After three months on the road in Southeast Asia, moving from city to city every three or four days, Keith and I made the decision to slow down the pace of our travel. Part of our decision was rooted in the sheer exhaustion that comes from having to constantly find a new place to stay, figure out how we’re going to get there and learn the lay of a new city. But an even bigger part of our decision to trim down our itinerary was based on our experience in Phnom Penh, where spending a few extra days allowed us to connect with the expat community and learn about all the amazing sustainability efforts under way in Cambodia.
The opportunity to find out about local efforts in sustainability presented itself yet again in Vientiane, Laos as we spent an afternoon wandering around the sleepy capital city. Outside the market we spied a poster on the bulletin board for a presentation about non-timber forest products in Laos. The speaker, Joost Foppes, is a consultant on rights based approaches at Village Focus International. The presentation, sponsored by a women’s expat group, was planned for that evening at a local bookstore. Having plenty of time in Vientiane, we figured why not check it out? We’re glad we did.
Foppes’ presentation focused on the issue of food security in Laos, where Chinese developers are quickly buying up forested land in order to extract and export natural resources back to China. In local villages, much of what is eaten (other than rice) is taken from the forest. This unique wild food culture, where 80% of the population is dependent upon wild foods for sustenance, is linked to the incredible bio-diversity of Laos. The destruction of this bio-diversity has implications that go far beyond the environment; the economic value of the non-timber forest products eaten by villagers is equivalent to 32% of Laos GDP. A more astounding statistic is that the replacement cost for these products is estimated at 120% of current Laos GDP.
The unsustainable deforestation resulting from the export of natural resources is creating the need to replace the food and non-timber forest products that nature provides for free at a cost that is greater than the country’s current GDP. Foppes illustrated this fact with the case of the new Nam Theun II hydroelectric plant. The controversial plant was built to produce electricity for export to Thailand. Only a minimal amount of the production remains in Laos, and the cost to the local food system is substantial. For example, the annual economic value of the fish that have been lost since completion of the hydroelectric plant is estimated to be $1.6 million. However, the cost to replace the nutritional value those fish provide each year as food to local villagers turns out to be $7.4 million.
We saw firsthand just how important local fish are to the villagers of Laos. While kayaking on the Nam Song River outside of Vang Vieng, we witnessed local village boys armed with masks and spears fishing for food. They weren’t out on the river for fun; they were hungry and the fish they find will provide the sustenance they and their families need to survive. By taking the time to learn about the issues of non-timber forest products in Laos, what might have been just another quaint photo opportunity was transformed into a meaningful face-to-face interaction with a pressing environmental issue and the people effected by it most.
Related posts:
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
There was an article in the Vientiane Times this morning about insect farming and how the villagers used to rely on forests for the insects they consume but now are looking to farming the little critters to satisfy their protein needs.
Is it the government or private land owners who are selling the land directly to foreign developers?
Is it the government or private land owners who are selling the land directly to foreign developers? Seems like different incentives for not selling depend on who’s ultimately making the sale.
It’s the government that’s making the sales. The villagers who are dependent on the forest don’t have ownership rights, and the issue is compounded by the fact that there is no land use planning in Laos so there’s no master map showing who actually owns what and what they are using that land for.