Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
not wish to admit to being aware, that their plantations were in fact complete fail-
ures, and that the ITPP project had landed them directly into very serious financial
difficulties.
By 2005-2006, staff from the provincial APB branch were making visits each
month to the district collect interest payments on the ITPP loans.
9
Villagers in Naa
Pang Yai would pay small sums of 10-20,000 kip (US$1-2) during these encoun-
ters, if anything. One woman voiced the following, widely held perspective of her
encounter with the project:
“
The Agriculture Bank invested in me to plant the trees, and then they calculated the inter-
est and capital. I would sell the eucalyptus to the APB and profits would go to me. But now
they come each month to ask for payments on interest, and I have no money to pay. I don't
pay the interest so far. I said to them, 'you provoked me to plant, and you said you would
come to buy the eucalyptus
!' ”
Another man forwarded:
“
The project was supposed to be for the poor. But we do not agree with this project. Maybe
the answer is that the people did not understand so well…The project was not such a good
idea, and I worry about paying the money back with my family budget. But no way, I would
not plant eucalyptus again
.”
It bears noting that the provincial staff directed the author and research assistant to
this village. Naa Pang Yai was considered as among the 'top 3' ITPP villages in the
district. In other villages, in Salavane's Lao Ngam district which the author visited
briefly, many of the farmer ITPP eucalyptus plantations could not even be located
through the dense forest regrowth.
There are additional issues which act to counter the stated goals of the project.
Under the Lao Forestry Law, farmers who plant seedlings above a density of 1,200
per hectare are to be exempt from paying land taxes on those parcels. In Naa Pang
Yai, farmers continue to pay land taxes to district officials, even on their failed
eucalypt plantations which should have qualified for this tax break.
The failure of the ADB ITPP project in Naa Pang Yai is already having ripple
effects onto other livelihood activities in the village. Because they cannot repay
their loans to APB, the entire village of Naa Pang Yai is now no longer eligible for
subsidized credit for fertilizer purchases, a program the APB usually extends to
rural communities in Laos. As a result, villagers now have to borrow in advance for
purchasing fertilizers from district traders. As noted, this involves repayment terms
of up to 40 percent interest (which is in addition to the terms of credit for anyone
requiring draught buffalo and/or land). These onward livelihood effects could be
made much worse if villagers are forced into a full repayment of the ADB loans. In
Naa Pang Yai, this would seriously impoverish many participants, and for most
there would be little way of meeting the full repayment terms without selling off
core assets. Usually, this would mean livestock. For some, they would have no other
asset as a basis for repayment, besides their land and homes.
9
How the current APB loan collection program relates to the original project design, which was
to grant a six-year interest grace period, is unclear.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search