Introduction
Research context and site description
Research context
Site description
Villages | Ethnic group | Population | Livelihood | Altitude (m) | Direct distance to protected areas (km) | Direct distance to district markets (in km) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Phadeng-(Phoukong) | Hmong | 285 (235) | Farming based on upland rice, NTFP collection, gardens, livestock | 960 | 2 | 15 |
Muangmuay | Khmu and Tai-Lao | 972 | Farming based on upland rice, irrigated rice field, NTFP collection, gardens, cash crop plantations, livestock | 490 | 7 | 28 |
Bouammi- Vangmat | Khmu and Tai-Lao | 354 | Farming based on upland rice, NTFP collection, gardens, cash crop plantation, livestock | 510 | 3 | 26 |
Donkeo | Khmu | 378 | Farming based on upland rice, NTFP collection, gardens, plantation, livestock | 820 | 6 | 24 |
Vangkham | Khmu | 263 | Farming based on upland rice, NTFP collection, gardens, plantation, livestock | 470 | 9 | 30 |
Houaykhone | Khmu | 338 | Farming based on upland rice, NTFP collection, gardens, livestock | 530 | 5 | 30 |
Paklao | Khmu | 414 | Farming based on upland rice, NTFP collection, gardens, plantation, livestock | 530 | 4 | 24 |
Village cluster
Their focus is on agricultural extension, LUP, reporting to the district, and implementing and monitoring land management (Foppes 2008; Prime Minister 2008). A key institution within the kumban, TSC is in charge of the agricultural and forestry extension and management. Its roles are:A formal administrative grouping of villages within a district defined for the purpose of extending government policies and development programmes (MAF and NLMA 2010)
We used the kumban as a knowledge platform. Because the TSC acts as a disseminator for the district, the kumban is an ideal space to promote stakeholder participation in monitoring.To extend and transfer production techniques, lead farmers to produce and provide information (MAF 2008)
Methods
Community meetings
Participatory mapping
Scoring exercises
Focus group discussions
Village level interviews and household surveys
Results: Participatory monitoring in the making
Development of the multi-stakeholders’ monitoring system
Selection of key resources
Criteria | Justification |
---|---|
Distance | Resources located too far from the settlement would be too time-consuming for volunteers to monitor. We emphasize resources close to the village |
Availability | If a resource is rare, it would be more difficult to monitor. We selected resources available in the territory |
Accessibility | Easy access and topography should support the selection of the resource |
Easy identification | This is an universal criteria for the selection of biodiversity indicators (Widmann et al. 2003) |
Biodiversity value | Criteria assessed by the team (rare, endangered, protected species) because not always considered by villagers |
Market demand and price | The economical value of a resource is a key factor for villagers’ motivation in monitoring |
Gender | We favoured as much as possible resources that involved both men and women in its collection |
Multi functionality | We gave a preference to species important for more than one use |
Nb of selection | Species that were considered important by a large number of people |
Ntfps | Villages | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Muang Mouay | Bouammi | Vang Mat | Houy Khone | Vang Kham | Donkeo | Paklao | |
Peuak Meuak
Boehmeria malabarica
| X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Broom grass
Kem
Thysanolaema maxima
| X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Fish
Paa
| X | X | X | X | X | ||
Cardamom
Mak Naeng
Amomum sp. | X | X | X | ||||
Bamboo shoot
No Hok
Dendrocalamus sp. | X | X | |||||
Galangal
Kha
Alpinia galanga
| X | ||||||
Paper mulberry
Po Saa
Broussonetia papyrifera
| X | ||||||
Sam Muang
Flemingia latifolia
| X | ||||||
Bitter bamboo shoot
No Khum
| X |
Resource monitoring and management at the village level
Local understanding of the monitoring system and its effect on natural resource management
Local people’s perceptions of the monitoring system
Contribution of local knowledge to the NTFP monitoring system
Linking resource monitoring to multilevel governance
Implementation tools for NTFP monitoring
-
Data collection and training: one of the recognised functions of the kumban, through its TSC, is to provide further forestry and agricultural techniques to improve local livelihoods. Its interest in collecting data related to key NTFPs harvested in the wild or domesticated makes it a key institution for regularly checking the logbooks with villagers, and collecting aggregated data.
-
Data management and storage: villagers and district officers identified storage and utilization of information as an important issue. So far, there is no appropriate archiving of the data collected from villages, resulting in the loss of the villages’ data for LUP. The kumban, an institution closer to the village level in which village representatives play a vital role, could be used for archiving information reported by villagers and facilitate data sharing with other users (e.g. development agencies at the district level).
-
Reporting: the kumban has to report to the district authority. This represents a natural step in the sequence of aggregation, recommendations and reporting of the monitoring system. The villagers should receive feedback and a report on decisions made, based on their reports.
Looking for sustainability: integrating resource monitoring into the “Participatory Land Use Planning” national process
Land use zone | Purpose | Type of monitoring | Local participation |
---|---|---|---|
Village residential area | Housing, temple, school, health centre, shops etc. | Livelihood (all the livelihood indicators) monitoring | Yes |
Conservation forest | Fauna and flora conservation, non prohibited NTFP collection | NTFP monitoring | Yes |
Forest surface estimated with GIS, biodiversity and species richness measured in plots | No | ||
Spirit or sacred forest | Cemetery, spiritual forests | Not relevant | Not relevant |
Protection forest | Steep slopes, fragile soils, watershed, regeneration of degraded forests, non prohibited NTFP collection, tree seed collection | NTFP monitoring, soil and water quality monitoring | Yes |
Forest surface estimated with GIS | No | ||
Forest use | Village NTFP collection, fuel wood, construction material, medicinal purpose, fencing | NTFP monitoring | Yes |
Agricultural zone | Lowland/upland rice production, fruit tree planting, commercial tree planting, livestock grazing, fish ponds | NTFP monitoring (fishes, domesticated NTFP), soil monitoring (plants used as indicators of fertility) and livelihood monitoring (livestock, rice sufficiency) | Yes |
Potential land for commercial tree planting | Commercial tree planting, commercial livestock raising, commercial annual crops, fishes | NTFP monitoring (fishes and commercial domesticated NTFPs) and livelihood monitoring | Yes |
Other areas | Recreation, irrigation | Livelihood monitoring | Yes |
Limitations to the development of an effective natural resource monitoring
Discussion
Participatory monitoring as a negotiation tool
A system that takes into account local governance and reflects all stakeholders’ concerns
By including staff from the district in our team, we tried to develop a monitoring system not only relevant to village and kumban priorities, but also the district. This was also applicable when choosing NTFPs, and the way to report the results and recommendations for further action. The involvement of local people from each village in all steps of the monitoring system, from its design to testing, was also to ensure local relevance and participation.Villagers [···] have significantly less voice than people representing higher levels of governance. Local people and their aspirations must be included in any management or governance institution if landscape governance is to be equitable.
Reasons for participating or not in monitoring activities
Incentive for participating and local priorities
A system applicable to ongoing government policies
Assess the impacts of PLUP on natural resource management at the village and village cluster levels.
Our monitoring system developed a regular and repetitive assessment of NTFP harvest, in order to understand the changes in the environment, based on the impact of decisions made during PLUP. Table 4 shows a potential monitoring system that provides information on the effectiveness of different land uses, based on relevant, selected indicators. If this suggestion is accepted, the monitoring system could link local people’s priorities to major government decisions and policies. Participatory monitoring could be applied in each of the official zones proposed for PLUP. Even if some zones may need a non-participatory kind of monitoring, for example, GIS monitoring and biophysical monitoring in protected areas, participatory monitoring may still be complementary.Improve forest and agricultural land management used by communities at the village and village cluster levels.