unesco's world heritage site impacts of landscape dynamics ... · • food security issues...

Catch-Up Program 2008

1

Heritage HouseLuang Prabang

UNESCO's World Heritage Site

Impacts of landscape dynamics on Impacts of landscape dynamics on biodiversity and environmental servicesbiodiversity and environmental services

Khamla NanthavongMay Cherief

Anousith Keophoxay Jean-Christophe Castella

NTFP management across the Nam Khan WatershedNTFP management across the Nam Khan Watershed

1‐ Landscapes analysis 2‐ Assess biodiversity in different landscapes3‐ Local uses of forest products by farmers

Objectives

Landscapes Biodiversity and Local useLand use

HabitatsPlants

?

Landscapes analysis•Structure

•Fragmentation

•Heterogeneity

Floristic surveyFocus group – InterviewsAbout Local use of Forest products


2

Sites

LUANG PRABANG

Tin Pha

Long LetroadHighlands villages

Downstream village

Nam Khan

Houay yen Gnai

Nong Di

Access to market

MethodsLand Use -> Landscape Analysis

Highland village

Downstream village

Remote sensing data• Aerial pictures 1998

• Quick Bird Image 2005

Land Use/Cover Maps from:

1998

Quick Bird Image 2005

• Spot Image 2006

Field surveys• Field pictures 2008

• GPS Points 2008

2006


3

Methods Biodiversity assessment- Floristic survey

Habitats surveyedHabitats surveyed

Forest

Regenerating forest

Fallow 4-9 years

26 plots

Fallow 4 9 years

Fallow 1-3 years

Plantations

Methods Biodiversity assessment- Floristic survey

• Data collectedPlot

• Age

• Topographic information

• Plot history

Plants

• Local name of plants• Local name of plants

• Diameter

• Height

Soil condition


4

MethodsBiodiversity assessment

• Minimal area method

64 m²

128 m²

1 m²

2 m²

4 m²

8 m²

16 m²

32 m²

Methods Biodiversity assessment

Principal Components Analysis

which factors ?• village• habitat• age• soil condition…soil condition…

explain floristic composition and structure


5

Methods Local uses of biodiversity

• Interviews of plot owner during floristic inventory g y

• Focus Group (6 groups)

• 5 persons per groups• Groups of women• Groups of men

• Data collection on NTFP• Product namesProduct names• Place collected• Who collects / time spent• Use• Ratio consumption ‐ sold

Preliminary ResultsLand Cover 2008

ForestOld FallowYoung FallowAnnual cropTree plantation

River

Poor-diversity forest

Patchy forest

Short rotation system

Teak tree plantations

Permanent agriculture

Rich-diversity forest

Larger forest cover

Long rotation system

Two stages in the development process only a few km apart from each others


6

Preliminary ResultsBiodiversity

Teak tree plantation => low biodiversity

Age of fallows and forest explains differences in differences in floristic structure and composition

Local use of Forest products

25

30

ts

Number of NTFP collected for selling and consumption

selling

0

5

10

15

20

25

Houayyen Longlet

(Accessible area) (Remote area)

Num

ber o

f produ

ct

Consumption

• More NTFP species are collected in remote area than in accessible area– Accessible area : NTFP are collected for selling more than consumption

– Remote area : NTFP are consumed more than sold

• Food security issues => animal proteins– Wildlife almost disappeared in accessible areas. Wild vegetable are sold daily on the market to

buy meat. In remote areas more dependent on wildlife for proteins.

( ) ( )


7

12

14

sold

Number of NTFP sold by use

Access to market influences the species of NTFP sold

0

2

4

6

8

10

Houayyen Longlet

(Accessible area) (Remote area)

Num

ber o

f produ

ct s Food

Non food

• Villagers in Houayen sell more NTFP species than in Longlet and more food productsbecause they can access to the market easily (not because more NTFP species are availablein the landscape)

• Villagers in Longlet sell more nonfood species because of limited access to market, so theyconsume more than they sell

Times spent on NTFP collectionand income generated

100,00

Relative time spent on NTFP collection for selling and

consumption14 000 000

Income from NTFPper focus group (kip/year)

0,0010,0020,0030,0040,0050,0060,0070,0080,0090,00

G1 (Rich Women)

G2 (Poor Women)

G3 (Men)

G4 (Women)

G5 (Men)

G6 (Women)

Houayyen Tinpha Longlet

Time (%

)

Groups

0

2 000 000

4 000 000

6 000 000

8 000 000

10 000 000

12 000 000

G1 (Rich Women)

G2 (Poor Women)

G3 (Men)

G4 (Women)

G5 (Men)

G6 (Women)

Houayen Tinpha Longlet

Amou

nt (K

ip)

Groups

% Time collect for selling% Time collect for consumption

Non food Firewood Food

• Women spent more time than men to collect NTFP for family consumption• People in downstream village as Houayen generate more income from NTFP than in upland villages as Tinpha and Longlet• Poor women in Houayen sell firewood but rich women don’t• H’Mong women in Tinpha don’t sell any food products they sell only non food NTFP (tradition?)


8

Gender differences in NTFP collection

14

16

s

NTFP collection between men and women in TinPha village (H’Mong)

14

16

s

NTFP collection between men and women in LongLet village (Khamu)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Num

ber o

f produ

ct

The use 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Num

ber o

f produ

ct

The use

G3 (Men.TP) G4 (Women.TP) G5 (Men.LL) G6 (Women.LL)

• Men collect more NTFP species than women because they go far from the village and into the forests• Women collect bigger quantities.• The pattern of NTFP collections does not differ significantly between H’Mong and Khamu groups• In both ethnic groups, more NTFP are collected for food than for other uses.

Place of NTFP collection

90,00

100,00

How important are the different landscape unitsfor NTFP collection

Gardens

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

ayyen

npha

nglet

ayyen

npha

nglet

ayyen

npha

nglet

ayyen

npha

nglet

Percen

tage (%

)

Teak plantation


Upland rice

Fallow 1‐3 years

Fallow 4‐9 years

Forest

Hou

a Ti Lo

Hou

a Ti Lo

Hou

a Ti Lo

Hou

a Ti Lo

Food Marketable Non food consumption

Firewood The use

• Food collection in upland villages relies mainly on forest and old fallows while people in downsteam village have to collect food‐NTFP in agricultural landscapes


9


90,00

100,00


Gardens

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

ayyen

inph

a

onglet

ayyen

inph

a

onglet

ayyen

inph

a

onglet

ayyen

inph

a

onglet

Percen

tage (%

)

Teak plantation


Upland rice

Fallow 1‐3 years

Fallow 4‐9 years

Forest

Hou

a Ti Lo

Hou

a Ti Lo

Hou

a Ti Lo

Hou

a Ti Lo


Firewood The use

• The product sold by upland villagers are mainly from forest and fallows but they areincreasingly domesticated in downstream villages (posa, khem, etc.)


90,00

100,00


Gardens

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

ayyen

inph

a

onglet

ayyen

inph

a

onglet

ayyen

inph

a

onglet

ayyen

inph

a

onglet

Percen

tage (%

)

Teak plantation


Upland rice

Fallow 1‐3 years

Fallow 4‐9 years

Forest

Hou

a Ti Lo

Hou

a Ti Lo

Hou

a Ti Lo

Hou

a Ti Lo


Firewood The use

• The NTFP collection strategies do not differ significantly between villages for construction ortools. As the area of forest and old fallows is very low in downstream villages => copingmechanisms: increased exchanges between villages and emerging market between upstreamand downstream villagers


10


90,00

100,00


Gardens

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

ayyen

inph

a

onglet

ayyen

inph

a

onglet

ayyen

inph

a

onglet

ayyen

inph

a

onglet

Percen

tage (%

)

Teak plantation


Upland rice

Fallow 1‐3 years

Fallow 4‐9 years

Forest

Hou

a Ti Lo

Hou

a Ti Lo

Hou

a Ti Lo

Hou

a Ti Lo


Firewood The use

One observe a transition in the firewood collection strategies:‐ In remote area, as Longlet, firewood is collected in the forest and old fallows,‐ In intermediary zones, access to forests is limited but long fallows provide large quantities of wood from upland fields,‐ In most accessible areas, burnt wood from the upland field is not sufficient and villagers have to rely on the last patches of forest for firewood collection or to go long distances to the limits of the village.

NTFP collection for food in Houayen

31,5%28,5%

16,5%

23,5%

10,0%15,0%20,0%25,0%30,0%35,0%

The main NTFP collected for food in Houayen

Percen

tage

(%)

0,0%5,0%

Bamboo shoot (No mai) Edible fern (Phak kout) Water cress (Phak nam) Other vegetables

50 0%

100,0%

age

(%)

Important are different land scape units for NTFP collentionfor food in Houayyen

Fallow 1-3 years

Fallow 4-9 years

• The main NTFP collected for food are bamboo shoots and edible fern.• Important places to collect these products are forest and fallows, but these land coverare disappearing from the landscape => buying at the market or domestication

0,0%

50,0%

Bamboo shoort (No mai) Edible fern (Phak kout) Water cress (Phak nam) Other vegetables

Perc

enta

Forest


11

90,00

100,00

Importance of the different landscape units for NTFP collection related to income generation

Houayyen

NTFP collection for income generation

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

Forest Fallow 4‐9 Fallow 1‐3 Upland rice Permanent Teak Gardens

Percen

tage (%

)

Localisations

Tinpha

Longlet

• The income generate from NTFP in upland villages mainly depends on forest and fallowresources

• Less forest in downstream village make them rely more on agricultural land for NTFPcollection and domestication, like for food NTFP

agriculture plantation

Conclusions• Proximity of market influences landscape structures,

biodiversity and local use of NTFPs

LUANG PRABANG

Houay yen

Tin Pha

Long Letroad

Biodiversity

Nam Khan

Houay yen Gnai

Nong Di

Marketing of forest products


12

Conclusions• Integration of conservation – development at the

watershed scale

LUANG PRABANG

Houay yen Gnai

Tin Pha

Long Letroad

Development

Conservation

Payment for environmental services

Nam Khan

Gnai

Nong DiResettlement

• Increased exchanges across the watershed require some kind coordination: changing scale ‐ watershed management committee?

• Sustainable management and marketing of forest products• Protection of wildlife and biodiversity• Better access to education in remote areas and environmental awareness in accessible areas

unesco's world heritage site impacts of landscape dynamics ... · • food security issues...

Documents