khlammvngb

Category: Uncategorized

Agroecological pest management in cashew production can help to increase farmers’ income

Đăng ngày tac giả Albrecht Ehrensperger

The cashew sector is heavily reliant on chemical inputs. Despite increasing awareness of the harmful effects of chemical-intensive farming on producer health, consumer safety, and the environment, the adoption of agroecological practices remains limited. This study shows that agroecological pest control techniques work and have a positive effect on farmers’ net income.

Main message of the chart

The chart shows the increase of yield, expanse, total income, and net income in cashew plots treated with an agroecological pest control method in comparison with non-treated plots. The method used is called Bodoux Mix 10% and 50% and is based on a mix of water, copper sulfate and white lime. It works as a contact and protectant agent, forming a barrier on the plant surface to prevent fungal spore germination and bacterial growth. The method is considered organic due to its mineral basis. However, long-term heavy use should be avoided to prevent copper accumulation in soils.

Implications of  the findings

This method is affordable, easy to make and to apply, and has a positive effect on farmer income. Success depends on regular and timely application. It helps to reduce reliance on costly chemical inputs. To promote the method, one should built potential for embedded services and farmer-led distribution.

Data sources

The data are based on comparative field trials conducted in four villages across two Cambodian provinces: Tipo and Salavisai in Kompong Thom, and Rohas and Reak Smei in Preah Vihear. The study was conducted under the coordination of Sthya Sann, and Tolla Chan, HEKS Cambodia.

To learn more

More details can be found in this research brief on the ALiSEA Knowledge Hub

How to measure agroecology: a rapid appraisal approach based on focus group discussions

Đăng ngày tac giả Albrecht Ehrensperger

Practical tools to assess the adoption and impact of agroecology remain limited. Many assessment approaches are too time-consuming, costly or disconnected from real-world conditions. A team of researchers tested an alternative approach based on focus group discussions (FGDs) with village committees and district extension agents. This approach allowed to get a good overview of the level of agroecological advancement in a village, while significantly cutting down the time required to gather this information. Thus, the approach could be useful to scale-out the assessment of agroecology to larger areas. This blog post shows results of a test that was conducted in 16 villages in Xieng Khuang Province in the Lao PDR.

Main message of the chart

Agroecological scores were rated by village committees in 16 villages and by technicians of District Agriculture and Forestry Offices (DAFO) in four districts (totalling 45 villages). The chart compares the ratings of village committees (blue bars) and DAFO technicians (red bars) along 19 agroecological aspects.

  1. In average, both the DAFO technicians and the village committees gave medium to high scores, even though the scores of the DAFO technicians tend to be higher (an average 0.34 points higher than those of village committees). Both groups share a broad sense of what’s strong or weak, but differ on magnitudes.
  2. The biggest gaps (with higher scores from DAFO technicians) concern aspects related to land governance and farm management, such as the use of animal manure (1.1 points difference), collection of non-timber forest products (1.o points difference), as well as the diversity of tree and crop species, water management, and income diversity (each with 0.8 points difference).
  3. Communities rate themselves higher than DAFO technicians in soil tillage (0.7 points difference), social relationships (0.3 points difference), participation in negotiations (0.2 points difference), and diet awareness (0.1 points difference). Thus, they rate social aspects and agency higher than DAFO technicians.
  4. Both groups agree that chemical inputs, soil tillage, diet awareness, the use of crop residues, and problems with traders are the main weaknesses in the assessed villages.

Implications of the findings

The results show that communities emphasize social capital and negotiation, while technicians emphasize biophysical/biodiversity and farm-management practices. This gap may reflect different day-to-day vantage points. Both groups seem to agree that technical soil practices, responsible input use, and market issues remain widespread pain points. These results are useful for policy makers, extension services, and development partners to identify entry points at village level to improve their agroecological performance in a targeted manner.

The approach based on focus group discussions helps to capture the status of agroecology at the village level within a short time and has potential for out-scaling assessments at regional level. The focus group discussions with district officers are significantly faster than those with village committees while yielding comparable results, albeit with fewer insights and details. Hence, to achieve a quick agroecological assessment in a larger area, such as a province, the focus group discussions with district officers might be more suitable.

Data

Data for the above study was collected during a field campaign in 2023 in Xieng Khuang Province of Lao PDR by partners of the ASSET project.

Further reading

Aye, Z. C., Castella, J. C., Xiong, M., Phimmasone, S., & Ehrensperger, A. (2024). How to measure agroecology? A rapid appraisal approach based on focus group discussions. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 48(10), 1428–1461. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2024.2386477

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21683565.2024.2386477

Surprising differences in forest resource use across the northern Laos-Vietnam borderlands

Đăng ngày tac giả Albrecht Ehrensperger

Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) play an essential role in rural livelihoods across the Global South. However, this role changes as agricultural production commercialises, forest is lost, and non-farm activities become available. Recent research in northern Laos (Houaphan Province) and Vietnam (Son La Province) shows that the share of income from NTFPs decreases and the total income from NTFPs increases as households become richer. But patterns are strikingly different across the two countries.

Main messages of the chart

Households in Laos earn more from NTFPs – things like bamboo, forest foods, and wild fish – than households in Vietnam. Total household income (green bars) is similar in both countries, but the forest-based part (blue bars) is much larger in Laos. Lao families use these products for food at home and cash. In Vietnam, the small blue bars and low red line show that people have largely moved away from forest use because farming has become more intensive and forest rules are stricter. Vietnamese households have substituted many forest products with on-farm alternatives, for example growing fodder instead of collecting it, or sourcing firewood from private fruit tree plantations rather than from forests. In both countries, poorer households with little farmland rely more on NTFPs, yet they still earn less in total from them.

Implications of the findings

These differences suggest that national policies, local rules, and the health of forests matter more than where a village is located in shaping how rural communities interact with their environment. This means that ‘one-size-fits-all’ policies won’t work. In Laos, poorer households depend heavily on forests as a safety net; in Vietnam, that is less the case. Effective forest conservation must consider how people make a living and recognize that forests play different roles in different places. Families combine many activities – some for selling, some for home use – to get by and improve their incomes. Rural programs that focus only on selling to markets risk overlooking the many ways forests support households.

Data sources

The study is based on household survey data collected from 164 households in Houaphan, Laos, and 156 households in Son La, Vietnam, spread across 11 villages in both highland and lowland areas. Net cash and subsistence incomes were measured over the preceding 12 months at the time of data collection in 2023.

To learn more

Persson, J. (2025). Livelihood commercialisation and resource use across the border: Explaining environmental income differences in northern Laos and Vietnam. Forest Policy and Economics, 177, 103529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103529

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

Đăng ngày tac giả 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

Đăng ngày tac giả 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

Đăng ngày tac giả 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