khlammvngb

Author: Jipsa de Groot

Modernisation of traditional systems still the most frequent type of agroecological intervention in the Mekong Region

Posted on by Jipsa de Groot

In 2020, Tittonell (see citation below) developed a concept describing different agroecological states and transitions from one state to another. The figure below shows which transitions have been documented how many times in a collection of 271 documents written by researchers and practitioners between 2007 and 2021.

Types of documented agroecological transitions

Main messages of the chart

In the Mekong Region, there is a strong focus on modernising traditional farming systems and optimising existing agroecological systems particularly among agroecology practitioners (project coordinators and development partners). Agroecology researchers also place a focus on these two transition types. However, they also aim to combine the modernisation of traditional systems with nature conservation, and they aim to find solutions that help to diversify industrial systems such as large-scale monocropping concessions. Yet, these priorities are only rarely taken up by practitioners. The restauration of degraded agricultural land is neglected by both scientists and practitioners, and the out-scaling of successful agroecological systems is rather poorly represented.

Implications of findings

The results show that agroecological initiatives mostly target traditional smallholder systems or smallholder-led commercial systems. While such a focus is important to secure rural livelihoods and improve food security, it neglects the segment of agricultural systems with the fastest dynamic (and therewith the strongest potential impacts) in the region: large-scale commercial agriculture. Therefore, interfaces that bring together farmers, researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and the private sector are probably the most promising way of negotiating trade-offs and co-benefits among various stakeholders and reach consensus on the design of sustainable agricultural landscapes.

Data sources

The chart was generated with data from a meta-analysis that assessed 271 documents found on 5 global and regional digital knowledge platforms (Scopus, Web of Science, WOCAT, Mekong Region Land Governance, and FAO). Only documents written in English between 2007 (the beginning of the agrarian transition in the region) and 2021 (the year when the analysis was conducted) were considered. Further, the study only looked at documents that describe concrete implementation in the field and left out theoretical or purely conceptual studies.

To learn more on the subject

Cornelia Hett, Zar Chi Aye, Christophe Gironde, Alice Beban, Jean-Christophe Castella, Rasso Bernhard & Albrecht Ehrensperger (2023) Agroecological initiatives in the Mekong Region: a systematic literature review and mapping reveals their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems, Journal of Land Use Science, 18:1, 334-355. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1747423X.2023.2248980

Tittonell, P. (2020). Assessing resilience and adaptability in agroecological transitions. Agricultural Systems, 184.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102862

Related Facebook post

–> link to post on ALiSEA Facebook page

Conservation agriculture with cassava cropping in Cambodia beneficial against global warming

Posted on by Jipsa de Groot

Long-term no-till conservation-agriculture systems in Cambodia’s tropical uplands can rebuild soil organic carbon (SOC) and help offset agriculture’s climate footprint. Using 13-year field experiments in maize-, soybean-, and cassava-based systems, the study tracks SOC and total Nitrogen changes down to 1 m soil depth under conventional tillage monocrops versus no-till monocrops with cover crops and no-till rotations with cover crops.

Net GWP offset per cropping systems and per SOC sequestration (expressed as tons of CO2 eq. /ha/yr)
Negative values indicate the removal of Co2 eq. from atmosphere

.

Main message of the chart

The chart shows that diversified no-till systems deliver the largest climate benefits because soil organic carbon gains are substantial. In comparison to conventional agriculture (0.5 tons of carbon dioxide per hectare and year) no-till cropping can store up to 4 tons of carbon dioxide per hectare and year. In addition, CA systems could also contribute to better farming practices for better products, adding values to the agricultural commodities as “Green Climate Products”.

Implications for policy and practice

  • Scale up no-till and cover crops plus rotations as a climate-smart package. SOC gains are strongest where no-till is paired with continuous soil cover and crop diversification, which supports both mitigation and erosion control in upland tropics.
  • Account for trade-offs in carbon programs. Carbon-credit or results-based finance should reward systems that increase soil organic carbon and avoid boosting non-CO₂ emissions (notably N₂O), and should monitor permanence/quality of stored SOC.
  • Target cassava and maize uplands first. These dominant cash-crop systems had clear soil organic carbon recovery under diversified no-till, making them high-leverage entry points for national land-degradation neutrality strategies.

Sources

Evidence on the impacts of long-term cassava-based conservation agriculture systems on soil  organic carbon and greenhouse gas emissions in Cambodia, Research brief by Vira Leng realised under ASSET project , based on : Diachronic assessment of soil organic C and N dynamics under long-term no-till cropping systems in the tropical  upland  of Cambodia

Vira   Leng,   Rémi   Cardinael,   Florent   Tivet, Vang Seng, Phearum Mark, Pascal Lienhard, Titouan    Filloux,    Johan   Six,    Lyda    Hok, Stéphane   Boulakia,    Clever    Briedis,    João Carlos de Moraes Sá, and Laurent Thuriès SOIL, Volume 10, issue 2, 699–725, the European Geosciences Union
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-699-2024

In Laos, commercial land investments do not always lead to more wellbeing

Posted on by Jipsa de Groot

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

Hotspots of documented agroecology initiatives in the Mekong Region

Posted on by Jipsa de Groot

Where are agroecological approaches documented in the Mekong Region? To find out, we mapped 271 cases found in literature using the smallest identifiable spatial units in each case. The resulting map (below), shows that there are areas in the Mekong Region where more knowledge on agroecology is available than in others.

Main messages of the map

The map shows that there are hotspots of reported agroecological initiatives in upland areas of northern Vietnam and north-eastern Lao PDR, in the lowlands of northern and central Cambodia, and in the Isan region of Thailand. The map also shows blind spots of documented agroecological practices, particularly in almost all of Myanmar (except for the Irrawaddy delta, some areas north-east of Naypyidaw, and single cases in the north of the country), most of central and southern Lao PDR (except for some areas in Savannakhet, Salavan, and Attapeu provinces, southern Vietnam (apart from the Mekong delta), and western and southern Thailand.

Implications of findings

Experience with agroecology is not evenly distributed in the region. Therefore, there is a need for up- and out-scaling efforts, which would help to share the experiences gleaned in some areas with stakeholders  and decision-makers in others. Researchers, policymakers and practitioners should contribute to efforts to make documented knowledge on experience with agroecology available in regions where less has been done and documented. They might also help to foster the exchange between practitioners and policy-makers between regions to encourage out-scaling of best practices.

Data sources

Data on documented agroecological initiatives was gathered from literature found on seven online repositories: Scopus (www.scopus.com), ALiSEA (www.ali-sea.org), FAO agroecology hub (www.fao.org/agroecology/database/en/), Mekong Land Research Forum (MLRF; www.mekonglandforum.org), System of Rice Intensification International Network and Resource Centre (SRI; www.sri.ciifad.cornell.edu), and the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT; www.wocat.net).

Further reading

Hett, C., Aye, Z. C., Gironde, C., Beban, A., Castella, J. C., Bernhard, R., & Ehrensperger, A. (2023). Agroecological initiatives in the Mekong Region: a systematic literature review and mapping reveals their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. Journal of Land Use Science, 18(1), 334–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2023.2248980

Hett C., Aye Z.C., Bernhard R., Beban A., Gironde C., and Ehrensperger A. (2024). Creating agricultural landscapes with positive environmental outcomes. State of Land in the Mekong Region Series, Policy Brief Nr 4. Vientiane: MRLG and CDE.

Creating agricultural landscapes with positive environmental outcomes (policy brief 4)