top of page
Search

4/5 UNODC @ The Lao PDR & Alternative Development - Inclusion, Transparency & Civil Society

  • Benjamin-Alexandre Jeanroy
  • May 31, 2016
  • 7 min read

  • Current Programs

In October 2015, at the time of the author internship, there were no AD projects currently undertaken by the UNODC Lao PDR Country Office. In February 2016, at the time of the writing of these words, the situation remained similar. Several factors can explain this situation as a interviewed local officer noted: (1)

  • the lost of interest of foreign donors and the subsequent lack of funding since the - somehow prematured - 2006 declaration of an “opium-free” Laos;

  • the budget restrictions of major donors after 2008;

  • the “completion” of precedent programs;

  • the tardiness in the formulation and negotiations with the Lao PDR government;

  • the lack of qualified personnel on the ground (only one UNODC officer remained in charge of AD in 2015 within the office);

  • and finally the absence of a Country Office Manager.

A new, limited AD program (2), is nevertheless set to start in the upcoming months, and should be conducted in four chosen districts of the Houaphan Province, and about twenty villages. The budget is estimated at $3 million. (3)

When programs are being drafted, UNODC choose the target areas regarding the data obtained in surveys sent by governors offices which enunciate the areas in which such programs would be needed. At the sub-provincial level everything goes through the village chiefs. These institutional actors are integrally part of any programs development and may exacerbate bias and corruption opportunities along the chain.

Current criteria for the chosen villages to be met are the followings: (4)

  • Cultivation of opium and population is “affected by consumption”, (further questions lead to the assumption that those villages are not considered “drug-free” by the central government, concept which we will discuss later on);

  • "Vulnerable economic environment“, (the author was not able to find a Lao PDR definition of the concept but supposed it is based on international standards);

  • Close to other targeted villages, (notably to avoid local economic distortion between opium and alternative crop growers);

  • Should have experience in crops cultivation (other than poppy) as the program intends to build on local capacities and applicable knowledge of the targeted villagers;

  • A “strong” village management and “population commitment”;

  • Finally, the villagers will not be required to move to another village in order to participate in the program as it has been the case in the past.

UNODC does not take part in the crop eradication and lets the Lao PDR security forces in charge of this sergment of AD. (5) This poses a critical issue as a sustainable alternative development program cannot be dissociated from the way the illicit crops are destroyed. The indirect responsibility of the agency can not be denied in the way the crops are destroyed prior to the implementation of the AD programs. Questions towards the inclusiveness of the populations, outside of the institutional level remain important if the viability and sustainability of the programs are to be assessed.

  • Inclusion

“The socio-economic impact survey carried out by LCDC/UNODC in 2005 indicated that about 50% of former opium poppy farmers could revert back for lack of alternatives and other opportunities.” (Lao PDR, 2009) Since then, the situation has not changed significantly, and the need to include the concerned farmers and communities in the realization and application of the AD programs has never been so great.

Analysis in the country points to “opium’s traditional place in ethnic hill-tribe societies, including medicinal use.” (Corben, 2015) According to the officer in charge of past AD projects, people participating in the programs signed a “social contract” with the authorities in which they engage themselves not to partake in illicit production of opium. That is as far as the principle of inclusion goes. According to James Anaya, former U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, “it has become a generally accepted principle in international law that indigenous peoples should be consulted as to any decision affecting them.” (Anaya, 2005, p. 7) In this regard, the situation in Lao PDR is far from being exemplary.

Furthermore, “some analysts question the value of crop eradication and alternative development programs, saying often local communities have insufficient input into the programs’ direction.” (Corben, 2015) As confirmed by interviews, direct consultation of the villagers are limited to reports given by villages chiefs. (6) This administrative position is directly linked to different administrative echelons of the country, up to the provincial Party Committees. In this regard, the position is often more political than based on merit and efficiency. Consequently, very few things require the village chief to take into account the actual need of the concerned population.

  • Transparency

As stated by the co-operation agreement between UNDIO and UNODC, “a monitoring and evaluation survey at regular intervals is (to be) conducted at regularly intervals by an independent Non for-profit association (NPA) to asses the quality and efficiency of the project.” (UNIDO, 2009) Officially, every $1 million or higher projects are supposed to be independently assessed. (7) Those reports remain non-disclosed to the general public as well as for other U.N. agencies, which further complicate the recalibration of policy formulation and application based on empirical evidence. The author was not able to access these reports.

  • Civil society

On 18-19 December 2012, the fourth TNI/GIZ Southeast Asia Informal Drug Policy Dialogue, took place in Bangkok, with the first day focusing on ‘The Future of Alternative Development in Southeast Asia’. Individuals representing community, civil society, government and intergovernmental bodies met to engage in an informal dialogue about drug policy issues in the region. Several recommendations were presented regarding AD, including the fundamental need for government security forces to engage and consult farmers about use and cultivation of the substance before destroying the crops, and the vastly recognized acknowledgement that the lack of sustainable livelihood options was the main reason behind prohibited cultivation. Since then, actions in order to fulfill that gap have yet to be taken by UNODC.

In 2015, at the global level, - however with the absence of representatives from Lao PDR opium poppy farmers -, the organization of a Global Forum of Producers of Prohibited Plants (GFPPP, 2015) aiming at preparatory meetings for UNGASS 2016, was the first of its kind to be organized and gave a fundamentally needed voice to the primary stakeholders. This remains primordial in the design and implementation of sustainable alternative development programs. The absence of organized civil society in Lao PDR, is in this regard, highly problematic.

Today, the UNODC stance is that “opium production, addiction and poverty are all linked to a lack of alternative livelihood options.” (Corben, 2015) But if extreme economic poverty (8) can be recognized as one of the root cause of prohibitive substances agricultural production, it is not the only one. For a long time, and for many parts of the world, it is still a reality, small-scale farmers are often perceived not as victims of the economic environment they find themselves attached to, but as criminals, which can explain the priority, given for a long time, to the repression side versus economic opportunity strategies.

In conclusion we can observe that UNODC has declared that “AD programmes have proven to be successful, resulting in an improvement in the socio-economic situation of target communities and in reduction of illicit crops.” (CND 58th Session, Item 8, 2015) However, leaked in 2005 but produced by the U.K. government in 2003, the “Strategy Unit report on drug policy” analyzed the concept of AD and found several aspect of the environment which are often disregarded by UNODC:

  • When farmers see their harvest disappear, the debts they may hold will stay. Indeed, credit taken upon drug lords “must usually be paid back in harvested opium and so even if the farmers were able to raise cash, they would still be tied into growing the crop. Illicit crops then become the only reliable means of exchange.” (UK Strategy Unit, 2003);

  • Lack of access to arable land often pressures to grow illicit crops as they are “often well-suited to the terrain and the workforce.” (Ibid.) Indeed “due to the profits that they can make, landowners only lease land if tenants agree to cultivate illicit drug crops.” (Ibid.);

  • Strong interests lie behind the production of illicit crops; “farmers and their families can face violence from drug traders if they try to stop growing illicit crops” and “officials corrupted by drug traders have an interest in hindering alternative incomes for farmers.” (Ibid.);

  • The influence of the prohibition framework in this areas can only be limited as the “drugs economy thrives where the rule of law has failed.” (Ibid.) The latter being a concept that arguably scarcely exists even within the capital city of the country;

  • Finally, implementing sustainable alternative development is “a time-consuming, complex and expensive process of state-building (which) cannot be undertaken solely by foreign and international agencies” (Ibid.) and neither can it function in a vacuum.

(1) Interview with UNODC personnel 13/10/15

(2) “Alternative development in Houaphan Province Affected by Opium Cultivation 2015-2018” ( UNODC LAOZ 49)

(3) $1,5 million will be provided the U.S. Embassy, another million by the Luxembourg and the remaining 500 000 will be paid on UNODC general funds. See also: U.S., 2015d.

(4) Interview with UNODC personnel 13/10/15.

(5) Interview with UNODC personnel 13/10/15.

(6) Interview with UNODC personnel 13/10/15.

(7) Interview with UNODC personnel 13/10/15.

(8) Extreme poverty, was originally defined by the U.N. in 1995 as "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services.” (WSSD, 1995)


Comments

 

UPEACE

  • Facebook - Black Circle
  • Twitter - Black Circle
  • LinkedIn - Black Circle
  • SoundCloud - Black Circle
bottom of page