ASSESSMENT OF ADOPTION AND BENEFITS OF THE CONTOUR

FARMING SYSTEM IN PIN LAUNG TOWNSHIP, INLE

WATERSHED AREA, SOUTHERN SHAN STATE, MYANMAR

by

Thin Nwe Htwe

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Science in
Natural Resources Management

Examination Committee: Dr.Dietrich Schmidt-Vogt (Chairperson)

Dr.Ganesh P. Shivakoti (Member)
Dr. Rajendra P. Shrestha (Member)

Nationality: Myanmar
Previous Degree: Bachelor of Agriculture
Yezin Agricultural University, Myanmar

Scholarship Donor: ADB-Japan Scholarships Program (ADB-JSP)

Asian Institute of Technology

School of Environment, Resources and Development
Thailand
May 2009
 Acknowledgements

I express my heartfelt sincere gratitude to Dr. Dietrich Schmidt-Vogt, my academic and

thesis advisor, for his continuous technical and moral support, constant guidance and
suggestions, thought provoking discussions, patience and encouragements during the
period of study since my first day at AIT. He has not only guided me through my course
work and research but also assisted me through my difficult times. I shall be obliged for his
moral support throughout my lifetime.

I am extremely grateful to Professor Dr. Ganesh P. Shivakoti, a member of my

examination committee, for his kind, valuable guideline for my data analysis and moral
support throughout my studies. I do not have enough words to express my sincere gratitude
for his help and encouragement, which has made me fortunate enough for my master’s
degree at AIT possible and successful. I express my deepest thanks to Dr. Rajendra P.
Shrestha, the coordinator of Natural Resources Management Field of study for guiding and
encouraging me to think about the ideas to improve my thesis, throughout the research and
serving as a member of my examination committee.

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Asian Institute of Technology and ADB
for providing me a scholarship that has made it possible to pursue my master program at
AIT. I am grateful to the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation of Myanmar and Myanma
Agriculture Service for allowing me to pursue studies at AIT.

I am very much grateful to Mr. Aung Lin and staff of ICDP project, and Township Manger
and staff of MAS in Pin Laung Township, Inle Watershed Area, southern Shan State for
their guidance needed and continuous help during my data collection and all respondents
as well.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to Sayama
Mrs. Nwe Nwe Ye (Community School, AIT) for her guidance and moral support during
my study at AIT. My special thanks to Ms. Thuzar Myint (Kasetsart University) for her
invaluable advice, continuous encouragement, help and moral support during the whole
life especially my study at AIT. I wish to express my greatest reverence to my beloved
friends, Ms. Soe Soe Lwin and Ms. Cho Cho San, for their support, encouragement and
helping me during the data collection and my study also.

I wish to express my gratitude to my dearest and respected parents, sisters and brothers for
laying trust on me, encouragement and making the success of this study possible. Finally, I
would like to express my profound gratitude to my classmates and friends who have helped
me during my study at AIT.

ii
 Abstract

The mountains in the Inle lake watershed area of Myanmar have been experiencing
declining soil fertility and severe soil erosion due to increased cultivation without soil
conservation practices and other factors attributed to population pressure. The research
deals with the assessment of adoption and benefits of contour farming approach to the use
of improved soil conservation practices for the sustainable natural resources and
environment of the watershed area. The main objectives of this research were to examine
the influencing factors of adoption of the contour farming system, to compare management
practices, crop yield and benefits, and livelihood strategies of adopters and non-adopters,
and finally, to assess the farmers’ perception on soil conservation practices, contour
farming practices.
Data collected from the stratified random sample of 98 households in Inle Lake watershed
area was used logistic regression model and Weighted Average Index to estimate the
factors influencing the adoption of the improved soil conservation practices. In addition,
livelihood strategies’ change was analyzed by using Average Index and cost-benefits ratio
was utilized to compare yield and benefits of the adopters and non-adopters of contour
farming.

The main findings of this research showed that the farmer’s perception to change their
knowledge and practices on adoption of contour farming system were mainly influenced
by the bio-physical factors, followed by the social-economic and the institutional factors.
The factors econometric analysis explained that the adoption of soil conservation practices
(contour farming) was mainly due to upland holding size, education level, and occupation
that farmers who depend only on agricultural activities for their livelihood would be more
likely to adopt the contour farming system on their upland farms.

The research concluded that somewhat adoption of the soil conservation practices after
implementation of the integrated community development project’s activities, the increase
in yields and benefits, and practice changed of the adopter on their farms, however as for
the non-adopters change in livelihood strategies. The non-adopters have been changing
their livelihood strategies from family farm labor to off-farm labor and non-farm labor in
some worse area where has been being soil deterioration.

Therefore, if possible government and NGOs should assist urgently to the local farmers in
upland regions with financial assistance and the required advanced technology of soil
conservation practices to adopt these practices to conserve natural resources, to sustain the
agricultural production and to cover food security of the local poor farmers. The
recommendations based on the collected data were provide to the farmers and decision
makers. By this way, the farmers will convince how to practice soil conservation systems
effectively and efficiently. These systems call for development of highly efficient systems
of hill farming, using the land according to its capability and conserving and managing the
resources most judiciously.

iii
 Table of Contents

Chapter Title Pages

Title Page i
Acknowledgement ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
List of Maps x
Abbreviations xi

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Research Objectives and Research Questions 4
1.4 Hypothesis 4
1.5 Rationale of the study 5
1.6 Conceptual framework of the study 6
1.7 Scope and limitation 6

2 Literature Review 8
2.1 Land degradation 8
2.2 Soil Erosion 11
2.3 Land Use Change 14
2.4 Soil and Water Conservation 15
2.5 Soil Conservation Extension 16
2.6 Factors influence soil and water conservation 20
2.7 Benefits of soil and water conservation 21
2.8 Livelihoods 22

3 Research Methodology 24
3.1 Types of Research 24
3.2 Research Design 24
3.3 Description of Study Area 24
3.4 Selection of the Study Area 24
3.5 Sampling Design 25
3.6 Source of Data and Collection Method 26
3.7 Data Analysis Methods 26
3.8 Overall Methodology 34

4 Project Description on Soil Conservation Practices 35

4.1 Background 35

iv
 4.2 Objectives 37
4.3 Coverage 37
4.4 Expected Outputs 37
4.5 Project Sites 37
4.6 Resource Persons 37
4.7 Implementation Steps Related to the Project Outputs 38
4.8 Inputs Requirements 41
4.9 Other environmental conservation activities 41

5 Profile of Study Area 42

5.1 Profile of State 42
5.2 Inle Watershed Profile 42
5.3 Township Profile 43
5.4 Profile of Respondents 48
5.5 Chapter Summary 56

6 Assessment of factors influencing adoption of contour farming 58

practices
6.1 Important factors characterizing between adopter and non- 58
adopters
6.2 Factors influencing adoption of Contour Farming Practices 60
by using regression model
6.3 Factors influencing adoption of Contour Farming Practices 64
based perception of the farmers
6.4 Chapter summary 66

7 Comparison of management practices, crop yield and income of 67

adopter and non-adopters of contour farming
Comparison of management practices between adopters
7.1 67
and non-adopters of contour farming
Comparison of crop yield, income and benefits between
7.2 70
adopters and non-adopters of contour farming
Comparison of net benefit between adopters and non-
7.3
adopters 73
7.4 Chapter summary 75

8 Assessment of livelihood strategies based on adoption of 76

contour farming Practices
8.1 Natural Assets 77
8.2 Physical Assets 78
8.3 Social Assets 78
8.4 Human Assets 79
8.5 Financial Assets 80
8.6 Livelihood Assets 80

v
 8.7 Correlation and interrelationship between adoption of 81
contour farming practices and livelihood asset variables
8.8 Livelihood strategies change 82
8.9 Livelihood outcomes 83
8.10 Chapter summary 83

9 Farmers' Perception on Contour Farming Practices 85

9.1 Knowledge level of soil erosion's situation 85
9.2 Knowledge level of impact of soil erosion 85
9.3 Adoption of soil and water conservation 86
9.4 Reasons of acceptance of contour farming 86
9.5 Problems in contour bunds making 87
9.6 Sedimentation in Contour Bunds 87
9.7 Farmers' Maintenance of Contour Bunds 88
9.8 Assessment of knowledge level of objectives of soil 88
conservation and Awareness of soil degradation
9.9 Farmers' opinion on contour farming practices 89
9.10 Farmers' opinion on current farming practices 90
9.11 Non-adopters' willingness to accept CB 90
9.12 Problems to adopt contour bunds 90
9.13 Willingness to learn 91
9.14 Chapter summary 91

10 Conclusions and Recommendations 93

10.1 Conclusions 93
10.2 Recommendations 95

References 97
Appendices 102

vi
 List of Tables

Table Title Page

1.1 Land Utilization in Myanmar 2007-08 (million acres / ha) 1

3.1 Sampling Procedure and Method 25
3.2 Number of respondents in the study area 25
Criterion and rating scale of soil potential, water potential and weed 29
3.3
problem
Criterion and rating scale of access to productive tools and 30
3.4
transportation potential
Criterion and rating scale of access to agricultural information and 31
3.5
membership and communication in activities
Criterion and rating scale of skill and knowledge and leadership 32
3.6
potential
4.1 Project Sites 37
5.1 Land Utilization in Pinlaung Township 46
5.2 Slope Classification of Pinlaung Township (Area in square miles) 47
5.3 Land Types and Their Characteristics of Pinlaung Township 47
5.4 Age and Age Distribution of Respondents 48
5.5 Gender distribution of all respondents 48
5.6 Marital Status of Respondents 49
5.7 Ethnic Group Distribution 49
5.8 Education level and Distribution of all respondents 50
5.9 Occupation and Distribution of all respondents 50
5.10 Years of Farming Experiences 51
5.11 Status of Household size of respondents 51
5.12 Family Labor and Distribution of Respondents 51
5.13 Land Holding Size and Distribution of respondents 52
5.14 Distribution of Lowland Area of Respondents 52
5.15 Distribution of Upland Area 53
5.16 Distribution of Mono-crop Area 53
5.17 Distribution of Double Crops Area 53
5.18 Inter Crops Area and Distribution of Respondents 54
5.19 Distribution of Livestock ownership 54
5.20 Farm Equipment Ownership 55
5.21 Annual Expenditure of farm 55
5.22 Annual Gross Household Expenditure 55
5.23 Annual Gross Income by Agriculture 56
5.24 Annual Gross Income 56
6.1 Canonical discriminant function coefficients of both adopters and 59
non-adopters from selected study area
6.2 Summary statistics of significant tests and classification results 59
6.3 Definition of variables (explanatory variables) used in the 62
regression models

vii
6.4 Econometric model results on factors influencing farmers’ adoption
63
of contour farming system
6.5 Degree of factors influencing on adoption of contour farming 64
7.1 Percentage of farmers who used to fallow land practices in two 67
groups
7.2 Comparison of crop management practices 68
7.3 Using of cropping systems by adopters and non-adopters 70
7.4 Benefit and Cost Ratio for each Cropping Pattern 72
7.5 Average cost, Income and benefit per ha per year of adopters and 73
non-adopters
7.6 Net Benefit of Adopters and Non-adopters based on land size per 74
year
7.7 Net Benefit between contour farm and non-contour farm (US$ / ha / 74
year)
7.8 Net Benefit of Adopters and Non-adopters based on household size 75
per year
8.1 Natural Assets 77
8.2 Physical Assets 78
8.3 Social Assets 79
8.4 Human Assets 80
8.5 Financial Assets 80
8.6 Correlation coefficient of adoption of contour farming practice and 82
livelihood asset variables
8.7 Average percentage of income share in total income between 83
adopters’ group and non-adopters’ group
9.1 Farmers’ knowledge level of soil erosion’s situation 85
9.2 Farmers’ knowledge level of impact of soil erosion 86
9.3 Adoption of soil and water conservation 86
9.4 Reasons of acceptance of Contour Farming 86
9.5 Problems in Contour Bunds Making 87
9.6 Amount of sediments in Contour Bunds 87
9.7 Farmers' notice level that sediments in contour farming practices 88
9.8 Farmers’ Maintenance of Contour Bunds 88
9.9 Assessment of knowledge level of objectives of SWC and 89
awareness of soil degradation
9.10 Farmers' Opinion on contour farming practices (bunds) 89
9.11 Farmers' Opinion on current contour farming practices 90
9.12 Non-adopters ‘willingness to accept CB 90
9.13 Non-adopters’ problems to adopt CB 91
9.14 Non-adopters’ willingness to learn 91

viii
 List of Figures

Figure Title Page

1.1 Conceptual Frameworks 6

2.1 Estimated changes in land use from 1700 to 1995 (Goldewijk and 8
Battjes, 1997).
2.2 Steep lands in the world 12
2.3 Erosion hazard 13
2.4 Sustainable livelihood strategies 22
3.1 Overall flowchart of Research Methodology 34
5.1 Population growth in Pinlaung Township 44
5.2 Source of Livelihood of households 45
5.3 Annual Rainfall and Rainy Days in Pinlaung (1998-2007) 45
5.4 Monthly Annual Rainfall in Pinlaung (2007) 46
7.1 Average cost, average income and average benefit / ha / year of 73
adopters and non-adopters
8.1 Conceptual framework of livelihoods of farmers in the study area 76
Livelihood asset pentagon of adopters and non-adopters in the study
81
8.2 area

List of Maps

Map Title Page

5.1 (a) Shan State Map (b) Inle Watershed Area and (c) Study Area 43

ix
 List of Abbreviations

APM Agency Project Manager

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
BC Benefit and Cost Ratio
CB Contour Bunds
CBOs Community-Based Organization
CDF Community Development Facilitators
CF Contour Farming
CLEWS Community Level Extension Workers
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FYM Farmyard Manure
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HDI Human Development Initiatives
ICDP Integrated Community Development Project
MAS Myanma Agriculture Services
MOAI Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation
MOF Ministry of Forest
MPP Micro project Proposal
NGOs Non Governmental Organization
SCEWS Soil Conservation Extension Workers
SP Service Provider
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
SS Sectoral Specialist
SWC Soil and Water Conservation
TF Township Facilitator
TOT Transfer of Technology
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
VDF Village Development Forum
WAI Weighted Average Index

x
 Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background:

Myanmar is a large country with a total land area of about 67.9 million hectare. It is
basically an agricultural country and has favorable climate for thriving agriculture sector.
The agriculture sector plays a dominant role in her economy and closely linked with the
overall socio-economic sectors in the country. At present, the agriculture sector contributes
about 49% of the total gross domestic product (GDP) and shares about 18% of the total
export earning. Moreover, one fourth of total area of country is cultivable land and
government has being undertaken the Agricultural land expansion works to get more
earning from the export of agricultural products. Presently, the situation of land utilization
in 2007-08 is shown as Table 1.1. Among them, about 11.34 million hectares (28.03
million acres) or 16.78% of the total land area is utilized for agricultural production and
average farm size is about 2.3 ha (5.8 acres) (MOAI, 2008).

Table 1.1.Land Utilization in Myanmar 2007-08 (million acres / ha)

Net Sown Area 28.12 (11.35)

Fallow land 0.73 ( 0.30)
Cultivable Waste Land 14.76 ( 5.98)
Reserved Forests 40.68 (16.47)
Other Forests 41.97 (16.99)
Other areas 40.92 (16.57)
Total 167.18 (67.68)

Source: Myanmar Agriculture in Brief, 2008 (Values in parentheses are in terms of million
hectares)

Farmers grow cereals-mainly as staple food as paddy and other crops (wheat, maize and
sorghum), oilseeds namely groundnut, sesame, sunflower and niger, pulses such as black
gram, green gram, pigeon pea, soybean and chick pea, etc, industrial crops namely cotton,
jute, rubber, coffee, mulberry and oil-palm, kitchen crops, and fruits and vegetables depend
on their own land situation and market economic situation.

With the total population at 55.4 millions, more than 70 % of the total population of the
country is residing in rural areas and 65 % of the total labor force is engaged in the
agriculture sector (MOF, 2006). Due to the increasing growth of rural population, forest
land is exploited especially for agriculture, grazing and fuel wood gathering. Because of
decreasing in forest cover and natural vegetation, soil erosion was accelerated. And then,
steep slope farming without any soil conservation measures, shifting cultivation, over
grazing and uncontrolled grazing resulted in serious degradation of land. Unless there is
the appropriate land ownership system, there will be severe degradation problems
occurred.
Moreover, most of rural farming households are facing food insecurity every year as their
production and income are gradually decreased due to lack of knowledge. Most of farmers
are unaware of technologies to improve their current farming systems and how to conserve
their soil fertility. Therefore, the level of food insecurity in Myanmar was studied by
different organizations including UN agencies and NGOs. Most of the studies revealed that
central regions and most border townships, the Dry Zone area and Southern Shan State
which were considered to be highly or moderately vulnerable in food security terms were
the worst off. Thus, the agriculture sector needs to improve its strategies towards the food
security.

In 1980s, Myanmar government accepted the technical knowledge and equipment

assistance from UNDP and FAO to conserve land degradation and improve the livelihood
of rural people. NGOs and governments have been implementing soil and water
conservation systems in the dry zone and upland area for the sustainable agricultural
development and environmentally program to uplift rural people life and to prevent land
degradation.

Shan State is an undulating plateau area which located in the Middle Eastern part of
Myanmar between 19o 17'N and 24 o 13'N latitudes and 96o 10'E and 101o 11'E longitudes.
It is a hilly region and altitude is ranging from 700 to 1600 meter above sea level. The area
of Shan State is 155801 km2 and the population is about 5.2 million of which upland
population is about 4.5 million (MOAI, 2006). Shan as well as Paos, Palaungs, Dhanu,
Was, Kaws, Lahus, Inthas, Myaungzi, Lishaws, Taungpyoes, Maingthas and many other
minor ethnic groups inhabit in this state.

On upland areas, the expansion of agricultural lands without appropriated systems causes
soil erosion and soil degradation. These consequence impacts to become soil fertility
decreasing, reducing in crop productivity, increasing in production cost as well as affect on
environmental conditions such as pollution and sedimentation on off-sites. Amsalu A. and
Graff J. D, 2006 described as land degradation is conceived as the majority problem
constraining the agricultural development sector due to soil erosion and nutrient depletion.
If the problem is very serious on upland soils, this could affect on the main livelihood of
the local farmers. Thus, soil and water conservation techniques have been efficiently
developed through research and agriculturists’ knowledge. Soil and water conservation
practices reduce externalities and damages of on- and off-sites.

Although soil and water conservation practices are important to implement on upland,
almost farmers are still poor adoption and transitory use of soil and water conservation
techniques. Many diverging factors mainly technical and socio-economic factors influence
on adoption of soil and water conservation practices. Therefore, governments and NGOs
are imperative to create favorable conditions to adopt soil conservation practices so that
local farmers on upland can take advantage of these techniques.

At the present, UNDP project “Integrated Community Development Project” IV phase is

being implemented to conserve Inle Lake watershed area, and to assist the livelihood of
farmers and to improve the food security and crop production, and to sustain the natural
environment in that areas as well.

2
1.2. Problem Statement

The extensive plateau area of Southern Shan State, the mountainous watersheds area of
Inle Lake, has the rich renewable and non-renewable natural resources. Population growth,
economic development and infrastructure improvement induced the degradation of natural
resources (land soil, forest, water, biodiversity) through intensive hill farming that leads to
agriculture becoming unsustainable. Particularly, watershed area degradation is widespread
due to the socio-economic problems, technical / institutional problems and natural
accelerated erosion problems.

Pinlaung Township occupies 18.7 percent of Inle Lake watershed area on the western part
1546 meters above sea level. Almost 75% of its population depends mainly on upland
agricultural farming in which is growing upland rice, wheat, maize, pigeon pea, groundnut,
soybean, sesame, potato, cabbage, chili and small lowland/terrace rice production (MAS).
Most of the cultivation area was located on slopping land with different degrees. Land
degradation is thought to pose a severe threat to the sustainability of agricultural
production. Some reports stated that soil erosion is taking place with different degrees from
sheet erosion to gully erosion. Yet despite long-standing concern about this threat and
dramatic claims of environmental damage, surprisingly little empirical analysis has been
done on the causes and severity of land degradation problems in the region and on how
best to tackle them.

Moreover, intensive cultivation and commercial cropping systems on sloping land caused
accelerated erosion and nutrient removal, leading to degradation of land, low crop yield
and income, socio-economic and serious environmental problems, finally, food
insufficiency becomes a major crisis in rural area. Upland farmers’ major problem is low
production due to declining soil fertility, lack of knowledge of appropriate farming
technologies to resolve to the problem issues effectively, and insufficient farm inputs.
Therefore, the crop yield decreases year after year and the farmers become more and more
needy. In addition, as a result of weakness of transferring agricultural technologies, most
farmers are not knowledgeable for soil and water conservation systems in their upland
farming. Thus, the farmers need to be equipped with crop production technologies as well
as the practices maintaining soil environment. Meanwhile, many of the conservation
programs designed to address the problems have fallen short of expectations. Often
farmers have not adopted the recommended conservation practices or have abandoned
them once the project ended.

UNDP/FAO aid could help to support the low cost technology to rural community for soil
and water conservation in the upland area of Pinlaung Township addressing to improve
livelihood skill that may help local community in raising local food productivity and
household income in the medium and long terms. During 2004-2008, soil conservation
project such as contour bund construction and contour hedge row construction were set up
in 52 villages of 15 village tracts. The total effected area of this project was 1106 acre for
4585 beneficiary population of 478 benefited households.

However, acceptability and adoption of soil and water conservation activities depends on
level of farmers’ awareness, attitudes and economic returns, perception on the
effectiveness of soil and water conservation measures on their livelihood. Therefore, it is
needed to evaluate and feedback all the projects for the effectiveness, adoption and benefits
of the soil conservation activities by the end of project period. In order to assess the

3
influential factors on the adoption is also necessary. Comparison of how much supports the
benefits and how changes in livelihood strategies by adoption of soil conservation
activities in upland area are to be focused.

1.3. Research Objectives and Research Questions

The objective of this study is to assess the adoption and benefits of contour farming
technology by local farmers after project implementation in the study area towards
sustainable hill farming.

The specific objectives of the study are;

(1) To examine the influencing factors of adoption of contour farming

(2) To compare management practices and livelihood strategies of adopters and non-
adopters of contour farming in the study area
(3) To compare the crop yield and income of the adopters and non-adopters of contour
farming practices
(4) To assess the farmers’ perception on contour farming practices

According to these objectives of the research, the following research questions will be
required to take action.

(What are the factors enhancing local farmers’ adoption on contour farming and the
benefits of contour farming practices in Pin Laung Township, Inle Lake watershed area,
Southern Shan State, Myanmar?
Sub-questions

(1) What are the situations relating to the hill farming systems in the study area?
(2) What are the problems facing farmers on hill farming?
(3) What are the effects of contour farming on crop production and socio-economic of
adopted farmers?
(4) Why do not the rest of them adopt contour farming practices in the study area?
(5) How does change livelihood strategies in the adopters and non-adopters of contour
farming in the study area?
(6) How do you manage the farming practices in your farm?

1.4. Hypotheses

General Hypothesis 1: Adoption of contour farming practices could depend on social

economic and demographic factors of farmers.
1.1 H0 : Adoption of contour farming practices does not depend on social
economic and demographic factors of farmers.
1.2 H1 : Adoption of contour farming practices depend on social economic and
demographic factors of farmers.
General Hypothesis 2: Adoption of Contour farming practices could be related with
livelihood assets of the local farmers.
2.1 H0 : Adoption of Contour farming practices is not related with livelihood
assets of the local farmers.
2.2 H1 : Adoption of Contour farming practices is related with livelihood assets
of the local farmers

4
1.5. Rationale of the study

Soil and water conservation practices are still at the initial stage in Pinlaung area. Some
farmers in Pinlaung area adopted contour farming system as soil and water conservation
practices introduced by ICDP project. Thus, researcher must be done to assess the adoption
of soil conservation. Moreover, project evaluated and assessed mainly on its financial
viability, technical soundness and social acceptability during the project phase, it lacks to
evaluate on the adoption level of the introduced new technology in the projected areas. For
now no known study about adopter and non-adopters, so that “Why do they do adopt” and
“why do they don’t adopt”. So, it needs to identify what factors are influencing the
adoption of contour farming technology on land users (technology and socio-economic
factors) and has to know clear. This study will be one of the most important steps towards
this goal is to assess the factors influencing adoption of the contour farming system.

According to studies on economic values of soil erosion in lnle lake watershed at Nyaung
Shwe Township, Myanmar, the farmers who adopted soil and water conservation practices
(terrace farming) earned more income and yield than farmers who did not used soil and
water conservation practices on their upland farms (Cho, 2007). This study has highlighted
the economic value on on-site and off-site effects of soil erosion. It is necessary to know
about the benefits of contour farming system in the project areas to know how can get the
net benefit from these practices. If the extent soil conservation practices affect to improve
agricultural production and net profits, farmers would conserve their upland with these
practices. Moreover, the farmers who used the practices of soil and water conservation
have got more yield and income as economically and cause sustainable natural resources
management as environmentally. Therefore it is essential to study to provide the net
benefits of contour farming practice compared to non-contour farm.

The study conducted by Lucas (2002) on farmers’ perceptions on soil and water
conservation farming in dry land management in Magway Township, dry zone of
Myanmar indicate that farmers who are participating in project’s conservation activities
could reach the same level during a short time to farmers who used to practice in
traditional soil and water conservation practices in knowledge, attitude, practice and
maintenance. Previous study on soil and water conservation practices in Dry Zone has
highlighted the farmers’ perception but still need to identify farmers’ perception on contour
farming system in Shan State. Farmers’ perception of the contour farming system may be
also a key to adopt soil and water conservation practices. This knowledge will help to
consider the appropriate policies and strategies to enhance soil and water conservation
practices on sloping land agriculture.

Furthermore, it also has to compare management practices and livelihood strategies of the
adopters and non-adopters of contour farming system. Farmers vary livelihoods’ strategies
and food security condition on their livelihood assets. This study sets out to investigate the
correlation and interrelationship between adoption and livelihood asset variables in the
study area. The outcome may be useful to assist the farmers’ required needs to be effective
the implementation of soil conservation. This study will fulfill the modification of policy
and strategy for sustainable upland farming and enhancing the soil and water conservation
practices (contour farming) and management systems.

5
1.6. Conceptual framework of the study

This conceptual framework will illustrate the overall research framework of the study area.
The assessment of adoption and benefits of contour farming will be identified main
parameters of status of agriculture, advanced technologies, knowledge of farmers’ level
and NGOs/government.

Assessment of Adoption
Socio-economic
and Benefits of CF Change in
factors
farmer’s
 Education level practices
 Gender Traditional farming
 Age systems/ways Change in
 Income level productivity
 Culture Yield
Facing problems in
 Land
upland farming Income
owner/landless
 Land tenure
Soil fertility
 Size of land
Adaptable management
 Slope of land
practices and farming
Change in
Technology systems
food security
Policy Introduced CF

Financial assistance Change in

livelihood
Influencing factors on
strategies
adoption of CF

Adoption of CF

Figure 1.1 Conceptual Frameworks

1.7. Scope and Limitation

This study was an effort to assess the adoption and benefits of soil and water conservation
practices mainly contour farming technique in Pinlaung Township of the southern Shan
State in Myanmar. It consisted of assessing the condition of contour farming practices as
compared to non-contour farming practices including that bio physical, socio-economic,
technology and financial conditions of farmers and all respondents’ perception on soil and
water conservation practices, contour farming systems, based on all respondents’ reported
recalled data only. This area was represented for soil and water conservation practices in
Inle watershed area in Shan plateau and also one of the ICDP project areas in southern

6
Shan State. Moreover, this study area was located on western parts of Inle Lake which is
urgently need to conserve soil and water conservation practices to control serious soil
erosion problem and sedimentation to restore upland and wetland ecosystem of natural
lake. Although this study was very small area in comparing to southern Shan State covered
by soil and water conservation practices and also the whole Myanmar, it will be useful for
soil degradation areas where need to conserve soil fertility and environmental conditions
also by identifying the influencing factors on adoption of soil and water conservation
technologies. It is hoped that the assessment of small research work will also be helpful to
government policy makers and NGOs to implement soil and water conservation activities
in the future.

As time frame of data collection was monsoon season in the study area, most of farmers
were busy with their agricultural fieldwork; the researcher was facing difficultly with
finding of a suitable person at home to be interviewed. Annual Family income is including
farm income, income from off-farm work and non-farm income per household in the study
area. It was not easy to get the accurate annual income per household data as majority of
the farmers are not used to keeping record of their accounting notes. And it was very
difficult to get cash income from farm, so the annual farm income was converted from
yield and price of their goods as average. The researcher could not get farm cost per
household in previous years (2004 -2006) that means only got all farm cost per year 2007
per household. The researcher could not collect about land policy and land tenure because
almost respondents do not know about land tenure and land policy. Moreover, the
researcher could not highlight the depth of differences in environmental conditions and soil
fertility improvement between contour farming systems and non-contour farming systems
due to time limitations.

7
 Chapter 2

Literature Review

2. 1. Land degradation

The total land area of the world is about 14,000 million hectares in which arable land is
about 11 % (1,480 million ha), pasture land is 24%, 31 % (4,230 million ha) is forest or
woodland and 34 % is other land use (World Resources Institute, 1986). Land degradation
rate become to be accelerating, 5-7 million ha of arable land were predictable that lost per
year as land degradation and to increase to 10 million ha per year by the year 2000 (Dudal,
1982).

Goldewijk (2001) described in “Estimating Global Land Use Change over the Past 300
Years: the HYDE Database” that Cropland area have changed from 265 million ha in1700
to 1471 million ha in year 1990 and pasture increased from 524 million ha to 3451 million
ha.

Global land use and land cover changes were described as Figure 2.1 and these are the
primary source of soil degradation by Goldewijk and Battjes, 1997 cited by Lambin et al,
2001.

Fig.2.1. Estimated changes in land use from 1700 to 1995 (Goldewijk and Battjes,
1997).

The objective of GLASOD project was “Strengthening the awareness of decision

makers and policy makers on the dangers resulting from inappropriate land and soil
management to the global well being, and leading to a basis for the establishment of
priorities for action programmes”. According to the ASSOD project document (UNEP,
1994), the immediate objective of the ASSOD study is “to more accurately portray soil
degradation problems at the national and regional level so that soils, as a major part of
the life supporting system, will be used and managed in a sustainable manner. It is
expected that the project will result in an enhanced knowledge on the status of soil and
land resources and on the trend of soil degradation in South and Southeast Asia, as well
as in strengthened national capacities in the field of soil degradation assessment. It is
assumed that the participating countries provide the required information on which to
accurately build the assessment” cited by G.W.J van Lynden and L.R. Oldeman, ISRIC,
8
GLASOD (2008) indicated that 15 % of global land area was degraded at 1991 and now
land degradation was found as 24 % of total land surface in 2008. In the earth surface area,
cropland consists of only 12 % and 28 % for forest land. Thus, soil degradation is over-
took place in both global forest and cropland area.

The major causes of soil degradation are deforestation, mismanagement of agricultural

activities, overgrazing, overexploitation of vegetation and industrial activities. Physical soil
degradation mainly caused by human activities (FAO, 1999). Although soil takes to form
very long time, soil degradation can take place due to misuse of its capability or suitability
within a year. Soil degradation process may take place due to chemical (accumulation of
excess salts), physical (wind and water erosion or compaction) and / or biological
(deforestation and overgrazing).

Land degradation is also caused by natural disasters, such as droughts, floods and
landslides. Moreover, climate change may also have impacted on agriculture and
ecosystems in return that lead to land degradation. And then, high intensity of rainfall
mainly on steep slopes of mountain and hilly uplands, cause soil erosion due to low
resistance of soils. Chemical soil degradation formed by loss of nutrients / organic matters,
salinization, acidification and pollution from industrial activities. The main causes of
chemical soil degradation are excessive use of fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides and
other chemicals in agricultural fields. Biological soil degradation is linked with imbalance
use of fertilizers, soil nutrients unbalance and depletion of soil organic matter.
Overexploitation of marginal land for high production with intensive farming practices
leads to loss of soil cover vegetation that caused soil erosion and nutrients depletion.
Human activities include improper use of agricultural systems, lack of soil and water
management practices, deforestation, removal of natural vegetation, often intense use of
machinery, overgrazing, inappropriate crop rotation patterns and poor irrigation practices
(Katsunori, 2003).

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) / United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP) distinguished land degradation causes are; Soil erosion by water, Soil erosion by
wind, Soil mining or cultivation without adding chemical or natural fertilizers, Salinity,
Leaching or washing away of nutrients, Toxicities and pollution from industrial or city
wastes, Biological degradation and Physical degradation.

Consequences of land degradation (FAO) described as two groups namely; On-site effects
are reduced crop yields, more need the agricultural inputs, reduced soil fertility and loss of
land and degraded biological environment, and Off-site effects are siltation in reservoirs,
rivers, irrigation canals, increase flooding on lowland, loss of water resources, loss of
hydropower, reduce the population of aquaculture and finally negative effects on health
and life of people.

The consequences of land degradation have the on-site and off-site effects that impact not
only the welfare of user on the upland but also the livelihood of lowland user. Thus, soil
and water conservation or watershed development projects need to investigate and
understand about physical effects that multifaceted to technical relationship. For example,
in sloping areas, changing the cropping pattern of perennial cropping in fallow land can
benefit not only on productivity, income and employment but also soil fertility and
downstream effects. For the development of soil and water conservation assessment,

9
qualitatively and quantitatively effects on upland and downstream areas should be
considered (Graaff, 1993).

ESCAP reported that poverty in Asia and Pacific is the main cause of land degradation
because their livelihood is mainly depend on natural resources ( forest and agricultural
activities) and lack of other income from outside opportunities as well as increasing
population growth and food insecurity. The population density is quite high in these
regions, average 7 persons per ha compare to the world is 4 persons per ha (Katsunori,
2003).

In recent years, many countries in Southeast Asia become its economic growth
progressively that leads to cause severe environmental degradation, which varies from
country to country, such as land degradation, deforestation, water pollution, loss of
biodiversity, and degradation of marine and coastal zones (Radka, 2000). Nowadays, in
most Asia developing countries are facing with the problem of overusing renewable natural
resources (forests, soils and fresh water) as the most important environmental challenges
(Ian Coxhead, 2002).

Although Asia occupies 30 % of the total land area of world, its population is more than
half (estimated of 56 %) of the world’s population. With an increasing rate of population,
more and more food production will be needed. FAO estimated that food production have
to require as double by the year 2030 to provide for its increasing population. In Asia
country, most cultivated lands have been degraded due to moderate to severe erosion and
only few areas is suitable for exploited cultivation. According to FAG, out of the total land,
20 % or more have been degraded in many countries and about 50 % land degraded area
found in some countries of Asia (AFIN, 1997).

According to the Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD), about 13 % (850

million ha) of the land was degraded in Asia-Pacific region from World War II to 1990
(Katsunori, 2003). GLASOD (2008) described that Indo-China, Myanmar, Malaysia and
Indonesia occupied 6 % of global land degrading area and found as 14% of lost Net
Primary Productivity in these countries. In only Myanmar, GLASOD (2008) indicated that
degrading area (358887 km2), 52.89 % of territory, 1.053 % of global degrading area, total
net primary productivity loss (23625068 tone C/ 23 yr), 47.86 % of total population and
affected people were 23608512.

Myanmar consists of flat lands, river valleys, hilly regions, plateau and mountains.
Myanmar is now appearing many environmental problems such as deforestation, loss of
biological resources, land degradation due to wind and water erosion, urbanization and
waste management underdevelopment and poverty. Myanmar has huge areas of land for
cultivation but only 10.44 million hectares or 15 % is used for agriculture cultivation in
which 7.26 million hectares is cultivable wasteland (Swe, 2003).

In Myanmar, land degradation and soil erosion are caused mainly in mountainous region
due to sloping and in dry zone because of undulating land. These situations are more sever
in mountainous regions where shifting cultivation is still practices and dry zone where
undulated land and sandy soils are prevailing.

10
2.2. Soil Erosion

Approximately about 8 % the total world population is upland farmers on steep lands that
mainly depend on agricultural farming. They face with land degradation problems, mainly
soil erosion and water irrigation (Hurni, 1988). The serious problem is soil erosion due to
extremely harvesting of forest trees without replantation and using unsuitable farming
systems on fragile, sloping lands. The fertile topsoil has been depleted due to erosion.
Topsoil plays an essential role in crops production. If topsoil is depleted, high yield can not
achieve without using of high amount of chemical fertilizers. So, farmers can do the best
way to protect their upland fertility from soil erosion. The poorer soil quality become, the
farmer and land will be occurred more and more poor (AFIN, 1997).

Soil erosion is a major fact in land degradation and impact many effects on soil functions.
The main types of soil erosion are water and wind erosion. Water erosion is a major
problem that occurred about 50-70 % of total degraded land mainly in the Himalayas,
Central Asia, China and Australia but wind erosion included only about 20 % of all of
degraded area. Wind erosion is a main problem in arid and semi-arid climates in South and
Central Asia, China and Australia, and also caused by dust and sand storm in Northeast
Asia (Katsunori, 2003).

Soil Erosion is a serious environmental degradation problem in Agriculture in the

developing countries. Soil erosion is serious in Asia and an average soil loss rate is 138 t /
ha annually and caused both on-site and off-site damages. Losses of on-site crop
productivity from soil erosion by human activities on upland farms are estimated US$ 320
million every year. The off-site impacts of upland soil erosion are siltation, water flow
irregularities, reduction of irrigation, water pollution and agrochemical run-off and
sedimentation that lead to reducing capacity of reservoirs, irrigation water and hydro-
electricity generation. These problems depend on many factors such as the resilience of the
natural resource base, the institutional conditions, rate of population growth and the policy
environment (Ananda and Herath, 2003).

FAO identified the steep lands of the regional and country level in the world according to
the slope degrees as shown in figure.

11
Source:FAO, 2000. World Soil Resources Report: LAND RESOURCE POTENTIAL
AND CONSTRAINTS AT REGIONAL AND COUNTRY LEVELS.
FAO studied and identified soil erosion hazard that took place in each country in
the world and described the most affected countries by soil erosion hazard as
figure.

Figure 2.2: Steep lands in the world

12
Source:FAO, 2000. World Soil Resources Report: LAND RESOURCE POTENTIAL
AND CONSTRAINTS AT REGIONAL AND COUNTRY LEVELS.
Figure 2.3: Erosion hazard

FAO has been assisting with great emphasis on acceptance and adaptation of soil and water
conservation practices by land user communities as well as used of biological methods (eg,
agroforestry) (Bot, A. J., et al, 2000).

In Myanmar, land degradation due to water erosion is the most severe and prominent issue.
Approximately about 72 % of the whole country especially in Shan Plateau, Mountainous
Region and rolling and undulating areas of the Arid and Semi-Arid Regions is estimated to
be affected by water erosion. In Shan Plateau, Mountainous Region has different elevations
ranging from 700 to over 3000 meter above sea level, rainfall varies from 2000 to 5000
mm annually and slope gradients range from 45% to 70% etc. All these factors and highly
occurrence of shifting cultivation combined together and caused highly susceptible to
water erosion (Tha Tun Oo and Myint Swe, 1993).

In Southern Shan State, GAF (1991) reported that soil loss from vegetation scrubland/
grassland and tea plantation with clean weeded were 7.5 tonnes / ha and 32 tonnes / ha per
year in Kinda Watershed area, Taungmyintgyi that compared scrubland / grass with clean
weeded tea area both on steep slopes of 31 degrees with 2200 mm rainfall. This indicates

13
that plantation or annual cropping practices without adequate soil and water conservation
will cause a high erosion hazard (Miller Don, 1999).

2.3. Land Use Change

Nowadays, agriculture has become the greatest force of land use change in the world.
FAO (2004) estimated that about one third of the earth’s land surface become the
cultivated land for agriculture and grazing. In Asia, about 81 % of the forest and wetland
areas have been found under the extension of agricultural land (Ramankutty, N., 2006)

2.3.1 Main Agricultural Systems

Each country considers variations in agricultural productivity and efficiency, and also
impacts on economy, natural resources and environment. Most farmers in developing
countries own low resources, low productivity and scarce depend on international market.
Farmers can not expand the agricultural land with the increasing population rate due to
limited land resources. According to FAO, developing countries have to need to extend 26
% of arable land in order to increase 14 % of cropping intensity and to be higher 60 % of
yield. Therefore, agricultural land should be needed to produce more productivity and to
maintain more sustainable (Graaff, 1993).

World Bank (1980) reported that more than 80 % of population engaged in Agriculture in
many African countries and in Asia, about 70 % employed, however, in Latin America,
only between 30 and 40 % was under Agriculture. Although in developing countries, rural
occupant possess only 0.35 ha of arable land, 3.30 ha per rural occupant is found in
developed countries. Also population growth rate in developing countries is more than that
in developed countries.

2.3.2. Rural to urban migration

In Asia-Pacific Region, although about 37 % of the people stay in rural areas, the rate of
population in urban or rural areas differ depend on the levels of economic development and
per capita income in different countries. Some highly urbanized countries, about 75 % of
the population settles in urban areas but only about 25 % inhabits in low urbanized
countries reported by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and
the Pacific (ESCAP) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

Rural people become moving to urban areas due to the various factors which share more
opportunities for employment and higher income, educational and medical services etc.
The major pressure on rural to urban migration is land degradation and mismanagement of
natural resources (Katsunori, S., 2003).

2.3.3. Upland Land Use

Most of mountainous areas are isolated and breakable environmentally. About thirteen
percent of the total world population, 625 million people in the developing countries and
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) staying in mountainous area. In the East and
Southeast Asia, the mountainous areas occupied 7243 km2 and out of total population, 92
% of it lives in rural and 8 % is in urban and it is estimated about 280 millions people are
in those areas (FAO, 2000). About half the total area of Asia is the area of the hills and

14
mountainous and the poor people stay in the uplands of these areas. About 250 million
people in Asia who stay in these areas are absolute poor (IFAD/ ICRAF, 2001).

On hilly region, the ethnic groups are strong, elastic in traditional culture and limitation of
adoption of advanced information and knowledge of Agricultural practices on upland
farming. Inappropriate land use practices caused by their traditional attitudes and beliefs
that are lead to land degradation. Therefore, upland demographic pressure, rapid
deforestation, soil erosion and soil fertility declining become more and more, and
livelihood strategies are unsustainable for these people because of the low productivity of
their upland hill farming (FAO, 2000).

In Southeast Asia, about 170-220 millions of people are facing with food insecurity due to
rapid population growth and severe poverty especially in hilly regions (FAO, 2000). So,
food security becomes the majority of challenges for the local farmers of hilly region.
These areas could be productive highly, if the funds in infrastructure, using of advanced
technologies and extension of participation provided. Therefore, traditional cultivation
systems need to speedily be replaced or supplementary to other appropriated forms of land
use system. Farmers possess smaller and smaller in land holding size because of increasing
population. Therefore, local farmers expand their agricultural land through natural forest
and protected forest area for their livelihoods (Kanok Rerkasem, 2003).

In Myanmar, 16.78 % of total land area, about 11 million hectares is under agricultural
cultivation. About 10.5 % (7.09 million ha) of total land area are found as fallow and
cultivable wasteland which may be utilized for expansion of farmlands for food and
agricultural production (CSO, 2004). Although the agricultural land can be expanded, the
technical support to local farmers is very weak. And the ministry of forestry (1995)
estimated that shifting cultivation still remains amounting as about 2.43 million hectares
was done by about 1.5 to 2 million families (San Win, 2005).

2.4. Soil and Water Conservation

FAO estimated that about 35 % of the earth’s total land surface is notably degraded.
Temporarily, soil erosion takes place many parts of the world in a serious situation. So, soil
and water conservation technologies and approaches are critical factors toward the
sustainable use and management of the natural resource based for agriculture in Asia.

Soil and water conservation needs to understand not only the biophysical aspects of soil
and water but also socio-economic aspects. In some Asian countries, governments support
as a major role in relieving the dilemma of the resource-poor farmers as well as in
dropping the pressure on the upland soil resources. For sustainable agricultural food
production and improvement of economic conditions of small-scale farmers in Asia,
sustainable utilization and conservation of soil and water resources are vital role in
agriculture. So, conservation technologies need to be easily accessible, available, low-cost
and simple to apply to resource poor farmers for improving their life. Moreover, soil and
water conservation technologies need to highlight the benefits of management to small-
scale farmers and other needy groups who are directly or indirectly depended on
agriculture for their livelihood (FFTC, 2006).

15
2.4.1. Soil and water conservation in Myanmar

In Myanmar, soil conservation had been established in 1948 and conservation practices for
natural forest had enacted from 1962 under ministry of forestry. Government received
technical assistance from FAO and UNDP since 1980s. In 1987, FAO and UNDP
implemented “Pilot watershed Management for Kinda Dam” MYA/81/003 in Southern
Shan State.

In the Dry Zone, FAO Project (MYA/93/004) “Agricultural Development and

Environmental Rehabilitation in the Dry Zone” was implemented in 1994 and
accomplished in 2000. The project gave activities for soil and water conservation through
community based needed assessments to improve living conditions of rural communities
and to rehabilitate the degrading environmental conditions in three selected area (Chaung
U, Kyaukpadaung and Magway Townships) and covered 30 villages of three townships
and 15000 farmers participated to be effective.

Environmentally Sustainable Food Security and Micro-income Opportunity in the Dry

Zone (MYA/96 &99/006 FAO/UNDP) project covered three townships and implemented
soil and water conservation practices namely; Physical SWC measurements such as
Contour Bund, Spillways, Stone bunds, Bench Terraces, SS Bunds SS Dams and Check
Dams, and Biological SWC measures such as Strip Cropping, Ley Cropping, Cover/ Green
Manure Crops, Hedge Row Planting, Grass Strips Along Contour, etc (Carucci, 2001).
Among these, in Magway Township, the project covered 15000 acres from 41 villages
with soil and water conservation activities (Lucas Cin Than Kham, 2002).

Environmentally Sustainable Food Security and Micro-income Opportunities in Critical

Watersheds (Southern Shan State) (MYA/93&96/ 005 &007) projects covered the five
townships, Nyaungshwe, Ywangan, Kalaw, Pindaya and Pinlaung, three critical
watersheds; Inle-Mobye, Kinda and Zawgyi and out of 1486 villages, a total of 605
villages (37721 rural households) received intensive attention from the projects. These
projects were implemented activities as soil and water conservation practices; contour
bunds (about 1675 ha of agricultural land), hedge rows (350 ha) and 35 ha with diversion
ditches above gully heads.

2.5. Soil Conservation Extension

Soil and water conservation projects, some has been successful but many have been only
little achieved in general. The causes of failure were pointed out to non-acceptance of
technologies by the farmers and lack of communication between the land users and project
staff / field staff. The solution has developed as new strategies and techniques for
extension that would improve communication between land users and project officials /
staff. The field staffs have to trying to understand the farmers’ perceptions on the problems
and help them to expand and apply the essential remedial measures and to teach farmers
the new technologies that helping farmers and other users in order to identify and resolve
the problems by themselves. The international Soil Conservation Extension Workshop
produced the four major aspects of soil conservation extension that are concepts, strategies,
implementation and adoption (Sombatpanit, 2000).

To develop the appropriate technologies for degradation of soil and water resources,
governments and scientists supported with huge efforts to small-scale farmers in Asia. The

16
appropriate technologies should be shared and learn among countries, and transferred to
the land users as much as possible with sufficient information, knowledge and experiences
about soil and water resource conservation in agricultural environments for improving
agricultural production and to supply to enhance livelihood opportunities to resource-poor
farmers, and to conserve or prevent the natural resource degradation. In recent years, when
water and soil resources become more and more restricted, new policies for agriculture,
new institutions, technologies and improved management options will be needed to sustain
agricultural production. In some countries, participatory integrated approaches such as
socio-economic and extension programs (NGOs) are supplying to the conservation of soil
and water resources in farming villages through meetings, consultations, regular reporting,
socio economic surveys to enhance the adoption of soil and water conservation systems.
Technology promotions and capacity building through various information, education and
communication media, and strategies were established effectively in supporting
community participation and farmers’ association in soil and water conservation projects
(FFTC, 2006).

2.5.1. Concepts

Farmers needed to change the concepts on soil conservation in their agricultural farming
systems since populations have increased. The researchers have to identify and analyze the
problems facing with land users in research stations. The extension services have to
transfer these solutions to the farmers as the link between the researchers and the farmers
and support the new technologies with incentives putting in to the enduring practices. For
rural development, the people-centered extension should include all stakeholders such as
local leaders, school teachers, religious leaders, rural business people and government
officials. These groups play the important role in the adoption of new technologies due to
influencing options and decisions of local farmers. If elements of traditional methods
included in integrated new technologies development, farmers will be more confided in
new technologies and better for long-term adoption (Sombatpanit, 2000).

2.5.2. Strategies

Because the adoption rate of soil conservation systems is still low, it urgently needs to
develop appropriated strategies for soil conservation that will be more accepted by farmers.
People’s participation plays a necessary role for success in soil conservation measures. The
introduced technology should not only be technically effective and environmentally sound
but also economically feasible and socially suitable (Sombatpanit, 2000).

2.5.3. Implementation

Soil conservation extension was implemented with ‘top-down’ manner. Farmers do not
know it as a vital problem because they try hard to earn more income to provide their
families, educate their children and solve the more immediate requirements. Therefore, soil
conservation extension become slowly implementation and expensive. To motivate land
users, the implementation of soil conservation measures should be done with economic,
social and political pressure.

In Vietnam, more suitable land use systems were introduced in which perennial crops and
ground cover crops included to reduce soil erosion with long-term land rights.

17
In Philippines, extension staff introduced soil and water conservation practices to farmers
with training and demonstrations to conserve soil erosion and to obtain more production.
Extension workers must be cooperation with the specialists and closer coordination of
government and non-government programs. After the implementation of soil conservation
projects, it need to record what has been done, success or failures. And the monitoring and
evaluation programs must be clear for soil conservation measures (Sombatpanit, 2000).

2.5.4. Adoption

Roger (1962) described the adoption process includes altogether five stages; awareness,
interest, evaluation stage, trial stage and adoption stage. To adopt of new technologies,
extension workers play an important role and assist the farmers in these practices, offer the
necessary information and help to evaluate and decide the potential soil conservation
practices by farmers in order to control soil degradation and increase crops productivity
and improve their living standard ( Sombatpanit, 2000).

Level of farmers’ environmental awareness in Southern Shan State

The researcher concluded that farming behavior, wealth, family size and dependent
number per household, information accessibility and exposure to urban influenced
significantly on environmental awareness in Inle Lake area. As government, extension
service should be transferred the rewarding systems to the local farmers to apply the
environmentally friendly farming systems. Thus, their activities come up with positive
effects in the future (Lwin, 2006).

Around the Inle lake region, the researcher found in physically environmental condition of
Inle region that human’s activities caused mainly environmental problems because poor
people become rely on only natural resources due to the poverty and difficulties for life.
Soil erosion and deforestation found on steep slope lands along the mountains regions
under much pressure due to inappropriate farming management and practices. The
researcher also found that ethnic group (mainly Pa Oh people) uses to a lot of pesticides in
Thanatphet (Cordia diachotoma) due to lack of awareness of soil degradation and
knowledge about sustainable agriculture. Thus, the more lack of environmental awareness
of local people, the environmental impacts will be more contribute to the lake through the
whole environment (Lwin, 2006).

2.5.5. Constraints to adoption

Agricultural research efforts are limited and then new technologies are not sufficient on
local knowledge and techniques. Lack of farmer knowledge (appropriate technology),
insufficient farmer field school, and lack of communication between farmers, extension
agents and researchers play the main factors on soil and water conservation. Lack of
education, poor health, poverty and cultural factors can prevent to adopt the appropriate
technology and conservation activities (Graaff, 1993 and Sombatpanit, 2000).

Rate of adoption depend on nature of soil conservation practices, their suitability and
utility. Although most recommended practices control soil erosion and improve soil
fertility, does not appropriate for resources poor farmers because of requiring more labor
input. Researchers and policy makers should consider this constraint and used to design
appropriate subsidy structures (Sombatpanit, 2000).

18
2.5.6. Initiatives

Although most soil conservation programs usually used by incentives and subsidies to
encourage farmers to adopt conservation measures at beginning, later reduced or totally
withdrawn. Therefore, programs should be supported more appropriate incentives such as
cost sharing of various conservation measures implemented on the farm, providing farm
inputs such as seed, fertilizers and farm tools and so on ( Sombatpanit, 2000).

FAO has been doing initiatives concentrate on land degradation. The approach of the
International Scheme for the Conservation of Lands in Asia and the Pacific (CLASP)
supports countries in the region that can develop to conserve land degradation and
maintain soil fertility. FAO has been established an Asian Network on Problem Soils since
1989. The Network proposes to assist with the rational use, management and conservation
of problem soils in sustainable and environmentally manner. The Asia Soil Conservation
Network for the Humid Tropics (ASOCON), funded by UNDP and technical assistance
from FAO, intend to help its member countries to improve skills and expertise of
personnel, who are supported to assist farmers for development and distribution of soil and
water conservation practices. Moreover, international centers such as the International Soil
References and Information Center (ISRIC) and the International Center for Integrated
Mountain Development (ICIMOD), and international organizations such as WB, ADB,
ESCAP, UNCCD and UNEP are also contributing for sustainable utilization of natural
resources and control of land degradation (Katsunori, S., 2003).

Today, Myanmar experiences severely constraint of insufficient budgets and facilities as

well as isolation from external knowledge sources. Agriculture sector needs sustainable
agricultural system and have to do more researches in order to attain the global agricultural
knowledge that will lead to reduce the poverty and improve the development of rural
people. In the first case, it needs to implement the capability of researches and to find the
appropriate support to the skill of agriculture extension agents and rural communities. The
extension services have to communicate with farmers for development of agricultural
sector. Moreover, it also needs to find out the technical and financial support from
international organizations. The main reason is scarce research capacities, inadequate of
qualified researchers, extension workers and educators in the agricultural sector and rural
areas (Aye, 2006).

In recent years, the National Commission for Environmental Affairs (NCEA) has been
establishing environmental management system in association with UN organizations,
Myanmar Agenda 21, which consists of programmes and activities that will encourage
environmental protection and prevent environmental degradation. These programmes are
social, economic, institutional and infrastructural strengthening as well as protection and
conservation of environment that lead to the sustainable development (Swe, 2003).

UNDP has supported and given assistance to Myanmar since 1993 within a programme
framework entitled the Human Development Initiative (HDI). All HDI projects activities
based on grass-roots level impact in a sustainable manner in the areas of primary health
care, the environment, HIV/ AIDS, training and education, and food security. HDI projects
were implemented in 23 townships in the Dry Zone, Southern Shan State, the
Ayeyarwaddy Delta and Rakhine, Chin and Kachin States as targeted areas. The food
security projects supported about 800 villages in Dry Zone, Southern Shan State and
Ayeyarwaddy Delta and 25,000 households in the Dry Zone and Southern Shan State. The

19
projects provided to agriculture and watershed management techniques, including small-
scale farming, the landless and women, extensive soil conservation methods, income
generation activities, environmental conservation and the sustainable use of natural
resources (UNDP, 1999).

2.6. Factors influence soil and water conservation

Legal rights (land tenure, inheritance rights), market prices for inputs and outputs, net
benefit from products and urban consumers are encouraged the farmers for the adoption of
soil and water conservation. The additional institutional constraints such as bureaucracy,
policy (eg-subsides), infrastructure and institutions (NGOs, extension services) also affect
the attitude and motivation of farmers to do soil and water conservation. Farmer groups or
associations or local credit agencies or village leaders play sometimes in decision making
on soil and water conservation in rural areas. Government (various ministries) can impact
on the land use sustainability and different capacities at different levels of national,
regional and local. Government policies about pricing, taxation, land tenure play an
important role in restrictions and sometime export promotion can also include in it. All
these factors have effects either direct or indirect on land users’ decision making for soil
and water conservation (Graaff, 1993).

The factors influencing on adoption of alley cropping were gender, contacts with extension
agencies, members of farmers’ groups and farmers who are facing fuel wood scarcity that
found high significant level on adoption (Adesina et al, 2000).

In the North Pare and West Usambara Mountains of Tanzania, factors of knowledge and
acknowledgement of soil erosion, economic rank, investment level, participation in SWC
programmes and labor-sharing groups, and availability of family labor have positive
effects on adoption of soil and water conservation practices (Mbaga-Semgalawe and
Folmer, 2000).
Bekele and Drake (2003) described that slope, plot area, access to information and support
programs for initial investment factors were found to positive influence on decision of
conservation, and age group, soil type, growing crop type, livestock holding, fertilizer
credit, use duration of a plot and participation of women in fieldwork activities had no
influence on decisions to adopt conservation.

In Thailand (ASIALAND Sloping Lands Project), the factors of training attendance, on-
farm trial participation and farmers’ perceptions on erosion had significance on adoption of
conservation practices, but insufficient knowledge of conservation, lack of land tenure,
unavailable of labor and tangible benefits did not give from soil conservation practices that
factors influenced on non-adoption (Wapet, et al., 2004).

Age (less than 60 years old), available of family labor, dedicated farmers in agriculture,
farmers who plans all cropping activities, early adopter of technological innovations,
communication with local extension services and reading of agricultural journals that these
factors increased on the probability of farmers’ adoption on tillage following contour lines
Leyva et al. (2007).

Factors influencing on adoption of alley cropping were institutional factors (members of

local peasant organization and training in soil conservation practices), socio-economic
factors (gender, education and per capita income) that found as significant influence. For
20
management, demographic, socio-economic, physical and institutional factors were
influenced in Haiti (Bayard et al, 2007).

In general, Graaff et al., 2008 showed that age of head of household and participation in
programmes influenced on adoption and resource availability (e.g. farm size), physical
factors (e.g. slope) and attitude on conservation were caused to effort adoption. Finally,
these authors also concluded that if farmers got long-term financial benefits, they will be
more adopted and maintained soil and water conservation practices in developing
countries.

2.7. Benefits of soil and water conservation

To know soil fertility improvement (chemical properties) in contour hedgerows, the

experiment was conducted in Mindanao, the Philippines on two Oxisols (Ferrralsols) with
four contour hedgerows systems: S1_ double rows of a tree legume Gliricidia sepium
(Jacq.); S2_ A row of G. sepium and a row of a natie pasture grass Paspalum conjugatum;
S3_ A row of G. sepium and a row of a productive fodder grass Penisetum purpureum
(napier grass); S4_ A double row of P. purpureum; and S5_ Open-field control without
hedgerows with crop rotation of rice and corn under the same managements. After four
years of testing, this result showed that exchangeable Mg was found 40 % lower in S4 than
that of S5 (control). S4 caused to have the lowest exchangeable K, Ca, Mg and Bray-2
extractable P and also decreased in exchangeable in Al (Agus, et al., 1999).

The adoption and profits of conservation measures depend on the agro-ecological

conditions, technologies used and the prices of inputs and outputs produced. Moreover,
Policy reform, institutional and technologies should support not only to reduce soil erosion
but also to increase farmer’s income (Ananda and Herath, 2003).

In Yunnan Province, southwest China, the researchers did soil conservation experiments to
know the effectiveness of soil conservation measures on erosion rates and crop
productivity that treated with maize crop on 3º, 10º and 27 º slopes. The experiment
included five treatments: no-tillage, straw mulch, polythene mulch, intercropping and
control (conventional tillage). According to these results, straw mulch treatment was the
lowest rate in erosion, decreased in runoff but as maize grain yield, polythene mulch gave
the best yield (barton et al., 2004).

Gebreegziabher et al., (2008), did an experiment about contour furrows for in situ soil and
water conservation in Gum Selasa, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia during 2005. The experiment
was conducted to compare the practices of permanent raised beds with contour furrows,
terwah (Traditional in situ soil and water conservation for teff production – distance
between contour furrows is approximately 1.5 m) and traditional ploughing. According to
measurement after every rain event, runoff volume and sediment load from CF, terwah and
traditional ploughing were 255, 381 and 653 m3ha-1 runoff and 4.7 t ha, 7.6 t ha and 19.5 t
ha_1 soil loss respectively. Among these practices, CF was caused the lowest runoff and
soil loss and terwah was lower in runoff and soil loss than traditional ploughing. However,
as soil fertility improvement such as soil nutrient and soil structure improvement are slow
processes, benefits from contour furrows with planting of adequate surface crop mulching
as long-term can be expected after little years.

21
In semiarid region of China, to know the benefits of contour furrows (rainwater harvesting
system) and , the experiment was conducted on slope areas and small rainfall with plastic-
covered ridge with gravel-mulched furrows (T1), plastic-covered ridge with bare furrows
(T2) and control (no ridge and no contour furrow- T3) from 2001 to 2004. This result
showed that plastic-covered ridge with gravel-mulched furrows had high potential to
harvest rainfall, and runoff efficiency become less year after year than other’s (Li et al.,
2008).

In Nyaungshwe township of Inle watershed of Southern Shan State, the researcher

determined on-site costs of soil erosion by using three methods namely; replacement cost
approach, change in productivity approach and defensive expenditure approach. As
replacement cost approach, on-site’ erosion cost were US$ 72.47 and US$ 147.36 per
hectare per year in crop covered land and non-crop-covered land respectively. In the case
of change in productivity approach, the average annual net income difference between rice
and garlic farms with terrace and without terrace was US$ 742.27 per hectare per year, and
compared to sebesten farm described that US$ 30.59 per hectare per year as the on-site
cost of erosion impact on this crop cover based on four years (2003-2006). In defensive
expenditure approach, terrace farming of rice and garlic was US$ 88.90 per hectare per
year that caused the lowest average on-site cost among these three main approaches.
Overall, terrace farming could give the lowest erosion impacts and improve in yield and
less in economic losses due to soil fertility loss due to soil erosion (San, 2007).

2.8. Livelihoods

La Rovere, R. and Dixon, J defined Livelihoods as “the capabilities, assets, and activities
required for a means of living. Livelihoods are sustainable when they can cope with and
recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance the capabilities or assets, while
not undermining the natural resources base.”

Source:La Rovere and Dixon, 2007 CIMMYT guidelines for assessing impacts on
livelihoods
Figure. 2.4. Sustainable livelihood strategies

22
Livelihood assets can be classified into five groups; Natural capital, social capital, human
capital, physical capital and financial capital. The interaction of livelihood assets with
policies, institutions, processes and livelihood strategies (farming diversification or
intensification or migration or livelihood diversification) influence people’s livelihoods
(La Rovere, 2007).

Farming diversification or intensification depends on natural resources and includes

activities that are production of food crops and cash crops, livestock and off-farm works.
Livelihood diversification’s activities are rural trade and services. Migration may be
temporary or permanent that underprivileged people move to settle another place to find
work for their food security. In one household of rural areas, one or more of family
numbers go away from the resident household to look for work to support sustainable
livelihood especially in off-seasons. And, market liberalization linked directly to the
improvement of the household’s perception. Market liberalization can cause some
household better or worse off than before (Orr, A., 2001).

“Environmentally Sustainable Food Security and Micro-Income Opportunities in Critical

Watershed” FAO project described sustainable livelihood approach was significant
positive impact on rural poor in Myanmar, and achieved a strong impact in attaining
income, employment and food security increases on a sustainable basis. Rural farmers’
vulnerabilities were natural resource recovery, increased food security and irrigation, and
they depend on all of livelihood assets (human, social, financial, physical and natural
capitals). Soil conservation activities can support employment opportunities for resource
poor households over the dry season instead of migration (Neely, C. et.al, 2004).

23
 Chapter 3

Research Methodology

3.1 Types of Research

The research methods adopted in this study was a combination of both exploratory and
evaluation type.

3.2 Research Design

The research design was the combination of a survey design and a non-experimental
design.

3.3 Description of Study Area

The field survey of this study was conducted on “Integrated Community Development
Project” study on Inle Lake watershed area in Southern Shan State (UNDP) Project covers
Pin Laung Township of Taunggyi District in Southern Shan State. Pin Laung’s area is
1293.42 squared miles and the altitude is 1546 meters above sea level and then, is also the
highest elevation of Southern Shan State. In addition, Inle Lake watershed area consists of
eleven townships, in which Pin Laung Township covers about 19 percent of the Inle
watershed area. It has 127 villages, the total population is 86,080 and many ethnic groups
inhabit in this area (MAS, 2008).

3.4 Selection of the Study Area

The sites were selected to compare the adopters and non-adopters according to the
following criteria;

 Villages are under the implementation of (ICDP) Project Under different slope %
 All sites are under the implementation of contour farming system in 2004-2005
 Most farmers are poor and mainly depend on natural resources (upland agricultural
farming systems)
 All farmers are interest and enthusiasm to join in contributing information.

Before the field survey, the researcher was selected the study area (two sites) according to
the above criteria and discussion of field situation with the head of UNDP/ICDP project
and Township’s Manager of Myanma Agriculture Service of Pinlaung. In this study, one
site is located less than 15 slope % of topography and another one is over 15 %. One site
included two projected villages area, and another is included one projected village area are
selected to compare the adopters and non-adopters of soil conservation practices (Contour
Farming). Thus, the survey was carried out at three villages namely; NamToke, Lalaung,
War Prone village tract which is reorganized the list of the adopters and non-adopters of
Contour farming Practices were arranged. The survey was supported the information for
the adoption of soil conservation practice (Contour Farming) and the comparison between
the adopters and the non-adopters in terms of yield, income, management practices and
livelihood strategies. This area was represented as a good study area for soil conservation
practices and to study the livelihood strategies of local farmers.

24
3.5. Sampling Design

Table 3.1. Sampling Procedure and Method

Step Sampling Technique Description Out put

Southern Shan
1 Purposive Sampling Sampling of the State
State
Selected District based
2 Purposive Sampling Taunggyi District
on the criteria
Selected Township Pin Laung
3 Purposive Sampling
based on the criteria Township
4 Purposive Sampling Selected Village Project villages
Adopters and
5 Stratified Random Sampling Selected Households
Non-adopters

3.5.2 Sample Size

In this study, the researcher was firstly observed the farmers’ field situations to separate
the adopter and non-adopter of soil conservation practices. The adopter of Contour farming
was defined as the farmers who have implemented and used Contour farming practices on
their farms. The non-adopted farmer was defined as the farmers who have the similar bio-
ecological characteristics of farm with the adopters’ farm. Although the sample size of the
adopters’ number was 50 and the number of non-adopted farmers was 50, all respondents
were 101 farmers; 51 adopters and 50 non-adopters in the actually field survey. Among
them, 3 of non-adopters were excluded because of too much missing data and so only 98
were analyzed.

3.5.3 Number of Respondents in sample sites

The number of respondents interviewed in each site is shown in Table 3.2. Site-1 (Nam
Toke) included 38 respondents, (La laung) 30 respondents and Site-2 (War Phone) 30
respondents respectively.

Table 3.2: Number of respondents in study area

No of Adopter
Adopted Non-adopter Total
No. Study Area households sample
farmers Sample size Sample size
in village size
1 Nam Toke 95 60 21 17 38
2 La laung 69 35 15 15 30
3 War Prone 49 28 15 15 30
Total 213 123 51 47 98

Source: Field survey (2008)

25
3.6. Source of Data and Collection Method

The required data and information were collected through field survey from questionnaire,
checklist, self-observation, semi-structured interviews and group discussion. Questionnaire
was prepared to obtain all of the information about knowledge, attitudes, perceptions of
different issues including agricultural production, economic constraints and technical
constraints, soil fertility and food security, technology adoption, yield and income,
livelihood strategies, and management practices of Contour farming. Before doing the
survey, the questionnaire was pre-tested with five adopted farmers and five non-adopted
farmers that helped to become more cleared question to the respondents. Based on this
result, further review, modifications and corrections were done (Appendix 1).

Questionnaire survey was interviewed to the farmers at household level. A survey was
collected the information on the soil conservation practices, managements, incomes, yields
and livelihood strategies of adopted farmers and non-adopted farmers to provide the stated
objectives. This survey was conducted with the help of field assistants who were the field
staff. All field assistants were the staff of Land Use Division, Myanma Agriculture
Service, Pinlaung Township and the staff of ICDP project helped the whole my field work
and they had experience and research knowledge.

Self-observation was observed on the bio-physical, social, economic, environmental

conditions and overall living standard of the local people, and management practices of
soil conservation and water harvesting technology in the field. This observation helped to
explore the adoption and management practices of Contour farming in the study area.

Key informant interview was conducted with the field staff of UNDP and MAS, village
leaders who are mainly cooperating with the project for soil conservation practices to
obtain the information of checklists of questions.

Semi-structure interviews were done together with questionnaires interviewed individual

farmers to assess the factors influencing the adoption and non-adoption of soil
conservation practices (Contour farming) on the farmers.

Group discussion was made to obtain some ideas and opinions of the group people in the
study area who are men or women, experienced people on the farming practices, such as
farmers’ perception, attitudes, problems about the upland farming and soil conservation
practices.

Secondary data was obtained from the offices of Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation,
Ministry of Forestry, and ICDP project at Pinlaung Township. Moreover, the required
secondary data and the relevant information are collected from University of Agriculture
and Forest at Yezin and Department of Agriculture Planning at Nay Pyi Daw, and Head of
Land Use Division, libraries of UNDP and FAO at Yangon.

3.7. Data Analysis Methods

Data analysis methods for quantitative and qualitative analysis were evaluated based on the
survey data through primary and secondary sources for this study. It was useful to analyze
the knowledge and adoption on soil conservation practices (Contour Farming) and to
identify the influence factors on the adoption and to examine the changes in crop

26
productivity and in livelihoods strategies. Moreover, t-tests and chi-square tests were
carried out by using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software Version 16 and
Microsoft Excel also used to analysis of benefit-cost ratio and yield of crops.

3.7.1 Quantitative Analysis

Descriptive statistics such as chart, table and graph, frequency, percentage and mean were
used for analysis of the age, household size, family labor, and land holding size, livestock
ownership, farming experience, annual gross income and expenditures, and so on.

Analytical Statistics

Probit and logistic regression analysis was employed for measuring adoption decision
wherein adoption was categorized as “yes” or “no” type. This model was techniques for
estimating the probability of an event that can take one of two values adopt or do not adopt
(CIMMYT, 1993). The discrete choice models, in particular the probit and the logit
models, have been widely used in empirical adoption studies (Feder, et al. , 1985; Akinola,
1986).

The estimated probability of adoption in a model is given by:

Probability of adoption = F (b’ x),

Where the expression b’ x is defined as: b’ x= b0 + b1x1+-----+bkxk where b0 is constant, b1,

b2, -----bk are the estimated coefficients and x1, x2, ----xk are the values of the independent
variables. Farmers’ decisions to use soil conservation practices were focused and
significant factors influencing the decision to adopt the soil conservation and water
harvesting technologies were quantified. This model was estimated by using SPSS, version
16 (2008).

Before running regression analysis, discriminate analysis was done to find out the
combination of variables that adopt the technology the best classification results, which
maximizes the difference between adopters and non-adopters.

Benefit-cost ratio analysis

Benefit-cost ratio was used to compare the benefit, yield and income of the adopters and
non-adopters of Contour farming practices. Benefit-cost ratio was one of the most widely
used criteria in economic evaluation. It was calculated by dividing the present worth of
benefit by the present worth of the cost.

Chi square test

Chi square test was used to compare the situation between the adopters and non-adopters
of Contour farming practices. The chi square test was used to distinguish the farmers of
two groups: adopter and non-adopter, changes in farmers’ practice, knowledge, perception
on the soil conservation practices (Contour Farming), degree of satisfaction regarding
technological and financial support and facilities.

27
 2
Chi square = 1=k_(O
– E )_
E
Where, E= Expected frequency
O= Observed frequency
k = Number of classes
T-Test

The t-test was used to measure the statistical significance of the differences between means
of two groups; adopters and non-adopters to compare the farm management practices,
livelihood strategies changes, change in knowledge and interaction process on the adoption
of soil conservation practices (Contour Farming practices).

Weighted Average Index (WAI)

WAI was useful to measure types of social scaling mainly knowledge level of objectives of
soil and water conservation and awareness level of soil degradation and degree of
satisfaction of benefits of contour farming in this study. Based on a five-social scaling,
various types of indexes were analyzed with the WAI values.

Degree of knowledge level of objectives of SWC, awareness of soil degradation and

satisfaction of benefits of CF were shown as following:

Very weak Weak Medium Strong Very Strong

(VW) (W) (M) (S) (VS)
0- 0.2 0.21- 0.4 0.41- 0.6 0.61- 0.8 0.81-1

The index was computed by using the following computational formula. (Source: Miah,
1993)

WAI = { Fvs (1) + F s(0.8) + Fm (0.6) + Fw (0.4) + Fvw (0.2)}

N

Where, WAI = Weighted Average Index

Fvs = Frequency of responses indicating very strong
Fs = Frequency of responses indicating strong
Fm = Frequency of responses indicating medium
Fw = Frequency of responses indicating weak
Fvw = Frequency of responses indicating very weak

Average Index (AI)

The AI was applied to compare the livelihood strategies of adopters and non-adopters.
Actually, livelihood strategies change can not be measured by directly but indirectly, the
livelihood assets (human and non-human resources including natural, physical, social,
human and financial) were identified with different measurements upon which livelihoods
are built. Therefore, various indexing and scaling methods were used to compare the
livelihood strategies between two groups for examining (Miah, 1993 and Muangkaew,
2006). Three indices (0-0.33, 0.34-0.66 and 0.67- 1) were made to facilitate livelihood
assets as low, medium and high respectively.

28
Natural Asset

Natural Asset can be deducted from soil potential and water potential of each upland farm
of adopters and non-adopters. Soil potential is defined as the capability of soil fertility in
each farm to produce crops yield in terms of soil fertility level and soil fertility change in
the 5 years period. Water potential is determined with the level of sufficiency of water for
crops and the frequency of water drought problem in upland farms. Cropping intensity is
also assumed as one of natural assets to know the capacity of soil and water for crops
within one year. Moreover, event of weed problem was including in Natural Asset because
upland farmers are facing with weed problem of different level in their farms. Three scales
for each measurement were accounted as shown in table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Criterion and rating scale of soil potential, water potential and weed
problem
Rating Scale
Criterion
0.33 (low) 0.66 (medium) 1 (high)
Soil Potential (SP)
Level of soil fertility (SP_1) Bad Fair Good
Soil fertility change in 5 Decreasing Improving
Stable
years period (SP_2) fertile fertile
Water Potential (WP)
Level of water sufficiency Often Sometime
Sufficiency
for crops (WP_1) sufficiency sufficiency
Water drought damage
Often occur Sometime occur Rare occur
(WP_2)
Event of weed problem
Often occur Sometime occur Rare occur
(WP_3)

The SP and WP indices are the average scores of all criterions and calculated by using the
following equation.

SPI =

Where, SPI = soil potential index o

i = ith farmer, 1, 2, 3, …, N
j = jth criterion, 1, 2
N = total of farmers

WPI =

Where, WPI = water potential index o

i = ith farmer, 1, 2, 3, …, N
j = jth criterion, 1, 2, 3
N = total of farmers

29
Cropping Intensity is calculated as the ratio of total cropped area and total cultivated area
within one year for all crops. Cropping Intensity Index can be got by using an average ratio
of ith farmers’ Ci to the highest Ci value.

Cii = / Li

Where, Cii = Ci of ith farmer

Ai = total cropped area
Li = total cultivated area

CiI = I / Cih) / N

Where, CiI = cropping intensity index o

Cii = Ci of ith farmer
Cih = highest value of Ci in the study area
N = total of farmers

Physical Asset

Physical Asset includes productive assets (land, tools) and communal assets (roads) that
can be accounted with access to productive tools (Apl) and transportation potential (Tp).
Farmers depend on their ownership of land to adopt the new technology. As farmers,
productive tools are important for land preparation and harvesting time for crops
cultivation. Access to productive tools can be calculated as different scales: easy to access,
sometime difficult to access and difficult to access. Farmers who possess their own
productive tools are easy to do everything in farm work in the right time, but most of
farmers need hired productive tools for field work. Transportation potential is also
important to know the quality of roads that inputs can be transported from the markets to
home/ fields and output products can be carried out from fields to the households/ markets
also. Transportation potential can vary mainly depend on vehicles ownership and road
quality in different seasons. Apl and Tp of two groups can be measured by rating of three
different scales; 0.33, 0.66 and 1 as shown in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Criterion and rating scale of access to productive tools and transportation
potential
Rating Scale
Criterion
0.33 (low) 0.66 (medium) 1 (high)
Access to productive tools (Apl)
Oxen Difficult Sometime difficult Easy
Tractor Difficult Sometime difficult Easy
Transportation potential to
market/field (Tp)
By push cart Difficult Sometime difficult Easy
By truck Difficult Sometime difficult Easy
The Apl and TP indices are the average scores of all criterions and calculated by using the
following equation.

AplI =

30
 Where, AplI = Access to productive tools index o
i = ith farmer, 1, 2, 3, …, N
j = jth criterion, 1, 2
N = total of farmers

TPI =

Where, TPI = transportation potential index o

i = ith farmer, 1, 2, 3, … , N
j = jth criterion, 1, 2
N = total of farmers

Therefore, physical asset index is measured as the level of land ownership and the average
index of access to productive tools and transportation potential.

Social Asset

Social Asset includes access to agricultural information (Ai) and membership and
communication in activities (Mc). Sources of agricultural information are radio, book,
television, extension workers and neighbors that can be delivered about agricultural
information to farmers. Membership and communication in activities (Mc) implied that the
interpersonal networks and communication for sharing and improvement of knowledge
between the members in any activities. All of criterions are shown in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Criterion and rating scale of access to agricultural information and
membership and communication in activities
Rating Scale
Criterion
1 (high) 0.66 (medium) 0.33 (low)
Access to agricultural information
(Ai) from sources
Radio (Ai_1) Always sometime rare / no
Books (Ai_2) Always sometime rare / no
Television(Ai_3) Always sometime rare / no
Extension Worker (Ai_4) Always sometime rare / no
Neighbors' farmers (Ai_5) Always sometime rare / no
Membership and Communication in
activities (Mc)
Members in community activities/
Always sometime rare / no
meetings
Participation in Any activities/ meetings Always sometime rare / no
The Ai and Mc indices are the average rating scores of all criterions accounting by the
following equation:

AiI =
Where, AiI = Access to productive tools index o
i = ith farmer, 1, 2, 3, …, N
j = jth criterion, 1, 2
N = total of farmers

31
 McI =
Where, McI = transportation potential index o
i = ith farmer, 1, 2, 3, … , N
j = jth criterion, 1, 2
N = total of farmers
Thus, social asset index can be measured as the average index of access to agricultural
information and membership and communication in activities.

Human Asset

Human Asset can be assumed by the level of skill and knowledge and the ability of
leadership potential of each farmer. Level of skill and knowledge can be measured as the
average scales of education level, experience in training program, knowledge gain from
project and ability of farmers to solve problem by themselves. The ability of leadership
potential can be accounted from frequency of group-leader in project activities. All scales
of criterions are shown in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 Criterion and rating scale of skill and knowledge and leadership potential
Rating Scale
Criterion 0.66
1 (high) 0.33 (low)
(medium)
Skill and knowledge (Sk)
Higher than
Secondary Literacy and
Level of education (Sk_1) secondary
level primary level
level
more than 3
Experience in training program (Sk_2) 2-3 times 0-1 time
times
Knowledge gain from project (Sk_3) High Moderate Low
Ability to solve farm problem by self always solve usually solve sometime
(Sk_4) by self by self solve by self
Leadership potential (Lp)
more than 3
Leader of group in activities 2-3 times 0-1 time
times

The Sk and Lp indices are the average rating scores of all criterions accounting by the
following equation:
SkI =
Where, SkI = Access to productive tools index o
i = ith farmer, 1, 2, 3, …, N
j = jth criterion, 1, 2,3,4
N = total of farmers
LpI =
Where, LpI = transportation potential index o
i = ith farmer, 1, 2, 3, … , N
j = jth criterion
N = total of farmers

32
Family labor (Fl) is another important human asset for upland farming because family
labor can do full-time for their upland farming anytime and anywhere. Family labor index
can be measured by using the following equation;

FlI = i / Flh) / N

Where, FlI = Family lobor index o

Fli = Fl of ith farmer
Flh = highest value of Fl in the study area
N = total of farmers

Thus, human asset index can be measured as the average indices of level of skill and
knowledge and the ability of leadership potential of each farmer and family labor per
household.

Financial Asset

Financial Asset is the fungible assets include that total income, supplies of credit, total cost
and annual gross income per household. Financial asset index can be calculated by the
ratio of available stocks (Av) in each farmer to the highest value of available stocks in this
study area. This equation is shown as following;

FAI = Avi / Avh

Where, FAI = Financial Asset index o

Avi = Available stocks of ith farmer
Avh = highest value of Av in the study area

33
3.8. Overall Methodology

This overall methodology flowchart will illustrate to focus what steps are involved in the
study.

Literature Review Problem Statement

Research Design

Study Area Selection

Sampling Design

Data Collection

Primary Data Collection

Secondary Data Sources
 Farmers’ household survey
Farm
 UNDP/ FAO
 Field observation
 MOAI
 Key informants interview
 University of Agriculture
 Group discussion
 Maps

 Journals, articles of relevant

Data Analysis

Statistical Analysis (using excel & SPSS)

 Influencing factors

 Yield and Benefits

 Livelihood strategies

Interpretation of findings

Verified with objectives

Conclusion and Recommendation

Fig. 3.1 Overall flowchart of Research Methodology

34
 Chapter4

Project Description on Soil Conservation Practices

4.1 Background

Myanmar is an agriculture based country and agriculture is the priority sector for the
country. Therefore, most of farmers depend on land resources for their livelihood. With the
increasing rate of population, agriculture becomes more and more expansion on land.
Moreover, shifting cultivation becomes shorter and shorter time in the shifting cycle and
already changed as permanent cultivation without proper farming systems.

Now, Myanmar is also a developing country but it was affected by land degradation and
soil deterioration because of inappropriate land use practices. In Myanmar, as the
agricultural profile, there is generally divided into four major regions: the delta region,
coastal region, central dry zone region and the hilly region. Among them, Dry zone region
and Shan State are the most problematic regions in terms of degradation of land resources
because of continued deforestation, agricultural expansion and social economic conditions.
Realizing the status of land degradation there, all possible measures have been attempted to
prevent, conserve and check the environmental deterioration and land degradation since
1993.

Since 1994, UNDP has acted a major role in complementing the overall rural development
and food security effort to poor communities through the medium of the Human
Development Initiative (HDI) programmes in Myanmar.

Under the HDI’s fourth phase (HDI-IV), the “Integrated Community Development Project
(ICDP) (MYA/01/001)” has been implementing from 2003 to until now. The project area
covers about 3,743 villages with over 2,000,000 beneficiaries in 11 townships of Dry
Zone, Southern Shan State and Ayeyarwaddy Delta. The project focuses on both
consolidation of community level activities initiated in earlier phases of HDI and on an
expansion of activities to new communities, ICDP (MYA/01/001).

The main development objective of the project is “To cultivate and strengthen the
capacity of village institutions and Community-based Organization (CBOs) in project
villages to plan and undertake development activities that address their basic and social
and food security needs in a participatory, sustainable and transparent manner”
described in ICDP/ UNDP (MYA/01/001), 2003-2005.

The Integrated Community Development (ICDP / UNDP) integrates in Pin Laung

Township and the core objective of the project is to strength the capacity of poor
communities to address the basic needs of the community particularly those of the poor
and disadvantaged. In this area, land degradation, high deforestation, poor crop
productivity and limited sources of income for the landless and poor farmers are the main
cause of the poverty. Therefore, the ICDP project has been implementing the soil
conservation activities to control / better to stop the land degradation, to improve the food
security of poor families started from 2004-2005 until now.

35
Basically there are two strata of people, farmers and landless, in Dry and Shan zones of
Project area. The farmers are relying mainly on agriculture and their land is the vital
resource for their lives. Unfortunately, most of their cultivated lands are severely eroded
forming multi-slopes and various sizes of gullies. Land degradation is becoming a serious
matter concern for its negative implications on the farmers who are largely depend on
those lands the thickness of topsoil is shallow, moisture holding capacity is poor, soil
fertility is very low, the crop productivity is very uncertain and consequently food
insecurity becomes a great problem in this area. Under these conditions, most of the
farmers do not have enough income from agriculture and they have to rely partly on the
livestock for their survival. So most of them usually keep sheep and goats or cattle or pigs
and sell out during the dry season for their side income.

Another stratum, the landless have to rely also on agriculture and livestock. The landless
earn their major income working as the casual labour in crop production and the second
income from their livestock. Nevertheless the landless still have the problem for their
livelihood and they have to earn another income by selling forest products such as
firewood, charcoal, bamboo shoots and grasses. As a result thousands of forest trees are cut
down every year.

Although both farmers and landless have to rely on livestock, they do not have suitable
grazing lands and they have to graze their livestock on waste lands or marginal lands
covered with poor quality grasses accelerating the land degradation and environmental
deterioration. On the other hand, the removal of the forest trees on the hilly regions
enhance the runoff water, reduce the infiltration, accelerate the soil erosion, decrease the
underground aquifer, create the salinity problem, and limit the fresh water supply. Finally,
land degradation and environmental degradation become the two major components
responsible for declining crop and livestock production potential. Therefore, it is clearly
seen that the main characteristics that cause the poverty in Dry and Shan zones are; land
degradation, high deforestation, poor crop productivity and limited sources of income for
the landless and poor farmers.

After reviewing the above situations, it can be seen that the main reasons to improve the
food security, to sustain the natural environment, and to alleviate the poverty in Dry and
Shan zone are:

- To control / better to stop the land degradation

- To rehabilitate the waste lands and marginal lands
- To harvest the rain water as much as possible
- To improve the crop productivity of the lands
- To establish the multi purpose woodlots or to conserve the natural forest and
- To find the income opportunities for the landless and near-landless.

Therefore as a remedial action, all township teams have the plan to implement the soil
conservation works and / or forestry activities in their townships with the integration of
agriculture and livestock aiming to provide better food security and higher income.

36
4.2. Objectives

1. To improve the crop production of the area by using soil conservation and to improve
the food security of poor families
2. To improve the knowledge and skills of the communities on environmental conservation
and land degradation control to be able to conserve their lands
3. To transfer the soil conservation and water harvesting technologies to village activists
who are selected by the communities

4.3. Coverage

This project covered the dissemination of soil conservation practices (Contour Bunds
construction) for 18 villages with 431 households in 618 acres and 32 villages with 444
households were involved in implementation of contour hedgerow plantation accounting as
488 acres within ICDP project from 2004 to until now in Pinlaung Township, Southern
Shan State (ICDP / MYA /01/001).

4.4. Expected Outputs

a. Quality implementation (i.e. SC measures with required technical standards)

b. Communities with better skill and knowledge on soil conservation/ environmental
conservation
c. Village activists and labor group leaders who have good skill in soil conservation
technologies
d. No misappropriation / misuse in soil conservation works
e. Better food security for poor families

4.5. Project Sites

These project sites are probable to conserve the land degradation with soil conservation
practices (advanced technologies) to conserve the environmental degradation and climate
changes.

Table 4.1: Project Sites

Agroecological zone State/Division Township

Dry Zone Region Mandalay Division Chaung-U
Dry Zone Region Mandalay Division Kyaukpadaung
Dry Zone Region Mandalay Division Magway
Hilly Region Shan State Nyaungshwe
Hilly Region Shan State Ywangan
Hilly Region Shan State Kalaw
Hilly Region Shan State Pindaya
Hilly Region Shan State Pinlaung

4.6. Resource Persons

1. Township team members (particularly for mobilization/ facilitation for labor group
forming, discussion with community for site selection, MPP preparation, financial
monitoring, etc.)
37
2. Soil conservation extension workers (SCEW) who were trained in Soil conservation
ToT conducted by consultant team
3. Local resource persons (formerly CLEWs) who were trained by Food security projects
in earlier HDI phases.

4.7. Implementation Steps Related to the Project Outputs

Soil conservation for land degradation control would be implemented in ten different steps
(ICDP / MYA /01/001).
1. Catchment selection / Field survey for potential lands
2. Approval process for MPPs and funds make available
3. Labor group formation and selection of village SC activists
4. Hands-on training for SC activists and labor group leaders
5. Construction of different soil conservation measures on selected catchments
6. Field visit to find the breakages / weakness of soil conservation measures
7. Repairing the breakages of soil conservation measures and correction of
weaknesses
8. Stabilization of bunds by using vegetative measures
9. Study on the effects of soil conservation measures on cropping pattern and
10. Submission of final report to APM

4.7.1. Catchment / site selection

For soil conservation activities, it is necessary to select a catchment or an area or a

cultivated land that is technically most suitable and most profitable to the community.
Select the catchment area according to the following steps (ICDP / MYA /01/001).
a. Call a mass meeting (VDF).
b. Select three to four catchments in priority with the agreement of mass meeting. (Never
select the village pond catchment)
c. Observe the land tenure problems.
d. Thoroughly discuss with the landowners and ask their view.
e. Make the final selection based upon community's priority and technical feasibility.
f. Take the approval of the community at VDF.
g. Record the decisions.

4.7.2. Approval process for MPPs

This step should be carried out by township team in accordance with standard process for
preparing and submitting MPPs.

4.7.3. Labor group forming and Selection of SC activists

In soil conservation works, generally landless and marginal farmers are hired as casual
Laborers for cash in work program. Systematic labor group forming is necessary to give
the job opportunities to poorest people (ICDP / MYA /01/001).

Thus, labor group forming will be carried out by township teams according to the
following steps.
a. Facilitate the village leaders to call a community meeting,
b. Explain the job opportunities in soil conservation activities, Explain the nature of work,

38
c. Explain the work norm and responsibility of the laborer,
d. Take the list of landless and small farmers,
e. Take the proposal for laborer from landless and small farmers,
f. Facilitate the community to prepare a priority list according to poverty ranking,
g. Form the labor groups (Each group shall have 7 to 12 members and the group shall
select a leader.)
h. Facilitate the group leaders to select the SC activists among themselves,
i. Take the community's approval at mass meeting,
j. Record the decisions of the community.

4.7.4. Conducting Hands on training

One important requirement to achieve the successful implementation for soil conservation
is to use the skill labourers for construction. Thus, to provide the hands-on training to the
activists, group leaders and labourers is essential. However, to give the training to all
labourers at the same time is laborious and difficult to handle. Therefore, first of all only
activists and labour group leaders will be trained through hands-on training and those
training will be carried out according to the following steps (ICDP / MYA /01/001).
a. Selected 3 to 4 villages will be grouped into cluster based upon the accessibility.
b. SCEWs or Consultant team will carry out the hands-on training for each and every
cluster.
c. During the hands-on training, SCEWs or consultant team will transfer the
knowledge, skills and technology to the activists and labour group leaders on the
following field.
 Type of soils in the zone and their characteristics (field practical exercise)
 Types of soil erosion and degree of land degradation (field practical exercise)
 Catchment based approach for soil conservation (field practical exercise)
 How to use "A" frame, line level, clinometers (FAO model 4) (field practical
exercise)
 Designing and construction of different soil conservation measures (field practical
exercise) (Contour soil bund, single stone faced bund, double stone faced bund,
percolation stone bund, check dam, Bench terrace improvement, Sediment storage
bund, Renovation of traditional sediment storage dam, etc.)

4.7.5. Implementation (Construction of different soil conservation measures)

Step 1. Township team selected the service providers in accordance with the standard
process. The service providers could be a team of SCEWs or a team of CLEWs or a
Consultant team. After selection, get the approval from APMC and sign a FEE contract in
accordance with standard process.

Step 2. Then SCEWs or CLEWs or consultant team members should be assigned to the
villages. (Not more than 3 villages per SCEW or CLEW or consultant team member)

Step 3. Before implementation, township team prepared the terms of partnership, explained
to the community till they clearly understand and get the agreement at the community
meeting.

Step 4. SC activist made the lay out of contour bunds and labor group leaders led the
laborers for soil conservation measures construction. Group leaders, activists and SCEW or

39
CLEW or consultant team member were closely taught the laborers on construction
techniques, technical standards for each and every type of conservation measures and will
closely monitor the quality of measures.

Step 5. Village SC committee (formed with community initiation) manage on; laborer
hiring in accordance with poverty ranking and cash delivery to the laborers for their labor
charges based upon their completion of works.

Step 6. Service provider team leader visit to all villages in his/ her township rotationally
and/ or randomly and is supervise from all technical aspects. He/she is also provided the
technical support.

Step 7. Area CDF and TF monitor the quality and financial matters.

4.7.6. Field survey to find the breakages / weakness of soil conservation measures
At the beginning of the monsoon season (June), some of the soil conservation measures
will get breakages due to one or combine effects of the following reasons (ICDP / MYA
/01/001).
a. Very high rainfall intensity that generally comes in June
b. Poor cohesiveness in soil conservation measures since those are constructed in dry
season
c. Poor soil aggregate stability (e.g. solonchak, solonetz)
d. Bund spacing wider than the technical requirement
e. Poor compaction of the earth work
f. Minor technical error such as lack of wing-up, small size of side spillway, poor
stone key, etc.

Therefore, SP team makes the survey to find each and every breakage of the bunds and
identify the weaknesses that are necessary to improve. SC team leader provides the
technical backstopping to correct the errors/ requirements and gives the detail instruction
"how to improve and how to repair?"

4.7.7. Repairing the breakages of soil conservation measures and correction of

weaknesses

The rainfall pattern of the dry zone is bi-model and generally there is a period of drought in
July which usually last 3 to 4 weeks. It is an opportunities to correct the errors and to repair
the breakages of soil conservation measures. Correction and reconstruction of the measures
were carried out according to the following steps (ICDP / MYA /01/001).
a. Facilitate the village leader to call a community meeting.
b. Explain the situation of the soil conservation measures to the community. (e.g.
errors to correct, requirements to modify, weaknesses to improve, breakages to
repair, etc.)
c. Explain to the community, referring to the terms of partnerships, that maintenance
and repairing is the community’s responsibility
d. Organize each and every owner to take required follow-up actions as necessary for
their SC measures.
e. Provide technical support and close supervision to each and every owner.
f. Ensure that all structures have been reconstructed/ modified/ improved/ corrected
as necessary.

40
4.7.8. Stabilization of bunds by using vegetative measures

The main idea of the bund stabilization is to protect the soil bunds from splash erosion with
vegetative cover. The landowners (farmers) carry out the stabilization and SC team provide
the technical supports. The vegetative cover could be crop such as legumes or vegetable
such as pumpkin or grasses and the choice of the crops depend upon the preference of the
farmers.

4.7.9. Study on the effects of soil conservation measures on cropping pattern

Since the soil conservation measures conserve the soil fertility and harvest the maximum
amount of rainwater, it markedly improves the cropping patterns. SC team makes the field
survey in randomly selected villages and study the change of cropping pattern for
randomly selected farmers. The study starts in August together with the field survey for
bund stabilization and was completed in the first week of September.

4.7.10. Submission of final report to APM

At the end of contract period, Township team or SP team submits a completion report to
APM.

4.8. Inputs Requirements

Incentives (cash, others) was supported by the project to the participated farmers to assist
deprived households. A-frame, poles, line level, clinometers and materials such as digging
tools (shovels, hoes and crow bars) were also supported. In cash, the participants have got
123500 Kyats per hectare each other.

4.9. Other environmental conservation activities

Other environmental conservation activities such as Community woodlot establishment,

natural forest management, bamboo planting (large scale) and embankment construction
were implemented in the project area. Minor adjustment that can be decided by common
sense will be necessary for different types of work.

41
 Chapter 5

Profile of Study Area

5.1 Profile of State

The Union of Myanmar is administratively composed with 7 States and 7 Divisions and
Shan State is lying in the in the Middle Eastern part of the country. Shan State is located
between 19o 17'N and 24o 13'N latitudes and 96 o 10'E and 101 o 11'E longitudes. It is
bounded on the northeast by the People's Republic of China, on the southeast and south by
Laos and Thailand, on the north by Kachin State, Sagaing on the west and Karen State on
the south. The area of Shan State is 155801 square kilometer. Shan as well as Paos,
Palaungs, Dhanu, Was, Kaws, Lahus, Inthas, Myaungzi, Lishaws, Taungpyoes, Maingthas
and many other more ethnic groups inhabit in this state. The population is about 5223,000
in which upland population is about 4486,000 (MOAI, 2006).

The Eastern Hills Region is the Shan Plateau which is average 914 to1219 meter above sea
level. Unlike the plain, the plateau has high mountain ranges and the River Than Lwin
flows through the Shan Plateau to the northern Taninthayi Coastal Strip. The rivers of
Shweli, Myitnge, Zawgyi and Pan-laung which have their sources at the Shan Plateau flow
into the River Ayeyawady.

5.2 Inle Watershed Profile

Inle Lake situated in Nyaungshwe Township is a multipurpose lake as known as natural

scenic beauty, socio-cultural uniqueness and diverse wetland ecosystem. It is a second
largest earthly lake in Myanmar and situated between 20º18' to 20º53' North Latitude and
96º50' to 96º57' East Longitude. It covers the valley floor of Balu Chaung, a stream outlet
leading to Moebye Dam at southern downstream serving as a water source to the largest
hydro-electricity plant that supplied about 50 % of electricity for the whole country.
Mountain ranges with the peaks are surrounding at the eastern and western parts of the lake
and they are dissected by many valleys with streams out of which nine creeks are
recognized as major water inlets into the lake with about 2.5 million hectares of watershed
area in 11 administrative townships.

Inle watershed area covers Nyaungshwe Township, Kalaw Township, Pinlaung Township,
Pindaya Township, Yawngan Township, Yauksauk Township, Hopone Township, Sesing
Township, Taunggyi Township, Pekone Township and Loikaw Township. The total area of
Inle watershed is 2169.35 square miles out of which 406.4 square miles (18.73 %) falls in
the Pinlaung Township.

The Inle watershed is facing serious watershed degradation problem. Deforestation and
shifting cultivation has been practiced intensively up to about 80 percent of the total
catchment surface area. Due to deforestation, shifting cultivation and mismanagement of
arable land, the lake and the region around is heavily affected by erosion and
sedimentation. Most of sediments come from the western mountains by the Thandaung and
Inndein streams and the lake becomes narrower and narrower because of land use changes
(Nang Vo Kham, 2005 and Bo Bo Lwin, 2006). The Inndein stream is started flowing from
Pinlaung Township into Inle Lake.

42
 (a)

Inle
Watershed
Area

Pinlaung
Township

(b)
(c)

(3) War Prone (2) La Laung (1) Nam Toke

Map 5.1. (a) Shan State Map (b) Inle Watershed Area and (c) Study Area

5.3. Township Profile

5.3.1 Geographical Location

Pinlaung Township is located in Southern Shan State between North Latitude 19º 40' to 20º
18' and East Longitude 95º 25' to 96º 56' and it is a hill town. The lowest part of the
township is 1100 meters above sea level. Pinlaung’s area is 1293.42 squared miles and the
altitude is 1546 meters above sea level and then, is also the highest elevation of Southern
Shan State. In addition, Inle Lake watershed area consists of eleven townships, in which

43
Pinlaung Township covers about 18.7 percent of the Inle watershed area and western parts
of Inle Lake. Topography of the area is rolling to undulating and flat valleys also have an
undulating to rolling topography.

According to ICDP/UNDP (MYA/01/001) (2007 Dec) Township profile, Pinlaung

Township consists of 504 villages with 25184 farmers in 25 village tracts. The total
population is 141,333 out of which 64,479 and 76,854 are male and female respectively.
There are 25,184 households living in rural and another 1,352 households are living in
urban area of all of households 26,536. The average household size is 5.32 persons in the
whole township level.

Pinlaung has many ethnic groups, mostly are Pa-oh and the others are Shan, Myanmar,
Taung Yoe and others groups. In the whole township, 79570 (56.3 %) are Pa-oh, 45933
(32.5%) are Shan, 9469 (6.7 %) are Bamar, 3392 (2.4 %) are Taung Yoe and 2968 (2.1 %)
consists of other groups. Most of Pa-oh and Shan live in the hilly regions and other mostly
reside in the valley plain. According to the Immigration and National Registration
Department, there is increasing in human population at Pinlaung Township with the
increasing rate as see in Figure 5.1.

Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (2008)

Figure 5.1: Population growth in Pinlaung Township

5.3.2 Livelihood

The major sources of livelihood in all households of the whole township are shown in
Figure (5.2). It described that most of households earn by farming (75 %) and another
production workers (10%) and small business and trading (10%) are also mainly formed
farming correlated works.

44
Source: ICDP/ UNDP (MYA/01/001) Township profile (2007)
Figure 5.2: Source of Livelihood of households

5.3.3 Climate

Pinlaung Township has tropical to sub-tropical climate with the rainy season lasting from
the middle of March to the middle of November, with a growing period of 8-9 months. In
summer, the average temperature is 24º C and the highest temperature is 30º C. In winter,
the average temperature is 16º C and the lowest one is 0º C. The average annual rainfalls
and rainy days vary according by year ranging from 1403.35 mm to 2464.56 mm and from
107 days to 156 days. Annual rainfall and rainy days in the year 1998 to 2007 in Pinlaung
Township are presented in Figure 5.3.

Source: Myanmar Agriculture Service, Pinlaung Township (2008)

Figure 5.3: Annual Rainfall and Rainy Days in Pinlaung (1998-2007)

45
Source: Myanmar Agriculture Service, Pinlaung Township (2008)

Figure 5.4: Monthly Annual Rainfall in Pinlaung (2007)

Figure (5.4) shows monthly annual rainfall of study area in the year 2007. In Myanmar,
mostly rainy seasons normally start in May, but in Pinlaung Township, the rainy season
start at the mid-March and end at mid-November. According to figure 5.4, the highest
monthly annual rainfall was 71.1 cm in the month of July. The rainy season take long time,
so the farmers in the study area get more growing period for their crops.

5.3.4 Land Utilization in Pinlaung Township

The total agricultural land area in Pinlaung Township is 36654 ha. The average agricultural
land per household was about 1.5 ha in the study area. The reserved forest area was located
about 47 % of the total township area. Agriculture depends on rain-fed water. Most of
farmland is situated in the valley and along sloping hills. The main staple crop is paddy but
other subsidiary crops such as maize, wheat, potato, pigeon pea, soybean, groundnut,
pulses and tea are also grown. The fruits that are grown in this area are avocados, pears,
oranges and dog fruits. Most of the farmers are not able to produce enough farm products
for their consumption mainly because of small plots of lands, low soil fertility,
mismanagement of their arable lands and lack of basic necessary farm inputs and labor
shortage.

Table 5.1: Land Utilization in Pinlaung Township

Type of Land Area(ha)2007 %

Net Cultivable Land 35626 10.2
Cultivable Waste Land 36654 10.5
Fallow Land 1028 0.3
Reserved forest 163783 47.0
Unclassed Forests 7936 2.3
Urban, Rural and Others 103294 29.7
Total 348321 100.0

Source: ICDP/ UNDP (MYA/01/001) Township Profil

46
Table 5.2: Slope Classification of Pinlaung Township (Area in Square miles)

Township Gentle Moderate Strong 15 V. Strong Steep 25 V. Steep

<5 5 to 15 to 20 20 to 25 to 30 >30
Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree
Pinlaung 162.35 280.21 216.86 273.97 175.25 186.95
% of total area 12.53 21.63 16.74 21.15 13.53 14.43

Source: UNDP/ FAO (MYA/96/007), GIS Mapping

Almost cultivation area was located on slopping land with different degrees. Local farmers
in this area were cultivated on hilly regions with shifting cultivation practices but now
changed as permanent cultivation area. And then, farmers practiced farming cultivation
without soil conservation practices on slopping land. Moreover, as the annual rainfall is
high in the hilly region, soil erosion was taking place on these areas with different types of
erosion. Therefore, the soil depth of this area becomes shallow to moderate soil depth in
cultivation areas but valley region in the mountains is still deep soil depth. Land types and
present land situation of Pin laung Township shown as Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Land Types and Their Characteristics of Pinlaung Township

Land Area Slope Present Land Erosion
Sr Soil Depth Texture
Form (ha) % Use Type
Sandy
Lower Annual Crop Sheet & Rill
1 6860 0- 5% Moderate to
foot plain and Paddy erosion
Medium
Forest, Rill & Medium
Higher 5-15 Moderate
2 1085 Terraced step Gully to
foot plain % to deep
& Garden land erosion Clayey
Forest, Sheet & Sandy
10-15 Shallow to
3 Hill 30901 Terraced step Gully to
% moderate
agriculture erosion Medium
Sandy
15-30 Shallow to Sheet, Gully
4 Mountain 29076 Forest to
% moderate & Bad land
Medium
Sandy
Higher > 30 Shallow to Sheet, Gully
5 178610 Forest to
Mountain % moderate & Bad land
Medium
Medium
Valley in Annual Crop
6 5371 0-3 % Deep Deposition to
mountain and Paddy
Clayey
Sandy
Bad land 30 % Forest and Gully and
7 82750 Shallow to
(30 over) over Waste Land Bad Land
Medium
Water
8 485
Body
Total 335138
Source: Land Use Division, Myanma Agriculture Service, Yangon

47
5.4 Profile of Respondents

Finding the socio-economic conditions of respondents is focused to match to the

assessment of the adoption and benefits of soil conservation practices (Contour Farming).
It is focusing on age, gender, education level, occupation, marital status, household size,
land ownership, farm equipment, and livestock, using manure on farm, annual gross
income, livelihood strategies and expenditure.

5.4.2 Ideographic Aspects

Age

All of respondents’ age is categorized into five groups which are shown in Table 5.4. All
adopters ranged from 21 years old to 58 years old. Nearly half of the adopter groups (45
%) were the age grouped of 31-40 and about one-fourth of the adopter are the age level of
20-30 (21.57 %) and grouped 40-50 (25.49 %) respectively. As non-adopter, all of age
ranged from 20 years old to 67 years old. About one-fourth of all non-adopters (25.53 %)
are the age level of 31-40 and nearly one-third of non-adopter groups are between the age
group of 41-50. According to the figure, almost adopter farmers are below 50 years old but
non-adopters are separated in all age level.

Table 5.4: Age and Age Distribution of Respondents

Age group Adopter % Non-adopter %

20-30 11 21.57 7 14.89
31-40 23 45.10 12 25.53
41-50 13 25.49 15 31.91
51-60 4 7.84 7 14.89
61-70 0 0.00 6 12.77
Total 51 100.00 47 100.00
Average (Age) 36.63 43.36
Source: Field Survey, 2008

Gender

Based on definition of local farmers and traditionally household head should be husband,
most of respondents (86 %) were male. A little of respondents were female, some of them
were either single or window who had the equally chances to participate in the project
activities and to conserve their soil fertility and to reduce soil erosion in their land with the
introduced technologies for soil conservation. But some were women whose husbands
were away from the villages.

Table 5.5: Gender distribution of all respondents

Gender Adopter % Non-adopter %
Male 42 82.35 44 93.62
Female 9 17.65 3 6.38
Total 51 100.00 47 100.00
Source: Field Survey, 2008

48
Marital Status

Most of adopters and non-adopters were married representing 78.43 % and 78.72 %
respectively. Only 5.88 % of farmer facilitators of adopters group were widow. The rest
were single accounting for 15.69 % (adopters) and 21.28 % (non-adopters) respectively.

Table 5.6: Marital Status of Respondents

Marital status Adopter % Non-adopter %

Single 8 15.69 10 21.28
Married 40 78.43 37 78.72
Widow 3 5.88 0 0.00
Total 51 100 47 100
Source: Field Survey, 2008

Ethnic Group

The majority of adopters and non-adopters were Pa-oh accounting for 64.71 % and 80.85
% respectively. Shan was the secondary group in the study area, representing 33.33 % and
19.15 % were adopter group and non-adopter group. Only one Bamar adopter was the
migrant from the central of Myanmar as the government staff in the study area.

Table 5.7: Ethnic Group Distribution

Ethnic Group Adopter % Non-adopter %

Pa-oh 33 64.71 38 80.85
Shan 17 33.33 9 19.15
Bamar 1 1.96 0 0.00
Total 51 100.00 47 100.00
Source: Field Survey, 2008

Education Level

The education level of all respondents was varied from monastery & primary education to
college education as shown in table 4.8. About half of adopter group completed only
primary education level and nearly one-third of adopters finished middle grade. Only 3.92
% and 5.88 % of all adopters have higher grade and college education respectively. As for
non-adopter group, most of them (87.23 %) finished only monastery and primary education
level. Some of them (10.64 %) completed middle grade and only one has got higher grade.
It can be shown that the level of education of adopters is higher than that of non-adopters.
Therefore, the education level of farmers has a positive effect on the adoption of soil
conservation activities.

49
Table 5.8: Education Level and Distribution of all respondents

Non-
Education Level Adopter % %
adopter
Monastery & primary education
27 52.94 41 87.23
level
Middle grade 19 37.25 5 10.64
Higher grade 2 3.92 1 2.13
College education 3 5.88 0 0
Total 51 100 47 100
Source: Field Survey, 2008

Occupation

Occupation is categorized into five groups according to the present status of all
respondents as shown in Table 4.9. About half of adopters depended on only agriculture
and one –fifth of all them engaged in also trade and service to support their income. The
rest of adopters were depended on farming either own farms or other’s farms. As non-
adopters, over half of them who were engaged in agriculture with family labor as well as
off-farm labor. Only 12.77 % of non-adopters were depended on only their farms. Some
family members of them were temporary migrated in another sites for mining worker or
farming as shifting cultivation. Some family’s members did basket making in their home to
get the extra income.

Table 5.9. Occupation and Distribution of all respondents

Occupation Adopter % Non-adopter %

farmer 29 56.86 6 12.77
Farmer +off-farm work 9 17.65 26 55.32
Farmer + trade/service 10 19.61 8 17.02
Farmer + migrated work 2 3.92 7 14.89
Farmer + trade + migrated work 1 1.96 0 0
Total 51 100 47 100
Source: Field Survey, 2008

Farming Experience in Years

According to farming experiences in years, it categorized into five groups shown in Table
5.10. The average years of farming experiences of adopters and non-adopters were 15.12
and 19.64 years respectively. Each about one-third of non-adopters had farming
experiences of 1-10 and 11-20 years. The rest of all non –adopters had over 20 years of
farming experiences. About one-third of adopters were doing on farming 1-10 years only
but they were educated persons who were participated in the project activities for soil and
environmental conservation. Majority of adopters had farming experiences of 11-20 years
and the rest had experiences in agriculture over 20 years.

50
Table 5.10: Years of Farming Experiences
Farming Experience (years) Adopter % Non-adopter %
1-10 15 29.41 14 29.79
11-20 31 60.78 17 36.17
21-30 2 3.92 8 17.02
31-40 3 5.88 4 8.51
over 40 0 0.00 4 8.51
Total 51 100.00 47 100.00
Average (FE) 15.12 19.64
Source: Field Survey, 2008

5.4.3 Demographic Aspects

Household Size

Most of respondents have the household size 4-6 members, adopters and non-adopters of
household size 4-6 members were 49.02 % and 72.34 % respectively. About 30 % of
adopters representing 1-3 household members and the rest (21.57 %) had the 7-9 family
members. One-fifth of non-adopters were a household size 7-9 members and the rest of
non-adopters included the 1-3 family members group. The average household size of
adopters and non-adopters was nearly the same.

Table 5.11: Status of Household size of respondents

Household Size Adopter % Non-adopter %
1-3 15 29.41 4 8.51
4-6 25 49.02 34 72.34
7-9 11 21.57 9 19.15
Total 51 100.00 47 100.00
Average (HHS) 5.02 5.55
Source: Field Survey, 2008

Family Labor

The average family labor of adopter was a little higher than that of non-adopter accounting
for 3.18 and 2.98 respectively. Over half of adopters and non-adopters have only 1-3 for
full time in their farming and about one-fourth of adopters and non-adopters had up to 4-6
family labors. Only about 6 % of adopters used their farms with the 7-9 family labors for
full time. In the Cropping season, farmers can be hired and exchanged off-farming labors
when they need to do in their farms.

Table5.12: Family Labor and Distribution of Respondents

Family Labor Adopter % Non-adopter %
1-3 34 66.67 33 70.21
4-6 14 27.45 14 29.79
7-9 3 5.88 0 0.00
Total 51 100.00 47 100.00
Average (FL) 3.18 2.98
Source: Field Survey, 2008

51
5.4.4 Economic Aspects

Total Farming Area

All of respondents depended majority on agriculture for their survival in this study area.
Their total land area and possessed farming area are categorized into five groups shown in
Table 5.13. Some farmers rented in farming area from other farmers, so that the researcher
was also described total land area and land ownership separately.

Table 5.13: Land Holding Size and Distribution of respondents

Total land Area Land Ownership

Non- Non-
Adopter % % Adopter % %
Land Area adopter adopter
0-1 ha 0 0 11 23.40 0 0.00 12 25.53
1.001-2 ha 19 37.25 35 74.47 22 43.14 34 72.34
2.001-3 ha 19 37.25 0 0 19 37.25 0 0.00
3.001-4 ha 5 9.80 1 2.13 2 3.92 1 2.13
> than 4 ha 8 15.69 0 0 8 15.69 0 0.00
Total 51 100 47 100 51 100.00 47 100.00
Average
(TLA) / 2.585 1.156 2.43 1.105
(LO)
Source: Field Survey, 2008

All of non-adopters possessed their own land less than that of adopters and the average
land holding size of adopters and non-adopters were accounting into 2.43 ha and 1.105 ha
respectively. Almost non-adopters had only less than 2.001 ha of farming land and only
one possessed more than 3 ha of cultivating land. About half of adopters owned the
farming area between 1 and 2 ha and one-third of adopters owned land holding size of 2-3
ha. The rest of adopters possessed more than 3 ha of farming land area.

Lowland Area

In the study area, as lowland was located on lower foot plain and valley in mountains,
some of respondents have possessed a few ha for lowland. But some farmers have no
lowland area. All of respondents owned their lowland area were described as Table 5.14.

Table 5.14: Distribution of Lowland Area of Respondents

Lowland area Adopter % Non-adopter %

0 area 15 29.41 13 27.66
<1ha 27 52.94 34 72.34
>1 ha 9 17.65 0 0.00
Total 51 100.00 47 100.00
Average ( LLA ) 0.529 0.351
Source: Field Survey, 2008

52
Upland Area

Almost farmers in this area depend on upland farming for their survival and their
livelihood. Each of about half of adopters owned upland area accounting for less than or
greater than 2 ha. All of non-adopters have got only less than 2 ha of upland area. The
average of upland hold size of adopters and non-adopters were 1.897 ha and 0.693 ha
respectively. Therefore, all of adopters possessed larger size of upland area. That fact
should be influencing on the adoption of soil conservation practices.

Table 5.15: Distribution of Upland Area

Upland area Adopter % Non-adopter %
<2ha 28 54.90 47 100
>2 ha 23 45.10 0 0
Total 51 100.00 47 100
Average ( PLA ) 1.897 0.693
Source: Field Survey, 2008

Mono-crop area

All of respondents planted crops on some of their own lands with mono-cropping system,
most of mono-cropping area planted perennial crops. Only about one-forth of adopters
have greater than 2 ha of mono-cropping area and the rest of adopter and all non-adopters
have possessed less than 2ha of mono-cropping area.

Table 5.16: Distribution of Mono-crop Area

Mono crop area Adopter % Non-adopter %
<2 ha 39 76.47 47 100
>2ha 12 23.53 0 0
Total 51 100.00 47 100
Average ( MCA ) 1.42 0.82
Source: Field Survey, 2008

Double Crops Area

Both of about half of adopters and non-adopters had no double crops area. About half of
adopters and non-adopters used their land by growing double crops. The average of double
crops area of adopters was higher than that of non-adopters.

Table 5.17: Distribution of Double Crops Area

Double crops area Adopter % Non-adopter %
0 area 26 50.98 25 53.19
<2ha 21 41.18 22 46.81
>2 ha 4 7.84 0 0.00
Total 51 100.00 47 100.00
Average ( DCA ) 0.51 0.19
Source: Field Survey, 2008

53
Inter Crops Area

The majority of non-adopters had no inter crops area and only 6.38 % of them owned the
inter crops area of less than 1 ha. Although about of half of adopters cultivated on their
upland with intercropping system along the contour line, another half of adopters had also
no inter crops area. The average of inter crops area of adopters and non-adopters were 0.52
and 0.04 ha respectively.

Table 5.18: Inter Crops Area and Distribution of Respondents

Inter crops area Adopter % Non-adopter %

0 area 21 41.18 44 93.62
<1ha 19 37.25 3 6.38
>1 ha 11 21.57 0 0.00
Total 51 100.00 47 100.00
Average ( ICA ) 0.52 0.04
Source: Field Survey, 2008

Livestock ownership

Types of livestock possessed by respondents were cow, buffalo, poultry (chicken) and pig.
Most of respondents have cow or buffalo to use in their farming work and also got the
manure from them. As poultry, some farmer had a little chicken to eat only. Some adopters
raise pig as another income source and also were supported by the project.

Table 5.19: Distribution of Livestock ownership

Type of livestock Adopter (Average) Non-adopter (Average)

Cow 1.14 1.77
Buffalo 0.63 0.47
Poultry 1.1 0.77
Pig 0.45 0
Source: Field Survey, 2008

Farm Equipment Ownership

The majority of upland farmers’ farm equipment was hoe and all farmers possessed hoe
per person in their family to do for land preparation. So, the average number of hoe
ownership per household was 2.76 and 4.32 accounting of adopters and non-adopters
respectively. The ownership of harrow, plough and bullock cart of respondents depended
on their owned livestock (cow and buffalo). Over half of adopters owned each of harrow,
plough and bullock cart per household but about one-third of non-adopters possessed like
that. As small tractor, only three adopters owned each one for land preparation and also to
hire to other land.

54
Table 5.20: Farm Equipment Ownership

Farm Average/
Adopter (total ) Non-adopter (total) Average/ hh
Equipment hh
Hoe 141 2.76 203 4.32
Harrows 28 0.55 15 0.32
Plough 30 0.59 15 0.32
Bullock Cart 10 0.2 12 0.26
Small Tractor 3 0.06 0 0
Source: Field Survey, 2008

Annual Farm Expenditure

The average annual farm cost of adopter was higher than that of non-adopter accounting
for 677 $ and 287 $ respectively (assumed 1$ =1100 Kyats in 2008). The majority of non-
adopters (95.74 %) invested only 0-500$ in agriculture and the rest spent between 500 and
1000 $ on their farms. One-third of adopters invested in their farm accounting for 0-500 $.
About half of adopters expended between 500 and 1000 $ in agriculture and the rest used
more than 1000$ for their agriculture.

Table 5.21: Annual Expenditure of farm

Farm Cost Adopter % Non-adopter %
0-500$ 19 37.25 45 95.74
501-1000$ 26 50.98 2 4.26
1001-1500$ 3 5.88 0 0.00
>1500$ 3 5.88 0 0.00
Total 51 100.00 47 100.00
Average ( FC ) 677 287
Source: Field Survey, 2008

Annual household Expenditure

Annual household expenditures of respondents were categorized into four groups shown in
Table 5.22. Naturally, all respondents in the study area do not record their expenditure for
household consumption and miscellaneous cost. Therefore, the researcher collected annual
farm cost, education cost and health cost a little as annual household expenditure per
household. The annual household expenditure of adopters was higher than that of non-
adopters because adopters more expended in annual farm cost than non-adopters.

Table 5.22: Annual Gross Household Expenditure

Total Cost Adopter % Non-adopter %
0-500$ 16 31.37 36 76.60
501-1000$ 22 43.14 11 23.40
1001-1500$ 8 15.69 0 0.00
>1500$ 5 9.80 0 0.00
Total 51 100.00 47 100.00
Average ( TC ) 821 386
Source: Field Survey, 2008
55
Annual Farm Income

Annual farm income of respondents can be divided into three groups as shown in Table
5.23. The average annual farm income of adopters is higher than that of non-adopters
accounting for 1207 $ and 514 $ respectively. Almost of non-adopters have got only 0-
1000$ from their farm but about half of adopters have got the same amount farm income.
Another about half of adopters earned between 1000 and 2000 $ from the agriculture and
the rest earned more than 2000$ from their cultivation.

Table 5.23: Annual Gross Income by Agriculture

Farm Income Adopter % Non-adopter %
0-1000$ 24 47.06 46 97.87
1001-2000$ 23 45.10 1 2.13
>2000$ 4 7.84 0 0.00
Total 51 100.00 47 100.00
Average ( FI ) 1207 514
Source: Field Survey, 2008

Annual Gross Income

Annual gross income of respondents can be divided into three groups as shown in Table
5.24. The average annual gross income of adopters is higher than that of non-adopters
accounting for 1493 $ and 791 $ respectively. Sources of annual gross income of
respondent in this study area were majority from agriculture as on-farm income, off-farm
income and land preparation by wage labors, power tillers and tractors. Moreover, some
income was earned by doing trade and services and salaries as non-farm income. Most of
non-adopters earned annual gross income of 0-1000$ and the rest had got 1001-2000$ as
annual gross income. Over half of adopters had got between 1000 and 2000 $ as annual
gross income and about one fifth of adopters earned 0-1000$. The rest of them earned
more than 2000$ as annual gross income.

Table 5.24: Annual Gross Income

Total Income Adopter % Non-adopter %

0-1000$ 10 19.61 41 87.23
1001-2000$ 33 64.71 6 12.77
>2000$ 8 15.69 0 0.00
Total 51 100.00 47 100.00
Average ( TI ) 1493 791
Source: Field Survey, 2008

5.5 Chapter Summary

The study area was located on high elevation, more rolling topography and high rainfall
also occurred. Crop cultivation as land utilization was still low intense compared with
other areas in Myanmar. Most of lands are acidic soils and farmers were grown mono-crop
as annual/ perennial crop on their upland areas. Some farmers who had knowledge for
cropping systems practiced with double cropping system on their farms. Intercropping

56
cropping system was introduced by staff of MAS and Project to get more improved soil
fertility and yield to local farmers.

The majority of adopters participating in the ICDP project were males and a few were
female who was either widow or single. The adopters were in the middle age and old age
but some were young men who were wanted to know about advanced technology to
conserve soil erosion and soil fertility. Most of adopters were educated person who were
completed primary school level and higher than that of non-adopters. Both adopters and
non-adopters depend on agriculture, livestock and forest for their livelihood.

The average household size of adopters and non-adopters were nearly the same but the
family labor member of adopters was higher than that of non-adopters. In addition, land
ownership of adopters owned large area compared with non-adopters. In cropping pattern,
most of non-adopter practiced only mono cropping system but about half of adopters grew
on their farm land with double or inter cropping system. As farm equipment, most of
farmers used to only hoe for their land preparation.

With regard to annual gross expenditure, almost adopters invested more than that of non-
adopters in agriculture. The average annual gross household income of adopters was higher
than that of non-adopters but still lower than that of other area in Myanmar.

57
 Chapter 6

Assessment of factors influencing adoption of Contour Farming Practice

As analyzed in chapter 6, some farmers have adopted soil conservation practices to control
soil erosion and to improve soil fertility and yield, but some have not adopted this
technology. This chapter examines the major factors influencing on adoption of contour
farming practice.

6.1 Important factors characterizing between adopters and non-adopters

To find out the combination of variables that adopt the technology the best classification
results, which maximizes the difference between adopters and non-adopters, Linear
Discriminant Analysis (LDA) was used. With respect to the discriminant analysis, there are
three basic questions to ask as follow;

1. Which independent variables are good discriminators?

2. How will do these independent variables discriminate among the two groups?
3. What decision rule should be used for classifying individuals?

To answer these questions, both results of standardized and unstandardized classification

scores and the level of significant from discriminant analysis were discussed in Table 6.1.
Firstly, many variables were entered into this model but some variables did not pass the
tolerance test. The standardized coefficients indicated the significant variables which had
relatively more influence in characterizing on these two groups. The largest positive value
coefficients of adoption of technology that accept of agricultural information, training
attended, farm cost per year per household and upland ownership area were found to be the
most important factors on adoption. Other factors of level of education, loans accessed
from sources, number of family labor per household, non-farm income per year, slope % of
upland and occupation of respondents had also greater influence in discriminating the
adopters from the non-adopters of soil conservation technology.

The negative value coefficients, namely; farm income, age of respondents, crop intensity
index of all respondents and gender were described in discriminant analysis results. In the
other words, the variables of farm income, age of respondents, crop intensity index of all
respondents and gender were not related the adoption of soil conservation technology.
Moreover, farmers were not only less favored in year of farming experiences and off-farm
work income per year per household but also in ethnic group on the adoption.

58
Table 6.1 Canonical discriminant function coefficients of both adopters and non-
adopters from selected study area

Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function

No. Standardized Unstandardized
Coefficients
1 Age of respondents -0.421 -0.039
2 Upland ownership area 0.559 0.695
3 Training attended 0.653 3.343
4 Ethnic groups -0.129 -0.318
5 Accept of agricultural information 0.682 2.921
6 Gender -0.184 -0.565
7 Occupation of all respondents 0.158 0.347
8 Slope % of upland 0.195 0.451
9 Level of education 0.180 0.416
10 Years of farm experience -0.009 -0.017
11 Number of family labor per household 0.347 0.220
12 Loans accessed from sources 0.411 0.004
13 Crop Intensity Index of respondents -0.206 -1.666
14 Farm cost/year / household 0.632 0.002
15 Off farm work income/year / household -0.172 -0.001
16 Farm Income/ year / household -0.815 -0.002
17 Non-Farm income /year / household 0.208 0.001
18 (Constant) -2.639
Source: calculated from field survey data

Table 6.2 Summary statistics of significant tests and classification results

Predicted Group Membership

Adoption Total
Adopter Non-adopter
Original 1 51 0 51
0 1 46 47
% 1 100.00 0.0 100
0 2.10 97.90 100
a.99.00 % of original grouped cases correctly classified.

Eigen value 12.958 a

Wilk’s Lambda 0.072
Chi-square 230.657
Canonical
Correlation 0.964
Level of significant 0.000
Percent of grouped cases correctly
classified 99.00%
a. First 1 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.
Source: calculated from own survey data
59
The efficiency of the results of the discriminant analysis was shown with the help of
Wilk’s Lambda, Chi-square and Canonical Correlation coefficient. Summary statistics of
significant tests and classification results was shown in Table 6.2. A value of 0.072 of
Wilk’s lambda indicated the overall discriminating power of the function with these
variables. This result was a good indicator of LDA since the value closed to nearly zero
i.e. the nearest the value of Lambda stands close to zero, the better is the discriminating
power of the function. The degree of association was shown by canonical correction
coefficient of 0.964 which indicated that the degree of association is high; i.e. the
relationship between the two groups was relatively strong. The proportion of cases
correctly classified indicated directly the accuracy of the procedure and indirectly
confirmed the degree of group category. Consequently, the proportion of known case,
which were correctly classified under, group one (adopters) were 100%, while 98% were
classified under group two (non-adopters). The remaining 2 % of non-adopters were
misclassified in this study. The overall percentage of “known” cases which were correctly
classified was 99 % which confirmed that a directly measure of predictive accuracy of the
function. Under a classical regression condition, it is analogous to the value of R2.

6.2. Factors influencing adoption of Contour Farming Practices by using regression

model
Researchers measure the adoption of new technologies by using of several different ways.
Some researchers (Adesina et al, 2000, Bayard et al., 2007 and Graaff et al., 2008) used
regression model (the dependent variable had a dichotomous value) to measure the
probability of farmers’ adoption on soil and water conservation practices. In this study, the
researcher was used probability choice model to evaluate farmers’ decisions to adopt
contour farming practices as a soil and water conservation technique. In logistic regression
models, the probability of an event occurring could be directly estimated. It was considered
an appropriate technique for this analysis as adoption of contour farming practices, the
dependent variable, had a dichotomous value and the independent variables were dummies
factors and continuous variables. The independent variables listed in Table (6.3) that
variables were assumed as independent variables influencing the adoption of contour
farming technique.

To evaluate farmers’ adoption decisions on contour farming practices, a binary logistic

regression model was used. This model permits the investigation of the decision of whether
or not to adopt (Maddalla, 1993). It was hypothesized that a farmer’s decision to adopt or
reject improved technologies any time is influenced by the combined effect of a number of
factors related to his objectives and constraints. For simplicity, let Y be the decision to
adopt contour farming technology and X a vector of explanatory variables related to
adoption. The adoption decision of farmers is specified as Y= f (X, e), where e is an error
term with a logistic distribution.

The basic equation used to estimate the logistic regression analysis is:

Ln [Pi/ (1-Pi)] = 0+ 1X1 + 2X2i + 3X3i + 4X4i + ………. + nX ni

Where, X1, X2, ….. , Xn are independent variables and 1, 2, ......... , n are their
corresponding coefficients. 0 is the intercept, the subscript i is the ith observation in the
sample and P is the probability of the outcome.
In logistic regression model of adoption of contour farming practices, the coefficients are
compared with the probability of an event occurring with or not occurring. The estimated
60
( coefficients do not directly indicate the effect of change in the corresponding
explanatory variables on probability (P) outcome of the occurring. The coefficients
demonstrate the effect of each explanatory variable on log of odds as follows:

{Ln [ P/ (1-P)]}

A positive sign for a regression coefficient indicates that the variable increases the
probability, while a negative sign indicates a decrease in the predicted probability. Once
the logistic regression equation was estimated, expected probability of contour farming
practices can be calculated as follows:

Pi = Prob (Yi=1) = 1/ (1+e) ¯ ( 0 + 1X1 + 2X2i + ………. + nXni)

= e ( 0 + 1X1 + 2X2i + ………. + nXni)

/ (1+e) ( 0 + 1X1 + 2X2i + ……….

+ nXni)
…( i )

Similarly,

Prob (Yi =0) =1- Prob (Yi=1)= 1/ (1+e) ( 0+ 1X1 + 2X2i + ………. + nXni)
……………….(ii)

Dividing (i) by (ii) we get

Prob (Yi =1) / Prob (Yi=0) = Pi / (1-Pi) = e ( 0+ 1X1 + 2X2i + ………. + nXni)
…………….(iii)

Where Pi is the probability that Yi takes the value 1 and then (1-Pi) is the probability that
Yi is 0 and e is the exponential constant.

Now taking the natural log in both sides of equations (iii) we get

Ln [Pi/ (1-Pi)] = 0+ 1X1 + 2X2i + 3X3i + 4X4i + ………. + nX ni

Holding the rest of the variables constant, odds {P/ (1-P)} and probability (P) of the
outcome given nth independent variables is equal to e ß n and 1(1+e-ß n), respectively.
Therefore,

n=0 odds = and probability (P) = 0.5

n> 0 odds > 1 and probability (P) > 0.5, and
n< 0 odds < 1 and probability (P) < 0.5.

Prior to running binary logistic regression model, firstly correlations between variables in
the study were prepared. To detect any serious multi-collinearly problems, the level of
correlations between the independents variables was checked. According to the common
rule of thumb, the correlations among the independent variables of between -0.70 and 0.70
do not cause difficulties (Hair et al. 1999; Gujarati 1995). Factors (bio physical, socio-
economic, technology and financial) were tested with correlation. According to these
statistics results (Appendex-3), some factors indicated the presence of strong correlation
and multi-collinearly problem. Therefore, only eleven independent factors could be run in
binary regression model.

61
Table 6.3. Definition of variables (explanatory variables) used in the regression
models
Variables Definition
1. Age Number of years from birth
2.Gender 1 if respondent is male, 0 = female
1 if respondent is greater than primary education level,
3.Education level
0 = Monastery and primary education level
4.Upland size area Upland Area in hectares per farmer
5.Family labor Number of family labor are available on the farm
6.Ethnic Groups 1 if respondent is Pao, 0 otherwise
7.Occuption 1 if respondent works in only farm activities, 0 otherwise
8.Slope percentage 1 if slope % is 1-20 , 0 otherwise
9.Farming Experiences 1 if years in farming experiences is less than 15, 0 otherwise
10.Farm Cost Annual investment in farm per year
11. Off-farm Income Annual off farm income per household per year

Interpretation of outcome results

Refer to the binary regression model; the predictive ability of the model could be assessed
by using chi-square, P-value, Likelihood ratio test, Cox and Snell R2 and Nagelkerke R2.
To estimate the effects of independent variables on the adoption of contour farming
practices, odds, log of odds and probability of contour farming practices were showed in
result Table. In binary regression model’s results, large chi-square value (114.782) and
small P value (0.000) indicated statistical significance in this model. Correspondingly, -2
log likelihood value (20.912) estimated how well the model fit the data, the smaller the
value the better the fit. Nagelkerke R2 and Cox and Snell R2 values are 0.921 and 0.690
respectively indicated that the estimated adoption of contour farming models have high
explanatory power in this study. The overall percentage of the correct prediction is 94.90
% in this study area. These statistics suggest that this model effectively describes farmers’
decision levels on adoption of contour farming.

Determinants of Contour Farming Practices

The results indicate that four independent variables, out of all 11 variables, affect adoption
of contour farming practices significantly in Pinlaung study area namely: upland size area,
occupation of all respondents, level of education, and number of family labor per
household. Among these, upland size area, level of education and occupation are positively
influence adoption of contour farming and the rest was negative influence shown in Table
6.4.

Upland Size: The results related to size of upland cultivated area is the most important
factor influencing the adoption of contour farming practices. According to this result,
farmers who possessed a larger area to cultivate would adopt soil and water conservation
practices, contour farming practices in their cultivated uplands. If farmers own large area,
they could accept the risk yield in two or three years after implementation of contour bunds
or lost cultivated land by doing contour bunds in their field. If farmers possessed small
area, they could not risk their current yield and food security because contour farming

62
system could not give more yields in short term periods. Thus, as upland size larger,
adoption of contour farming system is more likely to increase.

Education Level: Level of education influences positively significance the adoption of

contour farming system as shown in Table 6.4. A farmer who has greater education level is
much more likely to adopt contour farming system than one who lacks or lower in
education level. The higher the farmer’s education level, the more the farmer can
participate in developmental activities and know long term benefits of soil conservation
and aware soil erosion and land degradation.

Occupation: Farmers’ occupation influences positive significantly the adoption and the
coefficient is 14.123, implying that the probability of adoption of contour farming practices
increases with occupation of all respondents in the study area. The results indicate that
farmers who reply on only agricultural farming activities are more likely than others to
adopt contour farming practices on their upland farms.

Number of family labor: The coefficient for number of family labor per household is -
1.687, suggesting a decrease in the probability of adoption of contour farming practices if
the farmer has more family labor. But the probability of adoption is very low accounting as
16 % if the farmer has less one family labor, the farmer would adopt only 16 % of adoption
of contour farming.

Table 6.4. Econometric model results on factors influencing farmers’ adoption of

contour farming system

Variables B S.E. Exp(B) Prob (P)

Age of respondents -0.304ns 0.195 0.738 0.42
Upland size area 25.346** 11.835 1.018E11 1.00
Ethnic groups 5.017 ns 20.166 150.917 0.99
Gender -21.364 ns 22.225 0.000 0.00
Occupation of all respondents 14.123* 7.502 1.360E6 1.00
Slope % of upland 4.162 ns 5.081 64.181 0.98
Level of education 7.515* 4.500 1.84E3 1.00
Years of farm experience 0.456 ns 1.825 1.578 0.61
Number of family labor per
-1.687* 0.906 0.185 0.16
household
Farm cost/year -0.005 ns 0.009 0.995 0.50
Non-income /year / household -0.008 ns 0.008 0.992 0.50
Constant 1.562
Cox and Snell R2 0.69
Nagelkerke R2 0.921
Likelihood ratio test 20.912
No of correct prediction 94.90%

Notes: ** - P < 0.05 and *- P< 0.1 levels of significance and ns = non significance

63
6.3. Factors influencing adoption of contour farming practices based on perception of
the farmers

Factors (Bio-physical, Socio-economic, technology and financial) influenced the adoption

of contour farming practices on farmers. In this regard, the farmers in the study area were
also asked to get their own opinion to adopt contour farming practices by using the rating
of their level of perspectives on all factors. These factors were analyzed by applying WAIs
of adopters and non-adopters as shown in Table 6.5.

6.3.1 Farmers’ perception on Bio-physical factors on the adoption of Contour

Farming

Bio-physical factors are the basic factors to adopt soil and water conservation practices
(Contour Farming System). The frequency of land holding size was rated by adopters and
non-adopters in the study area at a very strong level of influencing on adoption of contour
farming accounting as (WAIs = 0.81 and 0.83) respectively. In farmers’ opinion, if they
possessed large area of land, they could adopt soil and water conservation practices
without thinking of lost of cultivable land for contour bunds. The slope percent of upland
was found as a very strong level of influence at adopters (WAI = 0.81) and as non-
adopters’ attitude, it was a strong level (WAI = 0.79) of influencing on adoption of contour
farming. Overall, slope percent of upland influenced to adopt contour farming on farmers
at a strong level.

Table 6.5. Degree of factors influencing adoption of contour farming

Adopter Non-adopter
Factors influencing on adoption
WAI OA WAI OA
Bio-physical
Land holding size 0.81 VS 0.83 VS
% of land slope 0.81 VS 0.79 S
Socio-economic
Land ownership 0.95 VS 0.90 VS
Capital investment 0.64 S 0.72 S
Labor ability 0.72 S 0.74 S
Economic return 0.72 S 0.61 S
Construction cost 0.63 S 0.70 S
Age 0.67 S 0.43 M
Gender 0.27 W 0.29 W
Education level 0.89 VS 0.71 S
Culture 0.30 W 0.31 W
Technology 0.97 VS 0.95 VS
Experiences in year / Knowledge 0.96 VS 0.96 VS
Financial 0.98 VS 0.97 VS
Source: Field survey, 2008.

Note: WAI = Weighted Average Index, OA = Overall Assessment

64
Criteria for assessment of WAIs

Very weak Weak Medium Strong Very Strong

(VW) (W) (M) (S) (VS)
0-0.20 0.21-0.40 0.41-0.60 0.61-0.80 0.81-1.0

6.3.2. Farmers’ perception on Socio-economic factors on the adoption of Contour

Farming

Socio-economic factors consist of land ownership, capital investment, labor ability,

economic return, construction cost, age, gender, education level and culture were perceived
by the farmers on adoption of contour farming practices. Farmers’ land ownership was
important to adopt soil and water conservation practices (CF) at a very strong level of
influence with the high values of WAIs (adopters’ WAI = 0.95 and non-adopters’ WAI =
0.90). Adopters’ and non-adopters’ opinion on factors of capital investment, labor ability,
economic return, construction cost were found as a strong level of influencing on adoption
amounting as WAIs = 0.64 and 0.72, 0.72 and 0.74, 0.72 and 0.61, 0.63 and 0.70
respectively.

Factor of age was found that quite different between adopters and non-adopters and
adopters’ opinion was strong level of influence (WAI =0.67) but WAI of non-adopters was
0.43 as medium level. Farmers’ attitude on gender and culture factors was found at a weak
level of influencing on the adoption of contour farming practices accounting as around
0.30 of WAI. In addition, education level was also influenced at very strong level (WAI
= 0.89) in adopters’ opinion and strong level (WAI = 0.71) in non-adopters’ attitude on the
adoption of soil and water conservation practices. The researcher found that project
selected farmers who could read and write also to participate in development activities to
get succeed in environmental conservation activities. According to the education level of
farmers, their acceptance of new technology, their opinion, and their gain knowledge from
project’s development activities were quite different and the implementation of contour
bunds was also varied.

6.3.3. Farmers’ perception on Technology and Financial factors on the adoption of

Contour Faring

Farmers perceived that technology, knowledge and financial factors were found as the
same trend between adopters and non-adopters that mainly important to adopt soil and
water conservation practices with the high values of WAI at a very strong level of
influencing on adoption of contour farming system. According to farmers said, if they
knew about technology or have knowledge about this, they could more adopt this
technology. Moreover, the more NGOs supported financial such as incentives or subsidies
to local farmers, the farmers will more and more accept new technology in the study area.

The result of the Hypothesis 1

The binary regression and weighted average index results that bio-physical factors, soci0-
economic factors and financial factors influence the adoption of contour farming system at
high significant level. And it shows that the adoption of contour farming system depend on
socio-economic and demographic factors. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis of research
1.2 is accepted.

65
6.4. Chapter summary

This chapter determined the factors influencing the adoption of contour farming practices
by econometric analysis and degree of farmers’ perception on adoption. The econometric
analysis showed that: (1) adoption of soil conservation was higher for farmers having large
area of upland holding size, (2) if level of education of farmers is higher, the farmer could
adopt (3) If farmers rely on agricultural activities for life, the farmer were more likely to
adopt and (4) number of family labor per household is inversely proportion with adoption
of contour farming practices.

According to degree of factors influencing the adoption of contour farming practices based
on farmers’ responded data, all factors namely: bio physical, socio-economic, and
technology and financial factors about farmers in the study area were determined. As bio
physical factors, land- holding size and slope % of upland influenced to adopt contour
farming on farmers at a strong level. In socio-economic factors, land ownership, education
level, capital investment, labor ability, economic return and construction cost have strong
effect on adoption of contour farming. Technology, knowledge and financial factors were
found as strong level on farmers to adopt soil conservation practices (contour farming
system).

Achieving improved impact with contour farming system requires effective targeting.
Results showed that econometric modeling and weighted average index (WAI) using
famers’ characteristics, socioeconomic and institutional variables can lead to more
effective targeting to farmers and locations where adoption rates may occur.

66
 Chapter 7

Comparison of management practices, crop yield and income of adopter and non-
adopters of Contour Farming Practices

Previous chapter 6 indicated the factors influencing the adoption of soil conservation
practices, Contour Farming Practices, in the study area. This chapter compares the crop
management practices, crop yield and income between adopters and non-adopters of soil
conservation practices, Contour Farming Practice.

7.1 Comparison of crop management practices between adopters and non-adopters of

Contour Farming Practice

7.1.1 Soil Situation in the study area

Most soils in Shan State are undergoing in the slightly acidic condition and rich of organic
matter. Normally, the soil is in good fertility but most of these soils are also loamy soils. In
the study area, as the elevation of land is high, most of farmers grow on slopping land and
valley as lowland for their agriculture. Moreover, annual rainfall is higher than other places
in Shan State. And then, some farmers’ practices, shifting cultivation and soil baking
practices, were the major cause to accelerate soil erosion. Therefore, these areas are
accelerated soil erosion, nutrient leaching and nutrient removal by runoff, up and down
ploughing on steep land, and nutrient uptake by crops year by year. Because of these
factors, these lands in the study area are also become undergoing fertility decline and more
and more acidic soil year after year. Thus, some farmers used to fallow land practices on
their own lands that mean farmers did not grown on the fallow land within two or three
years after that they grow on that area with some crops. They grow crops on their own
lands with rotation of two or three years. These are not shifting cultivation practices and
only fallow land practices.

Table 7.1 shows the percentage of farmers who used to fallow land practice between
adopters and non-adopters groups. Among adopters group, only five farmers used to fallow
land practice on their own lands as accounting percentage of 9.80 %. However, twelve
farmers of non-adopters group (about one fourth of non-adopters shown as 25.53 %) use
fallow land practice in their farm. This described that adopters are more afford on their
farm land to grow every year than non-adopters to get more yield and income for their food
security and their living.

Table 7.1. Percentage of farmers who used to fallow land practices in two groups

Group Fallow practice's farmers percentage %

Adopter (51) 5 9.80
Non-adopter (47) 12 25.53
Source: Field survey, 2008

Table 7.2 described that the comparison of crop management practices between adopter
group and non-adopter group in the study area.

67
Table 7.2. Comparison of crop management practices

Std.
F Value Sig.
Group Mean Deviation
Used FYM ( ton/ hh) adopter 7.41 6.72
non-adopter 2.11 1.87 21.17 0.000**
Used FYM ( ton /
ha) adopter 3.35 3.34
non-adopter 2.18 2.17 1.62 0.206 ns
Fertilizer Cost / hh adopter 194.30 112.16
non-adopter 73.71 41.56 17.81 0.000**
Fertilizer Cost / ha adopter 83.50 33.11
non-adopter 74.23 45.99 1.93 0.168 ns
Land preparation
cost / hh adopter 80.34 59.32
non-adopter 29.94 15.34 14.56 0.000**
Land preparation
cost / ha adopter 32.99 10.88
non-adopter 29.14 11.98 0.13 0.720 ns
Weeding Cost / hh adopter 54.83 27.43
non-adopter 19.15 10.45 10.63 0.002**
Weeding Cost / ha adopter 23.61 6.44
non-adopter 19.87 11.30 16.64 0.000**
Pesticide Cost / hh adopter 7.09 7.78
non-adopter 6.29 9.19 0.37 0.544 ns
Pesticide Cost / ha adopter 3.44 4.10
non-adopter 6.34 10.75 9.75 0.002**
Source: Field survey, 2008
Remark; **p< 0.01 and ns = non significant, All cost are cash in $.

7.1.2. Utilization of Farmyard Manure (FYM)

As chemical fertilizers are highly expensive and farmers are poor, the farmers in the study
area prefer to use FYM as the major source of fertilizer application. Farmyard manure is
the mixture decomposed of dung, waste fodder, crops residues and tree leaves. In table 7.2,
FYM used by adopters was found that the high level of significant at 99 % compared to
non-adopters but FYM used per hectare between adopters and non-adopters was not
significant. Although the FYM used per hectare of adopters and non-adopters was not
found as significant, accounting as 3.35 ton per ha and 2.18 ton per ha respectively
described that the adopters use more FYM per ha (1.17 ton per ha) in their each farms than
non-adopters. FYM can not only reduce the application of chemical fertilizers but also can
improve the soil fertility.

68
7.1.3. Chemical Fertilizers application

As genuine chemical fertilizers are very high cost compared to the poor farmers, the study
found that most of poor farmers used low quality chemical fertilizers in their productive
land to refill the required nutrients uptake by crops. The low quality fertilizers are not
composed of standard nutrient ratio. Some farmers use the genuine chemical fertilizers
mainly N, P, K fertilizers for their crops production. As the average of fertilizer cost per
hectare, there was no significant between adopters and non-adopters accounting as cash as
83.5 $ per ha and 74.23 $ per ha. These amount of fertilizers cost per hectare nearly equal
to 50 kg of Urea and 50 kg of Triple super phosphate of genuine chemical fertilizer per ha.
Thus, fertilizers applied per ha by farmers in the study area is still low compared with
national chemical fertilizers application rate and also very low with the international
fertilizers application rate.

7.1.4. Land Preparation

Land preparation practice is one of the mainly factors to get high yield but heavy tillage
caused land degradation by using heavy tillage machines cited by Paudel, 2001, AIT. In
the study area, most of farmers are poor and it was found that a few tractors in each village
and most farmers used hoes as the tools for land preparation especially on upland. The
comparison of average land preparation cost between adopters and non-adopters per
hectare was no significant variation but a little different between these cost accounting as
32.99 $ and 29.14 $ per ha respectively. This indicated that the adopters cost a little higher
amount in land preparation than non-adopter.

7.1.5 Weeding Practice

According to interviews with farmers, weed is the major problem in crop production in this
study area. All farmers are facing with weed problem in their productive lands because of
three factors. Firstly, soil fertility is still good condition in most area, second factor-annual
rainfall is high in this area and the final one is using FYM that can be encouraged to grow
weeds in farm. In table 7.2, the average of weeding practice cost between adopters and
non-adopters was significant highly at 99 % level amounting as 54.83 $ per household and
19.15 $ per household, and 23.61 $ per ha and 19.87 $ per ha respectively. This showed
that the adopters do more weeding practice in their cropped land than non-adopter.
Weeding practice can reduce the application of pesticide and insecticide in the productive
field. Weed competition can be caused yield reduction depend on stage of crop period and
kind of crops.

7.1.6 Application of pesticide and insecticide

The average of pesticide and insecticide cost per hectare of adopters and non-adopters was
highly significant at the level of 99% accounting as 3.44 $ and 6.34 $ respectively (Table
7.2). This indicated that non-adopters use more insecticide and pesticide than adopter in
their fields and adopters have more knowledge on disease and pest for control and how to
use pesticide than non-adopters do. The researcher found about the application of
pesticides and insecticides, those farmers did not have knowledge on what the diseases or
pests were in their cropped field. Therefore, the farmers cannot use the correct type and
amount of pesticide and insecticide for effective control of diseases and pests.

69
7.1.7 Cropping System

Cropping system is one of the crop management practices by farmers. The percentage of
each cropping systems practiced by adopters and non-adopters was described as Table 7.3.
In the study area, the farmers who practice both intercropping and double cropping patterns
were 2 (4 %) of all adopters but no found in non-adopters. The farmer who grow intercrops
and mono crops in their farms were 29 (57 %) and only 1 (2 %) of adopters and non-
adopters respectively. In double cropping and mono cropping systems, there was found
that accounting as 20 (39 %) and 23 (49 %) of each adopters and non-adopters. In mono
cropping system, there was found only non-adopters accounting as 23 (49 %) of all non-
adopters. This showed that almost half of non-adopter mostly practiced mono cropping in
their farms while non-adopters did not practice that cropping system.

Table 7.3. Using of cropping systems by adopters and non-adopters

Non- Adopters Non-adopters

Cropping System Adopters
adopters (%) (%)
Intercropping + double
2 0 4 0
cropping
Intercropping + Mono 29 1 57 2

Double cropping + Mono 20 23 39 49

Mono-cropping system 0 23 0 49

Total 51 47 100 100

Source: Field survey, 2008

7.2 Comparison of yield, income and benefit between adopters and non-adopters

Crop yield, income and benefit can vary depend on crops, management practices between
adopters and non-adopters. Income and benefit of crops can also be indicated as the current
situation of adopters and non-adopters. The average, maximum and minimum yield,
income and benefit of each crop between adopters and non-adopters were described in
appendix 4 in detail.

In table 7.5, the averages of benefit and cost ratio of each crops of adopters and non-
adopters were described. All crops were compared with BC ratio as econometric term for
these crops’ income and profitability. Only in contour farming practices of adopters,
double cropping patterns of corn and wheat or niger crops can give the maximum BC ratio
accounting as 2.06 in all cropping patterns. The second highest BC ratio can get from
cropping patterns of intercrops of corn and pigeon pea or sunflower, or up-paddy and
soybean, and double crops of soybean and niger or sunflower, or corn and chit pea or
groundnut and niger amounting from 1.76 to 1.92. The double cropping patterns of up-land
paddy and chick pea or groundnut and wheat or soybean and corn or wheat or potato crops
give the smallest BC ratio in all contour farming practices in the study area.

In other farms of adopters, the highest BC ratio was showed from mono cropping pattern
of niger accounting as 4.17 in BC ratio. This means that this cropping pattern gave the
highest benefit for adopter / farmers. The researcher found that niger crop can be grown

70
with mini tillage or zero tillage and lowest input but the yield depends on the plantation
time. Moreover, niger can give good land equivalent ratio and can suppress weeds for the
next crops especially elephant grass.

The second highest BC ratio in other farms of adopters was given from crops of paddy, up-
paddy, pigeon pea, sesame and corn accounting as the level between 2.22 and 2.41 in BC
ratio. The other crops of bean, soybean, potato, sunflower and double crops of paddy and
garlic or up-paddy and wheat showed the lowest BC ratio compared to other crops and
cropping patterns.

As non-adopters’ cropping pattern, mono crops of turmeric, pigeon pea, upland-paddy,

paddy and niger were found that the highest in the BC ratio in all of cropping patterns of
non-adopters arranged from 2.25 to 2.6. This was because of the lowest input cost; most of
these crops were planted with low inputs by farmers. Among these, double cropping
pattern of upland-paddy and sweet pea and intercrops of corn and sunflower were the
secondary highest BC ratio compared to all of non-adopters’ cropping patterns. In double
crops of paddy and potato, mono crops of soybean, corn and potato, the lowest BC ratio
can be showed. Out of them, potato crop could not only be given net benefit but in some
cases the farmers could also loss because farmers used the wrong pesticides and
insecticides in their potato crop field. Therefore, farmers had more cost in input for their
productive fields.

Overall, niger was the highest of all crops in the study area in terms of the cost and benefit
ratio (BC ratio) and profitability. Economists defined that if the BC ratio was greater than
2.0, this crop can give the highest benefit for the growers. Therefore, among of these, BC
ratio of double crops of corn and wheat or niger in contour farming practices, mono crops
of niger, paddy, pigeon pea, sesame, corn and paddy in other farms of adopters, and
turmeric, pigeon pea, paddy, up-paddy and niger crops were found as the suitable amount
of BC ratio for farmers to get the maximum net benefit.

71
 Table.7.4. Benefit and Cost Ratio for each Cropping Pattern
Per hectare basis Yield kg / ha
Cost Net BC
Income($) Crop 1 Crop 2
Crops ($) Benefit($) ratio
Contour Farming
Corn - Wheat 540.78 1111.51 570.73 2.06 4315.93 677.26
Corn - Niger 436.52 897.06 460.54 2.06 2888.31 557.74
Corn + Pigeon pea 336.89 646.95 310.06 1.92 3066.47 506.39
Up-paddy + Soybean 307.16 576.01 268.85 1.88 1924.31 515.39
Soybean - Niger 282.70 526.67 243.97 1.86 1055.73 418.31
Corn - Chit pea 470.66 869.55 398.90 1.85 3241.88 1140.38
Corn + Sunflower 314.67 573.09 258.42 1.82 2582.86 -
Sunflower - Soybean 217.25 395.87 178.63 1.82 - 956.13
Groundnut - Niger 505.91 888.41 382.50 1.76 432.25 475.08
Up-paddy – Chit pea 509.61 810.95 301.34 1.59 2143.29 1025.85
Corn - Soybean 382.18 605.37 223.20 1.58 2450.08 916.29
Groundnut - Wheat 618.90 916.43 297.52 1.48 421.02 692.20
Soybean -Wheat 431.13 599.67 168.54 1.39 1022.54 685.58
Soybean - Potato 505.79 682.39 176.61 1.35 854.90 2981.29
Adopters
Niger 42.66 178.06 135.40 4.17 243.02
Paddy 229.81 553.28 323.47 2.41 2272.40
Pigeon pea 130.24 313.24 183.00 2.41 1235.00
Sesame 247.75 592.80 345.05 2.39 802.75
Corn 189.14 446.41 257.27 2.36 2640.07
Up-paddy 193.81 430.18 236.37 2.22 1766.79
Up-paddy - Wheat 329.41 588.31 258.90 1.79 1678.48 318.71
Bean 195.35 325.59 130.24 1.67 596.92
Paddy- Garlic 526.91 860.11 333.20 1.63 2287.89 1792.26
Potato 276.80 440.39 163.59 1.59 2604.46
Soybean 180.76 258.66 77.90 1.43 1240.30
Sunflower 162.17 225.32 63.15 1.39 -
Non-adopters
Turmeric 322.22 836.66 514.43 2.60 2748.87
Pigeon pea 106.66 242.51 135.85 2.27 956.13
Paddy 239.58 541.84 302.26 2.26 2225.40
Up-paddy 201.84 455.58 253.74 2.26 1871.11
Niger 82.33 184.87 102.53 2.25 252.30
Up-paddy- Sweet pea 513.42 929.62 416.20 1.81 2065.82 756.94
Corn +sunflower 305.52 545.56 240.04 1.79 2735.60 -
Soybean 164.11 264.47 100.37 1.61 1268.19
Paddy-potato 657.79 1030.36 372.57 1.57 2329.21 2739.67
Corn 328.37 475.61 147.23 1.45 2812.73
Potato 503.54 488.39 -15.16 0.97 2888.31

Source: Field Survey,

72
Figure. 7.1. Average cost, average income and average benefit / ha / year of adopters
and non-adopters

Table. 7.5. Average cost, Income and benefit per ha per year of adopters and non-
adopters
US$ / year Adopter Non-adopter Difference
Average cost / ha 235.44 244.44 9.00
Average Income / ha 414.47 421.55 7.08
Average Benefit / ha 179.03 177.11 1.92
Source: Field survey, 2008.

Overall of cost, income and benefit per hectare per year of adopters and non-adopters,
Table 7.6 described the average cost, income and benefit per ha per year of both of adopter
and non-adopter. The adopters and non-adopters invested 235.44 US$ and 244.44 US$ per
ha per year in field, and earned 414.47 US$ and 421.55 US$ per ha per year but adopters
get more profit with less investment in field than non-adopters. Thus, non-adopter invested
more cost than adopter accounting as 9.00 US$ per hectare per year and earned more
income than adopter as much as 7.08 US$ per hectare per year. However, the net benefit
per ha per year of adopters showed more profit accounting as 1.92 US$ per ha per year as a
short term benefit compared to non-adopters. Therefore, adopter could earn more profit as
well as saved less annual cost per hectare than non-adopter.

7.3. Comparison of net benefit between adopters and non-adopters

In Table 7.6, the net benefit between adopters and non-adopters was described based on
land size per year (2007) in the study area. The researcher calculated cost, income and
benefit in terms of total, in terms of farm and in term of other sources respectively. The
researcher compared each benefit of adopters and non-adopters assuming the same land
holding size to know how much difference if adopters and non-adopters possessed the
same land ownership area. As only farm (agricultural activities), adopters get profit as net
benefit as 193 US$ more than non-adopters. On the average, adopter can earn 1.93 US $ as
net benefit per hectare per year. This mean that adopters earned more than non-adopters
assumed that because of contour farming practices. In total and other income and benefit,
adopters earned less than non-adopters accounting as 8756 US$ per hectare per year.

73
Therefore, non-adopters are done on off-farm and non-farm activities more than adopters;
in other words, adopters participate on on-farm activities than non-adopters in the study
area. Non-adopters have to do on diversity of livelihood strategies for their living depend
on their possessed livelihood assets.

Table 7.6. Net Benefit of Adopters and Non-adopters based on land size per year

Net
Adopter Non-adopter Adopter Non-adopter
Benefit
Area (ha) 150.89 56.58 100 100 100
Total (US $)
Cost 48392 19870 32071 35118
Income 84816 38482 56210 68013
Benefit 36424 18612 24139 32895 -8756
Farm
Cost 35525 13830 23544 24444
Income 62540 23851 41447 42155
Benefit 27014 10021 17903 17711 193
Others
Cost 12866 6040 8527 10674
Income 22276 14631 14763 25859
Benefit 9409 8591 6236 15184 -8948
Source: Field survey, 2008.

The comparison of contour farm and non-contour farm’s cost, income and benefits were
shown as Table 7.7. The researcher compared only cost, income and benefit from contour
farming practices and non-contour farming practices that including of adopters and non-
adopters’ farms. Contour farming practices could give more net benefit than non-contour
farming amounting as 159.62 US$ per hectare per year. Otherwise, if farmers adopted
contour farming practices on their all upland farms, farmers got more benefit as much as
159.62 US$ per hectare per year from contour farming than non-contour farming in the
study area.

Table 7.7. Net Benefit between contour farm and non-contour farm (US$ / ha / year)

Non- Contour Non-

Contour Farm Net Benefit
contour Farm contour
Area (ha) 44.33 113.75 100 100 100
Upland Area
Cost 16090 21402 36296 18815
Income 27968 33723 63090 29647
Benefit 11878 12321 26794 10832 15962
Source: Field survey, 2008.
Based on household size in the study area, the comparison of annual net benefit between
adopters and non-adopters per household were indicated in Table 7.8. If the household size
of adopters and non-adopters in selected area were the same that means each 100

74
households of adopters and non-adopters assumed that under the same conditions of
household assets, adopters earn more profit from agricultural farms than non-adopters
accounting as 316.49 US$ per household per year. Therefore, the total net benefit of
adopters was higher than that of non-adopters in the study area. Overall, if all households
in the study area adopted the soil and water conservation practices (Contour farming
practices), each farmer could be earned more 316.49 US$ per year by doing contour
farming on each farm.

Table. 7.8. Net Benefit of Adopters and Non-adopters based on household size per
year

Adopter Non-adopter Adopter Non-adopter Benefit

Households 51 47 100 100 100
Total ( US$ )
Cost 48392 19870 94886 42277
Income 84816 38482 166305 81877
Benefit 36424 18612 71419 39600 31819
Farm
Cost 35525 13830 69658 29426
Income 62540 23851 122627 50747
Benefit 27014 10021 52970 21321 31649
Others
Cost 12866 6040 25228 12850
Income 22276 14631 43678 31129
Benefit 9409 8591 18450 18279 170
Source: Field survey, 2008.

7.4. Chapter Summary

Overall, adopters and non-adopters do nearly same activities in land preparation by hoe
and ox plough systems. Adopters apply more FYM and genuine chemical fertilizers than
non-adopters but this rate is still low compared to national level as well as ASEAN level.
In weed control, adopters are also more made weeding than non-adopters in this study area.
Thus, pests and diseases were found more in non-adopters’ fields than adopters’ farms.
Therefore, non-adopters use more and more pesticide or insecticide or fungicide than
adopters in their cash crops’ field.
In comparison of cost, income and benefit of each crop, niger is the highest profitability
crop and double cropping pattern of corn and niger or wheat crops are good in BC ratio for
farmers in contour farming systems. Paddy and upland-paddy crops are be grown for
farmers as the staple food as well as profitable crops. Sesame is not only a profitable crop
but also oil crop to fulfill the eatable oil for farmers. Pigeon pea and corn are also found as
profitability crops but these prices depend on export market.
To compare the net benefit of adopters and non-adopters, as based on land holding size,
adopters could earn more benefit only from agricultural activities than non-adopter. If all
of farms were contour farms, farmers could get more net benefit accounting as 159.62 US$
per ha per year from productive fields. Otherwise, under the same livelihood assets, if all
farmers adopted contour farming practices in their farms, each household could receive
more income accounting as 316.49 US$ per year in the study area.

75
 Chapter 8

Assessment of livelihood strategies based on adoption of Contour Farming Practice

In the study area, most of local households rely on one or few activities but some pursue
many activities for their livelihoods. However, all of respondents in this study were
divided into two groups namely; adopters and non-adopters based on adoption of contour
farming practices. All respondents may vary to adopt soil and water conservation practices,
depending on their livelihood assets (natural, physical, human, social and financial).
Therefore, the researcher was assessed the adopters and non-adopters’ livelihood assets to
know the livelihood strategies change and livelihood outcomes between these two groups
in this chapter as shown in Fig. 8.1.

Adoption of soil and water conservation practices depends on the livelihood assets
(natural, physical, human, social and financial). Most of the households in the study area
rely on one or few activities for their livelihood but some pursue many activities. Based on
adoption of contour farming practices, two groups, i.e., adopters and non-adopters were
studied. To investigate the livelihood strategies change and livelihood outcomes between
two groups, farmers’ livelihood assets of the area was studied.

Farmers’ Livelihood assets

Natural Assets Physical Assets Social Assets Human Assets Financial

Assets

-(soil, water and -(productive assets -(access to agri; inf -(education, -(total income,

cropping Intensity) communal assets) membership, & knowledge & credit & net

Adopter or non-adopter

Livelihood strategies change

On-farm activities Off-farm activities
On-farm activities Non-farm activities

Livelihood Outcomes
More income and yield, food security and sustainable NRM

Fig. 8.1. Conceptual framework of livelihoods of farmers in the study area

76
8.1. Natural Assets

Natural assets index (NAI) was including three criterions: soil potential (Sp), water
potential (Wp) and cropping intensity. Soil potential Index was calculated from the average
rating of soil fertility condition of each farmer and soil fertility changed within the last five
years. Soil potential index of adopters and non-adopters are 0.65 and 0.45 respectively but
there was no significant between the adopters and non-adopters. As the adopters have been
done the contour farming practices in their farms last four years ago, their current soil
fertilities of each field has being changed a little that mean the improvement of soil fertility
of field by doing with contour farming practices was a little within 4 years. The soil
fertility can not improve immediately within the short term but it can improve by doing
soil conservation practices on upland sloped field as the long term effect.

Water potential index (WpI) is one of the natural assets and was measured as the average
of water sufficiency and water drought problem and weed problem also. Water sufficiency
was measured as the rating scales for water sufficiency for all planted crops on upland. As
water drought, water drought problem depend on soil conditions and crops. Some farmers
were faced with drought problem in their upland crops. Moreover, weed problem was the
main problem in the study area because annual rainfall was high. Interviews with local
farmers stated that weed problem can be reduced 20 % of the total yield. The adopters and
non-adopters were not different in water potential of their each farm. Thus, the water
potential indices of these two groups were 0.9 and 0.91 respectively.

Cropping Intensity Index (CiI) is also assumed as the indicator of natural assets but
cropping intensity depends on not only soil condition but also farmer knowledge. The
cropping intensity indices of adopters and non-adopters were 0.64 and 0.61, and the
difference between these two groups was not significant. However, the significant value
was 0.097 that means this is significant at 90 % level. Because of many reasons; some
farmers who more educated person used to double cropping system and intercropping
system in their suitable farms. And some farmers grow double crops as cash crops in their
farm to get more yield and income for their livelihoods. Some farmers planted only mono
crop in their upland slope farm such as tea, corn and so on. As tea plant is a perennial crop,
farmers who planted tea can not changed or can not planted other crops on the same land
where planted tea until the end period of crop’s life.

Overall, natural asset index between adopters and non-adopters was not found as
significant. Therefore, the natural resources give all the same for adopters and non-
adopters on upland farms generally.

Table 8.1. Natural Assets

Adopters Non-adopters
Criterion of Natural Asset
Average SD Average SD T-test sig
Soil Potential Index (SpI) 0.65 0.12 0.45 0.10 0.68 0.411 ns
Water Potential Index
0.90 0.13 0.91 0.15 0.53 0.469 ns
(WpI)
Cropping Intensity Index
0.64 0.14 0.61 0.11 2.82 0.097 ns
(CiI)
Natural Asset Index (NAI) 0.73 0.07 0.66 0.06 0.72 0.399 ns
Source: Field survey, 2008. Remark: ns = non significant
77
8.2. Physical Assets

Physical asset index is composed of transportation potential index (TpI), access to

productive tools index (PtI) and upland index (UpI). Transportation potential index was
significant at 95 % level between the adopters and non-adopters. This means that
transportation potential of adopters is higher than that of non-adopters in the study area.
Access to productive tools index between these two groups was no significant, thus the
productive tools index of adopters was not different with the non-adopters. As upland
index, it was measured the average value of the ratio of each own upland areas and the
largest area possessed among them. Upland index (UpI) was significant at 99 % level
between adopters and non-adopters. Some of them owned larger area of upland than the
other farmers. If the new technology concerning with agriculture introduced by
government or NGOs, farmers who possessed larger areas can more accept and adopt the
new technology than the farmers who owned less area because the small farmers can not
risk from the new method/ technology and the farmers can not be believed the new
technology without practices. Overall, physical asset index was not significant but this
value is 0.072 that means significant at 90 % level between these two groups.

Table 8.2. Physical Assets

Criterion of Physical Adopters Non-adopters

Asset Average SD Average SD T-test sig
Transportation potential
0.79 0.17 0.79 0.13 5.99 0.016*
index (TpI)
Access to productive
0.68 0.18 0.57 0.18 0.09 0.766 ns
tools index(PtI)
Upland Index (UpI) 0.33 0.19 0.12 0.04 22.94 0.000**
Physical Asset Index
0.60 0.12 0.49 0.09 3.30 0.072 ns
(PAI)
Source: Field survey, 2008
Remark; *p< 0.05, **p< 0.01 and ns = non significant

8.3. Social Assets

Social Asset Index (SAI) consists of access to agricultural information index (AiI) and
participation and communication index (PcI). Access to agricultural information index
(AiI) was accounted as the average value of all of rating scales of access to agricultural
information from different sources such as radio, television, printed books, extension
workers from government and NGOs, and neighbor farmers. The agricultural information
index was not different between the adopters and non-adopters. Because this may be absent
of electricity in the study area. Moreover, these local farmers can not access the high price
of materials such as television. Therefore, they could not know the new information from
television and another information centers. They reply on the cultural practices, extension
workers and neighbor. Participation and communication index was measured as the
average frequency of members in community activities and participation in any activities
for the development activities. The participation and communication index was highly
significant at 99 % level between adopters and non-adopters in the study areas. Generally,
farmers who have more knowledge want to participate in any activities for development of

78
their livelihoods and environment. Overall, social asset index was highly significant at 99
% level that means social asset of adopters was higher than that of non-adopters.

Table. 8.3. Social Assets

Criterion of Social Adopters Non-adopters

Asset Average SD Average SD T-test sig
Agricultural
0.52 0.09 0.44 0.09 0.45 0.503ns
information index (AiI)
Participation and
communication Index 0.69 0.19 0.37 0.07 43.00 0.000**
(PcI)
Social Asset Index
0.61 0.13 0.41 0.07 28.63 0.000**
(SAI)
Source: Field survey, 2008
Remark; **p< 0.01 and ns = non significant

8.4. Human Assets

Human Asset Index could be measured the average of skill and knowledge index (SkI),
Leadership potential index (LpI) and family labor index of each farmer in the study area.
Skill and knowledge index was measured by the average of education level, experience in
agricultural farming, knowledge gain from training and capacity to solve farming problems
by self between the adopters and non-adopters. Among them, education level of each
farmer was the majority factor in skill and knowledge index. Moreover, project was chosen
the farmers who attained at least fourth standard in primary school to learn and to use the
new technology (Contour farming Practice). They intend to choose the farmer who
educated persons to understand the objectives, benefits of the introduced technology. The
higher the education level, the more the farmers can accept the new technology. Thus, skill
and knowledge index of adopters was 0.55and that of non-adopters was only 0.38.
Therefore, skill and knowledge index between these two groups was highly significant at
level of 99 %.

Leadership potential index was also highly significant between groups at 99 % level.
Because the more educated farmers can lead on the other farmers and explain how about
this and can communicate with the authority persons in any activities. Family labor index
is also important in human asset index. As family labor index, there was no significant
between two groups. In this study area, family labor indices of adopters and non-adopters
were 0.35 and 0.33 respectively. Therefore, family labor per household in these two groups
was not different and they have similar family labor.

Overall, human asset indices of adopters and non-adopters were 0.44 and 0.35 respectively.
Thus, human asset index was highly significant at 99 % level between two groups. As
human asset index of adopters was higher than that of non-adopters, the adopter can more
accept the new technology and can get more benefits than non-adopters.

79
Table. 8.4. Human Assets

Adopters Non-adopters
Criterion of Human Asset
Average SD Average SD T-test sig
Skill and Knowledge Index
0.55 0.18 0.38 0.09 28.09 0.000**
(SkI)
Leadership Potential Index
0.41 0.16 0.35 0.07 27.45 0.000**
(LpI)
Family Labor Index (FlI) 0.35 0.20 0.33 0.15 1.96 0.165 ns
Human Asset Index (HAI) 0.44 0.15 0.35 0.08 15.16 0.000**
Source: Field survey, 2008
Remark; **p< 0.01 and ns = non significant

8.5. Financial Assets

Financial asset index was the average scales of each farmer’s total income, total cost,
annual net income per year and access to credit from different sources. Total income, total
cost and annual net income indices were highly significant (**p < 0.01) at 99 % level
between adopters and non-adopters. This described that adopters had got more income, net
income and loans from sources than non-adopters but adopters also cost more cash than
non-adopters. Moreover, adopters had got more chances to access credits from different
sources including NGOs than non-adopters. This loan was also important to assist farmers
to invest in their field’s work. Thus, the more get the credit, the more the farmers can
invest in their field. Finally, financial asset index between adopters and non-adopters was
significant highly at level of 99 %. This means that financial asset index of adopters was
higher than that of non-adopters.

Table 8.5. Financial Assets

Criterion of Financial Adopters Non-adopters

Asset Average SD Average SD T-test sig

Total cost/ year (Tc) ($) 948.86 456.09 404.89 174.04 30.95 0.000**

Total income / year (TI) 1655.60 607.71 825.46 260.77 15.83 0.000**
Annual Net Income / year
706.76 409.94 420.62 192.62 10.55 0.002**
(ANI)
Loans / year (Lo) 121.80 128.01 34.57 54.57 56.51 0.000**
Financial Asset Index
0.34 0.19 0.20 0.09 10.51 0.002**
(FAI)
Source: Field survey, 2008
Remark; **p< 0.01

8.6. Livelihood Assets

Livelihood assets pentagon for two groups (adopters and non-adopters) was described with
radar diagram as figure 8.2. In these pentagons, natural assets were fallen in the highest
level among all livelihood assets for two groups, physical assets and social assets were the
80
medium, and human assets and financial assets were low. Natural assets of adopters and
non-adopters were the highest of livelihood assets and a little different between them, those
mean soil potential were different between adopters and non-adopters, but water potential
were nearly the same because all farmers depend on rainfall for their crops on uplands, and
annual rainfall is also high in the study area. Physical and human assets were nearly the
same different between two groups. For physical assets, upland ownership was the main
variable difference and other variables are nearly the same. This means that physical
structure (transportation problem) was the same problem for two groups and still to require
the improving of the infrastructures (mainly roads) in the study areas. All farmers also
need to access the productive tools to easily do the field works such as tractor, harvesting
machinery. Human and social assets were different between them because of education
level. The higher the education level of farmers, the more the farmers can participate,
communicate and lead among all farmers. Therefore, some adopters who were educated
person could be more communicated and lead than the farmers who were low in education
level. As financial asset, it was shown as the lowest level in livelihood assets indicated that
the ability of access to income and credit of farmers were still low and they could not
invested the suitable amount cash for their production on farms.

Figure 8.2. Livelihood asset pentagon of adopters and non-adopters in the study area

8.7. Correlation and interrelationship between adoption of contour farming practice

and livelihood asset variables

The correlation and interrelationship between dependent variable (adoption of contour

farming practices) and independent variables (livelihood assets variables; natural assets,
physical assets, social assets, human assets and financial assets) were analyzed by using
nonparametric correlation (Spearman’s analysis) as shown in Table 8.6. In the study area,
all livelihood assets were positive significant correlated to adoption of contour farming
practices accounted as natural asset (0.471**), physical asset (0.461**), social asset
(0.751**), human asset (0.280**) and financial asset (0.412**). Among them, social asset
was the highest correlated to adoption of contour farming practices, out of which
participation and communication variable (0.806**) was the majority factor to correlate.
And then following by natural asset and physical asset after social asset to correlate with
adoption, out of them namely; upland ownership (0.751**) and soil potential (0.696**)
were the main variables to adopt. But water potential (-0.071) and transportation potential
81
(-0.012) variables were found as only negative affects to correlate with the adoption of soil
conservation technology in the study area. Among of the financial asset, total income
variable (0.771**) was the highest factor to correlate with the adoption and total cost
variable (0.725 **) was the secondary factor in financial asset. For human asset, although
skill and knowledge variable (0.506**) and leadership potential (0.214*) were significant
variables to correlate with the adoption, but family labor variable was found as positive
factor to correlate with the adoption but not significant level.

The result of the Hypothesis 2

The result of the nonparametric correlation analysis (Spearman’s analysis) shows that all
livelihood assets were correlated to adoption of contour farming practices at high
significant level. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis of research thesis 2.2 is accepted
that adoption of contour farming system is related with livelihood assets of the local
farmers.

Table 8.6. Correlation coefficient of adoption of contour farming practice and

livelihood asset variables (nonparametric correlation analysis)

Variables Correlation coefficient sig

1. Soil Potential .696** 0.000
2. Water Potential -0.071 0.485
3. Cropping Intensity 0.085 0.407
4. Natural Asset .471** 0.000
5. Transportation potential -0.012 0.904
6. Productive tools .213* 0.036
7. Upland ownership .751** 0.000
8. Physical Asset .461** 0.000
9. Agricultural information .484** 0.000
10. Participation and communication .806** 0.000
11. Social Asset .751** 0.000
12. Skill and Knowledge .506** 0.000
13. Leadership Potential .214* 0.034
14. Family Labor 0.026 0.800
15. Human Asset .280** 0.005
16. Total cost/ year .725** 0.000
17. Total income / year .771** 0.000
18. Annual Net Income / year .414** 0.000
19. Loan / year .301** 0.003
20. Financial Asset .412** 0.000
Source: Field survey, 2008
Remark; *p< 0.05, **p< 0.01

8.8. Livelihood strategies change

Farmers had got income share in total income depend on their choice of livelihood
strategies, with a particular focus on the adoption of contour farming practices in this
study. Table 8.7 was shown as the average percentage of income share in total income
82
from different sources between adopters and non-adopters. All farmers including adopters
and non-adopters rely on agriculture as the main livelihood strategy in study area. For
adopters, average percentage of on-farm income share in total income per household was
73.74 %, off-farm income share was only 3.54 % and non-farm income share was 22.73 %.
As non-adopters, average of on-farm income percentage share, off-farm income and non-
farm income in total income per each farmer were 61.98 %, 26.72 % and 11.30 %
respectively. This means that for adopters, about 74 % of their livelihoods depend on on-
farm activities and only about 4 % rely on off-farm activities but about 23 % of total
income per household came from non-farm activities ( such as small trade, seller of
chemical fertilizers and seller of agricultural products). For non-adopters, average income
share in total income per household came from different sources namely; on-farm
activities, off-farm activities and non-farm activities accounting as 62 %, 26 % and 11 %
respectively. Therefore, about 62 % of total income per household of non-adopters shared
with only on-farm activities for their livelihood strategies and about 26 % rely on off-farm
activities but 11 % of total income came from non-farm activities from different sources;
small trade, temporary migrate (mining), handicraft.

Table 8.7. Average percentage of income share in total income between adopters’
group and non-adopters’ group

Non-
Adopters Non-adopters Adopter
Criterion adopter
(US$) (US$) (%)
(% )
Farm Income share in total
62540 23851 73.74 61.98
income
Off-farm Income share in total
3000 10281.82 3.54 26.72
income
Non-farm Income share in total
19276 4349 22.73 11.30
income
Total Income 84816 38482 100 100
Source: Field survey, 2008

8.9. Livelihood outcomes

As livelihood outcomes, the adopters had got more yields, income and food security than
non-adopters in this study area. Moreover, the adopters were not only participated in
activities for soil and water conservation management but also conserved environment for
sustainable natural resources management.

8.10. Chapter summary

Farmers’ livelihood assets (natural asset, physical asset, social asset, human asset and
financial asset) could be influenced to adopt soil conservation practices (contour farming
system) on farmers in the upland areas. Among them, physical asset, social asset, human
asset and financial asset were found as significant between adopters and non-adopters out
of which all financial assets were highly significant at 99 % level. In livelihood asset
pentagon, natural asset was fallen in the highest level, physical, human and social assets
were fallen in the medium and financial asset was indicated at the lowest level. This
described that adopters and non-adopters are still weak in financial assets and the supply of
finance is very smaller than the demand in this study area. Moreover, all livelihood assets

83
were found as highly significant to correlate with the adoption of contour farming
practices.
Adopters and non-adopters earn their living from various sources; on-farm activities, off-
farm activities and non-farm activities depend on their livelihood assets. Therefore,
adopters and non-adopters could be difference in yield, income, livelihood strategies, food
security and finally, sustainable natural resources management can also done by doing
contour farming practices on upland slope farming.

84
 Chapter 9

Farmers’ Perception on Contour Farming Practices

Pervious chapter 8 showed the comparison of livelihood assets and strategies of adopters
and non-adopters based on adoption of contour farming practices. Chapter 9 deals mainly
with farmers’ perception on soil and water conservation practices (Contour farming
practices) regarding their knowledge and awareness about soil degradation. The perception
of farmers was analyzed applying the frequency, percentage and WAIs to identify the level
of farmers’ perception on their farms.

9.1. Knowledge level of soil erosion’s situation

Farmers’ knowledge level of soil erosion’s situation was analyzed with frequency from the
open-ended questionnaire about soil erosion. Levels of knowledge were assumed based on
farmers’ answer about soil erosion situation. If farmer knew about soil erosion in detail, the
farmer has high level. If respondent could explain about soil erosion in general, that farmer
has medium. Responded answer from low level of farmers could not explain soil erosion
situation.

About 45 % of all respondents do not know about soil erosion situation. Although some
adopters (about 3 % compared to the whole respondents) knew high level of erosion
situation, most of adopters (48 farmers) and a few of non-adopters (3 farmers) knew about
soil erosion at medium level. Therefore, the knowledge level of adopters and non-adopters
on soil erosion were different as showed in Table.9.1.

Table.9.1. Farmers’ knowledge level of soil erosion’s situation

Knowledge level of soil erosion Adopter Non-adopter Total

situation (N= 51) (N= 47) percentage
Low 0 44 44.90
Medium 48 3 52.04
High 3 0 3.06

Source: Field survey, 2008.

9.2. Knowledge level of impact of soil erosion

For analysis of farmers’ knowledge level on the impact of soil erosion, the frequency of
open-ended questionnaire was used. Table 9.2 indicated the farmers’ knowledge level of
impact of soil erosion between adopters and non-adopters. Farmers’ knowledge levels
depend on their responded answers about erosion’s impact related to their experiences.
From the test, it was found that about 8 % of respondents got high level because only some
adopters, accounting as 8 farmers, hardly know about soil erosion’s effect in detail the
study area. About 61 % of all respondents got medium level in which adopters were 40
farmers and non-adopters were 20 farmers. The consequence impact of soil erosion as low
level was known by about 31 % of all respondents out of which 3 and 27 farmers were
adopters and non-adopters respectively.

85
Table.9.2. Farmers’ knowledge level on the impact of soil erosion
Knowledge level of soil erosion’s Adopter Non-adopter Total
impact (N= 51) (N= 47) percentage
Low 3 27 30.61
Medium 40 20 61.22
High 8 0 8.16
Source: Field survey, 2008.

9.3. Adoption of soil and water conservation (contour farming practices)

Farmers’ adoption of soil and water conservation was described in Table.9.3 by using the
frequency of yes or no questionnaire. About 52 % of farmers who adopted soil and water
conservation practices with advanced technology introduced by project were assumed as
adopters of contour farming system in this study. About 10 % of farmers used traditional
method as soil and water conservation on their farms. However, the researcher found that
local farmers used the traditional method for soil and water conservation by planting
jatropha plant along their boundary or planting banana. The rest do agricultural plantation
without any soil and water conservation practices on their fields.

Table.9.3. Adoption of soil and water conservation

Adopter (N=51) Non-adopter (N=47) Percentage
Methods Yes No Yes No (total)
Advanced 51 0 0 47 52.04
Traditional 0 51 10 37 10.2
No 0 51 37 10 37.75
Source: Field survey, 2008.

9.4. Reasons of acceptance of contour farming

Table 9.4 indicated farmers’ perspective on the acceptance of contour farming practices by
using frequency of farmers’ answers to open-ended questionnaire. Among adopters, 33 %
of them accepted contour farming technology on their upland fields to control soil erosion
and 43 % have been done contour farming practices on their sloping land to get project
supports such as incentives and technology. Some farmer (about 22 % of all adopters)
adopted contour farming practices to get more yield and income from their cultivable land.
There was only one respondent who did contour farming practices on his farms to know
the advantage of contour farming.

Table.9.4. Farmers’ perspective on the acceptance of Contour Farming

Reasons Adopters Percentage
To control soil erosion 17 33
To get project supports 22 43
To get more yield and income 11 22
Other 1 2
Total 51 100
Source: Field survey, 2008.

86
9.5. Problems in Contour Bunds Making

To analyze problems in contour bunds making, the researcher used frequency of open-
ended questionnaire. Different problems in contour band making in the adopters’ farms
were showed in table 9.5. Adopters were taught from project staffs how to calculate the
intervals of bunds along the contour by using “A” frame depend on slope of their fields.
Therefore, some adopters had difficulty in contour bunds making in their farms depend on
their knowledge and experiences accounting as 30 farmers or 59 % of adopters. About 18
% of all adopters (9 adopters) had labor problem in contour bunds making and the rest (12
adopters or 23 % of all adopters) were facing in contour bunds making with a little difficult
only.

Table.9.5. Problems in Contour Bunds Making

Problems Adopter Percentage

Difficult in CB making 30 59
Labor problem 9 18
A little 12 23
Total 51 100
Source: Field survey, 2008.

9.6. Sedimentation in Contour Bunds

The researcher only divided into two groups for sedimentation in contour bunds as a little
and much of sediment according to farmers’ said. Farmers could not do with the records
for how much of sediment trapped in their contour bunds. Therefore, table 9.6 showed the
amount of sediments trapped in contour bunds in each adopter’s field. A little
sedimentation in contour bunds were found in 26 farmers’ farms (51% of adopters) and
much sediment were found in 25 farmers’ contour fields (49 % of all adopters) in the study
area.

Table.9.6. Amount of sediments in Contour Bunds

Amount of sediments Adopter Percentage

A little 26 51
Much 25 49
Total 51 100
Source: Field survey, 2008.

In table 9.7, farmers’ awareness level on the amount of sediments trapped in their contour
bunds in their fields was showed according to the frequency of their responded answers.
20% of the adopters found very significant amount of sediment in their contour bunds.
45% of adopters could aware that the sediment amount in their contour bunds is
significant. 35% of adopters answered that sedimentation in the contour bunds is just a
little.

87
Table.9.7. Farmers' awareness level on the amount of sediments in contour farming
practices
Notice that sediments Adopter Percentage
Very significant 10 20
Significant 23 45
A little 18 35
Total 51 100
Source: Field survey, 2008.

9.7. Farmers’ Maintenance of Contour Bunds

Maintenance of contour bunds is also important after construction of contour bunds in the
field for conservation of soil erosion and sustaining crop productivity. ICDP project
supported adopters to maintain contour bunds as long term plan for five years because of
the precious projects’ experiences on soil and water conservation practices. Therefore,
adopters have to repair contour bunds before and after rainy season by collecting and refill
top soil into the field or repair contour bund to conserve more water and soil. Farmers who
planted on steeper land do the practice of collecting sediment and repairing contour bunds
because they are facing more density of run off water from hillsides than farmers who are
in the lower portion within the catchment area. Therefore, farmers who do collecting of
soil and refill it into the field were 39 % of adopters accounting as 20 adopters and farmers
who maintained contour bunds by collecting sediment, refilled into farm and repaired
contour bund were 31 adopters as amount of 61 % of all adopters as shown in Table 9.8.

Table.9.8. Farmers’ Maintenance of Contour Bunds

Maintenance Adopter Percentage

Collecting soil and refill into field 20 39
Collecting soil and repaired CB 31 61
Total 51 100
Source: Field survey, 2008.

9.8. Assessment of knowledge level on the objectives of soil and water conservation
and Awareness of soil degradation

Farmers’ knowledge level about the objectives of soil and water conservation, awareness
of soil degradation and satisfaction level of benefits of CF were analyzed with weighted
average index of all respondents’ ranking scales showed in Table 9.9. Farmers vary
knowledge level of objectives of SWC depend on their knowledge and education level.
Adopters were medium in knowledge level (WAI=0.58) and non-adopters’ knowledge
level was weak (WAI=0.29) about objectives of soil and water conservation. This indicated
that all of farmers in the study area need to know more about the objectives of soil and
water conservation compared to farmers who stay in dry zone area. The higher the level of
their knowledge on the objectives of soil and water conservation practices, the higher the
number of farmers who adopt soil and water conservation practices. The average of all
adopter’ awareness level of soil degradation was found in strong level (WAI=0.64) but
non-adopters were weak in average awareness level of soil degradation (WAI=0.30).
Adopters’ satisfaction level on benefits of contour farming practices was assessed by how
he/she feels when he/she gets more benefits such as increased yield, more income,

88
maintain soil erosion and improve soil fertility by implementation of contour farming
practices in their upland farms. In the study area, adopters’ average satisfaction level on
benefits of contour farming practices was found as strong level (WAI= 0.76) because they
had been implemented contour bunds along the contour lines in their farms since 2004.
Therefore, adopters could not see all benefits from contour farming practices within short
time period.

Table.9.9. Assessment of knowledge level of objectives of SWC and awareness of soil

degradation

Adopter Non-adopter
Item T-Test sig
WAI OA WAI OA
Objectives of SWC 0.58 M 0.29 W 0.294ns
Awareness of soil degradation 0.64 S 0.30 W 0.813ns
Satisfied on benefits of CF 0.76 S - - -
Source: Field survey, 2008.

Note: WAI = Weighted Average Index, OA = Overall Assessment, S = Strong

M = Medium, W = weak, ns = non significant

Criteria for assessment of WAIs

Very weak Weak Medium Strong Very Strong

(VW) (W) (M) (S) (VS)
0 - 0.2 0.21 - 0.4 0.41 - 0.6 0.61 - 0.8 0.81 - 1

9.9. Farmers’ opinion on contour farming practices

Farmers’ opinion on contour farming practices was analyzed by using the frequency of
farmers’ responded answers as shown in Table 9.10. All adopters (100 %) accept effect of
contour farming practices on their farms as reduce soil erosion and improve yield. About
51 % of adopters (26 farmers) know that their fields have been improved soil fertility as
effect of contour farming practices and 8 adopters (16 % of adopters) know well the effect
of contour farming practices as good for long term benefit effect. However, adopters were
facing busier in agricultural activities than non-adopters. About 49 % of adopters busy in
cultivation and about 51% of adopters were facing with a little busy in agricultural works
depend on how many contour lines have on their farms.

Table.9.10. Farmers' Opinion on contour farming practices (bunds)

Items Adopters (N=51) Percentage

Reduce soil erosion 51 100
Improve soil fertility 26 51
Improve yield 51 100
Good for long term effect 8 16
Busy 25 49
A little busy 26 51
Source: Field survey, 2008.
89
9.10. Farmers’ opinion on current farming practices

Farmers’ opinion on current contour farming practices was indicated by using the
frequency of respondents’ answer as shown in Table 9.11. According to respondents’
answers, farmers had increased yield and more income from current contour farming than
non-contour farming. About 63 % of adopters had difficulty in land preparation in current
contour farming and about 14 % of adopters (7 farmers) had difficulty in harrowing and
labor problem also in their contour farming. Among all adopters, 4 adopters (about 8 %)
are sometime facing with labor problem. The rest had no problem in current farming
systems.

Table.9.11.Farmers' Opinion on current contour farming practices

Items Adopters (N=51) Percentage
Increased yield and income 51 100
Difficult in harrowing 32 63
Labor problem 4 8
Difficult in harrowing and labor problem 7 14
No problem 8 16
Source: Field survey, 2008.

9.11. Non-adopters’ willingness to accept CB

The frequencies of non-adopters’ responded answer for accept contour bunds were
indicated in Table 9.12. About 13 % of non-adopter did have wiliness to accept CB
because of restriction of land area. About 30 % of non-adopters could not accept contour
bunds because they do not know about soil and water conservation (contour farming). The
rest want to accept contour farming practices because of project’s supports and more yield
and income.

Table.9.12. Non-adopters’ willingness to accept CB

Accept CB Non-adopters Percentage
No (no land) 6 12.76
No, not know 14 29.79
Yes 27 57.40
Total 47 100.00
Source: Field survey, 2008.

9.12. Problems to adopt contour bunds

Non-adopters’ problems to adopt contour bunds were described by the percentage of the
frequency of their responded problems in Table 9.13. About 13 % of non-adopters have no
more land to adopt contour farming practices because their own lands are lowlands and
permanent tea lands. About 15 % of non-adopters think that contour farming practices
make lesser cultivable land. However, about 25 % of non-adopters don’t adopt contour
farming practices because of no knowledge about the contour farming technology and
about 47 % of non-adopters need assistance or incentives and technology to adopt contour
bunds in their farms in the study area.

90
Table.9.13. Non-adopters’ problems to adopt CB

Problems to adopt CB Non-adopters Percentage

No more land 6 12.80
Lost cultivable land 7 14.90
Technology 12 25.53
Economic & tech 22 46.80
Total 47 100.00
Source: Field survey, 2008.

9.13. Willingness to learn

Non-adopters who want to learn or not in the study area were described in Table 9.14.
About 34 % or 16 non-adopters out of all non-adopters do not want to learn contour
farming practices but the rest (66 % of non-adopters) want to learn contour farming
technology to practice in their upland farms.

Table.9.14. Non-adopters’ willingness to learn

Want to learn or not Non-adopters Percentage

No 16 34.00
Yes 31 66.00
Total 47 100.00
Source: Field survey, 2008.

9.14. Chapter Summary

Knowledge level of soil erosion’s situation and its impact between adopters and non-
adopters are assumed as different. Adopters’ knowledge level of soil erosion’s situation is
higher than non-adopters because almost adopters have medium level but most of non-
adopters have still in low level. In erosion’s impacts, adopters know soil erosion’s impact
in detail but non-adopters know in general level. Although adopters accepted advanced
technology and participated in soil and water conservation activities, some non-adopters do
only traditional technology to conserve soil erosion.

The reasons of adopters’ to adopt contour farming are to get project supports, to control
soil erosion, to get more yield and income and to know the advanced technology. The
problems of adopters’ are difficult in contour bunds making, labor problem and a little
busy. Some adopters collected sediments in contour bunds and refilled these sediments
into the fields every year but the rest of adopters not only collected the sediments and
refilled into the fields but also repaired contour bunds every year.

Assessment of knowledge level of objectives of SWC and awareness of soil degradation

between adopters and non-adopters is not found as significantly but adopters have at
medium and strong level and non-adopters located at weak level. Adopters’ opinions on
contour bunds are not only control soil erosion, improve soil fertility, increase yield and
good for long term effect but also busy because of contour farming. Adopters become get
more yield and income from the current farming system but some are also facing with
difficult in land preparation and labor problem to repair contour bunds.
91
Some non-adopters do not want to accept contour farming techniques because of no more
land and no knowledge but some willing to accept those techniques. The main problems to
adopt contour bunds are no more land and losing cultivable land for contour making,
technology and economic situation respectively. The other problem is they do not want to
learn about soil and water conservation practices (contour farming practices) and only few
want to learn those practices.

Although assessment of knowledge level of SWC objectives and awareness of soil

degradation between adopters and non-adopters is not significant, adopters have at medium
and strong level and non-adopters pointed at weak level. The opinions of Adopters’ in
making on contour bunds are not only to control soil erosion, to improve soil fertility but
also to increase yield and good for long term effect. Adopters are getting more yield and
income from the current farming system, however, are also facing with difficult in land
preparation and labor problem to repair contour bunds.

92
 Chapter 10

Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter describes the conclusions and recommendations of this research. The
conclusions were drawn from the findings of influencing factors and benefits of contour
farming, and livelihood strategies changes of adopters and non-adopters, and farmers’
perception on contour farming practices of the previous chapters. These recommendations
were prearranged for the improvement of soil and water conservation activities
implementation particularly in contour farming practices in soil degradation areas for
future.

10.1 Conclusions

Firstly, this study embarked on determining the factors that influenced the implementation
of contour farming practices. According to econometric analysis, the findings show that
upland holding size would positively influence farmers to adopt soil conservation, contour
farming practices. In addition, farmers who rely only on agricultural activities for their
livelihood would be more likely to implement the contour farming system on their upland
farms. Equally important another factor is farmers’ education level that would also
improve the adoption of contour farming practices and participate in the developmental
activities.

Based on farmers’ opinion on factors influencing the adoption of contour farming

practices, bio physical factors namely: (1) land holding size, (2) upland’s slope percentage,
socio-economic factors such as (3) land ownership, (4) education level, (5) capital
investment, (6) labor ability, (7) economic return and (8) construction cost, (9) technology
and knowledge, and (10) financial factors could be associated with the adoption of contour
farming practices on farmers at strong level in decision.

The study found that crops management practices of adopters and non-adopters were
different in their farm activities. However, as land preparation practices, both adopters and
non-adopters accustomed to use the hoe and ox plough in almost fields of the study area. A
farmer, who is adopter, is more likely to apply FYM and genuine chemical fertilizers than
non-adopters. In the study area, fertilizers application rate of farmers’ level is very low
when compared to national level and ASEAN level as well. Although weeding practice is
more likely to be used by adopter than a farmer who is non-adopter, using of pesticide,
insecticide and fungicide is more favored by non-adopters due to weakness or lack of
knowledge about pest, insect and disease, and also harmful effect of over dosage of
chemical pesticide and insecticide.

The study on the comparison of cost, income and benefits of all crop in the study area
found that niger is the highest profitability crop among all crops and it can also inhibit the
growing of elephant grass in cultivated fields. Therefore, local farmers practiced to grow
niger in their farms to suppress weeds in their crop rotation systems. Next, planting of
niger with corn or wheat as double cropping system could be obtained good BC ratio for
growers who implemented the contour farming practices. Because paddy or upland paddy
could be stand as one profitable crop for local farmers and their main staple food, most
farmers in Myanmar preferred to grow paddy either lowland or upland. Among oil seed

93
crops, sesame could be achieved as better net benefit to the growers and also fulfill the
eatable oil. Simultaneously, pigeon pea and corn are also found more profitable crops to
farmers than other crops depending on economic market situation; export and border trade.
Therefore, this study also described the best cropping pattern and the most profitable crops
which support the best net benefit with the lowest farm cost to local farmers in the study
area.

When compared to the net benefit between adopters and non-adopters in this study,
adopters could attain higher income (net benefit) than non-adopters from only on-farm
income source. In other words, adopters earn more income from on-farm than non-
adopters. This study pointed that while considering all upland farms in the study areas as
contour farms, according to calculation based on land holding size, each farmer could earn
more income accounting of 159.62 US$ per hectare per year from contour farming lands.
As based on the household, a farmer who adopted contour farming systems could get more
net benefit from farming activities amounting of 316.49 US$ per year as added income in
this study area.

Farmers’ livelihood assets namely: natural asset, physical asset, social asset, human asset
and financial asset influence to adopt soil conservation practices (contour farming system)
on farmers in the upland areas. Among them, financial asset was highly significant at 99 %
level and physical asset, social asset and human asset were also found significant at 95 %
level between adopters and non-adopters. In livelihood asset pentagon, natural asset was
fallen in the highest level, physical, human and social assets were fallen in the medium and
financial asset was indicated at the lowest level. This study also described that both
adopters and non-adopters are still weak in financial assets and need financial aids in this
study area. Dealing with such constraints via financial asset provision can stimulate local
farmers to divert their livelihood strategy to more profitable agricultural practices
undertaking instead of tying themselves to low production in upland farming. Moreover,
all livelihood assets were found as highly correlated with the adoption of contour farming
practices. Adopters and non-adopters earn for their living from various sources; on-farm
activities, off-farm activities and non-farm activities depend on their livelihood assets.

For adopters, on-farm income contributes to 73.74 % of total income per household and is
the most important source of income for the total adopters, followed by non-farm income
22.73 %, and off-farm income share was only 3.54 %. It is reported that the average on-
farm income percentage share (61.98 %) while off-farm income and non-farm income
share (26.72 % and 11.30 %) respectively, out of total income were observed by non-
adopters depend most on their livelihood assets. Households meet their subsistence needs
through both agricultural and non-agricultural income. An important difference between
“adopter” and “non-adopter” lies in off-farm activities to generate off-farm income in
addition to non-farm income. The main livelihood diversification strategies can be grouped
into on-farm, off-farm and non-farm income activities. Although 23 % of adopters and 11
% of non-adopters’ total income is derived from non-farm income activities, agricultural
farming is still considered to be a main livelihood strategy by most respondents in the
study area. Adopters have different diversification strategies from non-adopters and
adopters depend on agriculture and on-farm activities whereas non-adopters have more in
off-farm activities (selling their labor to other farmers) in nature. Therefore, adopters and
non-adopters could be difference in yield, income, livelihood strategies and food security.
Furthermore, adopters could be handled sustainable natural resources management by
doing contour farming practices on upland slope farming.

94
 Knowledge level of soil erosion’s situation and its impact between adopters and non-
adopters are assumed as significantly different. Although non-adopters know only soil
erosion as generally, adopters accepted soil erosion’s situation up to top soil depletion and
soil deterioration condition. In terms of erosion’s impacts, adopters know soil erosion’s
impact in detail whereas non-adopters know in general level. Adopters accepted advanced
technology and participated in conservation activities for soil and water conservation,
however, only some non-adopters used traditional method to conserve soil erosion.

According to adopters’ reasons to adopt contour farming, they like to get project supports
accounting as 43 % of total adopters. The most important point for the contour bunds
making is difficult in CB making amounting over half of adopters. About 61 % of adopters
are maintained the contour bunds as collecting sediments in their contour bunds and
refilling these sediments into the fields and repair contour bunds every year.

Although assessment of knowledge level of SWC objectives and awareness of soil

degradation between adopters and non-adopters is not significant, adopters have at medium
and strong level and non-adopters pointed at weak level. Non-adopters’ attitude on contour
farming system described that the main problem to adopt contour farming system is
economic and technology about nearly 50 %. But they are willing to accept the contour
farming system about 57 % and they would like to learn this technology about 66 %.

This study only managed to track farmers’ practices in year 2007 but did not attempt to
find out the period after implementation of contour farming practices from the year 2004 to
2006. Even though intentions are not very reliable, these information could have assisted in
establishing the implementation of soil and water conservation practices particularly
contour farming practices. Thus, focusing to the adoption and benefits of contour farming
practices provides valuable information, but a more detail frame would be needed.

Therefore, this study pointed that some necessities of implementation strategies of soil and
water conservation practices and awareness of soil degradation and soil erosion, there
would be suggested the following recommendations to improve the adoption of soil
conservation practices in future.

10.2. Recommendations

Certain recommendations this study envisages would enhance the adoption of soil
conservation practices are:

1. Demonstration plots should have done as essential components at appropriated

implementation sides of farmers who have willingness and interested in development
activities by showing how to get benefits on practices related to soil conservation.
Demonstration plots should be one of the major tools that enhanced farmers’ level so as to
realize the knowledge and technology of soil and water conservation, and understanding
about soil erosion problems and land degradation. In this ways, farmers could realize the
direct benefits of new advanced programmes. If advanced technologies were difficult and
expensive, farmers did not adopt those technologies as it did not provide direct benefits. If
the new technology was simple and easy to handle and gave direct benefits, farmers would
adopt this technology.

95
2. Training should be carried out as a facilitating form of soil and water conservation
practices and extension agents should also explained about these practices in detail to
understand all participants. Therefore, farmers’ know-how on soil conservation practices
appears based on the knowledge what farmers learned from extension agents. It is
important to establish in intervention in promoting soil and water conservation practices. If
extension agents understood farmers’ needs and their living standards, farmers’
participation could be improved. To success the adoption of soil conservation practices
was depend on the ability of extension agents, biophysical conditions, socio-economic
situations, farmers’ preferences and currently used farming systems.

3. Awareness rising to the farmers is important factor to improve the adoption of soil
conservation. Almost non-adopters were weak in awareness and they do not know soil
erosion’s impacts such as land degradation and erosion. Therefore, it should be emphasized
on the farmers’ interest in land degradation’s impacts and adoption soil conservation
practices because these practices are challenges to increase crop yield, sustain agricultural
productivity and also improve living standards of farmers on sloping upland areas.

4. Agricultural information could not be extensively disseminated to farmers. Hence, almost

all the farmers in the study area do not have information acceptable tools such as television
and radio and the most are primary education level as already described in Chapters 5 and
8. Thus, not only project’s agencies but also extension workers from ministry of
agriculture and irrigation (Myanma Agriculture Services) should be transfer advanced
agricultural information to local farmers especially how to use pesticide, insecticide and
fungicide, how to manage on crops and farms and how to use chemical fertilizer to reduce
the farm investment and how to control soil erosion and land degradation to protect against
the environmental hazards. And then, government and NGOs need to introduce appropriate
productive tools such as intercultivator and harvesting tools to local farmers to successfully
implement in time in their farm activities.

5. Policymakers have to anticipate the conversion process in order to reach the improved
situation of adoption of soil and water conservation practices between farmers’ needs and
societal expectations. There should be a clear government policy for upland farming in
agriculture to allow farmers to practice soil conservation systems to prevent soil erosion,
runoff and to encourage sustainable agricultural production. If farmers grow on sloping
lands, soil conservation measures are required. Therefore, if they do not comply, their
subsidy payments will be reduced or if they do along with comply, the government should
provide local farmers with financial assistance. For fulfilling these standards rules of good
agricultural practices need to be established. This will help to enhance the adoption of soil
and water conservation practices and protect Inle watershed area and environmental natural
resources.

Recommendation for further study

This study lacks to record the impacts of soil erosion on environmental situation, so that
“impacts of soil erosion on both farmers’ livelihood and environment” should be studied in
land degradation area to support the awareness rising of land degradation to farmers.

Experimental Research on soil and water conservation practices should be done in Inle
watershed area to observe getting benefits from soil conservation practices on crop
production, soil fertility and sustainable environmental condition as well.

96
 References

Adesina et al., 2000. Econometric analysis of the determinants of adoption of alley farming
by farmers in the forest zone of southwest Cameroon, Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment 80, 255-265.

AFIN, 1997. Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT-1): A guide on how to farm
your hilly land without losing your soil: Asian Rural Life Development
Foundation Editorial Staff. How to Series (1), Kinuskusan, Bansalan, Davao del
Sur, 20p. http://www.pcarrd.dost.gov.ph/cin/AFIN/technologies%20-%20salt1.htm

Agus, et al., 1999. Soil fertility in contour hedgerow systems on sloping oxisols in
Mindanao, Philippines, Soil & Tillage Research 50, 159-167.

Amsalu A. and Graff J. D., 2006. Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone
terraces for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed,
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 61(2), 294-302

Ananda, J. and Herath, G., 2003. Soil erosion in developing countries: a socio-economic
appraisal; Journal of Environmental Management 68, p-343-353, April
Available at http://www.cimmyt.org/english/docs/manual/ia/index.htm

Aye M. Tin, 2006. Sustainable Agriculture Management for Rural Poverty Reduction in
Shan State; Institute of Land and Food Resources, University of Melbourne 3010
Australia. September 8 2006. http://www.iid.org/features_shan.php

Bai Z. G., Dent D.L., Olsson L. and Schaepman M. E. 2008. Global assessment of land
degradation and improvement. 1. Identification by remote sensing. Report 2008/01,
ISRIC- World Soil Information, Wageningen.

Barton et al., 2004. Effects of soil conservation measures on erosion rates and crop
productivity on subtropical Ultisols in Yunnan Province, China, Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 104, 343-357.

Bayard et al., 2007. The economics of adoption and management of alley cropping in
Haiti, Journal of Environmental Management 84, 62-70.

Bekele Wagayehu and Darke Lars, 2003. Soil and Water conservation decision behavior of
subsistence farmers in the Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia: a case study of the
Hunde-Lafto area. Ecological Economics 46, 437-451.

Bot, A. J., Nachtergaele, F. O. and Young. A. 2000. LAND RESOURCE POTENTIAL

AND CONSTRAINTS AT REGIONAL AND COUNTRY LEVELS: Land and
Water Development Division, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION
OF THE UNITED NATIONS, Rome. http://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/wsr.pdf

Carucci Volli, F., P., 2001. Soil Conservation and Water Harvesting Expert, Guidelines on
Soil and Water Conservation for the Myanmar Dry Zone, Environmentally
Sustainable Food Security and Micro-income Opportunity in the Dry Zone
(MYA/96 &99/006) FAO/UNDP.

97
Central Statistical Organization, 2004. The Government of the Union of Myanmar,
Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development.

Cramb, R., A. and Culasero, Z., 2004. Landcare and Livelihoods: The Promotion and
Adoption of Conservation Farming Systems in the Philippine Uplands.

Dudal, R., 1982. Land degradation in a world perspective. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation: 37(5): 245-249

FAO, 2000: The State of Food Insecurity in the World (SOFI) 2002.
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/j5129e/j5129e00.pdf

FAO, 2002. Environmentally Sustainable Food Security and Micro-income Opportunities

in Critical Watersheds, Southern Shan State, (MYA/93&96/ 005 &007).

FFTC, 1997. International Seminar: Sustainable Agriculture in Upland Areas: Country

Papers: Present status and problems in Slope Land Agriculture in Asia and Pacific
Countries, Tokyo and Takamatsu, Japan, October 27-November 2 1997.
http://www.agnet.org/library/ac/1997b/

FFTC, 2006. International workshop on Newly Developed Innovative Technologies for

Soil and Water Conservation Held at the International Technical Cooperation
Center (ITCC) Conference Hall, RDA, Suwon, Korea on May 31- June 03
http://www.agnet.org/library/ac/2005b/

G.W.J van Lynden and L.R. Oldeman, 1997. The Assessment of the Status of Human-
Induced Soil Degradation in South and Southeast Asia, ISRIC, Wageningen,
February, 1997.

Gebreegziabher et al., 2008. Contour furrows for in situ soil and water
conservation,Tigray, Northern Ethiopia, Soil & Tillage Research (2008), STILL-
2550: No of Pages 8.

Goldewijk K. K. (2001) Estimating Global Land Use Change over the Past 300 Years: the
HYDE Database, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, National Institute of Public
Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands.

Graaff et al., 2008. Factors influencing adoption and continued use of long-term soil and
water conservation measures in five developing countries, Applied Geography 28
271-280.

Graaff, J., D., 1993. Soil conservation and sustainable land use: An economic approach
Royal Tropical Institute, The Netherlands.

Hurni, H. 1988. Conservation Farming on Steep Lands: Options for conservation of steep
lands in subsistence agricultural systems, pp (33-44).

Ian Coxhead, 2002. Development and the Upland Resource Base: Economic and Policy
Context, and Lessons from a Philippine Watershed, Philippine Journal of
Development, No a (53).Volume XXIX.

98
ICDP, 2008. Integrated Community Development Project / UNDP/ MYA/ 01/ 001, Pin
Laung Township, southern Shan State, Myanmar.

IFAD/ ICRAF, 2001. Reward the Asian Upland Poor for the Environmental Services They
Provide: The International Center for Research in Agroforestry on behalf of the
consortium of partner organization.

JICA, 1999. Country Profile on Environment, Myanmar

Kanok Rerkasem, 2003. Upland Land Use

Katsunori Suzuki, 2003. Sustainable and environmentally sound land use in rural areas
with special attention to land degradation: ASIA_PACIFIC FOR
ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT EXPERT MEETING; Guilin, People’s
Republic of China, 23 January. Senior Visiting Fellow, Institute of Advanced
Studies, United Nations University.
http://www.apfed.net/apfed1/pdf/APFED3_EM_doc4.pdf

La Rovere, R. and Dixon, J. 2007. Operational guidelines for assessing impact of

agricultural research on livelihoods. Good practices from CIMMYT. Working
Document, Version 2007.1.0. CIMMYT, Mexico, D.F., 74 pages and annexes.

Lambin et al, 2001. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the
myths, Global Environmental Change 11, 261-269.

Leyva et al., 2007. Analysis of the adoption of soil conservation practices in olive groves:
the case of mountainous areas in southern Spain, Spainsh Journal of
Agricultural Research 2007 5(3), 249-258.

Li et al., 2008. Rainfall harvesting on slopes using contour furrows with plastic-covered
transverse ridges for growing Caragana Korshinskii in the semiarid region of
China, Agricultural water management 95 (2008) 539-544.

Liniger, H., P., et. al, 2004. Towards sustainable land management-‘COMMON SENSE’
AND SOME OTHER KEY MISSING ELEMENTS (THE WOCAT
EXPERIENCE).13th International Soil Conservation Organization Conference-
Brisbane, July 2004.

Lucas Cin Than Kham, 2002. Farmers’ Perceptions On Soil and Water Conservation
Farming in Dry Land Management in Magway Township, Dry Zone of
Myanmar, AIT Master Thesis, No. NRM-02-01, Bangkok, Thailand.

Lwin B. B., (2006), Environmental awareness and farming behavior of farmers in Inle
Lake Nyaung Shwe Township, Myanmar. AIT Master Thesis, No. NRM-02-06,
Bangkok, Thailand.

Miah, M.A.Q. (1993) Applied Statistics: A course Handbook for Human Settlements
Planning. Thailand: Asian Institute of Technology.

99
Miller Don, 1999. Consultancy Report on Erosion Control and Bioengineering Measures;
Environmentally Sustainable Food Security and Micro Income Opportunities in
CriticalWatersheds (Southern Shan State), (MYA/96/007), FAO.

MOAI, 2008: Myanmar agriculture at a glance, Department of Agricultural Planning,

Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

MOF, 2006: Annual report of 2006, Ministry of Forest

Muangkaew Tatsanee, 2006. Sustainable Livelihood: An analysis of rice-based farming

system in southern Thailand. Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand: Dissertation;
no-AS-06-03.

Neely, C., et al., 2004: Do sustainable livelihoods Approaches Have a positive Impact on
the Rural Poor? LSP Working Paper 16.

Orr, A. and Mwale, B., 2001. Adopting to Adjustment: Smallholder livelihood strategies in
Southern Malawi, World Development, Vol.29, No.8, pp.1325-1343.

Palmer, J., J. and Laquihon, G., A., 1993. Nitrogen Fixing Contour Hedgerows as A
Sustainable Soil and Water Conservation Practices: THE SALT EXPERIENCE.

Patricio S. Faylon & Eileen C. Cardona, 2007. Retrospect & Prospects in Good
Agricultural Practices Amid Globalization. Philippine Council for Agriculture,
Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD), Los
Banos , Laguna, Philippines, May 16 2007. http://www.agnet.org/library/bc/54006/

RADKA MARK, 2000. An Overview of the State of the Environment in South East Asia:
Industry Programme Officer, United Nations Environment Programme, Regional
Office for Asia and the Pacific. Conference Paper

Ramakrishna, A., et.al.,2002. Sustaining Success and Learning from the Experience: A
Case Study of Thanh Ha Watershed, Vietnam. International Symposium,
Sustaining Food Security and Managing Natural Resources in Southeast Asia-
Challenges for the 21st Century, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Ramankutty, N., 2006. Land Use and Land Cover Change: Global Land Cover Change;
Recent Progress, Remaining Challenges, pp. (12-13).

San C. C., (2007), Economic values of soil erosion in Inle Lake Watershed at Nyaung
Shwe Township, Myanmar. Master Thesis, University of The Philippines Los
Banos, Philippine.

San Win, 2005. Planning and statistics Department, Ministry of forestry.

Sombatpanit, S., 2000. Soil Conservation extension: From concepts to Adoption; Soil
Conservation and Water Management in Asia and the Pacific, Asian Productivity
Organization, February 2000, Tokyo. Pp.67-87.

100
Swe. Myunt, 2003.Integrated Environmental Consideration into Economic Policy Making
Processes in Myanmar: ESCAP Virtual Conference; Director, Planning
Department, Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development, Yangon,
Myanmar, October 29, 2003.
http://www.unescap.org/drpad/vc/conference/bg_mm_124_iec.htm

Tha Tun Oo and Myint Swe, 1993. The collection and analysis of land degradation Data
Report of the expert consultation of the Asian network on problem soils:
“Collection and Analysis of Land Degradation Data in Myanmar”, FAO of the
United Nations, Bangkok.

UNDP, 1999. Country Cooperation Frameworks and Related Matters: Assistance to

Myanmar; Annual session 1999, New York, Item 5 of the provisional agenda,
UNDP.

Wapet, et al., 2004. Factors Affecting the Adoption and Non-adoption of Sloping Land
Conservation Farming Practices by Small-scale Farmers in Thailand, Kasetsart
University, Bangkok 10903, Thailand.

Zainab Mbaga-Semgalawe and Henk Folmer, 2000. Household adoption behavior of

improved soil conservation: the case of the North Pare and West Usamabara
Mountains of Tanzania, Land Use Policy 17 (2000) 321-336.

101
Appendices

102
 Appendix 1

Questionnaire for field survey

Assessment of adoption and benefits of the contour farming system in

Pinlaung Township, Inle Watershed Area, southern Shan State,
Myanmar

by

Thin Nwe Htwe

SI. No. ---------------------------------

Date of interview: ----------------------

Farmer’s name: ---------------------------------

Age: ---------------------------------

Address: ---------------------------------

Village/ District / State: ---------------------

Natural Resources Management

School of Environment, Resources and Development
Asian Institute of Technology
August, 2008

103
General Information:

I. Ethnic group Pao / Shan / Myanmar / Danu / Palaung / Other

II. Sex Male / Female

III. Education Monastery and primary education level / Middle

grade / Higher grade / College education

IV. Marital status Single / Married / Separated

V. Occupation Farmer / Labor / Business man / Government staff

Household information for livelihood strategies

Educ
No. of Farm
Age Male Female ation Occupation
HH labor
level
Wage Trade/ Stud
Farmer
labor Service -ent

Note: For education level:

i. Monastery and primary education level ii. Middle grade
iii. Higher grade iv. College education

1. How many dependents do you have in your family?

---------------------------

2. Please describe the household assets.

No. Type Number Remark

Shelter/ House
Television
Radio
Furniture
Other

3. How much total income do you have every year?

---------------------------

4. How much income do you earn from farm?

---------------------------
5. How much income do you earn from off-farm?
---------------------------
104
6. How much other income do you earn (non-farm)? Please describe in detail.
Trade / Services / Other
---------------------------

7. Do you migrate for any job prospects? (Yes / No)

If yes, how many your family members? Permanent / Temporary
--------------------------

8. Did you migrate from other area? Yes/No

If yes, from which area did you migrate?
----------------------------

9. Why did you migrate to this area? Please describe.

----------------------------

10. Do you have food security in your family for every year? (Yes/ No)
If yes, do you think earnings from your farming can support your children for
education cost and how much percent?
---------------------------------------

If yes, do you think earnings from your farming is supporting for your family health
cost and how many percent supported?
---------------------------------------

If no, how often does it happen and how to solve your problem? Please describe in
detail.
---------------------------------------

11. Do you have any Training Experience? (Yes / No)

12. If yes, which types of training did you attend? (Government training / NGOs training)
(Forestry / Agriculture / Environment / Others) ( leadership or member)
--------------------------------

13. How do you access the agricultural information ?(Radio / TV / MAS / Demonstration/
Advertisement/ Neighbors) (Always, sometime, rare)
---------------------------------

14. Do you have loans / financial support (Government / NGOs / Others)? Yes/No
-If yes, how much did you borrow?
-----------------------------------------

15. What is the interest rate?

------------------------------
16. Is there the suitable transportation which provides accessibility to the central market
and farm? Yes/ No
If yes, what kind of transportation?
-----------------------------------------
17. What kind of market information do you receive?
1. Input price, 2. Output price, 3. Market price 4. Other

105
Farm Information for both adopter and non-adopter

18. How many total cultivated areas do you have? (Owned / Rented)
-----------------------------

No Area Type of Ownership Type of Type of Irrigated Rain-fed

(acre) Land Use Status Crop Land Crop
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Note:
Column (3) Column (4) Column (5)
1= Homestead 1= Own Land 1= Mono crop
2= Low Land 2= Rented In 2= Double crop
3= Upland 3= Rented Out 3= Triple crop
4= Forest Land 4= Mortgaged In
5= Pasture Land 5= Mortgaged Out
6= Fallow Land 6= Used Free, Someone’s Land
7= Orchard 7= Given Free, For someone to use
8= Other Land 8= Share Cropping, Land

19. How long work experience does you have on farm?

------------------------------

20. What kinds and how many of livestock do you have?

Buffalo, Cow, Pig, Poultry, Other

No Type of Number Income/year Estimated amount of Manure /

Livestock year
Buffalo
Cow
Pig
Poultry
Other

21. What type of farming practices do you carry out? (upland annual cropping pattern /
upland perennial cropping pattern / upland rice / shifting cultivation)

22. What type of cropping patterns do you practice on your farm?

(mono / mixed / inter / rely cropping pattern / others)

106
23. Do you have farm equipment? Please describe.

No Farm Equipment Ownership Remark

Yes No
1 Harrows
2 Plough
3 Bullock cart
4 Tractor
5 Trolley
6 Truck
7 Other (specify)

24. Have you already paid for land tax? Yes/ No

If yes, how much did you pay per year? Please describe.
-------------------------------------------

25. Have you ever used any practices concerning soil conservation methods? Yes/No
If yes, which method do you use? Please describe.
-------------------------------------------

If no, please go to Q.32.

26. If you use soil conservation practices on your farm, how many areas are practiced with
soil conservation (contour farming)?
-------------------------------------------

27. Detail description of Cost of cultivation, yield and income of adopter

Items Crop- Crop- Crop- Crop-4 Crop-

1 2 3 5
Land preparation
Seed / Seedling cost
Planting
Fertilizer cost (Chem:/Manure/
other)
Labor cost for fertilizer application
Pesticide cost
Pesticide/ Insecticide/ herbicide
Labor cost for pesticide application
Weeding / Intercultivation
Cost of soil conservation
construction
Maintenance cost of contour bunds
Harvesting
Total cost
Yield (kgha-1)
Income

107
28. How do you manage contour farming in your farm?

i. Collection and utilization of the sediment

ii. Application of organic matter / manure / others
iii. Rotation of crop

29. Do you plant any legume crops on your farm? Yes/No

If yes, please describe.
--------------------------------------

30. What kind of crops do you plant on your hedge rows?

Please describe.
-------------------------------

31. Do you plant any perennial crops on your farm?

What kinds do you plant? Please describe detail.
(eg, Mango, Avocado, Banana, Pineapple, Jackfruit, other plant)
-----------------------------------------------------------

32. Detailed description of cost of cultivation, yield and income of non-adopter

Items Crop- Crop-2 Crop-3 Crop-4 Crop-5

1
Land preparation
Seed / Seedling cost
Planting
Fertilizer cost (Chem:/Manure/
other)
Labor cost for fertilizer application
Pesticide cost
Pesticide/ insecticide/ herbicide
Labor cost for pesticide application
Weeding / Intercultivation
Harvesting
Total cost
Yield (kg / ha)
Income

33. How do you manage your farm?

1. Application of organic matter / manure / others
2. Crop rotation
3. Other

34. Do you plant any legume crops in your farm? (Yes/No)

Please describe.
-----------------------------------------------

108
35. Do you plant any perennial crops in your farm? (Yes/No)
If yes, what kind? Please describe in detail.
(eg, Mango, Avocado, Banana, Pineapple, Jackfruit, other plant)
------------------------------------------------

Technical Information for both adopter and non-adopter

36. Is your farm located on the slope?

1. Very steep 2. Moderate steep 3. Steep

37. What is your land condition?

1. Bad 2. Fair 3. Good

38. Do you know your land situation within 5 years? Yes / No

1. Stable 2. Decline 3. Improve

39. Do you know how soil degradation / erosion take place?

1. Soil erosion (sheet, rill, gully) 2. Soil deterioration 3. Depletion of top soil 4.
Other

40. Do you know the impacts of soil degradation / erosion?

1.Reduce yield, 2. Reduce income 3. Livelihood strategies change 4. Other

41. Do you know how to reduce soil degradation / erosion? (Yes/No)

If yes, which methods do you apply?
(Traditional / Advanced Technique)

42. Have you ever attended any kind of training about soil and water conservation? Yes/
No.
If yes, how many times and what level?
----------------------------------
Interview with adopter

43. How did you learn the soil conservation practices?

From 1.project, 2. MAS, 3. neighbor’s farmer, 4. Other

44. How many times have you attended?

----------------------

45. Do you apply soil conservation practices on your farm? Yes / No

If yes, why do you accept it?
-----------------------

46. When did you start the implementation of soil conservation practices?
------------------------

47. Did you accept any incentives from the project supporting for soil conservation? Yes /
No
If yes, please describe detail.
-----------------------------------

109
48. Are there any major problems in the construction of soil conservation practices on your
farm?
-----------------------------------

49. Do you know soil conservation practice may improve crop yield and reduce soil
erosion? Yes/No

50. How does soil conservation practice improve crop yield / reduce soil erosion? Yes/No.
If yes, how many increase in crop yield (kg/ha) can you harvest?
-----------------------------------

51. How much soil sediment did you trap in your contour bands? (Please estimate)
-----------------------------------

52. Do you notice that the contour bunds / the trenches are able to trap the silt effectively?
Yes/ No.
If yes, please describe, 1. Very Significantly 2. Significantly 3. A little

53. Do you maintain the contour bunds or trenches in your farm regularly? Yes/ No
If yes, how? Please describe.
----------------------------------------

Interview with non-adopters

54. Do you think that the current farming system will sustain the production? Yes/No
If yes, please describe.
---------------------------
If no, please describe.
---------------------------

55. Is the crop production stable or increasing or decreasing within the last five years?
1. Stable 2. Increasing 3. Decreasing

56. Do you have any major problem in crop production on your farm? (Yes/ No)
If yes, what problem?
Do you solve by yourself or not?
---------------------------------

57. Have you ever heard about soil conservation practices being used in the other farm?
Yes/ No

58. Do you think the soil conservation practices are technically effective in the slope
farming? Yes/No

59. Are you accepting the soil conservation practices to apply on your farm? Yes/No
If no, what are your reasons?
----------------------------

60. Do you want to learn the soil conservation practices? Yes/No

110
61. Do you have any problem to adopt the soil conservation practices?
Please describe. ------------------------------------------
(Knowledge, culture, age, economic, technology, policy, other)

Perception on Soil Conservation Practices (Contour Farming)

62. Do you accept the soil conservation practices? Yes/No

63. Did anyone explain you about soil conservation practices? Yes/No
If yes, who?
(Project officer, Project staff, MAS staff, Local authority, Other)

64. Do you know about the objective of implementation of soil conservation practices?
Yes/No
If yes, what level?
1. Very strong 2. Strong 3. Moderate 4. Weak 5. Very weak

65. How are you aware about land degradation? Please describe the appropriate level of
awareness.
1.Very strong 2. Strong 3. Impartial 4. Weak 5. Very weak

66. What about your opinion on soil and water conservation practices?
If good, why?
---------------------------------------

If bad, why?
---------------------------------------

67. How do you think the current farming systems and management on the sloping farms?
Do you have any problems and solve by yourself?
If good, why?
--------------------------------------

If bad, why?
--------------------------------------

68. Are you satisfied with the benefits of soil conservation practices? Yes/ No
If yes, please describe.
1. Strongly satisfied 2. Satisfied 3. Moderate 4. Dissatisfied 5. Very dissatisfied

69. Did you get the knowledge gained from the project? Yes/ No
If yes, please describe.
1. Low 2. Medium 3. High

70. Do you have any suggestions to improve crop productivity and soil fertility, and to
control soil erosion?
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------

111
Factors influencing the adoption of soil conservation practices

71. How do you think what factors are influencing on adoption of soil conservation
practices? What are the influences on your decision to adopt soil conservation? Please
tick for your answer by rating.
1. Very strong 2. Strong 3. Moderate 4. Weak 5. Very weak

Influence rate
Factors
1 2 3 4 5
Bio-physical
1. Land size
2. Land slope
Socio-economic
3.Land owner/render
4.Capital investment
5.Labour availability
6.Economic return
7.Construction cost
8.Age
9.Gender
10.Education level
11.Culture
Technology
12.Experience/Knowledge
Policy
13.Land tenure
14.Land rights
15.Land security
Financial assistance

72. In order to adopt soil conservation practices in this area, what strategies are needed to
apply?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

112
 Appendix 2

Checklists of questions for key informant interview

1. Status of agriculture, soil erosion, land degradation and deforestation – present and last 5
or 10 or 20 or 50 years

2. What are the main causes of land degradation and low yields?

3. What are the problems faced in the cultivation in this area?

4. How do you solve these problems?

5. How do you think your traditional practices?

6. How do you accept contour farming system and why?

7. How do you think on the projects / NGOs activities that are effectiveness or not?

8. What should be done to improve the productivity and reduce soil erosion?

9. To what extent do you think the contour farming system in your area is suited to the needs
of farmers?

10. What can be done to adopt contour farming practices widely in the upland hilly regions?

113
 Appendix 3

Correlation
Std.
No. Descriptive Statistics Mean Number
Deviation
1 Probability of adoption of SWC 0.52 0.502 98
2 Age of respondents 39.86 11.143 98
3 Upland area 1.31972 1.003652 98
4 Training attended 0.56 0.499 98
5 Ethnic groups 0.79 0.412 98
Accept of agricultural
6 0.58 0.496 98
information
7 Gender 0.88 0.329 98
8 Occupation of all respondents 0.71 0.454 98
9 Slope % of upland 0.76 0.432 98
10 Level of education .31 .463 98
11 Years of farm experience 0.55 0.5 98
12 Number of family labor per hh 3.08 1.571 98
13 Loans accessed from sources 79.97 108.524 98
Crop Intensity Index of
14 0.6287 0.12398 98
respondents
15 Farm cost/year 489.86 333.625 98
16 Off farm work income/year 135.5 184.762 98
17 Farm Income/ year 875 596.673 98
18 Non-income /year / hh 134.53 289.857 98

Nonparametric correlation analysis

Probability of adoption
Spearman's rho
of SWC
Correlation
Probability of adoption of SWC 1
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) .
Correlation
Age of respondents -.296**
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003
Correlation
Upland area .751**
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) 0
Correlation
Training attended .921**
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) 0
Correlation
Ethnic groups -.203*
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.045
Correlation
Accept of agricultural information .883**
Coefficient

114
 Sig. (2-tailed) 0
Correlation
Gender -0.172
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.091
Correlation
Occupation of all respondents .071
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) .487
Correlation
Slope % of upland 0.118
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.246
Correlation
Level of education .372**
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Correlation
Years of farm experience .078
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) .446
Correlation
Number of family labor per hh 0.026
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.8
Correlation
Loans accessed from sources .301**
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) .003
Correlation
Crop Intensity Index of respondents 0.085
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.407
Correlation
Farm cost/year .745**
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) 0
Correlation
Off farm work income/year -.413**
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) 0
Correlation
Farm Income/ year .753**
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) 0
Correlation
Non-income /year / hh 0.055
Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.591
**. Correlation is significant at the
0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

115
 Appendix 4

Table. Maximum, minimum and average cost, income and yield of each crop in the
study area
Cropping Pattern Cost Income Benefit Yield Kg / ha
Contour Farm ($/ ha) ( $/ ha) ( $ / ha) Crop 1 Crop 2
Corn - Wheat
Average 540.78 1111.51 570.73 4315.93 677.26
Maximum 643 1257 4781 797
Minimum 438.98 965 3851 558
Corn - Niger 436.52 897.06 460.54 2888.31 557.74
Corn + Pigeon pea
Average 336.89 646.95 310.06 3066.47 506.39
Maximum 498 1118 5378 797
Minimum 244 405 2032 206
Up-paddy + Soybean
Average 307.16 576.01 268.85 1924.31 515.39
Maximum 526 1136 2453 1119
Minimum 160 341 1222 299
Soybean - Niger 282.7 526.67 243.97 1055.73 418.31
Corn – Chit pea
Average 470.66 869.55 398.9 3241.88 1140.38
Maximum 610 1202 4781 1275
Minimum 396 692 2530 956
Corn + Sunflower
Average 314.67 573.09 258.42 2582.86 -
Maximum 515 858 3884
Minimum 147 400 1793
Sunflower - Soybean 217.25 395.87 178.63 - 956.13
Groundnut - Niger
Average 505.91 888.41 382.5 432.25 475.08
Maximum 594.07 1033 472 558
Minimum 412.04 693 404 359
Up-paddy – Chit pea
Average 509.61 810.95 301.34 2143.29 1025.85
Maximum 534.87 835 2221 1056
Minimum 484.35 787 2066 996
Corn - Soybean 382.18 605.37 223.2 2450.08 916.29
Groundnut - Wheat
Average 618.9 916.43 297.52 421.02 692.2
Maximum 685 983 427 747
Minimum 552 850 415 637
Soybean -Wheat
Average 431.13 599.67 168.54 1022.54 685.58
Maximum 476 742 11169 946
Minimum 386 457 876 425
Soybean - Potato
Average 505.79 682.39 176.61 854.9 2981.29
Maximum 561 781 886 3506
Minimum 450 583 823 2457

116
Adopters(other farms)
Niger 42.66 178.06 135.4 243.02
Paddy
Average 229.81 553.28 323.47 2272.4
Maximum 299.09 779.62 3202.02
Minimum 136.3 402.39 1652.65
Pigeon pea 130.24 313.24 183 1235
Sesame
Average 247.75 592.8 345.05 802.75
Maximum 280.68 646.69 875.72
Minimum 217.81 517.35 700.58
Corn
Average 189.14 446.41 257.27 2640.07
Maximum 280.68 740.99 4382.26
Minimum 108.52 202.09 1195.16
Up-paddy
Average 193.81 430.18 236.37 1766.79
Maximum 254.18 578.44 2375.69
Minimum 86.45 314.37 1291.14
Up-paddy - Wheat 329.41 588.31 258.9 1678.48 318.71
Bean
Average 195.35 325.59 130.24 596.92
Maximum 208.82 359.27 658.67
Minimum 181.88 291.91 535.17
Paddy- Garlic
Average 526.91 860.11 333.2 2287.89 1792.26
Maximum 787.03 1409.79 3098.72 2987.9
Minimum 329.89 382.61 1885.06 730.36
Potato
Average 276.8 440.39 163.59 2604.46
Maximum 296.21 561.14 3318.59
Minimum 257.39 319.64 1890.33
Soybean
Average 180.76 258.66 77.9 1240.3
Maximum 208.57 284.57 1364.53
Minimum 152.95 232.75 1116.07
Sunflower
Average 162.17 225.32 63.15 -
Maximum 201.65 300.43
Minimum 122.69 150.21
Non-adopters
Turmeric
Average 322.22 836.66 514.43 2748.87
Maximum 413.16 1091.29 3585.48
Minimum 231.28 582.02 1912.26
Pigeon pea 106.66 242.51 135.85 956.13
Paddy
Average 239.58 541.84 302.26 2225.4
Maximum 416.98 767.05 3150.37
Minimum 126.19 339.51 1394.42

117
 Up-paddy
Average 201.84 455.58 253.74 1871.11
Maximum 467.07 704.18 2892.14
Minimum 77.91 213.77 877.97
Niger
Average 82.33 184.87 102.53 252.3
Maximum 105.53 262.72 358.55
Minimum 58.38 70.06 95.61
Up-paddy- Sweet pea
Average 513.42 929.62 416.2 2065.82 756.94
Maximum 570.12 978.55 2065.82 796.78
Minimum 456.72 880.69 2065.82 717.1
Corn +sunflower
Average 305.52 545.56 240.04 2735.6 -
Maximum 486.89 952.4 4780.64
Minimum 190.53 380.67 1912.25
Soybean
Average 164.11 264.47 100.37 1268.19
Maximum 222.31 365.55 1752.91
Minimum 113.4 207.7 995.97
Paddy-potato
Average 657.79 1030.36 372.57 2329.21 2739.67
Maximum 1085.45 1903.83 2788.85 5179.04
Minimum 443.61 473.85 1910.88 1195.16
Corn
Average 328.37 475.61 147.23 2812.73
Maximum 561.35 835.31 4939.99
Minimum 177.95 252.61 1493.95
Potato
Average 503.54 488.39 -15.16 2888.31
Maximum 560.24 707.32 4183.07
Minimum 446.84 269.46 1593.55
Source: calculated from Field survey, 2008

118
 Appendix 5

Contour Bunds Implementation

Photo- Contour Bund in War Prone Village Photo–Contour Bund in War Prone

Photo- Contour Bund in Lalaung Village Photo- Contour Bund in Nam Toke Village

Contour Farming in Project Area

Photo- Growing Crops in Contour Farming in Lalaung village

119
Photo- Growing crops in contour farming in Nam Toke Village
Non-contour farming in Project Area

Photo- Non-contour farming in Nam Toke Photo- Tea Plantation in War Pore

Photo- Fallow Land in Study Area Photo- Tea Plantation in the Project area

120
Shifting Cultivation Practices

Photo – Shifting Cultivation in study area

Interview with respondents

Photo- Interview with respondents

121