Stakeholder 1: wwf -- they basically wanted a critical report about the highway, because of the negative environmental impact

of the highway. They wanted me to find social problems that could enable them to justify them pressing for "less roads".

-- to save: the saola (indochinese flagship species), also tiger, and a number of less known species (gibbons, langurs etc.) they seemed to be primarilly concerned with mammals.. animals... less with trees (( they did not mark out any tree species as flagship species ))

-- their allies: the vietnames forest protection department who were given various resources by the wwf (better cars, better e uipment, per diems, education for rangers, "overhead money" flowing to the top of the department etc. !tc.)

-- ("ote# in this area the forestry department were not allowed to e$ploit timber, the area was protected because the ministry of infrastructure and industry (( %% )) used it for hydroelectric development)

-- the problems:

&unting.

local and non-indigenous hunters, commercial hunting increases as the infrastructure improves... roads fragmenting animal and plant habitats

'hifting cultivation

-- local groups are shifting cultivators, longstanding debate ... national governments have for over fifty years blamed shifting cultivators this is core theme (( refer back to scott, laos, deforestation, climate, indonesia, greenhouse gases )) (() wwf and shifting cultivation)) conservationists and shifting cultivation

Explain the local situation:

*educe shifting cultivation provide alternatives while reducing alternatives dont work, reduced shifting cultivation area leads to permanent "grassification" of forest the fallow system collapses when vegetation is not allowed to regenerate forest (critical threshold of sustainability) villagers without sufficient agricultural production cut timber illegally and hunt more intensively to compensate for lack of rice

he povert! "uestion -- +rundtland "predicts" --, poor people e$ploit environment

-hat we see, however# -- attempt to modernise agriculture --, cash crops etc, new land regulations, "rational land use" decreased food sufficiency increased dependency on cash environmental destruction

#mportant "uestion: how should we define povert! $

--.overty is typically measured in terms of money (both, /", world bank, vietnamese govt). 0 monetary sum represents the amount necessary to buy certain products in the market. -- if no money absolute poverty -- if less money than certain sum "food poverty" (not enough money to +/1 a certain uantity of rice etc. -- povert! is then used as justification for changing agriculture cash crop and production forestry (( pulpwood ))

2utta krahn better food in remote villages

Statistics, however, typically show a very small incremental "improvement" in every respect.. year by year (( even though people -0"T to be .33* because they receive more benefits the village headman is pressurised to take away one poor household per year....

%igger "uestions political ecolog! &&&

-- forest access whose forest whose definitions what the definitions entail (( '( %)*+ ( ,E S,#- #.' */0 #1) #(. 1#00)'E 2#* /3E ))

-- when land is defined as "forest" it then automatically becomes the property of the state (( the state can then sell it etc. ))

-- theory becomes science becomes politics and power scientific definitions of forest % or political definitions % -- what is the baseline landscape %% if the baseline is "pristine forest" then locals have no right to disturb it. Typically biogeographical maps will define areas according to the imagined "baseline" rather than the actual historical reality -- can the locals inhabit the landscape without destroying it% 4an they be "just as good and smart" as the modern conservationists% -- the eternal forest conflict (( goes back all the way to robin hood sherwood also medieval germany peasants rights to forest access )) vs the lords right to "game" and or biodiversity

4wf paradoxes 5et funding primarilly from large organisations such as world bank and adb... 5oal of world bank and 06+ is typically to develop infrastructure as much as possible ...

Entering 0aos: government timber, spirit forests -- consultancy ( months as "T!7 advisor" -- same problems ... as above -- working for an organisation that purported to want to make 8aotian forestry "sustainable" sponsored by world bank and finnish government ((sweden has financed similar stuff)) -- a foreign))international organisation, paying villagers a lumpsum of money, to agree to have their forests cut by the laotian government ... ((no profit to the organisation almost nothing to villagers)) -- this is probably a very typical third world forestry scenario the govt can cut timber in any forest it wants, or give forests to private entitiees, does not need to compensate local people. -- project wanted to make system more "transparent" and more "systematical" etc. 9t wanted to be able to make villagers agree completely and voluntarily ... -- as such i was actuall! instructed to find out 5the truth5 about local forest usage &&& - pro6ect did not want to take land considered b! locals as agricultural or important . -2 land, or spirit forest etc& -- problem: the local staff of the pro6ect were the laotian forestr! department ((foreigners not down on the ground))& he! were not interested in asking local people about customar! usage, for decades the! have simpl! told the villagers what to do &&& laos is not democrac! &&& etc etc& 7ou dont have the right to oppose government policies and plans&&&