Month: September 2024

The Government of the Lao PDR perceives commercial investments in land as a fast and efficient way of improving their citizens’ wellbeing through the creation of employment, improved infrastructure, and better market access. These investments are seen as the easiest way to drive development in rural areas. But do they really live up to these expectations, or are they rather entrenching poverty?

---

Main messages of the chart

Between 2005 and 2015 poverty incidence in Laos has decreased in most villages (blue shades). However, there are hotspots, in which poverty incidence has increased (yellow and orange shades), for example in the South, on and around the Boloven Plateau (area inside the dashed circle). One of the main causes for this negative trend is land dispossession due to large-scale land investments in coffee, fruit trees and other crops (small circles on the map representing different types of commodities). Out of the 109 villages on the Plateau, 48 experienced a decrease of poverty while the remaining 61 villages became poorer. The ones worst hit experienced up to 30% increase in poverty from 2005 to 2015. Accessibility seems to be an important precondition for positive poverty outcomes: The villages that were able to benefit from the opportunities offered by the wave of investments are mainly located in the more accessible surroundings of the city of Paksong, while those who suffered from it are rather found in remoter corners of the plateau.

Implications of findings

Poverty outcomes of agricultural commercialisation and large-scale land investments can be very diverse and therefore commercialisation and investments are not a guarantee for poverty alleviation and rural development. For example, it seems like a higher diversification of peoples’ livelihood strategies prior to the arrival of such investments helps local communities to better benefit from the advantages offered by the investments. It is also important to look at various poverty dimensions – such as food security, livelihood resilience to various economic or environmental shocks, and access to resources – as monetary poverty is an insufficient indicator for an accurate assessment of wellbeing.

Data sources

Poverty data: Epprecht, M., Bosoni, N., Ehrensperger, A., Nagasawa, H., Lu, J., Studer, D., Vollmar, P., & Sisoulath, V. (2018). Socio-Economic Atlas of the Lao PDR. Patterns and trends from 2005 to 2015. Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern, Switzerland, and Lao Statistics Bureau, Lao PDR. The data can be viewed on the platform k4d.la

Investment data: Hett, C., Nanhthavong, V., Hanephom, S., Phommachanh, A., Sidavong, B., Phouangphet, K., Lu, J., Shattuck, A., Ingalls, M., Bernhard, R., Phathitmixay, S., Phomphakdy, C., Heinimann, A., & Epprecht, M. (2020). Land Leases and Concessions in the Lao PDR: A Characterization of Investments in Land and their Impacts, Based on field data of 2014-2017. i–xviii, 1–130

To learn more on the subject

Ehrensperger, A., Nanhthavong, V., Beban, A., Gironde, C., Diepart, J. C., Scurrah, N., … Ingalls, M. (2023). The agrarian transition in the Mekong Region: pathways towards sustainable land systems. Journal of Land Use Science, 19(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2024.2288728

Related Facebook post

–> link to post on ALiSEA Facebook page