Abstract
This chapter features three planning proposals focused on the ideological friction between Northern scientific knowledge and indigenous knowledge. Northern scientific knowledge has enabled and legitimized various territorialization projects since the establishment of the Lao PDR. Over the past decade, the application of such knowledge has diversified and expanded along with Laos’s increasing integration into the socio-economic geography of the China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor. Unlike World Bank-funded green-neoliberal development that dominated Laos in the 1990s and 2000s, some China-funded projects are furthering the green neoliberal valuation of ecosystems in monetary terms and these ecosystems’ conservation by means of market dynamics. These ecosystem territories inevitably overlap with the country’s indigenous territories and their natural resource-dependent communities. The three planning proposals featured in this chapter foreground Laos’s remarkable human diversity and local communities’ valuable traditional ecological knowledge and practices. These planning proposals are situated in a diverse range of socio-ecological contexts, namely Nam Ha National Protected Area, a protected forest in Luang Prabang, and agricultural land within the capital Vientiane. Collectively, these proposals focus on agrarian populations influenced by old or new forms of land enclosure, investigating possible scenarios that may lead to more equal power relationships between the scientific and indigenous knowledge regimes.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
1 Introduction
Drawing from discourses of the “politics of land-use planning” and “sustainable development paradigm” examined in Chap. 4, this chapter features three strategic planning proposals focused on the ideological and practical frictions between Northern scientific knowledge and indigenous knowledge.
Northern scientific knowledge has enabled and legitimized various territorialization projects since the establishment of the Lao PDR through the environmentally deterministic classification and representation of diverse peoples and their landscapes (Goldman, 2001). These territorialization projects fall into three main paradigms of land governance in Laos. Firstly, nationwide agro-ecological assessments were carried out in the 1970s to identify “land development potential.” Secondly, land zoning, land‐use classification and land reallocation programs since the early 1990s facilitated a “rationalization” of land use in the name of “sustainable development.” Thirdly, a National Land Titling Program was initiated in the late 1990s to identify “unutilized” or “underutilized” land suitable for large-scale concessions driven by the national strategy dubbed “Turning Land into Capital” (Lestrelin et al., 2012).
Over the past decade, the application of Northern scientific knowledge has diversified and expanded along with Laos’s increasing integration into the socio-economic geography of the China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor (Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4).Footnote 1 In addition to the construction of large-scale infrastructure projects intended to improve physical connectivity across national borders, novel scientific programs and knowledge exchange networks are being established or strengthened to facilitate transnational research initiatives. Laos, as one of the most ecologically diverse yet least explored centers of biodiversity in Indochina, is becoming a scientific frontier for research into biodiversity and ecosystem services. Unlike World Bank-funded green-neoliberal development that dominated Laos in the 1990s and 2000s, some China-funded projects are furthering the green neoliberal valuation of ecosystems, and their “services” to humans, in monetary terms and these ecosystems’ conservation by means of market dynamics (See, for example, d’Amato et al., 2016; Jiang, 2017; He, 2020).
These ecosystem territories inevitably overlap with the country’s indigenous territories and their natural resource-dependent communities. The population of Laos is overwhelmingly rural, with its “ethnic minorities,” as the Laos government does not use the term indigenous, constituting about 40% of the total population and heavily reliant on mixed subsistence and semi-subsistence agriculture (Hodgdon, 2010). With this in mind, this chapter features three strategic planning proposals: Scientific stewardship: Indigenous and ecosystem territories across the China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor; Empowering a labor transition during enclosure and securitization of Luang Prabang’s natural heritage; and Clean versus organic: Strategic agricultural enterprises for Vientiane under rural–urban migration. These three proposals foreground Laos’s remarkable human diversity and local communities’ valuable traditional ecological knowledge and practices. These planning proposals are situated in a diverse range of socio-ecological contexts, namely: northwestern Laos’s Nam Ha National Protected Area; a protected forest outside of Luang Prabang city; and agricultural land within the capital Vientiane. Collectively, they focus on agrarian populations influenced by old or new forms of land enclosure, investigating possible scenarios that may lead to more equal power relationships between the scientific and indigenous knowledge regimes. These projects acknowledge indigenous communities’ synthesized knowledge systems, intimate knowledge of seasonal cycles and ecological processes, and management of bio-cultural diversity as critical national assets supporting social and ecological resilience and advocate for their recognition and safeguarding.
2 Scientific Stewardship: Indigenous and Ecosystem Territories Across the China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor
Given the increasing transnational flow of knowledge and expertise along the China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor (CICPEC), an imagined socio-economic geography initiated in 2010 and subsequently incorporated into the Belt and Road Initiative, this project focuses specifically on the interaction between scientific and traditional ecological knowledge and posits possible scenarios that could secure local communities’ customary land rights while enabling their equal participation in the ongoing re-territorialization along CICPEC, particularly in Laos.
The current socio-ecological landscape of the Lao PDR has been shaped by various forms of territorialization projects since the establishment of the country in 1975. Through land-use planning, specific socioenvironmental perspectives and values are and have been projected onto the territory, consequently legitimizing the inclusion of certain forms of activities and the exclusion of others within these plans’ demarcated boundaries (Lestrelin et al., 2012). In addition to earlier forms of territorial enclosure, such as protected areas and economic concessions that have effectively excluded local communities from their customary land, the establishment of experimental plots for scientific research emerged recently, fueled by global research trends in studying ecosystem dynamics and services. Focusing on the Chinese Academy of Science (CAS) and Chinese Academy of Forestry (CAF), two “scientific giants” in the field of ecology rapidly expanding their projects across CICPEC, this proposal reveals the conflicts embedded in their existing projects and provides alternative visions on the creation, operation and management of future scientific projects (Fig. 5).
This proposal first critically analyzes two existing projects, one by CAS in Yunnan and the other by CAF in northern Laos, with particular emphasis on these projects’ participatory components. Although preexisting local uses of forest land (e.g., for hunting and mushroom foraging) are strictly forbidden within CAS’s experimental plot at the Bubeng Field Station in Mengla, Yunnan, local villagers are periodically hired by CAS as consultants given their incomparable ecological knowledge about the site, where subsistence practices had long been carried out, for locating and installing scientific devices such as camera traps (Fig. 6).Footnote 2 For a community forest project at NamKaeNoy Village in Luang Namtha, the zoning plan and planting plan created by CAF, in collaboration with the provincial planning institute, helped attract and secure funding for the project. However, as will all community forest programs, the project’s implementation and effectiveness for conservation are contingent on the participation of the local communities who are expected to perform the majority of the planting and maintenance work, in this case on northern Laos’s challenging terrain (Fig. 7).Footnote 3
Based on insights drawn from these two case studies, this strategic planning proposal constructs a set of alternative scenarios characterized by more inclusive and equal forms of community participation on sites where indigenous and ecosystem territories overlap. Although CAS and CAF have not yet implemented projects collaboratively in Laos, this work speculates on the establishment of joint experimental plots by CAS and CAF, given their common interest in ecosystem services as well as their similar regional geographic interests as revealed in their plans for research site expansion along CICPEC (Fig. 8) (See, for example, APFNet, 2012; Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, 2018). Two types of scientific research, one focusing on leaf litter decomposition and the other on medicinal plant species and which involve community forest programs as their key components, are hypothesized in scenarios on sites within the Nam Ha National Protected Area in northern Laos bordering Yunnan (Figs. 9, 10 and 11). In both scenarios, formal land tenure protections may be granted to villagers to increase their incentive for participating in community forest programs. Moreover, the site selection criteria are not only limited to those that help maximize scientific research outputs but also include factors that contribute to the capacity building of villages within or adjacent to the project areas. Furthermore, the viable operation and management of the experimental plots depend equally on the protection and mobilization of indigenous knowledge of local flora and fauna and the introduction and utilization of scientific knowledge that turn collected data into research output to draw the funding that sustains the project (Figs. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22).
The unprecedented scale and speed of transnationalization and re-territorialization along CICPEC initiated by science institutions makes necessary the meaningful inclusion of the knowledge of indigenous populations who have long practiced ecological stewardship of the region. This proposal envisions the emergence of a more complementary scientific stewardship that facilitates a bidirectional dependency and benefit-sharing capable of sustaining local practices, increasing local community sovereignty, facilitating access to education, healthcare and diversified economies, and enforcing or requiring layers of cultural meaning in natural science projects.
The design proposal “Scientific stewardship: Indigenous and ecosystem territories across the China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor” and accompanying illustrations were developed by Michelle Chan Syl Yeng and Sammi Wong Wae Ki during the course Studio Laos: Strategic Landscape Planning for the Greater Mekong.
3 Empowering a Labor Transition During Enclosure and Securitization of Luang Prabang’s Natural Heritage
In response to the rapid expansion of various forms of commodification and enclosure of natural heritage in Luang Prabang, this proposal foregrounds issues related to the integration of local populations into the wage-labor economy and explores an alternative model of conservation and development that empowers, with emancipatory and social-choice principles, a labor transition with socioecological benefits. The study and proposal area encompasses villages in close proximity to the Luang Prabang Wildlife Sanctuary (LPWLS) and situated between the planned Luang Prabang Special Economic Zone (LPSEZ) and a 34,000-ha protected forest.
This proposal first critically reflects on the existing models of development enclaves (e.g., special economic zones, industrial zones) and conservation forests (e.g., protected areas, protected forests) in Laos to underscore Luang Prabang’s position as one that not only possesses the country’s largest SEZs under planningFootnote 4 but also as one of Laos’s wildlife trade hotspots–a critical site for combatting wildlife trafficking (Figs. 23 and 24) (Davis & Glikman, 2020). Occupying 4,850 ha of land with a concession lease duration of 99 years and located immediately adjacent to the buffer zone of UNESCO’s Luang Prabang World Heritage Site property, the LPSEZ is expected to start construction after the completion of the China-Laos Railway in 2021. Despite its promises to generate job opportunities for local people, the SEZ is following similar models of urban development and enclosure that dispossess the local population while simultaneously integrating them with few alternatives into wage-labor markets. In addition, the LPSEZ along with the opening of the China-Laos Railway are expected to exacerbate pressures on local conservation practices. For example, the operators of the LPWLS, which is located three kilometers to the south of the LPSEZ’s “S3” zone, are concerned with the limited capacity of their facilities to handle the impacts of rapid development in the region. Established in 2017 as Laos’s first wildlife sanctuary and hospital, the 6.6-ha LPWLS houses over 55 rescued sun bears and moon bears as of 2019 and is considering releasing rehabilitated bears into the wild for conservation due to the foreseeable growth of wildlife poaching and trafficking induced by improved transnational connectivity and, correspondingly, the increasing seizures and pressures on the sanctuary’s physical capacity.Footnote 5
To tackle these challenges, this proposal identifies the nearby 34,000-ha protected forest, which is fundamentally a “paper park” due to its lack of on-the-ground management, as a potential site for carrying out a bear-releasing scheme. Unfortunately, such a scheme will likely be hindered by an existing contested relationship with adjacent communities who actively use bear parts for traditional medicine (Fig. 25) (Sukanan & Anthony, 2019). Similar to other protected areas in Laos, the establishment of this protected forest must contend with the exclusion of customary land uses, such as dry-rice cultivation and forest foraging (Goldman, 2005; Lestrelin et al., 2012). Even until today, the boundary between the control use zone and the total protection zone of the protected forest is disputed. Acknowledging these challenges, this proposal offers a bear-releasing scheme as an opportunity to reconfigure the relationship between the LPWLS, protected forest and local communities. This reconfiguration has two main objectives. First, the labor demand associated with forest protection for bear conservation offers local communities alternatives to working for the LPSEZ, particularly under an ongoing labor transition across the region. Second, conserving the protected forest for bear releasing challenges the existing narrowly scoped forest protection model characterized by a top-down, overly securitized approach and advocates an alternative conservation model in Laos that is nature-sensitive and equitable.
In this proposal, local communities from five nearby villages become key players in the implementation of the LPWLS’s future bear-releasing scheme at the protected forest (Figs. 26 and 27). Three strategies centered on community engagement are proposed, namely (1) reforestation for buffer zone establishment and bear habitat restoration, (2) patrolling and site-based conservation activities, and (3) ecotourism and related low-impact tourism activities. Levels of community engagement are quantified through the detailed calculation of dynamic labor demand at the LPSEZ and protected forest in relation to seasonality in near and long terms (Figs. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34). Five scenarios are outlined using these strategies, where each scenario is characterized by different speeds and scales of strategy implementation and consequent bear-releasing capacity (Figs. 35, 36 and 37). In addition to promoting more voluntary, equal forms of labor transition, detailed design interventions such as planting schemes and phasing schemes tackle issues such as human-wildlife conflicts, risks and potential for bear release, and ethical use of state-of-the-art technologies in conservation. Stressing ethical and critical use of such technologies is important given the increasing militarization of such technologies in conservation practices around the world (Adams, 2019).
Ultimately, this proposal strengthens local communities’ sense of meaningful involvement and responsibility in conservation while protecting and motivating their rich knowledge of the local landscape. This is incredibly important given ongoing, rapidly advancing neoliberal modes of nature commodification and securitization. The value of Luang Prabang’s natural heritage must be planned and defined in excess of the economy-driven SEZ or the ecology-driven protected forest.
The design proposal “Empowering a labor transition during enclosure and securitization of Luang Prabang’s natural heritage” and accompanying illustrations were developed by Rachel Ma On Ki and Haven Lee Chi Hang during the course Studio Laos: Strategic Landscape Planning for the Greater Mekong.
4 Clean Versus Organic: Strategic Agricultural Enterprises for Vientiane Under Rural–Urban Migration
This proposal advocates the establishment of new agricultural enterprises in Vientiane, Laos’s national capital, which is undergoing rapid rural–urban transformation and situated at the receiving end of nationwide rural–urban migration of the past two decades. Specifically, this proposal promotes sustainable agricultural practices that are “clean” rather than “organic” within the specific socioeconomic context of Laos (Fig. 38).
The increasingly mainstream organic agricultural practice, which emerged due to the growth of ethical consumerism in developed countries, may not be a suitable model for Laos.Footnote 6 Organic agriculture criticizes negative socio-environmental impacts of industrial agriculture and advocates reciprocity and justice (Clarke, 2008). Nevertheless, this practice is tightly associated with capitalist agriculture and often excludes alternative agricultural practices that are otherwise socially, ethically, and environmentally responsible but that remain outside the government certification system, largely for political-economic reasons (Moberg, 2014; Schreer & Padmanabhan, 2019). In Laos, institutional infrastructure supporting organic agriculture has been established since the early 2000s, with a state certification body formed in 2005 (UNCTAD, 2012). In contrast to organic agriculture, this strategic planning proposal promotes clean agriculture based on the following two premises. First, acknowledging that farmers possess irreplaceable and incomparable knowledge about their land and practices, clean agriculture is built on trust and peer-group assessment as an alternative to government certification. Second, understanding that most land in rapidly urbanizing Vientiane has been polluted to various degrees, clean agriculture promotes the improvement of degraded land via agricultural practices rather than mandating organically certified products grown on pollutant-free land (Figs. 39, 40 and 41).
This proposal pays tribute to and draws inspiration from the practice of the Participatory Development Training Centre (PADETC), an indigenous, all-Lao organization founded in 1996 to promote “education for sustainable development” (PADETC, 2012). Through detailed analysis of two of PADETC’s development learning centers and networks in Vientiane, namely Panyanivej Eco-Rice Fish Farm and Suanmailao Eco-Forest Learning Center, this proposal recognizes both the value of PADETC’s participatory operational frameworks and the ever-intensifying challenges to advocate for sustainable development in Laos. These challenges include the recently constructed highway, which links the Wattay International Airport and Vientiane station of the China-Laos Railway and that bisected Panyanivej Farm and destroyed its primary irrigation source, and the Saysettha Special Economic Zone (SEZ), which expropriated the Suanmailao Eco-Forest within its development zone (Figs. 42 and 43). In addition to the fact that the expansion of development projects has physically impaired and spatially constrained the much-needed programs and facilities of these social enterprises, Vientiane faces increasing social issues related to the influx of young rural–urban migrants from diverse regions of the country who are in search of better employment opportunities.Footnote 7
Given all of these challenges, this proposal foregrounds the importance of securing agricultural land for sustainable practices in rapidly urbanizing Vientiane, on the one hand, and preserving indigenous agricultural and environmental knowledge for rural–urban migrants on the other. While domestic NGOs such as PADETC and other social enterprises try to expand their influence by establishing education centers in various parts of the country, this proposal takes a reversed approach by motivating young migrants in Vientiane to participate in agricultural knowledge production and exchange programs. Specifically, this proposal takes advantage of young migrants’ transitional periods, which average between three and 12 months starting from their arrival in the city and securing of employment, offering short-term job opportunities and accommodation.
Agricultural land along the Houay Makhiao River connecting the former That Luang Marsh and the Mekong River is identified as a hypothetical site to set up a network of community-based platforms promoting knowledge exchange and “clean” agricultural practices (Figs. 44, 45 and 46). With the That Luang Marsh, once Vientiane’s largest wetland (Gerrard, 2005, p. 5), recently subsumed into That Luang Lake SEZ, this proposal also functions as a strategy to resist further urban expansion along the Houay Makhiao River by transforming the land into a crucial piece of agricultural and educational infrastructure with both local and national significance. Three categories of existing livelihood dependency (i.e., high, medium, and low) on the Houay Makhiao River are identified and three out of the seven villages along the river are selected as sites for scenario-building (Figs. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55). An operational matrix is suggested that pairs up particular sets of agricultural practices and knowledge with these sites as characterized by levels of land degradation, water pollution and land and water availability.
Recognition the social and ecological impacts from the unprecedented speed and scale of rural–urban transformation in Laos, this proposal promotes a Lao-specific sustainable model that improves food security, knowledge resilience and socio-environmental justice.
The design proposal “Clean versus organic: Strategic agricultural enterprises for Vientiane under rural–urban migration” and accompanying illustrations were developed by Cynthia Chan Sze Wai, Micky Lo Sheung Miu, and Theo Sham Chi Chung during the course Studio Laos: Strategic Landscape Planning for the Greater Mekong.
Notes
- 1.
The China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor is an imagined socio-economic geography that links China with the Indochina Peninsula. It is expected to boost China’s cooperation with the ASEAN countries.
- 2.
Authors’ conversation in March 2019 with researchers at the Bubeng Field Station.
- 3.
Authors’ conversation in March 2019 with the village head and manager of the NamKaeNoy community forest project.
- 4.
China Economic Information Service (2018). Occupying an area of 4,850 ha, the Luang Prabang Special Economic Zone plans to require an investment of 1.2 billion US dollars and provides a franchised operation period of 99 years.
- 5.
Authors’ conversation in March 2019 with chief executive officer of Free the Bears.
- 6.
Authors’ conversation in March 2019 with Shui-Meng Ng, founder of TaiBaan and wife of disappeared sustainable development expert Sombath Somphone.
- 7.
Authors’ conversation in March 2018 and 2019 with the director of Panyanivej Eco-Rice Fish Farm.
References
Adams, W. M. (2019). Geographies of conservation II: Technology, surveillance and conservation by algorithm. Progress in Human Geography,43(2), 337–350.
APFNet. (2012). China-Laos-Myanmar demonstration project for cross-border ecological security protection, forest restoration and sustainable management in the China–Indochina Peninsula. Retrieved March 11, 2017, from https://www.apfnet.cn/show-model6-1858.html
China Economic Information Service. (2018). Report on China-Laos Cooperation Opportunities under the Belt and Road Initiative in 2018. Retrieved April 14, 2020, from http://upload.silkroad.news.cn/2018/0207/1517986900826.pdf
Clarke, N. (2008). From ethical consumerism to political consumption. Geography Compass,2(6), 1870–1884.
d’Amato, D., Rekola, M., Li, N., & Toppinen, A. (2016). Monetary valuation of forest ecosystem services in China: A literature review and identification of future research needs. Ecological Economics,121, 75–84.
Davis, E. O., & Glikman, J. A. (2020). An assessment of wildlife use by northern Laos nationals. Animals,10(4), 685.
Gerrard, P. (2005). Integrating wetland ecosystem values into urban planning: The case of That Luang Marsh, Vientiane, Lao PDR. WWF Lao Country Office.
Goldman, M. (2001). Constructing an environmental state: Eco-governmentality and other transnational practices of a ‘green’ World Bank. Social Problems,48(4), 499–523.
Goldman, M. (2005). Imperial nature: The World Bank and struggles for social justice in the age of globalization. Yale University Press.
He, J. (2020). Situated payments for ecosystem services: Local agencies in the implementation of the sloping land conversion programme in Southwest China. Development and Change,51(1), 73–93.
Hodgdon, B. D. (2010). Community forestry in Laos. Journal of Sustainable Forestry,29(1), 50–78.
Jiang, W. (2017). Ecosystem services research in China: A critical review. Ecosystem Services,26, 10–16.
Lestrelin, G., Castella, J. C., & Bourgoin, J. (2012). Territorialising sustainable development: The politics of land-use planning in Laos. Journal of Contemporary Asia,42(4), 581–602.
Moberg, M. (2014). Certification and neoliberal governance: Moral economies of fair trade in the Eastern Caribbean. American Anthropologist,116(1), 8–22.
PADETC. (2012). PADETC: Ten years in balance. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from https://sombathdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/padetc_10_years.pdf
Schreer, V., & Padmanabhan, M. (2019). The many meanings of organic farming: Framing food security and food sovereignty in Indonesia. Organic Agriculture,10, 327–338.
Sukanan, D., & Anthony, B. P. (2019). Community attitudes towards bears, bear bile use, and bear conservation in Luang Prabang, Lao PDR. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine,15(1), 1–15.
UNCTAD. (2012). Organic agriculture in Lao PDR: Overview. Retrieved April 12, 2020, from https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/DITC_TED_OA1212LOAF_OAinLao.pdf
Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden. (2018). Research Advancement in transboundary biodiversity and ecological security pattern in Southwest China and Indochina Peninsula. Retrieved April 16, 2020, from https://www.xtbg.ac.cn/yisanwu/135jzdt1/201807/P020180705526632801876.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kelly, A.S., Lu, X. (2021). Northern Scientific Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge. In: Critical Landscape Planning during the Belt and Road Initiative. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4067-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4067-4_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-4066-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-4067-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)