao PDR through changes in annual and seasonal
precipitation events, prolong and persistent drought, land reforms, deforestation,
environmental changes, development-induced displaced and forced migration, poverty, and
food insecurity.
100
Bibliography
ADB. 2004. Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food Security. Asian Development Bank.
ADB. 2013. Capacity Building for Efficient Utilization of Biomass for Bioenergy & Food
Security in the Greater Mekong Sub-region. Asian Development Bank, Greater
Mekong Sub-region including Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam.
Adelman, H. 2001. From Refugees to Forced Migration: The UNHCR and Human
Security. International Migration Review 35:7-32.
Alburquerque, J. A., P. Salazar, V. Barrón, J. Torrent, M. C. del Campillo, A. Gallardo,
and R. Villar. 2013. Enhanced Wheat Yield by Biochar Addition Under Different
Mineral Fertilization Levels. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33:475-484.
Alexander, K. S., J. Millar, and N. Lipscombe. 2009. Sustainable Development in the
Uplands of Lao PDR. Sustainable Development:1-9.
Anderson, K., S. Jha, S. Nelgen, and A. Strutt. 2012. Re-Examining Policies for Food
Security in Asia. Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines.
Arezki, R. and M. Bruckner. 2011. Food Prices, Conflict, and Democratic Change. The
University of Adelaide School of Economics.
Asai, H., B. K. Samson, H. M. Stephan, K. Songyikhangsuthor, K. Homma, Y. Kiyono, Y.
Inoue, T. Shiraiwa, and T. Horie. 2009a. Biochar Amendment Techniques For
Upland Rice Production in Northern Laos. Field Crops Research 111:81-84.
Asai, H., B. K. Samson, H. M. Stephan, K. Songyikhangsuthor, K. Homma, Y. Kiyono, Y.
Inoue, T. Shiraiwa, and T. Horie. 2009b. Biochar Amendment Techniques for
Upland Rice Production in Northern Laos 1. Soil Physical Properties, Leaf SPAD
and Grain Yield. Field Crops Research 111:81-84.
Baird, I. G. and B. Shoemaker. 2005. Aiding or Abetting? Internal Resettlement and
International Aid Agencies in the Lao PDR. Probe International, Toronto, Ontario.
Baird, I. G. and B. Shoemaker. 2007. Unsettling Experiences: Internal Resettlement and
International Aid Agencies in Laos. Development and Change 38:865-888.
Bengtsson, L. 2006. Geo-Engineering to Confine Climate Change: Is it at all Feasible?
Climatic Change 77:229-234.
Boillat, S., C. Stich, J. Bastide, M. Epprecht, S. Thongmanivong, and A. Heinimann. 2015.
Do Relocated Villages Experience More Forest Cover Change? Resettlements,
Shifting Cultivation and Forests in the Lao PDR. Environments 2:250-279.
101
Bounthong, B., J. Raintree, and L. Douangsavanh. 2004. Upland Agriculture and Forestry
Research for Improving Livelihoods in Lao PDR. Research Report, National
Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute, Vientiane Capital.
Brennan, A., E. Moreno Jimenez, J. A. Alburquerque, C. W. Knapp, and C. Switzer. 2014.
Effects of Biochar and Activated Carbon Amendment on Maize Growth and the
Uptake and Measured Availability of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
and Potentially Toxic Elements (PTEs). Environmental pollution 193:79-87.
Brick, S. and S. Lyutse. 2010. Biochar: Assessing the Promise and Risks To Guide U.S.
Policy. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), New York City.
Bui, T. M. H. and P. Schreinemachers. 2011. Resettling Farm Households in Northwestern
Viet Nam: Livelihood Change and Adaptation. International Journal of Water
Research Development 27:769-785.
Caron, P. 2015. Climate-Smart Agriculture: Towards Sustainable Landscapes and Food
Systems Mobilizing Science for Transitions. Pages 1-4 in P. o. t. r. G. C. o. C.-S.
Agriculture, editor. International Research for Development (IRD), Montpellier,
France.
Cavallo, E., S. Lawrence, and A. Imhof. 2013. Poverty Reduction in Laos: An Alternative
Approach.
Chan, K. Y., L. Van Zwieten, I. Meszaros, A. Downie, and S. Joseph. 2007. Agronomic
Values of Greenwaste Biochar as a Soil Amendment. Australian Journal of Soil
Research 45:629.
Chan, K. Y., L. Zwieten, I. Meszaros, A. Downie, and S. Joseph. 2008. Using Poultry
Litter Biochar as Soil Amendments. Australian Journal of Soil Research 46:437-
444.
Chanphengsay, M., A. M. Whitbread, J. Schiller, G. J. Blair, B. Linquist, L. Phoudalay,
and S. Pheng. 1999. Soil Fertility Decline in Lao PDR and the Potential of Pre-Rice
Green Manures to Improve the Sustainability of Rice Production Systems. Pages
21-27 in Integrated Nutrient Management in Farming Systems in Southeast Asia
and Australia held at the National Agricultural Research Centre. Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Chintala, R., J. Mollinedo, T. E. Schumacher, D. D. Malo, and J. L. Julson. 2014. Effect of
Biochar on Chemical Properties of Acidic Soil. Archives of Agronomy and Soil
Science 60:393-404.
CIFOR. 2009. Reporting REDD. United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries and
the European Union.
Cimo, G., J. Kucerik, A. E. Berns, G. E. Schaumann, G. Alonzo, and P. Conte. 2014.
Effect of Heating Time and Temperature on the Chemical Characteristics of
Biochar from Poultry Manure. Journal of Agricultural And Food Chemistry
62:1912-1918.
Conte, P. and N. Nestle. 2015. Water Dynamics in Different Biochar Fractions. Magnetic
resonance in chemistry : MRC 53:726-735.
102
Cook, J. T. and D. A. Frank. 2008. Food Security, Poverty, and Human Development in
the United States. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1136:193-209.
Dahlberg, K. A. 2005. Regenerative Food Systems. Management of Agricultural, Forestry
and Fisheries Enterprises II:6.
Dasgupta, S., U. Deichmann, C. Meisner, and D. Wheeler. 2005. Where is the Poverty–
Environment Nexus? Evidence from Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam. World
Development 33:617-638.
Daviau, S. 2006. Follow-up Study on Relocation of Khamu and Rmeet Communities in
Nalae District, Luang Namtha Province, Lao PDR. Cooperation Lao PDR and the
Federal Republic of Germany (GTZ), Vientaine Capital.
Delang, C. O. 2006. The Political Ecology of Deforestation in Thailand. Geography
90:225-237.
Delang, C. O. and M. Toro. 2011. Hydropower-induced Displacement and Resettlement in
the Lao PDR. South East Asia Research 19:567-594.
Delwiche, K. B., J. Lehmann, and M. T. Walter. 2014. Atrazine Leaching from Biochar-
Amended Soils. Chemosphere 95:346-352.
Dennis, J., K. C. S. Kou, T. Carter, D. McCandless, M. Millar, and M. Johnson. 2013.
Evaluating the Agronomic Benefits of Biochar Amended Soils in an Organic
System: Results from a Field Study at the UBC Farm, Vancouver. Technical
Research Report, University of British Colombia, Vancouver, Canada.
Detraz, N. 2011. Threats or Vulnerability? Assessing the Link Between Climate Change
and Security. Global Environmental Politics 11:104-120.
Diop, A. M. 1999. Sustainable Agriculture: New Paradigm and Old Practices? Increased
Production with Management of Organic Inputs in Senegal. Environment,
Development and Sustainability 1:285-296.
Drechsel, P., P. Heffer, H. Magen, R. Mikkelsen, and D. Wichelns. 2015. Managing Water
and Fertilizer for Sustainable Agricultural Intensification. International Fertilizer
Industry Association (IFA), International Water Management Institute (IWMI),
International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI), and International Potash Institute
(IPI), Paris, France.
Ducourtieux, O. and J. C. Castella. 2006. Land Reforms and Impact on Land Use in the
Uplands of Vietnam and Laos: Environmental Protection or Poverty Alleviation? ,
International Research for Development (IRD), Montpellier, France.
Ducourtieux, O., J. Laffort, and S. Sacklokham. 2005. Land Policy and Farming Practices
in Laos. Development and Change 36:499-526.
Dugan, P. J., C. Barlow, A. A. Agostinho, E. Baran, G. F. Cada, D. Chen, I. G. Cowx, J.
W. Ferguson, T. Jutagate, M. Mallen-Cooper, G. Marmulla, J. Nestler, M. Petrere,
R. L. Welcomme, and K. O. Winemiller. 2010. Fish Migration, Dams, and Loss of
Ecosystem Services in the Mekong Basin. Ambio 39:344-348.
Dyoulgerov, M., A. Bucher, F. Zermoglio, and C. Forner. 2011. Vulnerability, Risk
Reduction, and Adaptation to Climate Change: Lao PDR. The World Bank Group,
Washington, D.C.
103
Eastham, J., F. Mpelasoka, M. Mainuddin, C. Ticehurst, P. Dyce, G. Hogdson, R. Ali, and
M. Kirby. 2008. Mekong River Basin Water Resources Assessment: Impacts of
Climate Change. CSIRO.
Ecker, O. and C. Breisinger. 2012. The Food Security System: A Conceptual Framework.
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
Ehrlich, P. R., A. H. Ehrlich, and G. C. Daily. 1993. Food Security, Population, and
Environment. Population and Development Review 19:1-32.
Epprecht, M., N. Minot, R. Dewina, P. Messerli, and A. Heinimann. 2008. The Geography
of Poverty and Inequality in the Lao PDR. 1st edition. Swiss National Center of
Competence in Research and the International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, DC, USA.
Ericksen, P. J. 2007. Conceptualizing Food Systems for Global Environmental Change
Research. Global Environmental Change:1-12.
Ericksen, P. J. 2008a. Global Environmental Change and Food Security. Pages 10-16
Global Change NewsLetter. Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University
Centre for the Environment, Oxford, UK.
Ericksen, P. J. 2008b. What Is the Vulnerability of a Food System to Global
Environmental Change? Ecology and Society 13:14.
Ericksen, P. J., J. S. I. Ingram, and D. M. Liverman. 2009. Food Security and Global
Environmental Change: Emerging Challenges. Enviromental Science and Policy
12:373-377.
Erlich, P. R. 1988. The Loss of Diversity: Causes and Consequences. Biodiversity:21-27.
Evrard, O. and Y. Goudineau. 2004. Planned Resettlement, Unexpected Migrations and
Cultural Trauma in Laos. Development and Change 35:937-962.
Ewel, J. J. 1999. Natural Systems as Models for the Design of Sustainable Systems of
Land Use. Agroforestry Systems 45:1-21.
FAO. 1997. Agriculture Food and Nutrition for Africa - A Resource Book for Teachers of
Agriculture. 92-5-103820-1, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations, Rome.
FAO. 2008. Coping with Water Scarcity: An Action Framework for Agriculture and Food
Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2011. Managing Climate Change Risks for Food Security in Lao PDR. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok, Thailand.
FAO. 2013. Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2014. The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, Rome.
FAO. 2015. Lao PDR at a Glance. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Vientiane Capital.
FAO, IFAD, and WFP. 2014. Strengthening the Enabling Environment for Food Security
and Nutrition. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Filiberto, D. M. and J. L. Gaunt. 2013. Practicality of Biochar Additions to Enhance Soil
and Crop Productivity. Agriculture 3:715-725.
104
Fischer, G., M. Shah, F. N. Tubiello, and H. van Velhuizen. 2005. Socio-Economic and
Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture: An Integrated Assessment, 1990-2080.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological
Cciences 360:2067-2083.
Foppes, J. and S. Ketphanh. 2004. Non-Timber Forest Products for Poverty Reduction and
Shifting Cultivation Stabilization in the Uplands of Lao PDR. Pages 1-13 Poverty
Reduction and Shifting Cultivation Stabilization in the Uplands of Lao PDR:
Technologies, Approaches, and Methods for Improving Upland Livelihoods
National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI), Vientiane Capital,
Lao PDR.
Foran, T., T. Wong, and S. Kelley. 2010. Mekong Hydropower Development: A Review of
Governance and Sustainability Challenges. Funded by the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Finland, Canberra,.
Fox, J., Y. Fujita, D. Ngidang, N. Peluso, L. Potter, N. Sakuntaladewi, J. Sturgeon, and D.
Thomas. 2009. Policies, Political-Economy, and Swidden in Southeast Asia.
Human ecology: an interdisciplinary journal 37:305-322.
Fujita, Y. 2006. Understanding the History of Change in Laos. Mountain Research and
Development 26:197-199.
Fujita, Y. and K. Phanvilay. 2008. Land and Forest Allocation in Lao People's Democratic
Republic: Comparison of Case Studies from Community-Based Natural Resource
Management Research. Society & Natural Resources 21:120-133.
Fujita, Y. and K. Phengsopha. 2007. The Gap between Policy and Practice in Lao PDR.
Pages 115-129 Lessons from Forest Decentralization.
Fujita, Y. and S. Thongmanivong. 2006. Recent Land Use and Livelihood Transitions in
Northern Laos. Mountain Research and Development 26:237-244.
Fullbrook, D. 2007. Contract Farming in Lao PDR: Cases and Questions. Produced by the
Laos Extension for Agriculture Project (LEAP) for the Government-Donor Sub
Working Group on Farmers and Agribusiness, Vientiane Capital.
Gansberghe, D. V. and S. Vongsack. 1993. Shifting Cultivation Systems and Rural
Development in the Lao PRD. Nabong Agriculture College, Nabong.
Garrett, J. and M. Ruel. 1999. Are Determinants of Rural and Urban Food Security and
Nutritional Status Different? Some Insights from Mozambique. International Food
Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
Gaskin, J. W., C. Steiner, K. Harris, K. C. Das, and B. Bibens. 2008. Effect of Low-
Temperature Pyrolysis Conditions on Biochar for Agricultural Use. American
Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 51:2061-2069.
Genesio, L., F. Miglietta, E. Lugato, S. Baronti, M. Pieri, and F. P. Vaccari. 2012. Surface
Albedo Following Biochar Application in Durum Wheat. Environmental Research
Letters 7:1-9.
Godfray, H. C., J. R. Beddington, I. R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J. F. Muir, J.
Pretty, S. Robinson, S. M. Thomas, and C. Toulmin. 2010a. Food Security: The
Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 327:812-818.
105
Godfray, H. C., I. R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J. F. Muir, N. Nisbett, J. Pretty, S.
Robinson, C. Toulmin, and R. Whiteley. 2010b. The future of the global food
system. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B,
Biological sciences 365:2769-2777.
Goes, F. and C. Hong. 2002. The Status and Significance of Waterbirds of the Tonle Sap.
Pages 3-19 Cambodia Bird News, Cambodia.
GoL. 2004. National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy. Pages 1-9. Government of
Lao PDR, Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR.
GoL. 2007. Forestry Law. Pages 1-41 in N. Assembly, editor. Government of Lao PDR,
Vientiane Capital.
Gornall, J., R. Betts, E. Burke, R. Clark, J. Camp, K. Willett, and A. Wiltshire. 2010.
Implications of Climate Change for Agricultural Productivity in the Early Twenty-
First Century. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B,
Biological sciences 365:2973-2989.
Gregory, P. J., J. S. Ingram, and M. Brklacich. 2005. Climate Change and Food Security.
Philosophical Trransactions of the Royal Society of London 360:2139-2148.
Gurwick, N. P., C. Kelly, and P. Elias. 2012. The Scientific Basis for Biochar as a Climate
Change Mitigation Strategy: Does it Measure Up? , Union of Concerned Scientists.
Gurwick, N. P., L. A. Moore, C. Kelly, and P. Elias. 2013. A Systematic Review of
Biochar Research, with a Focus on Its Stability in situ and Its Promise as a Climate
Mitigation Strategy. PLOS ONE 8:1-9.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Pagani,
M. Raymo, D. L. Royer, and J. C. Zachos. 2008. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where
Should Humanity Aim? The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 2:217-231.
Hanssen, C. H. 2007. Lao Land Concessions, Development for the People? International
Conference on Poverty Reduction and Forests:1-20.
Hashimoto, A. 2013. Carbon Capture and Storage Development in Japan. Pages 1-23 in
Japan Electric Power Information Center, Inc. JEPIC, Tokyo, Japan.
Helga, W. and M. Yussefi. 2006. The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics &
Emerging Trends. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements
(IFOAM) & Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBiL, Bonn, Germany.
Hellwinckel, C. and D. Ugarte. 2009. Peak Oil and the Necessity of Transitioning to
Regenerative Agriculture. Pages 1-9 Farm Foundation.
Hillel, B. 1992. Out of the Earth: Cultivation and the Life of the Soil.in U. o. C. Press,
editor., Berkeley, California.
Hirsch, P., K. Phanvilay, and K. Tubtim. 1999. Nam Ngum, Lao PDR: Community-based
Natural Resource Management and Conflicts over Watershed Resources. United
Nations.
Houghton, J. T., M. F. L. Gylvan, D. J. Griggs, and K. Maskell. 1997. Stabilization of
Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases: Physical, Biological and Socioeconomic
Implications. IPCC, Geneva.
Howard, T. 2012. The Effect of Biochar on Root Development of Corn and Soyabeans in
Minnesota Soil and Sand. International Biochar Initiative.
106
Hu, J., F. Wu, S. Wu, C. L. Lam, X. Lin, and M. H. Wong. 2014. Biochar and Glomus
caledonium influence Cd accumulation of upland kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica
Forsk.) intercropped with Alfred stonecrop (Sedum alfredii Hance). Scientific
reports 4:4671.
Hugill, B. 2011. Biochar Applications as a Complementary Approach for REDD in Laos.
Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Vientiane Capital,
Lao PDR.
IBI. 2010. Guidelines on Practical Aspects of Biochar Application to Field Soil in Various
Soil Management Systems. International Biochar Initiative.
IBI. 2013. Standardized Product Definition and Product Testing Guidelines for Biochar
That Is Used in Soil. Page 48. International Biochar Initiative, UK.
ICEM. 2009. Climate Adaptation in the Lower Mekong Basin Countries. International
Centre for Environmental Management.
IEA. 2012. Carbon Capture and Storage: Legal and Regulatory Review. International
Energy Agency, Paris, France.
IMF. 2004. National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy. International Monetary
Fund, Washington, .D.C.
Ingram, J. 2009. Food System Concepts. Page 5 in U. o. Oxford, editor., Oxford United
Kingdom.
IPCC. 2013. Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
New York City, NY.
Ippolito, J. A., D. A. Laird, and W. J. Busscher. 2012. Environmental Benefits of Biochar.
Journal of environmental quality 41:967-972.
IWMI. 2014. Putting Water at the Heart of Sustainable Development. International Water
Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Johnson, J. M., A. J. Franzluebbers, S. L. Weyers, and D. C. Reicosky. 2007. Agricultural
Opportunities to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Environmental pollution
150:107-124.
Johnston, R., C. T. Hoanh, G. Lacombe, R. Lefrory, P. Pavelic, and C. Fry. 2012a.
Improving Water Use in Rain-fed Agriculture in the Greater Mekong Sub-region.
International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Johnston, R., C. T. Hoanh, G. Lacombe, A. Noble, V. Smakhtin, D. Suhardiman, K. S.
Pheng, and C. P. Sze. 2009. Scoping Study on Natural Resources and Climate
Change in Southeast Asia with a Focus on Agriculture. International Water
Management Institute, Vientiane Capital.
Johnston, R., G. Lacombe, C. T. Hoanh, A. Noble, P. Pavelic, V. Smakhtin, D.
Suhardiman, K. S. Pheng, and C. P. Sze. 2010. Climate Change, Water, and
Agriculture in the Greater Mekong Sub-region. International Water Management
Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Johnston, R., P. G. McCornick, G. Lacombe, A. Noble, C. T. Hoanh, and R. Bartlett.
2012b. Water for Food and Energy in the Greater Mekong Sub-region: Issues and
Challenges to 2020. Pages 241-254 Balancing Economic Growth and
Environmental Sustainability, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
107
Joseph, S., D. D. Khoi, N. V. Hien, N. C. Vinh, M. T. L. Anh, H. H. Nguyen, T. M. Hung,
N. T. Yen, P. Newsom, N. T. Van, M. F. Thomsen, J. Lehmann, C. H. Chia, and R.
Zyngier. 2013. North Vietnam Villagers Develop Strategies to Help Combat Global
Warming and Improve Household Health; Results of First 18 months Of Village
Biochar Program. CARE Denmark, Viet Nam.
Jusi, S. 2006. The Asian Development Bank and the Case Study of the Theun-Hinboun
Hydropower Project in Lao PDR. Water Policy 8:371-394.
Keomany, V. 2011. Scoping Study on Food Security and Nutrition Information in Lao
PDR. European Union and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR.
Khura, T. K., P. K. Sundaram, S. D. Lande, H. L. Kushwaha, and R. Chandra. 2015.
Biochar for Climate Change Mitigation and Ameliorating Soil Health—A Review.
Journal of AgriSearch 2:1-6.
Kissinger, G. 2011. Linking Forests and Food Production in the REDD+ Context. Climate
Change, Agriculture and Food Security, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Knape, M. 2009. Corruption and Consequences: Illegal Logging in Southeast Asia.
Knight, E. and S. Gardens. 2010. Agriculture Geo-Engineering; Past, Present and Future.
Pages 1-35.
Laird, D. A. 2008. The Charcoal Vision: A Win-Win-Win Scenario for Simutaneously
Producing Bioenergy, Permanently Sequestering Carbon, while Improving Soil and
Water Quality. Agronomy Journal 100:178-181.
Lal, R. 2004a. Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food
Security. Science 304:1623-1627.
Lal, R. 2004b. Soil Carbon Sequestration to Mitigate Climate Change. Geoderma 123:1-
22.
Lal, R. and J. P. Bruce. 1999. The Potential of World Cropland Soils to Sequester C and
Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. Environmental Science & Policy 2:177-185.
Lal, R., J. A. Delgado, P. M. Groffman, N. Millar, C. Dell, and A. Rotz. 2011.
Management to Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 66:276-285.
Lasco, R. D., C. M. D. Habito, R. J. P. Delfino, F. B. Pulhin, and R. N. Concepcion. 2011.
Climate Change Adaptation for Smallholder Farmers in Southeast Asia. World
Agroforestry Centre, Laguna, Philippines.
Lehmann, J. 2007. A Handful of Carbon. Nature 447:143-144.
Lehmann, J. 2010. A Future for Biochar in Vermont? Biochar Seminar. University of
Vermont and the Vermont Biochar Project, Burlington, VT.
Lehmann, J. and S. Joseph. 2009. Biochar for Environmental Management: An
Introduction. Pages 1-12 Biochar for Environmental Managament.
Lehmann, J., J. Major, M. Rondon, D. Molina, and S. J. Riha. 2010. Maize Yield and
Nutrition during 4 Years after Biochar Application to a Colombian Savanna Oxisol.
Plant and Soil 333:117-128.
108
Lehmann, J., S. Rajkovich, A. Enders, K. Hanley, C. Hyland, and A. R. Zimmerman.
2011a. Corn Growth and Nitrogen Nutrition After Additions of Biochars with
Varying Properties to a Temperate Soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils 48:271-284.
Lehmann, J., M. C. Rillig, J. Thies, C. A. Masiello, W. C. Hockaday, and D. Crowley.
2011b. Biochar Effects on Soil Biota: A Review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry
43:1812-1836.
Lehmann, J., M. A. Rondon, J. Ramírez, and M. Hurtado. 2006. Biological Nitrogen
Fixation by Common Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Increases with Bio-char
Additions. Biology and Fertility of Soils 43:699-708.
Lentz, R. D. and J. A. Ippolito. 2012. Biochar and Manure Affect Calcareous Soil and
Corn Silage Nutrient Concentrations and Uptake. Journal of environmental quality
41:1033-1043.
Lestrelin, G. 2010. Land Degradation in the Lao PDR: Discourses and Policy. Land Use
Policy 27:424-439.
Lestrelin, G. and M. Giodano. 2007. Upland Development Policy, Livelihood Change and
Land Degradation: Interactions from a Laotian Village. Land Degradation &
Development 18:15-76.
Lestrelin, G. and M. Giordano. 2007. Upland development policy, livelihood change and
land degradation: interactions from a Laotian village. Land Degradation &
Development 18:55-76.
Lestrelin, G., K. Nanthavong, E. Jobard, A. Keophoxay, P. Lienhard, C. Khambanseuang,
and J.-C. Castella. 2012. “To till or not to till?” Opportunities and Constraints to
the Diffusion of Conservation Agriculture in Xieng Khouang Province, Lao PDR.
Outlook on Agriculture 41:41-49.
Lestrelin, G., H. T. Quoc, F. Jullien, B. Rattanatray, C. Khamxaykhay, and F. Tivet. 2011.
Conservation Agriculture in Laos: Diffusion and Determinants for Adoption of
Direct Seeding Mulch-based Cropping Systems in Smallholder Agriculture.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 27:81-92.
Liang, B., J. Lehmann, S. P. Sohi, J. E. Thies, B. O’Neill, L. Trujillo, J. Gaunt, D.
Solomon, J. Grossman, E. G. Neves, and F. J. Luizão. 2010. Black Carbon Affects
the Cycling of Non-Black Carbon in Soil. Organic Geochemistry 41:206-213.
Lobell, D. B., M. B. Burke, C. Tebaldi, M. D. Mastrandrea, W. P. Falcon, and R. L.
Naylor. 2008. Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security in
2030. Science 319:607-610.
Lonergan, S. 1998. The Role of Environmental Degradation in Population Displacement.
Environmental Change and Security Project Report:5-15.
Lubell, M., V. Hillis, and M. Hoffman. 2011. Innovation, Cooperation, and the Perceived
Benefits and Costs of Sustainable Agriculture Practices. Ecology and Society
16:23-35.
Lynch, J. and S. Joseph. 2010. Guidelines for the Development and Testing of Pyrolysis
Plants to Produce Biochar. International Biochar Initiative, London, UK.
Mackie, C. 1985. Shifting Cultivation and Deforestation: The Case of Bomeo's Forest
Fires. Culture and Agriculture 25.
109
Malhi, Y., J. T. Roberts, R. A. Betts, T. J. Killeen, w. Li, and C. A. Nobre. 2007. Climate
Change, Deforestation, and the Fate of the Amazon. Sciencexpress:1-8.
Manorom, K., D. Hall, X. Lu, S. Katima, M. T. Medialdia, S. Siharath, and P. Srisuphan.
2011. Cross-Border Contract Farming Arrangement: Variations and Implications in
the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Research Report, Asian Development
Bank, Manila, Philippines.
Maokhamphiou, B. 2014. Ekxang Village: Profile of a Community on the Vientiane
Plains. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Mašek, O., P. Brownsort, A. Cross, and S. Sohi. 2013. Influence of Production Conditions
on the Yield and Environmental Stability of Biochar. Fuel 103:151-155.
Mata, A. 2012. Sustainable Bioenergy in Asia: Improving Resilience to High Food Prices
and Climate Change. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Matthews, N. 2012. Water Grabbing in the Mekong Basin: An Analysis of the Winners
and Losers of Thailand’s Hydropower Development in Lao PDR. Water
Alternatives 5:392-411.
McLaughlin, H., A. Harley, G. Flora, R. Larson, A. Reed, and C. Steiner. 2010. U.S. -
Focused Biochar Report: Assessment of Biochar's Benefits for the United States of
America. Center for Energy and Environmental Security, Colorado.
Mehra, R. and M. H. Rojas. 2006. Women, Food Security and Agriculture in a Global
Marketplace. International Center for Research on Women, Washington, D.C.
Mekuria, W., K. Getnet, A. Noble, C. T. Hoanh, M. McCartney, and S. Langan. 2013.
Economic Valuation of Organic and Clay-based Soil Amendments in Small-scale
Agriculture in Lao PDR. Field Crops Research 149:379-389.
Mekuria, W., O. Sengtaheuanghoung, C. T. Hoanh, and A. Noble. 2012. Economic
Contribution and the Potential Use of Wood Charcoal for Soil Restoration: A Case
Study of Village-based Charcoal Production in Central Laos. International Journal
of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 19:415-425.
MF. 2015. Mekong Flows: Biodiversity. http://mekongriver.info/biodiversity.
Mičeková, Z. 2012. Plant Response to Biochar Augmented Soils from Different
Biogeographic Regions. Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Olso.
Mink, S. D. 1993. Poverty, Population, and the Environment. Washington, D.C.
Moizo, B. 2005. Implementation of the Land Allocation Policy in the Lao PDR: Origins,
Problems, Adjustments, and Local Alternatives. Pages 103-116 NAFRI Workshop
on Shifting Cultivation and Poverty Eradication in the Uplands of the Lao PDR.
National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI), Vientiane Capital.
Molina, M., D. Zaelke, K. M. Sarma, S. O. Andersen, V. Ramanathan, and D. Kaniaru.
2009. Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other
regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106:20616-20621.
Molle, F. and P. Floch. 2008. Megaprojects and Social and Environmental Changes: The
Case of the Thai ‘‘Water Grid’’. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 37:199-204.
110
Molnar, A., K. Barney, M. DeVito, A. Karsenty, D. Elson, M. Benavides, P. Tipula, C.
Soria, P. Shearman, and M. France. 2011. Large Acquisition of Rights on Forest
Lands for Tropical Timber Concessions and Commercial Wood Plantations.
International Land Coaliton, Rome, Italy.
MONRE. 2012. Lao Environment Outlook. Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment, Vientiane Capital.
MONRE. 2013. Second National Communication on Climate Change of Lao PDR. Pages
1-127 in M. o. N. R. a. Environment, editor. Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment, Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR.
Morton, A., P. Boncour, and F. Laczko. 2007. Climate Change and Displacement:Human
security Policy Challenges. Forced Migration Review:5-7.
MRC. 2013. Benefit Sharing Options for Hydropower on Mekong Tributaries Evaluated
by 2013. Lao National Mekong Committee Secretariat, Vientiane Capital.
Mukherjee, A. and R. Lal. 2013. Biochar Impacts on Soil Physical Properties and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Agronomy 3:313-339.
Mutezo, W. T. 2013. Early Crop Growth and Yield Responses of Maize (Zea mays) to
Biochar Applied on Soil. Natural Resources, Agricultural Development and Food
Security International Research Network at the Africa University.
Nigussie, A., E. Kissi, M. Misganaw, and G. Ambaw. 2012. Effect of Biochar Application
on Soil Properties and Nutrient Uptake of Lettuces (Lactuca sativa) Grown in
Chromium Polluted Soils. American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and
Environmental Science 12:369-376.
Noguera, D., M. Rondón, K.-R. Laossi, V. Hoyos, P. Lavelle, M. H. Cruz de Carvalho, and
S. Barot. 2010. Contrasted Effect of Biochar and Earthworms on Rice Growth and
Resource Allocation in Different Soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 42:1017-
1027.
NSC. 2010. Lao PDR Agricultural Census 2010-2011. Pages 84-101 in N. S.
Commissions, editor. Brief Results. National Statistics Commissions of Lao PDR,
Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR.
O'Brien, K., L. Sygna, R. Leichenko, W. N. Adger, J. Barnett, T. Mitchell, L. Schipper, T.
Tanner, C. Vogel, and C. Mortreux. 2008. Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate
Change Adaptation and Human Security. A Commissioned Report for the
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Oldeman, L. R. 1998. Soil Degradation: A Threat to Food Security. International Soil
Reference and Information Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Oraboune, S. 2011. Lao PDR's Industrial Development Policy and Intermediate Goods
Trade. Bangkok Research Center, IDE-JETRO, Bangkok, Thailand.
Oreskes, N. 2005. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Page 1686 Science
Magazine.
Palm, C., T. Tomich, M. van Noordwijk, S. Vosti, J. Gockowski, J. Alegre, and L.
Verchot. 2003. Mitigating GHG Emissions in the Humid Tropics: Case Studies
from the Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn. Environment, Development and
Sustainability 6:145-162.
111
Paustian, K., R. Lal, O. Andren, H. H. Janzen, P. Smith, G. Tian, H. Tiessen, M. van
Noordwijk, and P. L. Woomer. 1997. Agricultural Soils as a Sink to Mitigate CO2
Emissions. Soil Use and Management 13:230-244.
Pavelic, P., C. T. Hoanh, M. McCartney, G. Lacombe, D. Suhardiman, K. Srisuk, and Y.
Kataoka. 2010. Enhancing the Resilience and Productivity of Rain-fed Dominated
Systems in Lao PDR through Sustainable Groundwater Use. International Water
Management Institute, Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR.
Pavelic, P., O. Xayviliya, and O. Ongkeo. 2014. Pathways for Effective Groundwater
Governance in the Least Developed Country Context of Lao PDR. Water
International 39:469-485.
Peake, L. R., B. J. Reid, and X. Tang. 2014. Quantifying the Influence of Biochar on the
Physical and Hydrological
Properties of Dissimilar Soils. Geoderma 235-236:182-190.
Pearse-Smith, S. W. D. 2012. The Impact of Continued Mekong Basin Hydropower
Development on Local Livelihoods. Consilience: The Journal pf Sustainable
Development 7:62-75.
Prakongkep, N., R. J. Gilkes, W. Wiriyakitnateekul, A. Duangchan, and T. Darunsontaya.
2013. The Effects of Pyrolysis Conditions on the Chemical and Physical Properties
of Rice Husk Biochar. international Journal of Material Science 3:97-103.
Prakosa, M. 2003. Lawless: How Europe's Borders Remain Open Trade in Illegal Timber.
Pages 1-8 Greenpeace International. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Pravongviengkham, P. P. 2011. A National Advocacy for a Holistic and Decentralized
Approach to Forest Management in Lao PDR. Pages 1-9 in M. o. A. a. Forestry,
editor. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Vientiane Capital.
Preston, T. R. and R. A. Leng. 2013. The Role of Biochar in Farming Systems Producing
Food and Energy from Biomass. Pages 89-92 in The 4th International Conference
on Sustainable Animal Agriculture for Developing Countries (SAADC2013).
Lanzhou University, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Pretty, J. 2008. Agricultural Sustainability: Concepts, Principles and Evidence.
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological
sciences 363:447-465.
Renuka, R., P. V. Shanthi, N. P. Sreekanth, P. Babu, and A. P. Thomas. 2013. A Study of
the Fertility and Carbon Sequestration Potential of Rice Soil with Respect to the
Application of Biochar and Selected Amendments. Annals of Environmental
Science 7:17-30.
Ribolzi, O., J. Cuny, P. Sengsoulichanh, C. Mousques, B. Soulileuth, A. Pierret, S. Huon,
and O. Sengtaheuanghoung. 2011. Land Use and Water Quality along a Mekong
Tributary in Northern Lao PDR. Environmental management 47:291-302.
Roder, W. 1997. Slash-and-Burn Rice System in Transition: Challenges for Agricultural
Development in the Hills of Northern Laos. Mountain Research and Development
17:1-10.
112
Ros, G., L. van Scholl, R. Postma, and H. Hauggaard-Nielsen. 2013. Biochar Climate
Saving Soils. Pages 1-10 BioChar. BioChar, Berlin, Germany.
Salehyan, I. 2005. Refugees, Climate Change, and Instability. Human Security and Climate
Change.
Sanchez, P. A. 2000. Linking Climate Change Research with Food Security and Poverty
Reduction in the Tropics. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 82:371-383.
Satoshi, Y. 2004. Forest, Ethnicity and Settlement in the Mountainous Area of Northern
Laos. Southeast Asian Studies 42:132-156.
Sayatham, M. and D. Suhardiman. 2015. Hydropower Resettlement and Livelihood
Adaptation: The Nam Mang 3 Project in Laos. Water Resources and Rural
Development 5:17-30.
Schiller, J. M., B. Linquist, K. Douangsila, P. Inthapanya, B. D. Boupha, S. Inthavong, and
P. Sengxua. 2001. Constraints to Rice Production Systems in Laos. Pages 1-310 in
ACIAR Proceedings.
Schmidhuber, J. and F. N. Tubiello. 2007. Global Food Security Under Climate Change.
Pages 19703-19708 in National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America.
Schmidt, M. W., M. S. Torn, S. Abiven, T. Dittmar, G. Guggenberger, I. A. Janssens, M.
Kleber, I. Kogel-Knabner, J. Lehmann, D. A. Manning, P. Nannipieri, D. P. Rasse,
S. Weiner, and S. E. Trumbore. 2011. Persistence of Soil Organic Matter as an
Ecosystem Property. Nature 478:49-56.
Schouten, R. 1998. Effects of Dams on Downstream Reservior Fisheries, Case of Nam
Ngum. Pages 1-5 Mekong Fish Catch and Culture, Vientiane Capital.
Schultz, S. 2013. Biochar Cookstoves Boost Health for People and Crops. National
Geographic News. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/01/130129-
biochar-clean-cookstoves/.
Seidenberg, C., O. Mertz, and M. B. Kias. 2003. Fallow, Labour, and Livelihoods in
Shifting Cultivation: Implications for Deforestation in Northern Lao PDR. Danish
Journal of Geography 103:71-80.
Shackley, S., S. Sohi, P. Brownsort, S. Carter, J. Cook, C. Cunningham, J. Gaunt, J.
Hammond, R. Ibarrola, O. Masek, K. Sims, and P. Thornley. 2010. An Assessment
of the Benefits and Issues Associated with the Application of Biochar to Soil.
Pages 1-132 in F. a. R. A. A Report Commissioned by the United Kingdom
Department for Environment, and Department of Energy and Climate Change,
editor. The United Kingdom Biochar Research Centre, Edinburgh, UK.
Sharma-Sindhar, P. 2014. Cool Planet: Can Biochar Fertilize Soil and Help Fight Climate
Change? The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/sep/02/cool-planet-biochar-charcoal-biomass-energy-gasoline-soil-
fertilization, London, The United Kingdom.
Singh, C. B. and W. Singh. 1980. Shifting Cultivation in the North Eastern Region. Indian
Farming 29:17-20.
Smith, G. 2015a. Counter-Attacking Human and Pig Disease in Asia. CIAT Blog News
Series.
113
Smith, V. A. 2015b. Biochar: A 'Miracle Product' for Amending Soil? http://articles.philly.com/2015-01-19/news/58204783_1_soil-carbon-public-garden-
landscapes.
Sohi, S., E. Lopez-Capel, E. Krull, and R. Bol. 2008. Biochar, Climate Change and Soil: A
Review to Guide Future Research. CSIRO.
Sorenson, C. B. 2010. A Comparative Financial Analysis of Fast Pyrolysis Plants in
Southwest Oregon. University of Montana.
Spokas, K. A., K. B. Cantrell, J. M. Novak, D. W. Archer, J. A. Ippolito, H. P. Collins, A.
A. Boateng, I. M. Lima, M. C. Lamb, A. J. McAloon, R. D. Lentz, and K. A.
Nichols. 2012. Biochar: A Synthesis of Its Agronomic Impact beyond Carbon
Sequestration. Journal of environmental quality 41:973-989.
Spokas, K. A., J. M. Novak, C. E. Stewart, K. B. Cantrell, M. Uchimiya, M. G. Dusaire,
and K. S. Ro. 2011. Qualitative Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds on
Biochar. Chemosphere 85:869-883.
Steiner, C., W. G. Teixeira, J. Lehmann, T. Nehls, J. L. V. Macêdo, W. E. H. Blum, and
W. Zech. 2007. Long Term Effects of Manure, Charcoal and Mineral Fertilization
on Crop Production and Fertility on a Highly Weathered Central Amazonian
Upland Soil. Plant and Soil Journal 291:275-290.
Steininger, M. K., C. J. Tucker, J. R. G. Townshend, T. J. Killeen, A. Desch, and V. Bell.
2001. Tropical Deforestation in the Bolivian Amazon. Environmental Conservation
28:127-134.
Stocking, M. A. 2003. Tropical Soils and Food Security: The Next 50 Years. Science 302.
Stone, K. C., P. G. Hunt, K. B. Cantrell, and K. S. Ro. 2010. The Potential Impacts of
Biomass Feedstock Production on Water Resource Availability. Bioresource
technology 101:2014-2025.
Suhardiman, D., F. Milan, B. Maokhamphiou, T. Sotoukee, and L. A. Serre. 2013. Initial
Back to Office Report based on Focus Group Interview among Ekxang Village's
Representatives. BTOR, International Water Management Institute, Vientiane
Capital, Lao PDR.
Tejerina, M. R. 2010. Biochar as a Strategy for Sustainable Land Management, Poverty
Reduction and Climate Change Mitigation/Adaptation? Thermolysis of Lignin for
Value-added Products, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Thongmanivong, S. and Y. Fujita. 2006. Recent Land Use and Livelihoods Transitions in
Northern Laos. Mountain Research and Development 26:237-244.
Thoummavongsa, S. and X. Bounsou. 2013. Sustainable Management of Hydropower in
Lao PDR. Greater Mekong Sub-region Academic and Research Network,
Pathumthani, Thailand.
Tilman, D., J. Fargione, B. Wolff, C. D'Antonio, A. Dobson, R. Howarth, D. Schindler, W.
H. Schlesinger, D. Simberloff, and D. Swackhamer. 2001. Forecasting
Agriculturally Driven Global Environmental Change. Science 292:281-291.
Tune, L. and L. Chandler. 2006. Changes to Amazon Forest Ecosystems from Logging and
Deforestation.
114
Tweeten, L. 1999. The Economics of Global Food Security. Review of Agricultural
Economics 21:473-488.
UNDP. 2005. Lao People's Democratic Republic: Public Administration Country Profile.
United Nations Development Programme, Vientiane Capital.
UNDP. 2006. Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis. Human
Development Report.
UNDP. 2010a. Improving the Resilience of the Agriculture Sector in Lao PDR to Climate
Change Impacts. United Nations Development Programme, Vientiane Capital.
UNDP. 2010b. Lao PDR Resilience Agriculture Sector Climate Change. United Nations
Development Programme, Vientiane Capital.
UNDP. 2010c. United Nations Development Programme Country: Lao PDR Project
Document. United Nations Development Programme, Vientiane Capital.
UNDP. 2011. Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All. United Nations
Development Programme, New York City, NY.
UNESCO. 2008. Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve. http://www.unesco.org/mab.
USAID. 1992. USAID Policy Determination: Definition of Food Security.in U. S. D. o.
State, editor. USAID, Washington D.C.
Van Zwieten, L., S. Kimber, K. Sinclair, K. Y. Chan, and A. Downie. 2008. Biochar:
Potential for Climate Change Mitigation, Improved Yield, and Soil Health. Pages
30-33 in Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Grassland Society of
NSW (Grassland Society of NSW Inc). New South Wales Department of Primary
Industries, Orange, New South Wales.
Vandergeest, P. 2003. Land to Some Tillers: Development-Induced Displacement in Laos.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd:47-56.
Vermeulen, S. J., B. M. Campbell, and J. S. I. Ingram. 2012. Climate Change and Food
Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37:195-222.
Vinh, N. C., N. V. Hien, M. T. L. Anh, J. Lehmann, and S. Joseph. 2014. Biochar
Treatment and its Effects on Rice and Vegetable Yields in Mountainous Areas of
Northern Vietnam. international Journal of Agricultural and Soil Science 2:5-13.
Vlassenroof, K., S. Ntububa, and T. Raeymaekers. 2004. Food Security Responses to the
Protracted Crisis Context of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Conflict
Research Group, University of Ghent.
WFP. 2006. Lao PDR Food Security Atlas: Agro-Ecological Zones: Lao PDR. Food
Security Atlas. World Food Programme, Washington, D.C.
Woolf, D. 2008. Biochar as a Soil Amendment: A Review of the Environmental
Implications.1-31.
Woolf, D., J. E. Amonette, F. A. Street-Perrott, J. Lehmann, and S. Joseph. 2010.
Sustainable Biochar to Mitigate Global Climate Change. Nature communications
1:1-56.
WorldBank. 2006a. Lao PDR Environment Monitor. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
WorldBank. 2006b. Progress for Children: A Report Card on Nutrition. UNICEF, New
York City.
WorldBank. 2015. Lao PDR: Asia & Pacific. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
115
WRI. 2013. Can The U.S. Get There From Here? Using Existing Federal Laws and State
Action to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 978-1-56973-800-9, World
Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Zalinge, N., P. Degen, C. Pongsri, S. Nuov, J. G. Jensen, N. V. Hao, and X. Choulamany.
2003. The Mekong River System. Pages 1-18 Contribution to the Second
International Symposium on the Management of Large Rivers for Fisheries Held on
11-14 February 2003, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Recommended
