Teak in northern Laoslad.nafri.org.la/fulltext/1255-0.pdf · 2008. 8. 21. · of teak has been...

Minor Field Studies No. 175

Teak in northern Laos

Anna Kolmert

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

International Office

Uppsala, October, 2001

ISSN1402-3237

Teak in northern Laos i

20040108

The Minor Field Studies series is published by the International Office of the Swedish University ofAgricultural Sciences.

Minor Field Studies are carried out within the framework of the Minor Field Studies (MPS)Scholarship Programme, which is funded by the Swedish International Development CooperationAgency (Sida).

The MFS Scholarship Prozramme offers Swedish university students an opportunity to undertake twomonths" field work in a developing country to be analysed, compiled and published as an in-depthstudy or graduation thesis work. The studies are primarily made on subjects of importance from adevelopment perspective and in a country supported by Swedish development assistance.

The main purposes of the MFS programme are to increase interest in developing countries and toenhance Swedish university students' knowledge and understanding of these countries and theirproblems and opportunities. An MFS should provide the student with initial experience of conditionsin such a country. A further purpose is to widen the Swedish human resource base for internationaldevelopment cooperation.

The International Office of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences administers the MFSprogramme for the rural development and natural resources management sectors.

The responsibility for the accuracy of information presented rests entirely with the respective author.The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the International Office.

Tryck: SLU/Repor, Uppsala 2001



Box 7070

SE-0750 07 UPPSALA

Sweden

Telephone: +46 18 672309

Fax: +46 18 673556

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: http://www-ibyr.adm.slu.se

Minor Field Studies No. 175

Teak in northern Laos ii

20040108


Anna Kolmert



Uppsala, October, 2001

ISSN1402-3237

Supervisors: Professor Mats Olsson, Department of Forest Soils, Swedish University

of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

Dr Ty Phommasack, Head of NAFRI, Vientiane, Lao P.D.R

Mr. John Raintree, Agricultural Research Advisor, the Lao Swedish

Forestry Programme, SCC Natura, Vientiane, Lao P.D.R

Teak in northern Laos iii

20040108

Foreword

This Minor Field Study is carried out for a MSc degree in forestry and corresponds to 20 credits on Dlevel. The investigations were done in close co-operation with the National Apiculture and ForestryResearch Institute (NAFRI) in Laos with the objective to evaluate the land use for teak plantations inthe northern part of the country. The topic of the study is consistent with one of the identified researchneeds by NAFRI, i.e. improving land use planning and land allocation in Lao PDR to facilitateeffective land management and soil improvement.

Mats OlssonProfessor in Soil Science.Department of Forest Soils, SLU, Uppsala


20040108

iv

Acknowledgement

This thesis for a Master of Science in Forestry is the result of a field study in Laos during May-June,2000.

I would like to thank Carl Mossberg, Head of the Laos Swedish Forestry Program who made itpossible for me to get started and who introduced me to my supervisor in Laos, John Raintree,Agricultural Research Advisor, who helped me to carry out the project. I would also like to thank Dr.Ty Pommasack, Head of NAFRI, who helped me to get in contact with Lao people working for theGovernment Forestry in Luangprabang. Mr Thongsavan, Head of the Teak Improvement Centre, isespecially thanked for helping me to find the teak plantations, and my great interpreter MrThangsamai, to whom I am very grateful for his patience and help when interviewing farmers andmeasuring teak stands.

Also very many thanks to everyone else in Laos, both farmers and people working for LSFP, PFO,DAFO and the Training Centre who have helped me with the project and answered my questionsconcerning teak.

Last but not least, I am very grateful to my Swedish supervisor Mats Olsson, Professor in Soil Scienceat SLU in Uppsala, for his help with both the layout of the project and all the work to analyse theresults.

The project was financed by SIDA as a Minor Field Study.


20040108 v

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate land use for teak plantations and its implications. Teakplantations on flat, gentle and steep slopes were studied in order to describe teak growth rates, erosion,undergrowth, soil properties for the different slope categories, ownership structure and management.Study sites were located in an area around Luangprabang in northern Laos. The growth rates werehigher on flat land than on steep slopes. Erosion tended to be negatively correlated to undergrowth.No significant differences in soil properties were found, except for texture. There was a tendency forhigher base saturation, higher pH and lower CN ratios at eroded slope sites. It was concluded thatintercropping might be an effective measure to mitigate erosion. It was also found that farmers haveplanted a lot of teak during the last 10 years following a land allocation process. To a great extent,teak was established on flat land previously used for rice production. Almost all farmers own teakplantations today and the ones that do not, are the farmers that have the worst financial situation. Thisboom in teak planting has led to a big problem for those farmers that have sold their teak plantationsto investors in the cities and now have too little land to support them with rice and vegetables. Thegovernment has today forbidden farmers to sell their teak plantations including the land, but sellingstill occurs.

Table of contents


20040108

vi

Table of contents1 Introduction..........................................................................................1

1.1 Objective.....................................................................................................................1

2 Background..........................................................................................2

2.1 Laos ...........................................................................................................................2

2.1.1 Location .......................................................................................................................2

2.1.2 Natural conditions ..........................................................................................................2

2.1.3 Population ....................................................................................................................3

2.1.4 Forestry and agricultural situation ......................................................................................3

2.2 Teak ...........................................................................................................................4

2.2.1 Morphology and phenology ..............................................................................................4

2.2.2 Geographical and climatic factors ......................................................................................4

2.2.3 Site requirements ...........................................................................................................4

2.2.4 Sensitivity to climatic hazards ...........................................................................................5

2.2.5 Use of teak ...................................................................................................................6

2.2.6 Management.................................................................................................................6

2.3 Teak in Laos ................................................................................................................7

2.3.1 History .........................................................................................................................7

2.3.2 Laws and government .....................................................................................................9

3 Materials and methods .........................................................................11

3.1 Studied villages and plantations...................................................................................11

3.2 Volume on three kinds of slopes ..................................................................................12

3.2.1 Description of stand ......................................................................................................12

3.3 Soil survey ................................................................................................................13

3.4 T-test ........................................................................................................................13

3.4.1 Result........................................................................................................................14

3.5 Interviews..................................................................................................................14

3.5.1 Problems....................................................................................................................14

3.6 Currency ...................................................................................................................14

4 Results ..............................................................................................15

4.1 Teak growth...............................................................................................................15

4.2 Erosion .....................................................................................................................16

4.3 Soil properties ...........................................................................................................16

4.3.1 Exchangeable cations and pH.........................................................................................17

4.3.2 Carbon and nitrogen .....................................................................................................17

4.3.3 Comparison of two stands with the same parent material ......................................................18

4.4 Interviews..................................................................................................................19

4.4.1 Farmers with teak.........................................................................................................19

4.4.2 People without teak ......................................................................................................21

4.4.3 Farmers that have sold their teak plantations .....................................................................22

4.4.4 Investors that have bought teak plantations ...........................................................23

4.4.5 Case studies ...............................................................................................................24

Table of contents


20040108

vii

4.5 Economy...................................................................................................................25

4.5.1 Investment costs for the establishment .............................................................................25

4.5.2 Labour costs ...............................................................................................................25

4.5.3 Selling plantations ........................................................................................................26

4.5.4 Selling timber ..............................................................................................................26

4.5.5 Fees to be paid when selling teak ....................................................................................26

4.6 Rice ..........................................................................................................................27

4.6.1 Erosion ......................................................................................................................27

4.6.2 Economy and labour .....................................................................................................27

4.7 Pineapple ..................................................................................................................27

5 Discussion .........................................................................................28

5.1 Teak growth and soil conditions...................................................................................28

5.2 Farmers and investors ................................................................................................28

5.2.1 Farmers without teak ....................................................................................................30

5.3 Economy...................................................................................................................30

5.3.1 Calculated economy for teak versus rice ...........................................................................30

5.4 Advice ......................................................................................................................31

6 References .........................................................................................32

Table of contents


20040108

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of Laos ..........................................................................................................2

Figure 2. Location of the 7 villages (black circles on the map) where teak plantations weresurveyed. ....................................................................................................................11

Figure 3. The average yield of teak at an age of 17 years on flat, gentle and steep slopes.Columns with different letters differ statistically significantly (5% level*). ..................15

Figure 4. Mean erosion class at different slope category. Columns with different letters differstatistically significantly (5% level*). ...........................................................................16

Figure 5. Mean undergrowth class at different erosion class. Columns with different letters differstatistically significantly (5% level*). ...........................................................................16

Figure 6. Average values for pH, CEC (cmolckg-1) and BS% on different slopes............17

Figure 7. Mean C and N concentrations in the soil at different slope category (%) ..........18

Figure 8. Mean CN ratio in the soil at different slope category. ........................................18

List of Tables

Table 1. Teak plantations (ha) established in the Luangprabang province, 1975-1999 .....8

Table 2. Texture on different slopes ..................................................................................16

Table 3. Average amount of nutrients on different slopes, cmolckg-1

................................17

Table 4. Two stands, one on flat land and one on steep slope, with the same parent material....................................................................................................................................18

Table 5. Economical status of teak-growing farmers. Altogether 24 farmers were interviewed....................................................................................................................................19

Table 6. Questions answered by farmers owning teak .....................................................19

Table 7. Economic status for 6 families not owning teak ..................................................22

Table 8. Questions answered by families not owning teak plantations.............................22

Table 9. Quotes on timber from state plantations, made by different sawmills, for different DBH(diameter at breast height) classes ............................................................................26

Introduction


20040108

1

1 Introduction

This study took place in the area around Luangprabang in the northern part of Laos. In this area, a lotof teak has been planted during the last 20 years and the number of teak plantations is still increasing.Huge areas around roads and rivers are now under such teak. This is decreasing the area that can beplanted with either food crops or short-term cash crops. Teak is a very valuable tree and gives thefarmers a good extra income. One problem is that it is a long-term investment running over 25 years.Another problem is that teak is established in monocultures where intercropping is possible onlyduring the first 1-3 years, depending on spacing. The most common intercrops are rice, pineapple andbananas. The plantations are established by farmers that depend on shifting cultivation practices fortheir food supply, with the result that more land continuously had to be cleared for food production toreplace land planted with teak. The land allocation plan that was launched since 1996 has, however,made the clearing of new land difficult, which in turn has created a land use conflict among farmers,rice or teak. The objectives with land allocation were to enable recording of land use and landownership, and to protect natural forests from conversion to farm land or fallows. How much landeach family gets depends on its size and labour. However, particularly farmers that have small landareas and shifted land use from rice to teak have become too dependent on the teak, because it was nolonger possible to replace the teak land with new cleared land.

A lot of the teak plantations have been planted on flat land that is more suitable for cash crops, mainlybecause the farmers consider that teak grows faster on flat land. In addition, the investors inLuangprabang and other bigger cities, seem to prefer to buy teak plantations on flat land. Investorsalso only want to buy plantations that are close to roads or rivers because otherwise it is too hard andexpensive to harvest and transport the timber. A major problem is that investors tend to buy not onlythe teak timber but the whole plantation including the land. Farmers are willing to sell because it givesinstant cash – they do not need to wait 25 years until harvest – but it would mean a permanent loss ofthe family land, which they will need if they are to survive in the future. Another disadvantage is that,when a lot of flat land close to roads is occupied by teak, it automatically leads to agricultural farmingbecoming more located to hillsides. It would be better to plant teak on the hillsides instead, due toerosion problems when growing cash crops on steep slopes. Therefore, new teak plantations are nowforbidden by the government on agricultural land and only allowed on steep slopes, i.e. >25%.Farmers are also prohibited to sell their land. They are only allowed to sell their teak trees. This is toprevent all agriculture land from ending up in rural hands.

1.1 Objective

The overall objective of this study was to make a regional evaluation on land use for teak plantationsand its implications. The aim was to get a perspective on the kind of land that, from a sustainable landmanagement point of view, is most suitable for teak plantations. Another aim is to contribute to ascientific base to be used to advise farmers in the future of where and how to plant. The aims havebeen divided into four sub-aims.

1. To find out if there is a significant difference in yield growth for teak on different kinds of slopescombined with a soil survey and erosion scale.

2. Farmers reasons for planting or not planting teak and their interpretation of new laws.

3. The deal between farmers and investors concerning land rights after buying/selling teak.

4. The economy around teak, and teak versus rice production

Background


20040108

2

2 Background

2.1 Laos

2.1.1 Location

Laos is a landlocked country with borders to Thailand on the west, Myanmar in the north-west, Chinain the north, Vietnam on the east and Cambodia in the south. Its location is in Southeast Asia betweenlatitudes of 12° and 23° N and longitudes of 100° and108° W. The size of the country is 236800 km2,consisting of 13 different provinces. It has a population of 4.5 million people (Saphangthong 1998).

Figure 1. Map of Laos

2.1.2 Natural conditions

TopographyMost of the country (over 80%) is mountainous except from the plains around the Mekong river. Halfof the country has an elevation between 1000-2000 m a.s.l. The highest mountain is Phou Bia with thepeak 2817 m a.s.1. The water level in Mekong is very irregular and the river is navigable only in partsand seasonally, because of substantial differences in width and the existence of sandbanks and rapids(Persson 1983).

ClimateThe climate is a monsoon climate with a wet and dry season. The rainy season is from May toOctober, and 80-85% of the annual rainfall is recorded during those months. The dry season starts inNovember and continues to April. The total amount of rain varies from 1250 mm in the central partsof Laos to over 3000 mm in the southern parts and up in the mountains. During the dry months, thereis less than 50 mm of rain per month. The mean temperature in Lao lowlands is over 24°C, with thewarmest months just before the rainy season starts in May (Persson 1983). The relative humidityranges from 65 to 95% during the year (Saphangthong 1998).

Background


20040108

3

Geology and soilsSedimentary rocks (sandstone and limestone) dominate in most of Laos. Porphyritic rocks arecharacteristic of a large belt extending from Pak Lay to Luangprabang. Granites form the mass ofPhou Bia while other crystalline rocks extend over most of the .Annamite chain (Persson 1983).Common soils in Laos are sandy to sandy loamy and acidic to neutral in reaction. They have a lowamount of organic matter and nitrogen. Richer alluvia] soils are found along the broad and flat valleys.Lateritic soils are found on the undulating plateaus and are shallow. Up in the mountains, the soildepth is influenced by the topographical location on the slope. In the southern part of Laos on theBoloven Plateau, rich and deep soils of volcanic origin occur, which generate the fertility in this area.Both sides of the Mekong river are covered by recent alluvial deposit (Persson 1983).

2.1.3 Population

The people in the northern part of Laos are divided into three categories:

Lao Lum: Lowland farming and lowland paddy rice are their traditional methods of agriculture.Lately they have started to move upslope and to adopt new agricultural practises, such as shiftingcultivation. This is due to low soil fertility that is a result of limited application of improvedmanagement techniques, which has led to a decline in rice production from unirrigated lowlands. Atthe same time, there is an increased demand for rice and the taxation system is favouring upland riceproduction. This has led to the Lao Lum moving to the uplands. They are relatively wealthy as a resultof their trading activities in the valley and they are even sometimes able to employ Lao Theung peoplein agricultural work.

Lao Theung: These people use shifting cultivation systems on the mid-altitude uplands. The maincrop is upland rice but they also grow maize, beans, casava and chilli. In the south of Laos, the LaoTheung system is thought to be largely sustainable and is likely to continue. But here the areascultivated by Lao Theung are fairly small and the population density relatively low. In the north, it isthe opposite since there are large areas available but the soils are shallow and the slopes are verysteep. There is also a much higher population density. Under those conditions, fields are completelycleared of trees to support maximum growth of crops. During fallow periods they produce grass andbamboo rather than forest regeneration. All this leads to a high erosion problem.

Lao Sung: The Lao Sung occupy the land that is located on high altitudes. The soils are generallyshallow and of low fertility, and slopes are steep. They live so isolated and remote that very little isknown about their fanning systems. The most common crops are maize and opium poppy. Upland riceis grown on slightly lower altitudes where it is a bit warmer. Their agricultural activities seem to be toget as much production out of a site as possible. When the soil is degraded they leave it and insteadslash and burn a new site. They have no intention to use the old plot again after a certain period offallow. The nature is very fragile, and due to this, the environment is very threatened. The sites thatare abandoned are very susceptible to erosion and rapidly become dominated by infertile savanna withgrasses or bamboo where natural reforestation is almost impossible.

The people live in very small villages, only 15-20 families in each, and they settle in one site for about20 years, although new fields are cultivated every 5 to 6 years. Once the productivity around thevillage becomes too low, the whole village moves to a new site. A few of those villages are located bya road and can trade products but most of them are located high up in the mountains. It is thereforevery difficult to develop alternative ways of farming.

2.1.4 Forestry and agricultural situation

In 1940 the estimated forest area was 70% of the total land area. In 1973 it had dropped to 54% and in1981 it was as low as 47%, which is the same as 11.2 million ha. During the 1960's a lot of forestswere damaged because of the war and plenty of forest flora and fauna were devastated. Those areasare still dangerous to enter and bomb splinters in the trees have decreased the timber value. Another

Background


20040108

4

major reason for decline of the forest area is intensified shifting cultivation by farmers (FAO andTEAKNET 1995). In the uplands of Laos, there are at least 300,000 families, equal to about 1.8million people. Farmers in the northern part of Laos have largely depended on shifting cultivationpractices for their food production for many centuries, and still do today (Eijkens and Masixonxay1997). They mainly use areas with young secondary vegetation, although slash and burn of olderforest still takes place (Hansen et al.1997). Increased population pressure has caused several problemsfor the farmers, e.g., increased distance to fields (many farmers have to walk several kilometres to getto their fields), weed infestations, soil erosion, declining soil fertility mainly due to shorter fallowperiods, declining forest resources, etc. (Eijkens and Masixonxay 1997). A first step to deal with thoseproblems was that the government started land allocation, promotion of permanent cash cropping,expansion of the paddy area, expansion of livestock production, tree planting by farmers,infrastructure development and socio-economic development (Hansen et al. 1997).

Today, the agriculture sector, comprising crops, forestry, fishery and livestock, is the most importantsource of income in Laos. About 85% of the population depend on this sector as their main source ofincome (Saphangthong 1998).

2.2 Teak

2.2.1 Morphology and phenology

Teak, Tectona grandis, May Sack, is a large deciduous tree and a member of the family Verbenaceae.Teak is a very suitable species for farmers to plant because its growth is initially fast and it is fireresistant (Apichart Kaosa-ard 1998). It has large elliptical leaves that grow one by one opposite toeach other. The leaf size is 20-60 cm in length and 20-40 cm in width. The sprouting leaves are hairyand reddish brown in colour. With age their colour turns to light and dark green. The tree is leaf-lessduring the dry season, November to January. Flowering occurs during July to August. The flowers arevery small and white (Thongsavan, pers.comm., 2000).

2.2.2 Geographical and climatic factors

Teak is indigenous to central and south India, Burma, northern Thailand and in two small areas innorthwestern Laos (Hansen et al. 1997). Teak has been planted in a small and moderate scale in othertropical countries such as east and west Pakistan, east and west Africa, central and south America andon many islands of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans (Kadambi 1972).This study is conducted in the vicinity of Luangprabang in northwestern Laos where teak is commonlyplanted. The landscape in this area is very hilly with steep slopes. The soils along the hillsides aremainly Acrisols and Alisols and the climate is a monsoon climate with a dry and wet season. All thesesite factors govern erosion.A warm and moderately humid climate is optimal for growing teak. This means a rainfall of 1500-2000 mm per year. In areas with a higher amount of rain, the forest is of an evergreen forest type. TheLuangprabang area has a rainfall of 1250 mm per year. Teak requires a temperature of 12-40°C withan average of 21°C over the year. Luangprabang has an average of 24° C (Thongsavan, pers.comm.2000). Due to all this, teak is very suited to the climate in northern Laos. The main environmentallimitations are elevation above 900 meters due to the unfavourable climate at high altitudes. Thisexcludes teak from about 30% of the northern region. Neither are lowlands prone to flooding good forgrowing teak on. But the main factor that restrains teak is the lack of roads. About 95% of theplantations are located along roads and rivers (Hansen et al. 1997).

2.2.3 Site requirements

Soils best suited for teak are deep well-drained alluvial soils. A sandy loamy texture is optimalbecause of good drainage conditions. This soil type is however particularly frequent on flat land invalleys (river deposits) where teak for other reasons preferable not should be grown (Thongsavan,pers.comm. 2000).

Background


20040108

5

The following site requirements have been stated in the Rural Micro-projects Programme, 1995.

Favourable soil conditions- Moderate fertile soils- Humus rich top soil- Free drainage- A pH of 6.5-7.5

Soils to avoid:- Compacted soils- Water-logged soils- Shallow soils- Lateritic soils.

It is said that teak can not grow on soils with a pH less than 6, and that if pH is greater than 8, teakwill have a retarded growth and a higher mortality. But it has been shown that teak in Laos cantolerate lower pH values of between 4.5 and 5.5 (Nedeco 1995).

Exchangeable calcium is an element that has a significant impact on teak performance. The criticallimit is 0.3% Ca2+. It is believed that Ca2+ is important to teak because of its role for soil physicalproperties (binding soil particles and filling CEC sites) rather than as a nutritional element. Thisexplains why some sites with a low amount of Ca2+ but with a high base saturation still have a highproduction of teak (Nedeco 1995).

High magnesium level is also supposed to increase teak production (Nedeco 1995).

Pure teak stands on steeply sloping ground are said to increase soil erosion especially if the understoryis burnt to facilitate natural regeneration. Therefore, teak is not a good soil conservation method on itsown (Nedeco 1995).

2.2.4 Sensitivity to climatic hazards

FrostTeak is susceptible to frost and teak seedlings might die if the frost occurs during the first year. Lateron, frost might retard development but the plant generally survives. Teak has an enormous capacityfor coppicing. When a plant is frost-damaged and cut back, it shoots a new coppice, which often getsabove frost level and survives (Kadambi 1972).

DroughtIn years with severe drought, teak suffers a lot but normally it is a remarkably hardy plant. This is trueas long as it survives the first year, during which teak is very sensitive to drought. Especially sensitiveare seedlings that have germinated late in the season, and because of this have not had time to developtheir roots (Kadambi 1972).

WindTeak is a wind-resistent tree due to its well-developed taproot (Kadambi 1972).

FireTeak is very fire resistant. Young teak plants have a remarkable power to recover after fires. Theirshoots can get burnt every year but the root survives and builds up during the years and finallyproduces a shoot that is big enough to survive the fire (Kadambi 1972).

BrowsingYoung teak plants are soft and easily broken if the plantation is heavily browsed (Kadambi 1972).

Background


20040108

6

Mammals and insectsTeak suffers from injury from various mammals. Rats can gnaw the roots of young plants, pigs root-up seedlings, deers strip the bark and kill the trees.

Teak also suffers from defoliators. The most common ones are Hybloea puera and Hapaliamacheralis. The loss of increment is high due to defoliators. Mixed stands is one way to decrease thenumber of trees attacked. Another solution is biological control. This method needs more attentionespecially in regions where teak is native (Kadambi 1972).

2.2.5 Use of teak

Teak is planted for high-value timber and not for rapid volume growth. The growing rate is normallylower than for pines, eucalyptus or other softwood species. In some parts of Asia, growing rates as

low as 2-3m3per ha and year have been reported. The goal should be to obtain 8m3

per ha and year.Actually, rapid growth decreases the quality of the wood (Keogh 1996).

The wood is structurally strong, durable and very resistant to fungus and termites. There is a very lowrisk for splitting and wrapping during drying and processing, and the wood is very good for carving.These qualities make teakwood favourable for house construction, boat railings and furniture. In Laos,dried leaves from teak were used to make a yellow dye for silk yarn. Leaves are also used to thatchroofs and for packaging. Young thinning and branches are used as firewood (Hansen et al. 1997).

2.2.6 Management

PlantingThe Government of Laos recommends farmers to plant teak at spacing of 3*3 m. The reasons for thisare:• Teak is light-demanding, and there may be a problem if they are planted 2*2 m since trees shadoweach other.• Teak planted on good soils with the spacing 2*2 m will grow too thin and there might be problemswith wind-throws if a storm occurs.• No good for intercropping when planted 2*2 m. The canopy closes too soon and shadows the cashcrops (Thongsavan, pers.comm., 2000).

The government also recommends farmers that can not afford to set aside land for teak to at least plantteak around the borders of their cash-crop land. This will give each family some timber for homeconsumption (PFO, pers.comm.2000).

WeedingTeak is light-demanding and therefore a pioneer. It requires a relatively high intensity of light,between 75-100% of the full sunlight, for best growth and development. Due to this, it is veryimportant to weed to get successful establishment. The most common reasons for failures in seedlingsand/or stand establishment of teak, in both natural forest and in plantations, are because of lightcompetition and suppression. Under low light conditions, such as in a moist teak forest or inplantations with heavy weeds, the regeneration is often very poor (Thongsavan, pers.comm. 2000).Therefore it is important to continue weeding until the teak is large enough to self-suppress weeds. Intaungya systems weeding is done at the same time as rice weeding, and subsequently for three or fouryears more, depending on the site situation. Weeding should be done three times during the first year,twice in year two and once or twice in the third year. This includes several activities such as: climbercutting, removal of double leaders, removal of bamboo and other kinds of undervegetation such asImperata grass (FAO and TEAKNET 1995).

Background


20040108

7

ThinningBoth mechanical and selection thinning are needed to get as good teak as possible. Mechanicalthinning is supposed to be the first thinning where 50% of the stems should be removed. The selectionthinning should take place later on to remove trees with harmful impact on their neighbours, e.g.depressing their growth. Also trees with diseases and those that are bent should be cut out (FAO andTEAKNET 1995). It is important to remember that the canopy should remain closed even afterthinning and that thinnings should take place when planned. Delayed thinnings ruin the economy(Hansen and Sodarak 1997).

PruningPruning should be done on those trees that will remain until the last thinning and final cutting, i.e.some 600-700 trees per ha. Pruning should be carried out 2-3 times during the rotation. First to 4meters, the second time to 8 meters and sometimes even a third time to 12 meters can berecommended. Never prune more than half the height of the tree. At least 50% of the stem shallalways have green branches. Saws should be used for pruning, not knifes since they cause moredamage than good (Hansen and Sodarak 1997).

Intercropping and undergrowthIn one study done in Java it was advised not to interplant teak with other tree species because of theirdense canopies. Teak is sensitive to root competition and teak branches heavily in mixed stands. Anexception is Leucauena gauca because it is a green-manure crop and supplies nitrogen, keeps outweed growth and prevents erosion.

Undergrowth is important for preventing soil erosion under pure teak stands. It also helps to controldefoliation and to maintain soil fertility (Kadambi 1972).

DimensionKurt Hansen et al. (1997) surveyed teak in northern Laos concerning its growing patterns and at whichage it reaches a certain dimension. When younger than 20 years very few logs reach a diameter of20cm and far fewer 30cm. By 20 years generally 10% of the trees have a diameter that reaches orexceeds 30cm and 40% have a diameter between 20 and 30cm. Corresponding figures are for 25 years25 and 45%, for 30 years 50 and 25% and for 35 years 60 and 15%.

2.3 Teak in Laos

The eastern limit of teak's natural distribution is believed to be in Laos. The largest natural areas occurin the Sayabouli Province, where there may be 10-20,000 ha of mixed deciduous forest with teakinclusion. Small areas of teak are also found in the Bokeo Province (Hansen et al. 1997).

2.3.1 History

Teak has long been grown by farmers in the area of Luangprabang in the northern part of Laos. Before1975, tree planting was very limited because there was an ample wood supply from the natural forest.The export opportunities were also limited because of the political situation, and by the lack of portsand infrastructure. Even despite this, the Department of Forestry and Water (DFW) started a teakplantation programme already in 1950. Those plantations were established by shifting cultivators onland belonging to the DFW using the taungya system (planting forest in conjunction with anagricultural crop). The farmers took care of the plantation during the first 2 years and interplanted teakwith cash crops, mainly rice. After the farmers had harvested the cash crops, DFW took over theownership and management of the plantation. At this time, teak was mostly planted in the south ofLaos, and amounted to around 1500 ha. Some teak was also planted up in the northern part around theLuangprabang area already at this time. It was the French colonial regime that promoted this. Thoseplantations were established along the main rivers near Luangprabang. The reason for this was thatthose villages along the rivers were permanent, unlike the predominantly shifting cultivation villages

Background


20040108

8

in the uplands. Other reasons for choosing those villages were teak's suitability for boat constructionand because the river could transport the logs (Hansen et al. 1997).

After the revolution in 1975, a central economy was adopted and the authorities took the ownership ofall land. Farm collectives and state farms were introduced. The state forest enterprises were given theresponsibility for logging and tree plantations. During this time the Government attempted moreambitious plantation programmes in all provinces. Since the late 1980's, farmers have greatlyexpanded the teak plantations, especially in the Luangprabang area due to better infrastructure(Hansen et al. 1997).

Table 1. Teak plantations (ha) established in the Luangprabang province, 1975-1999

Source: PFO 2000.

There was one boom in teak planting 1988 (Table 1), and later on an even bigger one in 1996.After that, planting decreased due to different reasons, most of them political.

Year Government Farmers Total1975 1.5 1.5 3

1976 3 14 171977 2 15 17

1978 4 15 191979 2 1 31980 3 12 15

1981 14 12 261982 2 7 91983 2 6 8

1984 7 37 441985 12 13 25

1986 25 33 581987 32 57 891988 69 219 288

1989 61 473 5341990 33 153 1851991 7 212 219

1992 5 228 2331993 34 273 307

1994 51 635 6861995 25 616 6411996 16 2198 2214

1997 25 543 5681998 31 778 8091999 820

Total 467 6552 7837

Background


20040108

9

2.3.2 Laws and government• In 1992, the government started to encourage the farmers to plant teak and DAFO representativeshave been to several villages in the area to inform the farmers about the benefits of growing teak andhow to plant. The reason is that farmers were no longer allowed to cut wood from the natural forest(DAFO, pers.comm.2000).

• Land allocation started in the Luangprabang area in 1996 and is a system where all farmers get acertain amount of land, depending on how much labour there is in the family. It also depends on howbig the village is and how much land there is to split between the inhabitants (DAFO, pers.comm.2000). A family can get up to 4 plots (0.5-1 ha each) of land allocated for shifting cultivation and theycan also obtain one hectare of land for production of perennials (Hansen et al. 1997). Many farmerstook advantage of this by planting teak before the allocation was carried out in their village. Thismeant that they got land allocated for the purpose of growing cash crops, but at the same time theywere allowed to keep the plots that were previously planted with teak. This was an easy way to obtainmore land. Farmers that had already sold their plantations before the land allocation was carried out intheir village obtained less land. It was also a big disadvantage for farmers in the villages where theallocation first took place because those farmers did not know how it worked and did not have time toplant teak to gain more land. Previously, they had always been able to slash and burn new areas whenthey did not have enough land for growing food. The point with land allocation is that farmers shallhave enough land to cultivate food on, but not more. If a family got three plots allocated to them theyhad to use at least one of them at a time in order not to have to pay for it.

Fees to pay if land is not in use:Year 1 20,000 kip (7500 kip=1US$)Year 2 40,000 kipYear 3 The government takes the land

The land must be returned to the government if a plot is in fallow for more than 5 years. Due to this,many farmers plant teak on the plots they do not need at the moment in order to be able to keep themfor the future (DAFO, pers.comm.2000).

There will be a follow-up programme after land allocation is finished in all villages. In order to findout if the farmers are using all the plots that they got allocated. If they are, they will get a realcertificate for each plot, after which it is up to each farmer to do what he wants with the land.

• 1997, New legislation; no tax if more than 1100 trees/ha are planted. The tax had been 2500kip/plot of teak a year before (DAFO pers.comm., 2000). It is only allowed on land steeper than 25%(DAFO, pers.comm. 2000). The definition for agricultural land is that slope steepness is less than12%. Land with slope steepness between 12-25% is most suited for fruit trees, and with more than25% for forestry (Tuckson 1998). This new law was created because many farmers planted teak onflat land that is more suitable for rice production (DAFO, pers.comm.2000). Staff apparently also hasthe authority request trees on agricultural land to be removed. This has not occurred yet but mighthappen in the future (DAFO, pers.comm. 2000).

• 1997, New legislation; farmers are only allowed to sell teak trees to investors, not the land. Manyfarmers saw a chance to get a quick income by planting teak on land close to roads and rivers and thensell it after 3 years to investors in Luangprabang and Vientiane. This led to many farmers not havingenough land to grow food on. If a farmer sells the land before getting the real certificate, thegovernment will confiscate the land. Even they do not sell the teak with the land, the land will notbelong to the farmer after the harvest; it will then belong to the village. Those plots will then beallocated to families that have moved to the village or families that are in great need of more land(DAFO, pers.com., 2000).

Background


20040108

10

• Expansion of the road system. This made it possible for many new farmers to plant teak because ithas to be close to a road or a river for transportation after harvest. Also, the investors are not interestedin buying teak far away from the road. However, small-scale teak planting for home construction mayincrease even in remote areas since they are not allowed to cut natural forest (Hansen et at 1997).

• Farmers can use teak plantations as collateral for credit. They can get 40-60% of the estimatedvalue of plantation. A three year old plantation of one hectare could qualify for a loan of 7,500,000-11,250,000 kip, equal to 1000-1500 US$ (Hansen et al. 1997).

• To be able to know how many teak plantations and how much timber there is in the region, DAFOwill start to sell certificates to farmers. These will cost 3500 kip per plot. The purpose of this is to findout how much timber that is smuggled out of the country, mainly to Vietnam. The certificates will alsomake it easier to sell, trade and give away land (DAFO, pers.comm. 2000).

Materials and methods


20040108

11

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Studied villages and plantations

This study was carried out in 7 different villages close to the city of Luangprabang. The reason forselecting these villages was that the farmers had teak plantations that were suitable for this study.Selection criteria for plantations were:• Dense and uniform plantation with spacing off at least 3*3m.• Around 10 years of age.• No thinning.• Decent area with the possibility to measure three plots (the average plot is 0.5-1 ha) within eachstand.

Figure 2. Location of the 7 villages (black circles on the map) where teak plantations weresurveyed.



20040108

12

3.2 Volume on three kinds of slopes

The number of selected plantations were 9 for flat land 10 for gentle slope and 10 for steep slope. Thedefinitions of slope categories are:

1. Flat land 0-2%

2. Gentle slopes 2-25%

3. Steep slopes >25%

3.2.1 Description of stand

Height: Three trees were measured with a hypsometer in each plantation. The trees selected werethose with dominant height.

Basal area: Determined as the area of three relascope measurements per stand.

DBH: (Diameter at breast height) All trees that were in each plot for basal area were measured at theheight of 1.3 m above ground level with a caliper.

Volume: Volume (m3) = form factor * height (m)* basal area (m2)The form factor used was 0.45, being the form factor used in the report Rural micro-projectsprogramme in Luangprabang Province, 1995.

Age: Information on plantation age in years was received by the owner.

Spacing: Distance between stems in meters.

Undergrowth: Was assessed according to a scale that was created for this study.

1. Almost no undergrowth

2. Undergrowth but the forest floor still visible.

3. Dense undergrowth, forest floor not visible.

Erosion: Was assessed according to a scale that was created for this study.

1. No erosion; no signs of removal of topsoil.

2. Some erosion; leaves have been washed away.

3. Erosion; leaves have been washed away, bare roots and/or stones can be seen.

4. Heavy erosion; leaves have been washed away, bare roots, stones and bedrock can be seen.

When analysing the result of erosion in relation with undergrowth, only results from erosion grades 1-3 were used since there were only two measurements for erosion with grade 4, which is too little to betaken into consideration.

Evaluation of teak growth

The volumes for all the investigated stands were calculated at a reference age of 17 years in order toenabled a comparison of site productivity of stands with different age. The reason for choosing 17years as a reference age that no one of the investigated stands were older than this value.



20040108

13

The CAI values (current annual increment) for each yield class were given in the Site Quality YieldTable in Technical Manual for Harvest Management in Teak Plantations (1995). The CAI value wasthen added to the presented standing volume up to the reference age of 17 years. Example: If onestand was 11 years old, had a volume of 85 m3 and a CAI value of 9 m3 per year, then at the age of 17years this stands would have a volume of 85+9*6=139 m3 per ha.

After the volumes of all plantations were calculated at the age of 17, the average was taken for eachslope category and a T-test was run to see if there were significant differences. More informationabout T-test can be found on page 19. The method gave, on average, 150 m3 per ha at an age of 17years. This was a somewhat higher value than reported by Hansen et al. (1997). Their result from astudy of teak in Laos was 130 m3 per ha for a 25-year rotation. However, in this report, 150 m3 per hawill be used as an average.

3.3 Soil survey

From 29 plantations surveyed, 9 were sampled and analysed. For each slope category, three standswere selected so that one represented the highest production, one the average and one the lowestproduction per slope category. For each of these stands, samples from five sampling points were takenfrom 0-15cm. The samples were bulked into a composite sample per plot (total 9 composite samples).An additional sample was taken in each stand in one of the sampling plots at the depth of lm. Inaddition to these 9 stands, an extra stand was selected with one flat part and one steep-slope part.These two parts were sampled as above, i e, 5 samples from 0-25cm and one sample at 100cm.Altogether 22 samples were analysed.

• Soil texture by mechanical analysis according to the FAO-texture classes.• Soil reaction as pH in water by ORSTOM's method (20g of soil in 50 ml H2O)• Organic carbon content in soil by TURIN's method (K2Cr2O7 in H2SO4.6H2O). Organic matter

concentration was determination by multiplying organic carbon by 1.724.• Total nitrogen content in soil by KJELDAHL's method.• Carbon/nitrogen (CN ratio)• Total phosphorus content by ORSTROM'S method (Sulphuric and perchloride acid digestion and

reading by colorimeter wavelength 420 nm)• Total potassium content by ORSTROM'S method (Sulphuric perchloride acid digestion; leave the

samples for about 4 days and reading on flame photometer)• Cation exchange capacity (CEC) and adsorbed cations (cmolckg-1). Determination of

exchangeable cation content in soil by ORSTROM'S method (extraction in 1N ammonium acetateat pH=7). Calcium Ca2+ and magnesium Mg2+ reading by AAS; Potassium (K+) and sodium (Na+)reading by flame photometer.

• Base saturation, %BS: (CEC-S)*100/CEC-TCEC-S total amount exchangeable base cations in soil (CEC-S = Ca²+-FMg² + K+ +Na+)cmolckg-1.CEC-T exchangeable cations in soil in cmolckg-1.

• Hh- Exchangeable acidity in cmolckg-1.

3.4 T-test

The T-test was used on all data collected for the soil survey, growing yield, erosion and undergrowth.The T-test used was a two tailed test for two populations with different variance because the variance(max variance/min variance) for the different categories is >2.5. The T-tests were run in Excel'sstatistical program.



20040108

14

3.4.1 Result

• P <0.05: 95% chance that the two samples are significantly different.• P <0.01 : 99% chance that the two samples are significantly different.• P >0.05 : the two samples are not significantly different.

3.5 Interviews

Interviews with 36 different people were carried out. Of these were 24 with farmers owning the teakplantations where the volume measurements have taken place, 6 with farmers not owning teakplantations, 3 with farmers that had sold their teak plantations and the last 3 were carried out withinvestors that had bought teak plantations from farmers. Three different questionnaires were designed,depending on which category to interview. Since most people in the studied villages were farmers andtherefore spend most of their day out in the field it was hard to get in contact with them. In thosecases, interviews were made with their wife/husband or a relative instead. The number of interviewsdoes not match the number of plantations. This is because some owners had more than one plantationand that it in other cases was impossible to find the owner.

The procedure used during interviews was a questioning methodology with the help of an interpreter(Mr. Thangsamai). In the beginning of each interview, RRA (rapid rural appraisal) methods wereused. Farmers were asked to draw a map of their land and specify what kind of crops that werecultivated on each plot. The intention was to learn how much land the farmers owned and to describetheir economic status.

3.5.1 Problems

There was one problem with the result interpretation from the interviews made with farmers thatowned the teak plantations. The plantations in this study were selected so that they all were around 11years old. This led to that almost all farmers answered that they had enough land to grow food on.This was because these farmers established their teak plantations before the land allocation wascarried out. They were consequently compensated with new land during the allocation and they hadnow a fairly good economical situation. But there is a big problem in the northern part of Laos withfarmers that planted teak in the 1990s after land allocation. These farmers were not given any newland to compensate for the loss of agricultural land due to the teak plantations. Therefore, an interviewwas made with one of the staff members of the Training Centre in order to get information on thepresent situation at village level.

3.6 Currency

The currency unit in Laos is kip. The conversion rate at the time of the field work in this study was7500 kip per US$.

Results


20040108

15

4 Results

4.1 Teak growth

The teak growth was measured for all stands and transformed to a reference age of 17 years with thehelp of a yield table created for teak in Laos. The result shows that there was a significant differencein growth between flat land and steep slope and between gentle slopes and steep slopes (fig.3). Themean accumulated growth for all sites was 150 m3 per ha. The values do not necessarily represent thetotal potential production because rotation periods may amount to 25 years.

Figure 3. The average yield of teak at an age of 17 years on flat, gentle and steep slopes.Columns with different letters differ statistically significantly (5% level*).

Results


20040108

16

4.2 Erosion

Erosion was increasing with the steepness of the slope. There was a significant difference betweenslope category and erosion (fig.2). There was also a correlation between undergrowth and erosion.Stands with less undergrowth had high erosion. The undergrowth is important to bind the soil. Withdense undergrowth it is much harder for the soil to erode.

Figure 4. Mean erosion class at differentslope category. Columns with differentletters differ statistically significantly (5%level*).

Figure 5. Mean undergrowth class atdifferent erosion class. Columns withdifferent letters differ statisticallysignificantly (5% level*).

4.3 Soil properties

On flat land and gentle slope the texture varied from sandy-clay-loam to clay both at 0-25 cm and at100cm depth. At steep slopes, there were clay at 0-25 cm depth and clay-loam to clay at the depth of100cm (Table 2).

Table 2. Texture on different slopes

Slope Texture 0-25cm Texture at 100cm depth

Flat clay loam clay loam

Flat clay loam sandy clay loamFlat sandy clay loam clay loamGentle clay loam clayGentle clay clay loam

Gentle sandy clay loam loamSteep clay claySteep clay clay loamSteep clay clay

Extra, steep clay loam clay loamExtra, flat clay loam clay

Results


20040108

17

4.3.1 Exchangeable cations and pH

The amounts of base cations were varying but there were no significant differences between slopecategories (Table 3).

Table 3. Average amount of nutrients on different slopes, cmolckg-1

Slope Na Ca Mg KFlat 0.20 5.08 1.60 0.27Gentle 0.20 3.93 1.83 0.18Steep 0.20 4.08 1.73 0.17

No significant differences were recorded for pH, CEC and BS (base saturation). The BS was closelycorrelated with pH. The reason for this is that when BS is increasing the percentage of H+ an Al3+ isdecreasing which gives a higher pH. The high BS values indicate that the soil might be fertile (Nyle etal. 1999).

Figure 6. Average values for pH, CEC (cmolckg-1) and BS% on different slopes.

4.3.2 Carbon and nitrogen

There was an indication that the concentration of carbon was higher on flat land than on steep slopebut the differences were not significant (fig. 7). Nor were there any significant differences fornitrogen. The carbon content corresponds to 1.8% organic matter. There was also a trend that the CNratios were higher on steep slopes compared with flat land (fig. 8) but no significant differences wererecorded. The low CN ratios, i.e. far below 20, indicated that a high net mineralisation rate of nitrogenmight occur during the decomposition of organic matter. However, the content of organic matter waslow and it is likely, on an area base, that the supplies of plant-available nitrogen were low.

Results


20040108

18

Figure 7. Mean C and N concentrations inthe soil at different slope category (%)

Figure 8. Mean CN ratio in the soil atdifferent slope category.

4.3.3 Comparison of two stands with the same parent material

There was a higher growth rate on flat land compared with steep slopes, while the amount of nutrientswas either equal or not particularly different. There were more organic materials on flat land. Thisresulted in higher CEC values because soil organic matter generally has a high surface charge.

Table 4. Two stands, one on flat land and one on steep slope, with the same parentmaterial

Flat m3 pH C/N N

%

Mg

(colckg-1)

Ca

(colckg-1)

K

(colckg-1)

Na

(colckg-1)

Flat 126 5.39 7.0 0.14 1.5 4.5 0.17 0.19

Steep 106 5.80 7.0 0.14 0.8 4.6 0.17 0.19

CEC

(comlckg-1

)

BS

%

C

%

Texture Erosion class

Flat 12.06 52.74 0.98 Clay-loam 1

Steep 9.51 60.57 0.98 Clay-loam 2

Results


20040108

19

4.4 Interviews

4.4.1 Farmers with teak

Interviews were made with farmers owning the teak plantations and as shown in table 5 most of themhad a low but reasonable level economy. Only one farmer could afford a car, but the numbers ofbuffaloes and other animals such as chickens, pigs, ducks and turkeys were high among those farmers.They had on average 5 plots for cash crops and 2.6 plots of teak plantations and in addition to this theyhad an average of 1.2 plots of paddy fields for rice production. On the question "if they had enoughfood to eat" (table 6) 23 out of 24 answered yes. All farmers interviewed answered that they couldafford to set aside land for 25 years and most of them will continue to grow teak on their plots afterharvest (table 6).

Table 5. Economical status of teak-growing farmers. Altogether 24 farmers wereinterviewed

PropertyNumber of farmersowning such property

Average amount per farmer family

Car 1 1Bike 17 1.8Motorbike 8 1.4Boat 3 1Buffalo 17 4.3Chicken 17 61.8Pig 9 2.2Turkey 6 7.3Ducks 11 11.4

Plots of land 5Plots of land with teak 2.6Paddy fields 1.2

Table 6. Questions answered by farmers owning teak

Reasons for planting teak, ranking 1-3. (*1)

1. Timber for house constructions (either for themselves or their children)

2. To sell timber

3. To occupy land

Selection criteria for teak plotsThe soil is no good for hill rice 50%Do not know. 4%The land was fallow at that time when the decision was made 8%Wanted teak and did not care where they planted 8%Only one site to choose 18%No irigation, can not have paddy field 4%The site is too close to the house, chickens eat the rice 8%Intercropped (*2)Yes 79%No 21%

Results


20040108

20

Where did you get the stumpsPrepared by themselves 71%Bought from the government 17%Got them for free from the government 12%Did the soil influence your choice of landYes, the soil is no good 63%Yes, the soil is good 25%No 12%Have you pruned (*3)Yes 25%No 75%

Have you thinnedYes 25%No 75%How can you afford to set aside land for 25 yearsHave enough land to grow food on 87%Can not afford 0%Buys food from the market but have their own rice 9%Buys all their food from the market 4%Have you taken any loans (*4)No 100%Did you get any advice how to plantYes 46%No 42%Work for the forestry section of the government 12%Have you been influenced by the government to plant teakYes 83%No 17%Why teak and not fruit treesWanted teak 39%More money with teak 4%Fruit trees are no good 13%

There were no friuit trees 4%Have enough fruit trees 31%The site is too far away, thieves would have stolen the fruit 9%Any problems with the plantation during the rotation (*5)Yes 61%No 39%Do you have enough food to eatYes 96%No 4%Will you grow teak again (*6)Yes 83%No 17%

*1. When asked why they had planted teak the distribution of the answers were:

- 12 farmers gave the answers in this order. House construction, sell timber, occupy land

- 8 farmers said it was only because of house construction and selling.

- 1 farmer said that the main reasons were to occupy land, then for house construction and ifsomething was left they would sell it.

Results


20040108

21

- 1 farmer just planted teak since every one else did it and had not yet decided what to use it for.

When asked if the reason for planting teak had changed 23 out of 24 farmers answered no. The reasonthat one farmer answered yes was that he was going to sell the plantation.

*2. The main crops used when inter-planting were rice, pineapple and bananas. But also coffee andpaper mulberry existed

*3. DAFO have had big meetings with farmers in the villages to promote pruning and thinning.Farmers were informed about the advantage from it. However, farmers did not want to cut down treesthat are healthy and still growing. Farmers that answered yes to the two questions if they have thinnedand pruned have not done thinning and pruning systematically to gain a higher production in the teakstand. What they have done is to remove branches here and there and the same with dead trees.

*4. All farmers answered that they had taken no loans for planting teak. The man in charge of theloans confirmed that so far no one had taken any loans for planting teak.

*5. Farmers answering that problems had occurred during the rotation had had problems with:

- 9 farmers have had buffaloes coming into their plantation destroying young teak trees.

- 1 farmer got all the stumps stolen, had to replant.

- I farmer had a landslide through his plantation.

- 3 farmers had problems with defoliators.

- I farmer had to beet up.

*6. All farmers that answered yes to the question if they are going to continue with teak are all goingto carry on with teak on the same land as they use today.

4.4.2 People without teak

Only six families that do not own teak were interviewed. It was not possible to find more familiesbecause in most villages all farmers had planted at least some teak. Background facts for those six are:

One woman works for the Training Centre and has no family. She is not allowed to own any landsince she has no spare labour that can work there. She finds this sad and would have liked to have aplot to grow fruit trees on.

Another woman previously had four more plots of land but gave them away to avoid paying tax sinceshe did not use them anymore.

One farmer is very old but if he and his wife had had labour they would have planted teak.

Two families do not have enough land to grow food on and because of this the government does notallow them to plant teak.

Another family had had more land previously but sold it to get money because a family member gotsick.

Also the head of Pic Noy village was interviewed and according to him there were only three familiesin the village that did not own teak. Those farmers were out on their fields that day so it was notpossible to interview them. The reason why those farmers do not have teak is that they do not haveenough land to grow food on.

Results


20040108

22

A Lao Theung man living in a village up in the mountains, 3 hours from nearest road, was asked whyhe had not planted teak. The answer was: It is too far away from roads or rivers, would cost too muchto take the timber out. If the road system would expand in the future then he would consider plantingteak.

Table 7. Economic status for 6 families not owning teak

Property Number of families

owning such property

Average amount per family that own

things listed

Chicken 5 3.7Buffalo 1 2Pig 2 1.5Duck 1 6

Plots of land 5 1.8Paddy field 0 0

Table 8. Questions answered by families not owning teak plantations

Do you want teakYes 67%No 33%Do you want more land (*1)Yes 67%No 33%What do you grow on your land todayRice 100%

*1. People answering that they wanted more land would use it for:

- 1 would plant fruit trees.

- 1 would plant teak.

- 2 would grow food crops.

4.4.3 Farmers that have sold their teak plantations

Of the interviewed families, only three had sold their teak plantations.

Farmer 1This farmer had sold two out of five plots of teak to two different investors. When they decided to sellthey asked around trying to find a buyer. That was how they found Mr. A and Mr. C (see section4.4.4). The reason for selling was that they needed money to buy other things. They bought:

• Motorbike• Paddy field• Materials to build a house

The reasons for planting teak in the first place were to occupy land and to avoid paying tax for land infallow. This family had 8 plots of land and they could not use all of it at the same time. Therefore,they decided to plant teak on 5 plots.

When asked if they have enough land to grow food on today the answer was no. They have only twoplots for cash crops and one small paddy field, 0.5 ha. They would need one more plot to rotate with.If they had not planted teak they would only have got three plots allocated, but now they got 5 plots

Results


20040108

23

with teak as well. Even if they say that they have too little land to grow food on, they still did notseem to want to cut down any of the remaining 3 plots of teak and convert the land to cash-cropsinstead.

According to farmers, many farmers in this village planted teak before the land allocation was carriedout in the village in 1998.

Farmer 2This farmer got 4 plots of land allocated when the land allocation team came to this village in 1997.Two plots of these were planted with teak, one with bananas and one was a paddy field. One of theteak plots had already been sold to an investor in Luangprabang and the farmerwas planning to sell the other teak plantation to a cousin that lived in Luangprabang. He has offeredthem 4,000,000 kip (533 US$) including the land. The plantation was 1.5 ha and 6 years old.

The teak plot that was sold some years ago was clear-cut the year of the study (2000). The new owneroffered the farmer to buy the land back for 500,000 kip (66 US$). The area was 1 ha. He accepted andwas now going to replant it with teak again. The government does not know that he sold the teakplantation with the land.

Farmer 3This farmer was the head of the village. He bought the plantation in 1975 for 4500 kip since both theprice and land were good. But in 1993 he sold the plantation to a friend of his in Vientiane whowanted to buy teak as an investment. At this time, his own son wanted to study law in Vientiane.Selling off the plantation enabled him to afford the expenses for his son's education.

4.4.4 Investors that have bought teak plantations

Three people that have bought teak plantations were interviewed

Mr AMr A is a businessman and has bought teak in the area around Luangprabang. To start with, he ownedone plot of teak himself but has now bought 4 more. He also had 1 plot of fruit trees and one fishpond.Reasons for buying teak were needs for his children's house construction and for selling. He onlybought plantations along the road because it is easier to get the timber out when harvested and his planis to cut it at the age of 30 years. During the rotation he will thin and prune to get higher quality.

Even if the law says that investors can not buy the land, this is what happens most of the time. Thisman has made a special contract with the farmer. The deal is that as soon as the farmer gets the realcertificate it will belong to Mr. A. An interview has also been made with the farmer that sold theplantation and according to him this is not the case. He claimed that he had only sold the teak trees.

Mr. A has no time himself to take care of the plantation. Therefore he has hired the former owner andhis family to take care of it. He pays them 50,000 kip (6.5 US$) a year for this.

Farmers come to him every now and then and ask if he wants to buy their plantation. The pricedepends on how urgent the farmer is to sell.

Mrs BThis woman worked in a pharmacy and the reasons for buying teak was: needs for children's houseconstruction and to sell the timber. She had bought 3 plots of teak (1990, 1994 and in 1996) andDAFO has already given her the real certificate for the land and this is enough land for her and herfamily. She does not want to buy more. In these three cases, she bought land because farmers cameand asked her to buy their land. Her plan for the future is to continue to grow teak on the land.

Results


20040108

24

Mr CThis man was the owner of a shop. He had bought 10 plantations from different farmers in the areaand intended to buy more. His criteria for buying was that the plantation should be old enough to havea tree diameter of at least 15cm in diameter, and it should be close to the road. He would not buy anyplantation that was more than 5-10 minutes walk from the road, because it is too difficult to harvest.The reason why he only buys plantations with trees exceeding a diameter of 15cm was that he wasafraid that the government would tell him to immediately cut it all down and force him to return theland. By only having old plantations he would at least get some money out of it. In the beginning, hehimself went out to the villages to buy plantations but now farmers were coming to him and offeringhim their plantations. In these cases, the farmers set the price. The price always included the landexcept for one plot belonging to a farmer in Nam Pak village where the land will be returned to thefarmer again after Mr. C has harvested the teak trees. He claimed that he only buys a plantation if heknows that the farmer has enough land for growing cash crops. He will get the land certificate fromDAFO later on and for some of the plots he already had a real certificate.

Mr. C had no time himself to take care of the plantation. Therefore he paid the former owner to dothis. The work includes weeding but no thinning or pruning and he paid between 50,000-180,000 kipper plot (6.5-24 US$) a year for this.

CommentsMr. C gave us some names of people that have invested money in teak plantations. According to him,there were at least 5 more in Luangprabang that he knew about. When we approached them and askedfor an interview they told us that we had got the wrong information and that they owned no teak.

4.4.5 Case studies

When land allocation first started, people in the villages did not really know what it meant. Previously,they had been able to farm any land they wanted. If they did not have enough land they could alwaysclear a new piece of land. But after land allocation, this is not possible anymore. The villages that gotland allocated late, or are still waiting for it, got an advantage, since they learned what to do to getmore land allocated. Many problems have occurred because of land allocation and farmers sellingtheir plantations. A lot of these farmers do not have enough land today to grow food on. The advisesgiven to those farmers from PFO are:

1. Weaving

2. Handicraft

3. Collect firewood to sell in the market.

4. Grow pineapple. There is still a good market for this.

Here are examples of what has happened in three villages after land allocation.

Huay Khot villageIn this village there were 31 households and 21 of them had sold their plantations to investors.Therefore they had today 1-2 plots of hill-rice per family, which was not enough to support them withfood. They complained to DAFO, but nothing happened. In order to get enough food to eat thefarmers then cut down 4.5 ha of forest without permission. Because of this DAFO had to punish them.They had to replant the whole area with teak and Pterocarpus macrocapus and take care of it for threeyears. DAFO pays for the tree seedlings and the plantation will belong to the government. During thefirst three years the farmers were allowed to interplant with rice, bananas or paper mulberry and keepthe harvests. If they neglect the plantation DAFO would charge them for the cost of the seedlings(DAFO, pers.comm., 2000).

Results


20040108

25

Nak Ha villageThere were 40 families in this village and they have had a total of 146 plots of land of which 52 wereplanted with teak. However, before the land allocation was carried out in Nak Ha village in 1998 theyhad already sold 33 plots of the 52 teak plots, and after allocation they sold another 4. Today, thisvillage has not enough land to grow food on. One farmer slashed and burned a new area with thepermission of the head of the village, but because he did not ask DAFO for permission and since thetrees in the forest that he cut were 30cm in diameter he had to pay 400,000 kip to the government. Healso had to replant the area with teak that after three years will belong to the government. He willintercrop it with paper mulberry and the money he gets out from this will be used to pay the fine. Butthis man was not upset since he got more than 400,000 kip for the firewood he took from the area aftercutting when he sold it in the market. This was the first case for DAFO and if it happens again theywill have to introduce a more severe punishment (Training centre, pers.comm.,2000).

Huay Khan villageThere were 34 households in this village and they had 10 ha of paddy fields, 80 ha of hill-rice, 0.2 haof paper mulberry, 10 ha of teak and some fruit trees on the marginal land. But this was not enoughland to grow food on. The reason for this was that the farmers in the village in 1996 had sold off 17 ha(18 plots) to a man, Mr. Boula. Before land allocation in 1998 the farmers planted teak for him and hepaid them 200,000 kip per ha and year for the first 5 years. What the farmers did was legal at thattime. They were according to the law allowed to own 3 ha of trees and 5 ha of rice. However, duringthe land allocation they did not get enough land to cover their food needs due to that they had sold somuch land to Mr. Boula. PFO was aware of the problem and is probably going to force Mr. Boula togive the land back to the village when the teak is harvested after ca. 25 years, despite the fact that helegally bought the teak plantations including the land.

The law states that one person can own a maximum of• 3 ha of tree plantations• 5 ha of rice• 16 ha of grass land for grazing

If a person owns more it is regarded as renting land and he has to pay a higher fee for this than thenormal land tax. Mr. Boula owned 17 ha of teak, which means that he had to pay a renting fee. He hasbeen told to do this but has not yet showed up (Training centre, pers. comm. 2000).

4.5 Economy

4.5.1 Investment costs for the establishment

• Plants: For free if they prepare stumps by themselves. If they buy them it costs 200 kip (0.026US$) a stump in year 2000 but those stumps were not prepared and cut (DAFO, pers. comm. 2000).Farmers could make money by collecting seeds that they sold to PFO for 1500 kip per kg (0.2 US$).• Fence: Many farmers used wood that is free but wire was also used and they paid between 50,000-150,000 kip per plot (6.5-20 US$) for this.

4.5.2 Labour costs

Time spent in the plantation was hard to estimate because many farmers did not record or remember.Some of them even did not answer all the questions. However, the following number of man dayswould in general be needed per ha:• Planting: On average 8 man days.• Fencing: On average 10 man days.• Weeding: On average 6 man days three times a year for 2-3 years, i.e. in total 36 to 54 man days.After that most farmers continue removing French grass at least until the age of 5, but some continue.• Pruning: Done by very few farmers, on average, two man days during one year.

Results


20040108

26

• Thinning: Done by very few farmers, on average, one man day at the age of five years.Average: Year one: 36 man days.

Years two and three: 18 man days per year.In subsequent years it is up to the farmer if he wants to continue weeding,pruning, thining, etc.

4.5.3 Selling plantations

Farmers were selling their plantations for very varying amounts depending on their need for cash. Onaverage, the price was between 1,000,000-4,000,000 kip (130-530 US$) for a hectare of teak that wasaround 3 years old and planted close to the roads or rivers. This price refer to the standing forest, i.e.cutting costs was paid by the buyer.

4.5.4 Selling timber

The most common situation when farmers were going to harvest their teak was that a middleman whois working on his own or for a sawmill came to the village and offered them a price. Farmers werepaid per tree. About four trees are equal to one cubic meter. The price they got was 450,000-700,000kip per m3 (60-90 US$) for timber that is at least 25cm in diameter. If the business man was workingon his own he usually sold the timber for 975,000-1,050,000 kip per m3(130-140 US$) to a provincialsawmill. Another option was to take the timber down to Vientiane and sell it to a sawmill there for1,670,000 kip per m3 (220 US$). Transportation down to Vientiane costed 273,600 kip per m3 (36US$) and it was possible to load 8 m3 per truck (NEDECO 1995). After the timber has been processedin the saw industry it was possible to sell it on the export market for 2,625,000-4,500,000 kip per m3

(350-600 US$).

When teak on government land was cut there was a bidding system. All sawmills that were interestedcould quote their price. The one that put the highest bid got the timber. Data on prices from thecompany that paid most and also data of what different sawmills, on average, were bidding arepresented in Table 9 (PFO, pers.comm. 2000).

Table 9. Quotes on timber from state plantations, made by different sawmills, for differentDBH (diameter at breast height) classes

DBH 7-9 cm

kip/m3 US$/m3

20-35 cm

kip/m3 US$/m3

>36 cm

kip/m3 US$/m3

Paid most 280,000 37 700000 93 1429000 190

On average 250,000 33 600000 80 1000000 133

The volume of teak sold by farmers out in the villages the year 2000 amounted to 1,092 m3 and bygovernment 143 m3. Businessmen that bought teak from farmers had to pay 15,000 kip per m3 (2 US$)to the government for replanting (PFO, pers.comm., 2000). Logging costs were assumed to vary from112,500 kip per m3 (15 US$) for the youngest thinnings up to 225,000 kip per m3 (30 US$) for latethinnings and clear-cuttings (Hansen and Sodarak 1997).

Before it is time for harvest the farmer can thin the stand and gain some firewood and poles to sell.

4.5.5 Fees to be paid when selling teak

Farmers had to pay 5% of their income to the government in taxes. This tax was collected by a personin the village who is the Forest Village Volunteer (FVV). The collected tax money was then used fordifferent purposes: The people in the village got 50% back. This money, except for 10% that was paidto the FVV as salary, was used to develop the village. The other 50% went to the government district(PFO, pers. comm. 2000).

Results


20040108

27

The 5% income tax was paid by everyone who owned money. If the middlemen were employed by asawmill they only paid 5% of their income when selling the wood after processing. But if they wereindependent both they and the sawmill had to pay 5% of the income (PFO, pers. comm. 2000).

4.6 Rice

4.6.1 Erosion

Rice production on steep slopes is leading to erosion. Observations made on a first year rice fieldshowed that there was a lot of exposed soil and already at this stage it was possible to see an increasederosion trend. Observations on a second year rice field on a steep slope showed erosion thatcorresponded to grade 3 on the erosion scale.

4.6.2 Economy and labour

Labour for growing rice (paddy) was 200 days a year per rice field. One field was 0.5-1 ha. Often theyonly have one year of rice production because in the second year there are more weeds, the riceproduction decreases and labour input increases (Overgoor, pers. comm. 2000).

The production rate of rate is assessed to about 1400 kg per ha. The market price for rice was around1000 kip per kg, equal to 0.13 US$ (Hansen et al. 1997).

4.7 Pineapple

Pineapple can be grown as a monoculture but also intercropped with teak. There can be 20,000pineapple plants per hectare. In year one and two there are only pineapple plants. Not until year threeit is time to intercrop with teak, and this is the first year when the pineapple plants bear fruit. In thefirst and second year of fruit bearing, the pineapples are of big size and good quality as long as theyget weeded. In this case there is only one pineapple fruit per plant. If not weeded there will benumerous pineapples per sucker and all of them will be small and of poor quality. In year three andfour the pineapples decrease in size but are still possible to sell. The price that is possible to get forpineapples depends on how the farmers sell them. If they sell to a company and sign a contract theycan get 1000 kip per pineapple (0.13 US$). If they sell them themselves in the market they can get upto 2000 kip (0.26 US$), depending on the quality. They can sell the suckers as well for 250 kip each(0.03 USS). There are 20,000 suckers per hectare in the first year of fruit but in the following yearthere may be up to 50,000 suckers a hectare. The mortality rate each year is around 10 % (Farmer,pers. comm. 2000).

Discussion


20040108

28

5 Discussion

5.1 Teak growth and soil conditions

Teak growth was less on steep slopes than on flat land and erosion was increasing with the steepnessof the slope. There was also a connection between undergrowth and erosion, i.e. less erosion at moredense undergrowth. The reason might be that the plants bind soil particles and mitigate the destructiveimpact from rain drops, and that organic residues improves structure and infiltration rates.

The amount of organic material is lower on steeper slopes than on flat land, probably due to erosion oftopsoil rich in organic matter. Normally cation exchange capacity (CEC, includes base cations CA2+,Mg2+ K+, Na+ and the acid cations H+, Al3+) is positively correlated with the concentration of organicmatter. However this was not the case in this study, i.e CEC tended to be higher on the the steepslopes. This is most likely due to the fact that there was a difference in parent material between flatland and steep slopes. On the steeper slopes the soil texture was clay whereas on flat land it was clayloam to sandy clay loam. Soils with high amounts of clay have a higher ability to retain cations sincethe particles have a smaller size and therefore a bigger specific surface. This difference might affectthe CEC more than the amount of organic material (Nyle et al. 1999).

The CN ratio tended to be higher on steep and gentle slopes compared with flat land. The reason forthis could be that older and decomposed materials have eroded. Such material generally has a lowerCN ratio. That means that the material which is there today is newer, composed of for example leavesand twigs that just have started to decompose, and has a higher CN ratio. On flat land, the material hasbeen able to decompose without being washed away. This is consistent with the observation that theamount of organic matter tended to be higher on flat land than on steep slopes. There were nosiginificant differences for base cations but a tendency towards higher base saturation and pH on flatplots versus plots on steep land. This might be explained by the different degree of accumulation oforganic matter on the mineral surface. As a conclusion, not very much of interacion between stand andsoil properties could be proven. To some degree this might be due to the somewhat different texture. Itmight also be due to the young stand age whereby the processes have not been allowed to work for along time.

The analyses that were made in the stand with both flat land and a steep slope are interesting becauseat this plot the flat and steep land had approximately the same texture in the surface soil. The standanalyses showed that there was a higher growing yield on flat land than on steep slopes. This isconsistent with the observations on plots with different degree of steepness. Despite this, the amountof nutrients were within the plot with both flat land and steep slope either equal or not particularlydifferent from flat to steep. However, there was a tendency of more organic materials on flat land.This explains why there was a higher CEC. The base saturation was higher on steep slopes but thisdoes not mean that there were more base cations, only that the percentage of base cations of totalexchangeable cations (including H+ and Al3+) was higher on steep slopes than on flat land, whichleads to a higher pH on steep slopes.

The results do not give any specific reason why the yield is better on flat land than on steep slopes.This can not be explained by differences in nutrient contents in the soil. Possible reasons are the watersupplies on flat land versus lack of water on the steeper slopes. Even if teak prefers well-drained soils,it still needs a certain amount of water to get maximum growth. Another reason could be that the soiltexture and structure on flat land enables deeper rooting.

5.2 Farmers and investors

Today almost all farmers have started to plant teak, in most cases close to roads or rivers. The mainreasons are needs of wood for house construction, timber to sell and just to occupy land. It will be

Discussion


20040108

29

important for farmers to have their own timber-land, since they will not be allowed to cut any naturalforest. Some farmers living in villages where land allocation was allocated late or has not beenperformed yet have taken advantage of the system by planting teak on land that they did not need.Some even slashed and burned new areas and planted them with teak, just to get more land allocated.This is a disadvantage for farmers living in villages where land allocation started early, because theydid, at that time, not really understand what was going on. They therefore lacked ability to adapt to thesystem and to benefit from it. Today, there is in some villages huge problems because farmers haveplanted teak on their former cash crop land and in some cases even sold these plantations to investorsin the bigger cities. Rich people in the cities are taking advantage of poor farmers by offering them anamount of money that is big enough to be a real temptation for a farmer. But it is the businessmen thatmake the biggest profits.

The government is now trying to stop this by not allowing farmers to sell plantations including theland, only the teak trees. This is to make sure that at least the land remains within the village.Unfortunately, it does not work like that. The interviews showed that farmers are still selling theirplantations with the land. The only difference is that they are not telling the government. The deal isthat as soon as the farmer gets the real land certificate it will belong to the investor instead. In theHuay Khan village one man bought a lot of plantations with the land and the government is now goingto force him to return it after harvest, because the village no longer has enough land to grow food on.When trying to interview investors it was obvious that many of them were afraid that this mighthappen to them as well. Therefore some said that they did not own any plantations at all, even if weknew they did. The investors prefer to buy young plantations instead of older ones. However, one manthat was interviewed bought only plantations that were 15 years old. This was because of fear that thegovernment might force him to give the land back to the farmers, and if so, he wanted to gainsomething from the harvest.

Farmers have now planted a lot of teak both on their own initiative and because the governmentadviced or requested them to do so. The governmental authorities claim that they have tried to informfarmers of appropriate plantation management, but it does not seem to work. Today, very few privateplantations are pruned and thinned. This is something that should be done to get as high income aspossible out of them. Farmers are today removing some branches and dead trees here and there but notsystematically. However, this shows that there is a willingness from the farmers side side to take careof the plantation.

Discussion


20040108

30

5.2.1 Farmers without teak

Farmers not owning teak plantations were hard to find. Almost all farmers had at least some teak trees.The people without any teak plantations that were found for interviews were in most cases the poorestpeople in the village. Farmers owning teak had, on average, 5.0 plots of land, whereof 1.15 plots werepaddy fields. Of the 24 interviewed farmers 17 had at least one bike. In contrast, the more poor peoplewithout teak plantations had, on average, 1.8 plots of land and no paddy field or bike. When asked ifthey wanted to have teak plantations, 4 out of 6 answered yes. When asked if they wanted more land,the same people said yes, but when asked what they would use it for, only one answered that he wouldplant teak. The others would plant fruit trees and cash crops. This showed that these persons wouldlike to have teak, but that they have to think of more primary things like food for the day than aninvestment over 25 years.

Another reason cited why some families were neither growing teak, nor interested in growing teakwas the distance to roads or rivers. This was e.g. true for a Lao Theung man up in the mountains. Hesaid that he was not considering growing teak because it would cost too much to bring the timber fromthe plantation to the roads. If the infrastructure expands in the future then this will probably lead to anew boom in teak planting. This will have a negative effect on erosion. If new areas that today arecovered with forest are going to be slashed and burned and replanted with teak it will increase theerosion. Teak is just as good and sometimes better than cash crops with regards to erosion, but incomparison with natural forest it can not compete.

5.3 Economy

Teak is a very valuable resource. However, the farmers do not get a payment for the timber thatcorresponds to the real market value. The main reason for this seems to be that they are too depententon only one channel to the market, namely the inverstors. Most of the farmers even did not have anyidea of the real value of the teak timber. Despite this, the income is still very good for a farmer that isnot used to owning money.

5.3.1 Calculated economy for teak versus rice

TeakIt is possible to harvest approximately 150 m3 of wood per ha after a 25 year rotation period. Theaverage price a farmer could get was 575,000 kip per m3 (ca. 77 US$), though prices varied widely.The income therefore was around 86,250,000 kip per ha after 25 years. This is equal to 11,500 US$per ha (460 US$ per ha and year).

RiceThe production of rice is in average 1400 kg per ha, and the market value was ca.1000 kip per kg(0.13 US$). The normal cycle for a field with rice is 1 year with rice, followed by 3 years fallow. Acomparison of the income from teak versus rice must therefore take into consideration that only ca. 6years of a 25-year period could be used for rice production. The accumulated income from rice overthe 25 years would therefore be 8,400,000 kip per ha, corresponding to1,120 US$. (45 US$ per ha andyear).

Discussion


20040108

31

Teak versus riceThe income from teak is much higher than the one from rice and the amount of labour spent is muchless. In a teak plantation it will cost the farmer 36 days per ha in year one for planting, fencing andweeding and 18 days per ha in years two and three. After that the farmer does not have to spend muchtime in the plantation provided he doesn't want to thin and prune. In total that makes 72 man days forthe income of 11,500 US$. Growing rice is much more time-consuming. On average, 300 days a yearis spent per ha (0.5-1 ha). In total 1800 man days (6 years) for the income of 1,120 US$. Oneadvantage with rice over teak is there is a more continues income. For teak, the landowner must waitup to 25 years. On the other hand, a teak plantation can be interplanted with pineapples. This can givethe farmer an extra cumulative income of 72,000,000 kip per ha equal to 9600 US$ in six years andthis is not including selling the suckers. Of course, the amount of labour increases by doing this, but itpays well. In conclusion teak planting is a good, profitable and less labour intensive land usealternative as compared with rice

5.4 Advice

The decision where to plant teak depends on the situation. The growing yield is higher on flat land butthe growth is not bad on steeper slopes either. Therefore, teak can very well be planted on slopessteeper than 25%.

Erosion is higher on steeper slopes than on flat land, but erosion is also higher on steep slopes withrice than on slopes planted with teak. From a soil management point of view, it is therefore better tohave teak on the steep slopes if the option is rice. Rice should be grown on flat land where it gives thehighest yield. But the ideal thing would, of course, be to have natural forest on the steeper slopes witha lot of undervegetation that binds the soil and prevents erosion. Unfortunately, this does not give asmuch and fast money as teak.

Farmers should weed the newly established teak plantation because teak is light-demanding tree. At anage of three to five years the stand is closed and weeding is not needed any longer and should actuallybe avoided. At this time the plants are big enough to suppress competitive vegetation on their own.Instead, the weeds will be a good understory to decrease erosion. Unfortunately, the extent ofundergrowth decreases naturally when the stand gets older, because of canopy closure and that toolittle light reaches the forest floor.

Farmers should only plant teak if they can afford to set aside land for at least 20 years. If they do havethe land, then teak is a good way of investing their money.

Farmers should think twice before selling their plantations. It is dangerous for farmers to think in ashort-termed way and to look only at the amount of money they can gain today by selling to investors.The farmers and their offspring will need the land also in the future.

All farmers should intercrop. It will give them an extra income during the first years and it alsoprevents erosion. Crops to choose depend on the market conditions, what is most beneficial at themoment and what the family is in need of. The survey conducted in this study shows that teakintercropped with pineapples gives a good income.

Spacing should depend on the situation. If the family has enough land to grow food on then 3*3 m isgood. If not, they can choose a wider spacing and thereby gain a longer period of intercropping.

The government should inform and educate farmers more about how to manage their stands, e.g. howto thin and prune and what advantage this will give them in a longer term.

The government should inform farmers of timber prices and what other options there are to selltimber.

References


20040108

32

6 References

Angelstarn, P., Gustafsson, B., Johansson, H. Loman, G., Mine11, H., Olsson, M., Ottosson, M.,Rodhe, A., Troedsson, T., Wiberg, L., Wiklander, G. and Särvik, B. 1997. Marken iskogslandskapet. Skogsstyrelsen.

Apichart Kaosa-ard, 1998. Teak plantation improvement and gene conservation in Lao P.D.R. FAO,FO:GCP/RAS/163/NET, Field document No.11.

Bandith Rammangkoun et al., 1995. Technical manual for harvest management in teakplantations. Silviculture Research Centre Department of Forestry, Laos.

Eijkens, R. & Masixonxay, P., 1997. Changing land use practices by farmers in Luangprabangprovince, Lao P.D.R. FAO-Laos and Department of Forestry, Vientiane. Support paper forposter presentation at the ICRAF workshop, Bogor, Indonesia.

FAO & TEAKNET, 1995. Teak for the future. RAP publication: 1998/5. TEAKNET Publication:No.1.

Hansen, P.K. & Sodarak, H., 1997. Teak plantation "Ban Beng" management plan. ShiftingCultivation Research Sub-programme and Lao Swedish Forestry programme's technicalreport No.10.

Hansen, P.K., Sodarak, H. & Savathvong, S., 1997. Teak production by shifting cultivators inNorthern Lao P.D.R. Shifting Cultivation Research Sub-programme, Lao Swedish ForestryProgramme, Luangprabang, Lao P.D.R.

Kadambi, K.,1972. Siliviculture and management of teak. Austin State University, School of forestry,Nacogdoches, Texas. Bulletin 24.

Keogh, R.M., 1996. Teak 2000. I1ED Forestry and Land Use Series no.9.NEDECO, 1995. Rural Micro-projects programme in Luangprabang province. Technical note No_18.

Project number ALA/LAO/86.23.Nyle, C., Brady, Ray & Weil, 1999. The Nature and properties of soils. Twelfth edition. Persson, R.,

1983. Forestry in Laos. SIDA. LANT/84-1/840502.Rammangkoun, Bandith et al., 1995. Technical manual for harvest management in teak plantation.

Silviculture Research Centre Department of Forestry, February 1995.Saphangthong, Thateva, 1998. Common soils in Lao P.D.R – their properties and use. Swedish

University of agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Soils and Soil Survey and Landclassification Centre, Ministry of Agriculture Lao P.DR.

Tuckson, M., 1998. Teak promotion and the teak improvement station at Keng Ben. Account extractedfrom a 1998 LSFP inception report entitled 'Skills, incentives and flexible extension'.

Personal communications

DAFO, 2000. Mr. Bonmali, head of the District Agro Forestry Office

(DAFO) and Mr. Pedavan, vice head of DAFO.

Farmer, 2000. A woman in Kok Gnui village.

Overgoor, Paul, 2000. Agricultural Research Advisor at the Lao Swedish Forestry

Program (LSFP) in Luangprabang.

PFO, 2000. Mr Sianouvong, head of the Provincial Forestry Office (PFO) in Luangprabang.

Training centre, 2000. Staff member at the Training centre in Xieng Negune village

Date post:	23-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Teak in northern Laoslad.nafri.org.la/fulltext/1255-0.pdf · 2008. 8. 21. · of teak has been...

Documents