Rural Development, Migrations and Livelihood Change in Northern Laos : Comparing Livelihood in a Lowland Village with that in a Highland Village in Xiangngeun District, Luang Phabang Province

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • ラオス焼畑山村における農村開発政策の意義と問題点 : ルアンパバーン県シェンヌン郡の高地村落と低地村落の比較から
  • ラオス ヤキバタ サンソン ニ オケル ノウソン カイハツ セイサク ノ イギ ト モンダイテン ルアンパバーン ケン シェンヌングン ノ コウチ ソンラク ト テイチ ソンラク ノ ヒカク カラ

Search this article

Abstract

<p>In rural areas of Laos, migrations of the highland populations to the plains and the valleys have become very significant. Although these migrations seem to occur out of the free will of highland populations, they are in fact promoted by the rural development policy of the government of the Lao PDR. This policy is named the 'Focal Site' strategy. The government has designated Focal Sites in every district as growth centers of rural areas and implemented integrated rural development programs there. Focal Sites are often chosen along major streams or at the periphery of plains. Inhabitants of highland villages around the sites are persuaded to relocate to the sites to gain easier access to development activities. This paper evaluates the rural development policy behind these migrations by comparing the livelihood of a highland village with that of a lowland village. The research sites are two villages in Xiangngeun District, that is, Huaykhang Village, a lowland village along a main road, and Huaypheng Village, a highland village at a distance of two hours' walk from Huaykhang Village. Both villages are mainly inhabited by Khamu people, and more than half of the population of Huaykhang Village consists of migrants from Huaypheng Village. Our conclusions are as follows. In Huaypheng Village, shifting cultivation is sustainable both in economic and ecological terms. Due to a low population density, the duration of fallow is relatively long, and there is almost no practice of growing rice on the same ground in consecutive years. In addition, the weather and soil condition of the highland is favorable to the cultivation of upland rice and other cultigens. Villagers still cultivate large areas of upland rice fields, and so they have a rice deficiency of only two months on average (2004-2006). They also engage in some market-oriented activities, of which animal husbandry is the most important. The highland environment is suitable for animal husbandry in terms of feed and disease. In contrast, in Huaykhang Village, shifting cultivation has been unsustainable. Due to increased population pressure in recent years, the duration of fallow time has been shortened, and it has become common practice in this village to grow rice on the same ground over two or more years. Due to weed infestation during the cultivation period, villagers have decreased the area of upland rice fields. Therefore, most of the Khamu households, including migrants from Huaypheng Village, experience four to seven months of rice deficiency, during which they have to buy rice with money earned by market-oriented activities. These activities, however, do not always bring higher income to migrants than before when they were in Huaypheng. In 2005, their average annual income was lower than that of the inhabitants of Huaypheng Village. Falling short of both rice and money, most migrants have increased their economic dependence on Tai lowlanders, who are the dominant population in the lowland, by buying or borrowing rice from them and engaging in wage labor for them. This study shows that migrations of highland populations to the lowland do not make them better off but indeed impoverish them. These migrations are promoted by a policy that aims to concentrate development projects in the lowland and to prohibit the use of highland forest. Many households in the research site, however, make their living by utilizing both the highland and the lowland. For them, the highland is an area for traditional livelihood activities such as shifting cultivation, animal husbandry, foraging and so on. On the contrary, the lowland is an area for modern life that has infrastructures and public facilities such as roads, electricity supply, schools, medical facilities, markets, etc. Their livelihood strategy is to take full advantage of both areas. Therefore, if the government really wishes to improve the life of the rural</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>

Journal

  • GEOGRAPHICAL SCIENCES

    GEOGRAPHICAL SCIENCES 65 (1), 26-49, 2010

    THE JAPANESE SOCIETY FOR GEOGRAPHICAL SCIENCES

References(25)*help

See more

Related Projects

See more

Details

Report a problem

Back to top