Livestock is a major component of the agricultural systems in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), contributing more than a third of the sector’s value-added. It is particularly important in the mountainous northern provinces where food crop agriculture is based on unsustainable shifting cultivation. Inhabited mainly by ethnic groups who tend to be isolated from mainstream development because of their language and culture, these provinces had 60% of their household population poor and food insecure, at project appraisal in 2006. Technical options for more intensive food crop production were limited, but there was potential for more intensive, commercially oriented livestock, which would raise incomes, reduce poverty, and improve the sustainability of upland farming.
Against this backdrop, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved in September 2006 a $10 million equivalent loan and grant for the Northern Region Sustainable Livelihoods through Livestock Development Project. The project was designed to reduce poverty by improving the sustainability of livelihoods of upland smallholders in the project area. With increased livestock productivity and profitability as intended outcome, it targeted its interventions to be inclusive of women and disadvantaged upland ethnic groups. Following a reformulation in November 2010, project components included (i) improvement of on-farm livestock production technologies, (ii) development of market efficiency and livestock enterprises, (iii) strengthening of participatory extension networks, (iv) effective community-driven development, and (v) project management strengthening. In addition to the original loan and grant, ADB also provided a $0.46 million grant from the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction it administers for capacity building technical assistance. The International Fund for Agricultural Development provided a $3.5 million loan in cofinancing and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation another $3.5 million grant.
At completion, the project covered 324 villages instead of the 408 initially expected. Livestock production technology demonstration centers were established, and targets for farmer adoption of forage technology, improved animal housing, and cultivation of forage crops and cassava were exceeded. Targets for vaccinating livestock were also all met or exceeded. Group trainings and study tours were conducted to improve household knowledge of livestock markets, access to market information, and livestock trading. However, the original market and enterprise development subcomponent, which would have added a major commercialization aspect to the project, was never implemented due to premature timing.
1,600 livestock production groups (LPGs) were formed, comprising 13,071 households and included both husband and wife in almost all cases. Reflecting household preferences, more than two-thirds of the LPGs were devoted to cattle and pigs; only 13% were devoted to poultry. This distribution strongly correlated with the market value of the livestock. The project on the whole met its numeric targets for the participation of women and upland ethnic groups, but fell short of its target to attract the poorest households to join the LPGs, as these households had little capacity to bear the risk of intensified livestock and often had less time for group activities. While it met its target of recruiting women into the livestock extension service, the project found it hard to recruit ethnic people into the service who had both the required agricultural training and language skills.
Over 9,500 loans, representing 159% of the target, were provided through the village livelihood fund (VLF), 98% of which supported household livestock investment. By the project’s definition, the default rate was extremely low at less than 1%, but concern about rising arrears emerged toward the end of the project. Access to loans by women, ethnic groups, and poor households exceeded all targets. 248 small infrastructure, including village meeting halls, water supply, ponds, bridges, access roads, and irrigation improvements were financed.
Completed project outputs helped increase household income from livestock by almost 500% between 2008 and 2013. Livestock mortality declined and the percentage of households owning cattle and poultry rose to well above their target levels. However, the executing agency’s (EA) project completion report (PCR) raised significant concerns about the quality and consistency of the monitoring and evaluation data. Besides posing questions on the actual level of income increase, the EA’s PCR raised doubts about the sustainability of the increase and other reported changes. These concerns paralleled the observations of ADB’s PCR mission. Overall, ADB’s PCR noted several shortcomings in the project’s design that was technically sound in its approach to smallholder livestock extension and smallholder development but weak in terms of community development and social dimensions.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) was the project executing agency and the MAF’s Department of Livestock and Fisheries (DLF) the implementing agency.
