A Learning Experience Part 5 continued...

Resettlement & Riddles of Development

In a book of research papers published by the National Agriculture and Forestry Institute (NAFRI), a Lao government research organization, one author articulated two riddles with regard to resettlement and that of development generally. They were:

Riddle #1: When is a solution not a solution?

Answer: When it causes more problems than it solves; and

Riddle #2: When is a problem not a problem?

Answer: When it is part of a solution.

Resettlement, as I have learned over the last 16 months is a perfect example of when a “solution” ends up causing more problems than it solves. Over the last few years there has been an extensive amount of research conducted on resettled communities and on communities that have remained in the highlands, living more or less “traditional” livelihoods as shifting cultivators. The research has begun to develop, among development and international institutions as well as within the government of Lao, a consensus on what some of the impacts stemming from resettlement are. The impacts for local ethnic groups like the Khmu people of Oudomxay province are many, but a few of these include:

 Restrictions or limitations on access to land, resulting in food insecurity
 Higher mortality rates
 Devaluation/loss of traditional knowledge and practices
 Greater environmental impacts and degradation
 Loss of social cohesion

Access to Land

A key part of the resettlement program is to provide resettled communities and individual families with sufficient lowland paddy field to grow rice, cash crops for export and non-timber forest products from protected forests for new income. The government program to deal with this issue is the Land Use Allocation and Forestry Program. The intent was to have district level staff conduct land use planning alongside village residents and then ensure the proper allocation of land and forest resources for each village.

The problem here is firstly one of institutional capacity. As it turned out, according to research conducted by NAFRI and a number of international non-governmental organizations, the district level departments charged with carrying out the plans and allocation simply did not have the training, qualifications, finances or resources necessary to perform the required tasks. As a result the planning process was conducted in a haphazard, perfunctory, top down manner.

In many areas, village residents received insufficient and poor quality land or were utterly confused about the process altogether. This has lead to some families or individuals finding themselves in the compromising position of having insufficient to land to grow rice for personal consumption or for sale on the open market. As a result many families are forced to rely on wage labour, borrowing money to purchase rice, or engaging in pioneering cultivationÂpracticectise of slashing and burning relatively untouched areas of forest in steeply sloped areas accompanied by short fallow periods that lead to higher levels of soil erosion, loss of soil fertility, and higher incidences of weeds and pests. In short, an environmentally destructive and unsustainable form of agriculture not to be mistaken with shifting cultivation. (The definitions of “Shifting cultivation”, “slash & burn”, and “pioneering cultivation” and the accompanying government programs to deal with them are rather complex and will be dealt with in a future essay.)

Higher Mortality Rates

Research has shown that resettled villages experience increases in mortality by up to 20 to 40% due to a number of interrelated factors, including: higher infection rates from disease (villages experience higher exposure to fatal diseases such and dengue and malaria in lowland areas then they would in upland areas); malnutrition due to greater food insecurity; lack of access to traditional medicine and remedies; lack of access to modern medical treatments and facilities, etc. The bottom line is that when communities are disrupted and moved into a new area where they are unfamiliar with the local ecology, and the promised infrastructure of clean water, hospitals, and pharmacies that are unavailable due to a lack of funding, village communities often experience alarming and serious increases in mortality.

Devaluation or loss of traditional knopracticesd practises

One important lesson that has been learned in recent decades is that ethnic and indigenous communities have had, or still possess, vast stores of in-depth, highly localized ecological knowledge with regard to their environment. There are many who now believe that this knowledge is not only important to the cultural identity of indigenous communities, but a crucial aspect in the drive towards achieving global social and envsustainabletainability.

Currently, there are extensive efforts underway by numerous international and local organizations within developing and developed countries alike to revitalize and regain the knowledge that has either been lost or is at risk of being lost. There are a number of reasons why local ecological and traditional knowledge may become threatened or even lost, including, but not limited to, loss of traditional lifestyles, disruptions to social cohesion and the ability of communities to store and pass knowledge on to younger generations, or through its rejection by contemporary society, wherein traditional knowledge is viewed as being inherently backward or antiquated. Many ethnic groups, including the Khmu are facing these challenges, which are, in my opinion, prompted and/or exacerbated by the rationalization and continuation of resettlement activities.

When communities are resettled for whatever reason, and are moved into new areas with differing climates and geographic features, the community must adapt and learn to survive in the new area. Despite the fact that many ethnic communities have always thrived in harsh climates and environments and integrated innovative strategies and means for survival, such moves can result in extreme pressures on the community with respect to their ability to develop and articulate their traditional ecological knowledge.

A central justification for resettlement is, in my opinion, motivated by the ideal that sedentary agriculture and its associated cultural manifestation of the Lao Leum (the dominate ethnic group in Lao PDR) and that of life in the lowlands of Lao generally is considered by many to be inherently more civilized and modern than that of the traditional livelihoods found in the upland areas. Although upland areas are often quoted as being extremely rich in environmental services and resources (i.e. high biodiversity), living in the upland areas is often associated with poverty without consideration given to what it means precisely to be impoverished.

Resettled communities, cut off from their traditional lifestyles and environs, are hindered in their ability to save their ecological knowledge and to pass it on to younger generations, resulting in its loss. Considering how much of our contemporary scientific knowledge of botany and pharmaceuticals have come from indigenous communities (i.e. the chemical compounds for aspirin were discovered by botanists who observed tribal communities boiling down the bark of a certain tree species to treat headaches and minor maladies). The loss of indigenous knowledge is not only potentially devastating culturally, economically and environmentally for ethnic communities, but a serious loss of resources and scientific and economic opportunities for Laos and the world community as well.

Greater Environmental Impacts and Degradation

In my limited perspective and understanding, the large majority of unsustainable human interactions with the environment and the resulting impacts are instigated when communities are thrown out of balance with the dynamic relationship they have with their environment. Resettlement of upland communities into the lowlands, and the drive by the government of Lao and international organizations to bring them greater development and economic opportunities has resulted in precisely this kind of disruption to the Khmu people and their environment. There are a number of environmental impacts that occur as a result. These include:
1. Unsustainable and environmentally destructivpracticese practises such as pioneering cultivation (again I will get further into this issue in a future essay),

2. The introduction of cash crop agriculture with large scale monocrop production of economically viable tree species (i.e. rubber, teak and eucalyptus),

3. Increased industrial and illegal logging,

4. Road construction (poor road construction, which is a major problem throughout Laos, resulting in the deposit of sedimentation into creeks and rivers, as well as the opening up of new areas of forest that were previously inaccessible leading to heightened levels of hunting and poaching of endangered wildlife,

5. More waste and poor waste management. Communities are often resettled into larger central settlements resulting in greater amounts of waste with little infrastructure or capacity to deal with management issues, and

6. Higher levels of pollution stemming from increased industrial and economic activities.

Loss of Social Cohesion and Increasing Social Problems
Despite their incredible resilience and fortitude, the above list of impacts and problems are more than many indigenous communities can handle. There has been an abundance of research that shows that such economic and environmental insecurities has forced many communities to change and establish new means of surviving that have placed incredible pressures on their ability to care for each other, and as a result many individuals, families, and communities are facing growing social problems such as poverty, disease, alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution, human trafficking, loss of youth and skilled labour due to migration, and increasing levels of crime.

The Snowball Affect and Wishful Thoughts of Spring
A common line from government officials and leaders is that these disruptions and difficulties are temporary, that eventually the benefits of resettlement and the opportunities it represents will overcome these difficulties resulting in greater prosperity and stability for all. There are many others, however—I personally feel myself leaning more towards this group—that feel that if these issues are not addressed the resulting social and environmental problems could continue to grow and eventually overwhelm any positive benefits that could come from such a program.

(When thinking of such things I can’t help but turn my thoughts to the First Nations of Canada and how much they have suffered with respect to the loss of their lands, cultural identity, disempowerment, and traditional lifestyles. Yes, of course there are significant differences, but the disruptions and impacts are similar and as we have seen through the media, the resulting social difficulties (Davis Inlet anyone?) have been devastating and long lasting. A serious issue that I believe the First Nations will be dealing with for decades and generations to come.)

Future Instalments: Romanticizing Tribal Life, Definition of Epistomology & Politics, the Development Ethical Dilemma, and Addressing Resettlement: where to go from here?