impact assessment of livelihood interventions in bci pilot site

DRAFT REPORT

Impact Assessment of livelihood interventions in BCI Pilot Site, Pathoumphone District, Champasak Province, Lao PDR

Hasan Moinuddin, Jiao Xi, Sumit Pokhrel, Wang Wanying

GMS Environment Operations Center (EOC)

Bangkok, Thailand

October 2009

The GMS Core Environment Program and Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Initiative

(BCI) is co-financed by the GMS countries, Asian Development Bank, Poverty Reduction

Funds supported by DFID and PR China, and Governments of Finland, Netherlands, and

Sweden.

Draft Final Report-BCI Impact Assessment, Lao PDR 30 Oct 2009

i

Table of Contents Page Abbreviations ii Acknowledgment iii Executive Summary 1 I. Introduction 4 A. Background: Greater Mekong Subregion and Biodiversity Conservation Corridors

Initiative (GMS-BCI) 4

B. Overview of BCI Pilot Site in Champasak Province, Lao PDR 5 1. Institutions and Stakeholders 9 2. Socio-economic Status with focus on Poverty and Livelihood 10 (i) Socio-economic Status of Lao PDR 10 (ii) Socio-economic Status of BCI Corridor 13 3. BCI Project Components 18 (i) Poverty Reduction and Livelihood Improvement 18 (ii) Land Use Planning and Biodiversity Corridor Status 19 (iii) Forest Restoration and Biodiversity Conservation Status 19 (iv) Capacity Strengthening 20 (v) Securing Sustainable Financing 20 II. Scope and Methodology of the Impact Assessment 21 A. Objective of the Impact Assessment 21 B. Conceptual Framework 21 C. Methods and Design of Impact Assessment 23 D. Field Survey Process, Data Collection and Analysis 25 III. Impacts of BCI implementation 27 A. Poverty Definition and Wealth Classification applied to BCI Pilot Site 27 B. Impacts Perceived by Beneficiaries in the BCI Pilot Site 29 1. Social and Human Assets 29 2. Natural Assets 31 3. Physical Assets 38 4. Financial and Business Assets 42 (i) Village Development Funds (revolving mechanism) 44 (ii) Agricultural/Agroforestry income generating activities 49 (iii) Direct cash support to households for conservation and restoration 52 C. Impacts perceived by institutional stakeholders 53 1. Project management 53 2. Social and Human Assets 54 3. Natural Assets 55 4. Physical Assets 56 D. Analysis of Project Expenditures 58 IV. Conclusions and Lessons Learned 61 A. Conclusions 61 B. Lessons Learned 62 Appendices Appendix 1: Village Profiles

Appendix 2: Household Interview Questionnaire for BCI villages

Appendix 3: Restoration models for forest restoration used in BCI pilot site

Appendix 4: Summary of restoration demonstration plots

Appendix 5: List of implementing partners interviewed during impact assessment

Appendix 6: Overview of institutional stakeholder feedback on BCI impacts

List of Figures

1. BCI Pilot Sites and Biodiversity Conservation Landscapes

2. Xe Pian – Dong Hua Sao Biodiversity Corridor pilot site

3. Biodiversity Corridor Zonation

4. Xe Pian – Dong Hua Sao Corridor

5. Satellite image of Biodiversity Corridor, Lao PDR (Source Google Earth)


ii

Table of Contents 6. BCI target villages in Xe Pian – Dong Hua Sao Biodiversity Corridor

7. Project management and coordination

8. GDP growth and inflation 2005-2010

9. Demography and ethnic groups in the Corridor

10. Poverty mapping in the selected villages in the Corridor

11. Trend in shifting cultivation in two representative villages in Lao BCI site

12. Composition of household income sources in BCI villages

13. Asset Categories

14. Impact analysis framework

15. Income and expenditure levels

16. Percentage of land conversion and source (BCI)

17. Percentage of NTFP collection for consumption

18. Percentage of NTFP collection for sale

19. Construction material used for housing (%)

20. VDF microcredit purpose in 11 villages

21. VDF microcredit size in 6 villages (176 HH)

22. Utilization of VDF loans by households in 11 BCI villages

23. Inputs and outputs of mushroom cultivation

24. BCI project components inputs with integrated TA costs

25. BCI project components inputs with integrated TA costs

26. BCI project components direct inputs and TA

27. Poverty reduction components (direct inputs without TA)

List of Tables

1. Criteria for target village selection

2. Provincial HDI calculations 2002/2008

3. Accessibility of villages and people to the nearest health centers

4. Selected socio-economic indicators

5. Distribution of wealth and poverty among households in BCI villages

6. Average agricultural holdings in BCI villages

7. Education level and student – teacher ratio in 11 BCI villages

8. Sample indicators and data collection methods

9. Number of households surveyed in BCI villages

10. Household classification at district and village levels

11. Summary of the wealth stratification in BCI villages, 2009

12. Income and expenditure level of households in BCI villages (kip/year)

13. Villagers trained in BCI pilot site (Lao PDR)

14. Training events across target villages in BCI pilot site (Lao PDR)

15. Impacts perceived by beneficiaries on social assets (%)

16. Land use planning and ecosystem activities of BCI Project

17. Land use planning results, Ban Houayko, 2009

18. Comparison of indicators between BCI and Non-BCI

19. Comparison of land conversion in BCI and Non-BCI villages

20. Livestock/other animals owned by households

21. Impacts perceived by beneficiaries on natural assets (%)

22. Small scale village infrastructure investments by BCI Project

23. Assets and access to facilities and services

24. Beneficiary perception on BCI support infrastructure improvement

25. BCI interventions for livelihood improvement

26. Comparison of financial assets (BCI/Non-BCI villages)

27. VDF microcredit to households for livelihood and other activities

28. Record of microcredit disbursement from VDFs in 6 villages


iii

Table of Contents 29. Duration and interest rate of microcredit in 6 villages

30. Estimated return on VDF investments (microcredit) in 6 villages

31. Microcredit recovery scenarios of VDF (revolving fund) in 6 villages

32. Utilization of VDF microcredit by households in 11 BCI villages

33. Status of livelihood interventions (agriculture/agro-forestry)

34. Inputs and outputs of mushroom cultivation

35. Utilization of direct cash income from BCI received by households (kip)

36. BCI project components inputs with integrated TA costs (in US$)

Photos

Photo 1. Forest Restoration Survey

Photo 2. Monitoring Ban Thongpha Enrichment site

Photo 3. Nursery activity in B. Houayko

Photo 4. Library and school office, Ban Kiat Ngong, ADB RETA 6289

Photo 5. Spot improvement of the access road to Ban Houayko, ADB RETA 6289

Photo 6. Well drilling in Ban Thahou, ADB RETA 6289

Photo 7. Mushrooms growing from the cultivation boxes supported by ADB RETA 6289


iv

Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank BCI Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Initiative BCL biodiversity conservation landscapes BE bio extraction DAFO Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office DEO District Education Office DGO District Governor‘s Office DHO District Health Office DLMA District Land Management Authority EOC Environment Operations Center GMS Greater Mekong Subregion HDI Human Development Index ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Project IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IUCN The World Conservation Union LoA Letter of Agreement LUP land use planning MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry MFU Mae Fah Luang University NPA National Protected Area NGPES National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy NLMA National Land Management Authority NSU National Support Unit NTFP non timber forest product OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PAFO Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office PDR People‘s Democratic Republic PFA production forest area PIA poverty impact assessment PPIU Provincial Project Implementation Unit PRA participatory rural appraisal RETA regional technical assistance RIMS Results and Impact Management System (used by IFAD) SUA sustainable use area SUFORD Sustainable Forestry and Rural Development project VDF Village Development Fund VOF Village Forestry Organization WB World Bank WGE Working Group on Environment WREA Water Resource and Environment Administration WWF Worldwide Fund for Nature


v

Acknowledgements

We highly appreciate support provided by all BCI implementation partners in Lao PDR, and thank Madam Keobang A Keola, Director General, GMS National Secretariat-cum- ASOEAN-LAO Chairperson, Mr. Vanthakone Dejvongsa, Focal Person, Core Environment Program Support Unit, Water Resources and Environment Administration (WREA) Lao PDR; Mr. Khamphay Luanglath, Deputy Head, Forestry Division, Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Department (PAFO), Champasak; Mr. Sodxay Chaleurnsouk, Director, BCI Project, Mr. Leigh Vickery, Project Manager, Ms. Lamphet Vongvichit, Forester, Mr. Kaysone, Livelihood Specialist, Ms. Apasith Vayakone, Accountant, BCI Xepian Office; Mr. Somphone Bouasavanh, BCI Regional Coordinator, Ms. Seng Deuane Vithamaly, Finance and Admin. Manager, Mr. Anouxay Phommalath, Land Use Planning Officer, WWF Vientiane; who have provided great support and assistance to the impact assessment.

Our sincere gratitude also goes to Mr. Boun Phengmany, Deputy Governor, Pathoumphone District; Mr. Khamphoun, Head, District Poverty Reduction Fund Office; Mr. Onsa, Head, Mr. Khamkhpne, Deputy Head, District Land Management Authority; Mr. Sivone, Deputy Head, District Health Office; Ms. Mala Chanthalam, Deputy Director Provincial Tourism Department, Champasak; Mr. Pesounsay, Director, Mr. Vesay, Deputy Director, Forestry Division, District Agriculture and Forestry Department (DAFO); Mr. Orahan, Deputy Director, District Education Office; Mr. Boun Home, Deputy Head, Mr. Somphone, Head, Technical Unit, District Education Office; Mr. Souvath, Sanod Cluster Leader, and all other government officials and local villagers who have been interviewed and participated in the focus group discussion, the feedback and inputs from them have been invaluable.

Last but not least, we must thank Ms. Latsamy Chanthalangsy, Mr. Saykham Boutthavong, Faculty of Forestry, National University of Lao PDR, and all the local enumerators and interpreters, who have assisted in revising survey questionnaire, conducting field surveys and data collection, without whose assistance, we would not be able to collect all the information and data for this impact assessment.


1

Executive Summary

The Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) Core Environment Program and Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Initiative (CEP/BCI) endorsed by the GMS Second Summit in Kunming (July 2005) and the First GMS Environment Ministers‘ Meeting in Shanghai (May 2005) was launched by the Asian Development Bank as a Regional Technical Assistance (ADB RETA 6289) in 2006 in five GMS countries. The CEP/BCI is cofinanced by the Governments of Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, the Poverty Reduction Funds of UK and PR China, the Asian Development Bank and participating countries of the GMS. The BCI, which is resourcewise a substantial component of the Core Environment Program, started implementation of activities in 6 pilot sites in Cambodia (2), PR China (1), Lao PDR (1), Thailand (1), and Viet Nam (1). Implementation of BCI in the period 2006 – 2009 was done by a partnership of government agencies, non-governmental organizations and the ADB.

The basic concept of biodiversity corridors initiative is to rebuild connectivity of fragmented natural ecosystems through corridor approaches. The long term vision is to establish by 2015 priority biodiversity conservation landscapes and corridors in the GMS for maintaining the quality of ecosystems, ensuring sustainable use of shared natural resources, which should contribute to improving the livelihoods of people. The sub-components of BCI are: i) Poverty alleviation through sustainable use of natural resources and development of livelihoods; ii) Clear definition of optimal land uses and harmonized land management regimes; iii) Restoration and maintenance of ecosystem connectivity; iv) Capacity building in local communities and government staff; v) Sustainable financing mechanisms and structures integrated with government planning and budgeting procedures.

The Swedish International Development Agency commissioned a Mid-Term Review of CEP/BCI in 2008/09 and one of the findings on BCI was that the ―pilot sites‘ impacts are not well documented or understood‖ and ―should be robustly evaluated and understood in social and ecological terms‖ before any significant upscaling is to be funded. The Government of Netherlands has been the main financier of the BCI component and its co-financing agreement with ADB came to an end on 31 May 2009. As BCI activities have come to a close in the pilot sites, an impact assessment was launched to cover at least one of the three countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam), which had requested ADB for funding investments for upscaling BCI.

The objective of this impact assessment of livelihood improvement in the BCI Pilot Site in Lao PDR was: ―Evaluation of social and economic impacts achieved from project inputs on livelihood improvement and poverty reduction over the period 2006-2009 as compared to baseline information of 2005/2006. Both tangible (cash) and intangible (non-cash) benefits were assessed in terms of current (actual) and potential/future (expected) benefit streams from investments made by beneficiaries and Project under BCI using distributional and poverty impact assessment instruments. The purpose of this assessment is to provide recommendations to the Government of Lao PDR and the Asian Development Bank for any future investment framework of BCI upscaling based on lessons learned from the Pilot Phase.

The BCI pilot site is located in the southern part of the Lao People‘s Democratic Republic (PDR). The pilot project has developed a sustainable use corridor linking Dong Hua Sao National Protected Area (NPA) in Champasak province to the Xe Pian NPA, which covers both Champasak and Attapeu provinces in the Triborder Forests landscape. This landscape straddles the borders of southern Lao PDR, north eastern Cambodia, and central western Viet Nam. The long term target is to maintain linear forest links between all three countries revitalizing an important transboundary ecosystem connectivity. Dong Hua Sao and Xe Pian National Protected Areas in the the Tri-Border Forest landscape are embedded in a mosaic of semi-evergreen and


2

deciduous forest habitats with a large number of seasonally flooded wetlands and streams. The landscape is globally outstanding for species richness, in particular for large mammals including Asian Elephant, tiger, Malayan sun bear, clouded leopard, gaur and banteng. It has been identified as among the global 200 priority eco-regions for biodiversity conservation by WWF and Xe Pian Protected area in particular has been listed as among the top three protected areas in Lao PDR and among the top 10 in Southeast Asia/Indochina for biodiversity importance.

BCI activities have been coordinated and monitored at national level by the Water Resource and Environment Administration (WREA) and implementation on ground has been undertaken by a collaboration team consisting of staff from the Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office (PAFO) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The Biodiversity Corridor link between Dong Hua Sao and Xe Pian is a thin strip of linear forest with a total area of 32,000 ha proposed as corridor in Champasak and Attapeu provinces. However, the pilot phase covers 11,000 ha covering 11 villages in the Pathoumphone district of Champasak province.

Results of the impact assessment show that in general, 50.6% of the households in the target villages received support from the BCI Project, of which 79.7% perceived improvement in their livelihoods and 84.8% expressed high satisfaction with the project. The impact assessment featured measurement of asset building under the following categories: Social Assets, Physical Assets, Natural Assets, and Financial Assets.

Thirty eight per cent of project expenditure has been on the poverty reduction component while 74% of total expenditure has gone towards achieving outputs under the five components of BCI. This is in line with project strategy and the overarching goal of ADB. The underlying premise has been that people‘s participation in conservation and commitment to maintenance of ecosystem services, such as defragmentation of forests can be motivated through addressing their development concerns – basic needs such as food and water and basic social services such as education and health. Under the poverty reduction component, the project has been able to address small scale infrastructure needs prioritized by BCI villagers as well as provide assistance in income generation and value addition.

The Project has directly addressed capacity building needs of 654 villagers (of whom 274 are female); this represents a direct coverage of roughly 10% of the total population but a multiplication factor of 30% can be safely assumed as over 50% of households have received support from the project. In addition, 132 government officials (17 female) have received training bringing the total number of trained to 777. A total sum of $104,414 (including TA costs) has been spent on the capacity building component, which translates into $134 per capita investment. In addition, on-job- training and skills transfer have been undertaken by TA staff in other components. Respondents interviewed about social asset building have confirmed that 80.1% have improved skills for income generation activities, 82.9% improved awareness and skills for forest protection, and 70.2% confirmed improvement in women‘s participation and decision making.

The small scale infrastructure investments have improved access to clean water (9 wells), school facilities (2 school building and 1 library) and health service (11 medicine boxes, 1 health clinic construction), sanitation in village schools (11 school toilets) and these improvements have also contributed to reducing travel time and improving access to markets, which in turn has increased their motivation in income generation activities.

The land use planning exercise in Ban Houayko has led to increase in set asides for protection forest, land for cultivation and demarcating land plots, and providing land


3

certificates for 146 plots covering a total area of 107 ha. Participatory forest restoration activities have been undertaken, such as seed collection (289kg), nursery establishment (50,000 seedlings capacity), natural regeneration (427 ha), enrichment planting (21 ha), and demonstration plots for agroforestry (5.4 ha).

The Village Development Fund can be rated a success in 11 villages with a cumulative rate of return at 9.43%, while only one village may incur a negative rate of return. But the net gain has been in ability of borrowers to enhance food security and rice production. Livelihood intervention activities created high level of motivation and achieved good financial returns with mushroom cultivation, resulting in a net present value (NPV) of 23,331,454kip ($2,745), with an internal rate of return (IRR) of 33.13% considering a 10% discounting rate over 10 years. In addition, 23.4% of households in the BCI villages received direct cash income from the BCI Project, with an average of 366,123 kip ($43) per household equal to 18 labor days (20,000 kip/day).

Social stratification in BCI villages seems to have been positively affected with a slightly upward mobility of some households from the poor (-28.57%) and very poor (-67.16%) to average level (+24.68%). Compared with non-BCI villages, quality of life in BCI villages as well as conservation awareness can be rated high. In a very short time (2006-2009), the BCI Project in Xe Pian - Dong Hua Sao has galvanized participatory forest conservation coupled with livelihood improvement. The learning by doing approach and strategies followed had enabled local people in the BCI villages to undertake livelihood activities as they themselves prioritized voluntarily.

Implementation of BCI in Xe Pian - Dong Hua Sao site over last three years has given opportunity to test the robustness of the BCI component design. The design seems to be robust and it caters to both conservation and development needs of the communities. With a good design, dedicated staff on the ground, and conducive policy and institutional support (3-P approach – plan, people, and policy), measurable impacts can be achieved in a short time period using the BCI model. The integration of livelihood improvement activities, addressing infrastructure needs and priority concerns of local people, and improving basic food security needs provides appropriate incentives coupled with awareness raising to tackle conservation and ecosystem maintenance needs. These are small amounts of direct investment with valuable returns in the medium to long term.

The BCI is not an integrated conservation and development project (ICDP) as understood in the conventional sense, as most ICDPs engaged in buffer zones of protected areas and failed. The BCI engages in areas outside protected areas, which in most cases, have a higher biodiversity but also a dynamic challenge of development pressure and ecosystem maintenance need. As villagers feel unconstrained with protected area regulations in spaces outside NPAs, a flexible approach to meeting local needs and addressing conservation issues seems to bear fruit and stands a better chance of success. In the absence of government capacity to execute/implement project of this magnitude and complexity, it was necessary to have support from non-government partners and international consultants. This has, however, resulted in a relatively higher coordination and administrative cost. With the gradual improvement in provincial and national government's capacity to implement such initiatives, it is expected that overhead costs will be reduced.

The BCI model is replicable and scaleable with a larger amount of investment provided the right mix of components is applied. The successful BCI pilot demonstrates that it is highly likely that success can be achieved over larger geographical areas and for longer periods of time provided there is integration of conservation and development.


4

I. Introduction

A. Background: Greater Mekong Subregion and Biodiversity Conservation

Corridors Initiative (GMS-BCI)

1. The Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) is one of the fastest growing regions in the world which involves significant economic and social changes transforming economies, countries and natural landscapes in the subregion, while it will inevitably affect the environment. Recognizing this development challenge, in 2004, the GMS Working Group on Environment (WGE), facilitated by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), initiated a review of the GMS economic program from an environmental sustainability and management point of view. Both the Environment Ministers Meeting in Shanghai (May 2005) and the 2nd GMS Summit of Leaders and Heads of State held in Kunming (July 2005) endorsed the Core Environment Program and its flagship component, the Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Initiative (BCI) 1 , for implementation.

2. The basic concept of biodiversity corridors initiative is to rebuild connectivity of fragmented natural ecosystems through corridor approaches.2 The long term vision of BCI is that by 2015, GMS countries will have established priority biodiversity conservation landscapes and corridors for maintaining the quality of ecosystems, ensuring sustainable use of shared natural resources, and improving the livelihoods of people. The BCI has five sub-components: i) Poverty alleviation through sustainable use of natural resources and development of livelihoods; ii) Clear definition of optimal land uses and harmonized land management regimes; iii) Restoration and maintenance of ecosystem connectivity; iv) Capacity building in local communities and government staff; v) Sustainable financing mechanisms and structures integrated with government planning and budgeting procedures.

3. The GMS biodiversity conservation landscapes (BCL) represent ecological networks, with natural and/or semi-natural landscape elements. Nine key and large conservation areas in the GMS Economic Corridors were identified by the GMS governments in conjunction with the ADB and international conservation groups. During the first phase (2006-2009), The Greater Mekong Subregion Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Initiative (BCI) is supporting implementation of Pilot Site activities in six pilot sites across five countries.3 This impact assessment is mainly focused on the BCI Pilot Site, Pathoumphone District, Champasak Province, Lao PDR.

1 Proposed Technical Assistance. Core Environment Program and Biodiversity Conservation Corridors

Initiative in the Greater Mekong Subregion. Asian Development Bank, November 2005 (ADB RETA 6289). 2 GMS Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Initiative Strategic Framework and Technical Assessment

2005 - 2014. Asian Development Bank, May 2005, pp 26-27. 3 Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Initiative Pilot Site Implementation Status Report 2007, Asian

Development Bank, 2008


5

Figure 1. BCI Pilot Sites and Biodiversity Conservation Landscapes

Source: ADB RETA 6289, GMS EOC

B. Overview of BCI Pilot Site in Champasak Province, Lao PDR

4. The BCI site is a critical area of connectivity between Dong Hua Sao in Champasak Province and Xe Pian National Protected areas in the Tri Border Forest Lanscape of southern Lao PDR, two sites of biological diversity with national and international importance. The Tri-Border Forest landscape is a mosaic of semi-evergreen and deciduous forest habitats with a large number of seasonally flooded wetlands and streams. The landscape is globally outstanding for species richness, in particular for large mammals including Asian Elephant, tiger, Malayan sun bear, clouded leopard, gaur and banteng. It has been identified as among the global


6

200 priority eco-regions for biodiversity conservation by WWF and Xe Pian Protected area in particular has been listed as among the top three protected areas in Lao PDR and among the top 10 in Southeast Asia/Indochina for biodiversity importance.

Figure 2. Xe Pian – Dong Hua Sao Biodiversity Corridor pilot site


5. The pilot site is located in the southern part of the Lao People‘s Democratic Republic (PDR). The pilot project has developed a sustainable use corridor linking Dong Hua Sao National Protected Area (NPA) in Champasak province to the Xe Pian NPA (Figure 2), which covers both Champasak and Attapeu provinces in the Triborder Forests landscape. This landscape straddles the borders of southern Lao PDR, north eastern Cambodia, and central western Viet Nam. The long term target is to maintain linear forest links between all three countries revitalizing an important transboundary ecosystem connectivity.

6. There are two main forest types in the corridor. The eastern half is a mosaic of semi-evergreen forest and dry forest, while the eastern half is primarily dry forest. The extent of forest cover is less on the eastern side, which is closer to Pakse city. The landscape has a much higher degree of conversion to agricultural and semi-urban land uses in this area of the corridor. There are large areas of ―unstocked forest‖, mixed with dry dipterocarp and production forest. This forest mosaic is interspersed with areas of paddy and wetlands.

7. The BCI corridor link between Dong Hua Sao and Xe Pian is a thin strip of linear forest (total area of proposed corridor is 32,000 ha in Champasak and Attapeu provinces, however, pilot phase covers 11,000 ha in 11 villages in Champasak) connecting Ban Somsouk (Dong Hua Sao) to Ban Kiat Ngong (Xe Pian). Several connectivity links (small strips ranging between 40-100 m existing as village conservation forest areas shown as dark green in Figure 3) need to be linked up to have an unbroken line from Ban Somsouk and Ban Nabon in the North to Ban Thahou and Ban Kiat Ngong in the South.


7

Figure 3. Biodiversity Corridor Zonation


8. Although the corridor area covers parts of both Champasak and Attapeu (Figure 4), the pilot phase of the project has focused in Patoumphone District of Champasak province. In an effort to facilitate expansion of the project Attapeu province will be included in training and awareness raising activities.

9. The corridor has one of the highest development pressures in Champasak province. Road 14A runs across from the junction with Road 13 in the west and heads toward the Viet Nam border in the east, cutting through Attapeu province. While the long term plan is to establish a linear corridor of forest linking Xe Pian – Dong Hua Sao with Dong Ampham – Xe Kong and Xe Sap, the achievement from the current phase, as it is the corridor section with the highest pressure, will determine success or failure in the long run.

Figure 4. Xe Pian – Dong Hua Sao Corridor


8

Figure 5. Satellite image of Biodiversity Corridor, Lao PDR (Source Google Earth) 10. The satellite image below shows the landscape mosaic of the corridor. There is a significant area of vegetation connecting the two protected areas, but even at this resolution one can observe a high degree of fragmentation and landscape modification. The wetland areas can also be seen as an important part of the natural connectivity of the corridor. 11. The corridor is bisected by Road 18A, the main artery of the ADB East-West Economic Corridor connecting Da Nang in Viet Nam and Mawlamyine-Myawaddy in Myanmar. The possible negative impacts on connectivity form the backbone of logic behind the BCI project. Thus the corridor has been being created in parallel to the economic corridor, in which it is hoped that livelihoods and conservation can be integrated to balance the potential environmental, social and economic impacts of the road upgrade and increased traffic. All but one of the BCI villages are located north of the road, which runs along the northern border of Xe Pian NPA. 12. A total of 36 villages are located within the corridor area as it is defined in the current phase I of BCI project implementation. The following criteria were used to select a smaller number of target BCI villages in the biodiversity corridor.

Table 1. Criteria for target villages selection

1 Falling within GMS economic corridors or their zones of influence

2 Villages should be in areas that will support reduction of ecosystem fragmentation by linking two or more protected areas

3 Villages in or around areas of global biological importance 4 Villages located in or around areas of high existing natural forest cover

between or within the two Protected Areas 5 Villages facing poverty and population growth 6 Villages located in Pathoumphone district, Champasak Province 7 Support from District, Provincial, and National PA Authorities 8 Interest and capacity by the village in project activities and implementation

Source: ADB RETA 6289, 1st Progress Report submitted by BCI Project Office, Xe Pian


9

13. The BCI project selected 11 villages, located in the eastern half of the corridor: 1) Ban Kiat Ngong; 2) Ban Thahou; 3) Ban Houayko; 4) Ban Sanot; 5) Ban Nabon; 6) Ban Nakok; 7) Ban Laonga; 8) Ban Somsouk; 9) Ban Thongpha; 10) Ban Thopsok; 11) Ban Namom (Figure 6).

Figure 6. BCI target villages in Xe Pian – Dong Hua Sao Biodiversity Corridor

Source: ADB RETA 6289, BCI Pilot Site, Xe Pian – Dong Hua Sao 14. The villages represent a wide range of geographical and socio-economic conditions. Several villages (Thahou, Kiat Ngong, Houayko, Sanot, Nakok, and Thopsok) are located relatively close to the road, where access is comparatively easy. Others (Thongpha, Laonga, Namom, Somsouk, and Nabon) are difficult to access, especially during the rainy season, when much of the area is flooded and tractor or elephants are required to get in and out. (for details see village profile in Appendix 1).

1. Institutions and Stakeholders

15. At the national level, the Water Resource and Environment Administration (WREA) is the focal point for the GMS Working Group on Environment (WGE) and houses the national support unit (NSU). The NSU within WREA provides overall BCI implementation oversight, monitoring, and policy guidance. The Department of Forestry under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) is a co-coordinator of BCI activities. The GMS Environment Operations Center (EOC) was set up under ADB RETA 6289 to facilitate, coordinate and monitor BCI at subregional level and carry out field monitoring missions at site level; it also received and verified financial liquidations before transmitting them to ADB head office. 16. At provincial level, BCI site activities are implemented by the provincial project implementation unit (PPIU). PPIU is headed by Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office (PAFO) in partnership with and support of the non-state organization World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Three (3) full time officials are appointed by the Governor and are based in PPIU office in Xe Pian and are responsible to formulate and approve work plans and budgets in coordination with provincial steering


10

committee and other stakeholders. The stakeholders include: District Governor‘s Office, District Agriculture and Forestry Office, Land Management Authority, District Education Office, District Health Office, Sanod Cluster, Provincial Tourism Department etc. 17. In order to conduct field activities effectively, technical working groups were created under the project implementation unit according to project components. These working groups took lead in field activity implementation. The flow diagram below presents project management and coordination lines between the implementation focal points at provincial and central level. Subregional oversight and monitoring was carried out by the GMS Environment Operations Center (EOC) based in Bangkok, which is also the Secretariat to WGE. It technical progress reports submitted by WWF on behalf of the PPIU and also received financial liquidation reports for verification before onward transmission to ADB Head Office.

Figure 7. Project management and coordination

2. Socio-economic status with focus on poverty and livelihood

(i) Overall Socio-economic Status of Lao PDR

18. The Lao PDR economy has performed well in recent years, solid economic growth of 7.2% in 2008—similar to the average of the previous 5 years growing at an average of 7.2% since 2000 (Figure 8). Year 2009 and 2010 growths are projections Poverty headcount has fallen consistently from almost half the population in 1997/98 to one third in 2002/03. Using the national poverty line of approximately $1.5 a day, poverty incidence has fallen from 46% in 1992/93 to around 33.5% in 2002/034, and 27.1% in 2008.5 Over the same period, the head account ratio of poor declined from 52.7% to 22%.6

4 WB. 2007b. Lao PDR Economic Monitor. Vientiane. 5 ADB 2009 country Strategy and Program Midterm Review, Lao People‘s Democratic Republic

2007-2011. P. 2. 6 ADB 2009 country Strategy and Program Midterm Review, Lao People‘s Democratic Republic

2007-2011. P.21 Annex 1 Table A1.3.


11

Figure 8. GDP growth and inflation 2005-2010

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

GDP growth*

Inflation**

Sources: *Asian Development Outlook 2009 database; staff estimates. **National Statistics Center, Lao PDR; Bank of the Lao PDR, available: http://www.bol.gov.la, downloaded 18 March 2008; staff estimates.

19. In 2008, per capita incomes climbed to $840 in 2008 from $581 in 2006 owing

to growth and exchange rate appreciation. Meanwhile, the Gini coefficient increased

to 4.59 in 2008 from 3.73 in 2007.7 In-country regional disparities have narrowed, but

poverty remains defined by geographical, occupational and socio-cultural features.

Poverty is concentrated in the countryside, with agriculture still employing 77% of the

labor force mainly for subsistence purposes. Disparities also continue between areas

with and without access to roads and between the wealthier south and the poorer

center and the north8. Minority groups form one third of the population, but they

account for half of the poor. Provinces do not show too large a difference in human

development. In Champasak and Attapeu (where BCI pilot site is located), and other

provinces on the East-West Economic Corridor, the Human Development Index (HDI)

ranges from 0.458 to 0.575 relative to the highest level of 0.652 in Vientiane. In 2008,

the national average HDI increased to 0.601 from 0.545 of year 2005. It is assumed

that provincial HDI increased in parallel (see table 2 below).

7 WB, 2009 Data profile, Lao PDR. 8 Committee for Planning and Investment, National Statistics Centre & United Nations Development

Programme. 2006. International Trade and Human Development Lao PDR 2006. National Human Development Report. Vientiane, 6, 70.


12

Table 2. Provincial HDI calculations 20029/2008

Indicator/ provinces

Life Expectancy

at Birth (Years)

Adult Literacy

Rate, Age 15+

Years (%)

Combined Gross

Enrolment Ratio

for Primary & Secondary

Education (%)

Private Consumption,

Investment and Government

Expenditure per Capita (PPP $)

Human Development Index (HDI)

Vientiane Capital 63 90.2 55.3 2,516 0.652

Champasak 61 83.0 47.1 1,469 0.575

Attapeu 59 73.2 40.8 1,290 0.528

Savannakhet 59 64.1 43.8 1,148 0.516

Sekong 57 66.6 41.9 1,143 0.508

Saravanh 59 47.1 38.9 889 0.458

Whole country** 65 77 89 2044 0.601 Note: *The HDI calculations and ranking are first estimates; ** Only whole country data updated to year 2008 based on ADB 2009 Country Strategy and Program Midterm Review, Lao PDR 2007-2009, P.21, Annex 1 Table A1.3.

20. Health: Some 7.5% of villages have clinic center, even though, 84% of the population are still able to reach a health centre within one hour, and over 90% within a maximum of 2 hours. It is concluded that even if some regions are urgently in need of further health infrastructure, priority should be given to maintaining or improving the quality of the existing health service centers.

Table 3: Accessibility of villages and people to the nearest health centers

Accessibility class (travel time)

Percentage of

villages

Percentage of population

Cumulative percentage of

population

0 to 0.5 h 61.5 74.6 74.6 0.5 to 1 h 11.9 9.2 83.8 1 to 2 h 9.8 6.6 90.4 2 to 4 h 9.6 5.6 96.0 4 to 7 h 5.3 3.0 9.0

More than 7 h 2.2 1.0 100 Source: Socio-economic Atlas of Lao PDR-An analysis based on the 2005 Population and Housing Census

21. Literacy and Education10: The National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy (NGPES) identified education as a key focus area to assist in poverty eradication efforts. In line with the Millennium Development Goal Number 2, which seeks to achieve universal primary education by 2015. Lao PDR is committed to the enrolment of all primary-school-aged boys and girls in school. Given the fact that 50% of the population is younger than 20 years of age and the low percentage of youngsters finishing high school it becomes clear how important current efforts in education are for the future development of the country.

22. The primary official national average literacy rate for the population aged ≥15 years is 72.7% but there are substantial differences between women and men, urban and rural populations and different ethno-linguistic groups. According to official statistics, 15.5% (14.6% female; 16.3% male) of the population aged 6 and above have completed primary education, 6.1% (5.4% female; 6.9% male) have completed lower secondary education, and 5.1% (4.1% female; 6.2% male) have completed

9 Committee for Planning and Investment, National Statistics Centre & United Nations Development

Programme. 2006. International Trade and Human Development Lao PDR 2006. National Human Development Report. Vientiane, 12.

10 Based on Socio-economic Atlas of Lao PDR-An analysis based on the 2005 population and Housing

Census as otherwise indicated.


13

upper secondary education. According to official statistics, 66.6%11 of all children aged 6 to 9 were reported as currently at school. This rose to 81.2% for children aged 10 to 14 and dropped back to 41.5% for adolescents aged 15 to 19.

23. At the national level, a relatively balanced number of 66.1% of all girls and 67.1% of all boys aged 6 to 9 were reported as currently at school. The difference increased for children aged 10 to 14 where 77.2% were girls and 85.0% were boys. Finally, for adolescents aged 15 to 19, girls attending school accounted for 33.3% and boys for 49.8%.

(ii) Socio-economic Status in Biodiversity Corridor, Xe Pian–Dong Hua Sao

24. The Xe Pian - Dong Hua Sao corridor, located within Pathoumphone District of Champasak Province is home to three ethnic groups: Lao Loum, Youane and Brao. The majority of the population in the BCI villages is ethnic Lao. Only Ban Houayko is Brao, while some Youane and Brao have moved into Ban Som Souk. Most of the villages that claim to be Lao recognize that in the past there has been a significant amount of mixing with the indigenous Mon-Khmer groups in the region but for all intents and purposes they have become Lao. Some of these villages have been established for centuries, while others have emerged more recently as people moved into new areas due to outbreaks of diseases and in search of better agricultural land.

Figure 9. Demography and ethnic groups in the Corridor

25. BCI phase one in Lao PDR targeted 11 villages, which have a total population of 6,678 in 1,129 households in the corridor area12. The average household size is around 6, which is higher than the district average. The population density is around 40 people/km2 in the target villages, which is very much similar as it is in the whole Pathoumpone district and Champasak province but much higher than the national average of 24.8. Meanwhile the population growth rate of the target villages is 3.02%

11 Footnote 10. 12 Data update based on BCI impact assessment field survey conducted by ADB RETA 6289, June 2009.


14

(2007-2009), which is much higher than the respective provincial and national average of 1.57% and 2.23% (2005-2007). The higher population density combined with higher population growth rate implies certain degree of high pressure on natural resources in the future given the villages with high incidence of poverty and heavy reliance on natural resources for their livelihood if no alternatives options are developed.

Table 4: Selected socio-economic indicators*

Indicators

Target villages

Pathoumphone District

Champasak Provinces Lao PDR

Population Density 40 40** 40.6 24.8

Population growth rate % 3.02 NA 1.57 2.23

Poverty incidence rate 19 7.9*** 25.3**** 33.5

Life expectancy - - - 62.5

Average HH Size 6 5.7 5.8 5.9

Gini Coefficient - 0.28-0.30 0.26-0.30 0.33

Adult Literacy Rate (Age 15+) (%) - 40-80 60-80 73

Average size of Agricultural land per HH 0.8 1-2 2-4 2.11

Infant mortality rate per 1000 live births - 61-80 41-80 70

Maternal mortality rate of mothers per 100,000 live births - 200-400 200-400 405

* Targeted village data from field survey- Poverty reduction and livelihood improvement impact assessment by BCI project, 2009. District, province and Lao PDR data based on Socio-economic Atlas of Lao PDR-An analysis based on the 2005 population and Housing Census otherwise indicated; **The calculation excluded the Xe Pian and Dong Hua Sao protected Areas; *** Poverty district criteria, NSC; **** Small scale estimation based on 2005 Population and Housing Census, The Geography of Poverty and Inequality in the Lao PDR, Michael Epprecht, et al. p.22.

26. Poverty: Pathoumpone district has been identified as one of the 72 poor districts out of total 142 districts of the country. ‗Poor‘ districts were those districts where over 51% of the villages were poor. There were additional criteria, which included districts where over 40% of the villages were without a village school or one nearby, or were without a dispensary or pharmacy, or if over 60% of the villages had no access road or were without access to clean water. The average incidence of poverty of all the 72 poor districts is 55%, which is significantly higher than the 23% poverty incidence in the remaining ‗non-poor‘ districts.

27. In the corridor area, a socio-economic survey undertaken in 2009 by the BCI Project classifies 222 households out of 1,129 as rich, 687 as average, 210 as poor, and 22 as very poor,13 (see table 5, for details see table 11). Poverty incidence rate among the targeted 11 villages is around 19% (although this is more refers to self defined poverty criteria such as food shortage, cultivated land and housing) which is much higher than the district average but much lower than the provincial and national average respectively.

Table 5: Distribution of wealth and poverty among households in BCI villages

Wealth Classification

Rich Average Poor Very poor Total

No. of HH 222 687 210 22 1129

% 19.6 60.1 18.3 1.9 100

Source: Data update based on BCI impact assessment field survey conducted by ADB RETA 6289, June 2009. But one village (Nabon) uses data of 2007, No. of HH by wealth category estimated based on no. of family by wealth category.

13 Poverty reduction and livelihood improvement impact assessment by BCi project in 2009. But one

village (Nabon) use data of 2007, No. of HH by wealth category estimated based on no. of family by wealth category.


15

Figure 10. Poverty mapping in the selected villages in the Corridor

28. Livelihoods: Generally, the people depend highly upon the area‘s natural resources, maintaining a subsistence-based livelihood. The livelihoods of the BCI corridor villages are composed principally of agriculture, NTFP collection, wetland product harvesting and livestock. Other sources of income, such as wage labor, small-scale commerce and some ecotourism make a contribution to village economies. Paddy production has been and remains the most important component of village livelihood strategies. In all 11 BCI villages paddy land is critical to village livelihoods, however, all villages in the corridor have insufficient land for rice production. The corridor area is characterized by flat lands that flood as soon as the rainy season arrives. The lack of irrigation infrastructure means that rice production in the dry season is very limited as well. NTFPs provide necessary building materials, supplemental food sources and materials for daily use, and NTFP products are sold in local markets, with some export to Thailand. NTFPs are considered as important sources of cash and high prices in local markets raised the profile of livestock. Improved market access, mainly through middlemen and government investments in basic infrastructure, meant an increasing orientation towards market production, including NTFPs, agricultural products, fish and handicrafts.

29. In recent years, the Government has adopted a policy to reduce shifting cultivation and relocation in order to stabilize agriculture and promote sustainable development (see trends and projections in Figure 11). As some of these villages remain under pressure to abandon upland rice production, it is necessary to find a balance between forest management practices that are in line with state policy and alternative sources of food security.

Table 6: Average agricultural holdings in BCI villages

Village Total agriculture land area(ha)* No. of HHs Average per HH (ha)

Sanot 81.25 130 0.63

Thongpha 69.15 108 0.64

Thahou 79.7 83 0.96

Somsouk 63 74 0.85


16

Village Total agriculture land area(ha)* No. of HHs Average per HH (ha)

Thopsok 74.78 85 0.88

Houayko 30.1 31 0.97

Nabon 68.9 84 0.82

Nakok 82.4 114 0.72

Laonga 50.46 99 0.51

Kiat Ngong 194.24 168 1.16

Namom 99.45 153 0.65

Total 893.43 1129 0.79

Source: Field survey in June 2009 except Nabon village which is from baseline of year 2007 * include paddy and upland fields, exclude area of vegetable gardens and homestead

30. Under the BCI, plans are underway to locate forest restoration and enrichment areas using GPS and photographs. The weaker linkages to remaining natural forests that have been disturbed are to be restored to bring back connectivity. Currently, the width or length of such connectivity may not be suitable enough for large mammals to thrive but it is important to restore linear connectivity. Average size of agricultural land per household in the target villages is only 0.8 ha, which is smaller than the averages of district, provincial and national respectively (for details see table 6 above). But this may just reflect the permanent cultivated land. Shifting agriculture is a practice that still exists but in recent years Government has adopted a policy of re-location to stabilize agriculture and promote sustainable development (see trends in figure 11). As some of these villages remain under pressure to abandon upland rice production, it is necessary to find a balance between forest management practices that are in line with the state policy and alternative sources of food security.

Figure 11. Trend in shifting cultivation in two representative villages in Lao BCI site

31. In some villages, such as Ban Houayko, where paddy land is insufficient, and yields are low, poorer households have adopted wage labor as a source of income to supplement their reliance on fishing and NTFPs. Poorer households also depend on wage labor and seek employment in coffee plantations in Pak Xong or other close locations; some also opt to migrate to Thailand in search of better opportunities. Better-off households engage in small-scale business, such as retailing, transportation, and handicraft making.


17

Figure 12. Composition of household income sources in BCI villages

Composition of household income sources in BCI villages

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rich

Average

Poor

Very PoorW

eal

th C

lass

ific

atio

nFood cropCash cropLivestockFishingNTFPsTimberHandicraftTradingLaborWildlifeSalariesOthers sources

32. Over the years, in some villages such as Ban Houayko, the relative importance of fishing and NTFPs has remained constant, while paddy and upland rice have declined and planting of teak and off-farm income has risen (for composition of income sources, see figure 12). With improved access to markets and roads, major shifts in the composition of economic activities have taken place in villages such as Ban Kiat Ngong, resulting in increased trade and greater diversification of sources of income (more stores, sawmills and handicraft, etc.). More recently, the potential for eco-tourism has been realized and villagers are keen to garner greater benefits as the sector expands. For villages such as Ban Lao Nya village-based eco-tourism is also promising as it is endowed with a rich forest resource base and waterfall sites: Tad Lao Imoun and Tad Kung falls.

33. Social Conflict: Tensions are growing between locals and newcomers, especially over the control of land and access to forest resources. An emerging problem is encroaching by outsiders resulting in illegal timber cutting and reduced quantity of forest harvestable for local communities in the village of Ban Laonga. Another source of tension is the depletion of fish and NTFP resources, which is a key concern for the villagers. In particular, in Ban Kiat Ngong, the relatively new trend of fish scarcity is perceived to be driven by market-led exploitation and increased competition from neighboring villages. Furthermore, competition between villages during collection season is compounded by unauthorized cutting of trees by outsiders. The main conflict has been between Ban Sanot and Ban Thong Pha over access to forest resources and forest boundaries.

34. Health: National life expectancy was 62.5 in 2007 but no data available in the district level. In most area of the district infant mortality rate and maternal mortality rate appear lower than the national average (see table 4). In the corridor area, health costs are particularly high, well above an average of 15% and reaching 33% in Ban Houayko. Given fact that villagers income heavily rely on the natural resources, this high health costs not only burden the household, but also put pressure on the natural resources. Health and sanitation are serious concerns, given the lack of sanitation infrastructures, low water supply development and limited access to health facilities. Most common diseases are malaria and diarrheal diseases.

35. The accessibility is reasonable (within 2 hours) in the corridor area in terms of one hospital in Pathoumphone and one medical center each in Sanot village and Kiat Ngong village. Some 9 villages out of 11 can access the closest clinic centers/hospital within 1 hour and the rest 2 villages can access it within 2 hours. In addition to this, every village has at least one medical box and one medical volunteer with support from various programs including BCI.


18

36. However the quality of the health care system is basic. The best one is the Pathoumpone hospital with simple treatment facilities and one pharmacy, needless to mention the village centers. More importantly is the limited service capacity of the medical ―doctors‖. Very few of them received formal medical education but short term trainings. In Pathoumpone hospital only simple surgeries and treatment can be done although it is called as ―hospital‖ by the local people. In the village level, most health volunteers received only a few days simple training to remember the name and use of the most often used medicines. Strengthen the capacity of health service is serious concern by the villagers and local authorities.

37. Education: Facilities are limited to eleven primary schools and only one secondary school in the entire pilot area, with student-teacher ratio ranges from 16 to 47 students per teacher (details see table 7 below). Distances and costs are barriers to attending and often lead to discontinuation and drop-outs. Most of the children attending secondary school are those who either live close to the school or have relative living in close to the school. In terms of high school, very few of children involved in because the nearest high school is in Pakse.

Table 7. Education level and student – teacher ratio in 11 BCI villages

Village Education Level

No. of Students

No. of Teachers

Student Teacher Ratio

Sanost Primary (1-5) 114 5 23

Sanot Secondary (1-3) 140 5 28

Thongpha Primary (1-4) 97 3 32

Thahou Primary (1-3) 47 1 47

Somsouk Primary (1-5) 62 2 31

Thopsok Primary (1-5) 74 2 37

Houayko Primary (1-3) 17 1 17

Nabon Primary (1-5) 85 3 28

Nakok Primary (1-4) 67 2 34

Laogna Primary (1-5) 86 2 43

Kiat Ngong Primary (1-5) 137 5 27

Namom Primary (1-5) 95 6 16

Total 1,021 37 28

Source: Village profile update, Impact Assessment, June 2009

3. BCI Project Components

38. (i) Poverty Reduction and Livelihood Improvement: As one of the major outcomes of the Core Environment Program, BCI continues to implement interventions geared towards poverty reduction and livelihood development. The focus has been on strengthening and expanding locally managed instruments such as Village Development Funds (VDF), promoting alternative livelihood options and supporting small village infrastructure projects. Increased access to cash, credits, incentives and benefit sharing: Several Village Development Funds (VDFs) have been established and tested in BCI sites in Lao PDR. The disbursements of micro-size loans with short duration and low interest rate to assist poor households in supplementing their income, or overcoming an emergency are very popular among local communities in BCI site. Small-scale infrastructure support has also been provided to cater to priority development needs as identified by the villagers. Alternative livelihood improvement options/opportunities: BCI has supported various livelihood diversification activities such as rice improvement and seeds variety supply, non timber forest product (NTFP) harvesting and marketing, cardamom plantation, fish conservation zones, promotion of vegetable home gardens, fruit tree garden, chicken raising, village veterinary.


19

39. (ii) Land use planning and Biodiversity Corridor Status: In order to minimize conflict arising from land use and land use change and to establish clear and harmonized land management regimes, the BCI component of CEP continues to implement activities such as mapping and delineation of BCI corridors, zoning and demarcation, institutionalization of local management or co-management of natural resources, and in some cases extending up to clearly defined land tenure systems. 40. BCI has prepared a ―vision document‖ and three dimensional maps. It is expected that the maps will help officials and villagers to have better understanding of and communicate current village land use. Two workshops were conducted in July and August 2008, with all relevant stakeholders, to discuss and articulate a vision for the sustainable corridor in Pathoumphone district. A vision document was developed in September 2008. The vision document will be one component of the existing legislation at different levels (local, district, province, national) to help act as a basis for recognizing and protecting the corridor in, linking the two national protected areas. On January 22, 2009, the Vision Document was formally approved by the Champasak Province Agriculture and Forestry Office 41. The pilot process by producing a 3D map was initiated for Ban Kiat Gnong, and is being undertaken by the faculty of architecture National University of Laos. Based on the data collection, a total of 12 maps have been produced covering Pathoumphone District topographic areas, administration and infrastructure, present land use, and future potential land use activities. 42. Training provided by Provincial WREA, district WREA, PAFO, DAFO, DLMA and EOC aimed to build up the capacity of LUP process at the village level for district government and staff, to trial and implement the process successfully in one target village and to provide land tenure rights to households. The whole process was conducted in Houayko village and involved 12 stages. Initial results of the Houayko process indicates that previous mapping has under estimated parcel sizes and that many land types at the village level relating to forests is still largely unmapped. Therefore to clearly understand the condition of forests and their bio-diversity status such LUP exercises need to be expanded to other villages. 43. In February 2009 ground truthing of the boundaries between the Xe Pian Protected Area and Thahou and Kiat Ngong villages was conducted by EOC and Xe-Pian staff. Along the Thahou village/Xe-Pian boundary 12 boundary markers were set and 17 markers established along the Kiat Ngong village /Xe-Pian boundaries. 44. (iii) Forest restoration and biodiversity conservation: BCI is improving the forest management regime by protecting the remaining forest covers while replanting/enriching degraded and denuded areas. This practice enables maintenance and/ or restoration of ecosystem connectivity at landscape level, ensuring sustenance of the ecosystems‘ vital services (e.g. biodiversity products, water resources, carbon sequestration). 45. Enrichment planting in areas identified as having the best potential for restoration has been completed, and 14,063 seedlings of ten native species have been planted in a total area of 21 ha. Also natural regeneration in 10 ha has been completed as a demonstration area within enrichment planting. A survey has identified an additional 435 ha for regeneration and 26.5 ha for enrichment, requiring a total of 30,000 seedlings.


20

Photo 1. Forest Restoration Survey Photo 2. Monitoring Ban Thongpha Enrichment site

46. The Xe Pian – Dong Hua Sao BCI pilot site is of national and regional importance, as it is home for several bird species which have disappeared from elsewhere in the region. Some of such species includes Brahminy Kite which has declined significantly in the region; Purple Herons is reported to be breeding here which has never been proven elsewhere in Lao PDR; Streaked Weaver which needs well vegetated swamps is first recorded in this area; and this area is also a habitat to globally nearly-threatened Yellow-breasted Buntings (with population of 4000). Also of conservation importance are Pygmy-goose, Pheasant-tailed Jacana and Greyheaded Lapwing, White-browed Crake, Watercocks, Purple Swamphens and Baya Weavers; harrier roost and a large mixed pipit and wagtail roost, and small species of Rallidae. Details on work carried out and forest cover assessments are given in the section under Natural assets below. 47. (iv) Capacity strengthening: BCI capacity development activities were geared towards strengthening local institutional and human resource capacities applying learning-by-doing method. At local level, BCI was supporting community groups such as village revolving fund, participatory land use planning etc to better organize and mobilize community participation in conservation and development works. BCI has continued supporting formulation and enforcement of local conservation and development rules and regulations. Similarly, institutionalization of PPIU at the provincial level has strengthened cross institutional coordination to execute sustainable development in the Xe Pian – Dong Hua Sao pilot site. 48. Through various awareness raising initiatives, trainings, workshops, study visits the program strengthened capacity of government and communities to improve biodiversity management by improving conservation practices and developing livelihood opportunities. In total 654 people have been trained at village level, and one third of them were women. Similarly, trainings on several topics have been organized for government officials, with 132 people attending BCI capacity building activities. 49. (v) Securing sustainable financing: The BCI Project has completed a study on sustainable financing that explores existing potential for payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes such as eco-tourism, NTFP processing etc. The report is currently under revision to incorporate comments from different stakeholders. The Government of Lao PDR has recently participated in an ADB Fact Finding Mission on upscaling BCI through an invetsment project on GMS Biodiversity Conservation Corridors and confirmed its sustained interest in receiving a grant funding of $15 million from the ADF. A feasibility study is scehduled for 2010 under an R-PPTA.


21

II. Scope and Methodology of the Impact Assessment

A. Objective of the Impact Assessment

50. The objective of this impact assessment of livelihood improvement in the BCI Pilot Site in Lao PDR is: ―Evaluation of social and economic impacts achieved from project inputs on livelihood improvement and poverty reduction over the period 2006-2009 as compared to baseline information of 2005/2006. Both tangible (cash) and intangible (non-cash) benefits were to be assessed in terms of current (actual) and potential/future (expected) benefit streams from investments made by beneficiaries and Project under BCI using distributional and poverty impact assessment instruments. The purpose of this assessment is to provide recommendations for future investment framework for BCI upscaling based on lessons learned from Pilot Phase.

B. Conceptual Framework

51. Impact assessments are widely carried out by many institutions on various poverty reduction and development projects, and assessment systems and guidelines have been well developed based on existing studies and experience. IFAD established The Results and Impact Management System (RIMS)14 which assess three levels of results from activities, outputs, outcomes to impacts on living standards. OECD Poverty Impact Assessment (PIA) 15 modules focus on short-term and medium-term results which reflect poverty alleviation changes via transmission channels (i.e. prices, employment, access to good and services, assets, etc.) ADB has also integrated poverty impact assessment into the economic analysis16.

52. The World Bank handbook on Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty systematically reviews evaluation methods and techniques in designing and implementing impact evaluation, such as experimental design17 (randomization), quasi-experimental design as well as qualitative methods; the User‘s Guide to Poverty and Social Impact Analysis18 lists and explains key elements which pave a clear road map to conducting the impact analysis; and a sourcebook for poverty reduction strategies introduces the concept of ―Assets‖ 19 refer to the ownership or accessibility to natural resources, facilities and services which as proxies/indicators can reflect the poverty reduction and livelihood improvement.

53. The concept of ―Assets‖ is adopted in the conceptual framework for this assessment as measurements and further developed based on the actual interventions carried out under BCI Project and impacts/changes on ―Asset‖ categories as overriding labels to be measured as shown in figure 13 below:

14

IFAD, Framework for A Results Management System for IFAD-Supported Country Programmes, Rome, 18 December 2003; RIMS First and Second Level Results Handbook, November 2007. Available at: http://www.ifad.org/operations/rims/ 15

OECD, 2007, Promoting Pro-Poor Growth – Practical Guide to Ex Ante Poverty Impact Assessment 16

Economics and Development Resource Center (EDRC), Handbook for Integrating Poverty Impact Assessment in the economic analysis of Projects, July 2001 17

Judy L. Baker, Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty-A Handbook for Practitioners,

World Bank, 2000. 18

The World Bank Poverty Reduction Group (PRMPR) and Social Development Department (SDV), A User’s Guide to Poverty and Social Impact Analysis, 2003, World Bank 19

Louise Cord, Chapter 15 Rural Poverty, A sourcebook for poverty reduction strategies: Volume 2: Macroeconomic and sectoral approaches. World Bank, 2002

http://www.ifad.org/operations/rims/


22

Figure 13. Asset Categories

54. Therefore, the main measurement categories as laid down in figure 13 above, which are: Social and Human Assets, Natural Assets, Physical Assets, and Financial and Business Assets may include detailed indicators for impact assessment, comparing the baseline scenario/data of 2005/2006 with what the Project has achieved or contributed by now in 2009:

a) Social and Human Assets – awareness raised, ownership of process and conservation objectives, capacity built, skills transferred, gender balance and empowerment promoted, level of social participation in conservation activities and other BCI related interventions;

b) Natural Assets – improved access to land, tenure security, forest (NTPF), agricultural crops, livestock, etc.;

c) Physical Assets – housing condition and facilities, access to improved rural infrastructure facilities such as water wells, health care facilities, school toilets, community halls, village library, improved all weather access to markets and centers etc.;

d) Financial and Business Assets – access to financial credit and resources at local level, affordability, access to market information, financial empowerment, micro-investments, generation of employment and business prospects in informal sector etc.

55. The assessment will provide information about how the Project has performed in achieving a ―positive‖ change or ―no change‖ in the asset value of households in the BCI Pilot site.

56. The assessment will also record whether the ―positive change‖ in asset values is attributable to the BCI Project or has been due to contributory factors from other on-going projects in Pathoumphone District. The assessment will also relate the impact results to relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the Project activities.

57. Optimally, the difference in difference method20 was designed to be applied in the assessment by comparing the results of BCI targeted village and Non-BCI villages with pre-post data (see the Figure 14 below). Non-participating villages were matched with participated villages as control group based on its demographic characteristics, socio-economic status, and livelihood activities, etc.

20

Elizabethann O‘Sullivan, Gary R. Rassel, Maureen Berner, 2002. Research Methods for Public Administrators. 4

th Edition, Longman

Social and Human Assets (e.g. capacity,

skills, gender)

Natural Assets (e.g. land access,

tenure)

Physical Assets (e.g. small scale

infra-

structure)

Financial & Business

Assets (e.g. VRF,

employment)


23

Figure 14. Impact analysis framework

T 1 T 2

O

OX=BCI

Interventions

O

O

E:

C:

The impacts of X= [E2-E1]-[C2-C1]

E2-E1

C2-C1

C. Methods and Design of Impact Assessment

58. This assessment took as its starting point the Project Profile21 with objectives and activities planned for implementation in 2005/06 (see BCI Strategic Framework 2005 – 2014) together with the deliverables identified in the Letter of Agreement between ADB and WWF, which is a non-state implementation partner of the BCI Pilot Site activities. For comparison of pre- and post project situation, the Assessment will take into consideration baseline data on population and poverty documented from secondary sources prior to project start (2006/07) as well as results of socio-economic assessments conducted in year 1 of Project implementation (ADB RETA 6289 BCI Socio - Economic Study Xe Pian - Dong Hua Sao Biodiversity Corridor, Lao PDR). It calculates project inputs (financial and other resources) relevant to livelihood improvement and poverty reduction activities and prepare an input-output matrix highlighting financial, economic and social impacts.

59. A list of key indicators and data collection methods are given below based on the conceptual framework above. Moreover, the basic background information of the villages and households and other ongoing poverty reduction projects/policy will be obtained from secondary data source.

Table 8. Sample indicators and data collection methods

Measurements Variables / Indicators Data collection methods

Social and Human

Assets

Awareness of conservation HQS/ FGD

Skills and capacity building HQS/ FGD

Women‘s empowerment HQS/ FGD

Physical Assets

Road improvement HQS/ FGD/In-depth Interview

Access to Clean Water HQS/ FGD /In-depth Interview/SDC

Access to school facilities HQS/ FGD/SDC

Access to health care facilities HQS/ FGD/In-depth Interview/SDC

Natural

Assets

Access to Land (tenure) HQS/ FGD /In-depth Interview

Availability of forest products SDC/ HQS/ FGD

Availability of cash crops SDC/ HQS/ FGD

Availability of livestock SDC/ HQS/ FGD

Financial Assets

Affordability of livelihood (cash) HQS /In-depth Interview/FGD

Affordability of rural investment (micro credits)

HQS /In-depth Interview/FGD

Notes: HQS=household questionnaire survey, SDC=secondary data collection, FGD=focus group discussion.

21

See Annex 3-2 in: GMS Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Initiative Strategic Framework and Technical Assessment 2005 - 2014. Asian Development Bank, May 2005.


24

60. In this assessment, both quantitative and qualitative data from before and after the interventions of the selected villages have been collected using various methods. Methods for data collection have been listed in the variables table above. Most secondary data can be obtained from existing socio-economic reports conducted by WWF, IUCN and MFU as well as national and local statistics. The survey will be conducted within BCI participating villages and other identified similar non-participating villages. In-depth interview and focus group discussion will target BCI beneficiaries in the local villages, implementers, and governmental officials.

61. The household survey questionnaire (see Appendix 2) is designed according to the indicators identified with the reference of the Rapid Impact Assessment of Rural Development in Bhutan22. The questionnaire is structured with assessment of status of general livelihood and assets, followed with inputs and participation of BCI project, and perceived impacts/improvements, which consists of five sections, including: i)general information on household socio-economic and poverty status, participation and perception of BCI project; ii)social (and human) assets on status of skills in livelihood activities, women‘s role, decision making, leadership in the village, awareness of forest protection etc. participation in BCI trainings and perceived benefits; iii)natural asset on land utilization and expansion, land tenure and certificates, utilization forest products, livestock raising, energy consumption and inputs/improvements of the BCI project; iv) physical assets on infrastructures, access to road, education and health care facilities, housing conditions and facilities, and inputs/improvement of the BCI project; v)financial assets on cash income and investment in income generation activities, utilization of the village development fund(VDF) and direct cash payment by BCI activities.

62. The sampling scope and size considered the representativeness and statistical validity of the data. Household is the unit for sampling. A quasi-stratified sampling was applied in the questionnaire survey, a total of 13 villages in the Biodiversity Corridor were selected for household interviews of which nine were serviced under BCI project, while 4 were non-BCI villages, interviewed households were randomly selected with composition of four wealth stratifications(well-off, middle class, poor, and very poor). Sample size was determined by using the formula:

21

Nn

Ne

=317(n=sample size, N=total number of households in the BCI area,

e=desired margin of error 5%). In implementing the household survey, considering over-sampling, a total of twelve enumerators in two teams targeted two villages a day and each enumerator conducted five-to-six household interviews per day, on average, 30-35 households were interviewed per village, completing a total of 448 household questionnaires (see table 9), with a 4% sampling margin of error.

Table 9. Number of households surveyed in BCI villages

Village CODE

Village Total

household Interviewed household

000 Nakok 114 31 001 Kiatngong 168 36 002 Houayko 31 29 003 Sanot 130 36 004 Thongpha 108 36 005 Thahou 83 36 006 Laogna 99 36 007 Thopsok 85 36 008 Namom 153 36

22

Planning Commission, Royal Government of Bhutan, Rapid Impact Assessment of Rural Development, November 2007


25

Village CODE

Village Total

household Interviewed household

009* Nalan 178 30 010* Phommalue 118 35 011* Nathong 94 36 012* Nongbueng 87 35

Total 1,448 448

Note: * Non-BCI target villages as control group for comparison

63. For qualitative data, structured interviews were conducted with institutional stakeholders, such as local government agencies at district and provincial levels (Provincial Tourism Office, PAFO, District Governor‘s Office, DAFO, District Education and Health Offices, and District Land Management Authority, and Sanod Cluster Head). In addition, Focus Group discussions were conducted in 14 villages and in each village a group of 15-20 villagers participated, which included village leaders and management committee members.

64. In addition, statistical data (e.g. education and health data) from the local government officials at district and provincial was collected. All the village leaders in the targeted villages were interviewed to update the Village Profiles and to document inputs and outputs of livelihood activities and benefits received from various development projects.

65. However, due to limited baseline data available, not all the indicators were able to be compared with pre-project data. The BCI project is still in its piloting phase, the assessment is mainly focus on project inputs/outputs and outcomes, it is still immature timing to assess the long term impacts on poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation in such a short term implementation. Thus, considering project direct inputs and activities, not all socio-economic aspects (i.e. life expectancy, literacy, nutrition etc.) are included in this assessment, those impacts could eventually realized through the development, which should be taken into account in the assessment.

D. Field Survey Process, Data Collection and Analysis

66. The following procedural steps were conducted during the assessment in the BCI Pilot Site in Lao PDR:

a. Preparatory Discussions with WREA and WWF: The conceptual framework and proposed assignment methodology was presented and discussed with officials and BCI implementers in Vientiane as well as in the Xepian BCI Field Office in Champasak in the period 28 May – June 9, 2009; technical and logistic adjustments were made and specific indicators formulated and inserted into the framework; timelines for field surveys were between June 16-28, 2009.

b. Field Work Design, secondary data collection, documentation: Detailed questionnaire(s) and structured interview formats appropriate to various target groups - households, government officials, village leaders were designed in the preparatory phase between May 28 – June 15, 2009. The methodology for assessing economic impact of livelihood activities (tangible and intangible benefits) that can be monetized was also elaborated upon and pre project poverty statistics of the site were collected from secondary sources and from socio-economic studies at project start. A preliminary pre-test of the household survey was conducted on June 5-6, 2009.


26

c. Capacity Building/Orientation of BCI Implementers and Enumerators: A select group of enumerators were identified by the Impact Assessment Team and the BCI Office and the selected persons received a 1 day orientation on June 20, 2009 on how to carry out the field survey and pre-test the questionnaire as well as the data collection process. Pre-test results were incorporated into a redesigned/adjusted questionnaire.

d. Field surveys and interviews: Structured interviews with stakeholder institutions (government agencies), Focus Group discussions in villages and household surveys, were conducted in the period between June 17 – 28, 2009.

e. Data Analysis and Reporting: Data input using spreadsheets was done in the period July 1-20, 2009 and the analysis was conducted using statistical package software etc in the period July – August 2009.

f. Present Results and disseminate: A Photo Essay showing Beneficiary Feedback, the Impact Assessment process, as well as the detailed report is available on the GMS EOC website. Hardcopies of the report have been provided to stakeholders in Vientiane and the BCI Pilot Site.


27

III. Impacts of BCI Implementation

A. Poverty Definition and Wealth Classification applied to BCI Pilot Site

67. In Lao PDR, poverty is defined by the Prime Minister‘s Instruction on the eradication of poverty as ‗the lack of ability to fulfill basic human needs such as not having enough food, lacking adequate clothing, not having permanent housing and lacking access to health, education and transportation services‘ (Instruction No 010/PM, June 25, 2001)23.

68. The poverty line used in the study is the ―village-level poverty line‖ used in the analysis of the 2002-03 Lao Expenditure and Consumption Survey (Richter et al., 2005). The poverty line corresponds to the per capita expenditure (including the value of home production and adjusted to regional and seasonal price differences) required to purchase 2,100 Kcal per person per day using the food basket of households in the third quintile, plus a non-food allowance equal to what these households spend on non-food items. The poverty line24 was set at the village level, and ranged between 78,503 and 116,663 kip/person/month25.

69. At operational level, households are classified into four categories: rich, average, poor, very poor. However, the household classification is different defined at district and village level (See table 10 below).

Table 10. Household classification at district and village levels Household Classification

District official definition (Pathoumphone District)

Village level Household Classification

Rich income over 1,000,000 kip/per month

who has the house to stay, land for cultivation, a small business and has no problem with food during the year (12 months)

Average income between 500,000 kip/per month – 1,000,000 kip/per month

who has the house to stay, land cultivation and has problem with food around one month or less than one month in a year

Poor income less than 250,000 kip/per month

who has the house to stay, small land for cultivation and has a problem with food more than three months in a year

Very poor income less than 100,000 kip/per month

who has no house, just stay in hut, no land for cultivation and has a problem with food whole year.

70. According to the updated statistics, in the 11 BCI target village, 222 households are classified as rich, 687 as average, 210 as poor, and 22 as very poor.26 Generally, the people depend highly upon the area‘s natural resources, maintaining a subsistence-based livelihood. Paddy rice production, fishing and non timber forest product (NTFP) collection form the three main pillars of the village economy supplemented by livestock. Poverty incidence among the villages and households varies, depending on variables such as market access and tourism opportunities. The

23

National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy (NGPES), Lao PDR, 2003 24

Michael Epprecht, Nicholas Minot, Reno Dewina, Peter Messerli, Andreas Heinimann, 2008, The Geography of Poverty and Inequality in the Lao PDR, Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research North-South and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 25

In 2003 1US$ corresponded on average to about 7,900 kip 26 Data for 2009 is updated through the village profile surveys; data in 2007 was taken from ADB RETA 6289, WWF-IUCN. 2007. ADB RETA 6289 BCI Socio - Economic Study Xe Pian - Dong Hua Sao Biodiversity Corridor, Lao PDR


28

livelihood profile and economic differentiation among households shows the need for support to basic production activities.

Table 11. Summary of the wealth stratification in BCI villages, 2009

No. Village Name Population Female No. HH No. rich

No. average

No. of poor

No. very poor

1 Sanot 701 333 130 25 100 5 0

2 Thongpha 619 317 108 29 33 46 0

3 Thahou 519 263 83 38 35 10 0

4 Somsouk 494 218 74 26 34 14 0

5 Thopsok 557 266 85 18 62 5 0

6 Houayko 178 80 31 0 7 24 0

7 Nabon 489 231 84 8 65 23 0

8 Nakok 649 334 114 30 70 14 0

9 Laonga 687 356 99 10 84 5 0

10 Kiat Ngong 983 407 168 22 140 6 0

11 Namom 802 378 153 16 57 58 22

Total 2009 6678 3183 1129 222 687 210 22

2007 6355 3187 1071 213 551 294 67

% Incremental

5.08 -0.13 5.42 4.23 24.68 -28.57 -67.16

Source: Household Questionnaire Responses, ADB RETA 6289 BCI Impact Assessment, June 2009

71. Compared with the baseline data in 2007 (see table 11 above), 67.16% of household in the ―very poor‖ category and 28.57% in the ―poor‖ have moved to a higher wealth category, which has increased ―average‖ households by 24.68%.

72. The average household income for poor and very poor households is still lower than the expenditure (see Table 12 below)

Table 12. Income and expenditure level of households in BCI villages (kip/year)

Wealth Classification Total Income Total Expenditure

Rich 23,910,000 18,719,238

Average 12,570,954 10,490,220

Poor 4,729,256 5,606,894

Very Poor 3,107,115 4,521,333 Source: Household Questionnaire Responses, ADB RETA 6289 BCI Impact Assessment, June 2009

Figure. 15. Income and expenditure levels

Household income and expediture in BCI villages

0.00

5,000,000.00

10,000,000.00

15,000,000.00

20,000,000.00

25,000,000.00

30,000,000.00

Rich Average Poor Very Poor

Kip

/ye

ar

Total Income

Total Expenditure


29

B. Impacts perceived by beneficiaries in the BCI Pilot Site

1. Social and Human Assets

73. Under the theme of social assets, the impact assessment focused mainly on soft assets such as skills transfer, capacity building and awareness raising. Social assets (hardware) such as school facility improvement, water wells, and sanitation are dealt with in the section under physical assets.

74. The BCI Project has been supporting building of social assets by promoting several topics of skills transfer, such as income generation, forest management, village development fund, and NTFP processing. The total number of persons receiving training at village level is 654 with over one third of these being female (see Table 13 below):

Table 13. Villagers trained in BCI pilot site (Lao PDR)

No. Topic No. villagers

attended Female

1 Enrichment planting 51 18

2 Agro-forestry 52 18

3 Fruit gardening 6 6

4 Pretreatment for rattan seeds 20 9

5 Participatory NTFP survey 15 5 6 NTFP Training 47 19

7 Malva nut seedling germination 28 12

8 Seeds collection 30 6

9 Native tree seedling production 10 5

10 Seeds collection 67 15

11 Wildlife and habitat survey 20

12 Mushroom production 4 2

13 Composting and Bio extraction (BE fertilizer) 224 133 14 Village veterinary 16

15 VDF management and book keeper 21 5

16 Flora survey 11

17 Health worker training 10 3

18 Mid-wife training 22 18

Total Number Trained 654 274

75. The total amount of investments flowing into capacity building and social asset building (including support to direct and indirect beneficiaries and technical assistance is estimated at US$104,414).

76. Most of the training events have been spread out across all 11 BCI target villages in the Pilot Site as shown in the table below:


30

Table 14. Training events across target villages in BCI pilot site (Lao PDR)

Capacity Building

Target Village

1. T

haho

u

2.H

ou

ayko

3.K

iat N

gon

g

4.T

hopsok

5.S

anot

6.T

hon

gp

ha

7.N

akok

8.N

ab

on

9.L

aong

a

10.S

om

so

uk

11.N

am

om

Sustainable harvesting of malva nuts, honey, babarine climber

X X X

Promotion bee raising X

Participatory patrolling X X X X X X X

Management of natural cardamom and malva nuts planting

X X

Promotion mushroom cultivation

X X

Village veterinary improvement

X X X

Promotion vegetable home garden

X

Rice improvement X X X X X X X X X X

Ecological restoration

Malva nut collection and drying

X X X

Train village book Keeper

X X X X

Training on village midwife for village volunteers

X X X X X X X X X X X

77. Under social asset building, the beneficiaries were asked about what kind of training they had received from the BCI project and whether there had been any improvement in:

1. Skills for income generation 2. Participation in decision-making 3. Better market information 4. Awareness about protecting forests for the future 5. Skills to secure forest protection 6. Skills to deal with health problems 7. Awareness to secure land tenure / land title 8. Women participation in project activities led to important decision making,

and 9. Leadership in the village and village organization.

78. In this section, focus has been on determining whether the beneficiaries had raised their awareness and skill levels and are willing to participate in BCI activities, apply restrictions that the Project introduced on NTFP collection in order to make resource utilization sustainable, and in general protect the forest ecosystem. More importantly, BCI capacity building interventions indirectly fostered women participation and a sense of leadership and consensual decision-making regarding sustainable management. Over 75% of HH interviewees received training under the BCI Project and the responses are as follows (see table 15):


31

Table 15. Impacts perceived by beneficiaries on social assets (%)

Indicators No A

little Medium A

lot NA DK

1. Skills for income generation 3.7 4.3 43.9 37.2 7.9 3.0 2. Participation in decision-making 1.8 2.4 36.6 48.2 10.4 0.6 3. Better market information 4.3 12.8 30.5 28.0 20.1 4.3 4. Awareness about protecting forests for the future 2.4 2.4 22.0 58.5 13.4 1.2 5. Skills to secure forest protection 2.4 1.8 23.8 59.1 11.6 1.2 6. Skills to deal with health problems 1.2 2.4 28.0 46.3 17.7 4.3 7. Awareness to secure land tenure / land title 8.5 4.9 17.1 41.5 20.1 7.9 8. Women participation in project activities led to important decision making

5.1 34.8 35.4 24.7

9. Leadership in the village and village organization 0.6 43.0 56.3 No= No improvement; A little=25% improvement; Medium= 50% improvement; A lot= over 90% improvement; NA= Not applicable; DK= Don‘t Know

79. From the above table, it may be noted that skills dealing with securing forest protection seem to have been received well by beneficiaries, as over 59% of the respondents see this as highly beneficial in improving their skill levels. This is followed by awareness about protecting the forests for the future. This indicates that local beneficiaries fully acknowledge the importance of forest as a source of food (particularly NTFPs) and shelter. The BCI Project seems to have galvanized local communities in Xe Pian-Dong Hua Sao to work concertedly towards a common goal: biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of forests. Leadership in the village seems to be equally important and the 56.3% of villagers interviewed in BCI target villages perceive that they have strong leadership and village organization.

80. However, skills for income generation, participation in decision-making (about projects and income), and women participation are seen by respondents to have been of high importance in terms of improvement as both the categories of respondents finding these to be of medium and high importance in combination range between 70% - 80%. Training or information regarding land tenure and market information rank slightly lower than the others in effectiveness but these are also the elements that have had a slow start; particularly land tenure and land titling in the form of issuing land certificates has only been achieved in one village. On market information around 17% of the respondents found such training of no or little use, while 58.5% found it of medium-to-high importance and useful. The net benefit of this training may be seen in the income generating activities assessed under financial assets. In general, the table shows a positive impact of BCI capacity building and skills transfer activities.

2. Natural Assets

81. The BCI Project has been supporting land use planning and mapping (for activities see table 16 below) by the National Land Management Authority (NLMA) with a view to determine village boundaries, provide accurate GPS based parceling of land plots and land certificates. This is important for beneficiaries to secure land tenure. Furthermore, the Project has completed an Initial forest cover analysis identifying potential corridors for ecosystem connectivity. Biodiversity Corridor mapping has led to identifying an area encompassing the boundary of the BCI villages as a sustainable use area (SUA). Inside the SUA different types of areas have been classified: (i) using the declared production forest area (PFA) and restoration forest as core area for the corridors; and (ii) the protection forest as linear corridors. Two to three linear corridors that connect core forest areas are to be finalized in discussion with villagers and local authorities, which may include buffer zones around the core area.


32

Table 16. Land use planning and ecosystem activities of BCI Project

Land Use Management and Ecosystem

Restoration

Target Village

1. T

haho

u

2.H

ou

ayko

3.K

iat N

gon

g

4.T

hopsok

5.S

anot

6.T

hon

gp

ha

7.N

akok

8.N

ab

on

9.L

aong

a

10.S

om

so

uk

11.N

am

om

Review on land and forest allocation X X X X X X X X X X

Update land allocation and demarcation

X X X X X X X X X X

Produce D3 maps on land use pattern

X X X

Wildlife and habitat survey

X X X X X X X X X X

Inventory sources of plant in the corridors

X X X X X X X X X X

Installation signboards (protection forest, corridors, restoration area)

X X X X X X X

Corridor management (patrolling, forest fire prevention, awareness etc.)

X X X X X X X X X X

Seeds collection X X X X X X X X X

Seedlings production supply for restoration

X X X

Restoration of degraded area and enrichment plating

X X X X X

82. Detailed land use planning and mapping for providing secure land tenure has only been undertaken in one village – Ban Houayko (see table 17 below).

Table 17. Land use planning results, Ban Houayko, 2009

ID Land use type Land use before LUP (ha)

Land use type Land use after LUP (ha)

4 Agriculture Land 18.91 Agriculture Land 1 18.665 3 Production Forest Areas 130.203 Production Forest Areas 1 130.203 6 Cemetery Forest Areas 2.054 Cemetery Forest Areas 1 2.054 6 Cemetery Forest Areas 2.014 Cemetery Forest Areas 2 2.014 7 Wetland Areas 12.548 Wetland Areas 1 12.548 8 Worship Forest Areas 1.767 Worship Forest Areas 1.767 2 Settlement Areas 5.928 Settlement Areas 5.928 5 Protected Areas 121.254 Protected Areas 188.056 7 Wetland Areas 14.74 Wetland Areas 2 14.74 3 Production Forest Area 49.85 Production Forest Area 2 21.644 9 Watershed Protection 81.971 Watershed Protection 95.279 10 Secondary Forest 56.026 New Settlement Plan Area 2 1.681 10 Secondary Forest 31.319 4 Agriculture Land 179.178 Agriculture Land 2 213.183

Total Areas 707.762 Total Areas 707.762 Source: Anouxay Phommalath, Land Use Planning & Natural Resources Management Training, Ban Houayko, BCI Pilot Site, Pathoumphone District, Champasak Province, Lao PDR


33

83. In Ban Houayko, the District Land Management Authority, with support from BCI Project managed to measure land plots for homestead and agriculture. There are 146 plots/parcels of land with land use certificates issued to villagers covering a total of 107 ha, of which 31 plots are for homestead covering in total 3.9 ha; rice fields divided up into 30 plots covering 30.1 ha; for general crop plantation 19 plots of land covering 18.6 ha; commercial tree plantation plots (35) covering 31.3 ha; 24 plots for cash crop covering 20 ha; 4 plots as swidden fields covering 1.9 ha; and 3 plots of settled land (land without developing but with ownership to be determined soon) covering 2 ha.

84. Demonstration on Agroforestry and Enrichment Planting: The BCI Project established demonstration plots for agroforestry and enrichment planting using seven different models (see Appendix 3 for description) to generate lessons learned and hands on experience for villages and official staff, who participated in planting and maintaining the plots. Over 5,585 seedlings were purchased and supplied for the demonstration plots. These activities were initiated in three villages - Ban Thongpha, Houayko and Nakok covering a total area of 7.71 ha and involving 94 villagers (see Appendix 4 for details).

85. Restoration: Enrichment planting in the areas identified as having the best potential for restoration was initiated with 16,588 seedlings of ten native species for planting a total area of 21 ha in Ban Houayko, Thongpha, Thahou, and Thopsok. Furthermore, in Sanot village, a total area of 98.6 ha was identified for regeneration, of which 6 ha were to have enrichment planting requiring 8,000 seedlings. Nakok village survey identified 235 ha for regeneration, with 13.58 ha identified for enrichment planting requiring 15,000 seedlings. In Ban Thopsok 120 ha were identified for forest restoration, of which 7 ha were for enrichment planting with 7,000 seedlings. In Thopsok village 521 seedlings and in Houayko village 1,032 seedlings were released.

Photo 3. Nursery activity in B. Houayko

86. Village forestry organization (VFO): VFOs have been established by the SUFORD project in nine of the ten target villages. VFOs are made up of 2-6 villagers who are responsible for different tasks and who work together as a ‗go-between‘ for villagers and project staff to facilitate planning and implementation of village participation in forestry and village development activities. Establishing a VFO and building it up as a strong village institution is an important way to ensure local control over village participation in project activities, as well as village development growing out of benefits accrued to the village through such participation. The BCI project has worked with villagers to expand membership of the VFOs to a total of 78 members of which 20 are females in the following eight villages: (i) Ban Houayko 10 members (2 female); (ii) Ban Nabon 10 (2 female); (iii) Ban Sanot 9 (2 female); (iv) Ban Somsouk


34

10 (2 female); (v) Ban Thahou 9 (1 female); (vi) Ban Thongpha 9 (3 female); (vii) Ban Thopsok 10 (3 female); (viii) Ban Kiat Ngong 11 (5 female).

87. Seed collection and nursery: VFO members and field staff collect seeds in combination with carrying out restoration surveys. More than 100 kg of 13 native tree species seeds have been collected. A nursery has been established in B. Houayko with a capacity of up to 50,000 seedlings and ten villagers have been selected as a seedling production group and trained by BCI and Xe Pian foresters on seedling production. A second site has already been established in Ban Thopsok in cooperation with SUFORD. SUFORD will produce only rattan seedlings so space is available for up to 30,000 tree seedlings. The nursery members, who provide the labor for nursery activities, are paid for their participation and part of the benefits go to the Village Development Fund; the nursery group head received 50,000 kip per month from October 2007 to June 2008 and two deputy heads received 30,000 kip per month. Over 7,221 seedlings of native species have been produced by the village nursery group. The nursery group members will receive compensation for their labor based on number of produced seedlings at the rate of 500 kip per seedling.

88. Biodiversity Status: Remote sensing data suggest natural forest covers 94% of the Pilot Site and the adjacent protected areas, with 71% of that forest considered of good quality. The forest is relatively little fragmented, and protected area coverage reasonably good. The landscape is very rich in variety of wetland habitats (e.g. flowing, standing, vegetated such as swamps and marshes, open water etc) inhibited by diverse biodiversity. These rich wetland and forest habitats are important sources of non timber forest products (NTFPs), on which the subsistence livelihoods of the poor villagers are dependent. Flora and fauna surveys supported by ADB RETA 6289 in March 2008 identified: i) land conversion (expansion of agriculture in forest and wetland); ii) over exploitation forest and wetland resources; iii) invasive species as major threats to the biodiversity in the area. Wetland bird species are particularly vulnerable compared to forest bird species. In Lao PDR, over the last century, several wetland bird species have gone extinct compared to none in the forest habitat. Some of the bird species that extinct in between 1992-1996 surveys includes Sarus Crane, Black Kite, Greater Spotted Eagle, Grey Heron, Black crowned Night Heron, Darter, Cormorants, Spot-billed Pelican, Painted Stork, Black-necked Stork, and Greater Adjutant. Other species such as Green Peafowl, Red-wattled Lapwing, Vinous-breasted Starling, White-vented Myna and several species of vultures found in Lao PDR are at high risks of local extinction. Forest bird species such as Oriental Pied, Wreathed Hornbills, Alexandrine, Blossom headed and Red-breasted Parakeets, and Green Imperial Pigeon are under severe threats.

89. Though no update survey has been carried out recently (2009) in the area to establish the actual status, the corridor habitat of a patchwork of forest types with many glades, wetlands, grasslands and all-year water sources is perfect for large ungulates and their associated big predators. The signs of ungulates such as of wild pig Sus sp(p) and muntjacs Muntiacus sp(p). Various common mammals such as squirrels Callosciurus finlaysonii williamsoni, Tamiops sp(p), Northern Treeshrew Tupaia belangeri, Small Asian Mongoose Herpestes javanicus; and Siamese Hare Lepus peguensis amiops sp(p) could be easily spotted in the area. Large-spotted Civet Viverra megaspila which was recently spoted in the area is of global conservation significances as it is now rare and localized in extreme low lands. Species probably extinct in Lao PDR such as Lesser One-horned Rhinoceros Rhinoceros sondaicus, Hog Deer Axis porcinus and Wild Water Buffalo Bubalus arnee probably occurred in large numbers. Densities of Dhole Cuon alpinus, Leopard Panthera pardus, Tiger P. tigris, Asian Elephant Elephas maximus, Sambar Cervus unicolor, Gaur Bos gaurus and probably bears Ursus spp. Could also be high. Smaller numbers of Eld‘s Deer Cervus eldii, Banteng Bos javanicus and perhaps even


35

Kouprey Bos sauveli would have occurred, although the habitat, lacking true deciduous dipterocarp forest, is suboptimal for them. This megafaunal community is long gone, although individuals no doubt still occur occasionally. Up to four species of otter Lutra sp(p)., Lutrogale perspicillata and/or Aonyx cinerea should occur Other mammal species of which the corridor might still support populations and which, if so, would be of national significance are Jungle Cat Felis chaus and Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus.

90. Under natural asset building, the impact assessment focused on what kind of natural assets the villagers have access to or have secure tenure of/can utilize, like land, clean water, livestock, and NTFP collection and how the land titling process was viewed by the respondents. Questions were also asked about forest/land conversion, consumption of fuel/energy for domestic use. Comparison was also made between BCI and non-BCI villages (see table 18 below) to assess how asset ownership gave indications of wealth and poverty.

Table 18. Comparison of indicators between BCI and Non-BCI

BCI Non-BCI Indicators Mean Std. Error Mean Std. Error

HH cultivation land (ha) 1.3763 .08762 1.0516 .05184 HH homestead land (m2) 713.8481 77.44161 500.3414 31.75853 Forest land (ha) .6937 .07864 .4230 .04650 Other Land Area (ha) .0475 .01616 .0469 .01605 Land Conversion Practice (%) 37.3 26.9 Converted new land (ha/yr) .2447 .04465 .1669 .02121 Access to Clean Water (%) 77.8 69.0 Sufficiency of the fuel/energy (%) 79.1 74.9 Utilization of Fuel Wood (M3/Yr) 5.0025 .29392 4.8552 .16971 Utilization of Charcoal (Kg/Yr) 153.0696 13.94356 96.2655 8.85201

91. The table 18 above shows that villagers in BCI villages have access to more land than non-BCI villages. This may be explained from the fact that over 37% of villagers in BCI villages are converting on average 0.24 ha/year of land. At the same time, access to clean water is higher than in non-BCI villages and energy consumption is also higher. Part of the energy consumption (fuel wood) may be sourced from village woodlots, while charcoal production, most likely for commercial use, is higher in BCI villages.

Figure 16. Percentage of land conversion and source (BCI)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Natural

forest

Secondary

forest

Grassland Wetland Bareland HH not

converting

land

%

BCI

Non-BCI


36

92. Although land conversion may be on-going in BCI villages over 63% of the respondents in BCI villages and 0ver 73% in non-BCI villages mentioned that this does not apply to them. Most of the land converted has been for the following purposes (see table 19 below):

Table 19. Comparison of land conversion in BCI and Non-BCI villages

Conversion Purpose BCI (%) Non-BCI (%)

Rice 24.7 13.1

Agriculture 7.6 9.0

Plantation 3.8 4.1

NA 63.9 73.8

Total 100.0 100.0

93. A comparison of BCI with non-BCI villages shows that ownership of assets such as livestock is higher in BCI villages (see table 20) with fish significantly higher underlining importance of natural resource wealth and need for conservation of fish stocks.

Table 20. Livestock/other animals owned by households

BCI Non-BCI Indicators Mean Std. Error Mean Std. Error

Buffalo 1.5380 .18416 1.2103 .13844 Cow 2.7658 .32526 2.6276 .26478 Pig 1.1646 .13731 .9448 .09041 Goat .4747 .17288 .5207 .15442 Chicken/ ducks 18.0380 1.49127 13.0724 1.08802 Fish raising 125.9494 42.51791 97.9310 37.74435 Elephant .0316 .01397 .0276 .00963

94. In particular, information was sought on how BCI has improved: 1. Securing land use certificates 2. NTFP processing and marketing 3. NTFP collection and sustainable utilization through restrictions 4. Support through provision of agroforestry inputs, and 5. Household food security and food.

95. The responses (see table 21 below) show that over 60% of beneficiaries interviewed welcomed agroforestry inputs followed by acceptance of NTFP restrictions by nearly 45%. However, over 93% of the respondents did not see any improvement in NTFP processing and marketing, 85% saw little progress on land use certificate issue, and over 72% saw no improvement on soil fertility or reduction in soil erosion. These negative responses may be explained by the limited nature of the budget and coverage of households in BCI villages and limited capacity in land use planning that was available to the BCI project.

Table 21. Impacts perceived by beneficiaries on natural assets (%)

Indicators NO Yes NA

Land Use Certificates 85.4 14.6 NTPF Process and Marketing 93.7 5.7 0.6 NTFP Restriction 53.8 44.9 1.3 Agro-forestry inputs 38.1 60.1 1.9 Food crop production and security 60.8 37.3 1.9 Improve soil fertility and reduce soil erosion 72.8 23.4 3.8


37

96. NTFP collection for consumption and sale (see figures 17 and 18) is extremely important for the beneficiaries as can be seen from the figures below and the BCI follow up phase needs to pay particular attention to this aspect.

Figure 17. Percentage of NTFP collection for consumption

NTFP Collection for Own Consumption

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

No A little Medium A lot NA

Level of NTFP Collection

%

BCI

Non BCI

Figure 18. Percentage of NTFP collection for sale

NTFP Collection for Selling

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

No A little Medium A lot NA

Level of NTFP collection

%

BCI

Non BCI


38

3. Physical Assets

97. The BCI Project has supported small scale infrastructure development in BCI villages as part of the inputs and interventions provided to increase motivation and trust of local communities to engage in conservation and sustainable use. The premise is that a quid pro quo approach to incremental improvements by the BCI Project in quality of life or just simply basic needs, as prioritized by the villagers, goes a long way to win the villager‘s trust, engagement and commitment to conservation activities. A list of small scale infrastructure interventions prioritized by the villagers and supported by the BCI Project are given in table 22 below. The BCI Project inputs on small scale infrastructure amount to US$167,973.

Table 22 . Small scale village infrastructure investments by BCI Project

Small scale village infrastructure

Target Village

1. T

haho

u

2.H

ou

ayko

3.K

iat N

gon

g

4.T

hopsok

5.S

anot

6.T

hon

gp

ha

7.N

akok

8.N

ab

on

9.L

aong

a

10.S

om

so

uk

11.N

am

om

Village clinic center and service worker X

Improve access road to village

X X X

Construct and improve bridge in the village

X X X X

School building improvement X

Construct primary school building

X X

Construct Guesthouse X

Construct community water supply

X

Improve village office X

Construct well for school

X X X X X X X X X

Improve irrigation channel

X X

improve irrigation channel w/water gate

X

Construct community toilet

X X X X X X X X X X

Improve drainage to protect flooding in paddy area

X

Check point/village office

X

Safety box X X X X X X X X X X X

Village Win Phone X X X X X X X X X X X

Sala Construction / village meeting hall

X

98. Participatory school building and support. In Ban Kiat Ngong, the construction of the school library was begun by villagers but due to inadequate budget the construction was not completed. During PRA, villagers listed the completion of


39

construction as one of their village infrastructure priorities as this village was a model/intervention village selected by the District. According to agreement reached between BCI project and village committee overseen by the Director of the District Education Office, construction materials according to construction plan were supplied by BCI Project while villagers covered the costs of construction works and provided labor. The project has coordinated with district education office to continue and extend a room for teacher office next to the library.

Photo 4. Library and school office, Ban Kiat Ngong, ADB RETA 6289

99. Due to very poor condition of primary schools in Ban Thongpha and Ban Nakok, new school building designs were completed and presented to the District Education Office by a commercial company. Adjustments to roofing and ceiling parts were made according to guideline and criteria of the Ministry of Education for school building construction. The schools have four rooms and the size of the building is 8 by 7 meters.

100. Participatory dispensary building. Ban Sanot requested construction of a dispensary building and the village committee allocated a site for the building construction while the District Health Office presented the layout for dispensary building to the design company. Construction has started and the District has assigned two nurses to be based in Ban Sanot to provide medical services.

101. Access road improvements. Spot improvement of the access road to Ban Houayko has been carried out with villagers. The village provided 29 laborers for the improvement activity. BCI project covered costs for renting hand tractor for stone transportation. In Ban Laonga and Somsouk, spot Improvement of access road to Nabon and Somsouk has been completed for an 8 km stretch as it was the most difficult part to get through even during dry season. The improvement work was led by district staff from the road construction and transportation office and refilled 650 holes/spots with soil, created drainage in 36 spots, and cleared the bush along the road side. It took 11 days to complete the improvement with 256 laborers from Ban Nabon and 317 from Ban Somsouk taking part in the road improvement work. The BCI Project was responsible for renting hand tractors for transporting stones and compacting materials and contributed food for villagers during the improvement. The two villages were responsible for providing labor.


40

Photo 5. Spot improvement of the access road to Ban Houayko, ADB RETA 6289

102. Improving irrigation channels. The District survey team for irrigation improvement undertook field assessment in Ban Laonga. This assessment was led by the Deputy Director of the District Agriculture and Forestry Office. The improvement will support cultivation of paddy rice in the dry season.

Photo 6. Well drilling in Ban Thahou, ADB RETA 6289

103. Ground water construction for village schools. Only one standard company is available in the province with a digging machine that has the capacity to reach the ground water level where water will be sufficient for the entire dry season. In consultation with the District Health Office BCI contracted the Clean Environment and Water Supply Company to manage the process. Ground water supply installation was completed at B. Thahou and B. Houayko. However digging work in other villages had to be stopped due to technical problems with the boring machine since. As only one company in the province handles this type of machinery, the BCI activities faced some delays while the machine was repaired.


41

104. Check Point, Village Guest House, Village Office. The check point has been used to collect fees for visitors entering the Xepian National Protected Area based on a payment regime agreed to by the provincial Governor. A Village Office has been built at Ban Thahou. In Ban Kiat Ngong, the village guest house to receive tourists has been completed. The Kiat Ngong village, assisted by the Xe Pian Ecotourism project, established guidelines for running and managing the guesthouse. The Xe Pian Ecotourism project is also assisting in providing electricity. Together with the King Fisher Ecolodge, which is located near Ban Kiat Ngong, the village guest house offers a cheaper, local, village-stay option for tourist accommodation, generating village income.

105. Under physical asset building, the beneficiaries were asked about general information regarding the quality of housing/dwelling, sufficiency, access to roads, markets, schooling, health care, water and sanitation facilities. Also information regarding ownership of assets, such as bicycle, radio, TV, telephone, tractor etc was gathered.

Table 23. Assets and access to facilities and services

Indicators BCI Non-BCI

Sufficient dwelling/ housing space for family members (%) 56.3 55.9 Dwelling/accommodation size (m

2) 72.9 64.2

Access to sanitation (toilet) (%) 33.6 21.0 Access to roads/ markets / facilities (%) 86.1 79.7 Road/transport improvement (%) 83.8 78.6 Education facilities improvement (%) 98.1 93.1 Health/medical care improvement (%) 83.6 79 Access to electricity (%) 44.3 42.8 Telephone and hand phone (%) 52.5 51.4 Tractor or Car (%) 34.8 34.1 Bicycle or motorcycle (%) 65.8 55.9 Radio or television 69.6 59.0 Refrigerator (%) 15.8 17.2

Figure 19. Construction material used for housing (%)

Construction material used for housing

0102030405060708090

100

BCI Non-

BCI

BCI Non-

BCI

BCI Non-

BCI

BCI Non-

BCI

Roof Wall Floor Pole

%

Wooden

Bamboo

Concrete

Thatch, palm leave

Tiles

Iron/metal

106. Comparison of responses between BCI (312 HH interviewed) and non-BCI villages (136 HH) as shown in table 23 above shows the status and ownership of physical assets in BCI villages is better than non-BCI villages. For instance, the average size of dwellings in BCI villages is bigger than those in non-BCI villages, access to markets and facilities and road transport is better, and ownership of bicycles/motorcycles and radio/TV is higher in BCI than in non-BCI villages. Even in the quality of housing (see figure 19), which can be taken as a proxy indicator of


42

wealth, 84.8% of housing in BCI villages seems to have iron/metal roofing compared to roofing of housing in non-BCI villages (72%). It is understood that BCI Project support is supplementing government and other programs and accelerating improvements in quality of life and poverty reduction.

107. The beneficiaries then responded to what support they had received from the BCI project to improve physical assets and how they perceive these benefits in terms of whether:

1. Households have benefited from the infrastructure support? 2. Improved accessibility to services and markets? 3. Travel time savings in accessing services and markets? 4. Improved access to clean water? 5. Improved school and education facilities? 6. Increased motivation in income generation activities?

108. Nearly 80% of the respondents in BCI villages have found the BCI small-scale infrastructure improvements to have contributed significant benefits (see table 24 below). Over 49% perceive the highest benefits in improving access to clean water while over 60% see an improvement in school facilities (co-financed with government programs), which are important indicators of contribution towards achieving millennium development goals.

Table 24. Beneficiary perception on BCI support infrastructure improvement

Indicators (%) No A little Medium A lot NA Don’t Know

Benefits from infrastructure support 3.2 10.8 35.4 33.5 15.2 1.9 Improved access to services 4.4 13.3 38.0 41.1 3.2 Saving time in traveling 5.7 12.7 34.8 39.9 3.8 3.2 Improved motivation for income generation activities

2.5 8.2 42.4 38.0 5.1 3.8

Improved access to clean water 2.5 12.7 32.3 49.4 3.2 Improved school facilities 1.9 5.7 27.2 60.1 3.8 1.3 No= No improvement; A little=25% improvement; Medium= 50% improvement; A lot= over 90% improvement; NA= Not applicable; DK= Don‘t Know

4. Financial and Business Assets

109. One of the key components in the BCI Project has been improvement of livelihoods and injecting additional cash income opportunities or supplemental sources of income in the target BCI villages. In the initial stages of the BCI Project, the villagers participated in a PRA exercise and identified priorities they wished to receive support for from the Project.

110. Development Priorities27: Villagers in the pilot site noted the following issues as main development priorities:

(i) Improve access to basic water and sanitation facilities; (ii) Promote water management – flood control; (iii) Enhance access to health services; (iv) Promote capacity building and skills diversification; (v) Create viable market outlets and credit opportunities; (vi) Expand road infrastructure; (vii) Explore eco-tourism opportunities;

27 Project Completion Report by Project Implementation Agency, WWF Laos Country Programme. GMS

CEP-BCI. Lao PDR – Xe Pian – Dong Hua Sao Corridor – Champasak Province. Lao PDR. August 2009, p.46


43

(viii) Establish handicraft groups; (ix) Enhance farming techniques for cash-crops production; (x) Control seasonal disease outbreaks; (xi) Improve quality and coverage of education services; (xii) Enhance veterinarian services and disease control; and (xiii) Regulate harvesting practices by outsiders.

111. While the BCI Project has made investments in small scale infrastructure, social asset building, and NTFP regulation (see sections above), on improvement of livelihoods and financial assets, the Project Implementers pursued a three-pronged strategy: (a) the Village Development Fund was initiated on a revolving basis with limited seed capital. These funds were used to provide loans to households to embark on their own investment projects; (b) the BCI Project promoted a number of agricultural (e.g. mushroom cultivation) and agro-forestry based interventions on a pilot basis in selected villages and with selected households to find out if the participants could cope with the challenges of maintaining and nurturing the investments; and (c) direct cash payments were made by the Project for works done on restoration, nursery development, patrolling, biodiversity monitoring/surveys, road improvement with village contributions etc. The following interventions were undertaken by the Project (see table 25):

Table 25. BCI interventions for livelihood improvement

Income Generation Activities (IGAs)

Target Village

1. T

haho

u

2.H

ou

ayko

3.K

iat N

gon

g

4.T

hopsok

5.S

anot

6.T

hon

gp

ha

7.N

akok

8.N

ab

on

9.L

aong

a

10.S

om

so

uk

11.N

am

om

Rice improvement and supply seeds variety X X X X X X X X X X

Wild honey harvesting / bee-keeping

X

Vegetable home garden X X

Mushroom cultivation X

Cash crop production (Maize/cassava)

X X X

Fruit tree home garden X X X X X X

Coffee plantation improvement

X X

Assessment for paddy field extension

X X

Promotion for webbing X

Mats production X

Sustainable harvesting of malva nuts, honey, babarine climber

X X X

Natural cardamom and malva nut planting

X X

Fish conservation pools X X X

Chicken Raising X

Rattan plantation X X X

112. Under financial asset building, the beneficiaries were asked about: (i) sufficiency of income levels; (ii) coping strategies for cash shortages; (iii) available funds for investment at household level; and (iv) what the HH are investing in.


44

Table 26. Comparison of financial assets (BCI/Non-BCI villages)

Indicators BCI Non-BCI

Mean Std. Error Mean Std. Error

Sufficient income to maintain basic livelihood (%)

58.9

51.0

HH shortage in cash in a year (kip) 1,488,300 150,610 1,809,200 268,973 Subsidy from the government (kip/HH) 815,705 116,034 438,235 109,748 Borrow money from others (kip/HH) 162,179 31,318 356,617 80,498 Selling labor for coping with cash shortage (kip/HH)

710,653 93,449 737,830

150,426

Other income sources (kip/HH) 275,000 55,596 323,529 74,814

Sufficient fund to invest in livelihood activities (%)

58.2

50.3

Investment in: a) food crops/rice (kip) 641,740 64,279 481,137 54,906 b) fruit trees/cash crops (kip) 71,518 29,496 47,241 22,683 c) commercial plantations (kip) 94,620 37,091 38,275 13,407 d) livestock raising (kip) 293,291 68,586 236,965 50,834 e) fish raising (kip) 40,886 15,572 9,413 3,259 f) NTFP collection(kip) 36,075 12,384 15,862 10,515 g) small business (kip) 268,354 88,671 553,324 152,981 h) others (kip) 12,658 12,658 42,413 25,553

Source: BCI Impact Assessment, ADB RETA 6289, GMS EOC, October 2009 based on HH interviews

113. Beneficiary response on sufficiency of income in the table 26 above shows that in BCI villages nearly 59% of the households seem to have sufficient income to maintain basic standard of living (sufficiency of food with shortages) while in non-BCI villages it is 51%. It is not clear if this slight variation in BCI villages is due to the Project interventions since 2007. However, sufficiency of funds for investments in livelihood activities is clearly higher in BCI villages than in non-BCI villages. This can be attributable to access to financial resources through the VDF.

(i) Village Development Funds (revolving mechanism)

114. The Village Development Fund initiated in BCI villages have given additional impetus to livelihood improvement activities/micro-projects at household level. The BCI Project has promoted establishment of 11 Village Development Funds (VDF), which are revolving funds managed by a village committee for providing microcredit and grants to households. Initially, 6 villages established the VDF, opened accounts and received seed capital by end of December 2007. By June 2009, all eleven target villages within the project pilot site have actively operating village development funds. A total seed fund of 296,000,000 kip was transferred into the VDF accounts. Some of the BCI livelihood interventions promoted and tested by the BCI Project have now been taken up by the households by accessing financial resources for investments through the VDF. From the 11 VDFs that have received seed capital under the BCI Project, a total of 361 households have received loans with a total amount of 295.7 million kip (approx. 35,000 USD). The loan purpose varies from rice cultivation, cash crop plantation, livestock raising, garden vegetables to health care expenses with a majority of the loans used for rice cultivation (62%), followed by livestock raising (32%). For details of VDF microcredit to households for livelihood and other activities, (see table 27 and figure 20 below). This highlights basic food needs of households.


45

Table 27. VDF microcredit to households for livelihood and other activities

No Village Activities No. of households

Microcredit (kip)

1 Kiat Ngong Rice cultivation 42 26,500,000

2 Namom Rice cultivation 49 21,600,000

Health Care 2 1,300,000

3 Somsouk Peanut cultivation 9 14,000,000

Rice cultivation 7 8,900,000

4 Houayko Rice cultivation 19 23,100,000

5 Thopsok Rice cultivation 40 24,000,000

Health care 2 1,500,000

6 Laonga Buffalo raising 6 26,700,000

7 Thahou Rice cultivation 14 13,800,000

Chicken raising 17 8,500,000

8 Nakok Rice cultivation 20 31,000,000

9 Sanot Duck raising 15 9,000,000

Pig raising 31 18,600,000

Fish Raising 7 3,500,000

10 Thongpha Rice cultivation 13 19,500,000

Fish Raising 16 9,600,000 Home garden vegetable 8 3,000,000

11 Nabone Chicken raising 18 10,800,000

Pig raising 19 15,200,000

Fish Raising 7 5,600,000

Total 361 295,700,000

Figure 20. VDF microcredit purpose in 11 villages

62%

3%

2%

32%

1%

Rice cultivation

Cash Crop

Garden Vegetable

Livestock

Health Care

115. In the first batch of 6 villages, seed capital to the VDF for each village ranged between 24,000,000 - 27,000,000 kip (US$2,823 - $3,176) and microcredit was approved and disbursed to households in the period June - July 2008, with an average microcredit disbursement rate of 97.86% (see table 28).


46

Table 28. Record of microcredit disbursement from VDFs in 6 villages

Village VDF Funds (Kip) Date of Disbursement

Total Lending (kip)

%

Kiat Ngong 26,364,414 6-Jun-08 26,000,000 98.62

Houayko 23,988,526 23-Jun-08 23,600,000 98.38

Somsouk 24,069,009 16-Jun-08 22,900,000 95.14

Thopsok 25,577,418 9-Jun-08 25,500,000 99.70

Laonga 27,067,089 24-Jul-08 26,700,000 98.64

Namom 24,069,009 17-Jun-08 23,200,000 96.39

Total 151,135,465 147,900,000 97.86

116. The 6 VDFs operating in Somsouk, Laonga, Namom, Kiat Ngong, Thopsok and Houayko villages, which initially received seed capital, underwent a BCI project internal evaluation in February 2009 before funds were released to the remaining 5 VDFs. The evaluation was conducted over 12 days and involved interviews with, 374 participants (198 female) from the 6 villages assessed. It focused on: (i) reviewed the VDF processes within each village; (ii) reviewed the VDF administration structure and duties of the 5 committee members in each village and management capacity of the existing 6 VDFs; (iii) checked the quality of financial recording; (iv) followed up on beneficiaries and their project activities; (v) audited bank books, income and expenditure statements, interest, and checked monthly income and expenditure against activities. During the evaluation the team discussed VDF activities and processes with village committees, villagers and beneficiaries and discussed with villagers what problems if any existed and how best to adjust and resolve these. The overall conclusion was the village authorities and villagers generally understand about project policy, and how VDF was important to villagers in providing capital for poor families in order to increase production, trading and health in order to decrease forest destruction, improve villager's standard of living, reduce the number of poor families and to strengthen local village management capacity. The VDFs were generally operating well with committees having good understanding of VDF policy and practices. Committee members were able to calculate funding, interest rates and record income and expenditure. Some records did lack some details; however, this was due to educational levels of committee members. Repayment by some beneficiaries had been delayed because of the high interest rates in some villages. To improve the function of the VDFs the evaluation recommended regular monitoring of VDF activities, that villagers have exchange visits to share ideas and knowledge and that VDF committee members meet to discuss VDF policies and seek consensus on appropriate interest rates between the various villages.

117. In the 6 BCI villages (see figure 21), microcredit sizes range from 300,000 kip ($35) to 4.450 million kip ($522). A majority of borrowers (53.4% of the households) took loans ranging between 500,000 – 1,000,000 kip, 23.3% took loans of 1,000,000 – 1,500,000 kip, while 12.5% took loans of less than 500,000 kip. In Laonga village, 6 households took loans of 4,450,000 kip for buffalo raising with the longest loan repayment period (36 months), while on an average the other loans had a repayment period of 6-9 months.


47

Figure 21. VDF microcredit size in 6 villages (176 HH)

118. The interest rate charges depend on the nature of activities; for rice cultivation, it is normally 3% per month, the exception is seen in the poorest village in the corridor - Ban Houayko, with a monthly interest rate of 1% and a loan period of 9 months only. Interest on loans for health care are charged at 1.5% per month while a monthly interest rate of only 0.5% has been charged on microcredit for buffalo raising (see table 29 below).

Table 29. Duration and interest rate of microcredit in 6 villages

Village Activities Duration (month)

Interest rate (% per month)

Kiat Ngong Rice cultivation 8 3

Namom Rice cultivation 6 3 Health care 6 1.5

Somsouk Peanut cultivation 8 3 Rice cultivation 8 3

Houayko Rice cultivation 9 1

Thopsok Rice cultivation 8 3 Health care 8 1.5

Laonga Buffalo raising 36 0.5

119. Given the various microcredit sizes, interest rates and repayment period, the gross return before deduction of administration costs and capital depreciation is estimated for the 6 villages, which have been operating for over a year June 2008 - June 2009, at 176,286,000 kip ($20,740), which reflects 16.24% return on an investment of 147,600,000 kip ($17,365). However, we have to deduct administration charges and capital depreciation and are assuming a 5% administrative fee/charge for the VDF committee as well as a 5% capital depreciation28 to be deducted from the gross rate of return on microcredit investments by the VDF.

28 Inflation rate in Lao PDR was estimated to be 4.5% in 2007, rising to 8% in 2008 and forecast to drop

to 4.9% in 2009, quoted by UNESCAP Country Note at: www.unescap.org/pdd/publications/survey2009/notes/lao.asp

http://www.unescap.org/pdd/publications/survey2009/notes/lao.asp


48

Table 30. Estimated return on VDF investments (microcredit) in 6 villages

Village Microcredit (Kip)

Interest Payment

Total Repayment

(kip)

Admin cost (5%)

deduction

Depreciation (5%)

deduction

Rate of Return

Kiat Ngong 26,500,000 6,360,000 32,860,000 31,535,000 30,210,000 14.00

Nam Om 22,900,000 4,005,000 26,905,000 25,760,000 24,615,000 7.49

Somsouk 22,900,000 5,496,000 28,396,000 27,251,000 26,106,000 14.00

Houayko 23,100,000 2,079,000 25,179,000 24,024,000 22,869,000 (1.00)

Thopsok 25,500,000 5,940,000 31,440,000 30,165,000 28,890,000 13.29

Laonga 26,700,000 4,806,000 31,506,000 30,171,000 28,836,000 8.00

Total 147,600,000 28,686,000 176,286,000 168,906,000 161,526,000 9.43

120. Comparing villages and expected effective rate of return (table 30) shows that Houayko village is the poorest and is likely to perform negatively on its estimated rate of return if real costs, such as admin charges and capital depreciation are deducted. The negative rate of return is due to the fact that Houayko village is charging only 1% interest per month on all of its microcredits with a duration of only 9 months, whereas the better performing villages like Kiat Ngong and Somsouk (14.0%) and Thopsok (13.29%) are charging 3% per month as interest rates on their lending through VDF. In Laonga village, the rate of return is at 8% because of the lowest interest rate being charged for buffalo raising at 0.5% per month but the longest repayment period (36 months).

Table 31. Microcredit recovery scenarios of VDF (revolving fund) in 6 villages

121. Assuming a 100% repayment rate (i.e. Zero defaulters), the cumulative rate of return for all 6 VDFs stands at 9.43% (see table 31); however, individual villages range between 14% and a negative return of 1% (Houayko village). The repayment scenarios estimated in the above table show that in 5 villages, the VDFs could sustain revolving operations if the defaulter rate does not exceed 5%. In Houayko village, interest rates as well as loan periods need to be adjusted upwards if the VDF revolving fund mechanism is to avoid becoming a sinking fund mechanism. For poorer villages like this one, additional cash injection is required for a sustained period or a profitable income generating niche has to be found and linked to market opportunities (see section below on mushroom cultivation).

122. The table 32 below shows that over 35% of households in BCI villages interviewed have received funds from VDFs under the BCI Project. This correlates relatively with 361 households receiving loans from VDFs (see table 24 above) as the total number of households in 11 villages is put at 1,129. Nearly 75% of the respondents accessing VDF loans report that they have benefited from this cash

Village Estimated Repayment

(Kip)

100% Repayment

99% Repayment

95% Repayment

90% Repayment

80% Repayment

Kiat Ngong 30,210,000 14.00 12.86 8.30 2.60 (8.80)

Namom 24,615,000 7.49 6.41 2.11 (3.26) (14.01)

Somsouk 26,106,000 14.00 12.86 8.30 2.60 (8.80)

Houayko 22,869,000 (1.00) (1.99) (5.95) (10.90) (20.80)

Thopsok 28,890,000 13.29 12.16 7.63 1.96 (9.36)

Laonga 28,836,000 8.00 6.92 2.60 (2.80) (13.60)

Total 161,526,000 9.43 8.34 3.96 (1.51) (12.45)


49

support and from those who have not yet received VDF loans, 84% are willing to apply.

Table 32. Utilization of VDF microcredit by households in 11 BCI villages

Beneficiary Feedback on VDF access and usefulness %

HH receiving cash support from BCI VDF 35.5 Household benefited from the VDF cash/loan facility 74.9 Willingness to apply for VDF cash support [non-VDF] 84.1

123. The chart below (figure 22) shows that over 45% of respondents stated that they have benefited a lot (over 90% of improvement) from the VDF microcredit facility, while nearly 30% of households found the benefit to be medium (50% improvement in the benefits level).

Figure 22. Households benefiting from VDF cash support (%)

(ii) Agricultural/Agroforestry income generating activities

124. The agricultural and agro-forestry improvements promoted by the BCI Project have had mixed success and the salient features are reflected in the table 33 below:

Table 33. Status of livelihood interventions (agriculture/agro-forestry)

No. Project Intervention Beneficiaries Status

1 Mushroom cultivation

The testing and piloting of the cultivation (oyster mushroom) was led by a local specialist with initially 4 HH participating in Ban Thahou increasing to 10 HH by June 2009. Group members assisted in training of other villagers. 2 extension staff have been trained; high demand has been recorded by villagers

High Success

2 Demonstration of fruit Initially, 6 households in Thongpha Village Successful


50

No. Project Intervention Beneficiaries Status

tree gardens

involved in plot establishment with 895 seedlings of 5 different species (tamarind, longan, mango, rambutan and lemon) in a 2.63 ha area. Data on growth performance show a survival rate of between 55-82% and total height of 61-67 in average; Multiplication was supported at request of villagers in Houayko, Kiat Ngong, Thopsok, Sanot and Laonga

3 Promotion vegetable home garden and composting (Bio Extraction – BE - fertilizer)

The district agriculture extension introduced organic vegetable production, bio extraction (BE fertilizer) and composting in Kiat Ngong and Thahou villages (14 HH). 20 liters of BE, 62 kg of compost have been produced by villagers/trainees and vegetable seeds of four species geminated. This is a link with tourism as B. Kiat Ngong is one of popular tourist destination, where accommodation (home stay) can be arranged by villagers in addition to the commercial King Fisher located close to Ban Kiat Ngong providing bungalows, lodge rooms and restaurant for tourists. These represent a clear market opportunity as the lodge currently sources vegetables from Pakse, 55 km away.

Successful

4 Rice improvement: in collaboration with Oxfam Australia and Oxfam America using the System of Rice Intensification (SRI)

8 farmers from the three target villages-Ban Nakok, Ban Thongpha and Ban Nam Om were selected to be involved in setting up SRI trials plots and to experiment with the use of SRI for their irrigated rice cultivation of dry season paddy. The system allows farmers to save rice seed, reduce use of water when growing rice and enjoy rice yields equal to or even greater than under conventional methods of rice cultivation

Results marginal,

little demand

5 Small scale livestock (chicken raising)

Total of 130 chickens for 13 HH in Thopsok, Nakok and Houayko villages; vaccination provided by district officials

Failed

6 Aquaculture A deep pool (Vang Kea 380 m in length and 8 m wide) in Houay Tomo River in Thongpha village fish conservation pool. 88 villagers of B. Thongpha) participated in the fish release. 3,800 fingerlings (Chinese garp, Papak and Painai) were released into the pool of which 2,800 were provided by the BCI project and 1,000 by the district agriculture office

Partially successful

7 Promotion bee harvesting management and raising

150 households in Ban Somsouk and Nam Om benefit from honey collection and sale. About 25 Kg of honey on average is produced per household and selling at approx. 20,000 kip/kg.

Successful but not

continued


51

125. Mushroom cultivation was identified as one of the income generating activity in the BCI workplan by local implementing partners and villagers as approved for Jan-June 2008. Initially, the plan included two villages, Houayko and Thahou, for starting mushroom cultivation; however, villagers in Ban Houayko were hesitant to participate at the beginning and opted out while Thahou went ahead.

Photo 7. Mushrooms growing from the cultivation boxes supported by ADB RETA 6289

126. The testing and piloting of the cultivation (oyster mushroom) was led by a local specialist, and involved participation of four households in Ban Thahou. The BCI project provided production materials including fixed assets amounting to a value of Kip 1,816,000 (about USD 180) for a production capacity of 1,137 mushroom boxes in the first production cycle. After training on cultivation and establishment, the first cycle of mushroom production was launched (4 Feb - 21 March 2008) successfully and approx. 126 kg of mushrooms were harvested and sold for Kip 15,000/kg. As per Village Mushroom Production Guidelines, the mushroom production group paid back 30% of the total BCI investment for materials and fixed assets into the village development fund. Villagers also can apply to the VDF to invest in mushroom cultivation.

Table 34. Inputs and outputs of mushroom cultivation

Mushroom cultivation Amount (Kip) In US$

Inputs

Rice straw preparation 400,000 47.06

Steam mushroom germination 240,000 28.24

Arranging and putting into nursery 500,000 58.82

Harvesting by 1 person in 3 months (1*90) 1,800,000 211.76

Material to make mushroom germination 1,105,000 130.00

Nursery house building In Kind 0.00

Steam tank (boiling equipment) 5,250,000 617.65

Output

Mushroom production of 3000 sacks = 600kg over 4 months/ one cycle of production)

6,000,000- 7,200,000

705.86- 847.06

NPV over 10 years with 10% discounting rate 23,331,454 2,745

IRR over 10 years with 10% discounting rate 33.13% 33.13%


52

127. The inputs and outputs of mushroom production, summarized in the table 34 below, consider a 4-month cycle of production for one harvest, with three possible production cycles a year, covering a 10 year investment period, with a discounting rate at 10%. The net present value (NPV) comes to 23,331,454kip ($2,745), with an internal rate of return (IRR) of 33.13%.

128. Following the good results achieved from pilot mushroom production and given high demand from mushroom consumers, the mushroom production group is keen to continue the activities with their own investments and sharing benefits among group members. Currently, there are 10-12 households in Ban Thahou involved in the mushroom cultivation, and increasing numbers are interested and motivated in mushroom production. The experienced group members have gained confidence and capability to extent the activities within the village, assisting in the training and setting up of production equipment for the newly joined members. Since mushroom cultivation is booming and growing fast in Thahou village, the village is commonly referred to as ―Mushroom Village‖. Other BCI targeted villages also showing interest to carry out mushroom production, which may lead to a supply glut in the market and drop in farm gate prices.

(iii) Direct cash support to households for conservation and restoration

129. In addition to VDF and agricultural/agroforestry support, the BCI Project has provided direct cash support for works done (see figure 23). Over 23% of households interviewed reported receiving direct cash support from the Project. Of those receiving cash support, the majority of recipients provided labor input for forest restoration, patrolling, planting, biodiversity monitoring, and nursery activities.

Figure 23. Direct cash payment/support to households under BCI Project

15.1

57.5

41.147.9

19.2

9.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Nursery works Forest land

preparation

Enrichment

planting

Patrolling Biodiversity

monitoring

Other

works/surveys

Note: several households have been involved in multiple cash-based (labor) input/works

130. Cash support received by the beneficiaries (see table 35) in the BCI villages has been utilized for food, clothing, medicine, travel, education, and social/cultural purposes.

Table 35. Utilization of direct cash income from BCI received by households (kip)

Indicators Mean Labor Days Max

Direct Cash Support per HH with average number of labor days

366,123 18.3 2,400,000

Direct cash income used by HH for: %

Food 193,219 52.77 1,000,000 Clothing 18,520 5.06 300,000 Medicine 45,958 12.55 500,000 Travel 66,438 18.15 2,000,000 Production 20,205 5.52 500,000 Social/ traditional 6,027 1.65 100,000 Education 14,383 3.93 200,000 Others 1,369 0.37 100,000


53

C. Impacts perceived by institutional stakeholders

131. Key stakeholders of the project have been interviewed during the assessment. These are Provincial Tourism Department, Forestry Division of Champasak provincial Agriculture and Forestry Department, Forestry division of District Agriculture and Forestry Department, District Land Use Authority, District Health Service; District Education Office, Poverty Reduction Fund Office, cluster leader, Village Clinic Center doctors, and BCI Project staff contracted by WWF. The interviews (see Appendix 5 for a list) were conducted either in the form of individual or group discussions.

132. The interview questions covered aspects of achievements/benefits, perception/satisfaction, sustainability, gaps/challenges, lessons/replicability, future needs, suggestions for improvement, and expectation of stakeholders from the BCI Project. The institutional stakeholder feedback is summarized below.

1. Project management

133. The feeling among the different stakeholders on BCI implementation is generally positive and conducive to ensure its long term sustainability. This is demonstrated by the fact that even during the short span of its implementation, BCI has already induced strong local ownership, changed perceptions and created a paradigm shift in conservation practices, and strong feeling towards a need to scale it up, which became apparent from responses during interviews with different stakeholders.

a) Ownership of the project: Interview participants confirmed tat they feel

strong ownership towards the BCI Project and appreciate: i) the project is in

line with the national/provincial policies, priorities and institutional mandates;

ii) the project planning process has been participatory, transparent and

allowed them to propose activities based on local needs; it is, however,

understandable that all the proposed activities were not included due to

resource constraints; iii) the activities are implemented by the line agencies.

b) BCI is inducing a paradigm shift in conservation practices: The following

extracts from the interviews indicate increasing awareness of the

participatory process in conservation:

“Our Pathumphone is a unique district with two protected areas (Xe Pian and

Dong Hua Sao), making up 80% of the total area. It is very difficult to control

villagers encroaching the protected areas, … BCI is changing forest protection

approach; from control to participatory, encouraging greater cooperation”.

“BCI is like a baby, growing up slowly, needing more support, looking forward to

scaling up.”

“We help villagers improve their livelihoods; villagers help us to protect the

forests”.

“Like in Huoayko village, after the land use planning, they agreed not to expand

coffee plantation in the current area but shift to a planned area to maintain the

forest connectivity.”


54

c) There is strong support to scale up BCI activities: Here is how

interviewees responded.

“We do hope the scaling up could include more budget on health care,

particularly on village health volunteer training”.

“Most health volunteers have received a few days simple training due to limited

budget”.

“More training and follow up support should be provided for poverty alleviation.”

“Poverty reduction requires certain degree of intensive support, for example,

supporting a poor household to raise 10 chickens may not have a significant

effect on poverty reduction, but supporting them to raise 100, or 1000 chickens

may make a significant difference”.

2. Social and Human Assets

134. Significant amount of trust has been built between local officials and villagers, minimizing potential conflicts between people and conservation authorities. The greater awareness of Biodiversity Corridor has been the result of several capacity building activities carried out in the target villages.

a) BCI has been instrumental in improving communication between

authorities and people, potentially lowering the chance of park-people

conflict. Here is how respondents expressed their view

“Before the project, the villagers were not hospitable to the visiingt government

officials and were reluctant to communicate with the officials. With BCI, greater

trust has been built and villagers are willing to discuss conservation issues with

the authorities”

“I would like to say the relationship between villagers and the officials is that of

good friends; we plan the mutually benefiting activities together”.

“In some villages, there was almost no functioning relationship between

authorities and the villagers, BCI has established amicable relation, and it is an

important foundation for future conservation and development endeavors.”

b) Biodiversity corridor (BC) is widely recognized by the local agencies. BC

is well accepted by the local authorities even though legislation on biodiversity

corridor (BC) is yet to be achieved. In general, interviewees appreciate the BC

concept and are aware of the need to balance biodiversity protection with

community development. The map prepared by the Land Use Authority has

marked out the corridor area to clearly indicate different land use needs,

planning and management.

c) Capacity enhancement through learning-by-doing method is widely

appreciated by the interviewees. Interviewees mentioned that participating

in the project planning and implementation process has enriched their

learning process. They emphasized this learning was accomplished through

field experience and internalized through practicing it.

“Visit to the villages brought us different experience; doing BCI work allows

sense of fulfillment, doing meaningful works.”


55

“We go to the villages, engage in discussion with villagers, and identify area of

mutual interests, such as fish conservation, NTFP management and regulation,

and land use planning and livelihood improvement. We work together and learn

together!”

“Building quality leadership is very important in successful operation of VDF;

good communication resulting in trust, and allowing villagers to take their own

decisions will result in a good job!”

“Around 30% of our staff (PAFO) participated in the training and project

implementation. The project played a huge role in capacity building of our

organization”.

d) People in the BCI villages have better understanding of conservation,

which is viewed as the crucial step towards community participation in

ecosystem protection. The interviewees give examples and explanations of

how this was achieved.

“In terms of conservation, the awareness of the villagers in the 5 ecotourism

development villages (BCI supported some activities in one village only) is much

higher than that of other villages.” “This was achieved through different means

including training courses, and motivation derived from tourists’ appreciation of

good forests, diverse bird and plant varieties. Kiat Nong village has benefited

from eco-tourism and has helped villagers understand economic importance of

conservation”.

e) Improving teaching methods and incorporation of environment into

education curriculum will benefit the future generation: Teachers training

conducted in 17 schools was received positively.

“Improved course delivering methods from simple lecture to role play, story

telling and other interactions mode has made the courses more attractive.”

“The teachers of other schools are eager in receiving similar training.”

f) New skills were developed by villagers through training with follow-up

support, building a foundation for further poverty reduction and

livelihood improvement: This was emphasized by the director of district

poverty reduction fund office.

“Providing training with follow up support is a very good strategy for poverty

reduction. It is important for the villagers to generate income from different

interventions, but more important thing is the new skill sets that the villagers

have developed, such as mushroom cultivation and nursery.”

3. Natural Assets

135. BCI intervention improved maintenance of and access to natural assets by promoting ecosystem connectivity, fish conservation, NTFP collection regulations, forest restoration etc. Interviewees view improvement of natural assets bringing benefits to both ecosystem conservation and community development.


56

a) Minimization of competition over land use through Village Land Use

Planning: Benefits of land use planning were expressed several times

during the interview. Houayko village, located in the southern part of the

corridor close to Xe Pian National Protected Area, was established in 1973,

and has a current population of 178 comprising of 31 households. With

approximately 6 children per household being a common occurrence, the

population in the village is expanding quickly. The villagers are still heavily

dependent on natural resource base such as NTFP collection, fishing,

livestock, and cash tree plantation. The pressures on forest are increasing

with the risk of conversion into cultivation land resulting in increased

fragmentation of ecosystems. Therefore, there is a need for systematic land

use planning process. Through the participatory land use plan, and agreed

demarcation among the villagers, there is more likelihood of application of

resulting land use plans. The participatory land use planning has resulted in

villagers agreeing on ―the zoning‖, which required them to stop coffee

plantation in the northern part to maintain forest connectivity, while promoting

home garden in the southern part of the village. Land use certificate has

insured optimal land tenure system facilitating long term land use and overall

village development. Villagers also realize that in the long term, land is a

limited resource and there is a need for intensive agricultural practices by

introducing new crop varieties to increase the yields and securing required

investments.

b) Fish conservation, NTFP regulation, and participatory reforestation is

well accepted and practiced by the villagers. During the interview,

villagers‘ action on these initiatives to improve the quality of ecosystem was

often mentioned by the interviewees to indicate the long term benefits of BCI.

“Protecting forest is protecting your future and more and more villagers are

realizing it; this is the reason why villagers are willing to participate in

conservation activities”.

4. Physical Assets

136. The BCI project has supported small scale infrastructure such as village clinic, medical kits, a school construction and schools‘ toilets, village road, wells, water supply etc. Interviewees expressed importance of these interventions.

a) Health Intervention for improved quality of life. This was mentioned by

health bureau and village clinic doctors.

“Operation of Sanot village clinic can serve 5 villages. It will help the villagers

save medical cost including transport costs and improve quality of life”.

“Medical expenditure and transport costs are usually not affordable; some

villagers do not visit doctors until they are seriously ill”.

b) Building school and school toilets met the priority concern of the

villagers. Here are some feedbacks from interviewees.

“Improving school facilities is very much appreciated by the villagers. With these

infrastructure improvements as first step, next for us is to improve the teaching

quality”.


57

“We do hope more support from BCI to develop both school

infrastructure and teaching methods”.

c) Extended access by road improvement and telephone is a crucial step

for effective poverty reduction efforts: ―A lot of poverty reduction efforts

need access market and information, road and telephone access are very

important for the villages to sell their product in a better price, buy input for

livelihood improvement activities, etc‖. This is emphasized by the director of

district poverty alleviation fund office.

137. Detailed feedback of stakeholders by institution highlighting positive impacts, challenges and issues is documented in Appendix 6.


58

D. Analysis of Project Expenditures

138. The Letter of Agreement (LoA) between ADB and WWF made provision for $980,047 of which $850,000 was advanced and WWF liquidated $825,026.13 by 31 May 2009. In addition, WWF has expended funds on preparatory BCI work in Attapeu ($200,860.52) and on regional coordination ($110,380.17) of BCI implementation, which have been channeled under a different LoA and hence not included in this assessment.

139. Analysis of project finances and allocation of TA costs to components as well as general project management (see figure 24) gives an overall picture of 74% of BCI Project investment in the pilot phase going towards achieving project outputs, of which 38% has been utilized on poverty reduction activities, 12% on capacity building, 11% on ecosystem restoration and biodiversity conservation, 6% on land use planning and 7% on studies for identifying sustainable financing models. Only 5% has been used for equipment and supplies while 21% has gone towards project management. The project management costs exclude those TA costs that are directly attributable to the components but includes personnel costs related to project management and representational functions only.

Figure 24. BCI project components inputs with integrated TA costs

38%

6%

11%

12%

7%

5%

21%

Poverty Reduction

Land Use Planning

Ecosystem Restoration

Capacity Building

Sustainable Financing

Equipment and Supplies

Project Management

140. The total amount advanced by ADB to WWF in Lao PDR for BCI activities in Xe Pian – Dong Hua Sao Corridor under the LoA was $850,000 with an additional amount of $16,084 for VDFs channeled through IUCN in 2007 (see table 36 below). WWF has liquidated with ADB a total amount of $825,026 from the advance received.

Table 36. BCI project components inputs with integrated TA costs (in US$)

Components 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total %

Poverty Reduction 94.08 60,198.34 110,620.13 147,118.95 318,031.50 37.81

Land use management 94.08 6,059.55 26,883.53 19,532.84 52,570.00 6.25

Ecosystem restoration 94.08 21,889.39 54,739.80 15,904.41 92,627.68 11.01

Capacity Building 94.08 20,494.39 38,651.28 45,175.11 104,414.86 12.41

Sustainable Financing 94.08 4,433.93 47,878.92 6,630.21 59,037.14 7.02

Equipment and Supplies - 36,504.92 4,513.75 579.88 41,598.55 4.95

Project Management 929.57 63,612.49 80,670.12 27,618.13 172,830.31 20.55

Total 1,399.97 213,193.01 363,957.52 262,559.53 841,110.03 100.00

Note: the total expenditure reflects $825,046 liquidated by WWF with ADB and $16,084 channeled by IUCN to 6 VDFs.


59

141. The poverty reduction component (with integrated TA costs) has consistently received the highest allocation of the budget over the three years between 2007-2009 (see figure 25 below).

Figure 25. BCI project components inputs with integrated TA costs

-

20,000.00

40,000.00

60,000.00

80,000.00

100,000.00

120,000.00

140,000.00

160,000.00

2006 2007 2008 2009

$

Poverty

Reduction

Land Use

Planning

Ecosystem

Restoration

Capacity

BuildingSustainable

Financing

Equipment and

Supplies

Project

Management

142. While poverty reduction component has received higher level of direct inputs compared to attributable TA cost, the other components, by their very nature of interventions have had a higher proportion of TA costs, particularly land use planning, ecosystem restoration and sustainable financing. Although this may be argued to be justified, general project management costs of implementing partner (WWF and its sub-contractor IUCN), which include personnel costs not allocated to any component in the figure below and which reflect 21% of total BCI Project expenditure, seems high (see figure 26 below).

Figure 26. BCI project components direct inputs and TA

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Pov

erty

Red

uctio

n

Land

Use

pla

nnin

g

Eco

syst

em/R

esto

ratio

n

Cap

acity

Bui

ldin

g

Sus

tain

able

Fin

anci

ng

Equ

ipm

ent a

nd S

uppl

ies

Pro

ject

Man

agem

ent

$

Direct inputs

TA inputs


60

Figure 27. Poverty reduction components (direct inputs without TA)

63%

20%

3%

3%

2%9%

Infrastructure

Village Development Fund

(VDF)

Agriculture Development

Support

Village Based

Development

Community Corridor

Management

Poverty/Socio-

economic/PRA Surveys

143. In the breakdown of project expenditure on the poverty reduction component (see figure 27), the major share goes to small scale infrastructure at village level (63%) followed by the VDF seed capital at 20%. The remaining amounts consist of minor investments in agriculture support (3%) and village based development – 3% (e.g. NTFPs), with 2% going to community corridor management, and 9% spent on socio-economic surveys and PRAs.


61

IV. Conclusions and Lessons Learned

A. Conclusions

144. In general, 50.6% of the households in the target villages received support from the BCI Project, of which 79.7% perceived improvement in their livelihoods and 84.8% expressed high satisfaction with the project. The impact assessment featured measurement of asset building under the following categories: Social Assets, Physical Assets, Natural Assets, and Financial Assets.

145. Thirty eight per cent of project expenditure has been on the poverty reduction component while 74% of total expenditure has gone towards achieving outputs under the five components of BCI. This is in line with project strategy and the overarching goal of ADB. The underlying premise has been that people‘s participation in conservation and commitment to maintenance of ecosystem services, such as defragmentation of forests can be motivated through addressing their development concerns – basic needs such as food and water and basic social services such as education and health. Under the poverty reduction component, the project has been able to address small scale infrastructure needs prioritized by BCI villagers as well as provide assistance in income generation and value addition.

146. The Project has directly addressed capacity building needs of 654 villagers (of whom 274 are female); this represents a direct coverage of roughly 10% of the total population but a multiplication factor of 30% can be safely assumed as over 50% of households have received support from the project. In addition, 132 government officials (17 female) have received training bringing the total number of trained to 777. A total sum of $104,414 (including TA costs) has been spent on the capacity building component, which translates into $134 per capita investment. In addition on-job- training and skills transfer have been undertaken by TA staff in other components. Respondents interviewed about social asset building have confirmed that 80.1% have improved skills for income generation activities, 82.9% improved awareness and skills for forest protection, and 70.2% confirmed improvement in women‘s participation and decision making.

147. The small scale infrastructure investments have improved access to clean water (9 wells), school facilities (2 school building and 1 library) and health service (11 medicine boxes, 1 health clinic construction), sanitation in village schools (11 school toilets) and these improvements have also contributed to reducing travel time and improving access to markets, which in turn has increased their motivation in income generation activities.

148. The land use planning exercise in Ban Houayko has led to increase in set asides for protection forest, land for cultivation and demarcating land plots, and providing land certificates for 146 plots covering a total area of 107 ha. Participatory forest restoration activities have been undertaken, such as seed collection (289kg), nursery establishment (50,000 seedlings capacity), natural regeneration (427 ha), enrichment planting (21 ha), and demonstration plots for agroforestry (5.4 ha).

149. The Village Development Fund can be rated a success in 11 villages with a cumulative rate of return at 9.43%, while only one village may incur a negative rate of return. But the net gain has been in ability of borrowers to enhance food security and rice production. Livelihood intervention activities created high level of motivation and achieved good financial returns with mushroom cultivation, resulting in a net present value (NPV) of 23,331,454kip ($2,745), with an internal rate of return (IRR) of 33.13% considering a 10% discounting rate over 10 years. In addition, 23.4% of households in


62

the BCI villages received direct cash income from the BCI Project, with an average of 366,123 kip ($43) per household equal to 18 labor days (20,000 kip/day).

150. Social stratification in BCI villages seems to have been positively affected with a slightly upward mobility of some households from the poor (-28.57%) and very poor (-67.16%) to average level (+24.68%). Compared with non-BCI villages, quality of life in BCI villages as well as conservation awareness can be rated high. In a very short time (2006-2009), the BCI Project in Xe Pian - Dong Hua Sao has galvanized participatory forest conservation coupled with livelihood improvement. The learning by doing approach and strategies followed had enabled local people in the BCI villages to undertake livelihood activities as they themselves prioritized voluntarily.

B. Lessons Learned

151. The implementation of BCI in Xe Pian - Dong Hua Sao site over last three years has given opportunity to test the robustness of the BCI component design. The design seems to be robust and it caters to both conservation and development needs of the communities.

152. With a dedicated staff on the ground and a good design, impacts can be achieved in a short term using the BCI model.

153. The integration of livelihood improvement activities, addressing infrastructure needs and priority concerns of local people, and improving basic food security needs provides appropriate incentives coupled with awareness raising to tackle conservation and ecosystem maintenance needs. These are small amounts of direct investment with valuable returns in the medium to long term.

154. The BCI model is replicable and scaleable with a larger amount of investment provided the right mix of components is applied. The successful BCI pilot demonstrates that it is highly likely that success can be achieved over larger geographical areas and for longer periods of time provided there is integration of conservation and development.

155. The BCI is not an integrated conservation and development project (ICDP) as understood in the conventional sense, as most ICDPs engaged in buffer zones of protected areas. The BCI engages in areas outside protected areas, which in most cases, have a higher biodiversity but also a dynamic challenge of development pressure and ecosystem maintenance need. As villagers feel unconstrained with protected area regulations in spaces outside NPAs, a flexible approach to meeting local needs and addressing conservation issues seems to bear fruit and stands a better chance of success.

156. Good and supportive government official attitude has helped very much in Lao PDR and this is an essential ingredient in the success of BCI. Together with robust planning, good and effective implementation staff (people), policy support is the third ―p‖ that is an essential factor for success.

157. The program has been successful in institutionalizing local rules and regulations pertaining to natural resources management and development. This provides an opportunity to embed BCI in upstream planning process by clearly defining biodiversity corridors and management regime within policy frameworks both at provincial and national level.

158. In the absence of government capacity to execute/implement project of this magnitude and complexity, it was necessary to have support from non-government


63

partners and international consultants. This has, however, resulted in a relatively high coordination and administrative cost. With the gradual improvement in provincial and national government's capacity to implement such initiatives, it is expected that overhead costs will be reduced. This, however, demands greater capacity building interventions.

Appendices


2

Appendix 1: Village Profiles

1. BCI Village Profile - Ban Houayko Village Establishment 1973

Population 178 (women 80)

Number of Households Total 31 Well-off 0 Average 7 Poor 24 Extremely Poor

Number of Families 32

Ethnicity and Religion Brao

Health and Sanitation Village medicine kit/box: 2 Village Health Volunteer: 2 (2 female) Veterinarian 1(1 male) Veterinary fund: 1,900,000 kip Lavatories 0 Well 2 Water pump 5 Tap Water 0 Common Diseases: Malaria, Stomach ache

Education and Social Facilities Primary school (Grades 1-3) Teachers 1 (male) Students 17 (girls 9) Student-Teacher ratio: 17:1

Agricultural Production Paddy land: 30.1ha total (approx. 0.12 – 2.5 ha/hh) Average yield: 1.5 tn/ha Upland fields: 2.47 ha Gardens: 5.96 ha

Water Sources Bueng Sanom Phan Xang wetland: 0.5 ha Stream: 1 Protected Pond: 2 (Vang Mon, Vang Jalat) Ponds: 1 in Bueng Kiat Ngong wetland Marshes: 8, total area 4 ha

Major NTFPs Bamboo shoots, no waai, mushrooms, kheua haem, mak jong, mak naeng, kheua waai

Livestock Buffalo: 35 Cattle: 30 Goat: 6 Pig: 11 Chickens/ducks: 300


3

2. BCI Village Profile - Ban Kiat Ngong

Village Establishment c. 1656


Number of Households Total 168 Well-off 22 Average 140 Poor 6


Ethnicity and Religion Lao Lum, Buddhist

Health and Sanitation Village medicine kit/box: 3 Village health volunteer 2 (1 female) Village medic (male) Lavatories 60 Wells 3 Water Pump 12 Common diseases: diarrhea, malaria

Education and Social Facilities

Primary school (Grades 1-5) Teachers 5 (male) Students 137 (girls 76) Student-Teacher ratio: 27:1 Temple: 1

Agricultural Production Paddy land: 239 ha total, 170.95 ha cultivable (approx. 1.1 ha/hh) Average yield: 2.8 ton/ha Forest land: 450 ha

Water Sources Bueng Kiat Ngong wetland: 300 ha Streams 4 Huai Ban, Hai Taat, Huai Khi, Huai Sai Creeks 3 Hong Nong Lak (flows into Bueng Kiat Ngong),

Hong Kaew, Hong Khan Pa Kang Protected Pond 2 (from Si Jae Pond to Hua Dok Kadan and Don

Kuang Pak Mak Jaeng) Ponds: 1 in Bueng Kiat Ngong wetland Marshes: 4

Major NTFPs no waai, mushrooms, katae, fish, eels, khuea haem, mak jong baan, mak naeng, khuea waai

Livestock Elephant: 15 Buffalo: 437 Cattle: 347 Goat: 14 Pig: 158 Chickens/ducks: 998


4

3. BCI Village Profile - Ban Laonga


Population 687, female: 356

Number of Households 99 Well-off 10 Average 84 Poor 5 Extremely poor 0


Ethnicity Lao

Health and Sanitation Village medicine kit: 3 Village Health Volunteer 2 (1 female) Veterinary fund: 1,500,000kip, Veterinarian: 1 Lavatories: 0 Well: 0 Water pump: 3 Tap water: 0 Most common diseases: diarrhea, malaria


Primary school:1 (Grades 1-5) Teachers 2 (male) Students 86 (girls 47) Student-Teacher ratio: 43:1

Agricultural Production Paddy land: 50.46 ha total, only 40.11 cultivatable (approx. 0.4 ha/hh) Average yield: 2.7 ton /ha Dry season paddy area: 3.0ha Average yield: 2.3t /ha Forest Land: 1340 ha Gardens: 0.5 ha (mark Naeng plantation)

Water Sources Streams : 3 (Houay Loh, Houay Ban Vang Pa Khao, Vang Sae, Vang Muang, Houay To Moh) Rivers: 3 (Hong Bueng, Hong Nongbon, Hong Tham) Protected Pond: 1 (Vang Tae: 500mx200m, 2.00m deep) Ponds (Nong): 3 (Nhong, Ki and Hou)

Major NTFPs Mak jong baan, rattan, no waai, mushrooms, bamboo shoot, phak nam, wildlife, fish, frog, crabs, eels, turtle, khuea haem, mak naeng, khuea waai , orchids, mai ketsana, ya hua, yam, koy, toei.

Livestock Buffalo: 87 Cattle: 18 (including 10 head of the cattle in revolving fund project) Goat: 20 Pig: 57 Chickens/ducks: 1500


5

4. BCI Village Profile - Ban Nabon

Village establishment c. 1678

Population 489 (female 231)

Number of Households 84

Number of Families 96: Well off 8 Average 65 Poor 23

Ethnicity and Religion Lao, Buddhist

Health and Sanitation Village Clinic: none (1 is being constructed) Village medicine box: 1 (2 male Village Health Volunteers) Water well: 1 set up by the PRF Lavatories: 3 Most common disease: Malaria

Education and Culture Primary school: 1 (of 3 classes: grade 1 to 5) Teachers: 3 ( female 1) Student/teacher ratio: 28:1 Students: 85 (female 38) Temple: 1

Agriculture and Rice Production

Paddy Land: 68.9 ha, (approx. 0.8 ha/hh) Rice Productivity: 2.8 t /ha

Water Sources Streams: 4 (Houay To Moh, Houay Thong Pha, Houay Somsouk, Houay Laogna) Protected Pond: 1 Ponds/Nong: 7 Marsh: 1

Major NTFPs Cardamom, mak jong, rattan, bamboo shoot, no wai, mushroom, wild edible leaves, wild boar, jungle fowl, ka hok, ka tae, fish, crab, frog, shell, kheua haem, bong bark, wild fruits, wild yam, koy.

Livestock Buffalo: 54 Cattle: 115 Goat: 20 Pig: 150 Chicken/duck: 440


6

5. BCI Village Profile - Ban Nakok

Village Establishment 1854





Health and Sanitation Village medicine kit/box : 1 Village health volunteer : 1 (male) Village medics: 2 (1 female) Village Medicine Station Veterinary fund: 1,800,000 kip Veterinarian: 1 (male) Wells 3 Water Pump 8 Lavatories 20 Common diseases: diarrhea, malaria, Normal flu


Primary school (Grades 1-4) Teachers 2 (0 female) Students 67 (girls 32) Student-Teacher ratio: 33.5:1

Agricultural Production Paddy land: 94.8 ha total, 81.25 ha cultivable (approx. 0.7 ha/hh) Average yield: 2.5 ton/ha Forest land: 153.7 ha

Water Sources Bueng Thong Nam Miat wetland: 1 ha Streams Huai Hin Siu Creeks Hong Nong Sao Fan Marshes: 14

Major NTFPs wild foul, bang,wild boar, fish, khuea haem, mak jong baan, mak naeng, khuea waai , honey



7

6. BCI Village Profile - Ban Sanot





Ethnicity and Religion Lao Lum, Buddhist

Health and Sanitation Village health clinic : 1 Village medics: 2 (1 female) Village health volunteer : 2 (female 1) Village Medicine Station 1 Veterinary fund: 2,700,000 kip Veterinarian: 2 (male) Lavatories: 21 Wells 26 Water pump 4 Lavatories 21 Common diseases: diarrhea, malaria, lung


Primary school (Grades 1-5) Teachers 5 (4 female) Students 114 (girls 50) Student-Teacher ratio: 23:1 Middle School (Grades 1-3) Teachers 5 (3 female) Students 140 (girls 64) Student-Teacher ratio: 28:1

Agricultural Production Paddy land: 94.8 ha total, 81.25 ha cultivable (approx. 0.7 ha/hh) Average yield: 2.5 ton/ha Forest Land: 1444 ha Gardens: 13.5 ha (0.5 ha fruit tree, 13 ha teak plantation)

Water Sources Wetland: 100 ha (Bueng Thong Nam Miat 1 ha) Streams Huai Hin Siu Creeks Hong Nong Sao Fan Ponds: 21 (13 natural +8 artificial) Marshes: 14

Major NTFPs wild foul, bang,wild boar, fish, khuea haem, mak jong baan, mak naeng, khuea waai , honey



8

7. BCI Village Profile - Ban Somsouk





Ethnicity and Religion Lao, Youane, Brao

Health and Sanitation Village medicine kit/box: 1 Village health volunteer: 2 Village medics 2 (men 2) Veterinary fund: 2,200,000 kip Veterinarian 2 (1 male, 1 female) Lavatories: 2 Wells 12 Water pump 1 Common diseases: malaria


Primary school (Grades 1-5) Teachers 2 (female 1) Students 62 (girls 11) Student-Teacher ratio: 31:1

Agricultural Production Paddy land: 57.98 ha total (approx. 0.9 ha/hh) Average yield: 2.5 tn/ha Upland fields: 6 ha Forest land: 2092.64 ha Gardens: 69.72 (coffee plantation)

Water Sources Wetland Area 1 Streams Huai Phe Si, Huai Mak Nao, Haui Theda Protected Pond 1 Ponds: 1 in Bueng Kiat Ngong wetland Marshes: 4

Major NTFPs mak jong baan, honey, mak naeng, khuea haem



9

8. BCI Village Profile - Ban Thahou





Ethnicity and Religion Lao Loum, Buddhist

Health and Sanitation Village medicine kit/box: 2 Village health volunteer: 2 Village medic 2 (1 female) Veterinary fund: 300,000 kip Veterinarian 1 (male) Wells 12 Water pump: 28 Water pumps 14 Lavatories 53 Common diseases: Malaria


Primary school (Grades 1-3) Teachers 1 (female) Students 47 (girls 27) Student-Teacher ratio: 47:1

Agricultural Production Paddy land: 73.7 ha total (approx. 0.9 ha/hh) Average yield: 2.1 ton/ha Upland fields: 6 ha Forest land: 1532.5 ha) Gardens: 45 ha (teak plantation)

Water Sources Wetland : 4 ha Bueng Nong Sanh, Bueng Nong Janh wetlands Streams Huai Tha Hu (perennial) Protected pond: 1 (Vang Huad) Ponds: 18 (2 natural + 16 artificial) Marshes: 7

Major NTFPs no waai, mushrooms, fish, eels, khuea haem, mak jong baan, mak naeng, khuea waai

Livestock Buffalo: 58 Cattle: 98 Goat: 16 Pig: 54 Chickens/ducks: 2,225


10

9. BCI Village Profile - Ban Thongpha





Ethnicity and Religion Lao Lum

Health and Sanitation Village medicine kit/box: 2 Health Volunteer 2: (1 female) Village medics 1 (male) Veterinary fund: 200,000 kip Veterinarian 2 (female) Lavatories: 43 Wells 3 Water Pump: 8 Common diseases: diarrhea, malaria


Primary school (Grades 1-4) Teachers 3 (female 1) Students 97 (girls 48) Student-Teacher ratio: 32:1

Agricultural Production Paddy land: 69.15 ha total (approx. 0.7 ha/hh) Average yield: 2.5 - 3 ton/ha Forest land: 1559 ha Gardens: 3.48 ha(3ha teak plantation)

Water Sources Wetland Area 1 Streams 2 Huai Luang, Huai To Mo Protected Ponds: 1 in Bueng Kiat Ngong wetland Ponds: 14 (4 natural + 10 artificial) Marshes: 3

Major NTFPs fish, eels, mak jong baan, mak naeng, khuea haem

Livestock Buffalo: 117 Cattle: 112 Pig: 67 Chickens/ducks: 585


11

10. BCI Village Profile - Ban Thopsok


Population 557 (female 266)


Very poor



Health and Sanitation Village medicinal kit : 2 Village health volunteer: 2 (female 1) Village medic (1 male) Veterinary fund: 300,000 kip Veterinarian 2 (male) Lavatories 16 Wells 10 Water pump 10 Common diseases: stomach pain


Primary School: 1 (Grades 1-5) Teachers: 2 (1 female) Students: 74 (girls 46) Student-Teacher ratio: 34:1

Agricultural Production Paddy land: 74.78 ha total, (approx. 0.9 ha/hh) Average yield: 2.8 ton/ha Forest land: 925 ha Gradens: 21 ha (Teak plantation)

Water Sources and Wetlands Protected fish ponds: 2 (Vang Xang, Vang Khouay) Man-made fish ponds: 5 Natural ponds: 14 Marshes: 2 (Thang Kae Khong, Nam Miat)

Major NTFPs no waai, mushrooms, bamboo shoot, katae, fish, eels, khuea haem, mak jong baan, mak naeng, khuea waai, wild yam, jungle fowl, wild boar, fish, frog, eels.

Livestock Elephant: 1 Buffalo: 96 Cattle: 98 Goat: 86 Pig: 47 Chicken/duck: 602


12

11. BCI Village Profile - Ban Namom



Number of Households Total : 153 Well-off 16 Average 57 Poor 58 Extremely Poor 22


Health and Sanitation Village medicine Kit/Box 2 Village Health Volunteer 2 (2 female) Village medicine station: 0 Veterinary fund: do not know amount Veterinarian (male 1, female 0) Lavatories 16 Water pump 6 Common diseases: Malaria, Diarrhea, stomach ache

Education and Social Facilities Primary school (Grades 1 to 5 ) Teachers (male 5 , female 1) Students 95 (girls 56)

Agricultural Production Paddy land: 99.45 ha total Average yield: 2.5 ton/ha

Water Sources Wetland: 20 ha Stream: 3

Major NTFPs Mark Jong (Scaphium macropodum Beaum. (malva nuts); Mark naeng (Amomum sp) (Cardamom); Khuea haem (Coscitum usitatum (Medicine/Cosmetic)); Honey



13

Appendix 2: Household Interview Questionnaire for BCI villages

NAME OF VILLAGE: NAME OF HOUSEHOLD:

NAME OF ENUMERATOR:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATA ENTERED BY:

INTRODUCTION (BY ENUMERATOR):

My name is […………]. We are conducting a survey on behalf of the BCI Project. We want to know if the Project has provided any support to this village and your household.

We will be asking what the Project has provided to the village and how it has been provided. We want to know how has the BCI Project benefited you and your household? The objective is to improve future projects and learn from implementation of the BCI Project in your village.

We thank you for your generous support and time.

Notes to enumerators: Explain to the respondent that: No = (no change at all) A little =(about 25% change or impact) Medium =(50% change or impact) A lot =(over 90% change or impact) NA = ―not applicable‖ DRK = ―don‘t know‖, ―refuses to answer‖, or any other reason for a non-response

A. GENERAL

1. Socio-economic category of household 0 = Well Off 1 = Middle 2 = Poor 3 = Extremely Poor

2. Gender of the Respondent 0 = male 1 = Female

3. Age of respondent ___________yrs

4. Is head of household male or female? 0 = male 1 = Female

5. Ethnic Group 0 = Lao Lum 1 = Brao 2 = Youane 3 = Other (Specify): ___________

6. Number of Family members living in household presently

No. of males: ____________ No. of females:_____________

7. Highest education of HH: 0=Illiterate; 1= Literature no formal school; 2= Primary school; 3= Secondary school; 4=Vocational; 5= College or above

8. Do you have enough food to feed your family all year? If no, how many months are you short of food?

0 =No, _______months in a year.

1 =Yes, (Go to Question 12)


14

9. Do you have to work for others to earn food/grain?

0 =No 1 =Yes

10. Do you have to borrow food/grain from others? And how much do you borrow from others in a year?

0 =No 1 =Yes, _________kg

11. Do you have to borrow money to buy food and how much in a year?

0 =No 1 =Yes, __________Kip

12. Do you have to borrow money for other purpose (e.g. medicine) and how much in a year?

0 =No 1 =Yes, __________Kip

13. Does any of your family members work for others to earn money? And how many days in total your family members work for others? ______days/yr

0 =No 1 =Yes

14. What are the major cash income sources, and how much per source? For example – food crops is rice); cash crops – coffee, rubber; Livestock – chicken, ducks, buffalo; Non timber forest products - mushrooms, rattan, herbs, fruits, berries; forest product – timber; Selling labor means working for others for cash;

0 = food crops ________________Kip 1 = cash crops _________________Kip 2 = Livestock _________________Kip 3 = Fishing _________________Kip 4 = Non timber forest products ________Kip 5 = Timber forest product ___________Kip 6 = Handicraft _________________Kip 7 = Trading _________________Kip 8 = Selling labor ________________Kip 9= Wildlife hunting & trade __________Kip 10= Salaries 11 = Others (Specify): ____________Kip

15. Family annual expenditure (last year), by items and how much?

0 = food _____________________Kip 1 = clothing ___________________Kip 2 = Medicine __________________Kip 3 = Travel ____________________Kip 4 = Production ________________Kip 5 = Social / Traditional __________Kip 6 = Taxes ____________________Kip 7 = School expenditure _________Kip 8 = Others (Specify): ______________Kip

16. Has your village and family got support from any development projects? If your family are not get support from BCI, Go to Question Part B

0 = None 1 = BCI 2 = GAPE 3 = Poverty Reduction Fund (Govt) 4 = SUFORD 5 = Others (Specify): ___________

17. If yes, have these BCI activities improved your lives?

No 0

A little 1

Medium 2

A lot 3

NA 4

DKR 5

18. Which BCI activities has your family participated in and do you think they are useful for you and your household?

No 0

A little 1

Medium 2

A lot 3

NA 4

DKR 5

0 = Agriculture (food/cash crop) production

1 = NTFP collection / processing

2 = Livestock raising

3 = Conservation (e.g. patrolling, elephant health training etc.)

4 = Health (e.g. village medicine box, midwifes etc.)

5 = Land use related (e.g. demarcation, Land certificate)

6 = Forestry (Nursery and planting)

7 = Village Development Fund

8 = Others (Specify): ___________


15

19. Has the BCI project provided direct income / cash benefits opportunities?

No 0

A little 1

Medium 2

A lot 3

NA 4

DKR 5

20. Has the project provided information about importance of protecting forest?

21. Has the project improved participation in decision-making about livelihood activities?

22. In general, are you satisfied with BCI Project?

B. SOCIAL ASSETS

1. Have your skills in livelihood activities been improved in recent 2-3 years?

No 0

A little 1

Medium 2

A lot 3

NA 4

DKR 5

2. Has your household motivated to carry out more income generation activities to increase the income source?

3. Has women participation led to their importance in decision-making in your village and family?

4. Has your village had a strong leadership in the village head and village organization?

5. Is protecting the forest ecosystem important for you and your family?

6. Are you willing to take actions (i.e. stop/reduce cutting and burning, follow restrictions on NTFP collection) for protecting forest ecosystem around your village?

7. In general, are you happy about your life during recent 2-3years?

8. Do you in general trust people in the village?

9. Can you get help from other people in the village if you are in need, for example, if you need extra money because someone in your family is sick?

10. Has your household participated in any training provided by BCI?

0 =No (Go to C)

1 =Yes

11. Has your household participated in any training provided by other projects?

0 = None 1 = SUFORD 2 = GAPE 3 = Poverty Reduction Fund (Govt) 4 = Others (Specify): ___________

12. If yes, what kind of BCI training have you participated in?

0 = food /cash crop production 1 = NTFP collection / processing 2 = Livestock raising 3 = Conservation (e.g. patrolling, elephant health training etc.) 4 = Health (e.g. village medicine box, midwifes etc.) 5 = Land use related (e.g. demarcation, Land certificate) 6 = Forestry (Nursery and planting) 7 = Market Information (e.g. visit market) 8 = Others (Specify): ___________


16

13. Has this training improved your lives by providing: Answer following questions

No 0

A little 1

Medium 2

A lot 3

NA 4

DKR 5

a) skills for income generation

b) participation in decision-making

c) better market information

d) awareness about protecting forest for your children and their future

e) skills to secure forest protection

f) skills to deal with health problems

g) awareness to secure land tenure / land title

14. Has the BCI Project provided opportunity for women in your household to participate actively in project activities?

15. Has women participation in BCI Project improves their importance in decision-making?

16. Has your household participated in decision-making in BCI activities?

C. NATURAL ASSET ASSESSMENT

1. Has your household got land for cultivation? 0 =No 1 =Yes

2. How much land do you have for cultivation, homestead, and forest use?

_______________ha cultivation _______________M

2 homestead

_______________ha forest

3. Did household expanded land this year: Area of expanded _________ha

0 =No 1 =Yes

- Purposed of expanding land: 0= Rice planting; 1= Cropping; 2= plantation; 3=Pasture; 4=Non-Agriculture use; 5= others ________

4. Land types was expanded:

0= Natural forest ________ha 1= Secondary forest ______ha 2= Grass land _______ha 3= Bare land________ha 4= Wetland ________ha 5=Other (specify……….) _____ha 6= Don‘t know ________ha

5. Do you have land certificate (title)? 0 =No 1 =Yes, Go to question 7

6. If not, do you want to get certificate (title) for your land? 0 =No 1 =Yes

7. Are you willing to pay tax to secure your land certificate (title)?

0 =No 1 =Yes

8. Has your family accessed to clean water for daily use? 0 =No 1 =Yes

9. Does your family own any livestock? Buffalo_______________ Cow________________ Pig __________________ Goat _________________ Chicken/duck___________ Fishery________________ Elephant_______________


17

10. Has your family collected NTFPs for own consumption? Please list the major types of these NTFPs: _______________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

No 0

A little 1

Medium 2

A lot 3

NA 4

DKR 5

11. Has your family collected NTFPs for selling? Please list the major types of these NTFPs: _______________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________

12. Has your family got sufficient fuel for daily use (i.e. cooking)? What are the major types of fuel: Fuel Wood __________M

3/yr

Charcoal ___________ Kg/yr Others (Specify): _________(Unit)

13. Has the BCI Project helped in getting Land Use Certificates?

0= No 1= Yes

14. Has the BCI Project helped in processing and marketing of non-timber forest products (NTFP)?

15. Has collection of NTFP in your village been restricted by the BCI Project?

16. Has the BCI Project provided agro-forestry inputs (fruit trees etc)?

17. Has the BCI Project provided any food crop production inputs to improve food security?

18. Has BCI Project provided any inputs to improve soil fertility and reduce soil erosion?

D. PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS

1. Has your family had sufficient housing to accommodate all the family members? Size of the house _____m

2

0= No; 1=Yes Material

of the house:

Roof:_____________ Wall:______________ Floor:______________ Pole:_______________

2. Has your family accessed to sanitation (i.e. toilet) for daily life?

No 0

A little 1

Medium 2

A lot 3

NA 4

DKR 5

3. Has your village and family accessed to the road, markets, and other services and facilities? And how many minutes walk away to the main road from your village _____mins

4. Has the road / transportation improved in your village in recent 2-3 years?

5. Has the education condition and facilities been improved in recent 2-3 years?

6. Has the health/medical care condition and facilities been improved in recent 2-3 years?


18

7. Does your family or any of the members own or access to the following facilities/assets?

0= No 1=Yes

a) Electricity 0 =No 1 =Yes

b) Telephone/hand phone 0 =No 1 =Yes

c) Small tractor or car 0 =No 1 =Yes

d) Rice mill 0 =No 1 =Yes

e) Fishing boat/ boat engine 0 =No 1 =Yes

f) Chainsaw 0 =No 1 =Yes

g) Bicycle or motorcycle 0 =No 1 =Yes

h) Radio or television 0 =No 1 =Yes

i) Refrigerator 0 =No 1 =Yes

j) Others (Specify): _______________ 0 =No 1 =Yes

8. Has your village received infrastructure support from BCI? 0= No (Go to E)

1=Yes

9. What kind of infrastructure support has your village received from BCI project?

0 = Water well 1 = Bridge / culvert 2 = Road improvement 3 = School facility 4= toilet 5 = Village Meeting Hall 6 = Other, (specify) -------------------------------------

No 0

A little 1

Medium 2

A lot 3

NA 4

DKR 5

10. Has your household benefited from this infrastructure support?

11. Has this infrastructure support improved access (all weather) to services / market?

12. Has this infrastructure support saved your time in traveling to get access to services / market?

13. Has this infrastructure support motivated you to undertake cash / income generating activities?

14. Has this infrastructure support improved access to clean water?

15. Has this infrastructure support improved school/education facilities?

E. FINANCIAL ASSETS

1. Does your family have sufficient income to maintain the basic livelihood needs during a year? If not, how much are you short in cash ___________Kip

0 =No

1 =Yes, (Go to Question 3)

2. How does your family cope with the insufficient income for livelihoods?

0 = Subsidy from the government _________KIP 1 = Borrow money from others ___________Kip 2 = Sell labors ____________Kip 3 = Others (Specify): __________________Kip

3. Does your family have some savings from previous/last year income? If yes, how much cash __________Kip

0 =No

1 =Yes


19

4. Does your family have sufficient fund to invest in livelihood activities and how much is the input for each activities? 0 = Food crops / rice Cultivation ________Kip 1 = Fruit trees and cash crops ________Kip 2 = Livelihood plantations ___________Kip 3 = Livestock Chicken/Pig raising ___________Kip 4 = Fish raising _____________________Kip 5 = NTFP collection __________________Kip 6 = Small business __________________Kip 7 = Others (Specify): ____________________Kip

0 =No

1 =Yes

5. Has your household received cash support from Village Development Fund (VDP)? If yes, which source of VDP is it? 0 = BCI 1 = SUFORD 2 = Other; Please specify _____________________

0 =No

1 =Yes

6. Has your household received cash support from BCI Village Development Fund (VDP)?

0 =No, (Go to Question 9)

1 =Yes

7. If yes, What activity has your household utilized the fund for?

0 = Food crops / rice Cultivation 1 = Fruit trees and cash crops 2 = Livelihood plantation 3 = Livestock Chicken/Pig raising 4 = Fish raising 5 = NTFP collection 6 = Health /medical expenses 7 = Others (Specify): ___________

8. Has your household benefited from this cash support?

No 0

A little 1

Medium 2

A lot 3

NA 4

DKR 5

9. If not, are you willing to apply for cash from VDP from BCI source to undertake activities?

0 =No

1 =Yes

10. Have you received any other direct cash income from the BCI project?

0 =No

1 =Yes

11. If yes, for which activity? 0 = nursery 1 = forest clearing for restoration 2 = tree planting 3 = patrolling / check-post duty 4 = counting of trees / animals (biodiversity monitoring) 5 = Other; Please specify -------------------------------------

12. How much have you received and what have you used the direct cash income for?

____________________________Kip 0 = food 1 = clothing ___________________Kip 2 = Medicine __________________Kip 3 = Travel ____________________Kip 4 = Production ________________Kip 5 = Social / Traditional __________Kip 6 = Taxes ____________________Kip 7 = School expenditure _________Kip 8 = Others (Specify): ___________Kip


20

Appendix 3: Restoration models for forest restoration in BCI pilot site

Existing Forest Condition Recommended Intervention Model

I Degraded Primary Forests (crown density >20%)

A Regeneration Forest Zone

a) Stand volume of trees with 20 cm. dbh between 50-70 m3/ha, 150-200 trees with > 15 cm. dbh, 600-1000 saplings/ha, 40-50% marketable species and < 10% grass coverage (high density regeneration forests)

Model No.1: Weeding/thining around marketable regenerating species, effective protection and management.

b) Stand volume of trees with 20 cm. dbh between 30-50 m3/ha, 100-150 trees with > 15 cm. dbh, 400-600 saplings/ha, 30-40% marketable species and < 10% grass coverage (Low density reg. forests )

Model No.2: ANR with liberation thinning and enrichment/gap planting (280 trees/ha), effective protection and management.

B Degraded Forest Zone

Stand volume of trees <30 m3/ha, less than 100 trees with > 15 cm. dbh, less than 400 saplings/ha, less than 30% marketable species and >10% grass coverage

Model No.3: Intensive enrichment planting (line planting if surrounding trees ≤ 10 m and gap planting if taller than 10 m.) (400 trees/ha), protection and management.

II Un-stocked Forests (Crown density <20%)

A Areas with crown density between 10-20%, presence of seed trees (30-50 trees/ha), poor natural regeneration, reasonably good soil condition, weed/grass/bamboo growth up to 30%, fire prone areas

Model No.4: Line planting of indigenous species (400-600 trees/ha), fire protection measures, intercropping of NTFPs like rattan, cardamom, agar etc.

B Areas with crown density<10% and devoid of seed trees, weed/grass/bamboo growth >30%, poor soil, practically no regeneration of native species, heavy biotic pressure, fire prone areas

Model No.5: Intensive mixed plantation of native and indigenous species like agar (1111 plants/ha), intercropping of NTFPs, protection measures.

III Secondary Forests Areas (fallow lands)

Areas with <10% of original forest cover, less than 100 trees with >15cm. dbh but good stand structure of mixed, light demanding young age group crop, marketable species <20% and grass/weed coverage<10%

Model No.6: Gap creation through thinning of undesirable species and other silvicultural interventions, enrichment line planting (400-600 trees/ha), removal of invasive species, effective protection and management.

IV Agriculture/ Farm lands and shifting cultivation areas

Model No.7: Agro-Forestry of fast growing and multiple use species including fruit trees and domestication of NTFPs.


21

Appendix 4: Summary of restoration demonstration plots

No. Owner of

piloting plot No. of

participants Area (ha)

Species No. of

seedling Model applied

Ban Thongpha

1 Thongpha Village 51 (Female 18) 1.00 Pterocapus Macrocapus 78 Model No. 3: Intensive enrichment planting (Degraded forest zone)

Afxylia Xylocapa 24

Xylia Xylocapa 213

Anisoptera robusta 50

Dalgergia Citratra 14

Largerstomia Robusta 30

2 Somneuak 5 (Female 2) 0.51 Aquillaria Crassna 270 Model No.7: Agroforestry Litchi Chinenses 30

Tamarind 30

Mango 20

Rambutan 20

3 Vanh 5 (Female 3) 0.63 Aquillaria Crassna 400 Model No.7: Agroforestry Litchi Chinenses 30

Tamarind 40

Mango 30

4 Khounthonh 4 (Female 2) 0.6 Aquillaria Crassna 300 Model No.7: Agroforestry Litchi Chinenses 40

Rambutan 40

Mango 30

5 Bounae 3 0.2 Pterocapus Macrocapus 56 Model No. 6: Enrichment planting (Fellow land)

Afxylia Xylocapa 8

Xylia Xylocapa 3

Dalgergian Ciltratra 23

6 Phonh 2 (Female 1) 0.2 Pterocapus Macrocapus 90 Model No. 6: Enrichment planting (Fellow land)

Afxylia Xylocapa 8

Xylia Xylocapa 4


Sub total 1.14 1,900

Ban Hauyko

7 Khampheune 2

0.44 Aquillaria Crassna 230 Model No.7: Agroforestry

Rambutan 30

Mango 30

Longan 40

Cashew nut 150

Aquillaria Crassna 80

Rambutan 30

Mango 30

Longan 30

Mixed:Rice30kg+Corn

8 Nouphanh 3 (Female 1) 0.64 Cashew nut 100

Aquillaria Crassna 280 Model No.7: Agroforestry

Jack fruit 25

Mango 55

Mixed: Rice

9 Bounlenng 2 0.94 Aquillaria Crassna 530 Model No.7: Agroforestry Longan 110

Litchi Chinenses 20


22

No. Owner of



Species No. of


Jack fruit 25

Mango 55

Rambutan 30

Corn 9 kg


Ban Nakok

10 Shay 4 (Female 2) 0.34

Cashew nut 70 Model No.7: Agroforestry


Longan 5

Mango 10

Orange 5

11 Khongchai 2 (Female 1) 0.13

Aquillaria Crassna 45 Model No.7: Agroforestry

Mango 5

Tarmarind 30

Orange 7

Cashew nut 25

12 Somboun 5 (Female 2) 0.23


Pterocapus Macrocapus 30


Orange 10

Mango 10

Rambutan 8

Mixed:Rice12kg+Corn4kg

13 Thongsa 2 (Female 1) 0.12




Rambutan 2

Orange 5

Longan 2

Termarind 3

Tongsa 0.06

Cashew nut 20 Model No. 5: mixed plantation


Mango 5

13 Khamphay 4 (Female1) 0.43



Rambutan 14

Mango 10

Longan 3

Litchi Chinenses 3

Orange 8

Pineapple 100

14 Term 3 0.3



Rambutan 11


23

No. Owner of



Species No. of


Litchi Chinenses 7

Mango 5

Orange 5

15 Pheuw 2 (Female 1) 0.29




Afxylia Xylocapa 10


Longan 7

Orange 5

Rambutan 2

Tamarind 5

Litchi Chinenses 10

Mango 10

8 Thong 2 (Female 1) 0.25




Longan 3

Litchi Chinenses 10

Orange 5

Tamarind 12

Rambutan 3

Mango 5

9 Village School Cashew nut 62


Total 101（36） 7.71 5,585


24

Appendix 5: List of implementing partners interviewed during impact assessment

1. Mr. Khamphoun, Head, Poverty Reduction Fund Office, Pathoumphone District

2. Mr. Onsa, Head, District Land Management Authority, Pathoumphone

3. Mr. Khamkhpne, Deputy Head, District Land Management Authority, Pathoumphone

4. Mr. Sivone, Deputy Head, District Health Office, Pathoumphone

5. Ms. Mala Chanthalam, Deputy Director Provincial Tourism Department, Champasak

6. Mr. Khamphay, Deputy Head, Forestry Division, Provincial Agriculture and Forestry

Department (PAFO), Champasak

7. Mr. Pesounsay, Director, Forestry Division, District Agriculture and Forestry Department

(DAFO), Pathoumphone

8. Mr. Vesay, Deputy Director, Forestry Division of Pathoumphone, District Agriculture and

Forestry Department (DAFO)

9. Mr. Orahan, Deputy Director, District Education Office, Pathoumphone

10. Mr. Boun Home, Deputy Head, District Education Office, Pathoumphone

11. Mr. Somphone, Head, Technical Unit, District Education Office, Pathoumphone

12. Mr. Boun Phengmany, Deputy Governor, Pathoumphone District

13. Mr. Souvath, Sanod Cluster Leader, Pathoumphone District

14. Ms. and Mr. Duangchay, Clinic doctors, Sanot village

15. Mr. Sodxay Chaleurnsouk, Director BCI Project, PAFO

16. Mr. Somphone Bouasavanh, BCI Regional Coordinator, WWF

17. Mr. Kaysone, Livelihood Specialist, WWF Xe Pian BCI project office

18. Ms. Apasith Vayakone, Accountant, WWF Xe Pian BCI project office

19. Ms. Lamphet Vongvichit, Forestry officer, WWF, Xe Pian BCI office

20. Mr. Leigh Vickery, Xe Pian- Donghuasaho BCI Project Manager, WWF

21. Mr. Anouxay, Land use planning specialist, WWF Vientiane office


25

Appendix 6: Overview of institutional stakeholder feedback on BCI impacts

Stakeholder Institution

Positive Impact of BCI Challenges & Issues requiring attention

District Governor’s Office (DGO)

BCI brought a new solution to manage forest protection

Many good results have been achieved so far Villagers‘ active participation in livelihood

improvement and forest protection VDFs functioned and enhanced the villagers‘ financial

management skill Various training course have increased the awareness

and capacity of the villagers and officials

BCI is still considered a baby and needs support

Difficult access by road Land use planning and

boundaries are still not clearly defined

Technology transfer among villagers should be strengthened

Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office (PAFO)

Feel strong ownership of the project Farmers follow the NTFP regulation Very good cooperation amongst team members in the

BCI project Go to the villages, identify mutual needs with them

and learn together

VDF transfer delayed Land use planning and

land use certificates have been slow

District Agriculture and Forestry Office (DAFO)

Villagers‘ awareness of forest protection has been improved

VDFs, which have been well received by villagers, show a good example and roadmap for poverty alleviation.

Around 30% of DAFO staff have been trained/involved in BCI

BCI contributed to 30-40% of the annual operational activities on agriculture and forestry related livelihood activities conducted by DAFO

Limited budget vs. large poverty reduction needs

Lack of opportunity to share experience and lessons learnt with other districts

Planning experts should be employed to help village level systematic planning

Land Management Authority (LMA)

A pilot 3D land use planning and mapping exercise have been carried out in Houayko

Some special policies in BCi villages such as three year temporary land use certificate are under test

Demonstration in Houayko village generated experiences in village land use planning and certificate releasing for adaptation in remote villages

BC has been incorporated in our district land use plan map

Lack of technical expertise

Limited budget

District Education Office (DEO)

BCI activities are in line with the district education plan Feel strong sense of ownership through participatory

and transparent plan process Books and materials on environment are provided Teachers received trainings on interactive

participatory education methods ―Green club‖ was introduced through project office

Only 17 schools out of 87 villages of the districts received support

Knowledge and skill should be transferred to other schools

District Heath Office (DHO)

Health volunteer and management committee are very useful and effective

Grateful for the results and satisfied with the process and outcomes of BCI

Clinic supported by BCI in Snote village will improve health service in the 5 villages around

Health activities achieved is very important to poverty reduction

Need to build another two clinics

Awareness of hygiene and cleanliness among villagers

More health care trainings

Sanot Cluster head

BCI brings many benefits to the villagers Each village specializes and performs well in different

Village leadership is important to VDF


26

Stakeholder Institution

Positive Impact of BCI Challenges & Issues requiring attention

activities Villagers with high sense of ownership are very

satisfied with BCI Villagers are willing and confident to continue current

activities

management Each village receives

self-governance and regulation of land use

Road improvement and better access of health care

Provincial Tourism Department

Good experience to cooperate with BCI which supported ecotourism activities in one village

Benefits sharing scheme motivated all stakeholders Provided employment opportunities Increased the villagers‘ awareness about and actions

on forest protection

Concessions, illegal logging and wildlife trade remain the biggest challenges

Limited budget Village tourist guide

capacity building Ecotourism planning

capacity building

District Poverty Reduction Fund Office

Very appreciate the approaches of poverty reduction BCI employed

Enhanced and Improved the relationship between villagers and local officials

Project activities were proposed based on villagers needs

Villagers have been motivated People in the BCI villages have better understanding

of protecting forest Some new skills and arrangements were provided Training with follow-up supports are helpful

Intensify the supports to poverty reduction by HH and by village to make sure poverty reduction achievements

Other villages within corridor should also be targeted because they have no big differences in economic conditions

Village Doctors in Sanot Clinic (together with a group of women)

Grateful for village clinic construction, which will improve the health service facilities very much

Sanot clinic helps villagers of villages around increase access to health service and save travel time and costs

Villagers are very happy to know the clinic construction

The clinic also provides family planning service in terms of medicine and injection

Those who came for family planning services are mainly women right now.

Medical and transport cost require cash, thus some villagers do not visit doctors until they are getting very serious.

Transport availability is another issue affect villagers‘ visit to clinic

WWF staff Land use planning in Houayko helps villagers and local officials think about village development in a longer period such as 5 year, 10 year or even 20 year

Some issues come up when this longer perspective are taken into consideration, such as population pressure

BCI provided on job learning opportunities Visiting villages is a happy experience allowing us

feeling helpful and welcomed Addressed marketing aspects of livelihood

intervention in addition to technology introducing The project established good relationship with

villagers

Funds delay Land use planning

should be strengthened Conservation aspects

need more facilitation from implementers

impact assessment of livelihood interventions in bci pilot site

Documents