i

The dynamics of socio-economic situations of communities in relation to land degradation- Bhutan

MSc Thesis by Phuntsho Gyeltshen

February 2010

ii

i

The dynamics of socio-economic situations of communities in relation to land degradation- Bhutan

By

Phuntsho Gyeltshen

Master thesis Land Degradation and Development Grou p submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of M aster 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

ii

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 no-tillage, or minimum tillage in the Bhutanese agriculture system should be explored. Key words: Land degradation, water erosion, anthropogenic, bio-geophysical, socio-

economic, watershed, Axonopus compressus, no-tillage, minimum tillage, Bhutan.

iii

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!

iv

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

- 1 -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... - 3 -

1.1 BHUTAN: COUNTRY CONTEXT................................................................................................................ - 5 -

2 RESEARCH SETTING................................................................................................................................ - 7 -

2.1 LOCATION AND CLIMATE........................................................................................................................ - 7 - 2.2 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND LAND DEGRADATION PROCESSES......................................................................... - 7 - 2.3 LAND USE............................................................................................................................................... - 9 -

3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES..................................................................................... - 10 -

3.1 SPECIFIC RESEARCH OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................... - 10 - 3.1.1 Research sub-questions................................................................................................................... - 10 -

4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ - 11 -

4.1 EXISTING RESEARCH RESULTS.............................................................................................................. - 11 - 4.2 THEORIES AND ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THIS RESEARCH........................................................................ - 11 -

5 METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................................... - 14 -

5.1 CHOICE OF METHODS............................................................................................................................ - 14 - 5.2 DATA COLLECTION............................................................................................................................... - 14 - 5.3 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... - 15 -

6 RESULTS & DISCUSSION (1): THE FARM HOUSEHOLD AND TH EIR RESOURCES .............. - 16 -

6.1 FARM FAMILY ...................................................................................................................................... - 16 - 6.2 FARM LAND .......................................................................................................................................... - 17 -

6.2.1 Changes with regard to farmland................................................................................................... - 19 - 6.2.2 Cropping & crop inputs and outputs .............................................................................................. - 20 - 6.2.3 Soil and Water Conservation.......................................................................................................... - 22 -

6.3 LIVESTOCK........................................................................................................................................... - 24 - 6.3.1 Changes in the livestock ................................................................................................................. - 25 -

6.4 FINANCIAL LIABILITY ........................................................................................................................... - 26 -

7 RESULTS & DISCUSSION (2): LAND USE, LAND DEGRADATIO N AND FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS.................................................................................................................................................... - 27 -

7.1 LAND USE AND LAND COVER CHANGES................................................................................................ - 27 - 7.2 LAND DEGRADATION............................................................................................................................ - 28 - 7.3 FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS....................................................................................................................... - 29 -

7.3.1 Local soil classification .................................................................................................................. - 29 - 7.3.2 Perceptions on erosion ................................................................................................................... - 31 - 7.3.3 Perceptions on socio-economic changes ........................................................................................ - 35 -

7.4 THE IMPACTS OF EARTHQUAKE............................................................................................................ - 38 -

8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... - 40 -

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... - 42 -

- 2 -

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 (U SING 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 (U SING 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 AVER AGE 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 -

- 3 -

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, socio-economic 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

- 4 -

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 (Million hectares- Mha)

Total as a percentage of the total land use

Region

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

- 5 -

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 “quasi-stable.” 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.

- 6 -

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.

- 7 -

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 2 Literally translated as a district 3 Sub-administrative boundary within a geog

- 8 -

Figure 2. Location map of the research sites, Chaskhar and Balam geogs.

- 9 -

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).

- 10 -

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 sub-questions:

a) Is there a change in farming activities; the way people practice agriculture? b) How has the livelihood of people changed over the years? c) How has the land use systems changed? d) What are the different types of land degradation prevalent in the area? e) What indigenous and recently introduced SWC practices found?

- 11 -

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.

- 12 -

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

- 13 -

• 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.

- 14 -

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 pre-designed 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.

- 15 -

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.

- 16 -

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 off-farm 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.

- 17 -

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

ni Family members working on the farm

School going children

Old ( > 65 years)

Young (< 6, or 15 years)ii

Othersiii Total

Chaskhar 42 123 62 17 27 23 252 Balam 31 91 60 10 15 6 182 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

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Labour School Old Young OFW

Farm family distribution

perc

ent

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

- 18 -

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]

- 19 -

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 off-farm 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

- 20 -

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 Balam No. of

household 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 Change Buy Buy Buy Buy Buy Buy Buy

Area (acre) 1 1+i1 0.5+0.1 0.5 1 0.33 3.33

Family size 8 4 4 5 6 7 10

Land parcels 4 5 5 3 2 3 3

Off-farm work No Yes Yes Yes None None None Family support from outside Yes - - 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:

- 21 -

“…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.

- 22 -

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 Thailand Vietnam Maize 2.20 1.93 3.79 3.27 Rice- paddy 2.27 2.69 2.74 4.61

Crop District Geog Current Finding Chaskhar Balam Chaskhar Balam Maize 2.76 2.95 3.01 2.39 2.50 Rice-paddy 1.71 1.11 1.94 1.98 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-

- 23 -

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

2

3

4

5

Plantations

Terraces

Stone bunds

Spreading leaf

mould/ mulching

Drainage

Plant bamboo and fodder trees on the

edge of the fields, usually randomly.

Farmers complain about the impact

of shading on crop growth

Farmers make terraces on both

dryland (to make the area flatter) &

wetland terraces (to contain water).

Do not follow contour lines during

construction

Found both in the dryland (to flatten

the land surface) & wetlands (support

the terrace riser). Constructed on the

farmland without following contour

lines

To supplement soil nutrients, or as a

substitute for FYM

Simple water pathways; outlet not

necessarily in the safe place

Particularly done in the landslide prone areas and

in larger setting to stabilise the degraded areas.

There are numerous methods; random, diagonal,

triangular, etc.

Refers to both wetland and dryland terraces.

Expect to conserve both soil and water. Use A-

frame to demarcate contour interval

Constructed along the contour lines and gradients.

Expect to conserve soil and water. Use A-frame

to demarcate the contour lines

On bare soils to protect soils and reduce run-off

from upslope

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

- 24 -

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 time-span 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.

- 25 -

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: Milk = 299,904 (556.3) Butter = 21,168 (46.3) Cheese = 57,360 (125.5) Balam: 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

- 26 -

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.

Number of households Details Chaskhar Balam

Investment in agriculture 6 0 Investment in farm capital 6 0 Structure including roofing 3 1 Consumption 2 0 Others (not specified) 3 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.

- 27 -

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 2009 1989 2009

Forest 68 66 75 68 Arable dryland 29 23 24 25 Arable wetland 3 2 0.6 1.2 Shrubland - 4 2.0 7 Long term fallow - 4 - -

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

- 28 -

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.

- 29 -

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).

- 30 -

Table 11. Overview of soil classification by farmers.

Sl/ No

Soil Types

Reference Base

Soil properties according to farmers Professional classification

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

Silty loam (ZiL) soil

with very dark grayish

brown color (10YR

3/2)

2 Chema sa 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

Silty loam (ZiL) soil

with very dark grayish

brown color (10YR

3/2)

3 Sakar Color Very sticky & slippery; has high stone content; soil

erosion is common; less productive.

Gravelly sandy loam

(gv.SL) soil with brown

color (10YR 5/3)

4 Baetsa sa Texture Light soils with particles separated; good for

cultivation, but has high chance of soil erosion; plants

experience water stress very easily.

Sandy loam (SL) soil

with grayish brown

color (10YR 5/2)

5 Phugum sa Texture High altitude soils; comes in big lumps when

excavated; very sticky and gives average crop

production.

Silty clay loam (ZiCL)

soil with dark grayish

brown color (10YR

4/2)

6 Gum sa Texture 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.

Silty clay loam (ZiCL)

soil with dark yellowish

brown color (10YR

4/4)

7 Rothpa sa Texture 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)

Gravelly sandy loam (gv.SL) soil with

grayish brown color

(10YR 5/2)

8 Sa Naa Color Soil dries up & cracks easily when there is continuous

sunshine & plants suffer from water stress; can be

used for pottery works; quite fertile

Silty loam (ZiL) soil

with black color (10YR

2/1)

9 Munang sa Texture 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.

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

- 31 -

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

- 32 -

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.

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.0

Very severe Severe Moderate Minor

Severity of erosion

Far

mer

%

Chaskhar 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.

- 33 -

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Sakar Baetsa sa Solokpa sa Chema sa Phu-gum sa Gum sa

Soil type

Wei

ght

Crop production Land degradation

a) Chaskhar

0.00

0.08

0.16

0.24

0.32

0.40

0.48

Rothpa sa Gum sa Sa Naa Munang sa

Soil type

Wei

ght

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

- 34 -

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? Chaskhar % (n=60) Balam % (n=41) Yes 98.3 100 No 1.6 0 How severe is the land degradation problem? Very severe 38.3 39.0 Severe 40.0 26.8 Moderate 18.3 26.8 Minor 3.3 4.8 Changes in soil erosion severity observed in the pact years Has become more severe 86.6 56.0 Has become less severe 8.3 31.7 No change in soil erosion 5.0 9.7 How severe is the impact of soil erosion on crop productivity Very severe 51.6 21.9 Severe 21.6 46.3 Moderate 25.0 26.8 Has no effect 1.6 2.4 Can soil erosion be controlled? Yes 56.7 97.5 No 43.3 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.

- 35 -

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.

Far

mer

s’ p

erce

ptio

n →

Percent → Chaskhar , Balam .

1

3 4

2

- 36 -

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 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.

1 2

3 4

Far

mer

s’ p

erce

ptio

n →

Percent → Chaskhar , Balam .

- 37 -

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.

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.

1 2

3 4

Far

mer

s’ p

erce

ptio

n →

Percent → Chaskhar , Balam .

- 38 -

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 north-

eastern 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 neo-tectonics 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

- 39 -

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.

- 40 -

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.

- 41 -

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.

- 42 -

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

- 43 -

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

- 44 -

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 semi- arid 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

- 45 -

i

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): Altitude (m): Village: Name of enumerator:

Date of sample: Sample No:

02 Family & Labour resources 02a Family member Head Other members of the family Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Age / Sex (M;F) Time av’ble for farm work (%) 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

ii

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 i nvestment 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!)

iii

05 Crops 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Parcel number: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6. […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Crop: see crop codes […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] In case of mixed cropping: second crop; third crop […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Variety: 1= local; 2= improved

For Annual crops only […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Sowing/planting date: month (1 – 12); week (1 – 4) […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Preceding crops: 1 year (season) ago […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] 2 years (seasons) ago […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] 3 years (seasons) ago […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Fallow years: No of years left fallow

Perennial crop […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Year established […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Previous land use type; 1= fallow, 2= dryland […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] No of trees per field/parcel […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Remaining productive life, years […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] 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:

iv

07 Livestock animals 1 2 3 4

[.......] [.......] [.......] 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

08 Farm implements/ tools 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[.......] [.......] [.......] […….] Type: see code below [.......] [.......] [.......] [.........] Number [.......] [.......] [.......] […….] Total value

[.......] [.......] [.......] […….] Type: see code below [.......] [.......] [.......] […….] Number [.......] [.......] [.......] […….] Total value

[.......] [.......] [.......] […….] Type: see code below [.......] [.......] [.......] […….] Number [.......] [.......] [.......] […….] Total value

[.................................] 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

v

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 2 3 4 5 6 7

[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Parcel number: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6. […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Parcel size: acre […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Parcel purchase= 1; parcel sold= 2; none= 3 […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Year […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Parcel left fallow= 1; parcel abandoned […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] Year […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] 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

vi

SECTION- C: Input/Output Recordings

1 Crop 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

[…….] […….] […….] […….] […….] […….] 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 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

vii

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

viii

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→ Strongly

agree Agree Not

sure Disagree Strongly

disagree 01 I10 am aware that soil erosion is taking place on my

land/ village

1 2 3 4 5

02 I know and/or understand the factors that causes

soil erosion

1 2 3 4 5

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

problem

1 2 3 4 5

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

field

1 2 3 4 5

09 I would be willing to protect my land from soil

erosion

1 2 3 4 5

10 Occurrence of soil erosion has become more

frequent in the recent years than in the past

1 2 3 4 5

10 Referring to the interviewee farmer in question

ix

2 Consider the probable social and environmental changes. Indicate whether the farmer agrees strongly, agree, disagree or strongly disagree?

Details↓ Response→ Strongly agree

Agree Not sure

Disagree Strongly disagree

11 There is change of cropping practices over the years 1 2 3 4 5

12 Recommended hybrid seeds are used during

cultivation

1 2 3 4 5

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

lack of labour

1 2 3 4 5

16 With the increasing opportunities outside, I care

less about he land

1 2 3 4 5

17 Change in environmental conditions are

experienced more than what it used to be in the

past

1 2 3 3 4

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→ Strongly

agree Agree Not

sure Disagree Strongly

disagree 21 The standard of living has improved than what it

used to be 10-15 years ago

1 2 3 4 5

22 The off-farm activity provides with more cash

income for the family than the farm activities

1 2 3 4 5

23 Family members employed elsewhere provide

financial support

1 2 3 4 5

24 The household purchase more household

commodities from the market in contrast to 10-15

years ago

1 2 3 4 5

25 Other neighbors in the community also have better

living standard than in the past

1 2 3 4 5

26 The community have seen more rural development

projects/ schemes coming to their village in the last

15 years

1 2 3 4 5

x

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 [ ]

xi

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

xii

APPENDIX 3. Land use and land cover map of Chaskhar (SPOT 1989)

Digitization: Mrs Sangita Pradhan and Mr Phuntsho Gyeltshen

xiii

APPENDIX 4. Land use and land cover map of Balam (S POT 1989)

Digitization: Mrs Sangita Pradhan and Mr Phuntsho Gyeltshen

xiv

APPENDIX 5. Land use and land cover map of Chaskhar (ALOS 2007)

Digitization: Ms Deki Wangmo and Mr Phuntsho Gyeltshen

xv

APPENDIX 6. Land use and land cover map of Balam (A LOS 2007)

Digitization: Ms Deki Wangmo and Mr Phuntsho Gyeltshen

xvi

APPENDIX 7. Land degradation field map of Chaskhar

Digitization: Ms Deki Wangmo and Mr Phuntsho Gyeltshen

xvii

APPENDIX 8. Land degradation field map of Balam

Digitization: Ms Deki Wangmo and Mr Phuntsho Gyeltshen

xviii

APPENDIX 9. FIGURES SHOWING ANNUAL AND MONTHLY AVER AGE RAINFALL a. Annual rainfall of Chaskhar from 1996-2008

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1995 1998 2001 2004 2007

Year

Rai

nfal

l (m

m)

b. Annual rainfall of Balam from 1996-2008

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1995 1998 2001 2004 2007

Year

Rai

nfal

l (m

m)

c. Monthly average rainfall of Chaskhar from 1996-2008

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

Jan March May July Sept Nov

Months

Rai

nnfa

ll (m

m)

d. Monthly average rainfall of Balam from 1996-2008

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

Jan March May July Sept Nov

Months

Rai

nfal

l (m

m)