Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC Swiss Cooperation Office for the Mekong Region, Vientiane

Socio-Economic Impact At Household Level Of Livestock Production And Commercialisation Activities Funded By SDC In Lao PDR

November – December 2013

Photo by Adrian Gnaegi

Steven Watkins, Senior Rural Livelihood Development Specialist, and Team Leader Phetsakhone Somphongbouthakanh, Gender Advisor Aloun Phonvisay, Deputy Director of Livestock Research Center, NAFRI Perrine Fournier, Rural Livelihood Development Specialist

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... i Executive Summary ...... ii Introduction ...... 1 Socio-Economic Assessment ...... 2 1. Motivations and Expectations of Beneficiaries ...... 2 Traditional Livestock Practices ...... 3 Existing Skills and Experience ...... 3 Adoption of New Livestock Production Practices ...... 4 i) Animal Health ...... 5 ii) Feeding ...... 5 iii) Penning ...... 5 iv) Breeding ...... 6 Project Support to Farmer Innovations ...... 7 Gender ...... 8 Provision of Improved Production Inputs ...... 8 Involvement of Poorest Households ...... 9 Seasonal Workloads ...... 9 Allowance for Language Differences ...... 10 Pre-Conditions for Successful Involvement ...... 10 Policies and Regulations ...... 11 Spontaneous Replication ...... 11 2. Impact at Household Level ...... 12 Household Workloads ...... 12 Natural Resources ...... 13 Impact on Other Farming Activities ...... 13 Investment and Indebtedness ...... 14 Improved Skills ...... 14

Socio-Economic Assessment December 2013 Meat Consumption ...... 15 Increased Incomes ...... 15 Economic Status ...... 16 3. Womens’ Empowerment ...... 16 Self-Confidence and Status ...... 17 Other Improvements ...... 18 4. Considerations for Future Livestock Projects ...... 18 1. Targeting...... 19 2. Implementation ...... 19 3. One-size doesn’t fit all ...... 20 4. Marketing and Trading ...... 20 5. Herd Management...... 21 6. Financing Improved Inputs ...... 21 7. Opportunities for poorer farmers ...... 22 Annex 1. Terms of Reference: Socio-Economic Assessment ...... 23 Annex 2. Socio-Economic Assessment Questionnaire ...... 27 Annex 3. Village Locations of Socio-Economic Assessment ...... 29

Socio-Economic Assessment December 2013 Acronyms and Abbreviations

ABD Agro-Biodiversity ADB Asian Development Bank CIAT Center for Tropical Agriculture DAFO District Agriculture and Forestry Office EU European Union IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development JFPR Japanese Fund for Poverty Reduction LDP Northern Region Sustainable Livelihood through Livestock Development Project LEAP Lao Extension Agriculture Project LWU Lao Women Union MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry NTFP Non-Timber Forestry Products PAFO Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office PARUA Poverty Alleviation in Remote Upland Areas SADU Smallholder Agricultural-market Development in the Uplands of Lao PDR project SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

USD1 = LAK 8,000

Socio-Economic Assessment i December 2013 Executive Summary Introduction The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) supported projects in the northern uplands of Lao PDR aimed at improving rural livelihoods and helping alleviate poverty among smallholder farmers through livestock production. These projects either focussed entirely on livestock or contain a livestock component among other livelihood support activities. :

• The Northern Region Sustainable Livelihood through Livestock Development Project • The Smallholder Agricultural-market Development in the Uplands of Lao PDR project • Lao Extension Agriculture Project • The Agro Biodiversity Initiative • Poverty Alleviation in Remote Upland Areas project

Socio-Economic Assessment The purpose of the socio-economic assessment was to better inform SDC of the impact at household level of livestock production improvements supported by these projects. The assessment provided a qualitative analysis based on opinions and views gathered through individual interviews and discussions. The limitations of the assessment were the limited time scheduled in each village and the small sample size from each project. All project participants interviewed were from ethnic groups. The assessment was not trying to evaluate a project’s progress or performance. It simply provided a snapshot of the experiences and opinions of livestock project beneficiaries in the northern uplands. Despite these limitations, the responses to each topic by women and men during the assessment were relatively consistent across projects and project locations.

Motivations and Expectations of Farmers The primary motivation for farmers to participate in livestock projects was to acquire new livestock production skills and increase their animal numbers, which allowed them to sell more livestock and thus, increase household incomes. The criteria to select villagers were they needed to have experience in growing livestock; own animals; have commitment to implement new production methodologies; and have the resources, including time and labour, to invest in improved production. The projects effectively built on existing skills and knowledge, and participant households now had more livestock available for sale. All women and men were satisfied with their involvement in projects; their livestock production skills were enhanced and the results exceeded their initial expectations.

All projects established demonstration farms to help instruct farmers and organised cross- visits between farmers to facilitate learning between like-minded farmers. LDP provided microfinance that encouraged participants to save and borrow funds to buy livestock and other improved inputs so they could immediately implement the new techniques. PARUA started with chicken raising but due to problems and requests by participants, switched to goats and cattle production. They provided free livestock and technical support. Some

Socio-Economic Assessment ii December 2013 participants considered there was no difference between genders on uptake of new technologies while others thought women were the driving force to adopt new technologies because men, generally, were only interested in cattle.

All projects targeted poorer villagers but results varied. Project participants considered the pre-conditions for benefiting from improved livestock production practices were sufficient numbers of animals, and the necessary resources and commitment to invest in improved practices. These pre-conditions effectively excluded poorer farmers who often sought jobs on larger farms or plantations, and did not have the time or commitment to tend livestock more intensively. In PARUA, vulnerable groups were targeted and provided livelihood support through cattle/goat saving banks. Although project smallholder farmers may not be the poorest, they were likely to be the most vulnerable to external shocks (eg. land loss, drought).

LDP and PARUA provided training in local languages to assist members of ethnic groups’ involvement. Training in other projects was conducted in Lao language, which restricted access for women from some ethnic groups. LDP arranged trainings and meetings with participants based around their seasonal cropping calendars. Neighbouring farmers regularly consulted and copied new, improved animal production practices from project farmers, which was a significant indirect result of all livestock projects.

Household-level Impact All women and men considered their household workloads increased due to improved livestock production practices, which was predominately the responsibility of women. But they were satisfied to do this extra work because they could see the benefits as it led directly to increased family income. In PARUA, livestock production was more extensive and resulted in only minimal increases in household workloads shared between women and men. For the majority of project participants cropping remained the main farming activity and other enterprises needed to be adjusted to suit the annual cropping calendar.

Increased animal production work resulted in increased investments of time and money for project participants. Only LDP made available financial options for farmers to buy more livestock and other improved inputs, which implied increased indebtedness. Other projects required participants to purchase their own livestock and inputs, mainly through improved health care and breeding, rather than buying more animals using their savings. Some famers needed to buy materials for their animal pens (eg. roofing, concrete, chicken wire), but most used locally-available materials from the forest. Most farmers therefore avoided taking unnecessary risks with their improved animal production enterprise.

All farmers met during the mission stated their incomes had increased due to improved livestock production practices, which provided regular income throughout the year, and was a valuable supplement to their main income generated by cereals. For PARUA beneficiaries, livestock was perceived as more of a social safety net than income. Farmers wanted to

Socio-Economic Assessment iii December 2013 increase their livestock numbers before considering sales, which may then revert to an income-generating role in 4-5 years.

Women’s Empowerment Generally, women in the northern uplands were becoming more self-confident; however, this increased self-confidence was not entirely attributable to their livestock activities. They were being more exposed to the outside world, as improved communications reduced their isolation. Many women also attributed their increased self-confidence to the support and training provided by LWU over several years. But most women believed gender roles had not markedly changed: women were responsible for ‘domestic’ decisions and men for decisions outside the house. Livestock production contributed to this increased confidence among women, mainly because they were responsible for managing their household’s income, and livestock was now providing a larger portion of that income.

Considerations for Future Livestock Projects These items of interest are proposed for consideration, discussion and elaboration by interested groups when designing and implementing new livestock production projects. • Targeting - Donors and project teams need to determine previous support for villagers and utilise more rigorous selection criteria for project villages/villagers. Also, project teams should discuss issues between themselves more regularly, and explore opportunities for coordination and collaboration between projects. • Implementation - When project staff were available in the field for ready consultation and support, results were more effective as new practices were adopted and benefits accrued quicker. These relationships helped build trust and farmers became more confident in following advice from project staff. • One-size doesn’t fit all - Projects need to understand the primary motivation of farmers for keeping livestock, and be flexible in designing and implementing activities. Women’s expectations regarding their status and self-confidence vary between (and within) different ethnic groups and can vary from village to village. • Marketing and Trading - The majority of farmers did not fully understand livestock trading and requested support with market training. These activities should be introduced into project as early as possible. • Herd Management - Many farmers were ready for the next steps in livestock productivity improvements, such as breeding, weaning, and other husbandry practices. • Financing Improved Inputs - Unless project teams devoted sufficient time to training, managing, checking, and pursuing unpaid loans, then financial instruments should be avoided. Revolving funds and animal banks were more manageable and easier for farmers to understand and comprehend the benefits. • Most poorer households do not have the resources, time or risk inclination to grow livestock intensively (as promoted by projects). Also, many poorer households in the northern uplands now have opportunities to work on plantations or factories and receive cash payments. Therefore, donors should re-consider whether their target beneficiaries in livestock projects are poor (poorest) households.

Socio-Economic Assessment iv December 2013

Introduction The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) has supported several projects in the northern uplands of Lao PDR aimed at improving rural livelihoods and helping alleviate poverty among smallholder farmers through livestock production. All projects have been operational for many years and multiple phases. These projects include:

• The Northern Region Sustainable Livelihood through Livestock Development Project (LDP), Asian Development Bank (ADB), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), SDC, Japanese Fund for Poverty Reduction (JFPR) (2006-2014); “improving livelihood sustainability of upland smallholders in northern Lao PDR through improved livestock productivity and profitability under integrated upland farming systems”. • The Smallholder Agricultural-market Development in the Uplands of Lao PDR project (SADU), International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT: 2003-2012) “Smallholder farmers, particularly ethnic minority groups, women and poor, have increased benefit from local agriculture-based markets”. • Lao Extension Agriculture Project (LEAP), Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF)/Dept of Extension and Cooperatives/Helvetas Intercooperation (2001-2014) “to contribute to the development of a decentralized, participatory, pluralistic and sustainable agriculture extension system that is capable of benefiting poorer households and communities”. • The Agro Biodiversity Initiative (TABI), (since 2009) MAF/Dept of Planning/NIRAS. “To contribute to poverty alleviation and improved livelihoods of upland communities through sustainable management and use of ABD in multi-functional landscapes”. • Poverty Alleviation in Remote Upland Areas (PARUA), CARE (2003-2014). “to sustainably increase livelihood security for poor ethnic groups in remote upland areas”.

These projects either focussed entirely on livestock production or contain a livestock production component among other livelihood support activities. All projects followed similar aims and modalities for achieving results in livestock production:

• Formation of livestock production groups (cattle, goats, pigs, chickens); • At least equal representation of women with men in groups; • Training conducted through demonstration plots and lead farmers; • Technical support provided direct to farmers by officers from the Provincial and/or District Agricultural and Forestry Office (PAFO/DAFO) (SADU, LEAP, TABI), or by project teams based in the field working in partnership with PAFO/DAFO (LDP, PARUA); • Distribution of improved production inputs: animals, fodder crop seed, vaccines; • Poorer farming households supported to participate; • Empowerment of communities and marginalised groups: women, ethnic groups; • Introduction to trading and marketing activities; and • Distribution of improved production inputs by various means – microfinance, free distribution, animal banks and revolving funds, farmer pays.

Socio-Economic Assessment 1 December 2013

Socio-Economic Assessment The purpose of the socio-economic assessment was to better inform SDC of the impact at household level of livestock production improvements supported by these projects. This included improvements in household food security and/or income; the pre-conditions for farmers to benefit from improved livestock practices; differences between gender and ethnic groups; the optimal approaches and modalities to benefit farmers; sustainability of these impacts; and possible replication by other farming households not involved in projects.

During the field visits to project villages, participants were divided into men and women groups for discussion and interviewed by a male or female respectively. Interpreters were used where necessary. Individuals were then interviewed to better determine project impact at household level. Also, beneficiaries were more likely to discuss sensitive issues, such as household incomes and purchases, individually than in a group. The assessment teams collected only qualitative data and therefore, the assessment was not trying to ‘evaluate’ each project’s progress or performance. It simply provided a snapshot of the experiences and opinions of livestock project beneficiaries in the northern uplands.

All project participants interviewed during the field visits were from ethnic groups: no Lao-Thai participants were interviewed. The limitations of the assessment were the limited time scheduled in each village and the small sample size from each project. Many participants were busy with harvests and were not available to meet mission teams, so the numbers interviewed were small (Annex 3). Despite these limitations, the responses to each topic by women and men during the assessment were relatively consistent across projects and project locations.

1. Motivations and Expectations of Beneficiaries The primary motivation for farmers to participate in livestock production projects was to acquire new livestock production skills which provided the opportunity to increase household incomes. A women’s’ group growing chickens in Phoukoud district, Xieng Khuang (TABI) said they needed money nowadays for everyday purchases and daily living expenses. Lao PDR had evolved into a cash society; people no longer co-operated as much as before and they wanted immediate payment for goods and services. Villagers could no longer make purchases on credit, and needed cash. In some villages in Xayaboury (PARUA), villagers’ main motivation to join projects was to learn new techniques (especially animal health management through vaccination) and receive free livestock through the livestock banks and poverty revolving funds.

Few farmers formed groups prior to the arrival of livestock projects. Several farmers said they met among themselves (prior to any project visits) and discussed their livelihood options, mainly due to unforeseen circumstances (eg. loss of land or other productive assets) that forced villagers to re-assess their future livelihood opportunities and potential threats. Livestock production was the main item discussed during these meetings because livestock was always used as a primary means of household savings to be sold when money was needed for

Socio-Economic Assessment 2 December 2013

family emergencies or ceremonial purposes. These meetings were mostly between women as they were responsible for livestock production (except cattle). Other farmers said they formed groups among their relatives, mainly as a means to share shepherding tasks on fallows and other areas, particularly at busy times during the cropping season.

Traditional Livestock Practices Traditionally, all livestock was free-range production around the household, in forests and on the family’s cropped areas. No care was taken with animal health, feeding, housing or breeding, and many animals died or were lost. Animals were kept as a savings mechanism for emergencies or ceremonial occasions. Apart from chickens, animals were never slaughtered for family consumption. Meat would be eaten irregularly, and did not form a major part of the household diet.

In PARUA, livestock production was secondary to cropping as the main livelihood activity. Farmers had some traditional knowledge of animal health management, for example, with the use of traditional herbs to treat foot-and-mouth disease. Livestock production was constrained by disease and low output.

But even before the projects commenced in the northern uplands, in many areas and particularly areas with good road access, traders regularly contacted villagers seeking to buy their livestock. Most men and women in the northern uplands were aware of the demand for their livestock and were responding to these commercial opportunities well before the arrival of project teams. Therefore, they fully appreciated the income increases livestock development projects could potentially deliver.

Existing Skills and Experience In PARUA, village meetings were organised to discuss livelihood options of interest to farmers, and how the poor/disadvantaged groups in the villages were to be prioritised. Raising livestock extensively was preferable as these animals required less labour input than chickens and pigs. Cattle, and to a lesser extent goats, were favoured by Prai and Khamu farmers, which may also be associated with abundance of fallows areas. Initially, PARUA rejected cattle due to the larger financial requirements and riskier ventures compared to chickens or pigs. But small livestock production was generally, unsuccessful in most villages, and the PARUA team decided to establish cattle and goat revolving funds in these villages.

In Xieng Khuang and Luang Prabang, at initial meetings between DAFO staff, project teams and villagers, the selection criteria for farmers to participate in livestock production projects was explained and prospective villagers selected. Villagers needed to:

• have experience in growing the chosen livestock, • own animals, • have commitment to implement new production methodologies and • have the resources including time and labour to invest in improved production.

Socio-Economic Assessment 3 December 2013

(LDP also included the need for 12-month access to villages to their selection criteria). Villagers volunteered to participate, which usually resulted in more farmers than places available on the project. Villagers were then required to select between themselves the required number of households. They usually chose those farming households they considered had the highest capacity to invest in livestock improvement practices demonstrated by the project.

Background experience was, therefore, fundamental and projects did not encourage farmers to diversify their livestock base (eg. farmers growing pigs and chickens would not be encouraged to join goat or cattle/buffalo production groups). In LDP, some farmers who joined chicken or pig production groups switched to cattle/buffalo production groups once they learned they could access larger loans from the project (ie. LAK 1-3 million vs. LAK 8 million).

In PARUA, different selection criteria were used to select project farmers that included food insecurity, lack of income, and other causes of vulnerability such as age, gender, or disability; motivation and commitment of villagers to improved livestock practices was also important. This resulted in some households that had no previous livestock production experience, participating in PARUA. This was expected because the livestock activities (ie. goats and cattle saving banks) aimed to provide social safety nets for vulnerable people in the project areas. Each group responsible for managing these saving banks included experienced farmers responsible for managing goat and cattle production. Although the project criteria targeted the poor and vulnerable, the resulting beneficiaries were a mixture of poor villagers and experienced livestock farmers. The PARUA team considered this would ensure better results as poor and inexperienced farmers were able to learn from experienced livestock producers.

All projects effectively built on existing skills and knowledge, and participant households now had more livestock available for sale. All women and men were satisfied with their involvement in projects; their skills in livestock production were enhanced and the results exceeded their initial expectations. One farmer in Phoukoud district, Xieng Khuang, claimed he never thought he could make money from growing chickens, which was now provided a regular source of income for his family. Some Khamu men and women expressed interest in growing goats or cattle instead of pigs, which probably indicated their interest in growing livestock more extensively rather than the intensive models promoted by projects. In PARUA, some participants in the livestock banks preferred to establish management rules based on their customs such as kinship systems, rather than partnering with experienced livestock farmers.

Adoption of New Livestock Production Practices All men and women met during the mission claimed they preferred the new livestock production methods introduced by projects compared to their traditional free-range methods because more animals survived, and therefore, they now had more income each year. All projects focussed on animal health, housing and nutrition as the basic building blocks to improved livestock production. Some projects also introduced better breeding practices to a limited extent and with limited success in project areas.

Socio-Economic Assessment 4 December 2013

i) Animal Health Project participants were now more skilled in observing the health of their animals and using vaccines. All beneficiaries regarded the use of vaccines, particularly when provided at no cost by projects, as the major new innovation that was most effective and widely adopted among farmers. They attributed vaccines and improved animal health as the main contribution to reducing animal deaths, leading to more livestock and thus, higher household incomes. All women and men interviewed during the field visits stated they would continue to buy and administer vaccines after the completion of the project.

Case Study: Village veterinarian worker at Phoulern village, Xaysathan district, Xayabury

The village veterinarian at Phoulern village provided a vaccination service for the farmers involved in a goat revolving fund. The farmer group were asked to pay LAK 25,000 per year upfront so that the veterinarian had sufficient funds to buy vaccines from the Xaysathan district veterinarian. He was also the focal person supplying vaccines to other village veterinarians in the village cluster (5-6 villages). Improved telecommunications and roads facilitated a more effective service, which was profitable due to each village veterinarian’s large customer base. In these remote upland areas, farmers traditionally managed their livestock collectively, which was also a factor contributing to profitable village veterinarian operations. ii) Feeding All projects except PARUA, recommended full-time penning of animals and more intensive livestock feeding methods, which involved:

• fodder crop production for cut-and-carry purposes; and/or • mixing feed using maize, rice, cassava or other crops grown in their upland fields or purchased from their neighbours; and/or • commercial feed mixtures; or • a combination of these feeding regimes.

Projects promoting fodder crops provided free seed but results were mixed. Some farmers were satisfied to grow fodder crops in one location that reduced daily workloads as women did not need to search for grasses further from home. Other farmers had not been able to grow enough fodder in their crops and had not persisted with trying to grow fodder crops. The time required to cut-and-carry fodder and feed penned animals three times per day (as advised by projects) was excessive for many labour-constrained farmers. Many women in Pakxeng district, Luang Prabang, complained of the extra work required to cut-and-carry grass from their fodder crops, and it was much easier to use grain and commercial feeds. iii) Penning All farmers practiced a mixture of livestock housing systems somewhere between their traditional free-range practices and full-time penning of their livestock.

Socio-Economic Assessment 5 December 2013

• Hmong farmers for example, no longer allowed their cattle to free-range in the forests, but kept them closer to their houses where they could graze fodder crops during the wet season. They would pen their cattle for 3-6 months before selling, in order to fatten their cattle and receive higher prices. • For chickens (TABI), farmers would pen their chicks and mothers for 1-3 months before letting them out to forage free-range. By keeping their chickens off the ground during the wet season, many farmers reduced the number of deaths and subsequently, they had more chickens for sale. DAFO staff advised farmers to keep their chickens permanently penned and group chicks by age (one, two, and three month old chickens) so that farmers could provide more specialised feed to younger chickens and monitor their health during the critical first few months; the mission team observed only one farmer utilising this practice.

Some farmers expressed sympathy for their animals being permanently penned and preferred to see them, at least some of the time, able to freely forage, particularly on their fallow and cropped lands. Khamu villagers in Phonexay district, Luang Prabang (TABI) believed pigs did not grow well and more piglets died when they were kept for extended periods in pens because their pigs could not gain access to clay in the soil which kept them healthy. However, piglets born in pens were always kept in pens, and piglets born in the open were always kept on solid ground, otherwise they would die. Most farmers at least penned their animals at night, in order to feed and protect them.

The responses to penning during the cropping season varied. Some women and men stated they had insufficient time to feed and tend their livestock, and therefore, permanently released them during these busy work periods. Other farmers penned all their stock during their absences from home and either fed their animals at the beginning and end of their upland work days or they relied on their children or older relative to feed and tend their livestock in pens. iv) Breeding LDP made some advances introducing improved breeding practices among their beneficiaries. The project had provided, often free of charge, improved boars for native pig breeds. Improved breeding was a key activity in those villages where LDP introduced improved European pig breeds, through sows and boars. It was evident during the field visits that many LDP farmers were aware of the dangers of in-breeding among their livestock and were rotating their male breeders with neighbours and other villages, while others sold all their livestock every couple of years and purchased new breeders.

Case Study: Chicken Production, Phoukout, Xieng Khuang

Head of the TABI chicken production group in Le Thong village, Phoukout District, Xieng Khuang was interested and motivated to build on the 2-days training he and his wife received from the project. They work together to plant cassava, corn, and vegetables for their chickens and both watch for health problems. The husband built the pens, and dealt with project staff, traders and other outsiders. The wife collected raw materials and prepared the chicken feed, and

Socio-Economic Assessment 6 December 2013

managed the income from selling chickens. The husband decided on large purchases and the wife for small purchases.

They kept their chicks grouped by age, as recommended by the project, and provided specialised feed for each age group. They closely observed the health of their chicks, and quickly isolated sick chicks, and administered traditional medicines to help them recover. He estimated that 15 percent of his chickens became sick up to two months of age, which was the critical period for their survival. At three months he can sex his chickens and decide which ones to keep as breeders. This farming household aimed to specialise in black-skinned chickens and they were gradually changing their flock to these premium-priced chickens.

The husband and wife team now specialised in growing chickens and had sold all their other livestock, did no cropping and used commercial feed or purchased grain from their neighbours. They currently had 168 chickens and sold all stock at six months old (approximately one kg). They could not fulfil the demand from traders and their neighbours for chickens, and some traders requested they hold their chickens once they reached market weight and the trader would return to buy them. Neighbours and other villagers sought his advice for their chicken problems. He always used traditional medicines. This family intended to expand to 500 chickens during 2014 at an estimated cost of LAK 30 million. They supported a son at secondary school and two daughters at university in Vientiane.

Project Support to Farmer Innovations All projects except PARUA, provided free animal vaccines, at least during the first year of a farmer’s involvement in the project and for many farmers, they continued to receive free vaccines in subsequent years. All projects established demonstration farms to help instruct farmers to adopt new animal production practices. LDP organised cross-visits between farmers to facilitate discussions and learning between like-minded farmers who had experienced many of the issues and problems in adopting new technologies to grow livestock. LDP provided microfinance, which encouraged participants to save and borrow funds to buy livestock so they could immediately implement new techniques and increase their livestock productivity.

For projects implemented by PAFO/DAFO, encouragement and support for farmers attempting to adopt new livestock production practices was irregular. For example, in TABI, DAFO staff provided two-days training on improved production techniques for pigs or chickens but did not visit the village again for 2-3 months. Therefore, the uptake of new animal production practices was patchy. More innovative and committed farmers would try and implement the new practices they learned during the training. While other trainees quickly lost interest and continued their traditional livestock practices.

PARUA project team adapted their implementation methodologies to match farmer constraints in their project areas. PARUA started with chicken raising but due to problems with growing hybrid chickens, prevalence of disease, and lack of improved feed, the project team decided to switch to goats and cattle production. Flexible planning allowed PARUA to provide beneficiaries with free livestock and continuous field support by project staff (CARE and DAFO), the CARE

Socio-Economic Assessment 7 December 2013

livestock specialist and village veterinary workers. They built their own pens and paid for vaccines as recommended by the project team.

Gender Some participants considered there was no difference between genders on uptake of new technologies as demonstrated in projects. Other villagers considered that women were the driving force to adopt new technologies because men, generally, were only interested in cattle. They would help build new pens with raised floors, administer vaccines, and collect feed from their upland crops, because these jobs were too onerous for women. But women decided whether to adopt all remaining innovations for improving their livestock production practices.

Provision of Improved Production Inputs The methods to distribute improved livestock production inputs to farmers differed between projects, and often, differed from village to village in the same project. Some villagers received free inputs, while others needed to pay full price. Projects often provided improved agricultural machinery to participating groups that encouraged farmers to cooperate in their production of livestock (and other livelihood enterprises, such as coffee in SADU).

TABI provided technical training, vaccines and fodder crop seed at no cost, and participants needed to buy their improved livestock and penning materials. In Tha Kham village, Phonexay district, Luang Prabang, pig producers who did not receive livestock from TABI were able to obtain free pigs from another livestock project managed by World Vision International as part of the EU’s food security program during 2012. PAFO officials believed this was a good match for beneficiaries to receive technical training and support from TABI and free livestock from World Vision so they could implement improved animal production practices.

LDP included a micro-credit component that was available to animal production group members to buy livestock and other improved production inputs that encouraged farmers to adopt new animal production methods quickly and raise their productivity. The majority of LDP participants borrowed the full amount offered by the project (although a proportion of farmers did not save the mandatory 20 percent before obtaining a loan): chickens – LAK 1 million; pigs and goats – LAK 3 million; and cattle/buffalo – LAK 8 million.

A livestock revolving fund was utilised by LDP to establish demonstration farms, whereby stock was provided to lead farmers, who then needed to pass on offspring to other farmers in their livestock development group. SADU provided free chickens and other inputs, including an incubator, to beneficiaries visited in Si Vieng Kham village, Khoun district, Xieng Khuang. PARUA provided free livestock (cattle and goats) and some material (roofing, fencing wire) for communal goat housing to project beneficiaries, who paid for vaccines.

There were no uniform criteria used by project teams for distribution of improved production inputs to beneficiaries in these projects. It was difficult to determine how each project team

Socio-Economic Assessment 8 December 2013

determined whether certain farmers needed to pay full price for their inputs, while other farmers received free inputs.

Involvement of Poorest Households All projects endeavoured to target and involve the poorer or poorest villagers in improved livestock production as per their stated goal to help alleviate poverty and link the poorest to improved livelihoods. The ability of projects to involve poor households varied, and sometimes it was difficult to define a household as poor, as farmers’ level of prosperity would differ each year dependent on seasonal factors affecting harvests, food availability, off-farm labouring opportunities, community support, etc.

During the field visits to project sites in Xieng Khuang and Luang Prabang, few, if any, poorer households were met and interviewed. Farmers offered several reasons why the poorer/poorest families in their village did not participate in livestock production projects.

• During the first meeting with project teams, farmers were advised that they needed to have background experience and skills in the selected livestock group, possess animals, and have the necessary resources and commitment to be capable of implementing and benefiting from the project. • Poor households were risk averse and avoided indebtedness; they also own few, if any, animals and do not have the resources or inclination to try new techniques due to constant concerns of loss due to failure of their livestock. • Most poorer households seek labouring jobs with local farmers, plantations or factories processing agricultural produce, and therefore, have insufficient time to devote to the necessary tasks required to raise livestock more intensively. • In their village there were few, if any, poor households according to the government’s assessment criteria

In PARUA, vulnerable groups were targeted and actively involved in the project. They were provided a livelihood opportunity through cattle or goat saving banks. Participants from these vulnerable groups partnered farmers experienced in livestock production, who managed the cattle or goats in exchange for a share of the proceeds when animals were sold (30 percent for goats and 50 percent for cattle) and provided income to poorer households.

Although project smallholder farmers may not be the poorest households, they may be the most vulnerable to external shocks, both natural and man-made (such as drought or land loss to large concessionaires). Micro-credit instruments may also provide a threat to ethnic groups, if they do not fully understand financial transactions and risk involved in taking a loan.

Seasonal Workloads On some projects (eg. LDP) villagers were fully consulted at the beginning of the year to determine their seasonal cropping calendars and determine the most convenient times to organise livestock trainings, meetings, visits etc. The mission team viewed these seasonal work

Socio-Economic Assessment 9 December 2013

calendars and training schedules displayed in village meeting halls during the field visits. For other projects, consultation with villagers to organise convenient meeting and training schedules varied - some villages were consulted prior to meeting the project teams; others were informed of visits/training sessions and expected to attend; while for some villagers, DAFO officers arrived without any warning, and villagers needed to finish their work abruptly and participate in the visit, meeting, or training course. In PARUA, project officers often worked with beneficiaries at night so they could all be involved in project meetings and trainings during busy periods of the cropping season.

Allowance for Language Differences LDP and PARUA provided training in local languages to assist members of ethnic groups’ involvement in the project. Training in other projects was conducted in Lao language, which restricted access for women from some ethnic groups unable to understand technical terms in their non-native language. They relied on their husbands to inform them about technical details in the training. Projects also employed staff from the different ethnic groups to provide technical assistance and support to villagers, which helped overcome language barriers.

Most projects did not provide any training materials. LDP provided livestock production handbooks in some villages, and all livestock production groups received posters regarding animal health and feeding, which were displayed in village meeting halls. Some were in dual languages, but mostly provided in Lao language. PARUA Training materials were provided in prai language

Pre-Conditions for Successful Involvement The economic standing of the household was the most important criteria to participate in a project implement and benefit from animal production improvements. Farmers considered that while they must have background experience and own animals from the chosen livestock group, the most important pre-condition for farmers to benefit from involvement in a project was the necessary resources and commitment to invest in new livestock production practices. These pre-conditions aligned with the selection criteria used by project teams to select villagers to participate in new livestock production projects.

LDP farmers in San Don village, Nong Het district, Xieng Khuang, considered age of farmers was an important consideration for involvement in livestock production projects. Younger farmers were more willing to learn, and generally, more willing to borrow funds than older farmers who were often reluctant to try new methods. Some participants considered project/government technical support was inadequate as they were unable to overcome problems as they tried to implement new production methods and thus, were unable to implement all the practices demonstrated by projects.

For vulnerable groups targeted by PARUA the pre-conditions for project participants to benefit from involvement in the project were:

Socio-Economic Assessment 10 December 2013

• Good telecommunication and road access (the main road was built one year ago) allows them to now contact project and DAFO staff to get assistance. In the past, this was not possible, and many more livestock died from disease. • Strong technical support from both project staff and government (one extension officer for every four villages) and good collaboration between them • Respect of local knowledge and culture: Households received training materials and technical advice in prai language to help them improve their livestock practices, which enhanced inclusiveness for vulnerable groups. • Awareness of farming systems: Prai people preferred to practice extensive livestock production (goats, cattle) rather than more intensive systems involved with pigs and chickens because of the time required for feeding. Extensive systems were more suited to their cropping work schedules. • Sustainable veterinary support through the village vets network established by the project with user-pays system to purchase vaccines and other medicines. • Land management: project villages planned their communal land use – villages had not yet been adversely affected by land concessions when their animals grazed on communal lands.

Policies and Regulations Some farmers noted the adverse effect of government policies adopted and implemented by district authorities on livestock production improvements. The examples provided included:

• District authorities’ promotion of particular crops (eg. maize, jatropha) to the detriment of farmers’ livestock production activities. Often provincial and/or district authorities entered commercial ‘contracts’ with Chinese or Vietnamese companies to provide feedstock for local processing facilities. Sometimes farmers needed to sell some or all their livestock in order to purchase the improved inputs specified by authorities for these cropping activities. • District and provincial authorities (eg. Pakxeng district, Luang Prabang) sometimes tried to restrict the numbers of traders accessing certain villages and rural areas by licensing some traders. This often resulted in only one trader (monopsony) accessing several villages to buy livestock unfettered by competition. Such traders determined prices for farmers on a ‘take- it-or-leave-it’ basis that were invariably much lower than fair market prices. However, this hindrance to improved animal production in rural areas had receded, due to improved roads and communications, which allowed farmers to ignore these ‘government’ traders. When they decided to sell, farmers can now readily access livestock prices in local markets through telephone and TV and determine fair farm-gate prices for their livestock. Also, for villages situated on good roads, other traders simply ignored these local restrictions and offered higher prices. Farmers either contacted these ‘non-government’ traders or waited for them to enter their villages before selling livestock.

Spontaneous Replication Many women and men reported that their neighbours and farmers from other villages who had not participated in the project, had sought their advice on improved production practices learned during training, and copied many of these techniques, such as improved penning and

Socio-Economic Assessment 11 December 2013

feeding, but not vaccinations. They had also become more successful growers of livestock. This farmer-to-farmer learning was a significant indirect benefit of livestock production projects, which was difficult to measure and not mentioned in project reporting. This benefit emphasised the effectiveness of selecting competent lead farmers, establishing productive demonstration plots, and the regular presence of project staff in the field.

Few farmers worked cooperatively as a group without project direction. Some farmers said they would meet to discuss livestock issues and problems, particularly during difficult periods, such as prolonged dry periods or widespread deaths due to disease. In a village in Phonexay district, Luang Prabang (TABI), Hmong and Khamu project participants had formed groups, mainly amongst their relatives, for many years before the project, in order to rotate responsibility for minding all their cattle in fallow areas. But farmers never spontaneously organised themselves into production or marketing groups to facilitate purchase of improved inputs or bulking stock for sale to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their livestock production systems.

2. Impact at Household Level Many factors contribute to income levels and food security for farming households and the impact of improved livestock production practices provided significant impact to project participants’ livelihoods. Apart from food, livestock traditionally provided important social security and cash generation roles for farming households. Integration of livestock and crops offered opportunities for livelihood diversification, year-round cash inflows, and spreading risk among mostly subsistence-level farming communities. Hence, livestock production has been considered an important tool for poverty alleviation and improving the livelihoods of resource- poor farmers.

Household Workloads All women and men considered their household workloads increased due to penning of animals and the need to feed and water animals 2-3 times per day. Some farmers had successfully grown fodder crops from seeds provided by the project and cut-and-carry grass to feed their stock each day. Some women therefore, did not need to travel as far to collect sufficient fodder for their livestock. However, fodder crops die off during the dry season and alternative feed sources needed to be utilised. Other farmers preferred to feed their animals with grain stored from their crops or purchased from neighbours. Each day, women processed their stored rice for household consumption, and fed rice by-products to their livestock. Men working in upland fields would collect grain and feed for the family’s livestock each day and carry it home.

While the extra daily work in growing livestock more intensively was predominately the responsibility of women, they were satisfied to do this extra work because they could see the benefits as it led directly to increased family income. Also working together in the livestock group allowed women to share their life experiences and social issues happening both outside and inside their community.

Socio-Economic Assessment 12 December 2013

In PARUA, livestock production was more extensive and improved practices resulted in only minimal increases in household workloads. Women and men shared responsibilities such as building fences, tending goats (men were responsible for cattle) and penning animals when necessary. For cattle, both husband and wife worked together to manage their cattle and goats feeding on fallow lands, and to identify their animals when penning.

Natural Resources Farmers considered their livestock production activities had no adverse impact on the natural resources available to villagers. Intensification of livestock production in the northern uplands will have a detrimental effect on the natural environment. While fewer animals will free-range in forests and pastures, and therefore, be beneficial to the environment, more animals penned will produce more waste in concentrated areas that will eventually wash into streams and water-ways. Upland villagers are endowed with supplies of clean, flowing water originating from mountain peaks. If more animals were raised intensively and more farmers use commercial feeds, then pollution of these water-ways and village water supplies could become a significant health problem in future. Only TABI was utilising animal waste on some project sites as a resource for bio-digesters which supplied households with fuel for cooking and lighting. But the waste from bio-digesters still needed to be safely disposed.

Impact on Other Farming Activities For the majority of project participants cropping remained the main farming activity and other enterprises needed to be adjusted to suit the annual cropping calendar. The method for coping with the extra animal production work during busy periods of the year (eg. harvesting, land preparation, sowing) varied between households. Some farmers did not bother trying to keep their animals in pens and allowed them to revert back to free-range foraging and penning at night only. Some farmers kept their animals penned while they were absent in the fields and relied on their children or elderly relatives to tend to their animals each day. Other farmers fed and watered their animals before they departed and after they returned home but had little time to tend to other animal production tasks (eg. pen repairs, health issues). In many instances, the woman of the household would remain home during less active cropping periods and tend to the family’s livestock and other household duties, while the husband worked in their upland fields.

A small number of farmers decided to specialise on raising livestock as their main livelihood and cease upland cropping, which was particularly prevalent among older farmers. While they may grow some crops, mainly for their own use and animal feed, many had decided to stop growing crops and buy commercial stock feed or purchase grain from their neighbours. They would buy all their household food requirements in the market. For example, a chicken farmer in Phoukoud district, Xieng Khuang (TABI), said he had a ‘rental land contract’ with a village four hours walking distance from his home to grow maize and rice. While he considered he had been successful growing and selling maize, he was now judging whether to renew this ‘contract’ next year or concentrate on growing more chickens as the family’s principal

Socio-Economic Assessment 13 December 2013

livelihood. The farmer estimated they would need to produce and sell 10 times more chickens to cover the revenue shortfall from ceasing to grow and sell maize.

Investment and Indebtedness Increased animal production work resulted in increased investments of time and money for project participants. Only LDP made available financial options for farmers to buy more livestock and other improved inputs, which implied increased indebtedness. Other projects required participants to purchase their own livestock and inputs to implement the improved practices taught and demonstrated in the project. Generally, farmers increased their stock numbers through improved health care of their existing animals and natural increases through breeding, rather than buying more animals using their savings. Some famers purchased penning materials (eg. roofing, concrete, chicken wire), but most used locally-available materials from forests. Some farmers purchased commercial feed to supplement their own animal feed to produce higher quality food for their livestock. Most farmers therefore avoided taking unnecessary risks with their improved animal production practices.

Due to easier access to credit, most LDP farmers borrowed the maximum level of funds available to each livestock group. It is unlikely that all borrowed funds were utilised for buying more animals or other improved production inputs, and some funds were expended on non- productive items, such as satellite television and motor-bikes. Also, many LDP farmers who initially chose to join chicken, pigs or goat production groups switched to cattle/buffalo production groups once they learned they could access a larger loan. There were neither mechanisms nor capacities within the Lao Women Union (LWU), the agency responsible for administering the LDP microfinance component, to assess the credit worthiness of LDP farmers before they granted them loans. The ability of all farmers to repay their loans within 12 months, as stipulated by the microfinance rules and regulations, were questionable. There was much anger and confusion among LDP farmers met during the mission field visits concerning their indebtedness and levels of required repayments.

Improved Skills All women and men reported improved animal production skills learned from the project with regards to animal health, housing and nutrition. They mostly considered animal health techniques were the most effective and beneficial, followed by improved feeding regimes and housing. PARUA established village veterinary support networks, which further strengthened improved animal health skills of project farmers. LDP ventured into improved breeding practices and while there appeared widespread knowledge of better breeding requirements, few farmers implemented practices to reduce in-breeding risks. Some villagers said they sold all their stock every 3-4 years and purchased new breeders, but most farmers usually bred their own replacement breeders.

Many men and women said they wanted to learn other skills to help them improve their livestock productivity, such as herd management skills. Several participants wanted to improve their marketing and trading skills and requested project support for training in these areas.

Socio-Economic Assessment 14 December 2013

SADU introduced traders to farmers through their Agro-Enterprise Development Process as a means to connect remote villages more closely with markets. LDP had also used traders to a limited extent for farmers to understand market requirements for their livestock and the higher prices available for better quality animals.

Meat Consumption Farmers from all projects did not kill their livestock, except chickens, for meat consumption in their household. However, they were now eating more meat purchased from local markets due to their increased household incomes from both cereal and livestock production. Farmers near the border in Xayaboury purchased dried fish in Thailand. All farmers sold their livestock when they required money; they only killed their livestock, apart from chickens, on ceremonial occasions. For PARUA beneficiaries, these occasions were their main periods in the year for meat consumption.

Increased Incomes All farmers met during the mission stated their incomes had increased due to the improved livestock production practices they had adopted. For the majority of farmers, however, livestock was not their main source of income, and farmers remained dependent on upland cereal production. Improved animal production practices increased their animal numbers and more animals were now available for sale. Selling their livestock provided a regular income throughout the year, compared to rice and other cereals, which could only be sold once. Therefore, income from livestock sales provided a valuable supplement to their main income source generated by cereals.

For PARUA beneficiaries, livestock was perceived as more of a social safety net than income. Improved livestock support activities had just started and farmers wanted to build their livestock numbers before considering sales. Once they have reached a critical number (4-5 years), animals may play less a savings role and more an income-generating role. They estimated that five cattle per household may sustainably yield a regular household income.

Only one farmer met during the mission had lost income as a result of losing livestock and indebtedness. A Hmong cattle farmer met in San Dong village, Nong Het district, Xieng Khuang decided that he wanted to diversify his livestock production and grow goats to provide additional income to his cattle. As an LDP farmer he could source funds and technical support from the project. LDP demonstrated improved housing and feeding, and vaccinated the two goats he purchased with his loan (Farmers in goat production groups can borrow a maximum of LAK 3 million to purchase goats and other inputs), although he did not specify his level of indebtedness. The farmer’s goats produced nine kids during the first season, but seven died. He needed to sell cattle to pay back his loan. The farmer consulted DAFO project staff for advice about the deaths, and they told him that he had constructed his goat pens incorrectly; they needed to have raised floors, but he had built his pens on the ground. Goats, particularly young goats, were highly susceptible to parasite-causing diseases, which became more prevalent in

Socio-Economic Assessment 15 December 2013

moist conditions during the wet season. This farmer expressed disappointment with the project because of these losses.

This example demonstrated a disconnect between the farmer and the information on raising goats provided by LDP. Committing a fundamental mistake such as not raising floors on goat pens suggests this farmer either did not attend training or ignored advice provided during training and demonstrations in his goat production group. Also, a lack of timely follow-up, checking and observation by DAFO project staff in this village to ensure farmers were correctly implementing the improved production practices promoted by the project may have ameliorated the extent of this farmer’s losses.

Economic Status Project farmers’ incomes have increased and the extra income provided by improved livestock production practices was a useful supplement to cereal production which was the main income source for a majority of farmers. They now enjoyed higher living standards and purchased household assets, such as satellite television, motor-bikes, vans, and built better houses or made improvements to their existing homes, such as roofing and floors. They ate meat more regularly, which they purchased during more frequent visits to local and district markets. Some farmers stated they purchased more fuel and electricity to operate cropping machinery for tasks that they had formerly done manually.

Families met during the mission had for many years now enjoyed improved food security, and good access to health-care and schooling for their children (which remained priorities). These households now used their incomes to support children of their relatives to attend school and access better health-care. Some farmers were buying more livestock and planning larger animal production enterprises, with accompanying improved practices regarding housing, animal health, and feeding. They planned to cease highland cropping and for their livestock production to eventually become their main household livelihood. A number of residents of Hat Sang village, Pakxeng District, Luang Prabang had recently moved their houses closer to the road so they could gain easier access to district services and traders. They were now building larger and better homes from their increased savings. In Xayaboury, PARUA encouraged their beneficiaries to improve their family’s living conditions – house repairs, nutrition, schooling requirements, clothes etc.

3. Womens’ Empowerment Gender issues focus not only on women, but on the relationship between men and women, their roles, access to and control over resources, and division of labour in livestock production. Donors typically view livestock ownership as a means to increasing women’s decision-making and economic power within both their households and the community, which serves to increase their self-esteem.

Socio-Economic Assessment 16 December 2013

Self-Confidence and Status Generally, women in the northern uplands were becoming more self-confident; however, this increased self-confidence was not entirely attributable to their livelihood activities or involvement in livestock production projects. Women in the northern uplands were being more exposed to the outside world, as improved roads, mobile telephones and satellite television became more widespread and reduced the isolation of many villages. It has become easier for women to travel and visit district and provincial towns and markets more frequently. Many women also attributed their increased self-confidence to the support and training provided by LWU over several years. But most women believed gender roles had not markedly changed: women were responsible for ‘domestic’ decisions and men for decisions outside the house. But women were now more confident to leave their households and attend trainings and meetings within projects.

Livestock production contributed to this increased confidence among women, mainly because the majority of women met during the mission were responsible for managing their household’s income, and livestock was now providing a larger portion of that income through the family’s participation in livestock projects and adoption of improved animal production practices. Women interviewed in Khoun district, Xieng Khuang, and Khamu women in Phonexay district, Luang Prabang stated they needed to closely manage their increased household income otherwise their husbands would waste more cash on smoking and drinking and their families would have no money.

Apart from cattle, women were responsible for most animal production tasks. Men helped build pens, apply vaccinations and gather feed. Women were often responsible for making decisions regarding selling livestock, particularly for chickens, which did not interest most men. However, women usually discussed livestock sales with their husbands, who ultimately made the final decision. Some men stated that if they were absent from their household, then they trusted their wives to make decisions by themselves on the sale of their livestock.

But generalisations cannot be made regarding household decision-making and self-confidence of women across all ethnic groups visited during the mission. For example, Hmong women remain sheltered in their villages and deferred to their husbands on all financial transaction decisions. Many Hmong women participated with their husbands in livestock training and adopted improved animal production practices. Apart from cattle, they were responsible for all other livestock owned by the family. While they may discuss livestock selling the ultimate decision remained the preserve of the husband who would also deal with traders.

Case Study: Hmong Cattle Farmers

A Hmong woman interviewed in San Don village, Nong Het district, Xieng Khuang participated with her husband in LDP training for improved cattle production, which has provided more cattle for her family to sell each year. They once free-ranged their cattle in the forest, and only caged their cattle for 3-12 months to fatten prior to selling. Their cattle were now kept closer to

Socio-Economic Assessment 17 December 2013

home; they grew fodder crops and received free cattle vaccinations from LDP. This helped reduce her workload; with fodder crops and field rotations she no longer needed to collect grass from distant forests, twice a day. They still fattened their cattle in cages, and by using higher quality feed produced fatter cattle than previously. Vietnamese traders preferred these fatter cattle and, together with selling more cattle each year, they received higher prices. Her husband was old, and they had decided not to grow upland rice, and specialise in growing cattle only, which had been successful. With their higher income they purchased a van, motorbike and helped with their grand-children’s education expenses. They purchased their food requirements at local markets and ate meat more regularly.

The husband and wife discussed all financial transactions, but the husband made the final decision and negotiated with traders. Her childhood was spent in a nearby village, and she moved to her home when she married her husband, who was much older than her. She rarely ventured beyond her village and had only visited Nong Het town a few times. When prompted about improving her decision-making authority and status within her community, this woman could not understand why she would need more self-confidence and authority to deal with her husband nor outsiders, such as government officials or traders. The latter was the sole responsibility of her husband and she had never perceived such a role for herself. While she was content not to make decisions in public, within her extended family, however, she was the chief decision-maker. Her children and relatives discussed and sought her advice about major decisions, such as vehicle purchases, marriages, and naming children.

Other Improvements Penning livestock helped improve cleanliness around villages and undoubtedly, reduced the prevalence of disease, particularly for young children. This meant that less money was spent on unforeseen medical expenses and healthier children, which were responsibilities for women. Penning animals also reduced anger and conflict between neighbours because free-ranging animals no longer destroyed neighbours’ gardens and food supplies. This was beneficial for women because they were the family members that dealt with such problems, which often required compensation from her meagre savings.

4. Considerations for Future Livestock Projects The experiences and opinions of livestock project participants interviewed during the assignment revealed the benefits and weaknesses of current methodologies utilised by donors and project teams. The SDC livestock projects researched during the mission have been operational for many years, with LEAP into its fifth phase over 13 years. The socio-economic context of the Northern Uplands for livestock farmers has changed significantly during the past five years, and more changes are likely in the next five years. Improved roads, telecommunications and demand for livestock in neighbouring countries will continue to open the Northern Uplands to commercial realities, which provide both opportunities and threats to the social and economic fortunes of farmers in these areas. Livestock projects should help facilitate farmers’ responses to these challenges and accommodate households at different

Socio-Economic Assessment 18 December 2013

socio-economic levels with often differing motivations for growing livestock that are practical, meaningful and in the best interests of farmers.

The following items of interest are not recommendations nor conclusions of ‘best practice’ but are proposed for consideration, discussion and elaboration by interested groups when designing and implementing new livestock production projects. These items emanated from discussions with project participants in the Northern Uplands, and from the teams’ individual observations and opinions during the field visits.

1. Targeting All participating villages in the livestock projects were selected by DAFO/PAFO, and often individual households received support from multiple projects, sometimes at the same time. In Si Vieng Kham village, Khoun district, Luang Prabang, DAFO have implemented three projects – SADU, LDP and LEAP in this village among the same beneficiary households. SADU and LDP livestock activities overlapped for two years in this village! Similarly, in Tha Kam village, Phonexay district, Luang Prabang, DAFO and PAFO officers distributed pigs from World Vision International (under the EU’s Food Security Project in 2012) to farmers who received training from TABI.

Government officials were under pressure to produce positive outcomes, and therefore, DAFO and PAFO continually select those same farmers from previous projects whom they know delivered results and would likely deliver results in subsequent projects. There were also political considerations in selecting some villages/households for project support. Meanwhile, most other villages in project areas received no significant project support and thus, there remain widespread needs for adopting improved livestock production practices among communities in the northern uplands. Therefore, donors and project teams need to try and determine whether villagers had received support from previous projects and utilise more rigorous selection criteria for new livestock projects.

Also, project teams need to consult and discuss issues between themselves more regularly, not just about targeting suitable beneficiaries, but over a range of project implementation activities. There were many opportunities for coordination and collaboration between projects, but teams did not discuss their field activities with each other. Sometimes project teams were headquartered in the same government compound, yet rarely met each other. Because the methodologies of livestock production activities were similar between projects, then often, support activities were replicated in target villages. More regular meetings and discussions between project teams would reduce overlap between projects and provide more widespread support to villagers who had received little, if any, previous development assistance.

2. Implementation The two methodologies used in the projects were activities implemented solely by DAFO/PAFO staff (SADU, TABI, and LEAP); and activities implemented by project field staff working in partnership with DAFO/PAFO (LDP and PARUA). Results of the former approach were patchy as they were largely dependent on the motivation and level of activity by individual officers to

Socio-Economic Assessment 19 December 2013

deliver results. Many of the improved animal production processes promoted by projects were radical compared to farmers’ traditional practices. Often DAFO staff would provide a two-day training session in new practices and provide no further support for 2-3 months. When they encountered problems or needed further technical support, farmers had no ready access to project staff located in district centres. Therefore, uptake of new methods was variable among farmers as they tried to adopt new and hopefully, improved livestock practices.

When project staff were available in the field for ready consultation and support, results were more effective as new practices were adopted and benefits accrued quicker. Working through demonstration plots and lead farmers, project staff were available more regularly to mentor and support project farmers with problems as they adopted new animal production practices. These relationships helped build trust in changing mindsets and farmers became more confident in following advice from project staff, especially as they encouraged farmers to adopt improved livestock practices that were often radically different to traditional methods. Partnering with project field staff also helped build DAFO skills and capacity.

3. One-size doesn’t fit all Livestock projects need to be flexible in design and during implementation in order to adapt to changing circumstances and operational contexts. Farmers were now more commercially aware of the demand for their livestock as more traders travelled the region to buy livestock for local markets and neighbouring countries. Many more farmers were likely to choose to specialise in livestock production during the next few years in response to market demands, and reduce or cease upland cropping. While other farmers will continue to grow livestock as a savings mechanism and sell their animals when they require cash. Still others will keep livestock for ceremonial purposes or to ensure their family’s food security. Therefore, projects need to understand the underlying primary motivation of farmers for keeping livestock, and design livestock production activities accordingly. For example, more commercially-oriented farmers selling livestock to meet market demands need different project support activities to farmers growing animals primarily as a savings mechanism.

Also, expectations by women regarding their status and self-confidence vary between (and within) different ethnic groups and can vary from village to village. Project staff should be flexible in their approaches to gender and be aware of the differences among ethnic groups. As demonstrated by the Hmong gender case study above, some women have never considered nor desired improved status to deal with people from outside their communities. Therefore, project gender policies also should be sensitive of cultural differences and adopt flexible approaches when helping to improve the livelihoods of women and their families.

4. Marketing and Trading Farmers were adapting to the commercial realities of their livestock enterprise with various coping strategies and varying levels of success. The majority of farmers did not understand livestock trading and requested support with market training so they could deal with traders and be confident of achieving better sale results. Rural livestock markets in the northern uplands were functioning effectively, and efforts by district authorities to control and/or

Socio-Economic Assessment 20 December 2013

restrict traders in their areas were mostly unsuccessful because of improved road access and the large numbers of traders seeking business simply by-passed any restrictions. Therefore, as more farmers become more commercially-oriented and treat their livestock production as a business, their demands for marketing skills and information will increase.

Livestock projects should introduce livestock traders and other private sector actors and marketing training early in the project rather than concentrating only on production and introducing market training later when farmers had sizeable surpluses for sale. Ultimately, farmers selling their livestock cooperatively as a group would probably produce the best results for farmers, as more traders would be interested in visiting a single destination to buy a marketable quantity (truckload) of animals. However, farming households have different cash needs during the year and therefore, farmers were more likely to sell individually. Plus, livestock production groups established by projects rarely continued to function after a project finished, with farmers preferring to manage their livestock activities individually.

5. Herd Management Many farmers have adopted improved livestock production practices as introduced by projects with regard to animal health, penning and improved nutrition. Many were now ready to take the next steps in improved livestock productivity. Improvements in herd management, such as breeding, weaning, and other husbandry practices, such as castration. Such herd management improvements would likely be opposed initially, as these practices were radical departures from traditional livestock practices (eg. not many farmers would be willing to castrate their male stock). But weaning undertaken at the correct time of year (prior to commencement of wet season) would allow the mother to recover from her pregnancy and calf, and be ready to cycle the next season. Also, the calf has the opportunity with abundant fodder to grow quickly, and be at marketable size earlier.

Encouraging farmers to adopt improved herd management practices would require a sound working relationship between project staff and farmers, and thus, the advantage of having project staff constantly in the field to train and encourage farmers to try new production methods. These herd management improvements effectively build on the basis established by livestock projects (animal health, feeding, housing), and would be especially beneficial for those farmers becoming more commercially oriented. Therefore, firstly knowing a farmer’s motivation for growing livestock would improve project results, and whether these improved herd management practices would be suitable to all farmers in a livestock production group.

6. Financing Improved Inputs Providing microfinance options for farmers to purchase improved production inputs proved problematic in all LDP villages visited during the mission, which caused confusion and anger among beneficiaries. They did not fully understand their financial debt or the final amount they needed to pay within 12 months. Many had not saved the compulsory 20 percent prior to obtaining a loan, and this amount was deducted from the loan amount; yet farmers did not understand why they needed to pay interest on the full loan amount. Many farmers switched from poultry and pig groups to cattle/buffalo production groups once they discovered they

Socio-Economic Assessment 21 December 2013

could access a larger loan. There were no checks of farmers’ creditworthiness and capacities to pay back loans. These problems caste doubt on the capacity of LWU to manage the microfinance component of LDP.

Village Saving and Loan Groups and other Self-Help Group models could be utilised in livestock production groups as a funding mechanism for improved inputs. These were effective mainly because project beneficiaries manage the savings and loan activities themselves, and amounts were small (compared to amounts available through microfinance facilities such as LDP). But self-help groups require time and effort to establish and operate effectively, and the major problem was how groups managed non-repayment of loans by members.

Therefore, unless project teams were prepared to devote significant time and effort to training, managing, checking, and pursuing unpaid loans with project beneficiaries, then financial instruments should be avoided in livestock production projects. CARE (PARUA) and LDP (demonstration farmers) used revolving funds and animal banks that demonstrate successful non-financial models for animal distribution to beneficiaries. These models were simpler to understand for farmers. They can easily manage the livestock distribution model themselves and farmers know what they will receive from the distribution.

7. Opportunities for poorer farmers The socio-economic situation of the northern uplands has changed significantly since the commencement of these SDC-funded projects and the situation will continue to change for the foreseeable future. Land concessions and contract farming have become more prevalent, which provides employment opportunities for many people living in these areas. Foreign companies that have planted cash crops in northern Lao PDR, have also built processing factories, which provides further job opportunities in the region. Therefore, many poorer households in the northern uplands no longer need to follow their previous livelihood practices, such as growing livestock, collecting NTFPs, fishing etc. Many now have the opportunity to work for companies or larger farmers as day labourers on plantations or factories and receive cash payments for their work. Donors therefore, need to re-consider their target beneficiaries and likely results from any future livestock projects in the northern uplands.

Socio-Economic Assessment 22 December 2013

Annex 1. Terms of Reference: Socio-Economic Assessment

Swiss Cooperation Office for the Mekong Region Laos

1 November 2013

Terms of Reference

Study of the socio-economic impact at household level of livestock production and commercialization activities funded by SDC in Lao PDR

(18-30 November 2013)

1. Rational of Study For the last 6 years SDC has been supporting several projects mainly or partially focused on livestock production and commercialization to the benefit of upland Lao smallholder farmers. The Northern Region Sustainable Livelihood through Livestock Development Project (NRSLLDP), a MAF project co-funded by ADB, IFAD, SDC since 2006 and will conclude in 2014. The impact of the project consists in “improving sustainability of livelihoods of upland smallholders in northern Lao PDR”. The immediate outcome is “to improve livestock productivity and profitability under integrated upland farming systems”. The Smallholder Agricultural-market Development in the Uplands of the Lao PDR project (SADU), a CIAT implemented project which has operated from 2003 to 2012 ,aiming to achieve that “Smallholder farming households, particularly ethnic minority groups, women and the poor, have increased benefit from local agriculture-based production markets”. Lao Extension Agriculture Project (LEAP), which is implemented by MAF/DEAC and Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation (from 2001 will conclude in 2014) and whose objective is “to contribute to the development of a decentralized, participatory, pluralistic and sustainable agriculture extension system that is capable of benefiting poorer households and communities, and reaches male and female farmers equally”. The Agro Biodiversity Initiative (TABI), (2009- ) implemented by MAF/DoP, with assistance of NIRAS. Its objective is “To contribute to poverty alleviation and improved livelihoods of upland communities through sustainable management and use of ABD in multi-functional landscapes”. The Poverty Alleviation in Remote Upland Areas (PARUA), a CARE project which is co- funded by SDC since 2003. Its objective is “to sustainably increase livelihood security among poor ethnic groups in remote upland areas”. These projects are very different from each other and have worked through distinct approaches and modalities. The respective expected impacts of these projects are different, but they all share the purpose to improve livelihood of upland farming families. The 5 projects include livestock production, either as a central topic or as a productive activity among several options. All projects consider livestock production for income generation and increase meat availability.

Socio-Economic Assessment 23 December 2013

All five project responsible implementing agencies (MAF Dep. of Livestock and Fisheries, CIAT, Helvetas/NAFES, MAF Dep. of planning/NIRAS and CARE, respectively) have reported positive results in the target areas, including benefits at community level and household level. However, despite very detailed information about progress at beneficiaries’ level, like the forming of numerous production/trading groups, SDC wishes: • To better know about the impact at households level in term of food (meat) availability, and/or income generation. • To appreciate if the impact is differs depending on gender and ethnicity (remoteness, poverty, education, and other relevant social conditions) • To appreciate the sustainability of the improved capacities at farmer level • To understand the economic, policy and governing pre-conditions under which upland smallholders may benefit from livestock development activities, especially related to commercial production. • To learn which approaches optimized the involvement of beneficiaries in the design/selection of project support. • To identify any spontaneous replication occurring

2. Objectives of the Study The general objective of the study is to assess the changes in beneficiary’s livelihoods and household economic and food security (income and assets) attributable to engagement in livestock production activities supported by the 5 projects. The study will examine each aspect listed below, applying two cross- cutting themes: gender perspective (reporting clearly the impact on women and men) and differentiation between Lao-Tai communities and Non Lao Tai (ethnic) communities.

More specifically, the study will examine the following issues and respective sub-issues:

a) Matching intervention to beneficiaries

1. The way that beneficiaries have been consulted before being targeted by the projects. 2. The way that the projects did take into account the skills and previous livestock productive activities of the beneficiaries 3. The way that the projects did meet beneficiaries’ expectations and interest (choice of livestock, production patterns, quantities, etc.) 4. The way that the projects have encouraged the farmers’ innovation 5. The relative technology adoption among men, women and ethnic groups and the effort by project staff in facilitating adoption by men, women and among ethnic groups. 6. Involvement and accommodation of the poorest households in projects activities

b) Projects impact at the household level

7. the consequences of livestock production and commercialization activities in term of workload for women and respectively for men 8. the consequences of livestock production on natural resources (incl. water) 9. impact of livestock production on other productive activities for men and women (hindering, complicating, facilitating, complimentary)

Socio-Economic Assessment 24 December 2013

10. the implications of increased time, financial and resource investments in livestock production (possible indebtedness) 11. progress in term of skills acquisition (animal health, husbandry, forage production, etc) 12. impact on meat availability for family consumption 13. impact on household and women’s income 14. impact on general household economic status (productive and non-productive asset ownership, income, saving, house condition, access to natural resources, land ownership and access) and differences among ethnic and Lao Tai communities 15. impact on health and social status of participating households (school enrolment, use of health service) 16. impact on food consumption, differentiated by children, men, women, ethnic groups. 17. how women decision making has been fostered or not by livestock production? 18. The role of women in livestock improvements, especially in decision-making and whether this has any impact on their position in the household. 19. Impact on social position of men and women within the families at the at community level, towards traders and towards district staff? 20. Minimum household economic status required before households can benefit from intervention and link to the type of livestock (cattle versus pigs or chicken)

c) Beneficiaries’ motivation

21. The main factors, differentiated by ethnic group, that form preconditions or predispose farmers to applying livestock production improvement (considering internal factors at village level such as poverty, remoteness, education, production groups, etc) and external factors like extension service (quality and quantity of delivery), market accessibility, local policies toward livestock production and marketing (monopsonies vs open markets)

22. Spontaneous or farmer initiated expansion or spread of project-introduced practices

23. Are there cases where livestock producers did organize themselves (making a group) without project support?

3. Scope, Methodology and Tasks

Target geographical area: The study will consider villages in: Ponsai District, LPB (native pigs, TABI), and Phoukodt District, XKJ, (TABI, native chickens); Khoun District, XKH, (SADU/LEAP livestock groups); Xaysathan District, Xayaburi, (PARUA). Villages targeted by the NRSLLDP will be selected with the NPD if possible in the proximity of the other projects experiences. SDC Office will take care of preparing the list of villages.

Methodology • Develop key indicators for assessment and methodology (including questionnaires for in-depth interviews) • Field visits and meetings in selected villages with beneficiaries, individually or in groups (the organization of field visits will be supported by SDC in collaboration with projects) • Organize, in collaboration with SDC Office, a debriefing meeting to present findings and discuss conclusions and recommendations for further livestock development activities.

Socio-Economic Assessment 25 December 2013

Tasks

Under the supervision of the SDC Deputy Director, with the support of SDC NPO and in close coordination with project management (LEAP TA team leader1, TABI CTA, CARE Assistant Country Director, NRSLLDP NPD , the study team shall carry out following tasks.

• Review of project documents, project progress reports and other relevant documents • Organize meetings with project team and stakeholders for their inputs to the study • Organize field visits to meet with beneficiaries in selected villages • Submit a final report in English, of maximum 25 pages without annexes, including an executive summary of 2-3 pages.

4. Composition of the study team and role of the team leader

The composition of the team aims to balance international and local perspectives, Composition of Study Team • Mr Steven Watkins, Senior Rural Livelihood Development Specialist, Team Leader • Mrs Phetsakhone Somphongbouthakanh, national consultant specialized in sociology, with specific knowledge and experience in gender • Dr Aloun Phonvisay, Deputy Director of Livestock Research Center, NAFRI • Ms Perrine Fournier, Rural Livelihood Development Specialist, working for the Comité de Coopération avec le Laos (CCL), gender and ethnicity specific knowledge.

Roles and responsibilities of the Team Leader:

The team leader will conduct the study through: - Reviewing relevant background documents, the project documents, quarterly progress reports (NRLLSDP), progress and annual reports of SADU (2011), LEAP (2013), TABI (2013), PARUA (2013) and the end of phase reports of TABI, LEAP, SADU and PARUA, plus other documents he may request from SDC about the considered projects. - Together with other team members, design the appropriate methodology and develop a detailed questionnaire for household survey; - Together with other team members, finalize the sample of villages which will participate in the study where project beneficiaries will be interviewed; - Act as a source of advice and support to the study team members to fulfil the tasks. - Analyze the results from the fieldwork against the ToRs - Write up the key findings, conclusions and recommendations in a report; - Present the key findings of the study to SDC and the related project’s stakeholders - Finalize the report.

5. Duration

This study will be carried out for 13 days (17 for the team leader) including paperwork arrangement, field study and presentation of findings. The study is expected to start on November 18, 2013. A detailed schedule of the study mission will be presented at the beginning on the first day of the study.

1 The previous SADU Senior Advisor, Mr Nalongsack, can be approached through LEAP TA.

Socio-Economic Assessment 26 December 2013

Annex 2. Socio-Economic Assessment Questionnaire

Questionnaire for Beneficiary Groups and Individuals

Introduction for Group Discussion and Individual Discussion Hello, my name is XXXX and we are here to try and understand the impact of the livestock production activities in XXXX project on living conditions in your village. Therefore, we would like you to compare your living conditions before the project started to your situation today. All your responses will be used confidentially; we do not wish to know your name or personal details and will not discuss any individual responses with local officials.

How many household/family involved in XXXX activity? What is your ethnicity? How many people in your family? How many work?

Part 1: Participation of Beneficiaries (Group Discussion) 1. What was your motivation for deciding to participate in the project? 2. Before the project started, did you attend/organize meetings with your community and discuss your livelihood issues? 3. Did you discuss about livestock production? What were your livestock practices before the project? What were your main reasons to do livestock before the project? (meat consumption, commercial activity, saving account…) 4. How did the project take into account your skills and experience regarding livestock production? 5. Did the project activities meet your expectations and interests (eg. Choice of livestock, production methods, quantities produced each year, needs in terms of skills and knowledge)? 6. By comparing skills and techniques used for livestock production before and after the project, which practice do you like more? 7. Did you adapt all the new innovations in animal production that were demonstrated to you during the project (if not, why not and what activities did you adopt?) 8. How did the project staff encourage you to adapt new animal production practices? 9. Do you think women are more willing to adopt new technologies than men, or men more than women, or doesn’t matter 10. How were these improved animal production inputs provided in your community – did the project provide for free, did you have to pay the full price or a discounted price? 11. Are the poorest households able to participate? How were the poorest households/ ethnic minority in your community included in the project. If not why? (or do you think the poorest households/ethnic minority would be unable to meet the necessary requirements to participate and benefit from the project eg. Lack of land, labour and other resources). 12. Were you consulted to set up trainings and meetings schedule? Does the project take into account your ritual calendar or seasonal calendar when setting up trainings, meetings? Are they conducted into your own language or in Lao language? 13. What kind of training material did you receive (were they in local languages)

Socio-Economic Assessment 27 December 2013

14. What do you think are the main conditions required for a household to become involved in a project and implement animal production improvements - level of poverty, village remoteness, education levels, production groups, extension support (project and government providers), access to markets, single trader or competition, government policies to support livestock production etc. 15. What is minimum economic status of households to benefit from type of livestock production – cattle vs. pigs vs. goats vs. chickens vs. other 16. Have other people within your communities copied project activities or asked for your inputs/advice and benefited even though they did not participate in the project? 17. Have any farmers within your community formed livestock groups by themselves (and not been directed or told by project/government staff) 18. Are you organized in a livestock group? Did you decide to form a group on your own or did the project or government officials recommend you to get organized? If you did it by your own, why and what are the objectives of your groups?

Part 2: Impact at Household Level (Individual Discussions) 19. By adopting these new animal production methodologies, how did workloads increase within your family/household? Who was the main person in your household did this extra work? 20. By increasing your animal production work, what effect did this have on your water, feed and other natural resources? 21. Did the extra work you needed to complete each day for your livestock affect your other farming activities (eg. Sowing, harvesting rice, collecting NTFP)? 22. By increasing your animal production work, what “investments” (financial, time, other resources eg. Timber) did you need to make (increased indebtedness?) 23. Have you learnt new techniques? How have your skills increased (animal health, husbandry, breeding, feeding, selling) 24. Does your family eat more meat (from your livestock) than before? 25. Has the increased animal production in your farm led to higher incomes for you? 26. If not increased? Why? What happened? How did you solve the problem? Who did you consult for advice? 27. If incomes increased, how did you spend the extra money? - The impact on your family’s diet –Improved food security? More diverse nutrition in daily meals?

o Is this the same for all family members or do you favour your children's food first before adults?

- Did you improve your house and/or buy extra things for your house (eg. Furniture, TV, improved roof) - Did you buy new farm implements or machinery - Did you buy better production inputs (eg. Improved rice seed, fertiliser) - Did you spend extra money on your children's education and/or health care

Women Self-confidence Did livestock production (and increased income?) provide you with more confidence in making decisions/and discussions within your household? Community? With outsiders such as government officials or traders? 28. Any other positive improvements for you within the community 29. Does it have a positive impact on your position in the community? How?

Socio-Economic Assessment 28 December 2013

Annex 3. Village Locations of Socio-Economic Assessment

No. Date Village District Project(s) No. HH Participants Interviewed Case Ethnic Livestock In project Women Men study Groups Groups 1 21/11/2013 Le thong Phoukoud, XK TABI 15 4 6 1 Phoun chicken 2 21/11/2013 Houysalord Xaysathan, XYB PARUA 31 12 6 Prai Chicken, pig goat, cattle 3 21/11/2013 Phoulern Xaysathan, XYB PARUA 50 4 6 1 Prai Goat 4 22/11/2013 San Don Nong Het, XK LDP 17 1 5 1 Hmong Cattle/goats 5 22/11/2013 Sapi Xaysathan, XYB PARUA 20 8 12 Prai Goat 6 22/11/2013 Sakhet Xaysathan, XYB PARUA 21 0 5 Prai Goat 7 23/11/2013 Si vieng Khoun, XK SADU/LDP 16 11 3 Khamu chickens Kham 8 23/11/2013 Na Ou Khoun, XK LEAP 396 4 2 chickens 9 23/11/2013 Samart Xaysathan, XYB PARUA 25 3 10 Prai Goat, cattle 10 23/11/2013 Suntair Xaysathan, XYB PARUA 88 0 4 Prai Goat 11 25/11/2013 Tha Kham Phonexay, LPB TABI 9 4 2 Khamu, Lao Pigs Loum 12 25/11/2013 Donxay Phonexay, LPB TABI 8 0 6 1 Khamu Pig 13 26/11/2013 Kalongkong Phonexay, LPB TABI 11 3 6 Khamu, Pigs Hmong 14 26/11/2013 Sop Jear Phonexay, LPB TABI 4 0 3 Khamu Pig 15 27/11/2013 Hat Sang Pakxeng, LPB LDP 20 16 1 Lao Loum, Pigs/Goats/ Lao Theung cattle 16 27/11/2013 Hat Pa Od Pakxeng, LPB LDP 19 8 5 2 Khamu, Pigs/Goats/ Hmong cattle 17 27/11/2013 Hat Pa Od Pakseng, LPB LDP 23 6 8 Khamu Cattle

Villagers met and interviewed during socio-economic assessment

XK – Xieng Khuang; XYB – Xayabury; LPB – Luang Prabang

Socio-Economic Assessment 29 December 2013