Durham E-Theses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Durham E-Theses Changing lives, changing nature(s): socio-environmental transitions in the uplands of the Lao PDR Lestrelin, Guillaume How to cite: Lestrelin, Guillaume (2009) Changing lives, changing nature(s): socio-environmental transitions in the uplands of the Lao PDR, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/894/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Department of Geography CHANGING LIVES, CHANGING NATURE(S) Socio-environmental transitions in the uplands of the Lao PDR Guillaume Lestrelin Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) 2008 Abstract This study debates the socio-political construction of the land degradation issue in the Lao PDR, the consequences of this construction for policy interventions in the uplands, and the social and environmental outcomes of these interventions. For that purpose, livelihood analysis is integrated into the theoretical framework of political ecology. The study adopts a ‘hybrid’ and locally-grounded approach that integrates methods from the social and ecological sciences and investigates recent livelihood and environmental change in two upland villages in northern Laos. From there, the analysis draws a number of causal links between local socio-environmental change, local ‘theories’ on land degradation, the wider political economy and the politics of the ‘environment’ at the national level, and various local contingencies (i.e. social differentiation, socio- cultural change and everyday resistance to ‘external’ interventions). The study argues that the current mainstream environmental discourse in Laos appears less based on solid empirical evidence than shaped by the subjectivities and political-economic projects of the state, the political elite and their international development partners. In turn, policy interventions supported by this discourse have significant impacts on upland livelihoods and environments. Importantly, they contribute to make traditional upland agriculture unsustainable and, hence, drive a general trajectory of livelihood diversification and de- agrarianisation. Nevertheless and notwithstanding significant constraints linked to land degradation and wide-ranging state regulations, upland-dwellers retain a non-negligible level of agency which allows them to pursue their own, sometimes contested, economic and political objectives. Multi-local social networks and ‘village-local state’ alliances appear to play a key role in facilitating this process. These findings have important implications for the conceptualization of society-nature, global-local and state-society relations. They highlight a need to shift from simple dualistic models to more integrated perspectives accounting for the co-construction of society and nature, the co-production of global and local change, and the interpenetration of the state and society. ii Statement of copyright The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without their prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. iii Contents ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES, PHOTOS, BOXES AND FIGURES ................................................VI ACRONYMS ...............................................................................................................VIII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................IX CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 1.1. (RE)CONNECTING LAND DEGRADATION AND POLITICAL ECONOMY........................ 3 1.2. A ‘POLITICAL ECOLOGY OF LIVELIHOODS’............................................................ 4 1.3. LAOS AND THE UPLANDS ................................................................................... 7 1.4. OUTLINE OF THE THESIS.................................................................................. 10 1.5. SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER 2. RESEARCH CONTEXT AND METHODS ........................................ 13 2.1. THE MSEC FRAMEWORK ................................................................................ 14 2.1.1. Objectives ............................................................................................. 14 2.1.2. Research sites ...................................................................................... 16 2.2. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ........................................................................ 22 2.2.1. The approach developed with MSEC ................................................... 22 2.2.2. Methodological adjustments ................................................................. 32 2.3. ‘POSITIONALITY’ AND OTHER REFLECTIONS ON THE RESEARCH PROCESS .......... 35 2.4. SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 41 CHAPTER 3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK........................................................ 43 3.1. QUESTIONING COMMON DIVIDES...................................................................... 44 3.1.1. Society and nature................................................................................ 44 3.1.2. Global and local .................................................................................... 47 3.1.3. State and society................................................................................... 50 3.2. TWO THEORETICAL APPROACHES .................................................................... 53 3.2.1. Political ecology .................................................................................... 53 3.2.2. Sustainable Livelihoods Approach ........................................................ 59 3.3. INTEGRATING AND QUESTIONING THE TWO APPROACHES .................................. 63 3.3.1. Conceptual variations and integration................................................... 63 3.3.2. Emerging research themes................................................................... 66 3.4. SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 69 CHAPTER 4. LAND DEGRADATION: DISCOURSES AND POLICY.................... 73 4.1. CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAND DEGRADATION ISSUE.......................................... 74 4.1.1. Facts and fictions .................................................................................. 74 4.1.2. The ‘chain of degradation’ narrative in Laos ......................................... 80 4.1.3. The upland ‘issue’ in Laos .................................................................... 86 4.2. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY .............................................................................. 94 4.2.1. Land zoning and land use regulation.................................................... 96 4.2.2. Resettlement....................................................................................... 102 4.2.3. Lowland-upland dichotomy and state territorialisation ........................ 104 4.3. THE HIDDEN TRANSCRIPT.............................................................................. 106 4.3.1. Modern lowlands, backward uplands.................................................. 107 4.3.2. State project, political elites and minorities ......................................... 109 4.3.3. Coalition and compromise ...................................................................112 4.4. FUTURE PROSPECTS .....................................................................................118 4.5. SUMMARY .....................................................................................................119 iv CHAPTER 5. LOCAL LIVELIHOODS AND THE ENVIRONMENT...................... 122 5.1. LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE IN BAN LAK SIP........................................... 123 5.1.1. Biophysical measurements ................................................................. 124 5.1.2. Local perceptions and ‘theories’ on land degradation......................... 127 5.1.3. Measurements, local ‘theories’ and the official discourse ................... 132 5.2. LIVELIHOOD CHANGE .................................................................................... 135 5.2.1. Adaptation to land degradation ........................................................... 135 5.2.2. Economic transition and market integration........................................ 145 5.2.3. Reaction to land reform and resettlement........................................... 154 5.2.4. De-agrarianisation and ‘minor variations’............................................ 160 5.3. BRINGING DISCOURSE