East and Southeast Asia experienced a rapid development of their agricultural sectors that overturned the lives of rural communities and the structure of key ecosystems.
High poverty rates, vast expanses of undeveloped land, and the availability of a large rural labor force presented ripe opportunities to develop the region as a leader in the production of raw materials for foods and beverages. Starting in the 1970’s, governments worked alongside international aid organizations and foreign investors to intensify the production of products like coffee, maize, and shrimp. In the span of only a few decades, countries like Vietnam, Thailand, China, and the Philippines became prolific producers of many commodities, sold in-country, in the region, and internationally. For example, in the 1990’s alone, Vietnam increased maize production by 161%.
The Steps Toward Green book notes how this emphasis on economic development undermined future progress in agriculture-based economies by crippling the health of key ecosystems. The conversion of forest lands to monoculture farms, laws that incentivize over-exploitation of farmlands, and the manipulation of waterways for irrigation ultimately weakened the very natural resources upon which the success of farmlands depend. Furthermore, the development of cash-crop agriculture disadvantaged both rural and urban communities by polluting water sources, limiting access to forage resources, and restructuring how civilians sustained their livelihoods. By scratching at the surface of cash-crop development schemes, researcher Neil Dawson provides insight on the uneven results of agricultural development implemented without regard for the environment. His ongoing research investigates local perceptions on rural development with lessons that are transferable to several East and Southeast Asian communities.
An emphasis on the intensification of agriculture, without consideration of the impact of land conversion, has led to high deforestation in Laos and its neighboring countries. Photo provided by Nail Dawson
Trying to conserve and develop at the same time – an environmental justice approach
In the remote villages of mountainous Houaphanh Province in northeastern Laos, change has occurred at a staggering rate. Just 30 years ago many inhabitants lived deep within the region’s tropical forests, where rivers served as highways, interactions with the outside world were rare and virtually every type of resource required for living came from the immediate surroundings. In 2015, the same people sit in their roadside homes, now situated outside of Nam Et Phou Louey National Protected Area, and wait for the daily installment of Thai soap operas to blast through their television sets. But perhaps the most influential change to village life has come in the last 5 years with the replacement of traditionally grown rice for maize as a cash crop. Rice was harvested through strenuous shifting cultivation practices that provided for subsistence agriculture, as opposed to maize, which could be exported to feed Vietnam’s burgeoning livestock supply. With this shift in production mode and emphasis, governments and analysts commonly noted a rise in income among smallholders and a sharp decline in poverty rates. This story appears full of positive trends – but as is so often the case with questions of sustainable development, the disparities lie in the details.
In only 30 years, communities in dense tropical rainforest in the Houaphanh Province were converted into modern towns, as shown here. Photo provided by Neil Dawson.
Looking deeper at local issues – exploring well-being and justice
The ongoing project Ecosystem Services, Wellbeing and Justice: Developing Tools for Research and Development Practice is supported by the UK-funded Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme. This study takes an in-depth look at the different social, economic, political and environmental changes affecting villagers from 100 households across just 3 small villages. But rather than using a standard approach to define what is important to a rural household, designed on a computer far, far away, this study focuses on what individuals themselves think it means to live a good life, how they think and feel about changes affecting them and how they perceive the decisions and procedures through which their lives are affected and their own values and interests are either included or neglected.
So what does the research show for our 100 Lao households?
When we measure people’s well-being based on locally relevant criteria, such as whether or not they can produce or afford enough rice for their household, we find that life for many is actually becoming harder. It is striking that conventional poverty indicators focusing on consumption, education or assets give no indication that this may be the case.
The overlooked story goes like this: the risks involved are in a) farming something you cannot eat, b) in taking credit to buy inputs to try to make that harvest pay dividends and c) in placing faith in the market to provide food you can afford. In the absence of any alternative and strong institutional encouragement, few resist the temptation to try cash-crop agriculture, but this system does not pay off for everyone. As a result, while some wealthier people have greatly increased their incomes, a large proportion of the local population is left behind. This trend demonstrates how complex village dynamics can deepen social injustices by allocating development success to groups of society that are already in privileged positions.
Farmers are faced with a series of difficult choices when evaluating risks involved with different approaches for managing farmlands. Photo provided by Neil Dawson.
Is the shift to cash crops good for conservation?
There is a common assumption that material improvements for rural smallholders is good news for conserving forests, because poverty is a key driver of dependency on forest resources. In reality this assumption rarely holds true. In this case, increased incentives to develop land, coupled with falling productivity in areas designated for agricultural production, inevitably leads forest loss. The likelihood of agricultural activities expanding into forest areas is increased by forest conservation being underfunded, the weak enforcement of rules and slow reactions to social change. But with the risk of severe fines always lurking, the poorest (though again often assumed to be the most forest-dependent) are not commonly responsible. Furthermore loss of unprotected forests closest to villages can also take away resources especially important to those reliant on foraging. From the perspective of some villagers, the inability of conservation to live up to its promises to provide alternative livelihoods or to compensate for some of the costs of setting strict boundaries and rules, plays an important part.
So what are solutions to this complex situation?
Attention to local issues of well-being and justice helps unlock some of this social complexity, identifies those most at risk from development ventures and helps to identify some potential, mutually acceptable solutions, which may reconcile conservation and development goals. After all, everyone involved agrees that both conservation and development are desirable aims. However, it is the route to achieving these goals and the possible trade-offs along the way that requires careful negotiation.
Some surprising solutions can emerge: when asked what may help to improve outcomes, many local people call for enhanced and more consistent enforcement of rules (as opposed to asking for more land, more money or more jobs) that apply to everyone equally. This request is even resonated by those with the most wealth and power. Rather than requiring financial support for traditional shifting cultivation practices or the new maize cash crops, people’s aspirations have shifted towards new forms of agriculture, irrigation schemes to enable them to farm rice in permanent paddies and seeking new market linkages for different fruits, vegetables and other potentially high value produce. Uncovering these issues starts a conversation with those involved in agriculture, development and conservation, and importantly includes the people most affected by these elements so that better integration may result.
Join the conversation on Greening Commodity Agriculture
Join the experts on September 15th in a panel discussion on commodity agriculture, development, and policy in East and Southeast Asia.
Engaging stakeholders, such as the farmers of the Houaphanh Province in Laos, in conversations on the outcomes of land use and agricultural development, is a central recommendation of the Steps Toward Green book. Such efforts need institutional support to become commonplace across East and Southeast Asia. Learn more about how policy can empower local people to make strong contributions to the sustainable management of farmlands.
Greening Commodity Agriculture: Roundtable discussion on agri-environmental policy in East and Southeast Asia
Roundtable Discussion: Webcast and In-person
RSVP here
Comments are closed.