An Analysis of the Public and Private Policy Environment

OXFAM AMERICA Research Report

An analysis of the public and private policy environment and practices towards smallholder farmers and small- scale agriculture in the context of food security and climate change in the Lower Mekong River Basin countries

Sustaining and Enhancing the Momentum for Innovation and Learning around the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in the Lower Mekong River Basin (SEMIL-SRI-LMB project)

21th December 2014

Ludovic Pommier Independent Consultant AUTHOR’S PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In February 2014, Oxfam America East-Asia Regional Office (EARO) commissioned the Author for an analysis of the public and private policy environment and practices towards smallholder farmers and small-scale agriculture in the context of food security and climate change in the Lower Mekong River Basin countries.

This research was undertaken as part of Sustaining and Enhancing the Momentum for Innovation and Learning around the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in the Lower Mekong River Basin (SEMIL-SRI-LMB project). SEMIL-SRI-LMB is implemented in the four Lower Mekong River Basin countries (LMB) of Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam) for 60 months. It is led by the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) in partnership with Oxfam, and FAO. The project’s overall objective is to increase crop yield, productivity and profitability on a sustainable basis for smallholder in the rain-fed areas of LMB.

This report has been written over a 2-month period and further revisions took place in December 2014, following a presentation of findings in August 2014. A key purpose of this work is to present policy analysis and subsequent policy advocacy options that can be implemented under SEMIL-SRI-LMB. Several appendices have been provided to facilitate choice of policy advocacy options and their operationalization: stand-alone policy recommendations by country, comprehensive bibliographies and policy references by country and a summary of all recommendations.

While not all policy advocacy options developed in this report can be implemented by SEMIL- SRI-LMB, it was always understood that the scope of the work was much larger and could inform future advocacy undertakings by Oxfam America EARO. The Author can only hope that many initiatives, which may improve life of the poorest farmers, can stem from this research.

This report is the result of collaboration with three specialists of policies in the region: Dr Philip Charlesworth for Thailand, Dr Emmanuel Santoyo Rio for Cambodia, and Dr Pham Thai Hung for Vietnam. While this work would not have been possible without such gifted colleagues, the Author is entirely responsible for the final output of the research.

The Writer would like to extend his heartfelt thanks to Oxfam America; to the Asian Institute of Technology; to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; and to the SEMIL-SRI-LMB project (both to the Coordination Office in AIT and to National Offices) for their trust, stimulating comments and support during his engagement.

Oxfam America EARO Regional Policy Advisor, first Mrs. Nguyet Bao Dang and then Ms. Kaneka Keo freely provided assistance, information and guidance. The Regional Director of Oxfam America EARO, Mr. Brian Lund, kindly shared his vast knowledge of regional policies and was always available for intellectual debates. Last, but not least, Dr. Abha Mishra, SEMIL-SRI-LMB Team Leader, proved an astute and supportive reviewer.

i CONTENTS

List of Tables...... v List of Figures ...... v List of Abbreviations and Acronyms...... vi

Executive Summary...... 1

Introduction...... 8 SEMIL-SRI-LMB project and analysis objectives ...... 8 Approach and limitations ...... 9 Approach ...... 9 Limitations ...... 10 Endnotes...... 11

Cambodia ...... 12 Context ...... 12 Smallholder rice farmers in Cambodia...... 13 Policies that hinder or enable the development of a smallholder rice agriculture...... 14 Overall Cambodian Government policy: the Rectangular Strategy...... 14 Agricultural policy ...... 16 Agricultural extension ...... 16 Land policy ...... 17 Water management and irrigation ...... 18 Climate change...... 20 Conclusion...... 21 Endnotes...... 23

Lao PDR ...... 25 Context ...... 25 Smallholder rice farmers in Lao PDR ...... 25 Policies that hinder or enable the development of a smallholder rice agriculture...... 27 Overall LAO PDR Government policy: The 7th National Socio-Economic Development Plan 2010-2015 (7th NSEDP) ...... 27 Agricultural Strategy ...... 28

ii Irrigation...... 30 Access to natural assets/land...... 31 The new extension paradigm and Farmers’ Cooperatives...... 32 Conclusion...... 34 Endnotes...... 35

Thailand...... 39 Context ...... 39 Smallholder rice farmers in Thailand ...... 40 Policies that hinder or enable the development of a smallholder rice agriculture...... 41 The Philosophy of Self-Sufficient Economy (overall guiding Government policy)...... 41 The New Theory (guiding principle for agricultural policies)...... 42 Fertilizer policies...... 44 Rice pledging scheme ...... 45 Contract farming...... 46 Organic initiatives ...... 47 Conclusion...... 49 Endnotes...... 50

Vietnam...... 53 Context ...... 53 Smallholders rice farmers in Vietnam...... 53 Policies that hinder or enable the development of a smallholder rice agriculture...... 55 Food security...... 55 Land use policy...... 56 Labor market policies ...... 57 Access to credit ...... 59 Agriculture extension...... 60 Conclusion...... 61 Endnotes...... 62

Brief review of regional policy environment ...... 65 Regional policies and integration...... 65 Association of South-East Nations (ASEAN)...... 65 ADB Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS)...... 66

iii Regional policy strategies proposed by advisory bodies...... 66 FAO Rice strategy for sustainable food security in Asia and the Pacific region...... 66 Endnotes...... 68

Conclusion: synergies for advocacy ...... 70

Appendix 1 – Analytical Framework...... 71 Appendix 2 – Inception Lists of Documents for Each Country (and the region)...... 85 Appendix 3 – Summary of Policy References for Each Country...... 106 Appendix 4 - Stand-alone policy recommendation for each country...... 111 Appendix 5 – Other areas of concern for smallholders and additional recommandations.130 Appendix 6 - Recommendations by themes and expected areas of impact ...... 136

iv LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Malnutrion for children under 5 in rural areas of Lao PDR in 2012 ...... 26 Table 2 - Use of productive Inputs by regions of Lao PDR in 2011...... 27 Table 3 - Farm sizes in Thailand in 2012...... 40 Table 4 - Thai organic production and value (2003-2009)...... 48 Table 5 - Paddy rice landholding (ha) and structure of rural income (%) in 2011 in Vietnam.54

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Study’s role within SEMIL-SRI-LMB...... 8 Figure 2 - SE Asia: Comparative Regional Rice Yields (2008-2009) ...... 12 Figure 3 - SE Asia: Farm gate price received for 1 ton of paddy (USD) in 2012...... 13 Figure 4 - Agro-ecological zones of Cambodia...... 14 Figure 5 - Deficit/Surplus of rice by province of Lao PDR in 2010/2011...... 26 Figure 6 - Shares of investments by source for Lao PDR (2010-2015)...... 29 Figure 7 - Shares of Investments by programs for Lao PDR (2010-2015) ...... 29 Figure 8 - Land utilization and main crops in Thailand in 2010 ...... 39 Figure 9 - Destination markets of Thai Rice by region in 2011...... 39 Figure 10 - Major crops by region in Thailand (2011-12)...... 41 Figure 11 - The New Theory for agriculture in Thailand ...... 42 Figure 12 - Fertilizer use by crops in Thailand (2011) ...... 44 Figure 13 - Certified Organic area in Thailand (1998-2009)...... 48 Figure 14 - Paddy rice landholding in Vietnam by Regions (hectares, 2011)...... 54 Figure 15 - Production of rice in Vietnam (mil ha and mil tones)...... 55 Figure 16 - FOB prices for export from Vietnam and Thailand (USD)...... 56 Figure 17 - Population growth in rural Vietnam (%) (1990-2009) ...... 58

v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AARES Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research ACT Organic Agriculture Certification of Thailand ADB Asian Development Bank ADBI Asian Development Bank Institute ADS Agricultural Development Strategy (Lao PDR) AIP Agricultural Investment Plan (Lao PDR) AIT Asian Institute of Technology AMP Agricultural Master Plan (Lao PDR) ANR Agriculture and Natural Resources APRACA Asia-Pacific Rural and Agricultural Credit Association ARD Agricultural and Rural Development ASEAN Association of South-East Asian Nations AAV Action Aid Vietnam BoL Bank of Lao PDR CARD Council for Agriculture and Rural Development (Cambodia) CBTA Cross-Border Transport Agreement (of GMS) CCCSP Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan CDTA Capacity Development Technical Assistance (of ADB) CEP Core Environment Program (of GMS) CEPT Common Effective Preferential Tariff (of ASEAN) CFSVA Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (of WFP) CPF Charoen Pokphand Foods (Thailand) DAEC Department of Agricultural Extension and Cooperatives of MAF (Lao PDR) DARD District Agriculture and Rural Development office of MARD (Vietnam) DoI Department of Irrigation of MAF (Lao PDR) EARO East Asia Region Office (Oxfam America) ELC Economic Land Concessions F Impact on Food Security (for a recommendation) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FDI Foreign Direct Investment FG Fill a policy Gap (for a recommendation) FIA Foreign Investment Agency (FIA) of MPI (Vietnam) FLO Fair-trade Labeling Organizations International FOB Free-On-Board FTA Free-Trade Agreement FWUC Farmer Water User Committee G2G Government-to-Government GAP Good Agricultural Practices GB Great-Britain GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GHG Green House Gas GMS Greater Mekong Sub-region

vi GoL Government of Lao PDR GoV Government of Vietnam GSICS Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies of Kobe University GSO General Statistical Office (Vietnam) HLPE High Level Panel of Experts (of WFP) HRC Human Rights Council of United Nations ICAAP International Co-operative Alliance Asia and Pacific IDS Institute of Development Studies (University of Sussex) IFAD International Fund for Agriculture Development IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development ILO International Labor Organization IMT Irrigation Management Transfer INGO International Non-Governmental Organization IPSARD Institute for Policies and Strategies in Agriculture and Rural Development (Vietnam) IRC Indochina Research and Consulting (Vietnam) IRDP Integrated Rural Development in Poverty Regions of Laos ISWG Infrastructure Sector Working Group (Lao PDR) ITC International Trade Corporation IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature IWMI International Water Management Institute IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency LASSP Land Administration Sub Sector Program (Cambodia) LEAP Lao Extension Approach LIWG Land Issue Working Group (Lao PDR) LMAP Cambodian Land Management and Administration Project LMB Lower Mekong Basin LPRP Lao People’s Revolutionary Party MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Cambodia) MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Vietnam) MCCI Mekong Chamber for Commerce and Industry MEI Monitoring and Evaluation Indicator MFI Micro-Finance Institution MLMUPC Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction (Cambodia) MoH Ministry of Health (Lao PDR) MOIC Ministry of Industry and Commerce (Lao PDR) MoIT Ministry of Industry and Trade (Vietnam) MOLISA Ministry of Labor, War Invalids, and Social Affairs (MOLISA) MoNRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (Lao PDR, Vietnam) MOU Memorandum of Understanding MoWRAM Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology (Cambodia) MPI Ministry of Planning and Investment (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Vietnam) MRC Mekong River Commission MRD Ministry of Rural Development (Cambodia) NAEC National Agriculture Extension Centre of MARD (Vietnam) NAFES National Agricultural and Forestry Extension Service of MAF (Lao PDR) NAFRI National Agricultural and Forestry Extension Service (Lao PDR)

vii NAPA National Adaptation Program of Action (for climate change) NCCR Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research North-South, University of Bern NCRDPE National Committee for Rural Development and Poverty Eradication (Lao PDR) NRE Natural Resources and Environment NERI National Economic Research Institute of MPI (Lao PDR) NESDB National Economic and Social Development Board (Thailand) NFC National Fertilizer Company (Thailand) NGO Non-Governmental Organization NGPES National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy (Lao PDR) NSDP National Strategic Development Plan (Cambodia) NSEDP National Socio-Economic Development Plan (Lao PDR) NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products NUDP Northern Upland Development Programme (Lao PDR) ODA Overseas Development Assistance P Impact on Profitability (for a recommendation) PALS Productive Assets and Livelihoods Support (WFP Cambodia) PAR Participatory Action Research PBS Public Broadcasting Service (Thailand) PEP Poverty and Economic Policy Network PMO Prime Minister’s Office ( Lao PDR) PPT Plant Protection Department of MARD (Vietnam) PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal R Impact on Resilience (for a recommendation) R&D Research and Development RC Recommendation for Cambodia RETA Regional Technical Assistance (of ADB) RGC Royal Government of Cambodia RL Recommendation for Lao PDR RMFC Rural and Micro Finance Committee of the Bank of Lao PDR RN Respond to a Negative policy (for a recommendation) RNFS Rural Non-Farm Sector RP Respond to a Positive policy (for a recommendation) RT Recommendation for Thailand RTIM Round Table Implementation Meeting (for implementation of Lao PDR’s NSEDP) RUC Renmin University of China RV Recommendation for Vietnam SAW National Strategy for Agriculture and Water (Cambodia) SDC Swiss Development Cooperation Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture of SEARCA the University of the Philippines SEDP Socio-Economic Development Plan (Vietnam) SEMIL-SRI- Sustaining and Enhancing the Momentum for Innovation and Learning around the LMB System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in the Lower Mekong River Basin SME Small and Medium Enterprise SRI System of Rice Intensification SSF Site-Specific Fertilizers SWG Sector Working Group SWGAB sub-Sector Working Group on Farmers and Agribusiness (Lao PDR) SWOT Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat (analysis methodology)

viii TABI The Agro Biodiversity Initiative (Lao PDR) TMF Tailor-Made Fertilizers TOR Terms of References TVET Technical Vocational Education and Training TWG Technical Working Group U.S. United-States of America UNCDF United Nation Capital Development Fund UNCTAD United Nation Conference on Trade And Development UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNDP United Nations Development Program UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization USD United-States Dollar UXO Unexploded Ordinance VBARD Vietnam Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development VBSP Vietnam Bank for Social Policy VNFU Vietnam National Farmer Union WB World Bank WFP World Food Program WTO World Trade Organization WUA Water User Association WUG Water User Group WWF World-Wide Fund for Nature

ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The research presented in this document provides critical insights and a contextual analysis of the current policies and practices of public and private sectors that affect smallholders in the Lower Mekong River Basin (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam) - including rain-fed rice farmers – in attaining sustainable, productive and profitable agricultural livelihoods, while facing the pressure of climate change.

Findings and recommendations for policy advocacy work aim to inform the future policy advocacy and communication activities supported by the “Sustaining and Enhancing the Momentum for Innovation and Learning around the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in the Lower Mekong River Basin” (SEMIL-SRI-LMB).

In this report, a tremendous amount of literature has been reviewed to identify the policies that had the most impact (negative or positive) on smallholders for each country. A short section about the key international policy making bodies (ASEAN, ADB GMS and FAO) is also presented, but will not be mentioned in this summary.

CAMBODIA

Agriculture is a critical sector in Cambodia, playing an important role in food security at the household level and national economic growth. Despite impressive progress in increasing productivity of paddy yields over the last 20 years, the average yield of paddy in Cambodia is still the lowest in South East Asia. Furthermore, the value of crops is between 23 per cent and 43 per cent lower than in neighboring countries. Although there is no official definition of a smallholder, in Cambodia smallholders are usually defined as household with 3 ha or less of arable land. In recent times, further categorizations of smallholders have appeared in the literature and grey literature, such as subsistence smallholders, usually those with less than 1 ha of land, and commercial small holders, those households with between 1 and 3 ha of arable land and who get their most of their income from farming. Four agro-ecological zones are usually identified for Cambodia, namely Plains, Tonle Sap, Coastal and Plateau/Mountain.

The country is undergoing a dramatic social and economic transition that is having enormous impacts in the agricultural sector. The existing policy framework only partially addresses the needs and opportunities of the sector. Opportunities - presented by the current fuzziness of the policy environment and the rapid changes affecting agriculture – ought to be seized rapidly, while it is still possible to influence the policy framework impacting smallholder agriculture in Cambodia.

Key policies identified in this study as most affecting smallholders in Cambodia:

 Agricultural Strategy

1  Agricultural extension  Land titling  Water Management and Irrigation  Climate Change

Key recommendations for policy advocacy

• More advocacy needs to done to increase amount of policy analysis already in place before designing further policies.

• More advocacy needs to be done to ensure that the government articulates clearly the different domains and activities in which each ministry and department should work.

• There is a need to advocate for a policy in agricultural extension that provides the Department of Agricultural extension with a clear mandate to carry out their activities.

• There is a need to advocate for research into key areas that can help in creating an enabling environment for agricultural extension.

• Strong advocacy for the respect of existing Laws and procedures regarding granting of land concessions...

• Focus advocacy efforts on ensuring that agricultural water management planning supports small scale irrigation schemes.

• Advocate for the Government to develop climate change action strategy into practical plans that are coherent and properly articulated between ministries.

LAO PDR

Rice is the staple food of Lao people, but also part of the “fabric of life” for most rural Lao smallholders. In 2011, they produced the majority of the 3.3 million tones of paddy. Most of Lao rice is glutinous varieties, with 92% of the overall production. Irrigation is still very limited with only 14% of overall production concentrated in 3 provinces along the Mekong (Vientiane Capital, Savannakhet and Champasack).

Smallholder rice farmers can be broadly categorized in 2 groups in Lao PDR:

 Lowland (and upland valleys) wet season rice farmers (irrigated or not) who have partially adopted new rice varieties, are increasingly using mechanized means of production and chemical inputs. The majority farms rice on less 1 hectare of land in the North, and less than 1.5 hectare in the centre and South. Although some farmers commercialize a part of their production, few are mostly commercial.

2  Upland rice farmers (majority of Lao ethnic minorities belongs to this group) that are poorly integrated into market, have little surplus and are increasingly shifting to commercial crops. Most rice farms are operated on low-input, non-mechanized, rain-fed basis.

The Government of Lao PDR has recently made radical shift in its approach to agriculture sector support with the recognition of the need (1) to harness and control the influence of private sector; and (2) to involve and develop civil society actors, be they existing NGO/Association or soon to be created Farmer Cooperatives. This is the first time that such a space is available for policy advocacy.

Key policies identified in this study as most affecting smallholders in Lao PDR:

 Agricultural Strategy  Irrigation  Access to natural assets/land  The new extension paradigm and Farmer Cooperatives

Key recommendations for policy advocacy

 Influence the development of the next National Socio-Economic Development Plan to ensure (1) that it includes provision for smallholder rice farmers in the upland to continue farming; and (2) that the overall industrialization strategy is reshaped from resource extraction towards cottage industry and the production of goods to be consumed locally with sufficient quality and at competitive prices

 Promotion of the role of Water User Group, organized as farmers’ cooperatives and involved in the design of small-scale irrigation schemes – with a focus on wet-season supplementary irrigation – since inception.

 Push for a systematic use of participatory land use planning (whether for irrigation, agricultural planning or resettlement) and the issue of more communal land titles through support to local communities, as evidence to strengthen legislation and implementation decrees.

 Make the finalization of policies on farmers’ cooperative a crucial issue to ensure that they become a cornerstone of agricultural policy development, be it for the provision of finance, extension, access to market or to inputs. Networking amongst farmers cooperatives ought to be strongly supported.

 Ensure that the paradigm shift initiated by Lao government in reshaping public extension from a provider of service to a facilitator/coordinator role for difference actors of the agricultural sector (private actors, farmers, cooperatives, WUA…) is sustained.

3 THAILAND

Rice is Thailand’s most important crop. The country has the fifth-largest amount of land under rice cultivation in the world and is the world’s third largest exporter of rice. In Thailand, about 65% (3.7 million) of farm households engage in rice farming. They farm in 4 very distinct agro-ecozones: Central region; Northern region; Northeast region (the most agricultural) and the Southern region. Farmers in Thailand can be broadly categorized by farm size:

 Small farmers with at most 3.2 hectares (56 % of Thai farmers).  Medium farmers with between 3.2 to 9.6 hectares (37 % of Thai farmers).  Large farmers with more than 9.6 hectares (7 % of Thai farmers).

Thailand is a more mature agricultural producer than the 3 other countries in this report. The Thai Government has much experience in modifying implementation arrangements to effect various objectives, especially in the area of fertilizer use and contract farming. The Philosophy of Self-Sufficient Economy and The New Theory – guiding principles behind the ‘Thai development way’ - provide ideal methods around which to arrange new interventions, with their focus on self-sufficiency and resilience.

Key policies identified in this study as most affecting smallholders in Thailand:

 Agricultural Strategy  Fertilizer Policies  Rice Pledging Scheme  Contract Farming  Organic Initiatives

4 Key recommendations for policy advocacy

 Contract Farming: Private/Public/Farmer dialogues to adopt a long-term view to equitable sharing of value from these partnerships. Protection with Legal frameworks. Address the government extension skill gap, so that farmers can efficiently produce agricultural products to the quality standards required by contractors.

 Fertilizer: More can be done to extract the lessons learned from the Site-Specific and Tailor Made fertilizer projects. These lessons can then be used to revitalize the programs and bring the benefits to more farmers.

 Organics: Harnessing the government/private resources to help farmers participate in this potentially highly profitable market. Activities include extension aid, value chain coordination and market generation/promotion. The GAP system could make a very pragmatic transitory stage for farmers to get used to producing to a quality standard, while not being as stringent as full organic certification.

 Rice Pledging Scheme: The scheme provides a highly relevant set of lessons to guide future policy development. Advocacy needs to insist on a more judicious use of subsidies, based on thorough analysis of the ramifications. Ensuring such initiatives support the interests of poorer farmers is equally important.

VIETNAM

Vietnam has experienced a radical transformation of agriculture after the economic renovation in 1986 – known as Doi Moi. From an autarky agrarian economy that struggled for food sufficiency, Vietnam has turned into the world leading exporters of many agricultural products (e.g. rice, coffee, pepper, rubber, catfish). Such growth has lifted around 26 million farmers out of poverty between 1990 and 2010.

The proportion of rice growing smallholders with less than 0.5 hectare is 84%. High proportions of smallholders are also found when considering other key crops. A generic profile of smallholders includes (1) having less arable land than the average; (2) being located in disadvantaged areas (e.g. remote, mountainous, vulnerable to natural disaster); and (3) limited access to income-generating activities.

Although Vietnam has been considered very successful in transforming its agriculture sector over the past two decades of Doi Moi, agriculture is now facing a new set of challenges. Its future depends on whether a structural move away from ‘high volume-low quality’ toward more value-added agriculture can be instigated and managed within a reasonable period of time. Equally important, ensuring that smallholders participate in and benefit from such a shift is critical to maintain the past achievements in rural poverty reduction.

Space for advocacy in Vietnam remains tight. Policy advocacy work should be skillfully conducted with a mix of lobbying, relationships nurturing and collaboration with Mass

5 Organizations, the Government and development partners at central level. At local level, it mostly ought to build evidences that can convince central decision makers.

Key policies identified in this study as most affecting smallholders in Vietnam:

 Food security  Land use policy  Labor market policies  Access to credit  Agriculture extension

Key recommendations for policy advocacy

 Working with MARD and other agencies to trigger a major structural shift away from the ‘high volume-low value’ agriculture is crucial to bring more opportunities and benefits for smallholders

 Policy changes are needed to improve supply capacity of certified rice seeds, remove restrictions on the usage of paddy rice land, and remove government interventions in rice exports to allow more participation of the private sector

 Delivery of extension services need to be extended in coverage and quality, with policy incentives for stronger participation of the private sector as service provider

 Access to credit for smallholder should be encouraged jointly with tighter loan appraisal criteria and support for productive use of credit.

 Improving the coverage and quality of vocational training is suggested to provide the smallholders with greater opportunities for off-farm work, an important coping mechanism.

CONCLUSION: SYNERGIES FOR ADVOCACY

A range of recommendations for policy advocacy work to improve the food security, profitability and resilience of smallholder rice farmers in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam is presented in this report. Key themes that emerged are coherent with the maturity of the agricultural sector and of the policy environment in each country:

6  Farmers’ groups (Lao PDR, Vietnam)  Contract farming: Thailand  Precision farming and agronomic research: Thailand, Vietnam

Additionally, during the analysis a set of positive elements came to light:

 The Philosophy of Self-Sufficiency and The New Theory in Thailand  Lao PDR’s focus on farmers’ cooperatives and on public extension as a facilitator  Vietnam attention to rural industrialization and support to vocational training  Thailand experiment with precision farming and support to organic agriculture

7 INTRODUCTION

SEMIL-SRI-LMB PROJECT AND ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES

The project “Sustaining and Enhancing the Momentum for Innovation and Learning around the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in the Lower Mekong River Basin” (SEMIL-SRI-LMB) is implemented in the four Lower Mekong River Basin countries (LMB) of Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam) for 60 months. It is led by the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) in partnership with Oxfam, and FAO. The project’s overall objective is to increase crop yield, productivity and profitability on a sustainable basis for smallholder in the rain-fed areas of LMB.

The research presented in this document is expected to provide critical insights and a contextual analysis of the current policies and practices of public and private sectors that affect smallholders - including rain-fed rice farmers – in attaining sustainable, productive and profitable agricultural livelihoods, while facing the pressure of climate change.

At the same time, the research findings and recommendations for policy advocacy work will inform the future policy advocacy and communication activities supported by the SEMIL-SRI- LMB. To ease operationalization into policy advocacy, several tools are provided: (1) in the conclusion of each chapter, key actors who can be engaged by SEMIL-SRI-LMB are identified; (2) throughout the document, but more specifically in appendix 6, all recommendations are classified by countries (or regional), by themes, by areas of impact1 and by the kind of policy issues they are addressing2. These tools are expected to be of particular interest to leverage SEMIL-LMB-SRI policy work by providing an efficient manner to identify potential synergies at all levels (stakeholders, countries, themes).

Figure 1 - Study’s role within SEMIL-SRI-LMB

* * * Advocacy * Options * SEMIL-LMB-SRI SEMIL-SRI-LMB Policy and * resources, thematic Advocacy Action Plan Partners * focus and existing - Targets/indicators provided * partners - M&E by current* - Activities and resources study * * * *

8 Key initial deliverables of the research are presented in the analytical framework approved by SEMIL-SRI-LMB in Appendix 1. They were later slightly revised during a meeting with Oxfam America (28/03/2014) and a phasing was agreed upon:

Phase 1: first draft to be delivered by 20/04/2014 and reviewed following comments and a workshop with AIT, Oxfam, IDS and FAO. Report to include (terminology as per TOR):

 A research report with executive summary (this report)  An inception list containing all documents used during the research (Appendix 2)  An annex summary of policy references used during analysis (Appendix 3)  1 standalone policy recommendation for each country (Appendix 4)

Phase 2: to be delivered following the development of an advocacy implementation plan (expected latest by end of July 2014):

 High level Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators (MEI) on progress and impact of policy advocacy.

With the arrival of the new Advocacy Office for OA, deliverables of phase 2 have been delayed until further notice.

APPROACH AND LIMITATIONS

The research was led by Mr. Ludovic Pommier with the assistance of 3 International Advisers to be able to deliver expected outputs within the required timeframe. It took place during February-April 2014.

Approach

This section is voluntarily brief as a detailed analytical framework is proposed in appendices. The analysis included the following key stages for each country:

 Identification and review of relevant literature (inception list)  Identification and typology of smallholder rice farmers  Identification and analysis of policies/practices that enable or hinder the development of sustainable smallholder agriculture, including rain-fed smallholders, with a focus on food security, profitability and resilience3.  Recommendations for policy interventions/options for the project4.

In addition, regional policies were explored in a brief section. Finally, it was felt useful to conclude by outlining potential synergies between national advocacy options in order to enable more efficient targeting of regional policies.

It should be noted that differences in levels of analysis between countries are consistent with an approach tailored for each country (e.g. Thailand is a middle-income country with a mature agricultural sector that justifies in-depth analysis of specific agricultural policies, while Cambodia that has not yet a fully-fledged agricultural policy environment warrants a less detailed analysis, with a broader perspective).

9 Limitations

It is evident that within the short-time available for the assignment (40 days), only key policies could be analyzed, and it is expected that further work will need to be undertaken should the project wish to devise precise interventions (notably stakeholder analysis).

The TOR insisted for the report to contain a maximum of 18,000 words. Tremendous efforts have been made to keep within this limit, but this could not be achieved despite the displacement of some research results to Appendix 5.

The coordination of a research team requires significant time, and this was grossly under- estimated when designing the analytical framework. This led to reduced efforts on the analysis of regional policy environment (as agreed during a meeting on the 28/03/2014 with Oxfam).

10 ENDNOTES

1 Food security, profitability and resilience.

2 This is referred to as policy status and indicates if a recommendation is aiming at strengthening a positive policy environment, resolving a negative one or filling in a policy gap.

3 Hughes, K., 2013. A Multidimensional Approach for Measuring Resilience. Oxfam GB Working Paper, March 2013. Oxford: Oxfam GB.

4 Food security, profitability and resilience are highly intertwined. Ultimately each recommendation permits to reach the three outcomes. Nevertheless, attempt is made in the report to map recommendations to each of these 3 outcomes by considering the relative importance of each recommendation in reaching an outcome. F, P and R respectively represent food security, profitability and resilience.

11 CAMBODIA

CONTEXT

Agriculture is a critical sector in Cambodia, playing an important role in food security at the household level and national economic growth. In 2010, agriculture accounted for 27.4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)5. Almost three quarters of Cambodia’s workforce (72%) are reported to be working in agriculture, a figure that has only slightly reduced from 80% in 19836, with more than 75% of women employed in agriculture.

The performance of agriculture in Cambodia over the past decade has been outstanding7. Over the 2001-2011 period, annual agricultural GDP growth has averaged 4.7%. The production of rice, the main crop in Cambodia by far, over the past ten years (2003-2010), has doubled, mainly through land expansion but also through yield increase.

Despite progress in increasing productivity of paddy yields over the last 20 years, the average yield of paddy in Cambodia is still the lowest in South East Asia, with 2.8 tons/ha, compared to 3 tons/ha in Thailand, 3.5 tons/ha in Lao PDR and 5.22 tons/ha in Vietnam8.

Figure 2 - SE Asia: Comparative Regional Rice Yields (2008-2009)

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 20109

However, not only is yield lower in Cambodia than in other countries; the value of crops is between 23% and 43% lower than in neighboring countries. According to Chandararot and Live10, farmers in Cambodia received USD222 per ton for rice paddy in 2010, much lower than farmers in Viet Nam (USD290), China (USD297), Thailand (USD366), and India (USD386).

12 Figure 3 - SE Asia: Farm gate price received for 1 ton of paddy (USD) in 2012

Source: Chandararot and Live, 201311.

SMALLHOLDER RICE FARMERS IN CAMBODIA

The share of employment in agriculture is steadily declining as the industry and services sectors grow. Agriculture is no longer the only source of revenue for rural households; small plot sizes, low yields and the seasonal nature of production (most agricultural production is rain-fed) mean that most rural households depend on multiple sources of income12.

Insufficient access to adequate and diverse types of food is one of the main causes of food insecurity and under nutrition in Cambodia. Despite a national rice surplus and functioning markets, household access to food remains challenging largely due to low purchasing power, with rural households spending around 70% of their income on food. Insufficient purchasing power leads households to adopt negative coping strategies to meet food requirements, such as modifying consumption patterns to consume less expensive and less nutritious food, reducing food intake, increasing seasonal migration and child labor, withdrawing children from school and increasing indebtedness13.

Although there is no official definition of a smallholder, in Cambodia smallholders are usually defined as household with 3 ha or less of arable land. In recent times, further categorizations of smallholders have appeared in the literature and grey literature, such as subsistence smallholders, usually those with less than 1 ha of land, and commercial small holders, those households with between 1 and 3 ha of arable land and who get their most of their income from farming. Four agro-ecological zones are usually identified in the literature, namely Plains, Tonle Sap, Coastal and Plateau/Mountain.

13 Figure 4 - Agro-ecological zones of Cambodia

Source: IFPRI, 201314

There is an ongoing process of land distribution facilitated by an active land market, partly a result of the ambitious land titling process. This seems to be producing a situation of unequal farm size distribution, with larger farms (near or above 3 ha) becoming larger, and smaller farms (with less than 1 ha) becoming smaller. This also means that the number of landless or marginally landless rural households is increasing, highlighting the importance of other sources of off-farm income.

Agrarian production is based on subsistence and smallholder farming systems with rain fed rice as the major agricultural crop and traditional source of carbohydrate, with an average of 75-80% of all calories derived from rice15. Vegetables mostly occupy only village gardens and small fields.

In recent years, diversification into other crops has increased. In many cases, households are able to grow vegetables in garden plots during the rainy season, mostly for self- consumption. In a few cases, households are able to produce a small surplus which is mostly sold locally. There are limited incentives and an important number of constraints for farmers to diversify and grow commercially. As a result, between 70 and 80% of vegetables consumed in Cambodia are imported from Vietnam and Thailand. There has also been a considerable expansion of cultivated land to upland crops such as cassava and maize. Other subsectors of agriculture, such as livestock, fisheries and forestry have become smaller. This suggests a process of increasing specialization of agriculture towards crops and increasing diversification of crop production away from rice16.

POLICIES THAT HINDER OR ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SMALLHOLDER RICE AGRICULTURE

Overall Cambodian Government policy: the Rectangular Strategy

Cambodia’s agricultural policy is articulated through the government’s Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency17, which emphasizes the need for improving agricultural productivity and diversification. The strategy, launched in 2004, has “enhancement of agriculture” as its first pillar, with the other three being “private-sector

14 development and employment generation”, “continued rehabilitation and construction of physical infrastructure” and “capacity building and human resource development”. The Rectangular Strategy is currently in its third phase (2013-2018), which has the objective of improving agricultural productivity and increase diversification.

The Rectangular Strategy is implemented through the National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP)18, which was formulated to be the overarching national policy document for pursuing the governments prioritized goals, targets and actions (it is currently being updated to synchronize with the Rectangular Strategy 2013-2018). The NSDP 2009-2013 highlights the government’s commitment to increase production, employment and rural income and ensure food security by increasing, among others, the proper use of improved agricultural inputs, agricultural extension and research and development. Specifically, the government commits to further expand the system of agricultural extension services by decentralizing services to the district level and creating linkages with community volunteer networks and agricultural services being provided by various development projects. The NSDP contains a long list of planned actions to implement its policies.

Several Technical Working Groups (TWGs) have been set up to help ensure coherence, harmonization, policy alignment and coordination of development actions. Several of these work on issues directly related to agricultural development:

 Agriculture and Water;  Fisheries;  Forestry and Environment;  Food Security and Nutrition.

These TWGs are bodies for dialogue among line ministries and donors to agriculture and rural development and also contribute to the design of projects and programs under the overall sector strategy. In addition, they play an advisory role in the programme implementation process of line ministries and donors.

Over the past twenty years the Government has articulated many policy and strategy statements, legislated laws and issued decrees and sub-decrees. However, there has been little policy analysis before designing them and very little coordination between any relevant ministries. Furthermore, there is still a lack of capacity for formulating, evaluation and analyzing the existing or necessary policies. Policy units at different ministries lack the capacity to carry out these activities. As a result, policy formulation and analysis continue to be done with the support/by external consultants with does not result in long-term capacity development.

Recommendations:  CR1: It is recommended that more advocacy is done to increase amount of policy analysis done before designing further policies. This would improve the understanding of current developments and achievements and would clarify the remaining challenges ahead. In order to do this, the capacity of policy units needs to increase, through training or exchanges. Impacts F, P, R19.

 CR2: It is also recommended that influence is exercised to ensure that the government articulates clearly the different domains and activities in which each ministry and department should work. Better articulation between ministries and departments would definitely increase the impact of policies. Impacts F, P, R.

15 Agricultural policy

In order to achieve the goals of the Rectangular Strategy and NSDP, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF)’s Agriculture Strategic Development Plan 2009- 201320 identifies seven strategic objectives for the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors (Agricultural Sector Development Framework).

Several MAFF Agricultural Sector Development Framework subsector Seven strategic objectives: policies have been formulated 1) food security, productivity and diversification; to fit the 2) improving and strengthening agricultural research and extension; framework, 3) market access for agricultural products; dealing with 4) institutional and legislative development and pro-poor land access; water, fisheries 5) land reform – land market development and pro-poor land access; and forestry, 6) fisheries reform – sustainable access; and among other 7) forestry reform –promoting sustainable conservation and areas. management.

In addition to MAFF, three other government institutions directly manage and coordinate agricultural activities.

The Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology (MoWRAM) is an important partner of MAFF in formulating and implementing the National Strategy for Agriculture and Water (SAW)21 that stresses five key strategic areas: (1) water resource management and development and implementation of community-based irrigation systems; (2) flood and drought control; (3) promoting law relating to water and provision and sustainable use of water; (4) water resource management and meteorology information; and (5) administration, improvement and development of human resources.

The Ministry of Rural Development (MRD) works on agriculture enhancement and poverty reduction, as well as other activities supporting agricultural growth, such as rural infrastructure and socio-economic development. MRD has subsector policies and strategies but no comprehensive policy and strategy for rural development.

The Council for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) is responsible for coordinating and providing leadership in agriculture and rural development. CARD focuses on four priority strategies under the Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition22: (1) food security and social protection; (2) adding value through agricultural productivity, diversification and non-agricultural rural private enterprise; (3) integrated rural development programming and community-based approaches; and (4) involvement of civil society, the private sector and development partners in rural development.

Agricultural extension

There is no direct policy in Cambodia on agricultural extension, which restricts the ability of MAFF and specifically of the Department of Agricultural Extension to implement their goals. A policy statement was drafted in 1998 by the then Research and Extension Policy Task

16 Force, but it never fully came to fruition23. Furthermore, funding to agricultural extension is ad hoc and largely depends on donor priorities.

A lack of a policy on agricultural extension ultimately deprives smallholder farmers from the essential knowledge they should receive in order to improve their farming practices. While, development partners, NGOs and increasingly the private sector are providing farmers with knowledge and access to new ideas and technology, it is naturally limited and will never be able to fulfill the role that a public sector extension system can fulfill, by itself or in partnership with third sector or private sector actors.

Recommendations:  CR3: There is a need to advocate for a policy in agricultural extension that provides the Department of Agricultural extension with a clear mandate to carry out its activities. In order to do this, it is necessary to work with all relevant stakeholders so that the development of a cohesive extension policy becomes a priority. Impacts F, P, R.

 CR4: There is a need to advocate for research into key areas that can help in creating an enabling environment for agricultural extension, such as public-private partnerships and the role of private sector partners in agricultural extension. Impacts F, P, R.

 CR5: Support the creation of a strong monitoring and evaluation framework, integrated in policy design and implementation, and providing an adequate incentive structure for extension staff at all levels is an avenue that ought to be explored. Impacts F, P, R.

 CR6: Participation (or creation of) in TWGs on agricultural extension that could assist with coordinating activities from non-governmental actors, donors, private sector and the Government represents a key opportunity for influencing policy direction. Impacts F, P, R.

Land policy

In 2009, a report prepared for the Asian Development Bank24 stated that the most binding constraint to agricultural sector growth was insecure land tenure, without which there is reluctance by farmers to invest in improving land or planting higher-value permanent crops. Since then a national land reform25 has been implemented by the Government and a significant proportion of households now have land titles. However, it is too early to assess the impact of land titling on investments in agriculture. Existing anecdotic evidence26 suggests that there is an ongoing process of consolidation of land, where a limited number of farmers, commercial farmers, are acquiring land from subsistence farmers slowly creating an environment of commercial small holders and households with little land mainly used for growing rice for self-consumption, and who require other sources of income (off-farm income). This would be in line with what has happened in other countries in the region27.

With support from the donor community, the RGC has embarked on an ambitious land titling/registration program in recent years. From the land registration perspective, this project can be considered quite successful as more than 1.5 million land parcels were adjudicated and surveyed between 2000 and 2010 and more than 1.3 million land titles were issued, at a cost of less than USD10 per parcel28. It is important to note, however, that there

17 are approximately 9.5 million parcels of land that remain unregistered which means an ongoing land registration process for approximately another 30 years29.

Furthermore, the government has shown signs of trying to control the excesses and problems in land allocation including the recent problems with Economic Land Concessions (ELC) where many families have been stripped from their land.

Recommendations:  RC7: Strong advocacy for the respect of existing Laws and procedures regarding granting of ELC is critical. Impacts F.

 RC8: To ensure that land redistribution benefits smallholders, support to monitoring by Civil Society Organizations in Cambodia is essential, in order to try and counter- balance powerful vested interests. Impacts F.

 RC9: Critical to a fair redistribution process is the development of a policy consensus30 between different Ministries and key actors in policy-making in Cambodia. Without it, little can be achieved. Engaging these actors, such as the Ministry of Land, MRD and MAFF, through a structured dialogue process ought to be considered as a key leverage opportunity for policy change. Impacts F.

Water management and irrigation

Agricultural water management, in particular irrigation, is promoted by the RGC as a major component of its poverty reduction and economic development plans31. Investment in agricultural water management in Cambodia are guided by two policy provisions, increasing rice exports at the national level and improving food security and poverty reduction. The first focuses on rice intensification through dry season irrigation and commercialization of farming and the second focuses on semi-subsistence smallholders, through securing the rainy season rice crop and diversification or growth of crops in the dry season.

The SAW identifies a range of investments in irrigation, primarily in the development and rehabilitation of large-scale infrastructures at the national level. Recent investments have targeted rehabilitation of existing irrigation systems, mainly gravity-fed canal commands and storages, with a strong focus on improving operation and management using participatory approaches through the so-called Farmer Water User Committees (FWUCs). However, the results in the management of irrigation systems through this mechanism have shown limited to disappointing results. Many schemes have underperformed and have had lower than expected uptake of dry season irrigation, and failure of FWUCs to effectively manage water delivery.

It is estimated that around half of the total rainy season rice crop (1.45 mill ha) has access to supplementary irrigation. The largest areas of existing irrigation in Cambodia are suitable only for rainy season irrigation, compared to the limited dry season irrigation areas (0.36 mill ha). However, studies have shown that wet season irrigation has very little impact on rice yields. Irrigation of wet season rice is mainly used to reduce the risk of crop loss, providing very low marginal returns. This discourages further investments in infrastructure and maintenance, limiting further the feasibility of cost-recovery from irrigation service fees for wet season irrigation.

18 Furthermore, the geography and hydrology of Cambodia limits the areas where irrigation is feasible and effective. The flat topography of the lowland plains allows widespread use of gravity-fed canal systems, but there is absence of suitable locations for construction of reservoirs to supply them. Additionally, gravity-fed irrigation is suitable for rice monoculture, but not adapted for a diversity of crops, which is one of the main objectives of the RGC’s agricultural policy. Annual inundation of the floodplain means that irrigation infrastructures are also flooded, causing damage and silting up canals, gates, and storages, adding to operation and management costs. Furthermore, poor soils which make up almost half of Cambodia’s agricultural areas make expanding irrigations in these areas too expensive.

This suggests that investments in large infrastructure (canals and storages) for rainy season irrigation are unlikely to address poverty alleviation objectives or significantly increase the availability of rice for export. It is also not obvious that formal irrigation systems are the best way to deal with protecting the rainy season crop as a measure of food security. A more efficient alternative to protect rainy season crop against droughts would be small-scale pumping of surface water and/or groundwater, or small on-farm storage facilities.

Dry season rice production is mainly oriented towards commercial production. As such, most farmers growing dry season rice have more land, use more machinery and invest more in inputs (improved seeds, fertilizer and pesticides). Reliable water is a relatively smaller component of the total cost of production. In that way, dry season irrigated rice cultivation does not benefit the poorer farmers, since poorer farmers are less likely to have the capital to invest and to be willing to run the risks associated with it. The financial risks associated to dry season farming could be managed through functional farmer cooperatives (rare in Cambodia), government subsidies (risky and prone to corruption), and guaranteed markets (which could be created through access to contract farming). Furthermore, for dry season farming is dependent on good technical advice on suitable varieties, fertilizer and pesticide use, and water use efficiency, and so far, the RGC has a poor record at that.

The existing government plans for investment in irrigation involve canal systems diverting water from the major rivers; systems fed by storage reservoirs in the Tonle Sap basin; and large-scale flood protection schemes in the delta south of Phnom Penh. In contrast, opportunities for investment in smaller scale, farmer-based solutions have been largely ignored.

Notwithstanding, a large proportion of irrigation in Cambodia is done through the informal sector with use of small-scale water pumping from surface and groundwater by individual farmers. This is done with small portable pumps relying on natural surface and subsurface storage reservoirs.

19 In Cambodia, there are three successful models for dry season irrigation, namely reservoir schemes in the Tonle Sap basin; large canal systems such as those found in Takeo province; and individual pumping of ground water in Svay Rieng and Prey Veng provinces.

In each of these places, cultivation of two or even three crops a year is possible and yields of up to 6 tons/ha are possible. However, each of these models faces particular constraints:

 Reservoir capacity limits irrigation potential in some Tonle Sap sub-basins. The physical limits to viable reservoir volume in the Tonle Sap sub--basins needs to be carefully defined before large investments are made. This is particularly important in the context of proposed multi-use (hydropower/irrigation) schemes for Pursat, Kampong Thom, and Kampong Speu, with Chinese and Korean investment.

 Canal systems in the south benefit from the large volumes of water in the rivers. However, transferring water from canals to the fields necessarily limits the overall productiveness of the system. There is an increase in the number of operating private pumps, either individually or by middleman water seller. However, maintenance of secondary canals is an issue.

 The government (MoWRAM) is cautious about the use of groundwater given the risks of depletion and of endangering domestic groundwater supplies. In general, ground water is best used for supplementary irrigation, rather than full dry season irrigation, but regulating use is very difficult.

Source: Adapted from Johnston, R., et al.32

Recommendations:  RC10: Focus advocacy efforts on ensuring that agricultural water management planning supports small scale irrigation schemes as these are a more effective way for the RGC to reach and benefit smallholders. Impacts F, P, R.

 RC11: Concentrating efforts on helping the RGC to understand and develop the capacity and a framework to monitor, train and inform smallholders about small scale water use schemes. Small-scale water stores and pumping, along with the use of surface and groundwater can improve water delivery both within and outside formal schemes. These provide higher flexibility and individual control over water access, creating in a more reliable, timely and adequate supply of irrigation water. Impacts F, P, R.

Climate change

Cambodia is considered one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change in South East Asia, given the predicted changes in temperature and precipitation, its narrow-based economy, and its limited adaptive capacity to deal with climate change due to widespread poverty33. Mainstreaming climate change at national and sub-national levels and the development of climate change strategy and action plan are among the priority actions defined by the National Strategic Development Update 2009-2013. In order to do this, the RGC in coordination with development partners and other relevant stakeholders’

20 development the Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan (CCCSP)34 which aims to provide the guidelines for integrating climate change planning in the next NSDP 2014-2018 and in sector development plans of the different relevant line ministries.

It is expected that the CCCSP will provide a strategic policy framework to guide and assist national entities, non-government organizations, and development partners in devising concrete and appropriate measures and actions related to adaptation, GHG mitigation and green growth or low-carbon development.

The CCSP35 presents the following strategic objectives and corresponding strategies: (i) promote climate resilience through improving food, water and energy security; (ii) reduce sectoral, regional and gender vulnerability to climate change impacts; (iii) ensure climate resilience of critical ecosystems (Great Lake, Mekong River, Coastal ecosystems, highlands etc.), biodiversity, protected areas and cultural heritage; (iv) promote low carbon planning and technologies to support sustainable development of the country; (v) Improve Capacities, Knowledge and Awareness for climate change response; (vi) promote adaptive social protection and participatory approaches in reducing loss and damage; (vii) strengthen institutions and coordination frameworks for national climate change responses (viii) strengthen collaboration, and active participation in regional and global climate change processes.

The CCCSP has set out a number of actions structured into three phases of implementation. Key CCCSP actions include the finalization of institutional arrangement, development of action plans, development of climate change legal framework, development of Climate Change Financing Framework, and development of monitoring an evaluation framework.

Recommendations:  RC12: Advocate for the RGC to develop their CCCSP into practical plans that are coherent and properly articulated between ministries. To do this, it is important to increase capacity at the sub-national level to assess climate change impact and define potential courses of action and to implement work plans. Advocating for more funds and training into developing these necessary skills would be important. Impacts F, R.

 RC13: Advocate for further studies on the impact of climate change on small holders at the local level and importantly their current efforts at adaptation and potential measures to increase/improve understanding of climate change and adaptation. Impacts F, R.

CONCLUSION

Cambodia is going a dramatic social and economic transition that is having enormous impacts in the agricultural sector. The existing policy framework only partially addresses the needs and opportunities of the sector. Opportunities - presented by the current fuzziness of the policy environment and the rapid changes affecting agriculture – ought to be seized rapidly, while it is still possible to influence the policy framework impacting smallholder agriculture in Cambodia.

21 Cambodia has a vibrant civil society (as demonstrated during the recent political events) with numerous NGOs and INGOs. It also benefits from an exceptional support by multilateral and bilateral agencies that collaborate with Government and civil society. This multiplicity of stakeholders is (1) an advantage as SEMIL-SRI-LMB can pursue its advocacy strategy through various channels and create synergies; and (2) a disadvantage if inappropriate partners are engaged with. Although some suggestions have been given above, selection of partners for policy advocacy is expected, together with the degree of engagement with the Government, to hold the key to the efficacy of SEMIL-SRI-LMB policy advocacy work.

22 ENDNOTES

5 Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2012. Gender Equality and the Labor Market in Cambodia. Phnom Penh: ADB.

6 ADB, 2011. Cambodia: Country Poverty Analysis. Asian Development Bank Country Partnership Strategy Thematic Assessment. Phnom Penh: ADB.

7 Agrifood Consulting International (ACI), 2014. Diagnostic Study. Cambodia Agriculture in Transition. Draft Final Report. Maryland: ACI.

8 Sothath, N. and Sophal, C., 2011.Agricultural Financing and Services for Smallholder Farmers, Research Report 3. Phnom Penh: Cambodia Economic Association.

9 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2010. CAMBODIA: Future Growth Rate of Rice Production Uncertain. Commodity Intelligence Report. January 26, 2010. Washington: USDA.

10 Chandararot, K. and Liv, D., 2013. Rural development and employment opportunities in Cambodia: How can a national employment policy contribute towards realization of decent work in rural areas? ILO Asia-Pacific Working Paper Series. Bangkok: ILO.

11 Ibid.

12 United Nation Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), 2010. Local Development Outlook Cambodia: Trends, Policies, Governance. Phnom Penh: UNCDF.

13 World Food Program (WFP), 2013, Productive Assets and Livelihoods Support (PALS) programme: overview and key features of the 2013 pilot. Phnom Penh: WFP.

14 Thomas, T.S.et al., 2013. Cambodian Agriculture. Adaptation to Climate Change Impact. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01285. August 2013. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

15 United Nation Development Program (UNDP), 2013. Industry-agriculture linkages: Implications for Rice Policy. Discussion Paper No. 9. Phnom Penh: UNDP.

16 Agrifood Consulting International, op. cit.

17 Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC), 2013. Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency Phase III 2013-2018. Phnom Penh: RGC.

18 Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC), 2013. National Strategic Development Plan 2014- 2018. Phnom Penh: RGC.

19 Explain FPR and says this is for the rest

20 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (MAFF) of the RGC, 2009. Agriculture Strategic Development Plan 2009-2013. Phnom Penh: MAFF.

23 21 Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology (MoWRAM) of the RGC, 2013. Strategic Framework for Water Resource and Meteorology 2009-2013. Phnom Penh: RGC.

22 Council for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) of RGC, 2008. Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition in Cambodia 2008-2012. Phnom Penh: RGC.

23 Interview with the General Director of the General Directorate of Agriculture, MAFF the 30. November, 2013 in Phnom Penh.

24 ADB, 2009. Diagnostic and Analysis of Binding Constraints to Rural Development In Cambodia. Phnom Penh: Asian Development Bank.

25 Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC), 2005. Sub-decree 146 on Economic Land Concessions. Phnom Penh: RGC; Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planning and Construction (MLUPC) of RGC, 2008. Outline for the Land Administration Sub Sector Program (LASSP) 2009 - 2012. Phnom Penh: Cambodia; RGC, 2001. Statement of the Royal Government on Land Policy. Phnom Penh: RGC; RGC, 2009. Declaration of the Royal Government on Land Policy. Phnom Penh: RGC.

26 Agrifood Consulting International, op. cit.

27Masters, W.A., et al., 2013. Urbanization and farm size in Asia and Africa: implications for food security and agricultural research. Global Food Security, 01/2013, 2(3), pp 156–165.

28 Anttonen, J.J., 2012.Multi-donor efforts for improving land administration systems in developing countries: lessons learnt from the Cambodian Land Management and Administration Project (LMAP). In: FIG Working Week 2012, Knowing to manage the territory, protect the environment, evaluate the cultural heritage, Rome, Italy, 6-10 May 2012. Rome: International Federation of Surveyor.

29 Solar, W.R., 2010. Rural Women, Gender, and Climate Change: A Literature review and invited perspectives on climate change impacts and processes of adaptation in Cambodia. Cambodia: Oxfam America.

30 United Nation Development Program, op. cit.

31 Johnston, R., et al., 2013. Agricultural Water Management Planning in Cambodia. Phnom Penh: International Water Management Institute and Australian Center for International Agricultural Research.

32 Johnston, R., et al., op. cit.

33 Thomas, T.S., et al., op. cit.

34 National Climate Change Committee (NCCC) of the RGC, 2013. Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan (CCCSP) 2014 – 2024. Phnom Penh: NCCC.

35 Ibid.

24 LAO PDR

CONTEXT

Rice is the staple food of Lao people, but also part of the “fabric of life” for most rural Lao smallholders. In 2011, they produced the majority of the 3.3 million tones of paddy36.

The major rice growing area in Lao is the region of the seven plains (Mekong corridor), consisting of whole or part of some seven provinces: Vientiane, Vientiane capital, Bolikhamsay, Khammouane, Savannakhet, Saravane, and Champasack37. This region produces about 75% of rice in Lao with 76% of wet season rice and 91% of irrigated dry season rice. At the opposite side of the spectrum are the northern provinces of Phongsaly, Luangnamtha, Oudomxay, Bokeo, Luangprabang, Huaphanh, Xayabury, Xiengkhuang with the 2 Southern mountainous provinces of Sekong and Attapeu that produces only 25% of wet season rice with 86% of upland rice (some wet season rice is grown in valleys and this is an increasing trend as upland rice production tends to decrease).

Most of Lao rice is glutinous varieties, with 92% of the overall production. Irrigation is still very limited with only 14% of overall production concentrated in 3 provinces along the Mekong (Vientiane Capital, Savannakhet and Champasack)38.

SMALLHOLDER RICE FARMERS IN LAO PDR

The last 10 years has seen a sharp move from subsistence to commercial farming (from 6% of farmers producing mainly for sale to 30% and from 35% selling some surplus to 71%). As such, there is no surprise that average farm sizes have been increasing (from 1.5 ha to 2.1 ha)39. Greater commercialization can be observed for all agricultural commodities, although evolution is slower for rice (provinces with the highest commercialization rate are the one where rice is the less cultivated40) and there is a decrease in farmers involved in rice farming (77% to 71%). This confirms the shift of Lao agriculture towards cash cropping.

Most rice smallholder rice farmers are only selling surplus and few are engaged in purely commercial farming. According to the World Food Program (WFP), rice shortages have become increasingly localized41 and affect mostly Northern provinces (as can be seen in the map below) and the remote areas (home to most ethnic minorities).

25 Figure 5 - Deficit/Surplus of rice by province of Lao Table 1 - Malnutrition for children under 5 in PDR in 2010/2011 rural areas of Lao PDR in 2012

Stunting Under- Wast- Region (%) weight ing Lao PDR 44.2 (%)26.6 (%)5.9 Region North 51.4 26.2 5.3 Center 38.1 23.1 5.4 South 46.6 34.7 7.9 Residence Urban 27.4 16.1 5.4 Rural 48.6 29.3 6.1 Rural with road 47.8 29.0 6.1 Rural 53.8 31.6 5.7 without road 43 Data source: Presentation on rice supply chains in Lao PDR42 Data source: adapted from food security atlas

Despite rice sufficiency amongst the rural population, children under 5 are still suffering from alarmingly high rate of stunting (over 50%), wasting (around 6%) and are chronically under- weight (over 30%). Analysis of nutrition patterns shows that this is mostly due to deficits in consumption of vegetables and proteins, with rice representing 79% of total daily energy needs, above the 55 to 75% recommended contribution from all carbohydrates to daily energy needs44.

From the above, smallholder rice farmers can be broadly categorized in 2 groups in Lao PDR:

 Lowland (and upland valleys) wet season rice farmers (irrigated or not) who have partially adopted new rice varieties (around 50%45), are increasingly using mechanized means of production (2-wheels tractors) and chemical inputs. Average rice yields are about 3.5 ton per hectare. While there is a minority of commercial rice farmer with land holding over 2 ha (mostly in Savannakhet), the majority farms rice on less 1 hectare of land in the North, and less than 1.5 hectare in the centre and South of the country. Very few farmers are involved in dry season rice farming and, although some farmers commercialize a part of their production, few are mostly commercial.

 Upland rice farmers (majority of Lao ethnic minorities belongs to this group) that are poorly integrated into market, have little surplus and are increasingly shifting to commercial crops. They have low yield (average 1.9 ton/hectare or less for upland rice) and have been the target of policies to halt traditional shifting cultivation practices with an active policy of land allocation. This has reduced their ability to grow rice as fallow periods necessary for soil replenishment are now diminished compared to former slash-and-burn practices. Most rice farms are operated on low-input, non-mechanized, rain-fed basis.

26 Table 2 - Use of productive Inputs by regions of Lao PDR in 2011

North Center South Lao PDR

Two-wheel Tractor Use 43 80 5461 Fertilizer Use* 25 72 7457 Improved Rice Seed 14.5 49 5838

*Fertilizer use = chemical and organic fertilizers.

Data source: Lao Census of Agriculture 2010/1146.

POLICIES THAT HINDER OR ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SMALLHOLDER RICE AGRICULTURE

Overall LAO PDR Government policy: The 7th National Socio-Economic Development Plan 2010-2015 (7th NSEDP)

The 7th NSEDP stems from the Resolution of the 9th Congress of the LPRP47 and is the main document guiding policy development and implementation by all Ministries. In addition to LPRP and to Ministries, Sector Working Groups – composed of GoL, ODA, INGO - have assisted the GoL in formulating the 7th NSEDP and are meeting on a regular basis to review implementation during Round Table Implementation Meetings48 (RTIM). The ones of specific interest for the current analysis (and as spaces for advocacy) are:

 Agricultural and Rural Development Sector Working Group (ARD SWG), with the sub- Sector Working Group on Farmers and Agribusiness (SWGAB)  Infrastructure Sector Working Group (ISWG)  Natural Resources and Environment Sector Working Group (NRE SWG)

The Land Issue Working Group49 (LIWG - formed of INGOs and local associations) has been a relentless advocate for the rights of smallholders since 2007. It is gaining traction with the GoL and represents a key voice on land issues in Lao PDR.

As previous NSEDP, the seventh one insists on: (1) increasing rice production; (2) modernizing and industrializing the country. It aims to ensure a GDP growth rate of 8% with a reduction of the share of agriculture from 30.4% in 2008-2009 to 23% in 2015. The NSEDP has a strong bias toward increasing the share of industry (especially mining and hydropower generation). However, both sectors are known to provide little rural employment opportunities50 and it is difficult to foresee how the target of reducing the labor ratio in the agriculture-forestry sector to 70% (from 75.1% in 2010) will be reached.

At the same time, the 7th NSEDP targets an increase in national rice production from 3.14 million tons in 2009 on 830,000 hectares to 4.2 million tons in 2015 on a total area of 1.04 million hectares. This is accompanied by a strong push for commercialization of rice with the promotion of new rice seeds, machinery, insecticides, fertilizer and pesticides51 (“cultivate more than 1/3 of the rice area using merchandised methods; create a marketed surplus of 500-1,000 thousand tons per year by 2015” – 7th NSEDP).

27 The 7th NSEDP raises serious questions as to the future of smallholders’ rice farmers:

 In the lowland: “modernized” farming with increased input and integration into global markets is advocated. What solutions/strategies can be devised to cater for the majority of lowland smallholders under the poverty line or food insecure that do not possess enough land or other capital/or who do not wish to integrate into this new agriculture?

 In the upland: rice farming is to persist as subsistence with agro-forestry and commercial crops (and their processing) becoming drivers of agricultural economy. Rice production is insufficient in many upland areas with shortages in some provinces and the infrastructure is not yet sufficient for redistributing rice production at intra-nationally. Will uplands rice- farmers be condemned to disappear and rely on trade with lowlands to ensure rice sufficiency?

Many farmers are resisting commercialization and will not drop rice cultivation, even if better economic alternatives are available. This movement is particularly noticeable for ethnic minorities52.

Agricultural Strategy

Agriculture policy in Lao PDR is the responsibility of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), which should coordinate other ministries when necessary:  National Committee for Rural Development and Poverty Eradication (NCRDPE)  Ministry of Industry and Commerce (MOIC)  Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE).

The Agricultural Development Strategy (ADS) 4 goals are articulated in the ADS: (1) food security; (2) The ADS follow the Increased and modernized production of agricultural direction of a commodities; (3) sustainable production patterns adapted to the modernized agriculture specific socio-economic and agro-ecological conditions in each system in the lowland, region; and (4) Sustainable forest management. These goals are with subsistence, to be implemented through 6 programs with an additional 2 conservation and cross-cutting ones (in the list below, contribution to goals is commercial crops in the indicated between brackets): uplands, as set in the  Program 1: Food production (1) 7th NSEDP. It is mainly  Program 2: Commodity production and farmer organizations defined by the (2) Agricultural  Program 3: Sustainable production patterns, land allocation Development Strategy and rural development (3) 2010-202053 (ADS)  Program 4: Forestry development (4) supported by the  Program 5: Irrigated agriculture (2) Agricultural Master Plan  Program 6: Other agriculture and forestry infrastructure (1) 2010-201554 (AMP) and  Program 7: Agriculture and forestry research and extension (1, the Agricultural 2, 3, 4) Investment Plan 2010-  Program 8: Human resource development (1, 2, 3, 4) 201555 (AIP).

28 It should be noted that many of the laws and decrees that are necessary to implement the ADS have yet to be updated/promulgated with the latest Law on Agriculture56 dated from 1998.

The AIP provides insights into the practice and relative importance given to each programmatic area and on the role that private sector is to fulfill57. Investments in the agriculture sector are expected to be split as in the figures below.

Figure 6 - Shares of investments by source Figure 7 - Shares of Investments by programs for for Lao PDR (2010-2015) Lao PDR (2010-2015)

Source: Agricultural Investment Plan 2010-2015 (realistic investment scenario).

Irrigation is by far the key spending priority in the AIP (as it has been in MAF budget for at least 10 years). AMP/AIP aim at developing an enabling environment for commercial rice production (and other crops, namely sugar cane, soybean) with irrigation. However, the very large funds expected from FDI raise concern as to the ability of smallholders to participate in commercial rice development (FDI funds are mostly used to develop irrigation for non-rice crop: sugar cane, Job’s tears, soybean…).

An item that is seeing a significant increase is the spending on commercialization and, interestingly, on farmer organization. FDI funds are expected to mainly be invested in irrigation and commodity production, while ODA and Government investments are more of less spread evenly. The focus on developing farmer organizations demonstrates that policy makers have understood that farmer groups may be a positive factor for smallholder to participate in the market economy.

Recommendations  RL1: While modernization is a laudable goal, shaping this modernization requires that small-scale farmers, especially in the uplands, are represented and given the choice whether they wish to change livelihoods (to industry or industrial/market agriculture). This is of particular concern for ethnic groups. RTIM is the key space for voicing these concerns and influencing development of the NSEDP. Impacts R.

 RL2: Economic development based on industries exploiting natural resources with little local economic development ought to be seriously challenged. The overall industrialization strategy should be reshaped towards more cottage industry and the production of goods to be consumed locally with sufficient quality and at

29 competitive prices (upcoming accession to WTO and greater integration into ASEAN with Asean-China Free Trade Area in 201558) makes this critical if Lao is to avoid becoming a bare source of raw materials for powerful neighbors). Collaboration with development partners, participation in RTIM and introduction of collaboration mechanisms between MAF and MOIC are in order to effect the proposed policy changes. Impacts F, R.

Irrigation

Irrigation is the main responsibility of the Department of Irrigation (DoI) of MAF. Due to the cost of building irrigation infrastructure, Lao PDR is still functioning mainly with earthen irrigation channels (4,444 km vs. 773 km of permanent channels - concrete). Irrigation by water pump represents more than 50% of the supply of irrigated surfaces and this is logical with the above: cost of infrastructure is much lower59. In the last decade, responsibility for small irrigation schemes (the majority) has been transferred to Water User Groups (WUG) through different decrees60,61. However, most studies are alarming: irrigation systems are underused, under-maintained due to failing of pumps or lack of maintenance (by GoL and farmers)62. In addition, a recent study by the FAO indicates that irrigation schemes are generally heavily subsidized by the government through: infrastructure and development, but also through no payment of electricity for pumping by farmers (only 30% are collected) and subsidies for electricity63.

Future development of irrigation will be guided by a recently drafted national strategy64, and the newly approved Law on Irrigation as presented in DoI strategy till 202565 (unfortunately copies of the Law in English could not be obtained). The latest aims by 2015 to supply water to 300,000 ha during raining season and to 200,000 ha during dry season. It focuses on 7 large schemes in the lowland and 4 smaller ones in the uplands.

The new policy direction is to reinforce WUG and Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT) (in line with the development of farmer cooperatives) and to engage in Public Private Partnerships. This is seen as a positive development for rice smallholder that have a surplus and may be able to enter this arena, but the bulk of rice smallholders will still have to rely on poorly funded and managed government schemes.

Recommendations  RL3: Promotion of clear guidelines for co-management between WUGs and Government agencies (DoI at provincial and district level) in case WUGs do not have sufficient capacities66. Impacts F, P, R.

 RL4: Clarification of WUGs status as Farmer Cooperatives (development of Farmer Cooperatives will be discussed in a further section). Guidelines should also ensure that WUG are truly participatory users-led, as this has always been the case in the past (Village Head as Chief of WUG…)67. Impacts P, R.

 RL5: Advocacy for an holistic perspective to the development of small-irrigation schemes that involve farmers and WUGs from inception68, that includes consideration about market issues (in the past this was often not considered by irrigation projects, with some not even building access roads69), and that takes into account operation and maintenance costs at the onset. Impacts P, R.

30  RL6: Irrigation, as highlighted in the National Action Plan for Adaptation to Climate Change70 and in latest study on Climate Change adaptation and mitigation for the rice sector71, is key to increase resilience of small-farmers by (1) enabling farmers to farm during the dry season to recover losses to floods during the wet season and (2) by mitigating the effect of wet season drought through supplementary irrigation. Focus on supplementary irrigation ought to be strengthened through dialogue with DoI and framing of this issue within both the food security and climate change arenas. Impacts F, P, R.

Access to natural assets/land

Lao smallholders traditionally obtained a high proportion of their dietary requirements (the most important part being the non-carbohydrate) from forests and rivers72. Land expansion is rendered arduous by the presence of arable land contaminated by UXO73 that prevents further paddy expansion, except at a high cost. Some further loss of land has been experienced due to (1) opium eradication; (2) eradication of shifting cultivation; (3) relocation: voluntarily (to benefit from infrastructure) and un-voluntarily (megaprojects, policy of GoL to regroup village to ease services provision).

Relocation is still enshrined in the GoL’s overall policy (7th NSEDP)

“…Encourage relocation of people living in remote areas to set up a conglomeration to alleviate poverty. The approach involves selecting a zone suitable for development, such as along the road and/or not far from the city (or a suburb), relocate the dispersed populations living in mountainous area, provide their basic needs and modern techniques in agriculture, livestock, handicraft and services including tourism, to encourage their active participation in modern economic activities and gradually escape poverty.”

The strongest threat to natural resources for Lao smallholders is the development of FDI in agriculture, forestry, mining and hydropower that drastically reduce access to land and water resources74. The granting of concessions in Lao PDR (1) is run by contradictory laws and strategies, (2) suffers from inadequate monitoring and from influence from powerful vested interests. Policy and regulatory frameworks are unclear75 at all level (national, provincial, district) with Laws that are easily by-passed or just un-known by local Authorities. The policy environment is complex with 6 Ministries involved with different objectives76 (e.g. revenue maximization for the Ministry of Finance, maximum investment for the Ministry of Investment and Planning versus environmental/watershed protection for MoNRE and forest cover preservation for MAF). All legal dispositions are in place for securing land titles and compensation in case of displacement, however, they are rarely implemented as cost of land titling is out of bound for smallholders (formal and informal fees), and there is considerable autonomy from provinces77. In addition, provision of communal land title is in its infancy, and while individual titling is a progress, it does not cater for customary land reserves78 and may lead to land balkanization79.

Recommendations  RL7: Advocate for comprehensive impact assessment (as required by law) of relocation and if unavoidable, involvement of communities and comprehensive land use zoning and planning before relocation. Local medias (Vientiane Times in English and newspapers in Lao) and lobbying of National Assembly members are

31 effective means of pressure, together with support for and participation in the LIWG. Impacts F, R.

 RL8: Work with the Ministry of Justice, the National Assembly and international partners (LIWG) to promote the rule of law. Impacts R.

 RL9: Policies are in place for communal land titles, but only few cases of communal land titling have been reported so far80. This is crucial that more communal land titles be issued through support to local communities, as evidence to strengthen legislation and implementation decrees. Impacts F, P, R.

 RL10: Work with DAEC (currently drafting the guidelines/decree) on clarifying the status of farmers’ cooperatives to ensure that cooperatives can hold land titles. Impacts P, R.

 RL11: Advocate for donor support and collaboration between MoNRE and MAF to ensure a rapid and effective implementation of several critical actions of the AMP related to land use participatory planning (a pre-requisite for titling): o program 1 - action (5) “ …participatory land use planning on micro level… “ o program 3 – actions (2) “Participatory ―Village Development Planning” o program 3 – action (6) “Sub-basin land use planning, agro-ecosystem analysis” Impacts R.

The new extension paradigm and Farmers’ Cooperatives

While the number of private sector actors in extension is difficult to quantify, it has been argued that, in areas with good market linkages and agricultural land, private sector enterprises of all sizes (from multinational to individual miller) are the key providers of extension services due to a severely under-funded and under-staffed state extension service. Private sector’s main objective is profit maximization and few actors have yet recognized that this may be better achieved through mutually beneficial agreement with farmers. Farmers in less well-endowed areas are mainly serviced by not for profit association and ODA projects81. MAF, in recognition of this new challenge has taken a drastic shift in vision, and aims to transition from a service provider to a facilitator/coordinator role for different actors of the agricultural sector (private actors, farmers, cooperatives, WUA…), as highlighted in the ADS:

“…the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) will transition from being a provider of public services to a regulator of private sector involvement in service provision and facilitator of emerging new service providers; also by devolving gradually the provision of services to farmers’ organizations.”

An integral element of this strategy is the development of farmer’s cooperatives. The Law on Association82 has allowed formation of non-commercial associations and in 2012 NAFES has been transformed to become one of MAF department (Department of Agricultural Extension and Cooperatives / DAEC) in charge of developing legislation and facilitating establishment of farmer groups with commercial orientation, farmer cooperatives. AMP and AIP are taking a strong stance to ensure that farmers can form commercially based interest groups (within programs 2, 3 and 5). Legislation for cooperative is only partially developed83 and MAF is developing a comprehensive package of training, legislation and guidelines.

32 Key elements of MAF’s vision for farmer cooperatives

 become provider of extension services to their members and facilitate common investment in productivity enhancement and diversification

 have greater bargaining power to negotiate with private sector (selling, marketing, processing) and obtain premium prices; and act as agricultural enterprise in their own rights

 facilitate access to finance (microfinance/micro saving is still in its infancy in Lao and will not be treated in this document)

 are better equipped to enter international markets (especially organic products/fair trade certification – not treated in this document)

 participate through MAF in International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) and the International Labor Organization (ILO) as well as its participation to the ASEAN / working group on cooperatives

Source: adapted by the Author from MAF vision for farmers’ cooperatives84

Recommendations  RL12: It is essential that this enabling environment be nurtured by strong advocacy and praxis (evidence based) so cooperatives do not become a relay of political structure (Lao National Front, Lao People’s Revolutionary Party…), but remains commercial entities with sufficient agility to respond to both members’ and market’s needs (including providing a wider range of commercial opportunities). Impacts P, R.

 RL13: Support networking opportunities for farmers’ cooperatives and association as called for in the AMP, but insufficiently resourced. This should be done in coordination with the SWGAB that has held a meeting of farmers’ organizations in January 201485. Impacts R.

 RL14: Advocate for direct provision of seed-funds to kick start the development of farmers’ cooperatives by ODA. Impacts P, R.

 RL15: Assist in the development of a supportive micro-finance environment (very basic in Lao PDR to date with few MFI or saving institutions, village saving groups operated under GoL scheme and a nascent legislation86) by influencing/collaborating with the Bank of Lao PDR (BoL). Impacts P, R.

 RL16: Advocate for a reinforcement/adjustment of capacity of extension staff at district level, targeting both GoL and ODA. Importantly, efforts should be made to influence donor’s agenda so GoL field extension staff can benefit from higher salaries (salaries have increased in the past years, but they are still not on par with private sector ones). Key areas for capacity building include dealing with private sectors and contractual laws (understanding of contract farming), basic economic and marketing training, management and group facilitation, PRA, land use planning, legislation on the use of chemical agricultural input87… Impacts P, R.

33 CONCLUSION

Policy advocacy work in Lao PDR is however impaired by (1) tight governmental control and a culture of paternalism and patronage88 that infuses the LPRP; (2) few national NGOs/Association that are under strict monitoring; (3) INGOs, bilateral and multilateral donors that do not wish to “rock the boat” and abide by sometimes incoherent policies; (4) the high level of de facto autonomy of the provinces that prevent policy decisions to percolate from central Government to lower levels89; and (5) strong influence from foreign investors. Choice of partners for leveraging policy advocacy work is limited90 and engagement may only be possible through Technical Working Groups, few associations, upcoming Farmer Cooperatives, a few private agribusinesses and the Government.

34 ENDNOTES

36 Steering Committee for the Agricultural Census Agricultural Census Office, 2012. Lao census of agriculture 2010/11 highlights. Vientiane: GoL.

37 National Agricultural and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) of the Ministry of Agriculture of Lao PDR, 2013. Evolving rice markets in the Northern Uplands. Policy Brief No 15/2013. Vientiane: NAFRI.

38 Steering Committee for the Agricultural Census Agricultural Census Office, op. cit.

39 Steering Committee for the Agricultural Census Agricultural Census Office, op. cit.

40 Eliste, P. and Santos, N., 2012. Lao People’s Democratic Republic Rice Policy Study 2012. Rome: FAO.

41 WFP, 2007. Lao PDR: Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA). Vientiane: WFP.

42 Bouahom, B. and Douangsavanh, L., 2013. Rice supply chain in Lao PDR. Presentation at Developing Agriculture Supply Chain in CLMV, Khon Kaen, Thailand, 18-22 Feb 2013. Vientiane: NAFRI.

43 WFP, 2013. Food and nutrition security atlas of Lao PDR. Vientiane: WFP

44.Ibid.

45 Interview of Dr J. Schiller (Saturday 23rd March 2014 ) revealed that although many smallholders are using improved rice seeds, they seldom replenish their stock after 3 years and thus yield gains are not maximal (R3 seeds should not be re-used more than 3 years).

46 Steering Committee for the Agricultural Census Agricultural Census Office, op. cit.

47 The 9th Congress of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party (LPRP) was held in Vientiane from 17–21 March 2011.

48 Department of International Cooperation of the Lao PDR Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI), 2012. Progress report of sector working groups. Round Table Implementation Meeting (RTIM) Vientiane, 23 November 2012. Vientiane: MPI.

49 Land Issue Working Group (LIWG), 2014. LIWG website. Available at http://www.laolandissues.org/ [Accessed 22 March 2014].

50 Fullbrook, D., 2010. Development in Lao PDR: the food security paradox. Working Paper Series Mekong Region. Berne: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.

51 Research into environmentally-friendly yield increased is mentioned, but does not seem to fit the targets advocated.

35 52 For example the Lenten ethnic group as described in Jones M. J. et al., 2012 Non-State Actors in Agriculture Extension: Farmers Accessing Services in Lao PDR. Vientiane: Laos Extension for Agriculture Project (LEAP).

53 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2010. Strategy for Agricultural Development 2011 to 2020. Vientiane: GoL.

54 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2010. Agricultural Master Plan 2011 to 2015 - Final Draft, 15th September 2010. Vientiane: GoL.

55 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2010. Agricultural Investment Plan 2011 to 2015. Vientiane: GoL.

56 National Assembly of Lao PDR. Law 01-98/NA dated 10 October 1998 – Law on Agriculture. Vientiane : GoL.

57 Although the AIP provides 3 scenarios for investment (realistic, pessimistic and optimistic), only the realistic scenario will be used in the discussion.

58 Leebouapao, L. and Voladeth, S., 2011. Agricultural Development, Trade, and Regional Cooperation in an Integrating and Industrializing East Asia: The Case of Lao PDR. In P.S. Intal et al., eds. Agricultural Development, Trade and Regional Cooperation in Developing East Asia. Jakarta: ERIA, pp.269-306.

59 Vongsathien, K., Deputy Director General of the Department of Irrigation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2014. Irrigation Sub Sector –Presentation. MAF Retreat on Irrigation and Extension, 12 March 2014 in Vientiane.

60 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2000. Decree on Establishment and Operation of WUAs no 1150/AF- dated June 2000. Vientiane: GoL.

61 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2000. Decree on the full Transfer of Irrigation Systems to WUAs 1149/AF- dated June 2000. Vientiane, GoL.

62 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2008. Irrigation diagnostic study. Vientiane: GoL.

63 Eliste, P. and Santos, N., 2012. Lao People’s Democratic Republic Rice Policy Study 2012. Rome: FAO.

64 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2010. Irrigated Agriculture National Action Plan 2nd Draft – May 2010. Vientiane: MAF.

65 Vongsathien, K., Deputy Director General of the Department of Irrigation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2014. Irrigation Sub Sector –Presentation. MAF Retreat on Irrigation and Extension, 12 March 2014 in Vientiane.

66 Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 2011.The Seventh Five-Year National Socio- Economic Development Plan (2011-2015)- Full Version. Vientiane: GoL.

67 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2008, op. cit.

36 68 International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2009. A situational analysis of Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam. In Turner, S. et al., eds. Mekong Region Water Dialogue. Publication No. 2, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 32 pp.

69 FAO (2010). Aquastat. Lao People´s Democratic Republic. Available at: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/laos/index.stm [Accessed 20 February 2014].

70 Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 2009. National adaptation programme of action to climate change. Vientiane: GoL.

71 Schiller, J. M. et al., 2013. Lao PDR – Rice production and food security. The Lao Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, No. 28 (Special Issue), 2013.

72 Pommier, L., 2009. Mainstreaming biodiversity into agriculture and land management in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Marketing Report. Draft v1. Project Preparation for GEF Project ID 2903. Vientiane: UNDP.

73 Intharack, S., 2014. Presentation on Lao Agriculture Census 2010/11: Analysis and use of data for Planning and Policy. In: 25 th Session Asia and Pacific Commission on Agricultural Statistics. Vientiane, 18-21 February 2014. Bangkok: FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Available at http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/apcas25/APCAS_14- 5.3_Lao_Agricultural_Census_APCAS.pdf [Accessed 20 March 2014].

74 Rigg, J. D., 2006. Forests, Marketization, Livelihoods and the Poor in the Lao PDR. In Land Degradation and Development 17 (2006), pp. 123-133.

75 Pommier, L. (2009). Management of investments in natural resources in the provinces and operational linkages between the Poverty Environment Initiative (UNDP/MPI) and the Sustainable Natural Resource Management and Productivity Enhancement Project (IFAD/ADB). Vientiane: Ministry of Investment and Planning of Lao PDR and UNDP.

76 Wellmann, D., 2012. Discussion Paper on The Legal Framework of State Land Leases and Concessions in the Lao PDR – February 2012. Vientiane: Integrated Rural Development in Poverty Regions of Laos (IRDP) under the Northern Upland Development Programme (NUDP).

77 Cavallo, E., 2008. Poverty Reduction in Laos: an Alternative Approach. In S. Lawrence, ed. Power Surge. Berkeley: International Rivers.

78 Land that family would set aside in forest areas for the benefit of their children. With individual titling, as this land is un-used, it is usually lost and become unavailable for future generation within a family.

79 Pommier, op. cit.

80 Chokkalingam, U., 2011. Laos issues its first communal forest land titles: National workshop discusses lessons learnt . Forest Carbon Asia Articles, 9 Nov. Available at

37 http://www.forestcarbonasia.org/articles/laos-issues-its-first-communal-forest-land-titles- national-workshop/ [Accessed 25 March 2014]

81 Jones M. J. et al., 2012 Non-State Actors in Agriculture Extension: Farmers Accessing Services in Lao PDR. Vientiane: Laos Extension for Agriculture Project (LEAP).

82 Prime Minister’s Office of Lao PDR, 2009. Decree on Associations no 115/PM – dated 29 April 2009. Vientiane, GoL.

83 Basics are set in Prime Minister’s Office of Lao PDR, 2010. Decree on Cooperative no 136/PM – dated 5 March 2010. Vientiane: GoL.

84 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) of Lao PDR, 2010. Vision and strategy for developing Farmer Organizations – Presentation on the 12 March 2010. Vientiane: MAF.

85 Glavey, C., 2014. A network of Farmers' Organizations in Lao PDR is being developed. IFAD Asia Website, 24 Jan. Available at: http://asia.ifad.org/web/laos/home?p_p_id=1_WAR_ifad_newsportlet&_1_WAR_ifad_newsp ortlet_jspPage=%2Fview_entry.jsp&_1_WAR_ifad_newsportlet_entryId=9857 [Accessed 15 March 2014]

86 National Economic Research Institute (NERI) of the Ministry of Planning and Investment of Lao PDR, 2009. Microfinance in the Lao PDR. Vientiane: NERI.

87 Jones M. J. et al., op. cit.

88 Bartlett, A., 2012. Report for SDC: Trends in the Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Sectors of the Lao PDR. Vientiane: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.

89 Fujita, Y. and Phengsopha, K., 2008. The gap between policy and practice in Lao PDR. Lessons from forest decentralization: money, justice and the quest for good governance in Asia-Pacific. Earthscan/CIFOR, London, 117-131.

90 Interview using Skype with Mr. A. M. Zola, Laos and Thailand-based consultant specializing in agricultural economics and resources development in the Greater Mekong Subregion and Senior Researcher at the Mekong Environment and Resources Institute – MERI, on the 10 March 2014.

38 THAILAND

CONTEXT

Rice is Thailand’s most important crop. The country has the fifth-largest amount of land under rice cultivation in the world and is the world’s third largest exporter of rice (India and Vietnam are first and second respectively)91. Thailand plans to further expand available land for rice production, with an objective of adding 500,000 hectares to its already 9.2 million hectares of rice-growing areas92. By the end of 2012, Thailand had around 17 million tons of milled rice in stockpiles93.

Figure 8 - Land utilization and main crops in Thailand in 2010

Source: Wannarut Chutibut.94

Figure 9 - Destination markets of Thai Rice by region in 2011

Source: Adapted from Somporn Isvilanonda95.

39 SMALLHOLDER RICE FARMERS IN THAILAND

The classification used for smallholders in the World Bank’s Rural Development Strategy, defines a smallholder farm household as one with less than 2 hectares of crop land96. In Thailand, rice is produced by smallholder farmers with average farm size of around 3.5 hectares per household. About 65% (3.7 million) of farm households engage in rice farming. Farmers in Thailand can be broadly categorized by farm size97:

Table 3 - Farm sizes in Thailand in 2012 Farm Size (ha) % < 3.2 56 3.2 – 9.6 37 >9.6 7 Total 100 Source: Somporn Isvilanonda98

Farmers can also be classified by regions across Thailand that vary in topography, access to coast, spread of rainfall over the year and soil quality99:

 Central region: This area is the historical rice basket of Thailand. With much irrigated land, the central region was where commercial agriculture first developed. It has high agricultural productivity, but the lowest share of agriculture in its economy.

 Northern region: This area has low population density and is mountainous. Farmers are small landholders, and a large proportion of farmers concentrate on high-value crops, such as fruits and vegetables.

 Northeast region: This area is the most agricultural region, where almost half of Thai farmers live. Agro-ecological conditions are less favorable than other places, and the Northeast region is relatively isolated from the coast and the main urban centers. These factors partly explain why this region has the lowest agricultural productivity and the highest incidence of rural poverty in Thailand.

 Southern region: This area has low density and favorable agro-ecological conditions, with rainfall spread over the year. The south is also the most significant region for rubber production, the first agricultural export of Thailand in terms of value.

40 Figure 10 - Major crops by region in Thailand (2011-12)

Source: Chutibut100

POLICIES THAT HINDER OR ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SMALLHOLDER RICE AGRICULTURE

The Philosophy of Self-Sufficient Economy (overall guiding Government policy)

The Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy has guided agriculture in Thailand since the 1970s101. It contains three pillars102: moderation, reasonableness, and risk management. The economic crisis of 1997 reinforced the importance of The Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy. Indeed, due to the heavy reliance of Thailand’s economy on foreign capital inflows and external markets, smallholders felt the full brunt of the crisis, with some rice farmers having to buy rice for consumption. Fundamental structures in Thailand were weak, and workers in the agriculture sector were especially vulnerable. Thus, The Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy found its relevance in aiming to reduce Thailand’s dependence on external economic conditions.

Consequently, since 1997, The Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy has become the guiding principle of economic development in Thailand. During the Tenth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2006-2011), the Philosophy was applied extensively in Thailand’s development, resulting in greater resilience in Thai society. According to the National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand (NESDB), the evaluation of the Tenth Plan suggested that economic foundations for development have improved and that quality of growth has increased103. Most notably, it permitted Thailand to cope effectively with the repercussions of the 2008 global economic crisis.

Additionally, it has been praised as a very successful strategy by many, including Mr. Kofi Annan, the then United Nations Secretary-General, in May 2006, during a visit to Thailand to present to King Bhumibol the United Nations Development Program’s first ever Human Development Lifetime Achievement Award, “His Majesty’s ‘Sufficiency Economy’ philosophy – emphasizing moderation,

41 responsible consumption, and resilience to external shocks – is of great relevance to communities everywhere during these times of rapid globalization.”104

The New Theory (guiding principle for agricultural policies)

The most distinct and concrete application of the Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy to the agricultural sector is the New Theory, initiated in 1992. It provides guidelines for the proper management of land water resources and is fundamentally a scheme to dig ponds to secure a sufficient supply of water during the dry season105. Under the Theory, land is split into four parts: 30% is designed for ponds and fish culture, 30% for rice cultivation, 30% for growing fruit and perennial trees, and the remaining 10% for housing, raising animals and other activities.

Pursuing agriculture in accordance with the New Theory results in benefits for Thailand: (1) Thai farmers can live moderately at a basic level, without suffering from food shortages, and can be self- dependent106; (2) during the dry season, water stored in ponds can be used to farm vegetables; and (3) the rainy season allows farmers to earn income with lower expenses, i.e. lower need to pump water.

Figure 11 - The New Theory for agriculture in Thailand

Source: The Chaipattana Foundation107

The New Theory foresees the development of farms and farming systems along three phases108:

 Phase 1: To live at a self-sufficient level which encourages farmers to become self-dependent and sustain their living on a frugal basis.

 Phase 2: To collaborate as a group in order to handle the production, marketing, management, educational welfare, and social development.

42  Phase 3: To develop connections within different groups and to develop businesses through partnerships with private sector, NGOs and the government, in order to aid farmers with investment, marketing, production, management and information management.

It is arduous to pinpoint specific government implementations of the New Theory, as it permeates throughout agricultural practices in Thailand. One of the most prominent organizations that contributed to implementing the vision of the New Theory is the Chaipattana Foundation, which was established in 1988 by King Bhumibol to help accelerate rural development. The Foundation aims to streamline the development process by avoiding institutional constraints, lengthy bureaucratic procedures, and budget cycles that obstruct implementation of projects. It works on diverse issues, ranging from agricultural development and environmental quality improvement, to water and natural resources management109.

The Eleventh Plan The 7 development guidelines for agriculture/rural development (2012-2016) under the 11th National Economic and Social Development Plan continues to embrace the 1) reinforce national resources as the foundation for agricultural Philosophy of production base, Sufficiency 2) increase agricultural productivity, Economy. 3) increase value of agricultural commodities along supply chains by Specifically, this improving the efficiency of logistic management in the agricultural sector Plan reaffirms 4) create job and income security for farmers, agriculture as the 5) enhance food security and develop bio-energy at household and main source of community levels, income and food 6) establish bio-energy security to strengthen the agricultural sector and security with 7 support the national development by setting up management system for development food and energy crops, and guidelines. 7) improve public management to enhance food and energy security.

Recommendations  RT1: The Philosophy of Self-Sufficient Economy is a very consistent platform for Oxfam to interact with both Thai Government policy and small-holder farmers. Impacts F, P, R.

 RT2: Advocacy based on the Philosophy of Self-Sufficiency would permit, while adopting the Government’s discourse, to promote: (1) a broad and inclusive agricultural foundation; and (2) to buffer potential negative effects of globalization. Impacts F, P, R.

 RT3: The Philosophy helps ensuring a wide range of farmers can achieve a good level of resilience (in the face of climatic or economic shocks). In addition, it can also be used to articulate an advocacy discourse that calls for increasing the number of options available to farmers through the flexibility provided by the land-use ratio (30/30/30/10). Indeed, it leaves choice opened for farmers to invest more resources in enterprises relevant to their specific situation. Impacts F, P, R.

43 Fertilizer policies

In Thailand, 44% of fertilizers are used on rice, Thailand’s most important crop110. Four specific policies will be discussed: (1) trade policy; (2) support policy; (3) price control; and (4) tailor-made and site-specific fertilizer projects.

Figure 12 - Fertilizer use by crops in Thailand (2011)

Source: Chutibut111

Since 1968, when the Thai government implemented a trade policy to protect the National Fertilizer Company (NFC), there have been various attempts to balance protection of local entities, with encouraging Thai farmers’ production through ensuring the availability of low cost, high quality sources of fertilizer.

In 2011, the Tailor-Made and Site-Specific fertilizer project was launched to encourage efficient agricultural production through the use of proper fertilizer grades and to minimize farmers’ input costs. The project introduced tailor-made fertilizers (TMF) on farms and discovered that farms using the recommended site-specific fertilizers (SSF) had lower fertilizer cost by about 35-45% and higher yields for new crops. However, most smallholder farmers found implementing the TMF and SSF difficult because they had to incur extra overhead costs of sourcing correct inputs, modifying housing for making fertilizer… The project was terminated in 2011 and currently remains as more of an information-based program.

Recommendations  RT4: In the case of TMF and SSF project, the government should be encouraged to analyze the whole-of-system transaction costs that were unpopular in the initial introduction of the programs. Finding new, more efficient ways for farmers to implement these techniques practically, will allow more farmers to enjoy higher profitability, while supporting sustainable resource use. For example, hybrid techniques (mixture of on-farm/off-farm fertilizer sources) could also be trialed to optimize efficiency. If farmers could be convinced that the

44 reduced fertilizer costs outweighed the extra transaction costs of TMF and SSF costs in the long term, then perhaps farmers could be encouraged to implement TMF and SSF again. Impact P, R.

Rice pledging scheme

The rice pledging scheme has been one of the most prominent governmental policies in Thailand in the recent years. Immediately after the 2011 election, the Thai Government announced a paddy pledging program that guaranteed prices for farmers 60% higher than market prices112. It aimed to guarantee farmers’ income in a market dominated by middle-men. The Rice Policy Committee administered unlimited rice pledging by laying out rice varieties and their annual price, providing a moisture content below 15%. The rice pledging scheme was terminated in February 2014 because of its shortcomings113:

 Farmers who benefited the most from the scheme were high to moderate-income farmers (roughly 1.185 million households) with sizeable amount of surplus rice for sale. It is confirmed by Thai PBS, which found that a mere 8 percent of farmers would benefit from this scheme114.

 Implementation was open for fraudulent or corrupt activities. It is estimated that more than 500,000 tons of rice from surrounding countries were smuggled into Thailand to be sold to the Thai Government as Thai farmers’ rice. Thai traders began to buy rice from Myanmar to sell it to Thai farmers who would in turn sell it under the rice pledging scheme115.

 The scheme was highly unprofitable for the Government. Indeed, by purchasing paddy at 60% over market price in unlimited amount, massive losses had to be shouldered. Annual losses are estimated to range from 150 to 200 billion baht (equivalent to 6-8% of the Government’s current budget). In June 2013, the Thai government disclosed that the rice pledging program had lost 136 billion baht, or USD4.4 billion, for the 2011-2012 growing season116.

 Rice pledging has diminished the competitiveness of Thai rice producers. Thailand has lost international market shares because the government could not sell its overly priced rice to neighboring countries. It didn’t take advantage of opportunities to clear rice stocks but kept on speculating for higher prices. Thailand used to export 11 million tons of rice per year (roughly one million ton per month) through private sector operators before the rice pledging scheme, and there is no evidence that the government is operationally capable of selling such quantities, let alone stock up for speculation. Thailand has also experienced a decline of competitiveness in terms of input costs, as both farmland rental rates and fertilizer prices rose after the implementation of the rice-pledging scheme, yet productivity did not increase117.

Recommendations  RT5: The rice pledging scheme is a good example of market distortion, which is now causing issues for the whole value chain, in addition to political instability. Advocacy needs to insist on a more judicious use of subsidies, based on thorough analysis of the ramifications. Impacts F, P.

 RT6: The failure of the rice pledging scheme opened a space for advocacy that should be used rapidly to promote interest of the poorer farmers, while the government is still seeking alternatives to the rice pledging scheme. Impacts F.

45 Contract farming

Contract farming has established itself as a powerful new paradigm for innovation in Thai agriculture. It started in the late 1970s when Charoen Pokphand Foods (CPF), Thailand’s leading agro-industrial and food conglomerate, piloted contract farming along the whole production chain118. In recent years, areas under contract farming have expanded as a response by private sector agribusiness companies to market failures and as a way to ensure more efficient dissemination of R&D and technology119. Contracting addresses the first factor by providing a system to arrange production by many farmers with different size of farms. Basically, a contractor can specify the product quality requirements, and advise on the techniques to achieve these. The second factor is encouraged by Thai government policy, as it results in efficient extension of services to farmers via the contracting entities, who are also profiting.

Farmers join contract farming for a number of reasons, including market certainty, price stability, provision of input on credit, and observing neighbors gaining higher income.

Successive National Economic and Social Development Plans and the Board of Investment have encouraged the expansion of contract farming in subsectors, such as poultry and horticulture. In 1995, the government authorized policies to advance 12 agri-business industries in food processing and manufacturing. Additionally, it promoted private sector contract farming schemes by endorsing interaction between smallholder farmers and private companies providing inputs and buying outputs.

Contract farming systems have contributed to significantly change how farmers acquire technology, credits, inputs, and risk management skills120. As land tenure continues to be an essential determinant for farmer investment in enhancing soil fertility, contract farming can provide security and performance-based incentives for farmers to adopt new technologies and invest in agricultural lands for the longer term. These changes have the potential to contribute to poverty reduction121.

Over time, these developments have significantly altered the institutional roles of different actors, with private companies taking on roles previously assumed by government. The institutional innovations created by companies are acknowledgements of (1) the deficiencies of public sector structures and models; (2) the benefits that can accumulate from enhancing connectivity among actors; and (3) the need for flexibility in adjusting institutional capabilities to accommodate emerging circumstances. The Government of Thailand is definitely planning to integrate more strongly the benefits of the partnerships between private sector, and Department of Agricultural Extension Cooperatives122.

Nevertheless, contract farming presents a few short-comings, especially for poor farmers who have a low bargaining power. Studies express reservations about economic, social and environmental risks and about implications connected to private sector expansion and vertical integration123. In schemes operated for short-term benefit rather than long-term sustainability, power imbalances may pressure vulnerable farmers into greater indebtedness and even landlessness, further jeopardizing their livelihoods and food security. For instance, a study has pointed to connections between contract farming run by Thailand’s largest agribusiness conglomerates and the consolidation of farm holdings in the shrimp subsector124.

The popularity of contract farming is extending beyond Thailand as the country has experienced significant growth in cross-border contract farming. Thai agribusiness, which are attracted by lower prices of land rental, lower wages and sometimes by land concessions in neighboring countries, have shifted to Lao PDR, Myanmar, Cambodia and Vietnam to source raw materials for processing in Thailand. The Asian Development Bank has endorsed this initiative as a follow-up to the

46 establishment of the East-West and North-South Transportation and Economic Corridors within the Greater Mekong Subregion, and also by the Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy. The growing number of major infrastructure projects to connect the countries of the Greater Mekong Subregion indicates that contract farming schemes within Thailand will grow to serve global and regional markets125.

Recommendations  RT7: Contract farming can be seen as an efficient way to reach a large number of farmers because of its aggregating effect. It is essential to engage in a dialogue with private sector actors involved in contract farming (through existing platform, for example the Asian Development Bank GMS Working Group on Agriculture) to try and use private actors as a channel for distributing services that benefits smallholders. Impacts F, P, R.

 RT8: Shortcomings of contract farming should be addressed through a dual pronged strategy: (1) assisting and influencing the government in improving implementation of the legal framework (and institutions) protecting the rights of smallholder farmers (enforcement of contracts, denunciation of illegal arrangement…); and (2) lobbying agribusiness to influence their agenda toward a long-term approach to contract farming that would become beneficial to both farmers and agribusiness. Impacts F, P, R.

 RT9: It is also recommended to address the skill gap amongst extension staff by “pushing” for the development and delivery of a comprehensive curriculum on contract farming for government extension agents, smallholders and cooperatives of smallholders. Impacts F, P, R.

Organic initiatives

In recent years, the Thai government has promoted organic initiatives to allow farmers to develop premium domestic markets126 and enhance their profitability. NGOs that aimed to spread sustainable farming practices, such as the Alternative Agriculture Network and Green Net, pioneered Thailand’s first plantings of organic crops in 1991. By the mid 1990s, the Organic Agriculture Certification of Thailand (ACT) — the first private sector organic certification body — was established, and a national organic crop standard was formulated.

Most recently, a combination of factors has prompted accelerated growth of the domestic and export markets for niche products such as organic, fair-trade, and ethical products. From 2008 to 2009, the organic land area almost doubled from 17,000 hectares to 31,000 hectares127. The number of certified organic farms rebounded quickly in 2009 following the 2008 economic crisis, amounting to 5,358 farms on 30,724 hectares.

47 Figure 13 - Certified Organic area in Thailand (1998-2009)

Source: Green Net128.

As global consumers have become more conscious about health and food safety, efficiencies and economies of scales facilitated by the installation of globally-linked modern trade supply chains have empowered smallholder farmers in developing countries to access markets and help meet these demands. In 2009, total production in Thailand was worth USD44.7 million, most of which was exported129. In 2010, Thailand’s organic exports, mostly rice, were worth USD39.9 million130.

Table 4 - Thai organic production and value (2003-2009) Year Production (t) Value (M Baht) Value (m USD) Baht/USD 2003 9756.05 375.13 9.44 39.73 2004 15966.08 608.79 15.54 39.18 2005 29415.1 920.39 22.41 41.07 2006 30374.84 948.03 26.54 35.72 2007 33677.48 976.84 32.39 30.16 2008 26564.74 806.09 23.04 34.98 2009 44688.49 1354.42 40.80 33.2

Source: Green Net131

Opportunities in organic markets are spurring the emergence of a new class of more specialized farmers aiming at higher margins for their products. Both domestic and export markets for organic food products are growing rapidly. Price differentials between conventional and organic products, and also between conventional and food safety-certified products, range from 10 to 30%.

As the government and private sector cooperate to develop Thailand’s budding organic sector into a major export earner, finding the right incentives to persuade farmers to make the switch from traditional methods proves challenging. According to a quantitative study, total expenses at the farmers’ organization level for setting up organic certification outweighed the benefits of the initial phases132. However, the balance may be shifting, with a surge in demand for organic produce in Thailand (from Thai and tourists) and in main export markets such as the United States, Japan, and the European Union.

48 Pure Certified Organic certification is a heavy burden on developing economies that may only possess rudimentary supply chain infrastructure, and where it may be very difficult to control all the variables required to maintain stringent quality parameters (for instance the source of irrigation water used on organic crops must be analyzed for contaminants). Such systems also require a large jump in knowledge level of the farmers.

The ASEAN GAP (Good Agricultural Practices) program, developed in the mid-2000s, may be better placed to aid the transition to full organic certification133. The Thai government is now revisiting GAP in preparation for the ASEAN 2015 free trade zone134. This process includes an MOU between the Department of Agricultural Extension and national research institutes to formulate policies and identify pilot projects through provincial offices to train farmers in GAP135.

Greater focus on GAP may bring more farmers to understand the benefit of adopting higher quality post-harvest standards, at an affordable cost.

Recommendations  RT10: Organic initiatives are another opportunity for farmers to pursue higher profitability enterprises, while also protecting resources. Promotion and extension activities to support farmers diversifying their portfolios will make farming households more resilient, and profitable, and again is consistent with the Philosophy of Self-Sufficient Economy. Impacts P, R.

 RT11: promotion of intermediary organic standards adapted to Thai farmers and direct interaction with the ASEAN to set GAP as a transitory stage to full organic certification. Impacts P, R.

 RT12: Work with the main value chain participants in national and international organic rice market to raise the profile of Thai organic rice, thus creating further market opportunities for farmers who have achieved the required quality and supply standards. Impacts P, R.

 RT13: Encourage development of clear and practical quality standards. Establish testing facilities, as well as education for all parts of the value-chain to ensure contamination doesn’t hamper or even destroy hard won markets. Impacts P, R.

CONCLUSION

Thailand is a more mature agricultural producer than the 3 other countries in this report. It has very recently put an end to the rice pledging scheme that had disastrous impacts on rice production for all actors of the value chains. In addition, the Thai Government has much experience in modifying implementation arrangements to effect various objectives, especially in the area of fertilizer use and contract farming. The Philosophy of Self-Sufficient Economy and The New Theory – guiding principles behind the ‘Thai development way’ - provide ideal methods around which to arrange new interventions, with their focus on self-sufficiency and resilience.

Thai civil society is mature and vibrant with a high level of freedom. The same can be said about the business environment. The space for advocacy and the number of potential partners are large. Selection of partners in the private sector and in civil society (including farmers’ cooperatives) is crucial for policy advocacy in Thailand. Due to Thai high-degree of integration within regional and global markets, policy advocacy to develop mechanisms to buffer negative impacts of globalization is expected to be the key focus of any successful policy intervention.

49 ENDNOTES

91 Investvine, 2014. Thailand Wants Rice Top Spot Back. Available at http://investvine.com/thailand- wants-rice-top-spot-back/ [Accessed 7 April 2014].

92 The Nation (Thailand), (April 16, 2008). Rice Strain Is Cause of Comparatively Low Productivity. Available at http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/04/16/opinion/opinion_30070831.php [Accessed 7 April 2014].

93 Investvine, op. cit.

94 Chutibut, W., 2011. Agricultural and Fertilizer Situation in Thailand. Department of Agriculture, Thailand.

95 Isvilanonda, S., 2012. Success Factors for Smallholder Rice Production in Thailand. Available at http://bfap.co.za/documents/research%20reports/somporn%20sucessful%20factor%20for%20small %20holder%20rice%20production%20in%20Thailand.pdf [Accessed 7 April 2014].

96 World Bank, 2003. Reaching the Rural Poor: A Renewed Strategy for Rural Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

97 Isvilanonda, op. cit.

98 Isvilanonda, op. cit.

99 Leturque, H., and Wiggins, S., 2011. Thailand’s Progress in Agriculture: Transition and Sustained Productivity Growth. Overseas Development Institute. Available at http://www.developmentprogress.org/sites/developmentprogress.org/files/thailand_report_- _master.pdf [Accessed 7 April 2014].

100 Chutibut, op. cit.

101 Foreign Office, The Government Public Relations Department, 2006. King Bhumibol and His Enlightened Approach to Teaching. Bangkok, Thailand.

102 The Chaipattana Foundation, 2014. Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy. Available at http://www.chaipat.or.th/chaipat_english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4103&Ite mid=293 [Accessed 7 April 2014].

103 National Economic and Social Development Board, 2012. Summary of the Eleventh National Economic and Social Development Plan (2012-2016). Available at http://www.nesdb.go.th/Portals/0/news/academic/Executive%20Summary%20of%2011th%20Plan.p df [Accessed 7 April 2014].

104 Thailand Today, 2011. Philosopher at Work. Available at http://www.thailandtoday.in.th/monarchy/philosopher-at-work#New_Theory [Accessed 7 April 2014].

105 Thailand Today, op cit.

106 The Chaipattana Foundation, op. cit.

50 107 The Chaipattana Foundation, op. cit.

108 Thaiways Magazine, 2002. His Majesty King Bhumibol’s Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy. Available at http://www.thaiwaysmagazine.com/thai_article/2413_sufficiency_economy/sufficiency_economy.html [Accessed 7 April 2014].

109 The Chaipattana Foundation, op. cit.

110 Chutibut, op. cit.

111 Chutibut, op. cit.

112 Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, 2011. The Strategic Role of the Private Sector in Agriculture and Rural Development. Bonn: Germany.

113 Umeda, S., 2013. Thailand: Crisis in Thai Rice Pledging Scheme. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Available at http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403656_text [Accessed 7 April 2014].

114 Umeda, op. cit.

115 Weng, L., (July 3, 2013). Thai Subsidy Scheme Leads to Burmese Rice Sell-off. The Irrawady. Available at http://www.irrawaddy.org/z_thailand/thai-subsidy-scheme-leads-to-burmese-rice-sell- off.html [Accessed 7 April 2014].

116 Hookway, J., (June 17, 2013). Thai Rice Under Fire. The Wall Street Journal. Available at http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323836504578551082631719980?mg=reno 64- wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887323836504578551082 631719980.html&fpid=2,7,121,122,201,401,641,1009 [Accessed 7 April 2014].

117 Tanruangporn, P., (February 5, 2014). Going Beyond the Rice Pledging Scheme. Bangkok, Thailand: Thailand Development Research Institute. Available at http://tdri.or.th/en/tdri-insight/going- beyond-the-rice-pledging-scheme/ [Accessed 7 April 2014].

118 Charoen Pokphand Foods PCL, 2008. The Project to Develop Integrated Farming (Contract Farming). Available at http://www.cpfworldwide.com/cpd/en/page/csr/technology_transfer_farming.aspx [Accessed 7 April 2014].

119 Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, op. cit.

120 Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, op. cit.

121 UNCTAD (2005). Commodity Policies for Development: A New Framework for the Fight Against Poverty. Background note by the UNCTAD Secretariat.

122 Interview with Ms Vinda Leumsombut, Policy and Planning Analyst, Office of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives [11/12/2013]

51 123 Sriboonchitta, S., and Wiboonpongse, A., 2005. Analysis of Contract Farming in Thailand. CMU Journal Vol. 4(3) 361.

124 Singh, S., 2005. Contract Farming System in Thailand. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 53. Available at http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4417611?uid=3738352&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103752130717 [Accessed 7 April 2014].

125 Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, op. cit.

126 Brooks, J., 2010. Agricultural Policy Choices in Developing Countries: A Synthesis. Presentation at Global Forum on Agriculture; OECD Headquarters, Paris, 29-30 November 2010.

127 Green Net, 2011. Report on Status of Organic Agriculture in Thailand. Available at http://www.greennet.or.th [Accessed 7 April 2014].

128 Green Net, op. cit.

129 Green Net, op. cit.

130 Thai Rice Exporters’ Association, 2011. Rice Exports Statistics. Available at http://www.thairiceexporters.or.th/List_%20of_statistic.htm [Accessed 7 April 2014].

131 Green Net, op. cit.

132 Panyakul, V., 2007. “Organic Jasmine Rice Farmers in the Northeast of Thailand”. In Certification Costs and Managerial Skills Under Different Organic Certification Schemes – Selected Case Studies, edited by P. Santacoloma. Rome: FAO.

133 FAO, 2005. Good Agricultural Practices. Available at http://www.fao.org/prods/gap/activities/asia_en.htm [Accessed 7 April 2014].

134 The Thai Financial Post, 2013. Agriculture and Cooperatives Ministry Braces for ASEAN Agricultural Standards. Available at http://thaifinancialpost.com/2012/06/29/agriculture-and- cooperatives-ministry-braces-for-asean-agricultural-standards/ [Accessed 7 April 2014].

135 Interview with Ms. Orasa Dissataporn, Senior Expert on Vegetable, Flowers, and Herbal Crop Promotion and management, Department of Agricultural Extension, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand [12/12/2013]. Venue : Expert Consultation on Strengthening Linkages between Research and Extension to promote food and nutrition security, Bangkok

52 VIETNAM

CONTEXT

Vietnam has experienced an arguably the most radical transformation of the agriculture sector in less than a decade after the economic renovation in 1986 – which is well-known as Doi Moi. From an autarky agrarian economy that struggled for food sufficiency, Vietnam has turned into the world leading exporters of many agricultural products (e.g. rice, coffee, pepper, rubber, catfish). The system of collective agriculture was swept away after the collapse of agriculture collectives that kept control over most of land and resources into a system where every farmer is recognized as an economic agent with their land use title and own trading rights. For the first time since the Reunification in 1975, farmers were then allowed to decide by themselves on crop choices, input purchase, and sales of outputs. Most of restrictive measures on the agriculture sector were effectively liberalized within a decade or so.

Such great transformation has been at the center of Vietnam’s impressive growth and poverty reduction. After two decades of reforms, the agricultural output given in 1994 constant prices increased by nearly 280%, with an average growth of 5% per year (which is exceptionally high by all standards for agriculture)136. While increasing the average yield in agriculture, rural farmers have also diversified into non-farm activities. The share of nonfarm income has increased from less than 32% up to 56% of average household income between 1993 and 2008137. Most importantly, such growth has lifted around 26 million farmers out of poverty between 1990 and 2010. Poverty headcount in the rural areas has decreased from around 66% to less than 16% in 2010 (if using a consistent poverty line across time)138.

On the other side of the medal, farmers have benefited very differently from such transformation. Though most of rural farmers have secured some improvements in their standards of living, smallholders seem to have benefited less than the ‘average’. Many smallholding rice farmers have been unable to earn a living from growing paddy. Being at disadvantaged positions in value chains, they gained less than they should have done.

SMALLHOLDERS RICE FARMERS IN VIETNAM

In the case of Vietnam, landholding is usually used as one important criterion to identify smallholders. In the case of rice, with a threshold of 0.5 hectare, the proportion of rice growing smallholders is 84% (see figure below)139. As identification of smallholders can vary with different types of crops, many studies adopt some measurements of living standards as ‘proxy’ for being smallholding. Accordingly, almost all farmers who are poor or near poor (i.e. living between the poverty line and 130% of it) are found to be smallholders. This methodology fits the case of Vietnam where the poors tend to possess less land and depend more on rice production. Accordingly, between 30 and 45% of the rural population can be considered as smallholders140. A generic profile of smallholders includes (1) having less cultivation land than the average; (2) being located in disadvantaged areas (e.g. remote, mountainous, vulnerable to natural disaster); and (3) limited access to income-generating activities.

53 Figure 14 - Paddy rice landholding in Vietnam by Regions (hectares, 2011)

Source: adapted from Vietnam Agriculture Census141

Rice and other food staples are the dominant crops engaged in by smallholders but even the very small and poor farmers diversify to a certain extent. A recent survey in the Mekong River Delta shows that rice income contributes an average of 41% to total income per capita of rice growers142. However, the relative importance of rice income increases when moving from smallholding to commercial paddy growing. For the smallest paddy growers (planting on less than one hectare), rice constitutes only 18% of their total income and other off-farm sources contribute 63% (table below). It is thus very likely that the smallholder rice farmers are ‘pushed’ into off-farm diversification as rice growing is not profitable enough. Off-farm diversification could be a way out of poverty, but the poor smallholders tend to benefit less from emerging off-farm income opportunities than the non-poor143.

Table 5 - Paddy rice landholding (ha) and structure of rural income (%) in 2011 in Vietnam Other Livestock & Rice crops aquaculture Off-farm ≤ 1 ha 18 10 10 63 From 1 to ≤2 ha 24 6 31 39 From 2 to ≤ 3 ha 35 1 38 26 >3 ha 67 - 5 28 Average 41 4 16 39

Source: World Bank and Institute for Policies and Strategies in Agriculture and Rural Development144

Smallholders are the key to many agro-business value chains, but they tend to benefit less (or even least) than other actors. The rice value chain in the country is long and very fragmented, making it difficult to measure margins earned by smallholders. However, some indications exist. Rice farmers at the bottom two income quintiles share only 7% of the total net rice supply. This could suggest that smallholders earn little profit from rice farming after subtracting expenditure145.

54 POLICIES THAT HINDER OR ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SMALLHOLDER RICE AGRICULTURE

Food security

Over the past two decades, the share of rice in dietary energy supply has decreased from nearly 73% to less than 57%. Data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) shows that per capita rice consumption in Vietnam is approximately 135 kilograms while the corresponding figures in Myanmar, Philippines, Indonesia, and China are respectively 160, 128, 104, and 95 kilograms. Proportion of household expenditure on rice has also declined steadily from 17% in 1996 to below 8% in 2010146. In the recent years, Vietnam produced more than 40 million tons of rice per year and became one of the world leading rice exporters. This translates into an astonishing progress in food security in Vietnam. However, food security remains surprisingly a concern in the policy arena. There is confusion between food security at the national level and food availability or sufficiency at certain locations. Rice shortages observed in the event of natural disasters or in very remote areas tend to constitute a political concern on national food security, while these should be considered purely as problems of distribution of rice surplus.

Figure 15 - Production of rice in Vietnam (mil ha and mil tones)

Source: author’s calculation from General Statistical Office (GSO)’s Vietnam Statistical Yearbooks (various years)

This provides a political will to protect the target of 3.8 million hectares of paddy land (which is near the current level of paddy rice land in the country), by enforcing quotas on land for paddy production. Smallholding rice growers suffer most from this restriction that prevents them from switching to other crops, which are more profitable, on their paddy land. Focusing on maintaining growth of paddy rice output and export also results in a ‘high volume-low value’ outcome. Consequently, Vietnamese rice export prices are consistently lower than those of Thai rice. Taking ‘5% broken’ rice as an example, Free-On-Board (FOB) prices for Vietnam have been lower by between 5 to 25%, in 2008-2011, compared to those of Thailand (graph below). The problem lies in the fact the Government heavily focuses on interventions related to export transactions, while leaving very sizeable domestic market with few effective actions. Should concerns on national food security and welfare of farmers be at the top of the agenda, the domestic rice market should be the focus of regulations and monitoring, rather than the export market that should be run by the private sector, as in many other countries147.

55 The above suggests that concerns on food security have driven out incentives for more productive, higher value added rice production in the country, and particularly for smallholders.

Figure 16 - FOB prices for export from Vietnam and Thailand (USD)

Source: compiled from statistics of Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture148

Recommendations  RV1: There is a need for a strategy that moves away from ‘high volume-low quality’ to make the rice sector more competitive internationally. Concerns on food security are no longer valid at the national level. This requires working with Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) and the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) to include this strategic move into the next Socio-Economic Development Plan (SEDP) 2016-2020 (the drafting process will start around mid-2014). Impacts F, P, R.

 RV2: Rice export should be left to entrepreneurs. Resources of the Government ought to be focused on domestic market interventions, especially in terms of stabilizing price fluctuations. Consequently, restrictions on export quantity and allocation of export quotas should be removed. In addition, the number of Government-to-Government (G2G) export contracts should be reduced to the benefit of those based on market terms and driven by the private sector. Working with MARD and the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MoIT) to remove the current arrangements for allocating rice export within G2G contracts will be necessary to allow the participation of the private sector. In addition, Vietnam Food Association should be reformed to be a more neutral professional association, rather than one dominated by former State-Owned Enterprises. Impacts F, P.

Land use policy

Vietnam has made important land reforms in the early 1990s. With the Resolution 10149, land was for the first time allocated to peasants with land-use rights secured for 15 and 40 years for annual and perennial crops respectively. Therefore, while land was considered state owned, land-use rights were granted for long-term usage to peasant households. The Land Law 1993 (amended in 2003 and 2013150) extended the land tenure to 20 years for annual crops and to 50 years for perennial crops. More importantly, exchange, transfer, lease, inheritance, and mortgaging of land-use rights were permitted for the first time. This created

56 an important background for the development of a land market. To aid this development, a process of issuing land-use right certificates (which are commonly referred to as “Red Books”) began after the Land Law became effective. At present, land-use certificates have been given to around 95% of peasant households and for 90% of the agricultural land151. Land-use right certificates, which guarantee long-term land use rights, have become one of the most important physical assets of smallholders.

Nevertheless, there exist limitations in land reforms. Land fragmentation is a characteristic of the agriculture sector in Vietnam. In an egalitarian spirit, land was allocated on the basis of needs (usually indicated by household size) and on the ability to farm (number of household members who can work on the land) - see for instance Section 2, Chapter X of the Land Law 2013. Given a large, growing and dense population, this resulted in a high level of land fragmentation, which negatively impacted production efficiency and land productivity. In addition, rapid granting of land concessions for investment projects and other non-agriculture uses in the recent years is weighing heavily on stallholders’ access to productive land. This, together with land fragmentation, has increased the incidence of landless households in rural areas that rose by nearly two third in the past 2 decades. Indeed, amongst the poorest quintile of households in the Mekong River Delta, nearly 40% are landless152.

Recommendations  RV3: Administrative regulations that prevent changing the use of land assigned to paddy growing should be revised to allow farmers to make more profitable choices. Accordingly, the Government target of 3.8 million hectares of paddy needs to be removed. Working with MARD/Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) to change the approach to agricultural land use planning is required. Collaboration with development partners actively involved in agriculture and rural development (such as the World Bank, AusAID, DANIDA…) is advised in order to raise this issue during policy dialogues with Government agencies, especially MARD. Impacts P, R.

 RV4: To prevent further increase in landlessness, resettlement packages should be integrated into any agreement for projects involving the use of large areas of agricultural land (be they for agricultural concessions or for non-agricultural usages of land). This requires advocacy/campaigning to put the issue of landlessness under the lime-light at national level and a constructive dialogue with MPI and its provincial departments to ensure that appraisal procedures are strictly adhered to and that resettlement packages are provided as provisioned by Law. Impacts F.

Labor market policies

Although the share of employment in the agriculture sector has decreased from around 75% in the early 1990s to less than 50% at present, the sector remains a major source of employment for many of the 1.5 million annual new entrants into the labor market153. However, as the majority of rural farmers are self-employed, they are untouched by many labor market policies.

Rural-urban migration Migration to urban areas has been increasing in the rural Vietnam. While the country exhibits a slow, but steady decline in population growth, the urban population has grown at 3.8%, and the rural population at only 0.75% for the period 1990-2010. It highlights a significant rural-urban migration flow driven by higher average earnings in urban areas154. Indeed,

57 many poor peasants and smallholders migrate as a coping strategy. However, current policies are hindering such a coping strategy. The household registration system (or ‘ho khau’), which requires residents to have permanent or semi-permanent registration when accessing public services, is still in place. Therefore, access of migrants to public services is generally low compared to non-migrants. At times, migrants were found to pay higher fees for public utilities than non-migrants. Migration to urban areas will continue to be a coping option for many smallholding farmers and thus this call for policy responses to support the rural-urban migrants.

Figure 17 - Population growth in rural Vietnam (%) (1990-2009)

Source: compiled from GSO’s Vietnam Statistical Yearbooks (various years)

Recommendation  RV5: Rural-urban migration is an effective coping mechanism for many smallholders. Administrative procedures that hinder this migration ought to be removed. Instead, migrants should be considered as a flux of low-cost labor to urban areas and relevant support policies developed, especially in terms of access to public services. With this in mind, it is essential to influence the Ministry of Labor, War Invalids, and Social Affairs (MOLISA) to ensure that the role of migrants as a development force is reflected in the next SEDP for 2016-2020. Awareness raising about issues faced by migrants and dialogue with municipal governments of large cities (including Hanoi, Hai Phong, Ho Chi Minh, Binh Duong, and Dong Nai) will be necessary to instigate a perception shift from rural migrants as ‘burden’ for urban infrastructure and public services to rural migrants as asset for city development in the form of additional labor force. Impacts F, R.

Rural Non-Farm Sector (RNFS) RNFS has become an increasingly important sector in terms of both employment and income generation in Vietnam. Estimates155 and latest data available156 suggest that the share of RNFS in rural job creation increased from 23% in 1993 to 63% in 2010 (it should be noted that many RNFS laborers also engage in some farming activities as secondary employment). Given the importance of RNFS as major source of employment, non-farm income has emerged as an increasingly important source of income for rural households. In spite of RNFS key role in driving rural growth, there are few policies to support this sector and its main actors, the numerous rural SMEs and micro-enterprises. They experience very limited access to credit and difficulties in obtaining many of the policy incentives that are available to urban enterprises157.

58 Recommendation  RV6: Rural SMEs and household micro enterprises should benefit from incentives for investing in agriculture and rural development. ‘Traditional occupation villages’ or rural industrial zones can be used to provide necessary infrastructure. This calls for reforms in public administration to create a transparent and supportive business environment for rural enterprises. The attention of MPI/MARD/MoIT needs to be brought upon this issue through a sustained dialogue and regular interactions with development partners (notably SNV and GiZ, who in turn can be lobbied). Impacts P, R.

Vocational training and job market Vocational training for the poor and for rural labor force has recently been set as an important objective of rural development. In addition to many policies supporting vocational training, decision 1956/QD-TTg158 in November 2009 approved a project of vocational training for rural workforce till 2020 with an estimated budget of around USD 1.2 billion. Moreover, many other rural development programs incorporate components on vocational training and on facilitation of the functioning of job markets. Development partners are also active in promoting vocational training for rural workforce with a budgetary commitment roughly estimated at USD 60 million per year. Consequently, access to vocational training has greatly improved in recent years. However, there are concerns regarding low quality of vocational training and mismatch between training and job requirements. This is re-affirmed by a recent study in the Central Highlands159: field interviews from six provinces suggested that access to vocational training was still limited for poor farmers and that, even with vocational training, young laborers were experiencing difficulties in finding employment due to a lack of information.

Recommendation  RV7: Coverage and quality of vocational training can be improved by (1) efficient management of fragmented resources for vocational training; (2) capacity building for providers of vocational training; and (3) a better match between job market requirements and training delivered. Advocacy should focus on influencing development partners and the General Department for Vocational Training of MOLISA so that additional resources are channeled towards rural areas. To leverage these resources, investment can first target a core set of regional vocational training colleges to deliver training of trainers. Impacts P, R.

Access to credit

Vietnam financial sector has undergone a rapid transformation over the past two decades, but most of the changes have taken place in the urban areas. According to the Vietnam Banks Association, rural credit accounts for less than 18% of the total credit by the financial sector160. It has been a near consensus that lack of access to credit remains a major constraint for rural development. For commercial lending, the Vietnam Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (VBARD) is the most active commercial banks in rural areas. However, the majority of rural lending by VBARD is to rural enterprises. Many VBARD’s officers (and those of the few other commercial banks that operate in rural areas) prefer lending to rural enterprises or wealthy households, rather than to smallholders and/or to the poor. Therefore, access to commercial lending for the rural poor and smallholders is very limited.

59 Access to credit at subsidized interest rates for the rural poor and/or smallholders is a concern for policy makers in Vietnam that has warranted state intervention161. MOLISA reported that the cost of providing preferential loans for the poors accounted for around 40% of the total cost of the poverty reduction effort for the period 2005-2012. Most subsidized loans are made through the Vietnam Bank for Social Policy (VBSP)162. While the provision of credit is a laudable undertaking, it is not without consequences. Indeed, the prevalence of indebtedness in rural Vietnam is high. For instance, in the poorest 62 districts, the proportion of indebted households was of 71% by the end of 2013. It appears that there are too many policy incentives to encourage access to subsidized credit in rural areas, sometimes without the necessary checks and balances and accompanying rural development policies (e.g. extension). This results in a sub-optimal use of credit and indebtedness163.

Recommendations  RV8: Stimulation of cooperation between VBSP, MoIT and MARD may prove an efficient options to ensure that credit is provided in synergy with other support policies, especially with support for production (e.g. in terms of input subsidies, extension, training). In addition, assessing the capacity of rural borrowers to use loans in a productive manner ought to be a key criterion driving credit appraisal procedures of the VBSP. Collaboration between VBSP, the Vietnam National Farmer Union (VNFU) and MARD would be of significant importance in that respect. Impacts P, R.

Agriculture extension

Agricultural extension services are provided by the National Agriculture Extension Centre (NAEC), the Plant Protection Department (PPT) and their lines agencies at provincial, district, and commune levels. Various services are offered, including technical trainings, field demonstration workshops, on-site consultation, and provision of market information. However, the state system of agricultural extension mainly serves as a policy arm to achieve the objectives of the authorities with regards to agricultural growth and rural development. Thus, services are not demand-driven, but subject to the objectives of different policies and programs.

With a heavy reliance on insufficient state budget, the reach of extension services in rural areas is relatively weak, and the system cannot meet the demand of more than eleven millions peasant households. The case of rice smallholding farmers provides a typical example of the limited coverage and effectiveness of the extension network.

Indeed, under weak supply conditions and limited extension services, farmers use their own ‘saved’ seeds for 35 to 45% of total seeds cultivated, with difficulties in obtaining certified quality seeds. As a result, they purchase seeds from different sources and end up sowing one crop with different types of seeds, leading to a ‘mix bag’ approach164. This is one of the factors that keeps the quality of rice produced in Vietnam low and prevents concerted efforts in switching to higher quality rice varieties165.

Recently, there have been some improvements in the provision of extension services. Notably, decree 02/2010/ND-CP provides a new array of subsidies for farmers to access extension services166. Subsidies vary according to activities and participants. They cover between 100% and 30% of the cost of training, field-demonstration, or other activity.

60 Though it is too early to evaluate how this decree will contribute to improve the coverage and quality of extension services, this is clearly an important progress in provision of public extension services to rural areas.

Recommendations  RV9: Supply of certified seeds needs to be improved in order to shift away from the ‘mixed bag’ approach adopted by farmers. Encouraging public institutions (starting with Cuu Long Rice Research Institute, the main supplier of certified seeds for the Mekong River Delta) that supply certified seeds to collaborate with private sector and advocating for the development of a policy on production of certified seeds by farmers (or group of, possibly with the support of VNFU) ought to be considered, together with influencing development partners to channel more funds towards R&D for improved seeds development (ACIAR may prove an interesting partner for R&D). Impacts P, R.

 RV10: Working with MPI/MoIT/MARD is recommended to introduce policies that contain (1) incentives for private (or farmer-led) extension services and inputs providers (transparency and ease of input registration mechanisms; facilitation/regulation of contract farming or of similar arrangements) to develop; and (2) appropriate regulations and contractual laws to protect smallholders. In addition, development partners should encourage the usage of private extension services in conjunction with the one of NAEC/PPT. Impacts P, R.

CONCLUSION

Space for advocacy in Vietnam remains tight. Civil society at national level is relatively weak and constrained by strict government and self-applied censorship under a command-and- control model that is still the norm despite efforts at decentralization167. Policy advocacy work in Vietnam should be skillfully conducted with a mix of lobbying, relationships nurturing and collaboration with Mass Organizations, the Government and development partners at central level. At local level, it mostly ought to build evidences that can convince central decision makers.

61 ENDNOTES

136 Using Vietnam Statistical Yearbook by General Statistics Office (GSO). See General Statistical Office (GSO) of Vietnam, various years. Vietnam Statistical Yearbook. Hanoi: Statistical Publisher.

137 Using the Vietnam Household Living Standard Surveys (VHLSS) from 1992/93 to 2008 conducted by General Statistics Office (GSO) of Vietnam with support from the World Bank. See Statistical Office (GSO) of Vietnam, various years. Results from the Vietnam Household Living Standards Survey, Hanoi: Statistical Publisher.

138 Using data from the VHLSSs between 1992/93 to 2010 with the WB-GSO poverty line and the population data from Vietnam Statistical Yearbook (various years). See GSO, op. cit.

139 Vietnam Agriculture Census 2011 conducted by General Statistics Office (GSO) of Vietnam. Further information on this Census could be obtained at www.gso.gov.vn. See Statistical Office (GSO) of Vietnam, 2013. Results from the Vietnam Agriculture Census, Hanoi: Statistical Publisher.

140 Using data from the VHLSS 2010. See GSO, op. cit.

141 Vietnam Agriculture Census 2011. See GSO, op. cit.

142 World Bank (WB) and Institute for Policies and Strategies in Agriculture and Rural Development (IPSARD), 2011. Beyond the ‘Rice Bowl’: Building on Past Gains to Enhance the Quality, Sustainability, and Equity of Growth in the Mekong Delta. Research report. Hanoi: WB and IPSARD.

143 Pham, T.H; L.T Dao, and A.T. Dao, 2010. Is Nonfarm Diversification is a Way Out of Poverty in Rural Vietnam? PEP Research Report. Canada: Poverty and Economic Policy Network (PEP).

144 WB and IPSARD, op. cit.

145 Interview with Mr. Vo Hung Dung, VCCI Can Tho, on March 24th, 2014 by telephone.

146 Using data from the VLSS 1997/98 and VHLSS 2010. See GSO, op. cit.

147 Interview with Mr. Duong Quoc Tuan, Vice Director, Song Hau Farm Company, Can Tho, Vietnam, on March 25th, 2014 by telephone

148 Using the statistics that are available from Economic Research Service, The US. Department of Agriculture at http://www.ers.usda.gov

149 Resolution 10 of The Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam in 1988. See Communist Party of Vietnam, 1988. Resolution 10 of The Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam in 1988. Hanoi: Communist Party of Vietnam.

62 150 The latest Land Law 2013 was enacted by Resolution 45/2013/QH13 by the National Assembly of Vietnam. See National Assembly of Vietnam, 2013. Resolution 45/2013/QH13 to enact the amended Land Law 2013 dated 92/11/2013. Hanoi: National Assembly.

151 Author’s calculation from the Vietnam Agriculture Census 2011. See GSO, op. cit.

152 Pham et al., op. cit.

153 Using data Vietnam Statistical Yearbook by General Statistics Office (various years). See GSO, op. cit.

154 Indochina Research and Consulting (IRC) and Action Aid Vietnam (AAV), 2012. Rural- Urban Migration: A challenging Pathway in the Search for Hope. Joint research report. Hanoi: IRC and AAV.

155 Pham et al., op. cit.

156 Using data from the VHLSS 2010. See GSO, op. cit.

157 Indochina Research and Consulting (IRC) and Institute for Policies and Strategies in Agriculture and Rural Development (IPSARD), 2011. A Survey on Rural Business Environment. Joint research report. Hanoi: IRC and IPSARD.

158 Government of Vietnam (GoV), 2009. Decision 1956/QD-TTg to approve a project of vocational training for rural workforce up to 2020, dated Nov 2009. Hanoi: GoV. Available at http://www.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/chinhphu/hethongvanban?class_id=1&mode=deta il&document_id=95791

159 Indochina Research and Consulting (IRC), 2013. Exploring the Cocoa Opportunities for Smallholders and Ethnic Minorities in the Central Highlands. Research report for a private sector client (confidential). Hanoi: IRC.

160 Vietnam Bank Association (VBA), 2013. Overview of Rural Credit. Presentation at the Workshop on “Credit for Agriculture and Rural Development”, organized in July 2013. Hanoi: VBA.

161 Government of Vietnam (GoV), 2002. Decree 78/2002/ND-CP on credit policies for the poor and other supported groups, dated 04/10/2002. Hanoi: GoV. Available at http://vanban.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/chinhphu/hethongvanban?class_id=1&_page=1&mode= detail&document_id=11079

162 Author’s calculation from the 30A Survey, conducted by Indochina Research and Consulting in collaboration with Oxfam and CECODES in 2014, supported by Irish Aid. See Indochina Research and Consulting (IRC), Oxfam, and Center for Community Development (CECODES), 2014. An Evaluation Survey of the Programme 30A. Hanoi: IRC, Oxfam, CECODES.

163 Institute of Ethnology, Ageless Consultants, and Oxfam, 2014. Review of Programmes and Policies for the Poor. Work-in-progress presentation at a technical roundtable in March, 2012. Hanoi: MOLISA.

164 WB and IPSARD, op. cit.

63 165 Interview with Mr. Doan Manh Tuong, Researcher at Cuu Long Rice Research Institute, Can Tho, Vietnam, conducted on March 25th, 2014 by telephone.

166 Government of Vietnam (GoV), 2010. Decree 02/NĐ-CP on the agriculture extension services, dated 8/1/2010. Hanoi: GoV. Available at http://www.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/chinhphu/hethongvanban?class_id=1&mode=deta il&document_id=92648

167 Pommier, L. (2014). Evaluation of Farmer-Led Agricultural Innovation for Resilience 2010-2012. Phnom Penh: Oxfam American East Asian Regional Office.

64 BRIEF REVIEW OF REGIONAL POLICY ENVIRONMENT

REGIONAL POLICIES AND INTEGRATION

The most influential policy-making bodies will be treated in this section as it was observed that they have a direct impact on individual countries policy-making (they include mandatory provision for the modification of national policies). The 4 countries have different accession statuses to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its policy on agricultural trade liberalization under the July Framework Agreement (July Package) of the Doha Development Agenda168. This will not be considered as it is beyond the scope of the current exercise and most WTO’s provisions are catered for (in a loose fashion) by ASEAN. Additional policy-making alliances that will not be dwelled upon include Indonesia-Malaysia- Thailand Growth Triangle and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation, of which only Thailand is a member.

Association of South-East Nations (ASEAN)

The 4 countries are members of the ASEAN169 and are all signatories to the ASEAN FTA (Free-Trade Agreement) that aims to create an Economic Community by 2015. FTA, with the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) schemes imposes a tariff rate of 0-5% between ASEAN FTA members. However, rice, a sensitive commodity, is to be fully included under the FTA only later, by 2020. For other agricultural products, Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam have been given till 2015 to fully comply with CEPT/FTA. ASEAN FTA is the most influential regional policy shaping trade environment for agricultural products, FDI and labor movement (included in other provisions than FTA) within South-East Asia. A large part of trade is intra-ASEAN for the LMB countries170. Consequently, ASEAN CEPT (including ASEAN+3 that added China, Japan, Korea; and ASEAN+6 that will add India Australian and New-Zealand by 2015) is likely to be the key factor shaping national agricultural policies and investments in the LMB in the years to come.

Efforts outside of the economic sphere are few and not a key focus for ASEAN although there are some attempts at promoting culture, travel and human171. Participation in ASEAN FTA can be perceived as risky for countries with a poorly developed industrial base. Indeed, Lao and Cambodia (in a lesser manner Vietnam and Thailand) face the risk of (1) seeing their local manufacturing and agricultural processing industries suffocated under an influx of cheap goods; and (2) may become a source of cheap raw materials for China, India or more powerful ASEAN members)172. This is already the case with Thailand and China investing heavily in natural resources in Cambodia and Lao. In earlier section of this document, the negative effects of unrestricted FDI have already been mentioned. Other potential negative impacts are the migration of skilled labor to low skill countries to run FDI (from Vietnam to Lao PDR and Cambodia), thus diminishing local labor opportunities; and the migration of low-skill labor to higher-skilled countries (Cambodia and Lao to Thailand), thus increasing rice labor shortages173.

65 ADB Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS)

The 4 LMB countries are part of the GMS174, a program of sub-regional economic cooperation, supported by ADB since 1992. The focus is on large multi-countries initiatives that are formulated by working groups composed of relevant ministers from each member and are implemented through Regional Technical Assistance (RETA) or through financing at country levels. The most relevant ones for our analysis are:

 The Core Agricultural Support Policy (phase II - 2011-2015), which aims to increase agricultural competitiveness and agribusiness investment with modernized trading system and linkages to regional and global markets. Its key elements are: (1) research in agricultural technology with an emphasis on climate-friendly agricultural development; (2) private sector involvement into agriculture; and (3) strengthening of institutional mechanisms to enhance regional cooperation.

 Trade strategy (under Subregional Trade Facilitation Working Group) that involves removing obstacles to trade (nontariff barriers) and improve efficiency of transport operations across borders (with the Cross-Border Transport Agreement – CBTA175).

 The Development of Economic Corridors to facilitate movement of goods and people across GMS (together with CBTA to facilitate border crossing, mainly for goods)176. This approach is fully aligned with the ASEAN views of an economic community following open trade principles. The GMS is divided into three economic corridors177 (and sub- corridors): (1) the North-South Economic Corridor; (2) the East-West Economic Corridor; and (3) the Southern Economic Corridor.

The initiatives described above are complemented by a range of other interventions in capacity building, governance, climate-change programming (an increasing focus under the Core Environment Program178 – CEP) and environmental conservation (Biodiversity Conservation Corridor Initiative under the CEP). ADB recognizes that insufficient attention was paid to social and environmental impacts179. This is evident by the focus on climate- friendly agriculture and GAP that is now common in ADB financed projects. However, it remains to be seems if such efforts are compatible with the development of a free-trade area with member-countries exhibiting very different income status. Indeed, GMS initiatives tend to re-enforce ASEAN integration and may have a multiplier effect on the risks for low-income countries that joined ASEAN.

REGIONAL POLICY STRATEGIES PROPOSED BY ADVISORY BODIES

A number of key initiatives have been launched recently by international institutions and groups of INGOs that recognizes the importance of keeping a vibrant smallholder rice farming agriculture in South-East in the face of trade liberalizations. They include:

FAO Rice strategy for sustainable food security in Asia and the Pacific region

In the light of the fast pace of change in South-East Asia (including disappearance of smallholder rice farming pushed by regional integration and “modernization” of agriculture), FAO devised a regional strategy for rice agriculture in the region180. It relies on 6 strategic

66 objectives: (1) increase productivity, nutrition value and sustainability; (2) enhance value chain and reduce post-harvest losses; (3) mitigate/Adapt to climate change and reduce risk; (4) conserve environment and heritage; (5) promote fair and efficient market and trade; and (6) improve organization of production and empower women. Technological and policy options available to countries for implementing the strategic options are articulated under 11 thematic areas, with benefits and trade-offs. The strategy recognizes that rice farming is rapidly changing with farm consolidation, “graying” of labor, trade policies… It provides a range of options for increasing productivity by re-organizing farming system (alternative wetting and drying, zero-tillage, system of rice intensification, integrated pest management, rice-fish, rice-intercropping and rice multi-cropping), and/or using advanced seed technology (short-varieties, salinity resistant varieties, high-yielding aerobic varieties). Nonetheless, it voluntarily falls short of specifically addressing challenges faced by smallholders and highlight the need for each country to make the relevant policy choices.

67 ENDNOTES

168 Bandara, J.S., 2007. The Effects of Agricultural Trade Liberalization under the Doha Development Agenda with Special Reference to the Asia Pacific Region: A Brief Survey – ARTNeT Working Paper Series No 31. Bangkok: Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade, 2007.

169 Association of South East Asian Nations, 2009. Roadmap for an ASEAN Community 2009-2015. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.

170 in value: Cambodia: 23.4%; Lao: 64 %; Thailand: 24.3 % and Vietnam 17.2%. According to Zola, A. M., 2014. Presentation: ASEAN Economic Community: The potential for impacts on agriculture and rural livelihood in Lao PDR. Available at http://swgard.maf.gov.la/download/other_important_resource_and_documents/ASEAN%20E conomic%20Community%20- %20The%20potential%20for%20impacts%20on%20agriculture%20and%20rural%20liveliho od%20in%20Lao%20PDR.pdf [Accessed 15 March 2014].

171 United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Regional Center in Colombo, 2006. South-East Asia Regional Economic Integration and Cooperation: Deepening and Broadening the Benefits for Human Development. Colombo: UNDP Regional Centre in Colombo.

172 Bello, W., 2010. Propaganda and reality: The China-Asean Free-Trade Area. Business Mirror, 17th Jan.

173 Park, D., Park, I. and Estrada, G.E.B., 2008. Prospects of an ASEAN–People’s Republic of China Free Trade Area: A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis - ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 130, October 2008. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

174 “The Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) is a natural economic area bound together by the Mekong River, covering 2.6 million square kilometers and a combined population of around 326 million. The GMS countries are Cambodia, the People's Republic of China (PRC, specifically Yunnan Province and Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region), Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), Myanmar, Thailand, and Viet Nam”. From http://www.adb.org/countries/gms/main [accessed 20/04/2014]

175 “The CBTA provides a practical approach to streamlining regulations and reducing nonphysical barriers in the GMS. It covers the following areas: single-stop/single-window customs inspection; cross-border movement of persons (i.e., visas for persons engaged in transport operations); transit traffic regimes, including exemptions from physical customs inspection, bond deposit, escort, and agriculture and veterinary inspection; requirements that road vehicles will have to meet to be eligible for cross-border traffic; exchange of commercial traffic rights and infrastructure, including road and bridge design standards, road signs, and signals”. From http://www.adb.org/countries/gms/sector-activities/transport [accessed 20/04/2014]

68 176 Asian Development Bank(ADB), 2007. GMS Transport Strategy 2006–2015 - Coast to Coast and Mountain to Sea: Toward Integrated Mekong Transport Systems. Manila: ADB.

177 For up-to-date details, see http://www.adb.org/countries/gms/sector-activities/multisector [accessed 20/04/2014]

178 For details see http://www.gms-eoc.org/climate-change [accessed 20/04/2014]

179 Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2007. Greater Mekong Subregion Core Environment Program Progress Report 2006-2007. Manila: ADB.

180 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2014. Rice strategy for sustainable food security in Asia and the Pacific region. Draft version 23 January 2014. Bangkok: FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.

69 CONCLUSION: SYNERGIES FOR ADVOCACY

This document has presented a range of recommendations for policy advocacy work to improve the food security, profitability and resilience of smallholder rice farmers in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam.

To facilitate their use, they are presented in a table in Appendix 6, that include for each policy: key themes; areas it is expected to impact the most (amongst food security, profitability and resilience); and whether it respond to a negative policy environment, support a positive one or fill in a gap. Key themes that emerged (Appendix 5 is also considered) are coherent with the maturity of the agricultural sector and of the policy environment in each country:

 Access to Land and the Rule of Law (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Vietnam)  Irrigation (Cambodia, Lao PDR)  Private sector partnerships (all 4)  Farmers’ choice (all 4)  Rural finance (all 4)  Rural industries or processing (all 4)  Access to inputs (all 4)  Access to markets (all 4)  Farmers’ groups (Lao PDR, Vietnam)  Contract farming: Thailand  Precision farming and agronomic research: Thailand, Vietnam

Additionally, during the analysis a set of positive elements came to light:

The key themes in conjunction with the brief analysis of regional policy environment to define thematic for regional policy interventions through existing campaigns (e.g. Oxfam International’s GROW) and to target regional policy making bodies (ASEAN, GMS) and large development partners. These interventions may be framed around the positive elements identified above.

70 APPENDIX 1 – ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 APPENDIX 2 – INCEPTION LISTS OF DOCUMENTS FOR EACH COUNTRY (AND THE REGION)

CAMBODIA

ACI, 2014. Diagnostic Study. Cambodia Agriculture in Transition. Draft Final Report. Maryland: Agrifood Consulting International.

Asian Development Bank, 2012. Gender Equality and the Labor Market in Cambodia. Phnom Penh: Asian Development Bank.

ADB, 2012. Overarching Inclusive Growth Diagnostic. High Level Advisory Group Meeting. Phnom Penh: Cambodia.

ADB, 2011. Cambodia: Country Poverty Analysis. Asian Development Bank Country Partnership Strategy Thematic Assessment, Phnom Penh: Asian Development Bank.

ADB, 2009. Diagnostic and Analysis of Binding Constraints to Rural Development In Cambodia. Phnom Penh: Asian Development Bank.

Anttonen, J.J., 2012. Multi-donor efforts for improving land administration systems in developing countries: lessons learnt from the Cambodian Land Management and Administration Project (LMAP). FIG Working Week 2012. Knowing to manage the territory, protect the environment, evaluate the cultural heritage, Rome, Italy, 6-10 May 2012.

Gergely, N., Pierre B. and Meas, Ch, 2010. An economic survey of rice sector in Cambodia. Phnom Penh: Agence Francaise de Développement.

Masters, W.A., et al., 2013. Urbanization and farm size in Asia and Africa: implications for food security and agricultural research. Global Food Security.

Ngo Sothath and Chan Sophal, 2011. Agricultural Financing and Services for Smallholder Farmers, Research Report 3, Phnom Penh: Cambodia Economic Association.

Solar, W.R., 2010. Rural Women, Gender, and Climate Change: A Literature review and invited perspectives on climate change impacts and processes of adaptation in Cambodia. Cambodia: Oxfam America.

UNCDF, 2010. Local Development Outlook Cambodia: Trends, Policies, Governance. Phnom Penh: UNCDF.

UNDP, 2013. Industry-agriculture linkages: Implications for Rice Policy. Discussion Paper No. 9. Phnom Penh: UNDP, World Bank, forthcoming. Investment Climate Assessment. Cambodia 2012. Phnom Penh: UNDP.

WFP, 2013.Productive Assets and Livelihoods Support (PALS) programme: overview and key features of the 2013 pilot. Phnom Penh: World Food Program.

85 World Bank, forthcoming. Investment Climate Assessment. Cambodia 2012. Phnom Penh: World Bank.

LAO PDR

ACIAR, 2013. Rice-based Systems Research program: food security in Lao PDR, Cambodia & Bangladesh. Canberra: ACIAR.

Akkharath, I., 2003. The Agricultural Development Policy and WTO Accession of Lao PDR 2003. Working paper 03-3. Canberra: Asia Pacific School of Economics and Management of Australian National University.

Alexander, K. S. et al., 2010. Sustainable development in the uplands of Lao PDR. In: Sustainable Development, 18(1), 62-70. Thailand: Asian Institute of Technology.

Ali, J., 2009. Strengthening the Laotian rice export potentials while improving the livelihoods of resource poor rice farmers through green super rice. Trip report Lao PDR, 22-27 October 2009. Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute.

Asian Development Bank. Statistical Database System (SDBS). Available at: http://www.adb.org/data/sdbs/index.jsp [Accessed 27 February 2014].

Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2009. Development Effectiveness Brief: Lao PDR at the Crossroads of Change .Manila: ADB.

Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2010. Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Capacity Strengthening for Gender Mainstreaming in the Agriculture Sector (Financed by the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction). Project Number: 43241-01 Capacity Development Technical Assistance (CDTA) October. Manila: ADB.

Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2011. Mainstreaming Gender in the Agriculture Sector in Lao PDR. Manila: ADB. Available at: http://www.adb.org/themes/gender/case- studies/mainstreaming-gender-agriculture-lao-pdr [Accessed 26 February 2014]

Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2012. Country Partnership Strategy Lao PDR: Overcoming Most Critical Constraints to Inclusive Growth in Lao PDR, 2012–2016. Manila: ADB.

Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI), 2013. Presentation: SWOT Analysis on Rice Supply Chain in Lao PDR. In: Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI), Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Viet Nam Project Training Program (2): Developing Agricultural Supply Chains in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Viet Nam, Khon Kaen, Thailand, 18-22 February 2013. Tokyo: ADBI.

Asia-Pacific Rural and Agricultural Credit Association (APRACA), 2010. Completion Report: FinPower Microfinance Development Forum – Dialogue in Lao PDR: National Rural Finance Policy. Bangkok: APRACA.

Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research (ACIAR), 2013. Rice-based Systems Research program: food security in Lao PDR, Cambodia & Bangladesh. Progress Report. Canberra: ACIAR.

86 Badiola, J. A. R., 2007. Creating a Conducive Rural Finance and Microfinance Policy Environment in Lao PDR. Bangkok: Asia-Pacific Rural and Agricultural Credit Association.

Bartlett, A., 2012. Report for SDC: Trends in the Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Sectors of the Lao PDR. Vientiane: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.

Bouahom, B. and Douangsavanh, L., 2013. Presentation on Rice supply chain in Lao PDR. In: Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI), Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Viet Nam Project Training Program (2): Developing Agricultural Supply Chains in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Viet Nam, Khon Kaen, Thailand : 18 February 2013 - 22 February 2013. Tokyo: ADBI.

Case, P. et al., 2014. Defining intervention points for improving Lao extension. Final report. Canberra: ACIAR.

Cavallo, E., 2008. Poverty Reduction in Laos: an Alternative Approach. In S. Lawrence, ed. Power Surge. Berkeley: International Rivers.

Chandara, P., 2013. Presentation on Microfinance environment and regulatory framework. In: Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI), 2013 Asia-Pacific Financial Inclusion Forum: Financial Inclusion, Innovation and Regulation: Meeting the Challenges of Policy Reform and Capacity Building. Jakarta, 11-12 June 2013. Tokyo: ADBI. Available at http://www.adbi.org/conf-seminar-papers/2013/07/26/5828.country.presentation.lao.pdr [Accessed 30 March 2014].

Chittanavnh, P., 2007. Country case study of Lao PDR. In: Asia Trust Fund: Regional Conference on Organic Agriculture in Asia, 12-15 December 2007, Bangkok, Thailand. Bangkok: Asia Trust Fund.

Chittanavanh, P. et al., 2006. Opportunities for organic products in Laos – Consumer perceptions, awareness and interest. PROFIL: Vientiane.

Coleman, B. E. and Wynne W. J., 2006. Rural Finance in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Demand, Supply, and Sustainability- Results of Household and Supplier Surveys. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

Department of International Cooperation of the Lao PDR Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI), 2012. Progress report of sector working groups. Round Table Implementation Meeting (RTIM) Vientiane, 23 November 2012. Vientiane: MPI.

Department of Planning and Cooperation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) of Lao PDR, 2013. Draft Final: Upland Development Strategy for Agriculture and Rural Development, 2015-2020 -Northern Uplands Development Programme. Vientiane: MAF.

Department of Statistics of Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) of Lao PDR and UNDP, 2009. Employment And Livelihoods - The 4th National Human Development Report. Vientiane: MPI and UNDP.

DiPaolo, J., 2012. Lao announces dramatic shift in land policy, commits to expand rights of communities, ethnic groups. EurekAlert!, 28 August 2012. Available at: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-08/rari-lad082712.php [Accessed 26 February 2014]

87 Douangsavanh, L. et al., 2005. Enhancing sustainable development of diverse agriculture in Lao People's Democratic Republic. Working paper 89. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for Alleviation of Poverty through Secondary Crops’ Development in Asia and the Pacific.

Douangsila, T. and Poungchompu, S., 2012. Impact of Rural Development on the Poor Farmers in Uplands of Laos. In: Khon Kaen University, Graduate Research Conference 2012, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Thailand: Khon Kaen University.

Dwyer, M. 2007. Turning Land into Capital. A review of recent research on land concessions for investment in Lao PDR. Vientiane: Lao Working Group on Land Issues.

Eliste, P., Santos, N., 2012. Lao People’s Democratic Republic Rice Policy Study 2012. Rome: FAO.

Epprecht, M. et al. 2008. The Geography of Poverty and Inequality in the Lao PDR. Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South, University of Bern and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Bern: Geographica Bernensia.

Erikson, G., 2011. Contract farming and organic rice production in Laos: a transformation analysis. Gothenburg, Sweden: Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

FAO, 2010. Aquastat. Lao People´s Democratic Republic. Available at: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/laos/index.stm [Accessed 20 February 2014].

FAO, 2012. Faostat. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=339&lang=en&country=120 [Accessed 23 February 2014].

FAO, 2012. Irrigation in Southern and Eastern Asia in figures. AQUASTAT Survey. Rome: FAO.

FAO, 2014. Global information and early warning system on food and agriculture- Lao PDR. Available at: http://www.fao.org/giews/countrybrief/country.jsp?code=LAO [Accessed 20 February 2014].

FAO and WFP, 2011. Special Report: FAO/WFP crop and food security assessment mission to Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Rome: FAO and WFP.

Foley, S., 2009. Growing Resilience - Adapting for Climate Change in Upland Laos. Vientiane: Norwegian Church Aid.

Fraser. A., 2009. Lao People's Democratic Republic: Agriculture and Natural Resources Sector Needs Assessment. Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report. ADB and the Lao People's Democratic Republic: Vientiane.

Fujita, Y. and Phengsopha, K., 2008. The gap between policy and practice in Lao PDR. Lessons from forest decentralization: money, justice and the quest for good governance in Asia-Pacific. Earthscan/CIFOR, London, 117-131.

Fullbrook, D., 2010. Development in Lao PDR: the food security paradox. Working Paper Series Mekong Region. Berne: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.

88 Fullbrook, D., 2011. Smallholder production agreements in the Lao PDR: Qualifying Success. Vientiane: Government-Donor Sub Working Group on Farmers and Agribusiness.

Glavey, C., 2014 A network of Farmers' Organizations in Lao PDR is being developed. IFAD Asia Website, 24 Jan. Available at: http://asia.ifad.org/web/laos/home?p_p_id=1_WAR_ifad_newsportlet&_1_WAR_ifad_newsp ortlet_jspPage=%2Fview_entry.jsp&_1_WAR_ifad_newsportlet_entryId=9857 [Accessed 15 March 2014]

Hazell, P. et al., 2007. The Future of Small Farms for Poverty Reduction and Growth. 2020 Discussion Paper 42. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute.

High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE), 2013. Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome: HLPE.

Hughes, K., 2013. A Multidimensional Approach for Measuring Resilience. Oxfam GB Working Paper, March 2013. Oxford: Oxfam GB.

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), 2011, Lao People’s Democratic Republic Country strategic opportunities programme .Rome: IFAD.

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Rural Poverty Portal. Rural poverty in Lao People's Democratic Republic. Available at: http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/home/tags/laos [Accessed 20 February 2014].

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Lao PDR, 2007. Rapid Trade and Environment Assessment. National Report for Lao PDR. Winnipeg, Canada: IISD.

International Labor Organization (ILO), 2011. Decent Work Country Programme Lao PDR (2011-2015). Vientiane: ILO.

International Water Management Institute (IWMI), 2012. Managing Water in Rainfed Agriculture in the Greater Mekong Subregion- Final report. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

Inthapanya, P. et al., 2013. Development and performance of flood tolerant rice variety TDK1-Sub1. The Lao Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, No. 28 (Special Issue).

Intharack, S., 2014. Presentation on Lao Agriculture Census 2010/11: Analysis and use of data for Planning and Policy. In: FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (FAO ROAP), 25th Session Asia and Pacific Commission on Agricultural Statistics, Vientiane, Lao PDR, 18- 21 Feb. 2014. Bangkok: FAO ROAP. Available at http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/apcas25/APCAS_14- 5.3_Lao_Agricultural_Census_APCAS.pdf [Accessed 20 March 2014].

IRAS Lao Project, 2012. Analysis of conditions for Farmer Organizations and Cooperatives from a viewpoint of Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience, and recommendations for improvements. Vientiane: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2009. A situational analysis of Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam. In Turner, S. et al., eds. Mekong Region Water

89 Dialogue. Publication No. 2, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 32 pp.

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), 2010. Lao People's Democratic Republic Study for Poverty Profiles of the Asian Region Final Report. Vientiane: JICA.

Jones M. J. et al., 2012 Non-State Actors in Agriculture Extension: Farmers Accessing Services in Lao PDR. Vientiane: Laos Extension for Agriculture Project (LEAP).

Jones, M. et al., 2013. Appendix 1: Comparing Developments in Agricultural Extension Services in Lao PDR with Global Trends: A Literature Review. In P. Case et al. 2014. Final Report for Defining intervention points for improving Lao extension Project. Canberra: ACIAR.

Jönsson, K., 2000. Policymaking in transitional economies: poverty reduction and health care in Cambodia and Laos. In: Study in Health Services Organisation and Policy (23). Antwerp: ITG Press.

Jusi, S., 2013. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Approach in Water Governance in Lao PDR. Cases of Hydropower and Irrigation. Tampere: Tampere University Press.

Kenney-Laza, M., 2012. Shifting cultivation in Laos: transitions in policy and perspective. Vientiane: Lao PDR Secretariat of the Sector Working Group For Agriculture and Rural Development.

Keomany, V., 2011. Scoping study on food security and nutrition information in Lao PDR. FAO Project GCP/RAS/247/EC. Rome: FAO.

Khemmarath, S., 2005. Key Concepts of Food Security. In: NAFRI. Improving Livelihoods in the Uplands of the Lao PDR. Vientiane: NAFRI.

Kuiper, R., 2008. Presentation on Review and update of the national strategy for irrigation. The future of irrigated agriculture “public management for better returns”. In: National Capitalization Workshop. Vientiane. Available at: http://fr.slideshare.net/RuurdKuiper/081119-national-irrigation-strategy-discussion-parts-a- and-b [Accessed 10 February 2014]

Lao News Agency, 2012. Three draft laws approved. Lao News Agency, 27 Sept. 2012. Available at: http://www.kpl.net.la/english/news/newsrecord/2012/Sept/27.9.2012/edn1.htm [Accessed 20 February 2014]

Lao PDR National Strategy Team, 2006. Agricultural commercialization – a strategic direction for farm families to overcome poverty in Lao PDR. In: International Trade Corporation (ITC) : Paper presented at ITC Executive Forum: "Bringing the Poor into the Export Process : Linkages and Strategic Implications", Berlin, Germany, 27-30 September, 2006. Geneva: ITC.

Lao PDR Trade Portal, 2013. Procedure and fees on rice exports in Lao PDR. Lao PDR Trade Portal, 11 Jul. 2013. Available at: http://www.laotradeportal.gov.la/index.php?r=site/display&id=456#.UzK90M4k9-g [Accessed 20 February 2014]

Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 2009. National adaptation programme of action to

90 climate change. Vientiane: GoL.

Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 2011.The Seventh Five-Year National Socio- Economic Development Plan (2011-2015)- Full Version. Vientiane: GoL.

Lao Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) of Lao PDR, 2013. Statistical yearbook 2012. Vientiane: MPI.

Laos News Agence, 2008. Laos: Rice policy aimed at improving rice market-oriented production. Lao News Agence, 19 Aug 2008. Available at: http://eng.caexpo.org/news/t20100819_88982.html [Accessed 27 February 2014].

Leebouapao, L. and Voladeth, S., 2011. Agricultural Development, Trade, and Regional Cooperation in an Integrating and Industrializing East Asia: The Case of Lao PDR. In: P.S. Intal et al., eds. Agricultural Development, Trade and Regional Cooperation in Developing East Asia. Jakarta: ERIA, pp.269-306.

Lienhard, P. et al., 2006. Improving Smallholder Livelihood, Watershed and Soil Management through Conservation Agriculture in Laos. In: Mekong River Commission (MRC): Sustainable Sloping Lands and Watershed Management Conference, Luang Prabang, Lao PDR, 12-15 December 2006. Vientiane : MRC. Available at : http://www.mekonginfo.org/mrc_en/doclib.nsf/0/E1DFBBEFB9263E6B4725724A00123F75/$ FILE/05_paper_tivet_panyasiri.pdf [Accessed 22 March 2014].

Linquist, B. et al., 2004. Improving rice based upland cropping systems for the Lao PDR. In NAFRI, ed. 2004. Proceedings of NAFRI Uplands Workshop on Shifting Cultivation Stabilization and Poverty Eradication, pp 299-313. Vientiane: NAFRI.

Lord, M., 2008. LAO PDR - Formulation of ANR Sector Loan. Annex on Trade and Investment TA 4843. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

Manivong, P., 2007. Environmental Impacts of Trade Liberalization in the Organic Agriculture Sector of the Lao PDR. Rapid Trade and Environment Assessment. Background Research Paper. Winnipeg, Canada: IISD.

Manorom, K. et al. 2011. Cross-Border Contract Farming Arrangement: Variations and Implications in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Research Report Series (1) 2. Greater Mekong Subregion–Phnom Penh Plan for Development Management. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

Mekong River Commission, 2011. Agriculture and Irrigation Programme (AIP)Programme Document 2011-2015. Vientiane: Mekong River Commission.

Millar, J. and Photakoun, V., 2006. Pathways to improving livelihoods in the uplands of Laos: Researching and improving extension practice. Available at: http://www.regional.org.au/au/apen/2006/refereed/5/3133_millarje.htm [Accessed 20 February 2014].

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2000. Decree on Establishment and Operation of WUAs no 1150/AF- dated June 2000. Vientiane: GoL.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2000. Decree on the full Transfer of Irrigation Systems to WUAs no 1149/AF - dated June 2000. Vientiane, GoL.

91 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) of Lao PDR, 2008. Irrigation diagnostic study. Vientiane: MAF.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2010. Agricultural Investment Plan 2011 to 2015. Vientiane: GoL.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2010. Irrigated Agriculture National Action Plan 2nd Draft – May 2010. Vientiane: MAF.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2010. Agricultural Master Plan 2011 to 2015 - Final Draft, 15th September 2010. Vientiane: GoL.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) of Lao PDR, 2010. Presentation on Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Rural Development Sector Strategy to 2020. Vientiane: MAF.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2010. Strategy for Agricultural Development 2011 to 2020. Vientiane: GoL.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) of Lao PDR, 2010. Vision and strategy for developing Farmer Organizations – Presentation on the 12 March 2010. Vientiane: MAF.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2012. Statement by Pravongviengkham, P.P. (Vice-Minister for Agriculture and Forestry): The State and Challenges in Sustaining a balanced Agricultural Development in the Lao PDR: Policies to Support Farmers’ Organizations in this Era of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. In: International Co- operative Alliance Asia and Pacific (ICAAP), 9th Asia Pacific Co-operative Ministers’ Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 27 Feb – 1 March 2012. Bangkok: ICAAP.

Ministry of Health (MoH) of Lao PDR, 2009. National nutrition strategy and plan of action 2010-2015. Vientiane: MoH.

Ministry of Industry and Commerce (MOIC) of Lao PDR, 2011. National Export Strategy (NES) 2011-2015. Vientiane: MOIC.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) of Lao PDR, 2012. Lao environment outlook 2012. Vientiane: MoNRE.

Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) of Lao PDR, 2004. National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy (NGPES). Vientiane: MPI.

Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) of Lao PDR, 2011. Lao PDR Investment and Access to Land and Natural Resources: Challenges in Promoting Sustainable Development. A Think Piece (A basis for dialogue). Discussion paper jointly prepared by the Ministry of Planning and Investment of Lao PDR and World Bank. Vientiane: MPI.

National Agricultural and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, 2006. Service Program of Capitalization in Support of Rural Development Policy - Diagnostic Study of the Agricultural and Agribusiness Sectors. Vientiane: NAFRI.

National Agricultural and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) of the Ministry of Agriculture of Lao PDR, 2013. Evolving rice markets in the Northern Uplands. Policy Brief No 15/2013. Vientiane: NAFRI.

92 National Agricultural and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) of the Ministry of Agriculture of Lao PDR, 2013. Local perceptions on food security changes in rural northern Laos. Policy Brief No 16/2013. Vientiane: NAFRI.

National Assembly of Lao PDR, 1998. Law 01-98/NA dated 10 October 1998 – Law on Agriculture. Vientiane : GoL.

Namvong, S. and Bacongus, R.T., 2010. The farmer driven approach and its contribution to farmer empowerment in the village extension system of Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 6(2), pp. 108-116.

National Economic Research Institute (NERI) of the Ministry of Planning and Investment of Lao PDR, 2009. Microfinance in the Lao PDR. Vientiane: NERI.

Newby, J. C. et al., 2013. Intensification of lowland rice-based farming systems in Laos in the context of diversified rural livelihoods. In: Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society (AARES), 57th AARES Annual Conference, Sydney, Australia, 5th-8th February, 2013. Canberra: AARES.

Nicholson, K. et al., 2008. Review of Experiences in the Marketing, Production, Harvesting And Management of Agro-biodiversity and NTFP Products: Mission Report for The Agro Biodiversity Initiative (TABI). Vientiane: TABI.

Oxfam America, 2013. Draft report on Strengthening the ability of PAR to foster women’s and landless labourers’ active participation in the SEMIL-SRI-LMB project. Phnom Penh: Oxfam America.

Oxfam America East-Asia Regional Office (OA EARO), 2013. Strengthening the ability of PAR to foster women’s and landless laborers’ active participation in the SEMIL-SRI-LMB project – Draft December 2013. Phnom Penh: OA EARO.

Oxfam International, 2010. Think big. Go small. Adapting business models to incorporate smallholders into supply chains. Briefings for Business 6. Oxford: Oxfam International.

Padgham, J. 2009. Agricultural development under a changing climate: Opportunities and Challenges for Adaptation. Washington: World Bank.

Panyakul, V., 2009. Organic Agriculture in Laos PDR: Overview and Development Options. Final Report. Bangkok: Earth Net Foundation / Green Net.

Panyakul, V., 2012. Lao's Organic Agriculture: 2012 Update. Bangkok: Earth Net Foundation / Green Net.

Peñalba, L. M., et al., 2010. Meeting the Challenges to Food Security and Livelihood in a Changing Climate. Working Paper No. 2012-01. Los Baños, Philippines: Center for Strategic Planning and Policy Studies, University of the Philippines Los Baños.

Pommier, L., 2009. Management of investments in natural resources in the provinces and operational linkages between the Poverty Environment Initiative (UNDP/MPI) and the Sustainable Natural Resource Management and Productivity Enhancement Project (IFAD/ADB). Vientiane: Ministry of Investment and Planning of Lao PDR and UNDP.

93 Pommier, L., 2009. Mainstreaming biodiversity into agriculture and land management in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Marketing Report. Draft v1. Project Preparation for GEF Project ID 2903. Vientiane: UNDP.

Pravongviengkham, P.P., 2009. Presentation: Challenge 2020: Food Security Strategy Lao PDR. In: Renmin University of China (RUC), Round Table Conference on East Asia Food, Renmin, 18 Dec. 2013. Renmin, China: RUC.

Pravongviengkham, P. P., 2012. Presentation on Building Partnerships and Collective “ Aid Management and Investments around Value Chains for Food Security, Secure Livelihood and Sustainable Natural Resources Use- The Lao case. In University of Bern: Aid, Emerging Economies and Global Policies Conference, University of Bern, 3 Oct 2012. Bern: University of Bern. Available at http://poldev.revues.org/1207 [Accessed 17 February 2014].

Prime Minister’s Office of Lao PDR, 2007. Decree On the Organization and Implementation of the National Leading Board for Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation No. 060/PM – dated January 24. Vientiane: GoL.

Prime Minister’s Office of Lao PDR, 2009. Decree on Associations no 115/PM – dated 29 April 2009. Vientiane, GoL.

Prime Minister’s Office of Lao PDR, 2010. Decree on Cooperative no 136/PM – dated 5 March 2010. Vientiane: GoL.

Prime Minister’s Office of Lao PDR, 2012. Decree On organization and function of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, No. 262/PM dated 28 June. Vientiane: GoL.

Prochaska, K. et al., 2012. Rural Finance in Laos- GiZ Experience in Remote Rural Areas. Bonn: GiZ.

Rasabud, S., 2011. Country Report: Lao PDR. In Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI): Workshop on Climate Change and its Impact on Agriculture, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 13-16 December 2011. Tokyo: ADBI.

Rigg, J. D., 2006. Forests, Marketization, Livelihoods and the Poor in the Lao PDR. In Land Degradation and Development 17 (2006), pp. 123-133.

Robins, L., 2012. Rice-based Systems Research program: food security in Lao PDR, Cambodia & Bangladesh. Mid-term Technical Workshop: Building program synergies Vientiane, 13-15 June 2012. Summary Report. Canberra: ACIAR.

Rural and Micro Finance Committee (RMFC) of the Bank of the Lao PDR, 2003. Policy Statement for the Development Of Sustainable Rural and Micro Finance Sector. Vientiane: Bank of Lao PDR.

Sayasouk, V. (2008). Presentation SRI under DoI (System of Rice Intensification). Vientiane: Laos Department of Irrigation, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Sayasouk, V., 2009. SRI (System of rice intensification) Experience under DoI projects in LAO PDR. Vientiane: Department of Irrigation, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Schiller, J.M., 2004. System of rice intensification -SRI- Suitability for lowland rice production in the Lao PDR. Rome: FAO.

94 Schiller, J. M., 2008. Rice production – status and needs relating to future food security of Lao PDR and potential development options for southern Lao PDR. Agriculture and natural resources sector needs assessment TA-4843 (LAO). Manila: Asian Development Bank.

Schiller, J. M., 2013. Multi-scale strategies for adapting to climate change in Cambodia, Laos, Bangladesh and India. Monitoring visit report Lao PDR- December. ACIAR PROJECT LWR-2008-019. SRA (Small Research and Development Activity). Regional Co-learning in Simple Mechanised Tools for Planting Rice. Canberra: ACIAR.

Schiller, J. M. et al., 2001. Constraints to rice production systems in Laos. In S. Fukai and J. Basnayake, eds. 2001. ACIAR Proceedings 101 – Increased Lowland Rice Production in the Mekong Region (pp. 3-19). Canberra: ACIAR.

Schiller, J. M. et al., 2013. Lao PDR – Rice production and food security. The Lao Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, No. 28 (Special Issue), 2013.

Schroeter, A., Sixanoh, S., 2005. The Lao Extension System. In NAFRI. Improving Livelihoods in the Uplands of the Lao PDR, pp 191-198. Vientiane: NAFRI.

Science Technology And Environment Agency of the Prime Minister’s Office of Lao PDR, National biodiversity strategy to 2020 and action plan to 2010. No. 1066/STEA-PMO - 3 June 2004. Vientiane: GoL.

Sen, A., 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shimazaki, K., 2011. SRI in Laos. In Rice Farming Revolution, Chapter 7. J-SRI in Sept. 2011. Tokyo: Japan Association of the System of Rice Intensification, University of Tokyo.

Slater, R., Keoka, K., 2012. Report for SDC: Trends in the Governance Sector of the Lao PDR. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Vientiane.

Smith, J. et al., 2012. Rice grain yield - a comparison between direct seeding and transplanting in Lao PDR. Australian Society of Agronomy. Available at: http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2012/crop-production/8183_smithje.htm [Accessed 25 February 2014].

Soukkhy, O. et al., 2012. Presentation on Climate change Implications to food security and livelihood of small scale farmers in Lao PDR. In Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA): International Conference on Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation for Food and Environmental Security, 21-22 Nov 2012, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. Los Baños: SEARCA.

Stads, G-S. and Manivong, K., 2006. Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators – Laos, Country Brief 32. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Steering Committee for the Agricultural Census Agricultural Census Office, 2012. Lao census of agriculture 2010/11 highlights. Vientiane: GoL.

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), 2007. Asia Brief - Filling the rice basket in Lao PDR partnership results. Vientiane: SDC.

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), 2011. Lao PDR Agricultural Extension Approach. Vientiane: Lao Extension Approach Project.

95 Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), 2014. Contract Farming in Lao PDR: How smallholders can reap benefits? Vientiane: SDC. Available at: http://www.sdcmekong.org/2014/02/contract-farming-in-lao-pdr-how-smallholders-can-reap- benefits/ [Accessed 17 February 2014].

Thomas, D. E. et al., 2008. Comparative assessment of resource and market access of the poor in upland zones of the Greater Mekong Region. Chiang Mai: World Agroforestry Center.

Thomas, D.E., 2004. Review of policies and practices in upland areas of the Lao PDR. In NAFRI, ed. 2004. Proceedings of NAFRI Uplands Workshop on Shifting Cultivation Stabilization and Poverty Eradication, pp 9-38. Vientiane: NAFRI.

Tobias, A. et al., 2012. Handbook on rice policy for Asia. Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011. Commodity Intelligence Report - LAOS: Sustainability of Future Rice Production Growth and Food Security Uncertain. Available at: http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2011/12/Laos_13Dec2011/ [Accessed 15 March 2014].

UN General Assembly, 2010. National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 15 (a) of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1. (A/HRC/WG.6/8/LAO/1). Geneva: UN.

UN Lao PDR, 2011. Country Analysis Report: Lao People’s Democratic Republic Analysis to inform the selection of priorities for the next UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) 2012-2015. Vientiane: UN Lao PDR.

UN, 2013. The Millennium Development Goals Progress Report for the Lao PDR 2013. Geneva: UN.

UNDP, 2010. Project document: Improving the Resilience of the Agriculture Sector in Lao PDR to Climate Change Impacts : Lao PDR Resilience Agriculture Sector Climate Change – NAPA follow up. Vientiane : UNDP.

UNESCO, 2013. Policy Review of TVET in Lao PDR. Paris: UNESCO.

Van Kippersluis, R. and Shrestha, R., 2011. LAO PDR – Entrepreneurs driving productivity and capacity in smallholder rice farming. In T. Woodhatch et al., eds, 2011. Capacity  Results - Case stories on Capacity development and sustainable results, pp. 19-21. Online (http://www.lencd.org/): Learning Network on Capacity Development.

Vannasou, T., 2006. The development of extension in Lao PDR. Vientiane: National Agricultural and Forestry Extension Service (NAFES). Available at: http://www.regional.org.au/au/apen/2006/refereed/1/3134_vanasook.htm [Accessed 17 February 2014].

Victor, M. (2008). Diagnostic Study on Northern Uplands Sustainable Development. Vientiane: Sub-Working Group on Northern Uplands Sustainable Development.

Vientiane Times, 2009. Laos govt to allow foreign investment in rice cultivation. Vientiane Times, 22 Aug 2009. Available at: http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/7139-laos-govt-to- allow-foreign-investment-in-rice-cultivation [Accessed 27 February 2014].

96 Vixathep, S. et al., 2013. Land Distribution and Rice Sufficiency in Northern Laos. GSICS Working Paper Series No. 27 September. Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies Kobe University. Japan: Kobe University.

Vongsakid, S., 2002. Farmer Experimentation with the System of Rice Intensification in Laos. Ithaca, NY: Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development.

Vongsakid, S., 2007. Report on SRI Development Work of Oxfam Australia (OAus). Vientiane: Oxfam Australia.

Vongsathien, K., 2014. Irrigation Sub Sector –Presentation. In: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Lao PDR, Retreat on Irrigation and Extension, Vientiane, Lao PDR, 12 March 2014. Vientiane: MAF.

Vuthy, T., 2012. Developing agricultural policies for rice-based farming systems in Lao PDR and Cambodia. Presentation at Rice-based Systems Research: Regional Technical Workshop Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), 3-15 June, Vientiane, Laos. Canberra: ACIAR.

Warr, P. et al., 2013. How Expansion of Public Services Affects the Poor: Benefit Incidence Analysis for the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 349 May 2013. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

Water Resources and Environment Administration of the Prime Minister’s Office of Lao PDR, 2008. Strategic framework for national sustainable development strategy for Lao PDR. Vientiane: GoL.

Wellmann, D., 2012. Discussion Paper on The Legal Framework of State Land Leases and Concessions in the Lao PDR – February 2012. Vientiane: Integrated Rural Development in Poverty Regions of Laos (IRDP) under the Northern Upland Development Programme (NUDP).

Whitten, M. and Schiller, J., 2004. Mission to study the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) activities in Southeast Asia and to make recommendations to FAO about future training and Participatory Action Research relating to SRI. Rome: FAO.

World Bank (WB), 2006. Lao PDR: Rural and Agriculture Sector Issues. Washington: WB.

World Bank (WB), 2008. Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Policy, Market, and Agriculture Transition in the Northern Uplands. Washington: WB.

World Bank (WB), 2010. Options for Strengthening Social Safety Nets in Lao P.D.R: A Policy Note. Washington: WB.

World Bank (WB), 2010. Sanitary and phytosanitary measures - Enhancing agro-food trade in the Lao PDR. Trade Development Briefing Note 3, June 2010. Vientiane: WB.

World Bank (WB), 2010. Third Qualitative Assessment of Impacts of the Economic Crisis on Households and Vulnerable Workers in the Lao PDR. Vientiane: WB.

World Bank (WB), 2011. Lao People’s Democratic Republic Responding to Rice Price Inflation. Policy Brief, August. Report No. 62276-LA. Washington: WB.

World Bank (WB), 2011. Vulnerability, Risk, Reduction, and Adaptation to Climate Change.

97 Lao PDR. Climate Risk and Adaptation Country Profile. Washington: WB.

World Bank (WB), 2012. Sustaining growth coping with rising uncertainty- Lao PDR Economic Monitor Dec 2011 – Update. Washington: WB.

World Bank (WB), 2013. Sustaining growth maintaining macroeconomic stability. Lao PDR economic monitor. Washington: WB.

World Food Programme (WFP), 2007. Lao PDR: Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA). Vientiane: WFP.

World Food Programme, 2010. Food Security Atlas for Lao PDR. Available at: http://www.foodsecurityatlas.org/lao/country [Accessed 25 February 2014].

World Food Programme (WFP), 2010. Lao PDR Country Strategy 2011-2015. Vientiane: WFP.

World Food Programme (WFP), 2013. Food and nutrition security atlas of Lao PDR. Vientiane: WFP.

Zola, A.M., 2012. Observations and suggestions for consideration: Livelihood models and marketing and processing of forest and non- timber forest products. Vientiane: Word Bank.

Zola, A.M., 2014. Presentation: ASEAN Economic Community: The potential for impacts on agriculture and rural livelihood in Lao PDR. Available at http://swgard.maf.gov.la/download/other_important_resource_and_documents/ASEAN%20E conomic%20Community%20- %20The%20potential%20for%20impacts%20on%20agriculture%20and%20rural%20liveliho od%20in%20Lao%20PDR.pdf [Accessed 15 March 2014].

THAILAND

Brooks, J., 2010. Agricultural Policy Choices in Developing Countries: A Synthesis. Presentation at Global Forum on Agriculture; OECD Headquarters, Paris, 29-30 November 2010.

Charoen Pokphand Foods PCL, 2008.The Project to Develop Integrated Farming (Contract Farming). Available at http://www.cpfworldwide.com/cpd/en/page/csr/technology_transfer_farming.aspx [Accessed 7 April 2014].

Chutibut, W., 2011.Agricultural and Fertilizer Situation in Thailand. Department of Agriculture, Thailand.

FAO, 2005.Good Agricultural Practices. Available at http://www.fao.org/prods/gap/activities/asia_en.htm [Accessed 7 April 2014].

Foreign Office, The Government Public Relations Department, 2006.King Bhumibol and His Enlightened Approach to Teaching. Bangkok, Thailand.

Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, 2011.The Strategic Role of the Private Sector in Agriculture and Rural Development. Bonn: Germany.

98 Green Net, 2011. Report on Status of Organic Agriculture in Thailand. Available at http://www.greennet.or.th [Accessed 7 April 2014].

Hookway, J., (June 17, 2013). Thai Rice Under Fire. The Wall Street Journal. Available at http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323836504578551082631719980?m g=reno64- wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887323836504578 551082631719980.html&fpid=2,7,121,122,201,401,641,1009 [Accessed 7 April 2014].

Investvine, 2014.Thailand Wants Rice Top Spot Back. Available at http://investvine.com/thailand-wants-rice-top-spot-back/ [Accessed 7 April 2014].

Isvilanonda, S., 2012. Success Factors for Smallholder Rice Production in Thailand. Available at http://bfap.co.za/documents/research%20reports/somporn%20sucessful%20factor%20for%2 0small%20holder%20rice%20production%20in%20Thailand.pdf [Accessed 7 April 2014].

Leturque, H., and Wiggins, S., 2011. Thailand’s Progress in Agriculture: Transition and Sustained Productivity Growth. Overseas Development Institute. Available at http://www.developmentprogress.org/sites/developmentprogress.org/files/thailand_report_- _master.pdf [Accessed 7 April 2014].

National Economic and Social Development Board, 2012. Summary of the Eleventh National Economic and Social Development Plan (2012-2016). Available at http://www.nesdb.go.th/Portals/0/news/academic/Executive%20Summary%20of%2011th%2 0Plan.pdf [Accessed 7 April 2014].

Panyakul, V., 2007. “Organic Jasmine Rice Farmers in the Northeast of Thailand”. In Certification Costs and Managerial Skills Under Different Organic Certification Schemes – Selected Case Studies, edited by P. Santacoloma. Rome: FAO.

Singh, S., 2005. Contract Farming System in Thailand. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 53. Available at http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4417611?uid=3738352&uid=2&uid=4&sid=211037521 30717 [Accessed 7 April 2014].

Sriboonchitta, S., and Wiboonpongse, A., 2005.Analysis of Contract Farming in Thailand. CMU Journal Vol. 4(3) 361.

Tanruangporn, P., ( February 5, 2014). Going Beyond the Rice Pledging Scheme. Bangkok, Thailand: Thailand Development Research Institute. Available at http://tdri.or.th/en/tdri- insight/going-beyond-the-rice-pledging-scheme/ [Accessed 7 April 2014].

Thai Rice Exporters’ Association, 2011. Rice Exports Statistics. Available at http://www.thairiceexporters.or.th/List_%20of_statistic.htm [Accessed 7 April 2014].

Thailand Today, 2011.Philosopher at Work. Available at http://www.thailandtoday.in.th/monarchy/philosopher-at-work#New_Theory [Accessed 7 April 2014].

Thaiways Magazine, 2002. His Majesty King Bhumibol’s Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy. Available at http://www.thaiwaysmagazine.com/thai_article/2413_sufficiency_economy/sufficiency_econo my.html [Accessed 7 April 2014].

99 The Chaipattana Foundation, 2014.Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy. Available at http://www.chaipat.or.th/chaipat_english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41 03&Itemid=293 [Accessed 7 April 2014].

The Nation (Thailand), (April 16, 2008).Rice Strain Is Cause of Comparatively Low Productivity. Available at http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/04/16/opinion/opinion_30070831.php [Accessed 7 April 2014].

The Thai Financial Post, 2013.Agriculture and Cooperatives Ministry Braces for ASEAN Agricultural Standards. Available at http://thaifinancialpost.com/2012/06/29/agriculture-and- cooperatives-ministry-braces-for-asean-agricultural-standards/ [Accessed 7 April 2014].

UNCTAD (2005).Commodity Policies for Development: A New Framework for the Fight Against Poverty. Background note by the UNCTAD Secretariat.

Umeda, S., 2013. Thailand: Crisis in Thai Rice Pledging Scheme. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Available at http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403656_text [Accessed 7 April 2014].

Weng, L., (July 3, 2013). Thai Subsidy Scheme Leads to Burmese Rice Sell-off. The Irrawady. Available at http://www.irrawaddy.org/z_thailand/thai-subsidy-scheme-leads-to- burmese-rice-sell-off.html [Accessed 7 April 2014].

World Bank, 2003.Reaching the Rural Poor: A Renewed Strategy for Rural Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.

VIETNAM

ASMED, 2010. SME and Private Sector Partnership Group 2009-2010. Hanoi: Ministry of Planning and Investment.

Chu, Thai Hoanh; Suhardiman, Diana; and Le, Anh Tuan, 2010. Irrigation development for rice production Delta of Vietnam: What is next?. The 28th International Rice Research Conference. Hanoi: MARD.

Foreign Investment Agency (FIA) of Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI), 2013. Two decades of attracting foreign direct investment to Vietnam, presentation at the “Attracting Foreign Direct Investment in the Economic Difficulties” workshop organized in Dec 2013. Hanoi: MPI.

General Statistical Office (GSO), various years. Vietnam Statistical Yearbook. Hanoi: Statistical Publisher.

Goletti, F. and Nguyen Thi Minh Hai, 2008. Institutional Analysis and Capacity Building. Background paper for Quality and Safety Improvement in Agricultural Products Project TA 4972-VIE. Hanoi: Project TA 4972-VIE.

Hoang, Minh Tuyen, 2011. Impacts of climate change on inundation and salinity intrusion of Cuu Long Delta. Hanoi: Vietnam Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment.

100 Huynh, Quoc Thich , 2010. An analysis of coffee value chain in Dak Lak. Presentation at Coffee Value Chain workshop. Dak Lak: DARD of Dak Lak.

IFAD, 2012. Climate Change Analysis and Adaptation Responses in Vietnam. Background paper for IFAD Country Opportunities Strategy Report. Hanoi: IFAD Vietnam.

Indochina Research and Consulting (IRC) and Action Aid Vietnam (AAV), 2012. Rural-Urban Migration: A challenging Pathway in the Search for Hope. Joint research report. Hanoi: IRC and AAV.

Indochina Research and Consulting (IRC) and Institute for Policies and Strategies in Agriculture and Rural Development (IPSARD), 2011. A Survey on Rural Business Environment. Joint research report. Hanoi: IRC and IPSARD.

Indochina Research and Consulting (IRC), 2011. Role of State, Private Sector Development, Agriculture and Rural Development during the Economic Reforms in Vietnam. Research report for IFAD and other donors. Hanoi: IRC.

Indochina Research and Consulting (IRC), 2013. Labor Market for the Youth in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Research report commissioned by the World Bank. Hanoi: IRC

Institute of Ethnology, Ageless Consultants, and Oxfam, 2014. Review of Programmes and Policies for the Poor. Work-in-progress presentation at a technical roundtable in March, 2012. Hanoi: MOLISA.

Institute for Policies and Strategies in Agriculture and Rural Development (IPSARD), 2010. Rice Sector Outlook 2011. Hanoi: MARD.

Indochina Research and Consulting (IRC), 2013. Exploring the Cocoa Opportunities for Smallholders and Ethnic Minorities in the Central Highlands. Research report for a private sector client (confidential). Hanoi: IRC.

Jaffee, S., 2011. Moving from High volume-Low quality Agriculture to more value added. Presentation at Vietnam Agriculture Outlook 2011. Hanoi: MARD.

Johnson, G.; W. Katinka; and M. Wu, 2008. The Vegetable industry in tropical Asia: Vietnam – An overview of production and Trade, AVRDC. Taiwan: The World Vegetable Center; Exploration No.1.

Kirk, M., and Nguyen Do Anh Tuan, 2009. Land-Tenure Policy Reforms: Decollectivization and the Doi Moi System in Vietnam. Research report to IFPRI. Hanoi: IPSARD.

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), 2011. Fifty Years of Rice Research and Development. Hanoi: MARD.

Oxfam, 2013. Who has benefited from high rice prices in Viet Nam? Draft policy brief by Oxfam. Hanoi: Oxfam.

Pham, T.H; L.T Dao, and A.T. Dao, 2010. Is Nonfarm Diversification is a Way Out of Poverty in Rural Vietnam? PEP Research Report. Canada: PEP.

Rama, M., 2008. Making difficult choices: Vietnam in transition. Commission on Growth and Development Working paper No. 40. Washington: WB.

101 Veerapa, N. and Tran Manh Chien, 2010. Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Vietnam: A supply chain perspective of Organic Vegetable Production in Hanoi. Research report. Hanoi: MARD.

Vietnam Bank Association (VBA), 2013. Overview of Rural Credit. Presentation at the Workshop on “Credit for Agriculture and Rural Development”, organized in July 2013. Hanoi: VBA.

Vo Hung Dung, 2010. A Note on Rice Value Chain of Vietnam. Research report by Mekong Chamber for Commerce and Industry. Can Tho: MCCI.

World Bank (WB) and Institute for Policies and Strategies in Agriculture and Rural Development (IPSARD), 2011. Beyond the ‘Rice Bowl’: Building on Past Gains to Enhance the Quality, Sustainability, and Equity of Growth in the Mekong Delta. Research report. Hanoi: WB and IPSARD.

World Bank, 2011. Vietnam Coffee Supply Chain Risk Assessment. Draft research report (undisclosed). Hanoi: WB.

World Bank, 2011. Vietnam Food Security and Rice Value Chain. Collaborative Research Program Policy Note No. 2. Hanoi: WB and IPSARD.

World Bank, 2011. Climate-Resilient Development in Vietnam: Strategic Directions for the World Bank. Sustainable Development Department. Washington: WB.

Yusuf, A. A. and H. A. Francisco, 2009. Climate Change Vulnerability Mapping for Southeast Asia. EEPSEA Research Report. Singapore: EEPSEA.

REGION

Africare, Oxfam America and WWF-ICRISAT, 2010. More Rice for People, More Water for the Planet. Hyderabad: WWF-ICRISAT.

Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2007. Greater Mekong Subregion Core Environment Program Progress Report 2006-2007. Manila: ADB.

Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2008. Southeast Asia Annual Report 2008. Manila: ADB.

Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2012. Framework of Inclusive Growth Indicators 2012 - Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific - Special Supplement (2nd Edition). Manila: ADB.

Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2014. Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS). Available at: see http://www.adb.org/countries/gms/main [accessed 20/04/2014].

Asian Development Bank(ADB), 2007. GMS Transport Strategy 2006–2015 - Coast to Coast and Mountain to Sea: Toward Integrated Mekong Transport Systems. Manila: ADB.

Asian Development Bank, 2014. Greater Mekong Subregion Core Environmental Program (GMS EOC). Available at http://www.gms-eoc.org [accessed 20/04/2014].

102 Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), 2009. Roadmap for an ASEAN Community 2009-2015. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.

Badiola, J.A.R., 2010. Creating a Conducive Rural Finance Policy Environment in Selected Asian Countries. Bangkok: Asia-Pacific Rural and Agricultural Credit Association FinPower Program.

Bandara, J.S., 2007. The Effects of Agricultural Trade Liberalization under the Doha Development Agenda with Special Reference to the Asia Pacific Region: A Brief Survey – ARTNeT Working Paper Series No 31. Bangkok: Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade, 2007.

Bello, W., 2010. Propaganda and reality: The China-Asean Free-Trade Area. Business Mirror, 17th Jan. Berdegué, J.A. and Escobar, G., 2002. Rural diversity, agricultural innovation policies and poverty reduction. Agren, (122). London: ODI.

Cook, J. A., 2009. Smallholder Agriculture and the Environment in a Changing Global Context. Washington: WWF-MPO.

Cramb, R.A., 2000. Processes Influencing the Successful Adoption of New Technologies by Smallholders. In: ACIAR PROCEEDINGS (pp. 11-22). Canberra: ACIAR.

Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International, 2009. Generic fair-trade standards for Small Producers' Organizations. Bonn: FLO.

Fisher, R.J., 2005. How is policy made? Introductory Readings. Prepared for "Understanding Regional Institutions in Policy and Decision-making: a Mekong Learning Initiative workshop" 20-25 March 2005 Vientiane, Lao PDR and Bangkok, Thailand. Mekong Learning Initiative Australian Mekong Resource Centre.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2010. “Climate-Smart” Agriculture - Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation. Rome: FAO.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2014. Rice strategy for sustainable food security in Asia and the Pacific region. Draft version 23 January 2014. Bangkok: FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.

From http://www.adb.org/countries/gms/main [accessed 20/04/2014]

Gaiha, R., Shafiul Azam, Md., Annim, S., Imai, K., S. 2012. Agriculture, Markets and Poverty - A Comparative Analysis of Laos and Cambodia. Discussion paper series. RIEB, University Kobe.

HLPE, 2013. Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome.

Hobbs, P. R. 2006. Conservation Agriculture: What Is It and Why Is It Important for Future Sustainable Food Production? In: Challenges to International Wheat Improvement. CIMMYT, Mexico: Eds M. P. Reynolds, D. Poland H. J. Braun).

103 International Water Management Institute (IWMI), 2012. Managing Water in Rainfed Agriculture in the Greater Mekong Subregion. Final report prepared for Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). Stockholm: IWMI and SIDA.

Llanto, G.M., Badiola, J.A.R, 2011. Rural finance environment in Asian countries: Policies, Innovations, Financial Inclusion. [unpublished case study] Bangkok: Asia-Pacific Rural and Agricultural Credit Association.

Park, D., Park, I. and Estrada, G.E.B., 2008. Prospects of an ASEAN–People’s Republic of China Free Trade Area: A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis - ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 130, October 2008. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

Phengsavanh, P., Sukan, Phimmasan, H., Phimphachanhvongsod, V., Phengvichith, V., Novaha, S., 2000. Forage Options for Smallholder Farmers in Shifting Cultivation Farming Systems of Lao PDR. In Working with Farmers: The Key to Adoption of Forage Technologies: Proceedings of an International Workshop Held in Cagayan de Oro City, Mindanao, Philippines from 12-15 October 1999, no. 95, p. 287. Canberra: ACIAR.

Prakash, N., 2011.World hunger best cured by small-scale agriculture: report. The Guardian [online] 13 January 2011. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/13/world-hunger-small-scale-agriculture [Accessed 17 February 2014].

R. Slater, Peskett, L., Ludi, E. Brown, D., 2007. Climate change, agricultural policy and poverty reduction – how much do we know? Natural Resource Perspectives, 109, London: Overseas Development Institute.

Simmons, P. 2002. Overview of Smallholder Contract Farming in Developing Countries. Working Papers 02-04, Agricultural and Development Economics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO - ESA). Roma: FAO.

The Chronic Poverty Research Centre, 2009. Escaping Poverty Traps- The Chronic Poverty Report 2008-09. Manchester: The University of Manchester.

Ton, G. et al., 2011. Effectiveness of Innovation Grants on Smallholder Agricultural Producers: protocol for an explorative systematic review. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Regional Center in Colombo, 2006. Asia- pacific human development report 2006 Trade On Human Terms Transforming Trade For Human Development In Asia And The Pacific. Colombo: UNDP.

United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Regional Center in Colombo, 2006. South- East Asia Regional Economic Integration and Cooperation: Deepening and Broadening the Benefits for Human Development. Colombo: UNDP Regional Centre in Colombo.

United Nations General Assembly, 2009. The right to food. Seed policies and the right to food: enhancing agrobiodiversity and encouraging innovation, Olivier De Schutter. 23 July. A/64/170.

Uphoff, N., 2008.The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) as a System of Agricultural Innovation. In: Scoones, I. and Thompson, J., eds. 2009. Farmer First Revisited: Innovation for Agricultural Research and Development. London: Practical Action Publishing. pp.73-81.

104 World Bank, 2009. Gender in Agriculture sourcebook. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.

WWF, 2007. More Rice with Less Water- SRI - System of Rice Intensification. Andhra Pradesh: WWF ICRISAT Project.

Zola, A. M., 2014. Presentation: ASEAN Economic Community: The potential for impacts on agriculture and rural livelihood in Lao PDR. Available at http://swgard.maf.gov.la/download/other_important_resource_and_documents/ASEAN%20E conomic%20Community%20- %20The%20potential%20for%20impacts%20on%20agriculture%20and%20rural%20liveliho od%20in%20Lao%20PDR.pdf [Accessed 15 March 2014].

105 APPENDIX 3 – SUMMARY OF POLICY REFERENCES FOR EACH COUNTRY

CAMBODIA

Royal Government of Cambodia, 2013. Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency Phase III 2013-2018. Phnom Penh: RGC.

Royal Government of Cambodia, 2013. National Strategic Development Plan 2014-2018. Phnom Penh: RGC.

RGC, 2013. Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan 2014 – 2023. Phnom Penh: RGC.

RGC, 2010. Policy Document on Promotion of Paddy Rice Production and Export of Milled Rice. Phnom Penh: RGC.

MoWRAM, 2013. Strategic Framework for Water Resource and Meteorology 2009-2013. Phnom Penh: RGC.

CARD, 2008. Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition in Cambodia 2008-2012. Phnom Penh: RGC.

RGC, 2013. Policy Document on the Promotion of Paddy Production and Rice Export. Phnom Penh: RGC.

RGC, 2005. Sub-decree 146 on Economic Land Concessions. Phnom Penh: RGC.

MLMUPC, 2008.Outline for the Land Administration Sub Sector Program (LASSP) 2009- 2012. Phnom Penh: Cambodia

RGC, 2001. Statement of the Royal Government on Land Policy. Phnom Penh: Royal Government of Cambodia.

RGC, 2009. Declaration of the Royal Government on Land Policy. Phnom Penh: Royal Government of Cambodia.

LAO PDR

Lao News Agency, 2012. Three draft laws approved. Lao News Agency, 27 Sept. 2012. Available at: http://www.kpl.net.la/english/news/newsrecord/2012/Sept/27.9.2012/edn1.htm

106 [Accessed 20 February 2014]

Lao PDR National Strategy Team, 2006. Agricultural commercialization – a strategic direction for farm families to overcome poverty in Lao PDR. In: International Trade Corporation (ITC), Paper presented at ITC Executive Forum: "Bringing the Poor into the Export Process : Linkages and Strategic Implications", Berlin, Germany, 27-30 September, 2006. Geneva: ITC.

Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 2009. National adaptation programme of action to climate change. Vientiane: GoL.