AN 15 b [Compatibility Mode]

¢Ó

´

ø− ¹ùõ Àº¡½¦¾−ꆡȼ¸¢Éº¤¡ñ®

1. ©ò−

2. ¤µõ−¦ò©Ã

§

Éꆩò−

3. îÁ

°

−ꆩò−

4. îÁ¥É¤À¦

¨

²¾¦óꆩò−

5. îÁ¥É¤ê†©ò−

6. î®ò−»ñ®À¤ò−Ã−¡¾−¥È¾

¨

²¾¦óꆩò−

7. ¤µõ−¡¿

´

½¦ò©ê†©ò−

§

‰¸£¾¸

8. ¤µõ−¡¾−²ñ©ê½−¾ê†©ò−

9. ¡ðì½−óꆩò−ìñ©Á

´

È−ùÉÀºö¾Ã®¦ò©Ã

§

Éꆩò− ¹ùõ 194

10.Àº¡½¦¾−ºˆ−Šꆡȼ¸¢Éº¤¡ñ®ê†©ò−

LNRRIC/NLMA 2010 August

1

Land Titling: Challenges & Opportunities

Land Titling Needs

•

1 million parcels during the next 20 yrs

•

Land titling should be completed for every

village

•

Decentralization of land titling process

National cadastre system

National coverage of cadastral index

map and land register

Workflows defined according to the

legal procedures

Paper maps of poor quality

Land register partly recorded

Not computerized

Poor or lack of national reference system

Islands of data

Various data models and data formats

Land register and cadastral map data not integrated

In

c

LNRRIC/NLMA 2010 August

System Configuration

Land

Planning

Land

Policy

Land Information DB

Law

Local Government

Land Administration

Local Government

Land Administration

Development

Allotment

Real Estate Agent

Land Transaction

Landuse Planning

Foreigner

Land Transaction

Land Price

Spatial Data

View

Spatial

Decision

Support

Regional Government

Landuse Planning

Regional Government

Landuse Planning

Landuse Planning

Confirmation

Land Price

Confirmation

Civil Service

Civil Service

MOCT

Land Policy

MOCT

Land Policy

Data Analysis

Land Policy Support

Land Speculation

Model

Spatial Data

Management

Pilot Project on

Poverty Alleviation, Land Use Stabilization and Environmental Protection

– the Nam Ha PA

.

Supported By ADB, 2006-2008

Route 3 Northern Economic Corridor

Mostly forest

Upland agriculture & forest

Grassland

Intensive agriculture

Land use & land cover

mostly mixed forest/upland production systems

Agricultural potential

Land under 5% slope

Land under 5% slope

Agricultural potential

Flat land is very limited…

Land under 5% slope

Land under 5% slope

Land 5–25% slope

Agricultural potential

Nonetheless, land for productive uses exists if development

interventions take account of ecological conditions.

16

Typical village area – land types

Forest

70%

Agricultural Land

21%

Land reserved

for flexible use

5%

Grazing Areas

4%

17

Forest Types and Land Use

protected

% of total forest area

Paddy

Agricultural land use in %

All in all, only 19% of HHs have access to Paddy land

Availability of Agricultural Land per

District

Agricultural land per HH

II. Project Objective: bring livelihood systems

from poverty to adequacy

0

10

20

Subsistence level = 12.2 M

kip per family

Income level at which

families can meet food,

clothing, & shelter needs,

plus occasional – but

insufficient – education,

medical & tax expenses

Average output = 8 M kip

per family

(Estimated poverty line)

Adequacy level = 17.5 M

kip per family

Income level at which

families can meet food,

clothing, & shelter needs,

plus education, medical &

tax expenses, plus small

savings

Current conditions

Project objective

M

il

li

o

n

ki

p

1

1. Please see Appendix 1.

III. Project Approach

The strategy – allocate Temporary Land use Certificates (TLCs)

to farmers for plots of land that have been brought under land

use regimes that are suitable to local ecological conditions –

entails three steps:

1. Observation

2. Assessment

3. Intervention

Step 1. Observation

•

Present land use map

(a) Forest

(b) Bush fallow

(c) Rice paddy

(d) Swidden

(e) Other agriculture

Present land use map

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Socioeconomic surveys

1

Step 2. Assessment

•

Suitability criteria for each land use option

•

Land Suitability Matrix

•

Tentative Land Use Zones

Suitability criteria

Land use options

Irrigated

paddy

Rainfed

paddy

Rainfed

agriculture

Pasture

Orchard/

plantation

Production

forest

Suitable

terraced

and

irrigated

terraced

terraced or

bunded and

cleared

<12.5%

slope and

adequate

soil depth

<35% slope

and

adequate

soil depth

<45% slope

and

adequate

soil depth,

forested

Moderately

suitable

<5% slope

and access

to water

and

adequate

soil depth

<5% slope

and

adequate

soil depth

<25% slope

and

adequate

soil depth

NA

NA

<45% slope

and

adequate

soil depth,

cleared

Unsuitable

>5% slope,

no access

to water, or

inadequate

soil depth

>5% slope

or

inadequate

soil depth

>25% slope

or

inadequate

soil depth

>12.5%

slope or

adequate

soil depth

>35% slope

or

inadequate

soil depth

>45% slope

or

inadequate

soil depth

Land Suitability Matrix

+

S = suitable

M = moderately suitable (suitable

with intervention)

U = unsuitable

Native ecotype

(soil quality indicator)

Slope class plots

Example plots shown in matrix:

Plot 1 is already irrigated rice paddy.

Plot 2 is 35–45% slope with good soil.

Plot 3 is <12.5% slope with good soil and is already cleared.

Plot 4 is already rainfed rice paddy and is on wet ground.

Plot 5 is flat but too rocky for production.

Plot 6 is 12.5–25% with good soil and is already forested.

Plot 7 is already terraced and cleared.

Plot 8 is over 45% slope.

Plot 9 is 25–35% slope with good soil.

1

Tentative Land Use Zones

+

1 S S S S S S

2 U U U U U S

3 U U M S M M

4 M S S S U U

5 U U U U U U

6 U U M U M S

7 U U S S S M

8 U U U U U U

9 U U M U M M

…

Native ecotype

(soil quality indicator)

Slope class plots

+

Land Suitability Matrix

Conservation status









Step 3. Intervention

•

Begin demonstration projects with resident

technicians.

Step 3. Intervention

•

Begin demonstration projects with resident

technicians.

•

Issue Temporary Land use Certificates (TLCs) for all

current land uses that are already suitable according

to the Land Suitability Matrix (LSM).

1

1. Please see Appendix 4.

Issue Temporary Land use Certificates (TLCs)

1

S S S S S S

2

U U U U U S

3

U U M S M M

4

M S S S U U

5

U U U U U U

6

U U M U M S

7

U U S S S M

8

U U U U U U

9

U U M U M M

1. Start with

present land use.

2. Screen present land

use for suitability

3. Issue TLC if suitable (shown: Ban Nam Sing)

Regenerating forest

Agricultural land

Community forest

Wildlife conservation forest

Watershed protection forest

Reserved land

Step 3. Intervention

•

Begin demonstration projects with resident technicians.

•

Issue Temporary Land use Certificates (TLCs) for all

current land uses that are already suitable according to

the Land Suitability Matrix (LSM).

•

“Close the loop” by using LSM to target future

development intervention, issuing TLCs as new plots are

brought under suitable production regimes. Continue

monitoring socioeconomic data, and update zoning map

as appropriate.

1

1. Please see Appendix 4.

Regenerating forest

Agricultural land

Community forest

Wildlife conservation forest Reserved

land

Newly allocated

parcels

1

S S S S S S

2

U U U U U S

3

U U M S M M

4

M S S S U U

5

U U U U U U

6

U U M U M S

7

U U S S S M

Continue the process, using the LSM and Zone map to target

development intervention. Issue TLCs as new plots are brought under

Regenerating forest

Agricultural land

Community forest

Wildlife conservation forest

Watershed protection forest

Reserved land

1

S S S S S S

2

U U U U U S

3

U U M S M M

4

M S S S U U

5

U U U U U U

6

U U M U M S

7

U U S S S M

8

U U U U U U

9

U U M U M M

Newly allocated

parcels

Continue the process, using the LSM and Zone map to target

development intervention. Issue TLCs as new plots are brought under

suitable use regimes.

Present With Project Without Project Without Project ¯½-¥÷-®ñ− -´ó-£¤-¡¾− ®Ò-´ó-£¤-¡¾− ®Ò-´ó-£¤-¡¾−

2000 2008 2008 2020

Population ¯½-§¾-¡º− 2,928 3,476 3,652 5,087

Agricultural Land ê†-©ò−-¡½-¦ò-¡¿

Swidden À−œº-ê†-Ä»È 1,097 0 1,713 2,384

Bush Fallow À−œº-ê†-¯È¾-À쉾 4,325 0 5,043 7,027

Irrigated Paddy Field ê†-−¾-§ö−-ì½-¯½-ê¾− 132 202 132 132

Run-off Capture/Rain-fed Rice Terrace ê†-−¾-−Õ-³É¾ 0 289 0 0

Vegetable Garden ¦¸−-£ö¸ 7 8 8 10

Forage Terrace À−œº-ê†-−¾-¢˜−-é 0 351 0 0

Fruit Orchard ¦¸−-Ä´É-ùÉ-Ͼ¡ 1 140 1 1

NTFP Garden ¦¸−-À£ˆº¤-¯È¾-¢º¤-©ö¤ 0 351 0 0

Fish Pond ¦½-¯¾ 0.16 6.67 0.16 0.16

Subtotal 츴-¨Èº¨ 5,562 1,348 6,897 9,554 Forest Land À−œº-ê†-¯È¾-Ä´É

Community Forest ¯È¾-§ö´-Ä§É 997 1,052 997 997

Village Production Forest ¯È¾-°½-ìò©-¢º¤-®É¾− 0 1,052 0 0

Dedicated Plantations ¦¸−-¯È¾-¦½-À²¾½-¡ò© 0 110 0 0

State Production Forest ¯È¾-Ä´É-Á¹È¤-ìñ© 8,767 11,764 7,432 4,775

Watershed Protection Forest ¯È¾-¯Éº¤-¡ñ−-ÁÍȤ-−Õ 1,337 1,337 1,337 1,337

NBCA ¯È¾-¦½-¹¤¸− 8,570 8,570 8,570 8,570

Subtotal 츴-¨Èº¨ 19,671 23,885 18,336 15,679 Total Area 츴-À−œº-ê† 25,233 25,233 25,233 25,233

Area (ha) À−œº-ê†( »-ª) Area (ha) À−œº-ê†( »-ª )

Present and Predicted Future Land Use Areas With and Without Project

»ø®-Á®®-¡¾−-−¿-Ä

§

É-©ò−-Ã−-ºÈ¾¤-ªȤ-−Õ-¹É¾-Ã−-¯½-¥

÷

-®ñ− Áì½ Ã−-º¾-−¾-£ö©-Ã−-¡ð-ì½-−ó-®Ò-

´

ó-¡¾−-²ñ©-ê½-−¾ Áì½

´

ó-¡¾−-²ñ©-ê½-−¾-ª¾

´

-£¤-¡¾−

No. Land Category

Area (ha)

¯½-À²©-¢º¤-©ò−

À−œº-ê†(»-ª)

1

Paddy -−¾§ö−-ì½-¯½-ê¾−

0.2

2

Run-off capture or rain-fed terrace rice −¾-−Õ-³É¾

1

3

Vegetable Garden ¦¸−-°ñ¡

0.012

4

Forage Plot −¾-¢˜−-é-¯ø¡-²õ©-ìɼ¤-¦ñ©

0.5

5

Orchard ¦¸−Ä´É-ùÉ-Ͼ¡

0.2

6

NTFP Garden ¦¸−-À£ˆº¤-¯È¾-¢º¤-©ö¤

0.5

7

Fish Pond ¦½-¯¾

0.01

8

Community Forest ¯È¾-§ö´-ħÉ

1.5

9

Village Production Forest ¯È¾-°½-ìò©-¢º¤-®É¾−

1.5

Subtotal 츴¨º©

5.4

Appendix 1. Estimates of current productivity,

subsistence needs & adequacy needs

No. Description

Area (ha) Quantity / year

Unit

Unit Price (kip) Total (kip)

쾨-¡¾−

À−œº-ê† ¥¿-−¸−-ê†-ªÉº¤-¡¾−-ªÒ-¯ó ¹ö¸-Îȸ¨ ì¾-£¾-ªÒ-¹ö¸-Îȸ¨

츴

1

Swidden/Bush Fallow¡¾−-À»ñ©-Ä»È

10

1.1

Rice À¢í¾

2000

kg

1,500

3,000,000

1.2

Vegetables °ñ¡

365

kg

2,000

730,000

2

Community forest & foraging forest

¯È¾-§÷´-§ö−&¯È¾-§ö´-ħÉ

30

2.1

Building timber Ä´É-¦¿-ìñ®-¡Ò-¦É¾¤-À»õº−

0.5

m

3

_1,425,000

_712,500

2.2

Fuelwood Ä´É-³õ−

9.1

m

3

_50,000

_455,000

2.3

NTFP's À£ˆº¤-¯È¾-¢º¤-©ö¤

39

kg

19,000

743,000

4

Large livestock ¦ñ©-ìʼ¤-ù¨È

55

kg

10,000

550,000

5

Small livestock ¦ñ©-ìɼ¤-−ɺ¨

25

kg

20,000

500,000

6

Fish ¯¾

45

kg

15,000

675,000

7

Hunted Wildlife Meat ìȾ-¦ñ©-¯È¾

30

kg

20,000

600,000

Total 츴

40.0

KIP

7,965,500

US

$797

Estimated Output of a Traditional Swidden Farming System

¦½-ÀìȨ-°ö−-Ä©É-»ñ®-¢º¤-¡¾−-À»ñ©-Ä»È-Á®®-²œ−-À´õº¤

1

No.Description _{Unit Unit Price (kip) Total}

쾨-¡¾− ¹ö¸-Îȸ¨ ì¾-£¾-ªÒ-¹ö¸-Îȸ¨ (kip) 츴 1 Food Stuffs ¯½-À²©º¾-¹¾−

1.1Rice À¢í¾ 2000 kg 1,500 3,000,000

1.2 Cereals & Roots ¯½-À²©¦¾-ìó&¯½-À²©´ñ− 300,000

1.3 Meat §™− 110 kg 20,000 2,200,000

1.4 Fish ¯¾ 45 kg 15,000 675,000

1.5 Fruit & Vegetables Ͼ¡-Ä´É&°ñ¡ 365 kg 2,000 730,000

1.6 Condiments À£ˆº¤-¯÷¤-º¾-¹¾− 345,250

1.7Sub-total 츴¨º© 7,250,250

2 Shelter ê†-²ñ¡-º¾-æ

2.1 Timber Ĵɯ÷¡-À»õº− 0.5 m3 _{1,425,000 712,500}

2.2 Fuelwood Ĵɳõ− 8 m3 _{50,000 400,000}

2.3 Clothing & Bedding À£ˆº¤-−÷Ȥ&À£ˆº¤−º− 1,200,000

2.4Sub-total 츴¨º© 2,312,500

3 Miscellaneous ºˆ−Å

3.1 Medical µ¾¯ö¸-²½-¨¾© 1,200,000

3.2 Educational ¡¾−-¦ô¡-¦¾ 475,000

3.3 Recreational / Ceremonial ¡¾−-®ñ−-Àêó¤/²ò-êó-¡¾− 900,000

3.4 Tax ²¾-¦ó 50,000

3.5Sub-total 츴¨º© 2,625,000

Total 츴 KIP 12,187,750

US $1,219

5% of total expenditure on food ¢º¤-쾨-¥È¾¨-êñ¤-Ïñ©Ã−-º¾-¹¾−

Quantity per year ¥¿-−¸−-ªÒ-¯ó

Estimate Subsistence Needs for a Family of Six (Adequacy Level)

¦½-ÀìȨ-£¸¾´-ªÉº¤-¡¾−-Ã−-¡¾−-µ„¤-§ó®¢º¤-£º®-£ö¸ ( ºó¤-ª¾´-¥¿-−¸− 6£ö−-Ã−-£º®-£ö¸)

10% value of rice consumed ´ø−-£È¾-¢º¤-¡¾−-®ð-ìò-²¡À¢í¾

No. Description Unit Unit Price Total 쾨-¡¾− ¹ö¸-Îȸ¨ ì¾-£¾-ªÒ-¹ö¸-Îȸ¨ (kip) 츴 1 Food Stuffs º¾-¹¾−

1.1 Rice À¢í¾ 2000 kg 1,500 3,000,000

1.2 Cereals & Roots ¦¾-ìó&´ñ− 300,000

1.3 Meat -§š− 110 kg 20,000 2,200,000

1.4 Fish ¯¾ 45 kg 15,000 675,000

1.5 Fruit & Vegetables Ͼ¡-Ä´É Áì½ °ñ¡ 365 kg 2,000 730,000

1.6 Condiments À£ˆº¤-¯÷¤-º¾-¹¾− 345,250

1.7 Sub-total 츴¨º© 7,250,250

2 Shelter ê†-²ñ¡-º¾-æ

2.1 Timber Ä´É-À»õº− 0.5 m3 _{1,425,000 712,500}

2.2 Fuelwood Ä´É-³õ− 9.1 m3 _{50,000 455,000}

2.3 Clothing & Bedding À£ˆº¤-−÷Ȥ&À£ˆº¤−º− 1,200,000

2.4 Sub-total 츴¨º© 2,367,500

3 Miscellaneous ºˆ−Å

3.1 Medical µ¾-¯ö¸-²½-¨¾© 1,200,000

3.2 Educational ¡¾−-¦ô¡-¦¾ 475,000

3.3 Recreational / Ceremonial ®ñ−-Àêó¤/²ò-êó¡¾− 900,000

Estimate of Family Income Use at Security Level (based on a family of 6 persons)

No. Description Area (ha) Quantity/year Unit Unit Price (kip) Total (kip) 쾨-¡¾− À−œº-ê† ¥¿-−¸−-ªÒ-¯ó ¥¿-−¸− ì¾-£¾/¹ö¸-Îȸ¨ 츴

ha »-ª farm ²œ−-ê†

1 Paddy −¾-À¢í¾ 0.2 500 kg 1,500 750,000 120 24

2 Run- off capture or rain-fed terrace rice −¾-¢˜−-é--ì½-©ø-±ö−

1 2000 kg 1,500 3,000,000 120 120

3 Garden plot ¦¸− 0.012 720 kg 2,000 1,440,000 80 30

4 Forage plot (large livestock) ꉤ-¹¨É¾(¦¿-ìñ®-¦ñ©-ù¨È)

0.5 292 kg 10,000 2,920,000 40 20

5 Small livestock ¦ñ©-−É-º¨ 25 kg 20,000 500,000

6 Fruit orchard ¦¸−-Ä´É-¡ò−-Ͼ¡ 0.2 400 kg 2,000 800,000 50 10

7 NTFP garden ¦¸−-À£ˆº¤-¯È¾-¢º¤-©ö¤ 0.5 100 kg 19,000 1,900,000 50 25

8 Fish pond ¦½-¯¾ 0.01 50 kg 15,000 750,000

9 Share of community forest ¯È¾-§÷´-§ö− 1.5 40 60

9.1 Building timber Ä´É-¯÷¡-À»õº− 0.5 m3 _{1,425,000 712,500}

9.2 Fuelwood Ä´É-³õ− 9.1 m3 _{50,000 455,000}

10 Production forest ¯È¾-°½-ìò©-¢º¤-£º®-£ö¸ 1.5 3 m3 _{1,425,000 4,275,000 40 60}

Total 츴 5.4 KIP 17,502,500 349

US $1,750

Predicted Output of a Typical Improved Family Farm Lot (at full development)

¥¿-−¸−-´œ-À»ñ©-¸¼¡-ªÒ-¯ó Workdays per year

£¾-©-£½-À−-°ö−-Ä©É»ñ®-¥¾¡¡¾−-¯ñ®-¯÷¤-À−œº-ê†-ê¿-¡¾−-°½-ìò©-¢º¤-£º-®-£ö¸

Population and Land Area Calculations ¡¾−-£ò©-ÄìÈ-¯½-§¾-¡º− Áì½ À−œº-ê†-©ò−

No. Village Nam Ha Kua Soung Palang Talong Nam Loung Nam Sing Phoulanh Nam Vang Nam Eng Total ®É¾− −Õ-¹É¾ ¢ö¸-¦ø¤ ¯½-ìȾ¤ ª½-ìȺ¤ −Õ-ì÷¤ −Õ-¦ò¤ ²ø-ìñ− −Õ-¸ñ¤ −Õ-ÁºÈ¤ 츴 1 Population ¯½-§¾-¡º−

1.1Population (2000 survey) ¯½-§¾-¡º−-Ã−-¯ó 2000 528 220 149 174 211 234 279 761 372 2,928

1.2Number of Families (2000 survey) ¥¿-−¸−-£º®-£ö¸-Ã−-¯ó 2000 108 45 32 34 48 50 49 80 86 532

1.3Average Family Size (2000) ¦½-ÀìȨ-¢½-ξ©-£º®-£ö¸-Ã−-¯ó2000 4.9 4.9 4.7 5.1 4.4 4.7 5.7 9.5 4.3 5.5

1.42008 Population ¯½-§¾-¡º−¡-Ã−-¯ó 2008 627 261 177 207 251 278 331 904 442 3,478

1.5Number of families 2008 ¥¿-−¸−-£º®-£ö¸-Ã−-¯ó 2008 128 53 38 40 57 59 58 164 102 701

2 Rice Requirements (2008 Population) ¥¿-−¸−-À¢í¾-ê†-ªÉº¤-¡¾−

2.1Rice Required (t) À¢í¾-ê†-ªÉº¤-¡¾−(ª−) 209 87 59 69 84 93 110 301 147 1,158

2.2Irrigated Paddy (ha) −¾-§ö−-ì½-¯½-ê¾−(»-ª) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3Rice produced from paddy (t) °ö−-°½-ìò©-À¢í¾-−¾(ª−) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.4Rice Surplus/Deficit from Paddy (t) À¢í¾-ÀÍõº/ ®Ò-²ð-¥¾¡-−¾-À¢í¾(ª−) -209 -87 -59 -69 -84 -93 -110 -301 -147 -1,158

2.5_{Run-off/Rain-fed terrace required for rice}

(ha)£¸¾´ªÉº¤-¡¾−--À¢í¾¥¾¡-−¾-−Õ-³É¾(»-ª)

104 43 34 42 55 151 74 503

Population and Land Area Calculations

¡¾−-£ò©-ÄìÈ-¯½-

§

¾-¡º− Áì½ À−œº-ê†-©ò−

No. Village Nam Ha Kua Soung Palang Talong Nam Loung Nam Sing Phoulanh Nam Vang Nam Eng Total ®É¾− −Õ-¹É¾ ¢ö¸-¦ø¤ ¯½-ìȾ¤ ª½-ìȺ¤ −Õ-ì÷¤ −Õ-¦ò¤ ²ø-ìñ− −Õ-¸ñ¤ −Õ-ÁºÈ¤ 츴 3 Current Land Use ¡¾−-−¿-ħÉ-©ò−-¯ñ©-¥÷-®ñ−

3.1 Irrigated Paddy Land À−œº-ê†−¾-§ö−-ì½-¯½-ê¾− 14 17 23 18 12 20 4 4 20 132

3.2 Swidden & Bush Fallow À−œº-ê†-Ä»È Áì½ ¯È¾À쉾 1052 115 171 198 76 272 1956 263 1317 5421

3.3 Vegetable Garden ¦¸−-°ñ¡ 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 7

Total Land Area 츴-À−œº-ê†-©ò− 1091 192 232 241 176 452 2230 267 1679 6,558 4 Future Land Use (2008 Scenario) ¡¾−-−¿-ħÉ-©ò−-Ã−-º¾-−¾-£ö©( ¦½-²¾®-Ã−-¯ó 2008)

4.1 Irrigated Paddy −¾-§ö−-ì½-¯½-ê¾− 37 17 23 18 22 36 13 4 32 202

4.9 Community Forest ¯È¾-§ö´-Ä§É 192 80 57 61 86 89 87 246 153 1052

4.10Village Production Forest ¯È¾-°½-ìò©-¢º¤-®É¾− 192 80 57 61 86 89 87 246 153 1052

Appendix 3. Land Suitability Matrix

Sample (simplified ) Land Suitability Matrix

1. We use six slope classes (0–3.5%, 3.5–12.5%, 12.5–25%, 25–35%, 35–45%, >45%); a simplified example is shown here. Slope

class

1

2

3

Slope range

0–5% (rice terrace potential)

5–25% (terrace potential)

>25% (not terrace-able)

Compartment Slope

class Max. slope

Irrigated paddy

Rainfed paddy

Rainfed agriculture Pasture

Orchard/ plantation

Production forest

46921 2 46922 2 46985 1 47244 1 47356 1 47505 1 47575 1 47576 1 47702 2 47942 3 47943 2 48019 1 48102 2 48304 1

48566 1 5% M (L, B) M (L, B) S S S S 48635 2 9% U U M (B, T) S S M (R) 48967 2

180902 3 30% U U U U S S

Land use options

S = suitable

M = moderately suitable (suitable with intervention) U = unsuitable

L = Leveling B = Bunding T = Terracing R = Reforestation

Appendix 4. Project Activities

1. Irrigation

2. Rain-fed Capture / Bunded Terrace Fields

(rice / food crops)

3. Terrace Land – Forage

4. Fruit Orchards

5. NTFP Gardens

6. Livestock (husbandry / aquaculture)

7. Community Forest Enrichment

1. Village Development Committee (training and

support)

2. Interest Groups (different groups of livelihood

activities)

3. Health

- Systems Enhancement & Family Planning

- AIDS awareness and prevention / drug rehabilitation

4.Education (non formal literacy, numeracy and fluency)

5.Credit and Saving Systems, Small Business

Skills, Product Processing & Marketing,

Revolving In Kind Loans

6.Joint Village and Government Land Use

Planning and Zonation

- 3D model of village territory

7.Land / Forest Allocation Support

- Cadastral surveys after development

- Official allocation

- Village land use regulations

Activities that Villagers See Potential for the Future (2000 survey)

¡ò©-¥½-¡¿-ê†-

§

¾¸-®É¾−-À¹ñ−-¸È¾

´

-ó-£¸¾

´

-À¯ñ−-į-Ä©É-Ã−-º¾-−¾-£ö©( ¦¿-͸©-¯ó 2000 )

Village ®É¾− (Palang)¯¾-ìȾ¤

Talong -ª½-ìȺ¤

Nam Loung −Õ-ì÷¤

Nam Sing −Õ-¦ò¤

Phoulanh ²ø-ìñ−

Nam Vang −Õ-¸ñ¤

Nam Eng −Õ-ÁºÈ¤ Activity

¡ò©-¥½-¡¿

Livestock husbandry ¡¾−-ìɼ¤-¦ñ©

Paddy rice production ¡¾−-°½-ìò©-À¢í¾-−¾

Livestock husbandry ¡¾−-ìɼ¤-¦ñ©

Paddy rice production ¡¾−-°½-ìò©-À¢í¾-−¾

Paddy rice production ¡¾−-°½-ìò©-À¢í¾-−¾

Paddy rice production ¡¾−-°½-ìò©-À¢í¾-−¾

Fruit orchards ¦¸−-Ä´É-¡ò−-Ͼ¡

Paddy rice production ¡¾−-°½-ìò©-À¢í¾-−¾

Paddy rice production ¡¾−-°½-ìò©-À¢í¾-−¾

Reason À¹©-°ö−

Able to plant forage for animal feed ´ó-£¸¾´-¦¾-´¾©- ¯ø¡-²õ©-ìɼ¤-¦ñ©-Ä©É

Reduce work on hill farms ÍЩ-°Èº−-¡¾−-À»ñ©-Ä»È

Additional income, and want to reduce hunting À»ñ©-ùÉ-´ó-쾨-Ä©É-À¦ó´ Áì½ ÍЩ-°Èº−-¡¾−-ìȾ-À−œº

Every family has paddy land but not enough water ÁªÈ-ì½-£º®-£ö¸-´ó- −¾-À¢í¾-ÁªÈ-®Ò-´ó-−Õ-²¼¤²ð

To reduce slash and burn and follow government policy ÍЩ-°Èº−-¡¾−-«¾¤-¯È¾-À»ñ©-Ä»È Áì½ ¯½-ªò-®ñ©-ª¾´-−½-¨-®¾¨-¢º¤-ìñ©

Have land available but no irrigation system ´ó-À−œº-ê†-©ò−-²¼¤-²ð- ÁªÈ-®Ò-´ó-§ö−-ì½-¯½-ê¾−

Land is not suitable for anything else ©ò−-®Ò-ÀϾ½-¦ö´-¦¿-ìñ®-¯ø¡-¹¨ñ¤

Hill farming requires too much labor. Paddy is more productive. Ä»È-ªÉº¤-¡¾−-Á»¤-¤¾−-;¨. À»ñ©- −¾-Ä©É-°ö−-°½-Íò©-;¨¡¸È¾

Have land that is not irrigated ´ó-À−œº-ê†-©ò−-ê†-®Ò-´ó-§ö−-ì½-¯½-ê¾−

Activity ¡ò©-¥½-¡¿

Expand agricultural land ¢½-¹¨¾¨-À−œº-ê†-¡½-¦ò-¡¿

Livestock husbandry À»ñ©-³¾´-ìɼ¤-¦ñ©

Working cooperatively on paddy land À»ñ©-−¾-¦½-¹½-¡º−

Livestock husbandry À»ñ©-³¾´-ìɼ¤-¦ñ©

Fruit orchards À»ñ©-¦¸−-Ä´É-¡ò−-Ͼ¡

Fruit orchards À»ñ©-¦¸−-Ä´É-¡ò−-Ͼ¡

Livestock husbandry À»ñ©-³¾´-ìɼ¤-¦ñ©

Livestock husbandry, breeding cows for milk production À»ñ©-³¾´-ìɼ¤-¦ñ©, ìɼ¤-¤ö¸-−ö´

Livestock husbandry À»ñ©-³¾´-ìɼ¤-¦ñ©

Reason À¹©-°ö−

Suitable land is available´ó- À−œº-ê†-©ò−-ê†-ÀϾ½-¦ö´

To reduce hunting of wildlife À²ˆº-ÍЩ-°Èº−-¡¾−-ìȾ-¦ñ©-¯È¾

Want more experience with paddy farming µ¾¡-´ó-¯½-¦ö®-

¡¾−ªˆ´Ã−-¡¾−-To reduce slash and burn hill farms À²ˆº-ÍЩ-°Èº−-¡¾−-«¾¤-¯È¾-À»ñ©-Ä»È

Have suitable land for fruit trees ´ó-©ò−-ÀϾ½-¦ö´- ¦¿-ìñ®-¯ø¡-Ä´É-¡ò−-Ͼ¡

Heard about this activity À£ó¨-Ä©É-¨ò−-¡È¼¸-¡ñ®-¡ò©-¥½-¡¿-−š

Additional work and income µ¾¡-´ó-¸¼¡ Áì½ ì¾¨-Ä©É-À²š´

Village ®É¾− (Palang)¯¾-ìȾ¤

Talong -ª½-ìȺ¤

Nam Loung −Õ-ì÷¤

Nam Sing −Õ-¦ò¤

Phoulanh ²ø-ìñ−

Nam Vang −Õ-¸ñ¤

Nam Eng −Õ-ÁºÈ¤ Activity

¡ò©-¥½-¡¿

Planting ¯ø¡-±ñ¤ Fruit orchards ¦¸−-Ä´É-¡ò−-Ͼ¡

Vegetable gardens ¦¸−-£ö¸

Vegetable gardens ¦¸−-£ö¸

Aquaculture ¡¾−-¯½-´ö¤

Reason À¹©-°ö−

To reduce hunting and collecting NTFPs additional income and food À¯ñ−-ÁÍȤ-쾨-Ä©É-À²š´ Áì½ º¾-¹¾−

Good land is available to make gardens ´ó-©ò−-©ó-ê†-¦¾-´¾©-À»ñ©-¦¸−-Ä©É

The Eng river runs past the village ´ó-−Õ-ÁºÈ¤-ÄÍ-°È¾−-®É¾−

Activities that Villagers See Potential for the Future (2000 survey)

Thank you !

Thank you !

Thank you !

Thank you !