The dynamics of socio-economic situations of communities
in relation to land degradation- Bhutan
MSc Thesis by Phuntsho Gyeltshen
February 2010
i
ii
The dynamics of socio-economic situations of communities in
relation to land degradation- Bhutan
By
Phuntsho Gyeltshen
Master thesis Land Degradation and Development Group
submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of
Science in International Land and Water Management at
Wageningen University, the Netherlands
Study program:
MSc International Land and Water Management (MIL)
Student registration number:
780803-290-020
LDD 80336
Supervisor(s):
Dr. ir. Jan de Graaff
Dr. Hans van Noord
Examinator:
Prof.dr.ir. L. Stroosnijder
Date: February 2010
Wageningen University, Land Degradation and Development Group
i
Abstract
Land degradation due to water erosion is one of the most serious problems faced by many
countries in the world. Its impact is more worrying for nations who are in the state of transition,
including Bhutan. To date researchers have cited many reasons causing land degradation. These
include iterative interaction of anthropogenic, bio-geophysical and environmental factors. This
research aims to look at the role of socio-economic changes of communities in relation to land
degradation. The research was executed in two watersheds: Guda-ri in Chaskhar and Radhi-ri
watershed in Balam geogs. For this research various methodologies were applied: discussions
with key informants; transect walks to look at land degradation features prevalent in the areas;
the analysis of ALOS (2007) and SPOT (1989) images to look at the land use and land cover
changes occurred within the past 20 years; an informal household survey using semi-structured
questionnaires and informal farmers’ meeting to obtain farmers’ opinion. The study showed that:
1) the land use and land cover have undergone significant changes during the last 20 years, but
the nature of change differs in the research areas, 2) the land degradation processes are mainly
concentrated along the natural drainage, 3) there is a good stock of indigenous SWC
technologies, but farmers don’t relate these directly to conservation of soil and water, 4) the
farmers’ generate cash income mainly from the off-farm activities, 5) there is much long term
fallow land in Chaskhar. A farmers’ decision to fallow the land is influenced by the number of
land parcels they own and the distance between the parcels and a homestead, and 6) the farmers
have a good knowledge of soils in the watershed. They classify soils either based on soil colour
or texture. This research raises the following points: there is a great need to look at the feasibility
of developmental activities especially when these are to be introduced in the communities,
empirical research is needed to establish the exacerbation of water flow from the fallow lands
infested with invasive weed species, Axonopus compressus and the possibilities to introduce notillage, or minimum tillage in the Bhutanese agriculture system should be explored.
Key words:
Land degradation, water erosion, anthropogenic, bio-geophysical, socioeconomic, watershed, Axonopus compressus, no-tillage, minimum tillage, Bhutan.
ii
Acknowledgement
I was able to complete this research with a great degree of satisfaction because of the
contributions made by the following individuals and groups of people, in various capacities.
Therefore, I would like to thank:
Dr. Jan de Graaff, who worked as my supervisor at Wageningen University. He has been
instrumental in shaping this research, starting from the conception of the research until
completion. The suggestions I received from Jan during the initial phase of this research
formulation (proposal writing and questionnaire development), the advice during the fieldwork
and very constructive feedbacks on the draft reports helped me come up with a completed
version of this research. Had it not been his effort to guide me all the way through I would not
have achieved this. Thank you Jan.
Dr. Hans van Noord for working as my supervisor in Bhutan. His advice and suggestions on
selection of study areas, image analysis and feedbacks on draft report were invaluable.
My colleagues in Bhutan: enumerators who worked effortlessly during the entire fieldwork, Ms
Deki Wangmo, Mrs. Sangita Pradhan of NSSC and Mr Pema Thinley of RC-Wengkhar for their
inputs in GIS and for arranging the required digital images.
The National Soil Services Centre (NSSC) for providing logistics during my fieldwork, the Soil
and Plant Analytical Laboratory of NSSC for analyzing soil samples, the National Land
Commission Secretariat (NLCS) for providing SPOT images, the Policy and Planning Division
(PPD), Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) for sharing land use data, the Meteorological Section
under Department of Energy (DoE), Ministry of Economic Affairs for providing meteorological
data.
Mr Kezang and Mr Kuenga, who were with me during the fieldwork. I would also like to thank
all the farmers, chiwog and geog leaders of the research areas for their participation and help
during my days in the field. I had a lovely time during my stay.
The Sustainable Land Management Project (SLMP) of NSSC for funding my study at
Wageningen.
And finally, my family; Pema and Lakedhen for the continued support during my time at
Wageningen University and while I was executing this research in Bhutan. Many thanks!
iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AFL
Arable Fallow Land
ALOS
Advanced Land Observing Satellite
CGI
Corrugated Galvanized Iron
DoE
Department of Energy
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
FYM
Farmyard Manure
GEF
Global Environmental Facility
GPS
Global Positioning System
ITK
Indigenous Technical Knowledge
asl
Above sea level
MEA
Ministry of Economic Affairs
MoA
Ministry of Agriculture
NGO
Non Governmental Organizations
NLCS
National Land Commission Secretariat
NSB
National Bureau of Statistics
NSSC
National Soil Services Centre
PPD
Policy and Planning Division
SLMP
Sustainable Land Management Project
SPOT
Systeme Pour d’Observation de la Terre
UNEP
United Nations Environment Program
WB
World Bank
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... - 3 1.1
2
RESEARCH SETTING................................................................................................................................ - 7 2.1
2.2
2.3
3
BHUTAN: COUNTRY CONTEXT ................................................................................................................ - 5 -
LOCATION AND CLIMATE ........................................................................................................................ - 7 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND LAND DEGRADATION PROCESSES ......................................................................... - 7 LAND USE ............................................................................................................................................... - 9 -
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES..................................................................................... - 10 3.1
SPECIFIC RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................... - 10 3.1.1
Research sub-questions................................................................................................................... - 10 -
4
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ - 11 4.1
4.2
5
METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................................... - 14 5.1
5.2
5.3
6
EXISTING RESEARCH RESULTS .............................................................................................................. - 11 THEORIES AND ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THIS RESEARCH ........................................................................ - 11 -
CHOICE OF METHODS............................................................................................................................ - 14 DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................................................... - 14 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... - 15 -
RESULTS & DISCUSSION (1): THE FARM HOUSEHOLD AND THEIR RESOURCES .............. - 16 6.1
6.2
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3
6.3
6.3.1
6.4
FARM FAMILY ...................................................................................................................................... - 16 FARM LAND .......................................................................................................................................... - 17 Changes with regard to farmland ................................................................................................... - 19 Cropping & crop inputs and outputs .............................................................................................. - 20 Soil and Water Conservation .......................................................................................................... - 22 LIVESTOCK ........................................................................................................................................... - 24 Changes in the livestock ................................................................................................................. - 25 FINANCIAL LIABILITY ........................................................................................................................... - 26 -
7
RESULTS & DISCUSSION (2): LAND USE, LAND DEGRADATION AND FARMERS’
PERCEPTIONS.................................................................................................................................................... - 27 7.1
7.2
7.3
7.3.1
7.3.2
7.3.3
7.4
8
LAND USE AND LAND COVER CHANGES ................................................................................................ - 27 LAND DEGRADATION ............................................................................................................................ - 28 FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS....................................................................................................................... - 29 Local soil classification .................................................................................................................. - 29 Perceptions on erosion ................................................................................................................... - 31 Perceptions on socio-economic changes ........................................................................................ - 35 THE IMPACTS OF EARTHQUAKE ............................................................................................................ - 38 -
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... - 40 -
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... - 42 -
-1-
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1. SURVEY FORMS.............................................................................................................................. I
APPENDIX 2. GUIDELINES FOR FARMERS’ MEETING ................................................................................X
APPENDIX 3. LAND USE AND LAND COVER MAP OF CHASKHAR (USING SPOT 1989) ...................XII
APPENDIX 4. LAND USE AND LAND COVER MAP OF BALAM (USING SPOT 1989).......................... XIII
APPENDIX 5. LAND USE AND LAND COVER MAP OF CHASKHAR (USING ALOS 2007) ................. XIV
APPENDIX 6. LAND USE AND LAND COVER MAP OF BALAM (USING ALOS 2007) ...........................XV
APPENDIX 7. LAND DEGRADATION FIELD MAP OF CHASKHAR ....................................................... XVI
APPENDIX 8. LAND DEGRADATION FIELD MAP OF BALAM...............................................................XVII
APPENDIX 9. FIGURES SHOWING ANNUAL AND MONTHLY AVERAGE RAINFALL .................. XVIII
List of Tables
TABLE 1 GLOBAL EXTENT OF WATER & WIND EROSION ........................................................................................... - 4 TABLE 2. HOUSEHOLD LABOUR AND ITS DISTRIBUTION........................................................................................... - 17 TABLE 3. CHANGES TAKEN PLACE OVER THE PAST YEAR WITH REGARDS TO FARMLAND. ....................................... - 20 TABLE 4. PERCEIVED TRENDS FOR HOUSEHOLD AND LIVELIHOOD RELATED PARAMETERS...................................... - 20 TABLE 5. INTER AND INTRA-REGIONAL COMPARISON OF YIELD FOR CROPS . ........................................................... - 22 TABLE 6. OVERVIEW OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGIES. ........................................................... - 23 TABLE 7. OVERVIEW OF LIVESTOCK AND DRAUGHT ANIMALS................................................................................. - 25 TABLE 8. LIVESTOCK INVENTORY CHANGES. .......................................................................................................... - 26 TABLE 9. EXISTING TRENDS SHOWING PROCUREMENT OF LOANS. ........................................................................... - 26 TABLE 10. LAND USE CHANGES OCCURRED BETWEEN 1989 AND 2009 IN GUDA-RI AND RADHI-RI WATERSHEDS... - 27 TABLE 11. OVERVIEW OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION BY FARMERS. ................................................................................ - 30 TABLE 12. FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SOIL EROSION HAZARDS. ............................................................................ - 34 -
List of Figures
FIGURE 1. WATER EROSION CAN HAVE DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES..................................................................... - 5 FIGURE 2. LOCATION MAP OF THE RESEARCH SITES, CHASKHAR AND BALAM GEOGS. .............................................. - 8 FIGURE 3. LAND DEGRADATION FEATURES IN THE TWO WATERSHEDS. ..................................................................... - 9 FIGURE 4. LAND USE PATTERNS OBSERVED IN THE RESEARCH SITES. ........................................................................ - 9 FIGURE 5. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK SHOWING ITERATIVE NETWORK OF FACTORS............................................... - 13 FIGURE 6. GATHERING FARMERS’ KNOWLEDGE ON SOILS AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS ABOUT SOIL EROSION.............. - 15 FIGURE 7. HOUSEHOLD LABOUR DISTRIBUTION IN THE STUDY AREAS. .................................................................... - 17 FIGURE 8. SEVERITY OF SOIL EROSION AS PERCEIVED BY THE FARMERS.................................................................. - 32 FIGURE 9. PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LAND DEGRADATION AND CROP PRODUCTIVITY.......................... - 33 FIGURE 10. FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS ON SOIL EROSION IN THE TWO WATERSHEDS. ................................................. - 35 FIGURE 11. FARMERS’ PERCEPTION ON SOCIAL CHANGES,. ..................................................................................... - 36 FIGURE 12. FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS ON ECONOMICAL CHANGES. ........................................................................... - 37 FIGURE 13. VISIBLE DAMAGES OF EARTHQUAKE OF 21ST SEPTEMBER 2009............................................................. - 39 FIGURE 14. PROGRESSIVE INCREASE OF THE AREA OF AMIYAN LANDSLIDE BETWEEN 1992–2005.......................... - 39 -
-2-
1
INTRODUCTION
Land degradation can be understood as the “gradual or a permanent decline in the productive
capacity of the land…,” (FAO, 2004).
Every time when the topic of land degradation emerges, anthropogenic actions usually take
centre-stage. Human actions are generally perceived as catalysts for exacerbating land
degradation. Jones (1999, 2002) describes land degradation as a very complex process: it is
caused as a “result of complex interactions between physical, chemical, biological, socioeconomic and political issues of local, national and global nature.” This process has become a
global concern. Every region or country experience one form of land degradation, or the other
(Mazzucato & Niemeijer, 2000). It heeds no geographical barrier. There are many forms of
degradation: notably those caused by water erosion, wind erosion, chemical degradation,
physical degradation, etc. Land degradation caused by water erosion is the most ubiquitous
(Batjes, 1996; Reich et al., 2001) and it will continue to be one of the pressing problem and a
challenge that the world will face in the 21st Century (Lal, 2001). The total land area degraded by
water erosion is 1094 Mha, of which 751 Mha is severely affected (Oldeman, 1994; Scherr, 1999
cited in Lal, 2003). Every year, nutrient rich top soils from arable land and nature areas are
transported from upstream watersheds unto the low lying areas and plains. As a result, this has
become a very serious issue of modern era (UNEP, 1992; Lal, 2001). The problem as such is
more of a concern especially in the developing countries (Pender & Kerr, 1998; Lefroy et al.,
2000; Ananda & Herath, 2003), since many of these countries have fragile soils. Poor farmers in
developing countries are forced to use erosive methods for cultivation and soils are eroded due to
continuous use (Ananda & Herath, 2003).
The sources of land degradation are usually local, but its consequences stretch considerable
distances from the source (Norbu et al., 2003). Land degradation reduces the productivity of land
in the upper catchments due to nutrient losses, reduction of water holding capacity of soils and
siltation in the downstream areas (Napier et al., 1991; Harden, 1994; Francisco & De Los
Angeles, 1998; Norbu et al., 2003). Land degradation cancels out the gains achieved through
introduction of improved crop yields and adoption of better land management practices. As land
becomes less productive, food security is compromised and competition for dwindling resources
increases (Easterling & Apps, 2005) by the year. Ultimately it can force farmers to give up
cultivating their land and seek other sources of livelihoods or even resettlement.
Efforts to reduce land degradation have intensified in the 1970’s, which was met with mixed
results. There is substantial evidence indicating that the outcome of past activities to mitigate
land degradation is desirable. Nonetheless, this was often overshadowed by apparent failure
(Bewket, 2007). According to Pender and Kerr (1998), public projects to promote soil and water
conservation have not succeeded in wide-spread adoption of the activities. This is because
traditionally, these projects have adopted a uniform approach covering large areas. However, it
was found that small organizations (NGOs) whose project officials worked directly with the
farmers showed more interesting results (Pender & Kerr, 1998). This was argued to be because
of the fact that when officials work closely with the farmers they are able to address local
specific opportunities and constraints associated with specific agro-climatic and socio-economic
conditions. Critiques on these works unfold many influencing factors mainly; the inflexible
-3-
modus operandi of donors, unstable political situation, institutional voids, unawareness of
stakeholders on the implication of the programs, etc. In most cases, involvement of farmers in
conservation activities was limited to labour contribution, which was induced either by coercion,
or for food-for-work payments (Amsalu & de Graaff, 2006; Bewket, 2006). This was mainly
because there was this underlying faulty assumption that an externally introduced conservation
measures would halt the degradation problem and lead to sustainable land use. The local farmers
were virtually considered ignorant of land management and were not allowed to comment on the
introduced conservation measures (Bewket, 2006).
While making an attempt to address degradation issues, the iterative nature of causative agents
are given less consideration. For instance, it has become a general tendency to treat increasing
population pressure and unsustainable agriculture practices as primary cause of land degradation
(Vezina et al., 2006), whereas the effects of other socio-economic and environmental factors are
under-estimated. This is being echoed particularly by two researchers; firstly by Boardman
(2006) who stated that to understand land degradation due to water erosion, “the greatest need is
for a full recognition of socio-economic drivers,” and secondly, by Jones (1996) who stated, “as
the interest of land degradation grows in the field of developmental studies, meanings are
implicitly negotiated and Western Scientists begin to revise their worldviews on land
degradation.” True to saying that land degradation issues are partly socially constructed, both
locally and at broader scales (Lestrelin & Giordano, 2007), developmental activities in any
form(s) may contribute to causing land degradation (Vezina et al., 2006).
Considering all things, the key question which often springs to mind is: should we make a
holistic approach to address land degradation issues? Mazzucato and Niemeijer (2000) states:
“the need to focus studies on land degradation in understanding how agricultural systems
respond to various changes in the social, economic and environmental context in which
agriculture takes place, rather than focus solely on the population pressure as an indicator of the
use or the non-use of soil and water conservation technologies.” This is particularly important
because efforts towards intervening in ongoing land degradation of any kind may likely change if
insights into the socio-economic web of the communities are unravelled. Land degradation
problems creep in when the society undergoes some kind of transition (Easterling & Apps,
2005), particularly in respect to social and economic terms.
Table 1 Global extent of water & wind erosion (Adapted from Oldeman et al., 1994; cited in Lal, 2003)
Land area affected by severe erosion Total as a percentage
Region
(Million hectares- Mha)
of the total land use
Water erosion
Wind erosion
Total
Africa
169
98
267
16
Asia
317
90
407
15
South America
77
16
90
06
Central America
45
05
50
25
North America
46
32
78
07
Europe
93
39
132
17
Oceania
04
16
20
03
World
751
296
1047
12
-4-
1.1
Bhutan: country context
Geographically, Bhutan is located in South Asia, between India and China (27° 30’ to 27° 50’ N
& 89° 20’ to 91° 10’ E). It has a very complex geo-morphology with very steep slopes incised
with deep valleys, and with altitude stretching from 100 to 7500 m above sea level (asl) (Baillie
& Norbu, 2004). Approximately 69% of the population practice subsistence farming on less than
8% of the total area, which is considered to be cultivable (NSSC, 2009). This indicates that
Bhutan has inherently limited resources of productive land (Norbu et al., 2003).
Due the geo-morphological and climatic conditions, land degradation due to water erosion is of
great concern for Bhutan (Norbu et al., 2003; NSSC, 2009). Most of the landscape is “quasistable.” Only a small trigger is necessary to destabilise it for the surface materials to slip down
and eventually be washed away. Norbu et al., (2003) point out that those soils derived from
gneiss rock types erode less in contrast to soils formed from other rocks such as schists and
phyllites. This is mainly because soils developed from gneiss are coarser in nature than the more
silt and clay rich soils over schists and phyllites. A greater part of the landscape in the Eastern,
Central and Southern parts of Bhutan is underlain by an inherent less stable geological formation
which has dominant schists and phyllitic rocks (NSSC, 2009). This contributes in making the
slopes very fragile and susceptible to land degradation processes. It needs to be recognized that
people cultivate on such steep slopes without alternatives. This very fact demands explicit
establishment of causality when trying to address land degradation problems. According to
Oldeman et al. (1991; cited in Nyssen et al., 2009) the degree of severity of water erosion is
rated as high to very high for Bhutan, though this was coined using generalized data (Norbu et
al., 2004). All the rivers which originate from Bhutan pass through the plains of India and join
Brahmaputra river. On a bigger picture, the existence of this natural hydrological networks tells
us that the loss of soil nutrients along with topsoil reduces crop productivity in Bhutan
(upstream), whereas, flooding and siltation causes major problems in India and Bangladesh (the
down-stream areas). Furthermore, these floods also provide necessary nutrients. The reduction of
soil nutrients in the upper catchments may be considered as the most common impact of land
degradation. However, in severe situations, the gullies and landslides account for loss of
properties such as houses, arable land, live stock animals and even the lives of people (NSSC,
2006).
Figure 1. Water erosion can have devastating consequences. Picture shows the recent loss of arable
wetland under Trashigang Dzongkhag, in Eastern Bhutan.
-5-
In recent years, occurrence of increasing land degradation has been reported from across the
country (NSSC, 2006). There are three main factors often considered responsible for causing
land degradation (UNEP, 2001; NSSC, 2006 & Rinzin, 2008). These are: 1) anthropogenic
factors (such as increased population, unsustainable land management practices, overgrazing,
deforestation, etc), 2) the bio- physical factors such as unfavourable geology, and 3) the
environmental factors such as a monsoon climate and the emerging effects of climate change
observed through uncharacteristic patterns of weather conditions. Other factors that have gained
less attention are the more silent socio-economic changes and natural forces such as earthquakes
in contributing to land degradation. The need to look at the socio-economic changes is essential
because Bhutan has been undergoing rapid changes in these contexts since the introduction of
planned programmes starting late 1960s. And an inclusion of the latter is crucial because Bhutan
is situated in a seismically active zone (Bali et al., 2009, NSSC, 2009).
The ensuing sections focus successively on: 1) the research settings including the location of
research sites and its climate, soils and land degradation processes and land use types, 2) main
objectives and research questions which were formulated at Wageningen before going to Bhutan
for the field work, 3) the perceived concepts and theories surrounding the research and its
application in this research, 4) methodology adopted for this research to collect data in the field,
5) results and discussions, followed by 6) the concluding remarks which also has a small section
containing recommendation. Though it was not initially intended for this research, it was felt
necessary to add a small section on earthquake in light of its influence in triggering land
degradation.
-6-
2
RESEARCH SETTING
2.1
Location and climate
The research was executed in two areas: Chaskhar and Balam geogs1, both of which are located
in Mongar Dzongkhag2, in the eastern part of Bhutan (Figure 1). In Chaskhar, the survey area is
located within the Guda-ri sub-catchment and has an area of about 1335 hectares. The altitude
range is about 1410 to 2230 m asl and it has warm temperate climate conditions prevailing in the
area. The watershed has about 283 households covering a total of 6 chiwogs3. According to the
informants, an irrigation canal and the feeder road which dissect right through the sub-catchment
were constructed between 1984 & 1986 and 1986 & 1988 respectively. The mean minimum
temperature drops to about 2.6º C in January, and rises to about 17.2º C in August. The mean
maximum temperature rises from about 13.8º C in January to 25.2º C during August. The mean
minimum rainfall is about 3.1 mm in December and the mean maximum rainfall is about 245
mm during July with annual rainfall of about 996 mm. The area has an outspoken monsoon
character with the majority of precipitation in the summer months.
In Balam, there are about 123 household within the Radhi-ri watershed covering an area of 835
hectares. There are 5 chiwogs in the watershed. The geog is located at about 3 hrs walk from the
nearest road point, Drametse. However, there is a new farm road approaching the geog. The geog
is located within an altitude range of about 1610 to 2190 m asl with warm temperate climatic
conditions prevailing in the area. Since there is no nearby meteorological station established in
the region, the climatic data from Kanglung have been used as a near equivalent. Kanglung,
which is situated at an altitude of 1800 m is slightly warmer than Balam. The mean minimum
temperature drops to about 2.6º C in January, and rises to about 16.8º C in July. The mean
maximum temperature rises from about 13.8º C in January to 24.8º C during August. The mean
minimum rainfall is about 4.0 mm in December and the mean maximum rainfall is about 278
mm during July with average annual rainfall of about 1224 mm.
2.2
Geology, soils and land degradation processes
The study area falls under the Shumar Formation which is comprised of main rock types such as
phyllite, schist & quartzite (NSSC, 2005 & 2006). Phyllites and schists are relatively soft, easily
weathered and give predominantly silty to loamy soils. This suggests that a slope with phyllite
and schists as the main underlying parent material is more susceptible to land degradation, due to
higher erodibility of the soils. The area has predominantly northerly aspect, with slopes generally
measuring from 15 to 35°. Nevertheless, some pockets of arable land at Balam measure up to
40º. Moderately heavy soils (silty loam texture) are common in the geogs, however, there are
also light soils found in some areas. The main degradation processes identified in the two geogs
include surface erosion, rills, gullies, landslips and landslides (NSSC, 2006). Today, one could
see gullies dissecting the farmlands from head to toe.
1
Sub-administrative boundary within a district
Literally translated as a district
3
Sub-administrative boundary within a geog
2
-7-
Figure 2. Location map of the research sites, Chaskhar and Balam geogs.
-8-
Figure 3. Land degradation features in the two watersheds; gullies in Balam (Right) and landslides in
Chaskhar (Left).
2.3
Land use
The land use in the study area is not diverse. For this research, the land use in the two geogs has
been classified into the following four classes: arable dryland, arable wetland, shrub land (also
called degraded forest land) and forest. An additional class of land category termed as arable
fallow land (AFL) has been identified for Chaskhar due to many counts of uncultivated land
parcels observed during this fieldwork.
The farmers in the two geogs usually practice subsistence farming. Maize is the predominant
crop grown on dryland followed by wheat and barley. Potato is usually intercropped with maize.
Rice-paddy is cultivated on a much smaller scale.
Figure 4. Land use patterns observed in the research sites; Bamal(Right) and Chaskhar (Left).
-9-
3
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES
The fact that the factors causing land degradation are inter-linked makes it complicated to
address the issue. Appropriate measures are required to be in place to remediate the problem, in
whose absence, things may turn for the worse. In Bhutan there is steady increase of population
with an average growth of 2.3% (NSB, 2007; NSSC, 2009), and people cultivate crops and carry
out other farming activities on steep slopes. It is important not only to look at these entities as
primary causes of land degradation, but also to look at factors outside these domains. Getting to
know about the local perceptions regarding land degradation problems prevalent in the area, how
people deal with it, how they relate the problem to variable factors, etc. is crucial. In essence, all
this stresses the need to look at things such as farmers’ knowledge of soils vis-à-vis land
degradation, their economic situation, the vital trends in the community, etc. since these
attributes can influence them to take up other activities in the area that may have unexpected
implications.
The need to focus on the socio-economic factors in causing land degradation is undeniably vital
for a wide spectrum of actors: 1) the policy makers to help them during formulation of policies,
2) the researchers to give them better insights about the current scenarios and future
attentions/directions, 3) the extension agents to help them plan their activities whilst avoiding
land degradation, 4) and other advocates of land including the progressive farmers. The proposed
research has the following main goal to:
Study the dynamics of the socio-economic situation of communities in relation to land
degradation.
3.1
Specific research objectives
The above goal will be reached by addressing the following objectives:
Objective 1: Identify different land use systems and soil and water conservation practices, and
map land degradation processes prevalent in the study areas.
Objective 2: Study how socio-economic situations have changed over the years, and how did
this affect land degradation?
3.1.1 Research sub-questions
The above research objectives can be made operational by addressing the following subquestions:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Is there a change in farming activities; the way people practice agriculture?
How has the livelihood of people changed over the years?
How has the land use systems changed?
What are the different types of land degradation prevalent in the area?
What indigenous and recently introduced SWC practices found?
- 10 -
4
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
4.1
Existing research results
In the context of land degradation processes, there are numerous studies carried out. However,
the majority of these studies are in empirical form, while comparatively few have looked into the
social and economic attributes contributing to land degradation (Mazzucato & Niemeijer, 2000).
The formulation of a methodology to address land degradation problem has been perceived as
one of the greatest challenges and it will remain to be so if the strategies remain unaltered for
now and in future (Mazzucato & Niemeijer, 2000).
It would be really unjust to make coarse assumptions to say that lack of proper research on the
subject curtails various stakeholders to address land degradation issues as desired. Unlike in
other places, there are not many formal studies accomplished within the domain of land
degradation caused by water erosion. On a secondary note, one would find some general
assessments on land degradation executed by the National Soil Services Centre, NSSC (Rinzin,
2008). Apart from this, Turkelboom and Wangchuck (2001) have done a holistic study to assess
the land degradation in the Eastern part of Bhutan which covers the current study sites, Norbu et
al., (2003) have made an overview assessment of land degradation in Bhutan, etc. The more
promising thing is, these days there are more studies conducted with a particular focus in this
area.4 This is encouraging, because according to Alewell et al. (2008), the “mountain systems all
over the world are unique in their ecology, economy and cultural diversity.” Others say that
ecological conditions in the mountain areas vary spatially, even within short distances (Paudel &
Thapa, 2004). This required that one considers a particular land degradation problem in its
specific local context.
4.2
Theories and assumptions used in this research
Anthropogenic actions bring about environmental changes, although some studies claim that
these are weakly linked to land degradation (Valentin et al., 2008). People exploit it and shift the
balance of environmental settings when they over exploit the resources. Those factors that are
implicit get less attention and people pay the price for it at the end (Mazzucato & Niemeijer,
2000). According to Person and Ison (1997) land degradation can be treated as a socially
constructed issue and not as naturally modified systems and/or processes; something that
happens outside the knowledge of people. People are part of the subject (here land degradation),
rather than independent of, or external to it. They influence land degradation in more than one
way, by intervening in the bio-physical and environmental processes. According to Jones (1996),
nature can be subjectively analysed. The process in nature doesn’t start by itself, but it is
triggered from outside; either due to individual action, or due to collective actions of actors. In
essence, it converges to a point where it would be more rational to recognize that “land
degradation problems don’t exist out in the field” (Pearson & Ison, 1997). On the contrary, this
may be untrue in the Himalayan setting, since the land degradation features such as gullies and
landslides have started purely as a result of natural conditions (Bali et al., 2009).
4
Personal communication with Program Director, National Soil Services Centre (NSSC), Ministry of Agriculture,
Thimphu, September, 2009.
- 11 -
No strategic solution is available for a problem created out of social construct, which is generally
linked to the multi-disciplinarity within the framework of the subject. Unlike fundamental
science where things are generally viewed “objectively” (positivism), societal shaping is
necessary to develop the process and validate knowledge on the existing one (constructivism).
Therefore, it forces one to make a stance that understanding the dynamics of socio-economic and
environmental circumstances in causing land degradation is so vital. This may have gained
inadequate consideration hitherto. Within the realm of land degradation, farmers change and
adapt ‘new techniques to fit local requirements’ (Amsalu & de Graaff, 2006). The same has been
voiced in the works of Boardman et al., (2003) when they pointed out that “farmers have to
make a living and therefore will have to decide which crops to grow; depending on which ones
give them better economic returns.” This signals that farmers don’t take much account of an
impact it would have on an environment.
Alterations in the social and economical stratum of households influence how people manage
their land in a different way (Pearson & Ison, 1997), which is generally termed as co-evolution.
On the other hand, the gradual environmental change (not the focus of this research), though its
influence is debatable, alters the existing processes. On the issue concerning land degradation,
Mushala (1997) says that “socio-economic and political factors have to be fully analyzed in order
to address the land degradation issues more convincingly.” The latter is not a constraint, at least
in Bhutan.
The changes in the societal web may be seen in the form of farmers adopting different cropping
practices, there may be shift in the labour contribution affecting the land management aspects,
etc. Here, it is a personal opinion to interpret the social change as the change in the nature of
social institutions, the societal behaviour, or the social relations of a society, community of
people, etc. in relation of land management practices. On the other hand, economic status of the
farmers and community as a whole changes with time. This can possibly occur due to the
development programs directed by the government through the extension services, or through
self replication of income generating activities observed elsewhere. In the process, do farmers
and communities foresee eventual consequences?
The strength of interplay of anthropogenic, bio-physical and environmental factors makes it
seemingly difficult to deal with the factors in isolation. The following figure (Figure 5) depicts
an iterative network of these factors. The causal-effect relationship between and among the
factors are strongly inter-linked and are implicit. The factors don’t act independently. This very
nature of an existing interplay of factors demands a need to treat land degradation issues with
caution. Where the degree of complexity is extremely high, cross-sectoral approach may be a
way forward to deal with an eventual outcome. Looking at the figure, a number of points can be
made to justify what has been said before, for instance, consider the following two situations:
•
In a broader sense, population growth may be regarded as the prime cause of land
degradation. This begins by intense resource management and farming. The problem is
further aggravated when these events take place on fragile land
- 12 -
•
The change in the socio-economic strata of communities may change with the way people
manage land and other resources. This effect may be either positive impacting the
environment in a desired way, or negative accelerating an environmental degradation
The theory surrounding land degradation has much in common with the spider-web metaphor
which is normally used to epitomise the cross-disciplinary co-operation. In the figure below, the
system boundary for the conceptual framework is set local and the double arrow heads indicate
there exist either positive or negative influences of the respective factors.
Figure 5. Conceptual framework showing iterative network of factors.
- 13 -
5
METHODOLOGY
5.1
Choice of methods
The field work was designed into four stages which include; 1) discussion with key informants,
2) transect walks and mapping, 3) household surveys and 4) informal farmers’ meeting. The idea
of stages 1, 3 and 4 was borrowed from Tenge et al., (2003). Furthermore, stages 3 and 4
involved the geog extension staff members, who acted as enumerators in the later stages of the
fieldwork.
•
The first stage comprised of a discussion with key informants and farmer groups. This was
aimed to collect background information of the area, discuss about he changes in land use,
land cover and land degradation and collect general idea of the farming activities.
•
The semi-structured questionnaires were pre-designed (Appendix 1) to be used during the
household interviews among the selected households. The design of survey forms is partly
based from Fredrich (1977). This exercise was aimed at collecting both qualitative and
quantitative information on social, economic aspects and soil and water conservation (SWC)
practices.
•
This exercise was particularly focused on an informal farmers’ meeting to be conducted on a
particular day. It was aimed at gathering information on local knowledge on soils and land
degradation, its perceptions, information on soil and water conservation, etc., using predesigned guidelines (Appendix 2).
•
The last exercise involving transect walk was aimed to verify the information gathered from
informants. The land degradation features will be recorded and ground truthing of the images
(SPOT 1989 and ALOS 2007) will be done during the time. The spatial resolution of the
images was 10 m with a scale of 1:50,000. The GPS tool was used to take the coordinates of
land degradation features observed during the transect walks.
5.2
Data collection
This will be discussed in three main sections. Firstly, during the household survey data on
labour, involvement in the off-farm works, crops, livestock animals, inventory changes,
information on inputs/outputs and farmers perception was collected. There were 7 enumerators
in Chaskhar who conducted 42 household surveys and 5 in Balam who completed 31 household
surveys.
Secondly, collection of the indigenous technical knowledge (ITK) which farmers possess is the
main idea. During the meeting, 6 groups of about 10 farmers were formed in Chaskhar and 4
groups of 10 farmer members were formed in Balam. An enumerator facilitated each group to
help in collecting the information outlined in the guidelines. Information on how they classify
the soils around them, their erosion perceptions and hazards and the existence of soil and SWC
in their area were collected.
- 14 -
The last exercise was the transect walk and mapping. Preparation of a land degradation field map
was one of the tasks here. During the exercise, key informants and extension staff members were
involved as an aide during the fieldwork. At the time of mapping, anything which is more severe
than rill erosion was noted and recorded using GPS to peg the location of the degradation
features. Where possible, tracks were recorded for gullies and landslides. Importance was also
given to distinguish between gullies formed by seasonal and perennial springs. In addition,
ground truthing of images was done in consultation with key informants comprising of the senior
members in the community.
Figure 6. Gathering farmers’ knowledge on soils and their perceptions about soil erosion.
5.3
Data analysis
During the fieldwork the information was stored mainly in survey forms, charts and in field
books. These data were then assembled and transferred into Microsoft Excel format for analysis.
The results are presented in the form of tables and figures.
ArcGIS (Version 6.0) was used to digitize land degradation field map, land use and land cover
maps using ALOS and SPOT images. To get an idea of the study areas and to comprehend the
land degradation processes, a land degradation field map was also prepared. The land use and
land cover maps were important in particular to quantity the changes that have taken place over
the years.
- 15 -
6
RESULTS & DISCUSSION (1): The farm household and
their resources
Two watersheds were chosen for the fieldwork of this thesis: Guda-ri watershed in Chaskhar
Geog and Radhi-ri watershed in Balam Geog. The former is bigger than the latter. The results
collected on farmers’ perceptions are presented in various formats such as figures, tables and
excerpts, etc. The excerpts obtained from the farmers are presented in italics. Furthermore, it
may be pointed out that some results were adapted from other studies to add to and validate the
findings from this research.
Farmers in both the watersheds practice mixed farming. Maize is the principal crop grown in
both the geogs. It is usually intercropped with potatoes. In Chaskhar wheat is generally sown
after maize, whereas in Balam farmers also cultivate upland rice and fox-tail millet. Rice-paddy
is also cultivated, but on a much smaller scale, in contrast to other crops. While presenting the
results from the livestock farming, mainly cattle and draught animals are considered.
For logistic reasons, the results and discussions are split into two sections (Section 6 and 7). The
current section presents the results obtained during the household survey. It maintains the
following order: 1) farm family, 2) farm land and inventory changes, cropping practices, soil and
water conservation, 3) livestock & draught animals and 4) financial liability.
6.1
Farm family
Table 2 shows the distribution of all the household members in the two geogs. It is observed that
the most striking thing it reveals is the percentage of household members involved in off-farm
activities (Figure 7). In Chaskhar (n=42), about 10% of the family members are engaged in offfarm activities against 3% in Balam (n=31). Therefore, the fraction of people who are involved
in the off-farm work is high in Chaskhar. Some of the main off-farm works (OFW) include
construction industries, service industries, logging, extraction of lemon grass oil, etc. The survey
results indicated that those family members who engage in off-farm work spend less than 25% of
their time in the field doing farm activities. But there are majority of others who take up only
seasonal off-farm work, in particular, in winter when the farm activities are less.
The income generated from the off-farm activities is not presented here. However, it was found
that the highest annual income which a farmer has generated from the off-farm work exceeds Nu.
80,000, and minimum of Nu 7000.5 This income is generally utilised in different ways,
depending on the basic needs and the amount they have. Some of the items recorded during the
survey are purchase of household items, roofing materials such as Corrugated Galvanised Iron
(CGI), invest in farm capital, etc. On the other hand, some farmers even allocate a small fraction
of the money from off-farm work to make repayment of loans they acquired from institutions
such as Bhutan Development Finance Corporation Limited (BDFCL). The BDFCL is the only
financial institution who provides agriculture related loans to the farmers. It is noteworthy to
mention that the institution has capped the interest rate at 15% per annum, for duration of 5 years
5
Ngultrum (Nu) is the unit of local currency; 1€ = Nu 62.10, Source http://www.bbs.com.bt/. Access date
17/02/2010.
- 16 -
for agricultural loans. This, according to the farmers is quite high considering their limited
income sources. The use of CGI sheets as roofing materials gives additional concern. According
to the informants in both the geogs, this was less common about 20 years ago. Although there are
no formal studies done on it, farmers usually link land degradation to the runoff generated by the
roofing materials.
Table 2. Household labour and its distribution
Family members
School going
ni
working on the farm
children
Chaskhar 42 123
62
Balam
31 91
60
Old ( > 65
years)
17
10
Young (< 6, or
15 years)ii
27
15
Othersiii Total
23
6
252
182
Assumptions:
i:
Number of households
ii:
Children <15 years- ones not going to school. Schooling age for children assumed to be ≥ 6 years
iii:
Members of farm household engaged in off-farm activities
60.0
percent
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Labour
School
Old
Farm family distribution
Young
OFW
Chaskhar
Balam
Figure 7. Household labour distribution in the study areas.
6.2
Farm land
In Chaskhar a household owns a mean landholding of 3.7 acres with a maximum of 7.7 acres and
a minimum 0.8 acres (SD= 1.94). Whereas, in Balam, the mean land holding is 3.7 acres with a
maximum of 8.7 acres and a minimum of 1.0 acres (SD = 1.66).
Farmers may not have invested in land improvement in the past. However, this is an increasing
practice these days. There were some households who make some investments in improving land
parcels. It was also realised that farmers generally invest in those land parcels which are close to
the homestead and in relatively larger ones. While the amount invested is quite small, this could
be taken as a good start for farmers since they have started valuing their land. Similar
observations were also mentioned by Kessler (2004) in the Peruvian highlands where farmers
tend to care better for those land parcels surrounding their farm houses. The locations of land
parcels far away from the homesteads discourage farmers to make any investment, since this can
- 17 -
cost them time and energy. On the other hand, it was also discovered that farmers have the
tendency to abandon the smaller parcels when they own more parcels. This trend is common
particularly in Chaskhar. There are two main reasons cited for long term fallowing: 1) firstly,
when the land parcels are located quite far away from the homestead. This is because it is
advantageous for farmers to cultivate those land parcels close to their homestead and 2)
secondly, when the farmers who own several parcels of fragmented land has an option to leave
the smaller parcels uncultivated. This is because cultivation small parcel of land parcel requires
an equal number of labour, especially when they have to protect against the wild pests.
Other secondary factors coercing farmers to leave the land fallow are the soil bio-physical factors
such as very light soil texture (of sandy nature), very steep slopes, presence of restricting factors
such as land degradation processes especially huge gullies, landslides and crack zones and very
high content of stones and gravels. This correlates well with the findings of Vanacker et al.,
(2003) who observed that land users abandon land on steep areas due to erosion risk and they
focus more to cultivate in less erosion prone areas. It also partly agrees with Harden (1994) who
mentioned that the primary reasons for land abandonments are not solely related to the
productivity of land. There are other reasons which we fail to comprehend, for instance, the
impact of social changes are not noticed easily. During the discussion on fallowing with the key
informants, one of them had the following to say:
“Before the arrival of a road in the village I have never seen so many parcels of land
left fallow. But things have changed a lot ever since the village was connected to a
road. Youngsters started moving out; men looking for small jobs and women as brides.
These effluxes of younger generation have left behind the land inherited from the
parents, and which are registered in their names. For the people in the village, road
was an eye-opener ….”
[Mr. Nawang Dechen, 78, Chaskhar]
According to the Population and Housing Census of Bhutan (PHCB, 2005), the population
growth rate for the year is recorded at 1.3% per annum and a population density of 16 people per
km2, which is quite high for Bhutan. A number of researchers such as: Ndiaye and Sofranko
(1994), Lefroy et al., (2000), Descroix and Gautier (2002), and Niroula and Thapa (2005) point
out that the rapid population growth and an increased population density have potentially serious
environmental and agricultural consequence. And this has been a particular case in the
developing countries. A rather strong premonition was put forward by Malthus’ Theory on
Population Principle which states that “…the population growth leads to environmental
degradation…” Should this theory be accepted to be true then it is unsound not only for Bhutan,
but also for majority of the countries in the world, bar for instance Japan and Italy. A number of
scholars, including Boserup (1965), Geertz (1963) and Tiffen et al., (1994) (cited in Niroula &
Thapa, 2005) reject this theory and agree instead that population growth can in fact contribute to
land improvement. Surprisingly, this was also voiced by one of the participants during the
meeting who said the following:
“I don’t think land fragmentation is a problem. In fact, the smaller the land parcels the
easier it is to manage it.”
[Mr. Chhimi Rinzin, 35, Chaskhar]
- 18 -
Children generally inherit parental property in almost all parts of the country. In view of the
existing social settings and situations within Bhutan, the practice of land fragmentation will
continue unabated. This is really worrying. The eventual result of land fragmentation is
dispersion of small land parcels which will not only accelerate degradation and constrain
agriculture development (Niroula & Thapa, 2005), but also complicate the delivery of effective
extension services (Ndiaye & Sofranko, 1994). The practice of abandoning the fragmented land
parcels can pose greater risk of rapid runoff and soil erosion (Harden, 1994). In his study,
Harden (1995) found out that the “runoff and erosion rates on the abandoned/fallow fields are
significantly higher than those of the cultivated lands.” But, this may be true only in the initial
stages. The reason is fallowing could lead to increased vegetation cover and ultimately return
land use to forest (Descroix & Gautier, 2002), thus decreasing land degradation in the long run.
6.2.1 Changes with regard to farmland
There are some changes that have taken place regarding the farmland, especially in areas of land
purchase. The analysis of the inventory changes for the farmland (Table 3) suggests that there are
specific household factors to consider. The vital observations are:
1) In Chaskhar:
• One household who has purchased land doesn’t have anyone in the family working in
off-farm activities, but has someone to support them through remittances. The family size
of the household is quite big (8 members).
• Three households who have purchased land have at least one member engaged in an offfarm activity. They have a comparatively small family size (4 to 5 members)
2) In Balam, the situation is quite different:
• All three households have a big family size (from 6 to 10 members), and less land parcels
in comparison with Chaskhar. In addition, comparatively there are less households have
family members working in any off-farm activities, but they do have someone supporting
the household financially.
Therefore, we see two completely different situations: Type 1- a farmer who invests in more land
because he has a bigger family size, and Type 2- one who has a smaller family size, but wants to
invest because he has other resources to do so. It is statistically not justifiable to draw a
conclusion at this point. However, the factors surrounding those farmers with bigger families
purchase land in order that their children have something to inherit in future. It is understood that
it is a result of long term thinking.
In an earlier study carried out by Turkelboom and Wangchuk (2009) in Eastern Bhutan, it was
found that most of the households they surveyed expect an increase in household wealth (Table
4). This is surprising because they also perceive a decline in average landholding size and farm
labour. One may argue that these assumptions are made because:
• The country has started the planned development programs only in early 1970s. This has
brought dramatic changes in the lives of farmers in rural Bhutan. Therefore, farmers still
think that they will be better-off in the future.
• Unlike in the past, the developmental activities follow a bottom-up approach. These days,
farmers are actively involved during the planning phase, before the start of the new financial
- 19 -
year. One would presume that involvement of farmers themselves to prioritise their activities
and needs in the community strengthens their feeling that development is inevitable.
Table 3. Changes taken place over the past year with regards to farmland.
Chaskhar
No. of
household
1
Change
Buy
Area (acre)
1
Family size
8
Land parcels
4
Off-farm work
No
Family support
from outside
Yes
Balam
2
3
4
1
2
3
Buy
1+i1
4
5
Yes
Buy
0.5+0.1
4
5
Yes
Buy
0.5
5
3
Yes
Buy
1
6
2
None
Buy
0.33
7
3
None
Buy
3.33
10
3
None
-
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
i
: purchase of more than one parcel
Table 4. Perceived trends for household and livelihood related parameters (Adapted from Turkelboom &
Wangchuk, 2009).
6.2.2 Cropping & crop inputs and outputs
Cropping practices have undergone some form of change during the last decade or two.
According to the informants, slash and burn practices (called tseri) were the common practices
of the past. Nowadays, farmers practice sedentary farming. This may be because of the
Governments’ regulation to end the practice- once and for all (Turkelboom & Wangchuk, 2009).
According to them, the ban on tseri practice was imposed by the government on grounds of
widely proclaimed perception that practice of shifting cultivation is unsustainable and damaging
to the environment. This didn’t have much negative affect on farmers. One of the informant said
the following:
- 20 -
“…we now have more time to spend on other activities ever since we stopped shifting
cultivation. Life used to be hard before...”
[Mrs. Tashi, 40, Balam]
Having settled cultivation is an added advantage to the environment. Theoretically, this would
probably have positive impact. However, on very fragile landscapes where farmers cultivate on
steep slopes, the reverse could be expected if better management practices are not adopted.
Continued cultivation on a piece of land would result in nutrient exhaustion of topsoil which
eventually triggers loss of topsoil and hence soil erosion (Ndiaye & Sofranko, 1994). Boardman
et al., (2003) point out three causes for land degradation from a farmland which has conventional
farming practice in place: 1) the tillage method of cultivation exposes soil to wind and water
erosion in contrast to no-tillage or minimum tillage-methods, 2) the farming practices associated
with some crops generate more runoff and soil erosion than others and 3) a particular crop may
be inherently at high risk in generating runoff and erosion, for instance, this may be because of
the distance between them. An estimated 98% of the agriculture farming in Bhutan is
conventional. This poses a particular threat to the country. The farmers practice conventional
farming and will continue to do so. Recently, NSSC (2009) measured significantly higher soil
loss rates of 8.6 ton/ha from plots with traditional practice with local cropping practice which
was significantly higher than the measurements from traditional practice with two hedgerows
maintained at 5 m interval (6.3 ton/ha) and from traditional practice with legume cropping along
with 2 hedgerows maintained at 5 m interval (3.8 ton/ha). The rate of soil loss from the bare plots
was measured to be about 34.4 ton/ha. This is appalling and it echoes the crucial function of
ground cover needed to protect the soil from erosion.
Various changes take place in Bhutan, not only in the urban areas, but also in the rural settings.
In the research areas it was noticed that farmers have started investing in farm machinery such as
power tillers and in livestock, although this is particularly seen in Chaskhar. These changes are
welcome, but its eventual implications should be closely monitored. Next to the use of farmyard
manure (FYM), some farmers use chemical fertilizers to boost crop production and pesticides to
avoid crop losses through pests and diseases. This was expressed in the words of one of the
informants:
“There are differences in farming practices. In the old days everything used to be
damaged completely, but these days’ pesticides can be used when there is an outbreak of
diseases, thus there will be more harvest at the end. People have started investing in
farm machineries such as power tillers, although the majority still use draught animals
for ploughing.”
[Maemey Sangay, 81, at Chaskhar]
Having emphasised on the changes that have occurred, it has to be reminded that the crops
grown in the communities have not changed over the years, although there is an increasing use of
improved varieties of seed for grains and vegetables.
- 21 -
Crop inputs and outputs
The input/output section of the questionnaire gives details about yields, particularly on cereals
such as maize and rice-paddy. Secondary data was used to calculate the national, dzongkhag and
geog averages of maize and rice-paddy yields. Further, a yield comparison was also made with
the same agro-ecological zones and countries in the region who boasts about bumper production.
Secondary data sources from FAO (2009) were used for this purpose. The results show that
maize production in both the research areas is comparable to the district and national averages.
Conversely, rice yields are slightly higher than the district averages, but comparable to the
national average (Table 5).
Table 5. Inter and intra-regional comparison of yield for crops (in ton/ha).
Crop
Bhutan Nepal
Maize
Rice- paddy
Crop
Maize
Rice-paddy
2.20
2.27
District
2.76
1.71
Thailand
1.93
Vietnam
3.79
2.69
3.27
2.74
Geog
Chaskhar
Balam
2.95
1.11
3.01
1.94
4.61
Current Finding
Chaskhar
Balam
2.39
1.98
2.50
2.07
Source: CountrySTAT-Bhutan (2009)
Note: The National, District and Geog readings are averaged data from 1999–2007, whereas the readings
under the research column was obtained from 2008 farm data.
It is also evident that the national average crop yields are also comparable to the production
recorded in Nepal which has similar agro-ecological conditions. However, the average maize
yield is about 72% less than the production in Thailand (2.2 vs. 3.8 ton/ha) and the production
gap for the rice-paddy is even wider comparing it with the average yield in Vietnam (2.3 vs. 4.6
ton/ha), which is computed to be about 103%. This considerable production gap in comparison
with other countries in the region is not surprising for various reasons: 1) they farm very
intensively, so huge differences in the inputs are expected, 2) cultivation is usually in the
lowlands where the soils are deeper and more fertile, 3) the agro-climatic conditions are more
favourable, etc.
6.2.3 Soil and Water Conservation
The inventory on the existing SWC technologies found in the two geogs were performed during
the farmers’ meeting (Section 5.2). During the session, it emerged that there are two SWC types:
• Conventional: This refers to the SWC technologies which have evolved locally. These
include techniques such as spreading of leaf mould, simple drainage lines, plantations,
terracing, stone bunds, application of FYM, etc.
• Modern: It refers to those technologies which are introduced recently (or in last decade)
through extension services. These are introduced SWC technologies comprising of agro-
- 22 -
forestry, bench terraces, drainage, plantation (fodder, fruit & tree seedlings), check dams
(both stone & log), stone pitching, grass slip planting, etc.
Some of the SWC technology terms seem similar, but their motive for introduction and utility are
slightly different. Some differences are discussed below (Table 6).
Table 6. Overview of soil and water conservation technologies.
Technology
Conventional
Modern
1
Plantations
Plant bamboo and fodder trees on the
edge of the fields, usually randomly.
Farmers complain about the impact
of shading on crop growth
Particularly done in the landslide prone areas and
in larger setting to stabilise the degraded areas.
There are numerous methods; random, diagonal,
triangular, etc.
2
Terraces
Farmers make terraces on both
dryland (to make the area flatter) &
wetland terraces (to contain water).
Do not follow contour lines during
construction
Refers to both wetland and dryland terraces.
Expect to conserve both soil and water. Use Aframe to demarcate contour interval
3
Stone bunds
Found both in the dryland (to flatten
the land surface) & wetlands (support
the terrace riser). Constructed on the
farmland without following contour
lines
Constructed along the contour lines and gradients.
Expect to conserve soil and water. Use A-frame
to demarcate the contour lines
4
Spreading leaf
mould/ mulching
To supplement soil nutrients, or as a
substitute for FYM
On bare soils to protect soils and reduce run-off
from upslope
5
Drainage
Simple water pathways; outlet not
necessarily in the safe place
Properly calculated and much bigger canals with
outlet draining out to a safer place
Considering the above differences, it’s worth pointing out that of the two methods, the
conventional method is intended to improve the workability of farmers. These tools are
something which farmers have devised for themselves. On the other hand, the introduced SWC
techniques have broader function, i.e. to eventually help promote sustainable land management
on the sloping farmlands.
The need to make a collective effort by the stakeholders in promoting SLM has been recognized
in the National policies (NSSC, 2009). As the focus towards SLM intensifies in Bhutan, it is
expected that introduction and farmers’ adoption of Western SWC technologies will become
more pronounced. It is a personal opinion to assume that there are technologies embedded in the
village settings and these are not recognized so far. Therefore, unearthing the ITK of farmers
would be essential to tackle the growing land degradation issues. As land managers, farmers
need to comprehend its utility and functions. It is also necessary to realize at this point that
technology transfer (SWC) following the ‘pick and drop’ strategy is more likely to fail. Adoption
of technology, once introduced in the field may depend on factors such as: availability of raw
- 23 -
materials, the timing when technology was first introduced in the area, farmers’ awareness about
the need to manage land properly, profitability of the technology, etc. In Chaskhar, the
construction of stone walls and stone pitching in the gully and landslide areas are more common
since there are stones available (material availability). The wood lots are established close to the
villages since the communal areas from where forest product can be harvested is quite far off and
scarce. This in fact agrees with Pender and Kerr (1998) who point out that adoption of SWC
practices is specific to a particular village, household or a plot. It is site specific. According to
Mr. Sonam Phuntsho, an agriculture extension staff member of Balam geog, few SWC
technologies are introduced quite recently. These are found in the demonstration which is set up
in the village. However, there are also indications that hedgerows have arrived much earlier as
shown by the terraces in the dryland areas (Figure 3 & 4).
Studies in other districts in Bhutan indicate that farmers are willing to accept and/or adopt those
SWC technologies which give them benefits in the short run (NSSC, 2006; Rinzin, 2008). These
findings are consistent with what was observed in other settings (Algre & Rao, 1995; Amsalu &
de Graaff, 2006). It was found that farmers failed to adopt hedgerows because up to 22% of the
land area is lost to the hedgerows and it’s partly because this technique require a longer timespan to realize the benefits of soil and water conservation. For technologies to be sustainable and
to have the desired impact it would be vital to respect the local conditions since each place is
unique (Alewell et al., 2008) and the effort to promote SWC activities should be designed
according to local conditions (Pender & Kerr, 1998). There is no ‘one-size fits all’ situation. In
essence, the approach adapted by The Sustainable Land Management Project (SLMP) of NSSC
to “package” the short term and long term interventions to help the SWC adoption rates by
farmers could be a way forward.
Following the discussion on long term fallowing (Section 6.2), it is appropriate to reintroduce
this once again. Land fragmentation can have negative implication on adoption of SWC. This
was evident from other studies including Niroula and Thapa (2005) who argued that this is
because small land holdings discourage farmers from adopting agricultural innovations. This
partly agrees with the points raised by Pender and Kerr (1998), who expressed that those farmers
who have bigger and more number of land parcels invest more in SWC, as they face less credit
constraint. However, one would be tempted to argue that this relation is quite broad. This is
because, it may be also argued that a farmer with less land will intensity its cultivation and invest
in SWC.
6.3
Livestock
Considering the livestock sector (in particular cattle), there are significant differences between
the two communities, especially pertaining to the type of breeds farmers own. In Chaskhar, more
than 50% of the households own mixed and improved cattle breeds (Table 7). On average,
farmers in Chaskhar own about 8.4 cattle whereas the average number in Balam is only 2.7 per
household. It is also striking to see that about 19% of the farmers in Balam do not own any
cattle.
- 24 -
The draught power is usually employed for helping during the farm activities (oxen) and for
transportation purposes (horses & mules)6. Of the households survey during the fieldwork, >
50% in both the geogs own oxen which they employ for ploughing. There are more households
in Balam (about 45%) who own horses and mules than in Chaskhar (about 21%).
Table 7. Overview of livestock and draught animals.
Livestock animals
Chaskhar
h/hs %
Balam
h/hs %
Draft animals
Chaskhar Balam
Local breed
13
31
8
26
H/hs with oxen (%)
57
68
Mixed
20
48
15
48
H/hs with Horse/ mule (%)
21
45
Improved
4
10
0
0
H/hs with donkey (%)
0
0
Unspecified
5
12
2
6
% H/hs who source from draft animal
7
29
None
0
0
6
19
Av. cattle per h/hs
8
3
Although this study failed to obtain figures about animal productions, discussion with farmer
groups and informants indicated that households in Chaskhar market animal products to the
nearby towns. The CountrySTAT-Bhutan (2009) brings the following annual production figures
(kg/year) compiled during the year 2007. The numbers in brackets relate to production per
family (kg). The differences in the production figures persuade one to realize that communities
in Chaskhar generate more income from livestock farming.
Chaskhar:
Balam:
Milk = 299,904 (556.3) Butter = 21,168 (46.3) Cheese = 57,360 (125.5)
Milk = 16,130 (71.1) Butter = 1,819 (8.0)
Cheese = 1,655 (7.3)
Taking into account the average number of cattle that an individual household possess, one may
be tempted to argue that the land degradation in Chaskhar due to overgrazing. The credibility of
this assumption was further strengthened by the findings of Harden (1994) who showed high
runoff and soil loss in the Andean mountains attributed to the effect of trampling by grazing.
Preston et al. (1997) also indicated that livestock activities impact environment in the similar
fashion.
6.3.1 Changes in the livestock
There are not many changes recorded within the domain of livestock. The number of birth
records should have been high in Chaskhar, considering the average number of cattle owned by
each household. There are some purchases made (Table 8). It emerged during the data collection
that the farmers in Chaskhar purchased Jersey cows, whereas the purchases made in Balam
concerned improved local cattle breeds. The record for this change is poor, either because the
respondents were not willing to share the information, or because of inconsistent recording by
the enumerator.
6
Mules and horses are categorized as draught powers
- 25 -
Furthermore, some changes have occurred in draught animals, especially in Balam. Of the 5
households with livestock changes, it is realised that farmers have purchased oxens and
horses/mules. This suggests the farmers’ dependency on the draught animals for their
livelihoods.
Table 8. Livestock inventory changes.
Chaskhar
Balam
Birth Death Purchase Sale Birth Death Purchase Sale
Number of cattle 7
3
6
2
7
4
7
-
In Chaskhar, a substantially greater number of households own improved cattle breeds, whereas
it is quite small at Balam. One may argue that this is understandable, keeping in mind that the
former is situated strategically, so that the farmers can easily market their produce. A similar
observation was also made by other researchers when communities have better accessibility.
While in contrast, farmers in Balam have no access to nearby market. They have to travel hours
if they have to sell their farm produce. Thus, we realise that accessibility plays a significant role
in the development of communities in the rural areas.
6.4
Financial liability
About 48% of the households surveyed in Chaskhar have acquired loans from the financial
institution for various purposes (Table 9). The money was generally obtained for investment in
agriculture and for buying machineries through subsidies provided by the government. There are
few households who acquire loans for construction purposes and roofing materials. On the
contrary, only 2 households have acquired loans in Balam.
Table 9. Existing trends showing procurement of loans.
Details
Number of households
Chaskhar
Balam
Investment in agriculture
6
Investment in farm capital
6
Structure including roofing
3
Consumption
2
Others (not specified)
3
0
0
1
0
1
The observation of differences in situation regarding application of credit draws attention to two
basic questions: 1) Are the farmers in Balam unaware about the availability of the loan
schemes?, and 2) Are they not eligible for for the credit, since they cannot provide security? At
this point, it my be quite illogical to come up with a true answer. Nevertheless, by taking in
account of the findings from previous sections it would be more reasonable to say that they may
not be able to provide security. The truth can be realised from the insome figures. The diary
figures tend to indicate better income sources for households in Chaskhar, hence providing better
safety and collateral for loans.
- 26 -
7
RESULTS & DISCUSSION (2): Land use, land
degradation and farmers’ perceptions
This section presents the results obtained from: 1) land use and land cover mapping for the two
time scales, 2) the prevailing land degradation in the two geogs and 3) farmers’ perception on
land degradation, changes in farmland activities and economical changes. The latter part of this
section highlights the role of earthquakes in causing land degradation.
7.1
Land use and land cover changes
The Appendices 3 & 4 show the possible state of land use and land cover maps of the two
watersheds 20 years ago, whereas Appendices 5 & 6 show the current land use and land cover
maps of Guda-ri and Radhi-ri watersheds respectively. There are significant changes that have
occurred during the last decades.
Chaskhar (Appendices 3 and 5)
In Chaskhar, the observations made are: 1) the forest cover has increased from 68 to 66%; 2) the
total percentage of dryland area has decreased from 29 to 23%; 3) the wetland area has decreased
from 3 to 2%; 4) a large fraction of land emerge as degraded forest (labelled ‘SH’- shrubland)
account to 4% and 5) the fallow land constitute about 4% of the total watershed area (Table 10).
Balam (Appendices 4 and 6)
Meanwhile, in Balam it is observed that: 1) there was decrease of forest cover from 75 to 68%;
2) an increase of dryland area from 24 to 25%; 3) the increase of wetland from 0.6 to 1.2% and
4) the shrubs constitute 5% (Table 10).
Table 10. Land use changes occurred between 1989 and 2009 in Guda-ri and Radhi-ri watersheds.
Chaskhar (%)
Balam (%)
1989
Forest
Arable dryland
Arable wetland
Shrubland
Long term fallow
68
29
3
-
2009
66
23
2
4
4
1989
75
24
0.6
2.0
-
2009
68
25
1.2
7
-
The above figures suggest that land use and land cover in both the watersheds wave undergone
significant changes. The change in forest cover in Chaskhar is smaller than Balam (2% vs. 7%),
assuming that the shrublands are degraded forest lands. It may be argued that that significant
difference is because in Chaskhar, the communities may have resourced forest products
especially fire wood (to be used as fuel) from other places once they were connected by the road,
whereas in Balam people depend purely on the forest resources in the Radhi-ri watershed.
The decrease in tha arable dryland in Chaskhar is well explained by an increase of AFL. In
Balam, the increase in dryland percentage suggests that people have moved further in the forest
to cultivate. The reason for the decrease of wetland in Chaskhar is explained by the fact that
- 27 -
some wetlands were lost to infrastructure, such as schools and it was also observed that some
parcels were lost to land degradation such as landslides. All the land parcels that are left fallow
in Chaskhar have been affected by an invasive weed species, Axonopus compressus. This may
be responsible for generating runoff during heavy storms. This weed species are believed to be
behaving in the similar fashion because in other areas in Bhutan there are indications that these
fallow lands are grazed intensively as they are rare occurrence of pasture in a land use pattern of
dryland, wetland and forest.7 Interestingly, some informants also expressed that they see more
water flow from the fallow land, especially during the monsoon season. The fact that the
presence of vegetation exacerbates runoff raises eyebrows. In normal situations, the ground
cover would protect soil from eroding. This requires an in--depth study.
We realise that many things have changed over the last decades. The truth of Malthus’ Theory
becomes evident here. The land use and land cover changes are influenced principally by
population growth and increased population density in the area. Byramin et al. (2008) say that
land use changes have an implication on land degradation. The implication realised in the current
study is the acceleration of land degradation. There may not be any logical denial in this. It is not
really surprising to experience such alterations since the inhabitants in the watershed derive most
of the essential goods and services from the forest. The following excerpt sums up the transition
through which Guda-ri watershed has undergone:
“In the old days there used to be good forest coverage in the region, but through time
the forest cover has decreased significantly and so did the size of perennial springs. The
settlement has pushed the forest further.”
[Mr Ngawang Dechen, 78, Chaskhar]
7.2
Land degradation
During the mapping exercise, anything which is more severe than rill erosion was recorded. The
land degradation field map (Appendices 7 and 8) suggests that gullies and landslides are
generally concentrated along the hydrological networks. Further, the overlay of land degradation
field maps on land use and land cover maps show that gullies and landslides are particularly
located in areas where there is less or no vegetation cover in the area. Other forms of land
degradation features observed at the research sites are surface cracks and piping erosions in
Chaskhar and rock fall in Balam. The most notable observation made during the fieldwork was
the sight of numerous seasonal springs surging out from the landslide faces at Chaskhar.
Due to the stipulated time available for the fieldwork, measurements for gullies (such as width,
depth and length) and landslide areas were not done. Had it been a process based research, then
taking measurements would have been a must. The figures are intuitive in showing that
degradation processes are usually situated along the drainage lines within the watershed area.
Observation of other degradation features, particularly rills and its consequent mapping could
have been possible if the timing of fieldwork was arranged during the spring season when there
is minimum ground cover. Since the fieldwork was done in the month of October, it is perceived
that the timing was not ideal for mapping the land degradation features for two reasons: 1) there
7
Personal communication with Dr Hans van Noord, NSSC.
- 28 -
were standing crops in the field and 2) the rainfall season was just over. In contrast, it may not
have been possible to see the surging seasonal water from the side slopes.
The degradation features observed are dictated by the seasonal climatic conditions, especially the
precipitation. This is probable because most of the rainfall is concentrated during the summer
months, with peak in July (Appendix 9). Considering the geology of both the geogs which results
in soils with high erodibility on a steep slope, anything worse may be expected. This, coupled
with the unsustainable land management practices the soils could erode faster than the vegetation
could re-establish (Kakemboo & Rowntree, 2002). The temporal patterns of land degradation
were not studied in this research. However, a general look at these images reveals that there
exists a clear pattern over the years, observed in the form of deeply incised gullies along the
natural streams. This visual observation is well in line with the results obtained by Vanacker et
al., (2003) who found in one of the studies that one quarter of the survey area affected only by
rill erosion 23 years ago has since become incised by deep gullies. Farmers don’t differentiate
between the fresh gullies and the natural gullies along stream pathways. Gullies are sometimes
considered as badlands (Descroix & Gautier, 2002), and it seems this is true in the current
watersheds.
7.3
Farmers’ perceptions
7.3.1 Local soil classification
Soil samples were collected from various locations in the watershed. There were 6 soil samples
in Chaskhar (samples 1 to 6) and 4 in Balam (samples 6 to 9). The sample 6 was classified as
same. The determination of soil texture was also done by hand method. During the farmers’
meeting, the samples were presented for classification. Farmers classify soils either on the basis
of soil colour or texture. It is also common to add suffix to differentiate between same soil types,
for instance, Gumsa and Phu-gumsa are from textural point of view are same soils. Literally, the
suffix “Phu,” refers to high altitude (Table 11).
The local terms under column ‘soil types’ can be interpreted as: Solokpa sa: the light structure
less soil; Chema sa: the soils from slash and burn areas; Sakar: the pale yellowish brown soil;
Baetsa sa: sandy soil; Phug-gumsa: the high altitude clay soil; Gumsa: clay soil; Rothpa sa: the
soils from degraded areas; Sa Naa: the black soil; Munang sa: the soils whose structures look
like grains.
Considering the geographical location of the research sites it is not surprising that the soils are
not very different. This is expected because of several possible reasons: 1) the sites are located in
the same geological formation, 2) topographically they are similar, 3) the two sites have same
aspect (north facing), and 4) there are no wide differences in the climatic variation. The soils
described by farmers correlate to Cambisol, which can be found associated with Leptosols on a
very patchy spatial scale.
Thus, we realise that farmers have a vast knowledge on soils around them. Their perception on
soil erosion is quite remarkable. The classifications of soils are either based on colour or texture.
This was also indicated by Jones (1996).
- 29 -
Table 11. Overview of soil classification by farmers.
Reference Soil properties according to farmers
Sl/ Soil
Base
No Types
1
Solokpa sa
Texture
Well drained fertile soil; prone to soil erosion; surface
runoff is frequently seen; soil lumps are easily broken
& it’s easy to work with
2
Chema sa
Color
3
Sakar
Color
Very fertile well drained soil; less prone to erosion;
topsoil has debris & partially decomposed plant
material; structurally, soils are loose & easy to work
with; required no FYM addition to yield good harvest
Very sticky & slippery; has high stone content; soil
erosion is common; less productive.
4
Baetsa sa
Texture
5
Phugum sa
Texture
6
Gum sa
Texture
7
Rothpa sa
Texture
8
Sa Naa
Color
9
Munang sa
Texture
Light soils with particles separated; good for
cultivation, but has high chance of soil erosion; plants
experience water stress very easily.
High altitude soils; comes in big lumps when
excavated; very sticky and gives average crop
production.
Moderately fertile soil; topsoil is easily washed away
during rainfall; very hard when dry & makes
ploughing difficult; when exposed to prolonged
rainfall becomes very sticky & germination is hard,
but good crop growth observed afterwards; plants
experience less water stress; has low infiltration rate.
Found in areas where landslide and mass movement
are common; has more sand & stone content; only few
crops can be grown (some call it Baetsa sa)
Soil dries up & cracks easily when there is continuous
sunshine & plants suffer from water stress; can be
used for pottery works; quite fertile
Very fertile, well drained soil good for crop
cultivation; need less fertilizer; very easy to work with
and the soil is host to variety of soil animals.
Professional
classification
Silty loam (ZiL) soil
with very dark grayish
brown color (10YR
3/2)
Silty loam (ZiL) soil
with very dark grayish
brown color (10YR
3/2)
Gravelly sandy loam
(gv.SL) soil with brown
color (10YR 5/3)
Sandy loam (SL) soil
with grayish brown
color (10YR 5/2)
Silty clay loam (ZiCL)
soil with dark grayish
brown color (10YR
4/2)
Silty clay loam (ZiCL)
soil with dark yellowish
brown color (10YR
4/4)
Gravelly sandy loam
(gv.SL)
soil
with
grayish brown color
(10YR 5/2)
Silty loam (ZiL) soil
with black color (10YR
2/1)
Silty clay loam (ZiCL)
soil with vary dark
grayish brown color
(10YR 3/2)
Some reports indicated that farmers often use colour during classification of soils (NSSC, 2007;
Klingen, 2009). Klingen (2009) also says that “classification of soils by a farmer is sometimes
made spurious by the scientific knowledge they accumulate over time.” This may occur by
means of interacting with some researchers who visit the village and with an extension agents
present in their locality. It can be argued that this was not realised in the current study. Ask
farmers about the properties of some soils seen in their area, for a researcher the response could
- 30 -
be interesting. The response received from one of the informant is worth quoting in this context.
The description of the clay soil was made as:
“This type of soil becomes very sticky and plastic when there is rainfall. When the
ground is covered with plants the continuous sunshine doesn’t affect it. Plants do not
wilt in contrast to other soil types. However, if the field is bare without crop cover, the
land surfaces start to crack.”
[Mr. Sonam Rinzin, 60, Balam]
Soils have spatial variability and this is even more complex in mountain terrain. Farmers are
aware of this fact, as one farmer has following on the subject:
“Sago zemu ga sa sho baktshan baktshan ani rimpa mangpo oephay; which translates
to- in a small given area different types of soil can be found in patches.”
[Mr Dorji Tashi, 60, Balam]
7.3.2 Perceptions on erosion
Every year, farmers witness some form of land degradation. Identification of land degradation
processes prevalent in their area is vital to find out farmers’ perceptions. As land managers, an
expectation grows surrounding which they will be able to relate crop failure to some causal
agents. A metaphor “the stones grow”8 is uncharacteristically satirical. Farmers express this to
describe loss of topsoil due to water erosion when they see gravels and stones left on the sloping
land surface. This is a perfect metaphor of knowledge in context.
The previous sections discussed that there are numerous iterative factors causing soil erosion. An
attempt was made to weigh the influential factors causing land degradation. The only respectable
result obtained was for attributes such as land fragmentation, fallow land and improper land
management practices. In Chaskhar, only about 62% of farmers disagreed that soil erosion is
caused by land fragmentation; about 66% said so about fallow land and 75% disagreed that the
problem was caused due to unsustainable land management practices. While in Balam, 65% of
the participating farmers said that land fragmentation is not responsible for causing soil erosion
and 50% said that fallow land doesn’t cause land degradation. For the farmers, all other factors
responsible for causing soil erosion have a high influence on causing the problem (see factor list
in Appendix 2).
The failure for farmers to point out which of the causative factors has greater influence in
causing land degradation may be because the factors present are iterative: one factor helping the
other. On a common platform where many events take place it may be possible that farmers
increasingly find it difficult to dissect between the causal-effect relationships. Researchers such
as Kakemboo and Rowntree (2002) had similar findings.
The figure below (Figure 8) shows that 38.3% of the surveyed people at Chaskhar feel that land
degradation is very severe against 40% at Balam and 40% say that land degradation is severe
8
Personal experience during the natural resource mapping under Phuntsholing geog Chhukha Dzonghag, conducted
by NSSC, in 2007
- 31 -
Farmer %
against 27.5%. Overall, land severity of land degradation is more pronounced in Chaskhar than
in Balam. The probable cause of this was reflected in section 6.3.
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Very severe
Severe
Severity of erosion
Moderate
Chaskhar
Minor
Balam
Figure 8. Severity of soil erosion as perceived by the farmers.
The perceived notion that we all have is: for a given place where there is some form of land
degradation taking place the soil will be very poor and will impact the crop production. An
attempt was made to establish the perceived relationship between soil productivity and land
degradation (Figure 9). For this exercise, farmers were given randomly collected soil samples
from the watershed to grade the risk of erosion that is likely to occur for a given soil type and the
crop productivity. It shows that there is an inverse relationship between the crop productivity and
perceived land degradation for a given soil type. Although, this finding may be an over
statement, it tells us about the knowledge that farmers possess on soils around them. Besides, by
looking at the erosion perception figures for different soil types, it is realized that farmers treat
sandy soil as more prone to land degradation. A similar finding was mentioned by Algere & Rao
(1996) who pointed out that high rainfall and frequent and prolonged storms cause soil erosion.
These factors coupled with light textured and structurally weak soils make them very vulnerable
to soil erosion.
- 32 -
0.35
0.30
Weight
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Sakar
Baetsa sa
Solokpa sa
Chema sa
Phu-gum sa
Gum sa
Soil type
Crop production
Land degradation
a) Chaskhar
0.48
0.40
Weight
0.32
0.24
0.16
0.08
0.00
Rothpa sa
Gum sa
Sa Naa
Munang sa
Soil type
Crop production
Land degradation
b) Balam
Figure 9. Perceived relationships between land degradation and crop productivity.
From Table 11, one can point out that land degradation is perceived as a major problem and is a
pressing issue in the two districts. One notable observation is evident that high percentages
(43.3%) of the famer participants in Chaskhar have opinion that land degradation cannot be
- 33 -
controlled easily. This amplifies the previous arguments that occurrence of land degradation is
more severe in Chaskhar than in Balam.
We would have expected that identification of the land degradation processes by farmers would
be rather difficult. However, it was found that farmers are quite clear about the processes they
observe in their field, or in the region. The most vital observation made during the farmers
meeting was the response to the question: which one of these processes can be reduced/
prevented? Farmer groups indicated that sheet and rill erosion would be very easy to control,
followed by gully erosion. Putting the cost issue aside, it may be viewed that farmers seem right
in this.
Table 12. Farmers’ perceptions of soil erosion hazards.
Do farmers see land degradation as a problem?
Yes
No
Chaskhar % (n=60)
98.3
1.6
Balam % (n=41)
100
0
How severe is the land degradation problem?
Very severe
Severe
Moderate
Minor
38.3
40.0
18.3
3.3
39.0
26.8
26.8
4.8
Changes in soil erosion severity observed in the pact years
Has become more severe
Has become less severe
No change in soil erosion
86.6
8.3
5.0
56.0
31.7
9.7
How severe is the impact of soil erosion on crop productivity
Very severe
Severe
Moderate
Has no effect
51.6
21.6
25.0
1.6
21.9
46.3
26.8
2.4
Can soil erosion be controlled?
Yes
No
56.7
43.3
97.5
2.4
The series of land management campaigns conducted in different Dzongkhags since 2005 placed
land management technologies not only on farmers’ fields, but also in the degraded areas close to
the fields (NSSC, 2006). Some of these interventions were on the lower slopes which normally
act as the pathway for the sliding debris from upslope. According to Mushala (1997) the longer
the slope, the greater is the rate of soil erosion and therefore, while intervention remains
important, it’s rather crucial to address the problem at the source which are usually dryland
belonging to the farmers on the upper slopes. This was reflected by some of the participants
during the meeting saying that controlling soil loss at the source is crucial.
- 34 -
1
2
3
4
Percent → Chaskhar
, Balam
Farmers’ perception →
The farmers’ perceptions on soil erosion were collected during the farm household surveys
(Figure 10). It was found that:
• The majority of the farmers knew and/or understood the factors causing soil erosion (69% vs.
87%)
• The percentage of farmers who made an attempt to control soil erosion in Chaskhar is less
than in Balam (51% vs. 74%)
• And, significantly higher proportion of farmers in both the geogs say that soil erosion
impacts soil fertility.
.
Figure 10. Farmers’ perceptions on soil erosion in the two watersheds: showing respectively whether 1)
Farmers are aware of factors causing soil erosion; 2) Erosion can be controlled; 3) Farmers have tried to
control erosion and 4) Erosion impacts soil fertility.
Therefore, we also realize in this section that results on erosion perceptions achieved from two
different activities (farmers’ meeting and interviews) are as expected. This further reinforces our
claim in the earlier sections that farmers have good knowledge of soil around them and the land
degradation is a problem in both the watersheds.
7.3.3 Perceptions on socio-economic changes
Numerous factors may be responsible for bringing about socio-economic changes. Some of the
main causes may include: the Central activities directed towards the rural communities to uplift
them economically, better coverage of extension services, more exposure of the household
members to new farming technologies, etc. An event has a tendency to leave marks in the
aftermath. It can be argued that when farmers are subject to economical changes, social changes
entail as a result.
- 35 -
Perceptions on social changes
Figure 11 show the summary results of how farmers perceive about the social and economical
changes in their communities over the years. With regards to the social changes that has taken
place, or is taking place in the areas, it emerged that:
1) The percentage of farmer participants who say that cropping practices have changed over the
years is lower in Chaskhar than in Balam ( 60% vs. 100%). This suggests that the prevalance of
tseri practice was more paramount in Balam than in Chaskhar. The reason is that most of the
farmers in Balam talk about having settled farming as opposed to the past decades.
2) The opinions differ on perceptions whether they spend less time in the field than in the past
and whether they abandon land due to lack of labour. However, majority of the farmers agree
that they spend less time and they abandon cultivable land parcels due to lack of labour
1
2
3
4
Percent → Chaskhar
, Balam
Farmers’ perception →
3) About 72% of the farmers in Chaskhar disagree that an increased employment opportunities
outside has affected them in caring the agricultural farmland. Likewise, this is voiced by 48% of
the farmer participants in Balam. While it is understabdable that a farmer will take proper care
of his land because his children have to inherit the property in future, it is not really clear why
about half of the farmers in Balam view that they care less for the agricultural land. This also
buffers the previous establishment which stated that more household members in Chaskhar
engage in off-farm works in contrast to the households in Balam.
.
Figure 11. Farmers’ perception on social changes, showing respectively whether the farmers: 1) Have
changed the cropping practices; 2) Spend less time in the field; 3) Have abandoned land due to lack of
labour and 4) Care less about land due to increased opportunities outside.
- 36 -
Perceptions on economical changes
It also surfaced that economic changes have taken place in the areas (Figure 12). This was
realised because:
1) Almost all of the farmers agree that their standard of living has improved
2) Greater than 50% of the farmer participants in Chaskhar say that they generate income from
off-farm activities, whereas, this is lower in Balam (55% vs. 45%)
3) Comparatively higher percentage of farmers in Chaskhar receive financial support from other
sources than in Balam (78% vs. 58%)
4) The majority of the farmers agree that they see more developmental activities coming to their
region
In short, we realise from this section that social and economic changes have occurred in the two
geogs. In social perspective, the farmers view a shift from the tseri practices to sedentary
farming and those households who abandon/or fallow land do it because they have shortage of
farm labour. Likewise, the farmers have also seen significant economical changes. The have
better standard of living, they generate more income and there are more developmental activities
coming to the geogs. It may be argued that the changes occur, which is what farmers needed, but
it comes at a price. It is justifiable to say that the land degradation has worsened in the
watersheds partly because of the socio-economical changes which the communities in the
watershed have undergone.
2
3
Percent → Chaskhar
4
, Balam
Farmers’ perception →
1
.
Figure 12. Farmers’ perceptions on economical changes, showing respectively whether farmers believed
that they have: 1) An improved living standard; 2) More income from the off-farm work; 3) Financial
support from outside and 4) An increase of developmental activities in the region.
- 37 -
7.4
The impacts of earthquake
Bhutan hit by strong earthquake
At least 10 people have been killed
after an earthquake hit Bhutan and
neighbouring Himalayan regions.
The 6.1 magnitude quake damaged
monasteries and caused homes to collapse
in the mountain kingdom.
The tremors also caused panic in the city
of Guwahati, the capital of India's northeastern state of Assam.
The epicentre was just inside Bhutan's
border with India, 180km (115 miles) east
of the capital Thimphu, the US Geological
Survey said…
…"Houses, and monasteries and roads have been damaged. Mobile services are
clogged," Trashigang Governor Lungthen Dorji said…
Source:
Text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8267067.stm. Access date: December 2, 2009.
Picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Bhutan_earthquake. Access date: December 4, 2009.
For the environmental factors, researchers point out mostly at the precipitation as one of the
major cause of land degradation. This is true in areas where below ground activity of neotectonics is not active and slopes are gentler. However, according to some studies (Keefer, 2000;
Parise & Jibson, 2000; Khazai & Sitar, 2003 & Bali et al., 2009) landslides are triggered largely
by the ground motion caused by earthquake; the steeper the slope, the greater is the concentration
of landslides (Keefer, 2000). The cracks developed during the earthquake become “easy hot
spot” for the precipitation to trigger landslides and slope failures (Khazai & Sitar, 2003). This is
a particular concern to Bhutan since it experiences several seismic waves on frequent basis, the
most recent one being on September 21, 2009 measuring M = 6.1 (BBC, 2009) and subsequent
earthquake measuring M = 5.5 on 31st December 2009 (www.kuenselonline.com)9. The event
has entailed lots of destruction and damages in the region.
When such natural disasters occur, the most conspicuous observations are the reconstruction
works after the event, such as the rebuilding of damaged houses. It was a sheer coincidence that I
was doing fieldwork for this research when the September 21st event terrorised everyone,
including myself. I was in Balam, in the epicentre region. The visible damages include the
structural damages, rock falls, and development of wide surface cracks etc. In the earlier
sections, much has been said about the role of geo-morphological and climatic factors causing
land degradation. The most worrying footmark these events leave behind in the affected regions
9
Access date: January 3rd 2010
- 38 -
is the damage to the fracture of the geo-morphological strata, which will aggravate land
degradation in future.
Figure 13. Visible damages of earthquake of 21st September 2009. Development of cracks (Right) and
smoke rising from the collapse of houses at Khebshing, Balam geog (Left).
In a study carried out by Bali et al. (2009), the entire Himalayan belt which has for neo-tectonic
subdivisions, is neo-tectonically active which is often expressed in the form of earthquakes,
landslides, subsidence and uplift of land. The sub-divisions consist of the Outer Himalaya,
Lesser Himalaya, Greater or Higher Himalaya and the Tethys Himalaya. According to the group,
“the Outer Himalaya is believed to be seismically and tectonically more active than others,”
surprisingly this study makes no mention of a comparative study in the other zones. This was
based on the major events of landslides associated with a major tectonic element of Himalaya.
The study showed that there was a progressive increase of the area of the landslides in the study
area which peaked to a 12-fold increase from 1992 level (0.05–0.6 sq km).
Figure 14. Progressive increase of the area of Amiyan landslide between 1992–2005 (Adapted from Bali
et al., 2009).
Though a quantitative study has not been done, NSSC (2005) reported that there was a
monumental increase of landslide events which occurred in 2004. This coincides with the
maximum annual rainfall recorded between 1995 and 2008. The current study also indicated that
on a temporal scale there is a considerable increase of events in the region. Therefore, these
findings suggest that the study area, which is located within the Lesser and Greater Himalaya
zone may experience a very similar precarious natural fate.
- 39 -
8
CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
The overall goal of this research was to look at how the social and economic changes of
communities influence land degradation, caused as a result of water erosion. Transect walks,
farm household surveys using semi-structured questionnaires, informal farmers’ meeting,
analysis of land use and land cover maps of SPOT 1989 and ALOS 2007 and land degradation
mapping were carried out. Of the total survey of 73 households, 42 were accomplished in the
Guda-ri watershed in Chaskhar and 31 in Radhi-ri watershed in Balam. Likewise, 60 farmers
participated in the farmers’ meeting in Chaskhar and there were 40 farmers in Balam.
From the results obtained during this research, it can be stated that there are significant changes
which has taken place in the communities of the two watersheds. These include changes with
regard to both social and economical perspectives of the households. As a result, these may have
contributed to an acceleration of land degradation processes in the watersheds. The following
conclusions can be drawn from this research:
The country is going through a rapid transition. This is indicated by the larger number of
household members working in off-farm activities.
The long term land fallowing is common in Chaskhar. The shortage of labour is the main reason,
which is strongly influenced by parcel size and distance of parcels from the homestead.
There is a good stock of indigenous and modern soil and water conservation technologies found
in the watersheds. However, the intended functions of these technologies differ.
Besides the income from the off-farm works, the households in Chaskhar derive more income
from livestock farming, whereas in Balam households depend more on draught powers to
supplement the farm income.
There are striking differences in the nature of land use and land cover changes that have
occurred: 1) in Chaskhar, long term fallowing is the major change which the communities have
witnessed over the years and 2) in Balam, there is more degradation of forest which is explained
by the increase in shrubland and dryland percentages.
The visible land degradation features such as gullies and landslides are mostly seen along the
natural drainage lines. The nature of land degradation is similar, but is more severe in Chaskhar.
The farmers have a good knowledge of soils around them. They perceive that there are
significant socio-economic changes that have occurred during the last decades.
- 40 -
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sets of recommendations are deduced from this research:
• Farmers know much about the soils around them. It is necessary to make use of their
knowledge on soils/ land while working towards reducing land degradation.
•
The households in Chaskhar are doing very well in livestock farming. Therefore, the
possibilities to convert the long term fallow land into pastures should be explored.
•
The behavior of the weed Axonopus compressus in generating higher runoff during the
monsoon needs further study.
•
Because of the bio-physical and geo-morphological make-up, the sloping land is very
fragile. Therefore, an integrated cross-sectoral approach is essential when proposing to
introduce a new activity (e.g. roads, irrigation canals, etc.) in any area.
•
The quest to reduce land degradation in Bhutan will be a tedious one. Therefore, one
strategy would be to look at the possibilities to introduce minimum tillage, or no-tillage
practice in the farming systems.
- 41 -
REFERENCES
Alewell, C., Meusburger, K., Brodbeck, M., & Bänninger, D. (2008). Methods to describe and
predict soil erosion in mountain regions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 88, 46-53
Algere, J.C,. & Rao, M.R. (1996) Soil and water conservation by contour hedging in the humid
tropics of Peru. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 57, 17-25
Amsalu, A., & de Graaff, J. (2006) Farmer’s views of soil erosion problems and their
conservation knowledge at Beressa watershed, central highlands of Ethiopia. Agriculture
and Human Values, 23, 99 – 108
Ananda, J., & Herath, G. (2003) Soil erosion in developing countries: a socio-economic
appraisal. Journal of Environment Management, 68, 343-353
Baillie, I., & Norbu, C. (2004) Climate and other factors in the development of river and
interfluve profile in Bhutan. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 22, 539-553
Bali, R., Bhattacharya, A.R., & Singh, T.N. (2009) Active tectonics in the outer Himalaya:
dating a landslide event in the Kumaun sector. e-Journal Earth Science India, 2 (IV),
276–288
Batjes, N.H. (1996) Global assessment of land vulnerability to water erosion on a ½ by ½ grid.
Land Degradation and Development, 7(4), 353-365
Bayramin, Í., Basaran, M., Erpul, G., & Canga, M.R. (2008) Assessing the effects of land use
changes on the soil sensitivity to erosion in highland ecosystem of semi-arid Turkey.
Environment Monitoring Assessment, 140, 249-265
Bewket, W. (2007) Soil and water conservation intervention with conventional technologies in
northwestern highlands of Ethiopia: acceptance and adoption by farmers. Land Use
Policy, 24, 404-416
Boardman, J. (2006) Soil Erosion Science: Reflections on the limitations of current approaches.
Soil Erosion Research in Europe, 68 (2-3), 73-86
CountrySTAT-Bhutan (2009). Available at http://www.rnrstat.bt/csbhutan/. Access date:
November 30, 2009
Descroix, L & Gautier, E. (2002) Water erosion in the southern French Alps: climatic and human
mechanisms. Catena, 50, 53-85
Easterling, W., & Apps, M. (2005) Assessing the consequence of climate change for food and
forest resources, a view from the IPCC. Climate Change, 70, 165-189
Fredrich, K.H. (1977) Farm management: Data collection and analysis. FAO Agriculture
Services Bulletin, Report 34, FAO, Rome
Francisco, H.A., & de Los Angeles, M.S. (1998) Soil resource depreciation and deforestation:
Philippines case study in resource accounting. Forest Finance Working Paper FSM/ACC/06. Available at www.fao.org/documents. Access date: May 27, 2009
FAO (2004) Methodological framework for land degradation assessment in dryland (LADA).
Rome.
FAOSTAT (2009) Available at http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx. Access date:
November 30, 2009
Harden, C.P. (1996) Interrelationships between land abandonment and land degradation: a case
from the Ecuadorian Andes. Mountain Research and Development, 16 (3), 274-280
Jones, S. (1996) Discourses on land degradation in the Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania:
evolution and influences. Journal of Rural Studies, 12 (2), 187-199
- 42 -
Jones, S. (1999) From meta-narratives to flexible frameworks: an actor level analysis of land
degradation in Highland Tanzania. Global Environmental Change, 9, 211-219
Jones, S. (2002) A framework for understanding on-farm environmental degradation and
constraints to the adoption of soil conservation measures: case studies from the highland
Tanzania and Thailand. World Development, 30 (9), 1607-1620
Kakembo, V., & Rowntree, K.M. (2002) The relationship between land use soil erosion in the
communal lands near Peddie town, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Land Degradation and
Development, 14, 39-49
Keefer, D.K. (2000) Statistical analysis of an earthquake-induced landslide distribution – the
1989 Loma Prieta, California event. Engineering Geology, 58, 231-24
Kessler, C.A. (2006) Decisive key-factors influencing farm households’ soil and water
conservation investments. Applied Geography, 25, 40-60
Khazai, B., & Sitar, N. (2003) Evaluation of factors controlling earthquake-induced landslides
caused by Chi-Chi earthquake and comparison with Northridge and Loma Prieta events.
Engineering Geology, 71, 79-95
Klingen, K. (2009) Visions on soils and soil management of agro-ecological and conventional
farmers in the Mnas Gerias, Brazil. MSc Thesis. Land Degradation and Development
Group. Wageningen University, Wageningen
Lal, R. (2001) Soil degradation by erosion. Land degradation and development, 12, 519-539
Lal, R. (2003) Soil erosion and global carbon budget. Environment International, 29, 437-450
Lefroy, R.D.B., Bechstedt, HD., & Rais, M. (2000) Indicators for sustainable land management
based surveys in Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 81, 137-146
Lestrelin, G., & Giordano, M. (2007) Upland development policy, livelihood change and land
degradation: Interaction from a Loatian Village. Land Degradation and Development,
18, 55-76
Mazzucato, V., & Niemeijer, D. (2000) Rethinking soil and water conservation in a changing
society; a case study in eastern Burkina Faso. Tropical Resource Management Papers.
Wageningen University, Wageningen.
Mushala, H.M. (1997) Soil erosion and indigenous land management: some socio- economic
considerations. Soil Technology, 11, 301-310
Napier, T.L., Napier, A.S & Tucker, M.A. (1991) The social, economic and institutional factors
affecting adoption of soil conservation practices: the Asian experience. Soil & Tillage
Research, 20, 365-382
NSSC (2005) Assessment of Land degradation in Bhutan. Ministry of Agriculture, Royal
Government of Bhutan
NSSC (2006) Implementation of the United Nations Conventions to Combat Desertification in
Bhutan. National Report, Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan
NSSC (2009) National Action Program to Combat Land Degradation (Draft). Ministry of
Agriculture. Royal Government of Bhutan
Ndiaye, S.M., & Sofranko, A.J. (1994) Farmers’ perception of resource problems and
adoption of conservation practices in a densely populated area. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Evironment, 48, 35-47
Niroula, G.S., & Thapa, G.B. (2005) Impacts and causes of land fragmentation, and lessons
from land consolidation in South Asia. Land Use Policy, 22, 358-372
- 43 -
Norbu, C., Baillie, I., Dema, K., Dema, Y., Tamang, H.B., Turkelboom, F. (2003) Types of Land
degradation in Bhutan, Journal of Bhutan Studies, 8, 88-114
Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., & Deckers, J. (2009) Land degradation and soil and water conservation
in the tropical highlands. Soil and Tillage Research, 103 (2), 197- 202
Ovuka, M. (2000) More people, more erosion? Land use, soil erosion and soil productivity in
the Murang’a District, Kenya. Land Degradation and Development, 11, 111-124
Parise, M., & Jibson, R.W. (2000) A seismic landslide susceptibility rating of geologic units
based on analysis of characteristics of landslides triggered by the 17 January, 1997,
Northridge, California earthquake. Engineering Geology, 58, 251-270
Paudel, G.S., & Thapa, G.P. (2004) Impact of social, institutional and ecological factors on land
management practices in mountain watersheds of Nepal. Applied Geography, 24, 35-55
Pearson, C.J., & Ison, R.L. (1997) Overview: perspective on grassland systems. Agronomy of
grassland systems, pp. 17
Pender, J.L., & Kerr, J.M. (1998) Determinants of farmers’ indigenous soil and water
conservation investments in semi-arid India. Agriculture Economics, 19, 113-125
Preston, D., Macklin, M & Warburton, J. (1997) Fewer people, less erosion: the twentieth
century in southern Bolivia. The Geopraphical Journal, 163 (2), 198-205
Reich, P., Eswaran, H., & Beinoroth, F. (2001) Global Dimensions of Vulnerability to Wind
and Water Erosion. Sustaining the Global Farm: Selected papers from the 10th
International Soil Conservation Organization Meeting held from May 24-29 at Purdue
University and the USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory
Rinzin, C. (2008) Status, options and challenges in soil and water conservation in Bhutan: An
implication for sustainable land management. MSc Thesis, Asian Institute of
Technology (AIT), Thailand
Tenge, A.J., de Graaff, J., & Hella, J.P. (2003) Social and economic factors affecting the
adoption of soil and water conservation in west Ushambara highlands, Tanzania. Land
Degradation and Development, 15, 99 – 114
Turkelboom, F., & Wangchuk, T. (2009) Steep land farmers and their land resources: a holistic
degradation assessment of eastern Bhutan. Renewable Natural Resources Research
Centre (RNR RC), Wengkhar, Tschnical Documents No.42/FS/2009. Minsitry of
Agriculture. Royal Government of Bhutan
UNEP (2001) Bhutan: State of the Environment. Available at <www.rrcap.unep.org/. Access
date: May 25, 2009
Valentin, C., Agus, C., Alamban, F., Boosaner, R., Bricquet, A., Chaplot, JP., de Guzman, V.,
de Rouw, T., Janeau, A., Orange, J.L., Phachomphonh, D., Phai, K., Podwojewski,
D.D., Ribolzi, P., Silvera, O., Subagyono, L.N., Thiébaux, K., Toan, J.P., & Vadari, T.
(2008) Runoff and sediment losses from 27 upland catchments in Southeast Asia: Impact
of rapid land use changes and conservation practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 128, 225–238
Vanacker, V., Govers, G., Poesen, J., Deckers, J., Dercon, G., & Loaiza, G. (2003) The impact of
environmental change on the intensity and spatial pattern of water erosion in the semiarid mountainous Andean environment. Catena, 51, 329-347
Vezina, K., Bonn, F., & Van, C.P. (2006) Agriculture land-use patterns and soil erosion
vulnerability of watershed units in Vietnam’s northern highlands. Landscape Ecology,
21, 1311-1325
- 44 -
- 45 -
APPENDIX 1. Survey forms
SECTION- A: Household Inventory
Subject Code:
[01 = farm identification; 02 = family & labour resources (02a = family members, 02b = farm Labour with off-farm
work, 03 = farm land; 04 = farmland map; 05= crops; 06 = draft animals; 07 = cattle; 08= farm implements; 09 =
farm buildings; 10 = financial liabilities]
01 Farm Identification
Name of the farmer:
Age:
District:
Average rainfall per year (mm):
Name of enumerator:
Altitude (m):
Date of sample:
Village:
Sample No:
02 Family & Labour resources
02a Family member
Code
Age / Sex (M;F)
Time av’ble for farm work (%)
Head
1
2
Other members of the family
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
02b Farm labour: farmer and family members with off-farm work (OFW)
Code: [……]
[……]
[……]
[……]
[……]
OFW: [……]
[……]
[……]
[……]
[……]
Days in off-farm work/season
[……]
[……]
[……]
[……]
[……]
Autumn
[……]
[……]
[……]
[……]
[……]
Winter
[……]
[……]
[……]
[……]
[……]
Spring
[……]
[……]
[……]
[……]
[……]
Summer
Cumulative days in off-farm work per year
[……]
[……]
[……]
[……]
[……]
[…………..] [……………] [……………] […………..]
[…………..] [……………] [……………] […………..]
Annual
Earnings/ season, in cash
Earnings/year, in cash
OFW code: 11= agriculture; 12= forestry; 13= industry; 14= handicraft; 15 commerce & services; 16= schooling
i
10
03 Farm Land
1
[…….] […….]
2
[…….] […….]
[…….] […….]
3
[…….] […….]
4
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
5
6
7
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….]
8
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….]
9
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….]
10
11
12
13
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
15
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….]
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
Parcel number: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6.
Parcel size: in acres
Land age: years
Soil texture: 1= clay; 2= clay loam; 3= loam;
4= silt; 5= silt loam; 6= sandy; 7= sandy L
Topography: 1= flat; 2= sloping; 3= steep;
4=very steep
Restricting factor: 1= water logging; 2 gen.
Infertility; 3= erosion; 4= rocks & stones; 5=
Marshy
Land degradation features observed: 1) sheet
erosion, 2) rill, 3) gully, 4) slope failure, 5)
landslides, 6) others
Drainage: 1= well drained; 2= moderately
Well drained; 3= poorly drained; 4=
excessively drained
Land tenure: 1= owned; 2= share cropped
Farmers share of produce: percent
Initial investment in land:
Land improvement: 1= land clearing; 2=
leveling; 3= terracing; 4= stone bunding; 5=
drainage
Annual repair/maintenance costs/ parcel
04 Map of farmland (mention farm size in acres!)
ii
05 Crops
1
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Parcel number: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6.
2
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Crop: see crop codes
3
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] In case of mixed cropping: second crop; third
crop
4
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Variety: 1= local; 2= improved
For Annual crops only
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Sowing/planting date: month (1 – 12); week
5
(1 – 4)
6
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Preceding crops: 1 year (season) ago
7
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….]
2 years (seasons) ago
8
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….]
3 years (seasons) ago
9
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Fallow years: No of years left fallow
Perennial crop
10
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Year established
11
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Previous land use type; 1= fallow, 2= dryland
12
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] No of trees per field/parcel
13
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Remaining productive life, years
14
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Establishment cost
Code for the crops:
Grains (40):41= maize; 42= wheat; 43= millet; 44= barley; 45= buckwheat; 46= rice paddy; 47…;
Leg. grains (50): 51= beans; 52= lentils; 53= peas;54...;
Vegetables (leafy or stems- 60): 61=cabbage; 62= asparagus; 63= lettuce; 64= spinach; 65…;
Tuber crop (70):71= potatoes; 72= sweet potato; 73= onion; 74= garlic; 75= carrot; 76= radish; 77= turnip; 78….;
Other vegetable (80): 81= pumkin; 82= eggplant; 83= tomatoes; 84= chilli; 85= cauliflower; 86= broccoli; 87…
Oil seed (90): 91= soyabeans; 92= mustard; 93= sunflower; 94…;
Perennial crops (30): 31= apple; 32= citrus; 33= pear; 34= peach; 35= plum; 36= walnut; 27= others…..;
06 Draft Animals:
1
[.......]
2
3
[.......]
4
[.......]
5
6
[.......]
7
8
[.......]
[.......]
[............]
[............]
[............]
[............]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[….........]
[…….....]
[….........]
[…….....]
[.......]
[.......]
[….........]
[…….....]
[….........]
[…….....]
Type: 1= oxen; 2= horses/ mules; 3=
donkeys
Number of animals
Estimation of average productive life of
animals
Farmers share (percent) in case of joint
ownership
Own use in hour/ per year
Rental use: days / year
Amount from rental use
Income from rental use
Draft animal purchased/ sold
Amount:
iii
07 Livestock animals
1
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
2
3
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
Main types: 10= cattle; 20= poultry; 30=
pigs; 40= goats; 50= sheep
Breed: 1= local; 2= improved
Management: 1= undetermined; 2= ext.
grazing; 3=
Stall feed; 4= others
Purpose for keeping: 1= milk; 2= meat; 3=
breed; 4= eggs; 5= others
4
08 Farm implements/ tools
1
[.......]
[.......]
2
[.......]
[.......]
3
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[…….]
[.........]
[…….]
Type: see code below
Number
Total value
4
5
6
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
Type: see code below
Number
Total value
7
8
9
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
Type: see code below
Number
Total value
10
[.................................]
Cumulative value of farm implements: to
make an estimation of total assets
Tool codes: 11= ox plough; 12= hoe;13= fork; 14= spade; 15= knife; 16= sickle; 17= plough pan; 18= pickaxe; 19=
crowbar
09 Farm buildings
1
[.......]
2
3
[.......]
[.......]
4
[.......]
5
[.............]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.............]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.............]
6
[.............]
[.............]
[.............]
Type: 1= farm house; 2= livestock housing;
3= storage
Construction material: 1= bamboo; 2= wood
Years- since it was built
Remaining life/ years
Repair of maintenance costs/ yearly or
seasonal
Original construction cost
[.......................................]
Total value of the farm buildings
iv
10 Financial Liabilities
1
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[…….]
2
3
4
5
6
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
7
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[…….]
8
[.......]
[.......]
[.......]
[…….]
Type: 1= credit; 2= loan; 3= mortgage ; 4=
other
Total duration, in months
Interest: percent / annum
Receipt: 1= cash; 2= kind
Amount: in currency
Security: 1= personal node; 2= land; 3=
perm. crop; 4= agri. product; 5= livestock
Purpose: 1= invest. in agri.; 2= farm
capital; 3= consumption; 4= others
Source: 1= bank; 2= cooperatives; 3=
friend; 4= others
SECTION- B: Inventory changes
11
Land
1 Changes in the farm land, such as the purchase or sale are recorded and their values ascertained (abandoned….)
1
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Parcel number: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6.
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Parcel size: acre
2
3
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Parcel purchase= 1; parcel sold= 2; none= 3
4
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Year
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Parcel left fallow= 1; parcel abandoned
5
6
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Year
7
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Cost: Purchase/ sale
12
Livestock animals
1
2
3
4
5
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Subject group: 05= draft; 06= productive
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Main group of change: see code
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Type of change: see code
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Year
[.............] [............] [...........]
[…….….] Cost: purchase / sale;
[.............] [............] [...........]
[…….….] Cost: appreciation/ depreciation
Type of change: 1= birth; 2= death; 3= purchase; 4= sale; 5= appreciation; 6= depreciation
v
SECTION- C: Input/Output Recordings
1 Crop
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Parcel number: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6.
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Crop: see crop codes
Labour inputs (number of hours)
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Clearing
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] FYM spread
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Ploughing & digging,
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Bed preparation & sowing
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Irrigation
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Transplant
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Weeding & thinning
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Harvesting
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Thrashing
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Transportation of produce
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] No of trees per field/parcel
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Remaining productive life, years
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Establishment cost
16
17
18
19
20
21
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
1
2
22
23
24
25
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
Material inputs
FYM/ compost used in tonnes
Inorganic fertilizers, kg
Cost
Pesticides and herbicides, L
Cost
Total quantity of seeds used, kg
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
[…….]
Output
Net grain yield
Grain, family consumption, kg
Grain sold, kg
Value
vi
1 Livestock
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Category: see code!
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Total number
Changes in past year
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Bought
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Value
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Sold
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Value
Production/yr
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Production: see code!
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Produce consumed
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Value
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Produce sold
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Value
Material inputs
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Fodder
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Concentrates
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Others
Labour inputs ( number of hours)
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Herding
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Feeding
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Watering
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Milking
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Other activities
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Hired labour (%)
[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Daily wage rage
Category: 1= cattle; 2= pigs; 3= sheep; 4= goats; 5= horses/ mules; 6= donkey; 7= poultry; 8= others
Production code: 1= milk; 2= egg; 3= manure; 4= hides; 5= others
Farm input (concerning activity): 1= herding; 2= milking; 3= cleaning shed; 4= others
vii
SECTION – D: Farmers’ perception on land degradation & socio-economic changes.
1 Here are some statements on land degradation. For each one, state whether the farmer agrees
strongly, agree, disagree or strongly disagree?
Details↓ Response→
01
I10 am aware that soil erosion is taking place on my
Strongly
agree
1
Agree
2
Not
sure
3
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
4
Strongly
disagree
5
land/ village
02
I know and/or understand the factors that causes
soil erosion
03
Occurrence of soil erosion reduces soil fertility
1
2
3
4
5
04
Soil erosion occurring in the area can be mitigated
1
2
3
4
5
05
I am fully aware about the measures to address the
1
2
3
4
5
problem
06
I am aware of the on-site impacts of soil erosion
1
2
3
4
5
07
I am aware of the off-site impacts of soil erosion
1
2
3
4
5
08
I have tried mitigating the erosion problem in my
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
field
09
I would be willing to protect my land from soil
erosion
10
Occurrence of soil erosion has become more
frequent in the recent years than in the past
10
Referring to the interviewee farmer in question
viii
2 Consider the probable social and environmental changes. Indicate whether the farmer agrees
strongly, agree, disagree or strongly disagree?
Details↓ Response→
11
There is change of cropping practices over the years
12
Recommended hybrid seeds are used during
Strongly
agree
1
Agree
2
Not
sure
3
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
4
Strongly
disagree
5
cultivation
13
Farmer spends less time in the field than in the past
1
2
3
4
5
14
Shifting cultivation has become less common
1
2
3
4
5
15
Previously cultivated fields are abandoned due to
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
3
4
lack of labour
16
With the increasing opportunities outside, I care
less about he land
17
Change in environmental conditions are
experienced more than what it used to be in the
past
3 Here are some statements on economical changes that may have taken place over the time. The
change may be to an individual household to the community. For each one, state whether the
farmer strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree?
Details↓ Response→
21
Strongly
agree
1
The standard of living has improved than what it
Agree
2
Not
sure
3
Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
4
Strongly
disagree
5
used to be 10-15 years ago
22
The off-farm activity provides with more cash
income for the family than the farm activities
23
Family members employed elsewhere provide
financial support
24
The household purchase more household
commodities from the market in contrast to 10-15
years ago
25
Other neighbors in the community also have better
living standard than in the past
26
The community have seen more rural development
projects/ schemes coming to their village in the last
15 years
ix
APPENDIX 2. Guidelines for Farmers’ Meeting
Exercise 1
1. Local soil classification: For the different soil samples collected from the study areas,
conduct the following:
How do farmers classify the soils [texture? color?].
Which soil types are prone to land degradation?
Which ones are good for crop cultivation?
Which soil types are not found in their region/ area
Exercise 2
2. Perception of land degradation processes
Which land degradation processes are prevalent in the region?
Which ones are most common?
Which form of land degradation has adverse effect on crop productivity?
Which ones can be mitigated?
Exercise 3
3. Farmers’ perception of soil erosion hazards
Do farmers see land degradation as a problem?
Yes
[
]
No
[
]
How severe is the problem?
Severe
Moderate
Minor
[
[
[
]
]
]
What sort of changes in soil erosion severity was observed over the past 15 years?
Has become more severe
[
]
Has become less severe
[
]
No change
[
]
What are the perceived causes of soil erosion?
Land holdings too small
[
]
Slopes very steep
[
]
Rainfall too high
[
]
Soil being too erodible
[
]
Runoff from upslope areas
[
]
x
Upland being too degraded
Others
[
[
]
]
How severe is the impact of soil erosion on crop productivity?
Severe
[
]
Moderate
[
]
Has no effect
[
]
Can soil erosion be controlled?
Yes
No
[
[
]
]
xercise 4
EXERCISE 4: Soil and Water Conservation Technologies (both conventional & recently
introduced)
This activity is aimed at finding traditional soil and water conservation (SWC) technologies
farmers have adopted over the years in their field/ place
Traditional SWC technologies
Known
Adopted
Introduced SWC technologies
Known
Adopted
xi
APPENDIX 3. Land use and land cover map of Chaskhar (SPOT 1989)
Digitization: Mrs Sangita Pradhan and Mr Phuntsho Gyeltshen
xii
APPENDIX 4. Land use and land cover map of Balam (SPOT 1989)
Digitization: Mrs Sangita Pradhan and Mr Phuntsho Gyeltshen
xiii
APPENDIX 5. Land use and land cover map of Chaskhar (ALOS 2007)
Digitization: Ms Deki Wangmo and Mr Phuntsho Gyeltshen
xiv
APPENDIX 6. Land use and land cover map of Balam (ALOS 2007)
Digitization: Ms Deki Wangmo and Mr Phuntsho Gyeltshen
xv
APPENDIX 7. Land degradation field map of Chaskhar
Digitization: Ms Deki Wangmo and Mr Phuntsho Gyeltshen
xvi
APPENDIX 8. Land degradation field map of Balam
Digitization: Ms Deki Wangmo and Mr Phuntsho Gyeltshen
xvii
APPENDIX 9. FIGURES SHOWING ANNUAL AND MONTHLY AVERAGE RAINFALL
b. Annual rainfall of Balam from 1996-2008
1600
1800
1400
1600
1200
1400
Rainfall (mm)
Rainfall (mm)
a. Annual rainfall of Chaskhar from 1996-2008
1000
800
600
1200
1000
800
400
600
200
1995
400
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
1998
2001
2007
Year
Year
c. Monthly average rainfall of Chaskhar from 1996-2008
d. Monthly average rainfall of Balam from 1996-2008
300.0
300.0
250.0
250.0
Rainfall (mm)
Rainnfall (mm)
2004
200.0
150.0
100.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
Jan
March
May
July
Sept
Jan
Nov
March
May
July
Months
Months
xviii
Sept
Nov