1

Addressing Climate Change Risks on Water Resources and Food Security in the Dry Zone

of Myanmar

Inventory of existing/ongoing Agroforestry Practices

2

Table of Contents

Report on Inventory of existing/ongoing Agroforestry Practices ................................................... 4

1. Background ....................................................................................................................................... 4

2. Objectives and Methodology ................................................................................................................ 4

2.1 Objective of the Study......................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Scope and Limitation ....................................................................................................................... 8

3. Socio-economic Background of Respondents ....................................................................................... 8

Respondent Social Classes .................................................................................................................... 8

Respondents Average Household Size .................................................................................................. 8

Access to Household Assets .................................................................................................................. 9

Access to Household Assets ................................................................................................................ 10

Access to Productive Assets ................................................................................................................ 11

Respondent’s Occupation ................................................................................................................... 13

Demographic and Economic Dependency Ratio ................................................................................. 13

Respondent’s Livestock Holding ......................................................................................................... 15

4. Agroforestry Systems and Practices ................................................................................................... 16

Most Farmers Practice Agroforestry System ...................................................................................... 16

Land Holding and Agroforestry Practices............................................................................................ 16

Agroforestry Plots distance to farmer’s village ................................................................................... 17

Villages distance to Township ............................................................................................................. 18

Topography of Agroforestry Plots ....................................................................................................... 18

Agroforestry practicing experiences ................................................................................................... 19

Trends of Agroforestry ........................................................................................................................ 20

Reason for Cutting Agroforestry Trees ............................................................................................... 20

Agroforestry Prototypes ..................................................................................................................... 21

Agroforestry species and benefits ...................................................................................................... 23

Pasturing Livestock ............................................................................................................................. 25

Non-timber forest product ................................................................................................................. 25

Market for agroforestry products ....................................................................................................... 26

Knowledge, training and network ....................................................................................................... 28

3

5. Gaps in Agroforestry ........................................................................................................................... 28

Choosing Agroforestry System and Prototypes .................................................................................. 28

Income from Agroforestry is only subsistence ................................................................................... 28

Changing Market Demand and Insufficient Market Information ....................................................... 28

No Focal Department or Ministry ....................................................................................................... 29

Unmet Technical Support ................................................................................................................... 29

Lack of Agroforestry Farmer Organization, Association and Network ............................................... 29

Agroforestry farmers are almost everywhere but there is no group representing them at local,

State/Regional or National level. There is no network or platform to organize, share, learn and

advocate there issues to the decision markers. 6. Propose Solutions .................................................. 29

Organize Farmer Group, Associations and Network........................................................................... 29

Dedicated Government Department with purpose ............................................................................ 29

Market and Market Information ......................................................................................................... 29

Scaling Up from Subsistence to alternative Income ........................................................................... 30

7. Case Study ........................................................................................................................................... 30

4

Report on Inventory of existing/ongoing Agroforestry Practices

1. Background

The project “Executing Watershed Management and Agroforestry Activities in Myanmar” was started in

October 2016. Project intended to implement indirect targeted villages 280 in five townships, namely

Shwebo and Monywa townships of Sagaing region, Myingyan and Nyaung U townships of Mandalay

Region and Chauk township of Magway region, approximately 50,000 households to be benefitted

within 30 months. Project technicians have been providing technical assistants including agroforestry

trainings and exchange visits. In 2016, total of 56,655 seedings were grown in 62 project villages while

112,405 seedlings grown in 2017 for 97 villages under Home Stead Gardening activities. There are total

of 25 acre of demonstration plots installed in five townships (5 acre per township). Moreover, 3 acre

each of agro-silviculture plots have been established in Myingyan and Monywa townships and 3 acre of

agro-silvopasture plots have been established in Chauk township. In 2018, 111,573 seedlings are

distributed for Home Stead Gardening and 6 acres each of intercropping system demonstrations has

been set up in five townships. The project team together with NAG’s Research Team has been

conducted existing and on-going agroforestry practices in sample 25 villages in order to understand

agroforestry system, its benefits, gaps and proposed solutions.

Agroforestry in five townships of Dry Zone Myanmar is cultivating trees and agricultural crops in

combination with one another and sometimes with also animals that is a typical practice that farmers

have used for ages. There used to be numerous traditional divergent practices including combined

production of trees and agricultural species on the same plot of land in which trees are purposely

retained to support agriculture.

2. Objectives and Methodology

This session will clarify objective of the study, detail methodology employed during survey and scope &

limitations of the study.

2.1 Objective of the Study

Agroforestry in Myanmar is not new, has been practicing centuries for its multiple benefits, managing

trees, agriculture crops and animals are put in a system under the same plot of land. However, little has

been studied and largely unknown especially in the case of Dry Zone where farming relies on climate

and adverse effects changing climate in visible and frequent. This study will allow us to understand how

farmers are practicing agroforestry meeting their basic needs at the same time identify gaps (both

knowledge and resources) and find ways to bridging gaps.

The objectives of the inventory of existing/ongoing agroforestry practices are:

To understand existing/ongoing agroforestry practices in the project targeted community

5

To analyze the benefits generated from agroforestry

To identify gaps in agroforestry and propose solutions for bridging gaps

2.2 Methodology

In this session elaborates selection of villages and respondents for the study, as well as procedures and

tools employed during the study.

Sampling of villages and farmers

The target villages are selected based on random sampling of 5 villages per township, total of 25 villages

were identified for the study. In each village, three farmers per village, total of 75 agro-forestry farmers

were selected randomly for Questionnaire survey and agroforestry mapping.

Assessment tools/methods employed

As per project provided Community-led inventory of ongoing agroforestry guideline, the methodology

was developed and adapted to the dry zone context. The two days survey training was conducted in

Nyaung U office for assessment team and project staff, in order to objective, methodology, expected

results and survey processes.

Sets of tools including Social Class Ranking, Household Questionnaire, Agroforestry Inventory Mapping

and Field observation were employed to collect agroforestry system and related information.

Social Class Ranking was conducted with Key Informants; Village Administrator, Social Leaders (Yat mi

Yat Pha), and Farmers using criteria such as land holding size, livestock holding, house condition and

assets possession. The community came up with three social classes; Better-off, Moderate and Poor and

the random sample farmers are categorized as per specific social classes.

The household Questionnaire format was drafted, then pre-test in one village and finalized based on

respondents understanding and relevant of the questions. There are total of 75 agroforestry farmers

responded to the Questionnaires.

Then, the survey team visited the agroforestry sites together with respondents followed by

Questionnaire to conduct field observation and agroforestry mapping. In each agroforestry plots, the

survey team and agroforestry farmers drew detail map of agroforestry prototypes including system, tree

species, practices, benefits and constraints.

The data entry, cleaning and analysis processes started after field survey. The collected data are put into

excel database, data cleaning and consistency checked has been done through removing outliers and

data analysis was mainly done by experienced data analyst by using SPSS software.

6

Survey Team

The survey team consists of 19 members; 1 Team Leader, 2 Forestry Technician, 1 Agronomist, 1

Communication Expert, 1 Data Analyst, 2 GIS & Remote Sensing and 11 Enumerators. The following

table shows detail lists of survey team, their functions and expertise.

Table 1: Survey Team Members

No Name Responsibility Expertise

1 U Win Tin Team Leader Management, Organizing the team

2 U Nay Myo Swe Forestry Technician Forestry

3 U Aung Soe Agronomic Agriculture

4 U Aye Kyaw Thu Forestry Technician Forestry

5 U Myo Zaw Aung M&E Officer Data Analysis

6 Daw Khin La Pyaye Win Research Officer Communication

7 U Chit San Ko Research Assistant GIS

8 U Aung Ko Win Research Assistant GIS

9 U Than Oak Soe Enumerator Data collection and data entry

10 U Nay Aung San Enumerator Data collection and data entry

11 U Myo Zin Ko Htet Enumerator Data collection and data entry

12 Daw Win Win Thaung Enumerator Data collection and data entry

13 Daw Htay Htay Hlaing Enumerator Data collection and data entry

14 Daw Kay Zin Mya Oo Enumerator Data collection and data entry

15 Daw Thu Zar Phyo Enumerator Data collection and data entry

16 Daw May Tha Zin Enumerator Data collection and data entry

17 Daw Khaing Zin Maung Enumerator Data collection and data entry

18 Daw Htet Htet Kyaw Enumerator Data collection and data entry

19 Daw Nang Grawng Enumerator Data collection and data entry

7

Assessment Period

The survey team reached to Nyaung U office by 11 June, followed by training on 12 June, pre-test and

finalization of methodology conducted on 13 June in Yan San village of Nyaung U Township. In order to

have consistency the rest four villages in Nyaung was conducted four survey team. Then the rest five

village in each four townships was visited by five survey team. The data entry, cleaning and analysis

followed in Yangon after field survey completed. The following table shows detail time period of the

survey.

Table 2: Assessment Period

Sr. Particular Date Remark

1. Left Yangon for Nyaung U

11th June 2018 Travel

2. Training at Nyaung U office

12th June 2018 Whole Day, project team leader and other staff also participated

3. Pretest Pilot Survey, Yan San , Nyuang U

13th June 2018

-Interview with first respondent by all survey team members and then formed into two groups to take data from other two respondents and field study -Reviewing and revising survey format after discussion at Nyaung U office at evening

4. Data collection and field study from four villages in Nyaung U

14th June 2018 Four survey mini groups went to four villages

5. Data collection and field study from all five villages in Chauk

15th June 2018 Five survey mini groups went to five villages

6. Data collection and field study from all five villages in Myingyan

16th June 2018 Five survey mini groups went to five villages

7. Moved from Nyaung U to Monywa

17th June 2018 All members

8. Data collection and field study from all five villages in Monywa

18th June 2018 Five survey mini groups went to five villages

9. Data collection and field study from all five villages in Shwebo

19th June 2018 Five survey mini groups went to five villages

10. Went back to Yangon 20th June 2018 All survey team members

11. Data entry 22nd to 25th June 2018

All enumerators

12. Report Development July 2018 NAG research team under guidance of CEO

8

2.3 Scope and Limitation

The survey conducted was a snap-shot survey meaning covering only recent period, we don’t have time

series data to analyze how agroforestry system in dry zone is changing. Although it covers all five project

townships, the study covers only five villages per township and three agroforestry farmers per villages.

The report was formulated based on data collected from 75 farmers, the general practices, trends and

benefits of agroforestry is accurately covered in this report while there may be series of agroforestry

system which we might not cover due to limitation of respondents.

3. Socio-economic Background of Respondents

This session elaborates socio-economic background of respondents covering their social class

conditions, family size, and access to various types of assets, their occupations and dependency

conditions. The respondent socio-economic background is largely inspired to agroforestry practices and

their decision making processes.

Respondent Social Classes

Respondent social classes are identified based on land holding size, livestock holding, housing condition

and assets possession. There are three social classes; Better-off, Moderate and Poor. Better-off social

class has average landholding size of 21 Acre, live in brick knocking house, majority of them own at least

4 to 6 cattle and possess farm machinery. Moderate social class has 16 Acre, live in wooden house,

mostly own 2 to 4 cattle and possess minor farm machinery. Poor social class has average landholding

size of 8 Acre, live in wooden house with Bamboo walling, either no cattle or maximum 2 cattle with no

farm machinery. In general 2 out of 10 farmers are Better-off, half are Moderate and 3 out of 10 are

Poor. The following table shows social classes of respondents by townships.

Table 3: Respondent Social Classes

Township Better-off Moderate Poor Total

Chauk 1 6 8 15

Monywa 2 9 4 15

Myingyan 3 6 6 15

Nyaung U 4 8 3 15

Shwebo 3 9 3 15

Total 13 38 24 75

Respondents Average Household Size

Half of the respondents have 4 to 5 members in their family while a quarter of respondents each are with

either less than 3 family members or over 5 family members. Respondent in Nyaung U tends to be lower

family size while Monywa respondent tends to be higher family size.

9

Table 4: Average Household Size of Respondents

Township Household Size

Less than 3 members 4 to 5 members Over 5 members

Chauk 5 6 4

Monywa 1 9 5

Myingyan 5 6 4

Nyaung U 6 9 0

Shwebo 3 8 4

Total 20 38 17

Access to Household Assets

Assets can be generally divided into three categories; Household assets, Vehicles and Productive assets.

Nearly one third of Better-off and Poor has electrical appliances while only one fifth of the moderate has

similar appliances although types and values of appliances may be vary from one social class to another.

It is consistent that all respondents of Better-off and Moderate possess furniture while a few Poor

households owned. Generator is owned by one in twelve households in each Better-off and Moderate

while only a few poor owned. Almost nine out of ten farmers owned Hand Set regardless of social

classes. Solar is one of the lighting sources in two third of Better-off and Moderate households and

three quarter of Poor social class.

10

Table 5: Respondent’s Household Assets

Asset Social Class Chauk Monywa Myingyan Nyaung U Shwebo Total

Electrical Appliances

Better-off 0 1 1 1 1 4 (31%)

Moderate 3 2 1 2 0 8 (21%)

Poor 3 0 1 1 3 8 (33%)

Furniture

Better-off 1 2 3 4 3 13 (100%)

Moderate 6 9 6 8 9 38 (100%)

Poor 1 0 0 0 0 1 (4%)

Generator

Better-off 1 0 0 0 0 1 (8%)

Moderate 1 0 1 1 0 3 (8%)

Poor 0 0 1 0 0 1 (4%)

Hand Set

Better-off 1 0 3 4 3 11 (85%)

Moderate 5 8 6 5 9 33 (87%)

Poor 8 4 5 3 2 22 (92%)

Solar

Better-off 0 0 2 3 3 8 (62%)

Moderate 4 6 3 3 7 23 (61%)

Poor 7 3 5 2 1 18 (75%)

Access to Household Assets

In bicycle possession, as a whole, about half of better-off households have bicycle in which the most live

in Myingyan whereas the fewest in Chauk, while about one-fourth of households each from moderate

and poor households have bicycle. No poor class household possesses cars while one in twelve

households from better-off class in Shwebo, moderate class in Chauk and Shwebo townships has cars.

Except a few better off Chauk household has cycle, over 90% of households possess cycles.

11

Table 6: Respondent’s Access to Household Vehicles

Asset Social Class Chauk Monywa Myingyan Nyaung U Shwebo Total

Bicycle

Better-off 0 1 2 2 2 7 (54%)

Moderate 0 2 3 3 1 9 (24%)

Poor 2 0 1 0 2 5 (21%)

Car

Better-off 0 0 0 1 0 1 (8%)

Moderate 1 0 0 0 2 3 (8%)

Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0%)

Cycle

Better-off 1 2 2 4 3 12 (92%)

Moderate 5 9 6 6 9 35 (92%)

Poor 8 4 5 2 3 22 (92%)

Access to Productive Assets

Productive assets possession was found that over two third of better-off and moderate class households

have carts while less than half of poor class households have carts. About one third of better-off class

households have fodder cutter contrast to one fifth of moderate and poor class households has. No poor

households have mills while one in seven better-off households and one in twenty moderate class

households has mills. Nearly half of better-off class households, one third of moderate class households

have pumps while only one fifth of poor households have pumps and the most pump user households

were found in Monywa. One in seven Better-off households and one in twenty moderate households

possesses tractor and trawler. Truck possession was found the most in better off class that is about one

in seven households in average while 3% or 4% of households from both moderate and poor households

also have trucks. While half of better-off households has sewing machines as the highest possessors

among all classes and just one in eight households from the rest of other classes has sewing machines,

the most weaving machine owners are from poor class households, followed by households of better off

class and the fewest weaving owners are from moderate class households.

12

Table 7: Respondent’s Productive Assets

Asset Social Class Chauk Monywa Myingyan Nyaung U Shwebo Total

Cart

Better-off 0 2 1 4 2 9 (69%)

Moderate 3 7 4 7 5 26 (68%)

Poor 4 1 1 3 2 11 (46%)

Fodder Cutter

Better-off 1 1 0 1 2 5 (38%)

Moderate 0 0 1 2 5 8 (21%)

Poor 0 1 2 0 1 4 (17%)

Mill

Better-off 0 0 1 1 0 2 (15%)

Moderate 0 0 0 2 0 2 (5%)

Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0%)

Pump

Better-off 0 1 2 1 2 6 (46%)

Moderate 0 6 2 1 4 13 (34%)

Poor 0 1 2 0 2 5 (21%)

Sprayer

Better-off 1 2 2 3 2 10 (77%)

Moderate 3 7 4 7 6 27 (71%)

Poor 4 4 3 2 2 15 (63%)

Tractor/Trawler

Better-off 0 0 1 2 1 2 (15%)

Moderate 0 0 0 0 2 2 (5%)

Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0%)

Truck

Better-off 0 0 0 1 1 2 (15%)

Moderate 0 0 0 1 0 1 (3%)

Poor 0 0 1 0 0 1 (4%)

Sewing Machine

Better-off 0 1 1 3 1 6 (46%)

Moderate 0 0 2 2 1 5 (13%)

Poor 1 0 1 1 0 3 (13%)

Weaving

Better-off 0 1 1 1 1 4 (31%)

Moderate 0 1 0 1 1 3 (8%)

Poor 2 0 3 1 3 9 (38%)

13

Respondent’s Occupation

Farming is the main occupation for all social classes, followed by government employee, small business

and skilled labor although the numbers are insignificant. There is no significant distribution among social

classes for students and dependent.

Table 8: Occupation

Particular Chauk Monywa Myingyan Nyaung U Shwebo Total

B M P B M P B M P B M P B M P B M P

Private Sector Employee

0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2

Government Employee

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 1 2

Farmer 4 11 25 7 31 10 14 29 13 7 20 8 8 28 7 40 119 63

Skill Labour 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1

Small Business

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 1

Student 0 1 7 0 6 6 2 4 3 2 5 1 2 8 4 6 24 21

Dependent 0 5 6 0 2 2 1 3 4 5 7 2 2 4 0 8 21 14

Total 4 19 41 8 41 19 17 38 21 15 32 12 15 42 11 59 172 104

Note: B=Better-off, M=Moderate, P=Poor

Demographic and Economic Dependency Ratio

In addition to HH size and education and wealth ranking that can determine to some extent on density

of agroforestry, other several socioeconomic factors, such as demographic dependency ratio and

economic dependency ratio are also important determinants of agroforestry practices. Population

pressure and availability of labor are found as considerable variations in five townships.

If we compare ratio between dependent population (population under 15 years and over 60 years of

age) and independent population (population between 15 to 59 years of age) in three different social

classes, highest dependent population lives in Nyaung U followed by Chauk (nearly 6 out of 10 is

dependent) and Shwebo (nearly 5 out of 10 is dependent) while Monywa and Myingyan has only one

third of the population is dependent.

14

Table 9: Respondents’ demographic Dependency Ratio

Social Class

Demographic Dependency Ratio

Chauk Monywa Myingyan Nyaung U Shwebo

Better Off

Dependent Population* 0 4 4 6 7

Independent Population** 4 4 13 9 8

Ratio 0.00 1.00 0.31 0.67 0.88

Moderate

Depend Population* 9 8 9 10 11

Independent Population** 11 33 29 22 31

Ratio 0.82 0.24 0.31 0.45 0.35

Poor

Depend Population* 14 5 5 6 4

Independent Population** 27 14 16 6 7

Ratio 0.52 0.36 0.31 1.00 0.57

Average Dependency Ratio 0.55 0.33 0.31 0.59 0.48

Note:

*Dependent Population = Population under 15 years and above 60 years

**Independent Population = Population between 15 to 60 years

In terms of economic dependency ratio, as an overall aspect, lowest economically dependent population

live in Chauk followed by Shwebo and Monywa (nearly one out of 10 is economically dependent) while

Myingyan has nearly 2 out of 10 is economically dependent and the highest economic dependency ratio

found in Nyaung U having 3 out of 10 is economically dependent.

15

Table 10: Respondents’ Economic Dependency Ratio

Social Class

Economic Dependency Ratio

Chauk Monywa Myingyan Nyaung U Shwebo

Better Off

Inactive Population* 0 0 1 3 0

Active Population** 4 4 12 6 8

Ratio 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.50 0.00

Moderate

Inactive Population 2 2 4 5 4

Active Population 9 31 25 17 27

Ratio 0.22 0.06 0.16 0.29 0.15

Poor

Inactive Population 2 4 3 1 1

Active Population 25 10 13 5 6

Ratio 0.08 0.40 0.23 0.20 0.17

Average Economic Dependency Ratio

0.11 0.13 0.16 0.32 0.12

Note:

* Inactive Population = Population without Job or income

** Active Population = Population with Job or income

Respondent’s Livestock Holding

Collected data shows that households in all townships rear oxen the most rather than the other livestock as 85% of livestock reared households have oxen. The most oxen possessed households are in Nyaung U, followed by Chauk and Monywa townships households and the fewest households have oxen in Myingyan and Shwebo townships. The second profound livestock is cow and one third of total livestock reared households has cows. Shwebo households have the most number of cows, followed by Myingyan households, Nyaung U and few households possess cows in Chauk and Monywa townships. Each household has an average of four cows or oxen in all townships while the household farmers from Shwebo possess eight oxen/cows in average. Pigs are reared by farmers of Shwebo, Monywa and Myingyan. Average number of pig possession is the highest in Myingyan while the fewest average pig number possessed by Shwebo farmers.

Two respondent households each from Chauk, Myingyan and Shwebo townships have chicken while no households from the other two townships have chicken. But average chicken number by Myingyan farmers are the highest while fewest by Chauk farmers.

Sheep are reared by three of Monywa households only with each household’s an average number of sheep is 61. Goats are reared by Myingyan and Shwebo farmers. But an average number of goats possessed by Myingyan is three while average goat number by Shwebo are 50 goats. Chauk household farmers have goose with an average number of 13 goose, while the other township farmers have no or very limited number of goose.

16

Table 11: Respondent’s Holding Livestock

Animal Better-

Off Moderate Poor Chauk Monywa Myingyan

Nyaung-U

Shwebo

Chicken 1 3 2 2 0 2 0 2 6

Cow 5 8 4 2 2 4 3 6 17

Goose 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 3

Goat 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 3

Horse 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Oxen 7 27 11 9 9 8 12 8 46

Pig 1 6 0 0 3 1 0 4 8

Sheep 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 3

Total 16 49 21 15 18 17 15 22

4. Agroforestry Systems and Practices

This session briefly explain land tenure, agroforestry systems, prototypes and prevailing species found in

five target townships.

Most Farmers Practice Agroforestry System

In all surveyed five townships, at least 90% of farmers practice agroforestry, the highest percentage in

Nayung U with 95%, followed by Shwebo 93% and Chauk and Monywa 91% each and the lowest found

in Myingyan.

Table 12: Percent of Agroforestry Farmers

Township Farmers in sample villages Agroforestry farmers in sample villages

% of Agroforestry farmers

Chauk 915 1006 91%

Monywa 430 474 91%

Myingyan 260 289 90%

Nyaung U 632 662 95%

Shwebo 580 625 93%

Total 2817 3056 92%

Land Holding and Agroforestry Practices

On average, over 90% of farms in Chauk and Nyaung U, nearly 80% of farms in Shwebo and over 70% of

farms in Myonywa and Myingyan practice agroforestry land. In term of social classes, all Better-off

farmers in Chauk and Nyaung U practice agroforestry while just over 60% or 70% of better-off owned

17

farms in other three townships are agroforestry. Nearly 80% of moderate class owned farms from all

townships practice agroforestry. Over 90% of poor farmers owned farms in Chauk, Myingyan and

Nyaung U practice agroforestry while over 86% poor’s farms in Shwebo and nearly 80% of poor’s farms

in Monywa also practice agroforestry.

In terms of land registration (secured form 7), just over 90% of farms in Chauk and Nyaung U are

formally registered while over 80% of Shwebo and nearly 70% of farms in Monywa and Myingyan are

also formally registered. All better-off’s farms in Chauk, Monywa and Nyaung U are registered while

over 70% in Shwe bo and nearly 40% in Myingyan of the same class registered. Farms owned by

moderate in are registered 93% and 82% respectively in Nyaung U and Shwebo while 70%, 76% and 57%

of the same class are also registered in Chaunk, Myingyan and Monywa. All poor’s farms in Myingyan,

over 90% in Chauk and Shwebo, nearly 80% in Nyaung U and 50% in Monywa are registered farm.

Table 13: Respondents land holding and agroforestry practices

Particular Chauk Monywa Myingyan Nyaung-U Shwebo

B M P B M P B M P B M P B M P

Land holding size (Acre) 10 72 55.8 25 112 54 35 70 26.5 81 152 29 133 207 28

Agro-forestry 10 59.5 55.8 17 88.3 42 22 52 25 81 126 27 103 155 24

% of Agro 100% 83% 100% 68% 79% 78% 63% 74% 94% 100% 83% 93% 77% 75% 86%

Form (7) 10 55 54.3 25 64 27 13 49 26.5 81 141 23 99 169 26

% of Form (7) 100% 76% 97% 100% 57% 50% 37% 70% 100% 100% 93% 79% 74% 82% 93%

Agroforestry Plots distance to farmer’s village

Of 118 plots in total, 92 plots owned by different social classes in different townships are situated under

1 mile away from villages. As an average, the 90% of plots in Monywa and Myingyan, 76% of plots in

Chauk and nearly 70% of Nyaung U and Shwebo are less than 1 mile from village. 25 plots owned by

different social classes are situated within 1 to 3 miles away from the villages. Just 4% of those plots are

owned by better-off class farmers, more than half of the plots owned by moderate class farmers and the

rest 40% are owned by poor farmers.

18

Table 14: Distance from village to agroforestry plot

Distance Chauk Monywa Myingyan Nyaung U Shwebo Total

B M P B M P B M P B M P B M P B M P

Under 1 Mile 2 9 8 3 10 6 5 9 7 8 8 3 4 9 1 22 45 25

Bet 1 to 3 Mile 0 2 4 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 7 2 1 3 2 1 14 10

Over 3 Miles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Total 2 11 12 3 11 7 5 10 8 8 15 5 5 13 3 23 60 35

Villages distance to Township

Of total 25 study villages, one furthest study village that is over 30 miles away from township is situated

in Nyaung U while three nearest villages that are between 4 to 10 miles away from township are located

in Monywa. Overall, the most villages (48% of total villages) are between 12 to 18 miles away from

township, while the rest 28 % of total villages is located between 4 to 10 miles and 20% is between 20 to

22 miles away from township.

Table 15: Distance from village to township (unit - Mile)

Distance Tsp to village Chauk Monywa Myingyan Nyaung U Shwebo Total

Bet 04 to 10 Miles 1 3 1 2 0 7

Bet 12 to 18 Miles 2 2 4 1 3 12

Bet 20 to 22 Miles 2 0 0 1 2 5

Over 30 Miles 0 0 0 1 0 1

Total 5 5 5 5 5 25

Topography of Agroforestry Plots

Most plots could be classified as flat and gentle slope. Of 118 visited plots, three quarter of plots (89 out

of 118 plots) are flat type and one in eight plots ( 15 out of 118 plots) are gentle slope plots while one in

17 plots each is undulated and hilly type plots. The most flat lands are in Chauk, Myingyan and Nyaung U

townships, followed by Monywa and Shwebo townships. No undulating lands in Monywa while few

undulating lands in the rest four townships. No hilly lands in Chauk and Nyaung U while few plots are in

hilly area of the rest three townships.

19

In Nyaung U the most prevalent plots are sandy soil while silty soil plots were found in Monywa the

most and most of Shwebo plots are composed of soils rich in fine clay particles. Almost one third of all

plots are fertile while half of them are just fair conditions in soil fertility. To list soil fertility in townships,

fertile plots are in Myingyan the most while the fewest in Nyaung U. Reversely, most fairly fertile plots

are in Nyaung U while the fewest are in Myingyan.

Table 16: Topographic conditions of agroforestry plots

Land relief

Chauk Monywa Myingyan Nyaung-U Shwebo Total

B M P B M P B M P B M P B M P B M P

Hilly 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 6 0

Undulated 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 6 0

Gentle Slope 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 2 0 4 5 6

Flat 2 9 10 3 7 5 5 7 8 4 13 3 3 7 3 17 43 29

Total 2 11 12 3 11 7 5 10 8 8 15 5 5 13 3 23 60 35

Table 17: Soil texture and fertility

Township Soil texture Soil Fertility

Sandy Silty Clay Poor Medium Fertile

Chauk 17 7 1 1 13 11

Monywa 4 16 1 0 16 5

Myingyan 7 11 5 0 10 13

Nyaung U 24 0 4 0 25 3

Shwebo 9 5 7 1 13 7

Total 61 39 18 2 77 39

Agroforestry practicing experiences

In meeting with 75 farmers in total, experiences of agroforestry are; 27% farmers have 50 years, 23%

have 21 to 30 years, nearly 20% of farmers have 11 to 20 years, 13% of farmers have 31 to 40 years and

10% of farmers each have either less than 10 years or 41 to 50 years.

No farmers in Chauk and Nyaung U has under 10 years, 9 farmers in Shwebo and zero farms in Nyaung U

has 11 to 20 year while one third of Chauk farmers has 31 to 40 years experiences and 3 out of 7 farmers

in Nyaung U has 41 to 50 years experiences. Half and a quarter of over 50 years experiences farmers are

in Nyaung U and Chauk respectively.

20

Table 18: Agroforestry practicing experiences (unit -farmers)

Agro-forestry Experiences

Chauk Monywa Myingyan Nyaung-U Shwebo Total

B M P B M P B M P B M P B M P B M P

Under 10 Years 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 3

11 to 20 Years 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 2 7 5

21 to 30 Years 0 2 2 1 5 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 3 12 2

31 to 40 Years 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 4

41 to 50 Years 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 4 2

Over 50 Years 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 0 1 0 5 7 8

Total 1 6 8 2 9 4 3 6 6 4 8 3 3 9 3 13 38 24

Trends of Agroforestry

The perception of farmers with agroforestry trends are 17% as increasing, 39% as decreasing and 44% as

same as before. Just over 30% of farmers who think decreasing trends are from Monywa and Myingyan

while nearly 30% of farmers who think increasing trends are from Chauk and Monywa and similar

percent of farmers who also think the trend is same as before by Myingyan and Nyaung U. In term of

social classes, most of the poor farmers think increasing trend while no farmers in Nyaung U thinks

decreasing trend.

Table 19: Trends of Agroforestry

Agro-forestry Experiences

Chauk Monywa Myingyan Nyaung U Shwebo Total

B M P B M P B M P B M P B M P B M P

Decrease 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 6 5

Increase 0 3 5 1 6 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 2 3 1 5 16 8

Same 0 2 3 1 0 2 2 4 3 3 5 2 0 5 1 6 16 11

Total 1 6 8 2 9 4 3 6 6 4 8 3 3 9 3 13 38 24

Reason for Cutting Agroforestry Trees

The main reasons for cutting agroforestry trees are to prevent shading, to collect firewood, for house

construction, for thinning and to get some income. The farmers represent are 43% for shading, 26% for

firewood, 17% for house construction, 9% for thinning and 6% for selling.

In term of township wise, nearly 30% of farmers in Chauk cut for either to prevent shade or firewood,

while 20% of farmers in Nyaung U cut to prevent shade or housing while nearly 30% of Shwebo farmers

cut to prevent shade. Nearly 17% of farmers in Monywa cut for selling to get income.

21

Most of the moderate and poor farmers in all townships cut for fuel wood while only few better-off cut

for firewood as they may have enough income to buy firewood from outside. Most moderate and poor

in all townships and better off in all townships except Myingyan and chauk cut trees to prevent shade.

Table 20: Reasons for cutting agroforestry trees

Reason for cutting agroforestry trees

Chauk Monywa Myingyan Nyaung-U Shwebo Total

B M P B M P B M P B M P B M P B M P

Shaded 0 3 5 1 1 1 0 3 2 3 2 1 3 4 1 7 13 10

Firewood 0 3 2 0 4 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 11 5

Housing/Fencing 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 2 1 2 0 3 7 2

Thinning 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 2

For Selling 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1

Agroforestry Prototypes

The most common agroforestry prototypes are Boundary Planting, Random planting, Farm Gardening

and Fencing while least common prototypes are alley cropping and windbreak plantation. Boundary

planting, together with alley cropping and fodder stands two third of total plots while one fifth of the

plots stands for random planting. Nearly 5% of plots planted under farm garden or fencing and few plots

have been established recently as alley cropping while only 1% practice windbreak.

The purpose of boundary planting is to demarcate farm land by using tree as boundary pillars while

random planting is practice to nurture natural grown trees in the farm either without planting or in rare

case with gap planting. Both boundary and random planting are practicing regardless of soil fertility

condition. Farm garden mainly practice in combination of both short term and long term fruit trees or

perennial food trees with the purpose of harvesting fruit or food for either consumption or selling.

Fencing is practiced in order to prevent human or animal entering to the farm land and bushy or thorny

species are mainly planted. Alley cropping is recently practicing, mainly with cash crop trees as a future

investment to get additional income aside from agriculture crops. Windbreak is mainly practicing to

reduce wind erosion and prevent soil fertility and moisture, however only few farmers practice proper

windbreak plantation.

There is no Silvopasture system in the study area, combination practice of agroforestry tree species

together with livestock. Only few farmers currently practicing agro-silvi-pasture, especially farmer who

owned larger extent of land grow together forest trees and agriculture crops while depressed area are

dedicated for fodder crops such as maize.

The main Boundary planting species (for the purpose of simplicity, we will use local name here) are

Toddy Palm, Mango, Tamar, Shaw Phyu, Shar, Hta Naung, Magyi, Zee, Shar, Thabut, Thanatkhar, Dahat,

22

Thanat, Kokko, Letpan, Nabae, Pyin Ma, Tel, Thabauk, Thin Khaung, Thinwin, Thit Nyo and Yone. These

tree species are durable, tall, long lifespan and resistant to changing climate.

The main Random planting species are Toddy Palm, Mango, Thanatkha, Bawsakaing, Thabut, Shar,

Tamar and Zee. The tree species that are easily and naturally germinated, with minimal care and almost

no labor or cash inputs are required.

The main Farm Gardening species are Mango, Banana, Toddy Palm, Gandasein, Htanaung, Bawsakaing,

Thabut, Magyi, Shar,Tama and Thinbaw. The tree species are mainly fruit and food crops which can

provide household nutrition and income.

The main Fencing species are Thanatkha, Shaw Phyu, Tamar, Mango, Shar, Thabut, Toddy Palm, Tamar

and Mango. The type of tree species are bushy or thorny so that they can prevent human and animal

encroachment to the farm land, at the same time cutting branch can supplement household fuel

requirements.

Most of alley cropping species include Thanatkha and Tamar. The type of tree species are tall and less

shady, possible to get income within five years either cutting or harvesting sap or resin. The detail

species lists can be found in Annexes.

Table 21: Agroforestry prototypes

Prototype Chauk Monywa Myingyan Nyaung U Shwebo Total

B M P B M P B M P B M P B M P B M P

Random and Betel Garden 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

Alley Cropping 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1

Boundary Planting 0 5 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 4 10 3 3 8 3 7 25 14

Boundary & Alley 0 1 5 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 10 7

Boundary, Alley &Fodder 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2

Boundary & Fodder 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 4 3

Fencing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1

Fencing & Fodder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Garden 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1

Random 0 1 1 3 1 0 4 4 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 8 7 6

Random & Fodder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Windbreak & Fodder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Total 2 11 12 3 11 7 5 10 8 8 15 5 5 13 3 23 60 35

23

Agroforestry species and benefits

The farmers practice agroforestry in many prototypes in widely scattered to high density pattern for

multiple products and services that directly or indirectly refer to growing and using trees. To list, the

farmers grow trees to provide food for animals, fuel, medicines, fodder, building materials, maintain

organic soil fertility and conserve wild animals and ultimately reduce salinity of the soil. They ranked

that Toddy Palm is the most obviously useful for variety of purposes mentioned except for the concern

of maintaining organic soil fertility. Shar, Zee, Mango, Tamar and Thabut are quite useful species for

most of the purposes while Mango and Tamar are grown not for fodder. Tamar is retained to conserve

wild animals the most and Thabut is to be supportive for climate regulation. For medicine, after Htan

Pin, Thanakha is the second priority species to be grown.

20%

3%

66%

4%6%

1%

Plots Dispersion

Random

Alley Cropping

Boundary

Fencing

Farm Garden

Windbreak

24

Table 21: Selected Agroforestry tree species and their benefits

Species Fodd

er

Organic

Matter

Wild life

Conservation

Climate

regulation

Fuelwoo

d

Erosion

Timber

Medicine

Bee forag

e

Drought

Salinity

Total

Acacia catechu (Shar) 23 24 35 36 39 32 35 8 22 37 19 310

Acacia leucophloea (Htanaung) 4 4 5 7 9 7 5 0 4 7 3 55

Albizzia lebbek (Kokeko) 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 2 5 5 2 45

Azadirachta indica (Tamar) 0 15 24 20 19 21 18 14 14 23 13 181

Bamboo 0 2 4 4 5 4 1 1 0 4 2 27

Cassia siamea (Mezali) 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 18

Eucalyptus calmendulansis (Eucalyptus spp) 0 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 24

Gantaryasein 2 1 1 1 4 3 0 0 1 3 2 18

Guava (Malakar) 0 5 6 4 5 5 3 3 6 5 1 43

Leucaena glauca (Bawsakine) 1 3 4 3 3 4 2 0 2 3 2 27

Limonia Acidissima (Thanakha) 0 11 12 16 13 14 3 17 13 13 4 116

Loofah (Thabut) 5 15 18 20 19 16 14 2 10 17 10 146

Mango 0 21 37 34 28 27 11 7 28 23 11 227

Palm (Htan Pin) 38 11 48 44 42 36 45 32 29 38 22 385

Pha Lan 0 2 3 4 4 4 3 0 0 4 3 27

Satechee 2 1 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 12

Sterculia versicolor (Shaw Phyu) 0 4 10 12 4 7 4 5 3 7 1 57

Teak 0 4 5 6 4 6 5 1 1 5 1 38

Tectona hamiltoniana (Dahat) 1 6 9 9 10 8 8 0 5 9 2 67

Thanat Pin 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 19

Thapuk 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 12

Thaukchank 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 0 0 2 1 18

Thit Nyo 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 12

Thit Poke 1 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 2 1 14

Zizyphus mauritiana (Zee) 12 22 29 26 29 27 10 14 24 24 13 230

25

Pasturing Livestock

36 respondents fed their cows/oxen by collecting fodder from their farms. 12 farmers sometimes

practice free pasturing in community pasture and collecting fodder while few farmers buy fodder and

fewer farmers collect fodder for their cows/oxen. Buying fodder for pigs is the only option for the study

farmers. Free pasturing and fodder collection are taken for goats and chicken fodder is mostly free for

study farmers.

Table 22: Pasturing livestock

Fodder Buy Collect Collect

and Buy Free

Free and Buy

Free and

Collect

Free, Collect

and Buy Total

Chicken 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 6

Cow/Oxen 8 36 6 4 0 12 5 71

Goose 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3

Goat/Sheep 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 6

Horse 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Pig 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

Total 8 37 8 14 1 14 6 87

Non-timber forest product

Except firewood, little information about non-timber forest product was able to be collected. Nyaung U

farmers are highest users of firewood while Shwebo is the place of lower firewood users. Chauk,

Myingyan and Monywa moderately uses firewood depending upon household needs. Mushroom and

other products such as bamboo shoot, bamboo and seaweed are slightly spread in Chauk and Monywa

townships.

Table 23: Non-Timber Forest Product

Non Timber Forest Product

Chauk Monywa Myingyan Nyaung-

U Shwebo Total

Bamboo Shoot 0 1 0 0 0 1

Bomboo 1 0 0 0 0 1

Firewood 14 10 12 16 4 56

Mushroom 1 1 0 0 0 2

Seaweed 0 1 0 0 0 1

Total 16 13 12 16 4 61

26

Market for agroforestry products

In trading agroforestry produce, almost half of crop selling, 102 out of 230 crop selling, village farmers

depend on other town’s markets for their crops rather than on town that village is registered.

Dependency rate on broker is the least for selling crops. Non timber forest products are traded mainly

within the village and some are sent to town for sale. To sell tree produce mostly depends on village

market and some are sent to town or other towns.

Table 24: Market for agroforestry products

Constraints in trading agroforestry products

Regarding constraints of selling crops, market information access is the most challenging factor for

Monywa farmers while fewest farmers in Nyaung U claimed that is a problem for them. However,

credible market access is the least issue for the Monywa farmers while Shwebo has lack of credible

market the most. Fluctuated crop price is challenging for Shwebo farmers the most and complaints

relating quality are peblematic for Chauk farmers while Myingyan farmers have access to stable price

and lowest quality variation measurement between storage and collectors in town. Weight

measurement malpractice happened in Shwebo the most while in Chauk the least but Chauk farmers

have highest bargaining power at market whereas Shwebo farmers have the least bargaining power.

Transportation is not a problem at all for both Monywa and Nyaung U farmers while it is challenging

Shwebo farmers. Market location is not convenient the most in Chauk while no or few farmers face that

challenge in other townships.

For trading or selling non timber forest products (NTFPs), Nyaung U farmers face non stable price issues

the most. Regarding quality and weight of NTFPs, Chauk farmers face those constraints the most.

Monywa farmers have difficulty in bargaining NTFP with buyers while transporting NTFPs is a challenge

for Nyaung U farmers. In selling trees or tree products, Nyaung U farmers face limited market

information while Shwebo farmers have unstable price constraints and Monywa farmers face lack of

standard quality of tree produce. Nayaung U farmers reported that legal restriction is a barrier in selling

the trees. Tariff on crops and tree/ tree products are common issues for both Nyaung U and Shwebo

farmers. Delay payment for crops and trees is a constraint in Chauk.

Market Place

Broker In Village Other Town

Shwebo Town Total

Crop 3 1 102 25 83 230

NTFP 1 11 0 0 5 17

Tree 0 18 11 1 11 41

Total 4 46 113 26 99 288

27

Table 25: Market constraints

Townshi

p

Main

Selling

Item

limited

market

informati

on

uncertain

ty of

market

fluctuate

d price

quality

variation

weight

measure

ment

malpracti

ce

less

bargainin

g power

Poor

Storage

Poor

transport

ation

Poor

market

place

Legal

restrictio

n

Tariff/Tra

de

barrier

Delay

payment

Crop 14 11 91 70 40 48 12 6 21 0 0 12

NTFP 0 0 6 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tree 0 0 21 3 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 3

Crop 33 5 108 67 17 28 0 30 0 0 0 0

NTFP 0 0 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tree 4 2 11 10 3 3 0 3 3 0 0 0

Crop 14 11 68 28 13 31 3 4 4 0 0 0

NTFP

Tree 3 0 3 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Crop 4 6 108 59 14 24 0 16 6 0 6 0

NTFP 0 0 11 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0

Tree 6 3 40 8 4 5 6 5 5 1 1 6

Crop 20 13 119 52 58 38 13 42 3 0 2 4

NTFP

Tree 3 3 6 2 0 2 1 1 2 0 1 0

Nyaung U

Shwe Bo

Chauk

Monywa

Myingyan

28

Knowledge, training and network

Most farmers from all five townships mainly inherited agroforestry knowledge from their parents or the

elders. In addition, in village social gatherings, the farmer shares knowledge and experiences each

other, particularly in Shwebo township. In most of study villages, some Non-Governmental

Organizations on environmental concerns act as helpful knowledge resources for the farmers, especially

for Nyaung U farmers. Agroforestry knowledge and skills brought about by the media is not that widely

common in all townships.

In terms of access to agroforestry and/or agriculture related training, Non-Governmental Organizations

are the most active training providers for the farmers. While Forest department extension service access

it too limited, MOALI emphasize on training provision, particularly in Nyaung U which is also the only

township. Yezin University could reach for conducting agricultural training. Private sector, namely

fertilizer companies, is an important training providers to some extent however and are always limited

to their products specific.

For the purposes of working together or sorting out issues together or discussing about potential future

activities, most farmers formed informal networks each other except Chauk farmers while all farmers

have much better engagement with NGOs, MOALI and agriculture input supplier company than forest

department and media.

Most farmers are struggling with technical assistance and quality seeds that affect quality and yields.

High value and reliable market links is also challenging for all farmers if compared with access to better

infrastructure, farm tools and financial support.

5. Gaps in Agroforestry

Choosing Agroforestry System and Prototypes

Although agroforestry has been implementing over generations, the purpose and choosing species

requires further assistant. Except boundary planting, most of the tree species do not reflect the purpose

of agroforestry system.

Income from Agroforestry is only subsistence

Most farmers use agroforestry products for their household used and seldom maintain income record

generated from agroforestry.

Changing Market Demand and Insufficient Market Information

Agroforestry products are enormous while market demand is unstable at the same time always

changing based on China Market demand. There is no proper market information system in place for

agroforestry products though there are great opportunities to boost alternative income.

29

No Focal Department or Ministry

Agroforestry is away from radar of Government Department, there is no specific department mandated

on agroforestry thus proper work plan and budget is missing.

Unmet Technical Support

The issues relating to misleading agroforestry system, their purposes and tree species are mainly due to

weak extension and technical support. Except few project, there is almost no dedicated efforts to

improve awareness, knowledge and technical options for agroforestry.

Lack of Agroforestry Farmer Organization, Association and Network

Agroforestry farmers are almost everywhere but there is no group

representing them at local, State/Regional or National level. There is no

network or platform to organize, share, learn and advocate there issues to the

decision markers. 6. Propose Solutions

Organize Farmer Group, Associations and Network

Agroforestry farmer group should organize at the village level and are then associated at the township,

district and Region level. The organized group will have more representatives, legitimate voices, sound

moral ground for negotiations and achieve result based advocacy. The network should consist of

agroforestry players including representatives from Government Department, Private Sector, University

and Research Institutions, Private Sector and NGOs/CSOs.

Dedicated Government Department with purpose

Forest Department is the most suitable mandate for boosting agroforestry but it should be dedicated

staff, proper work plan and budget so that agroforestry is under the radar. Within the work plan, there

should be awareness, technical capacity building and dedicated budget for seedling distributions. The

capacity building should focus only on training; there are both formal and informal ways of building

capacity including exchange visit, peer to peer learning and forum/workshops. The department should

find champions International Organization such World Agroforestry Center and other INGOs and NGOs

who can best support on building capacity of farmers.

Market and Market Information

The private should be the best positions to play while they are buying agroforestry products from

farmers and sell products to processor and or exporter. With increase mobile phone coverage, there

should be the best use of social media platform to collect and disseminate market information and

trends.

30

Scaling Up from Subsistence to alternative Income

There are enormous opportunities to make use of agroforestry landscape changing from subsistence to

alternative income. To achieve this, there should be proper market and value chain study conduct,

identify key products for dry zone, develop a plan to overcome existing challenges and a pilot program

should be established to learn what works and what does not work. There are many practical

experiences from other country which can be adapted to Dry Zone context, pilot project should clearly

identify these experiences and opportunities. Based on pilot experiences, large scale program should be

developed for other agro-ecological zone.

7. Case Study

As evidenced by recent discussions with U Thar Toe from Htein San Village, Chauk who is from moderate social class & U Mya Thein from Nyaung Zin village of Chauk township who is from poor class, common agroforestry practices in Chauk can be confined as following descriptions to some degree.

U Thar Toe has been practicing agroforestry across 6.5 acres of his land for 40 years. His plots are flat land relief, sandy soil texture, medium soil fertility, and only rainwater is accessed. He has been doing agroforestry as a traditional livelihood of his family. He grows crops such as sesame, peanut, corn, mung bean. There are perennials such as Shar, Thabut, Toddy Palm, Htanaung, Shaw Phyu in his agroforestry plots. Agroforestry plots got decreased as he gave his son and daughter as an inheritance. He has never cut down the trees before and he will do agroforestry to plant Shaw Phyu. In addition, he wants to grow Teak, Yin Mar and Eucalyptus if he has a chance. By growing Shar and Shaw Phyu, he gets benefits of fodder to be shared with others as he sold his cows, timber and fuel wood and cash and indirect benefits e.g wild life conversation, tolerance to drought and medicine. He gained agriculture related knowledge and skills from NGOs such as CDA, NAG, Cesvi and agriculture related company such as Kira, fertilizer company. He prefers to grow perennial trees in the future as growing crops such as sesame and peanuts require more labor force. He also believes agroforestry compensates forests that are in an increasing rate of deforestation and solid degradation.

His sample plot is shown in Picture A & A-1.

With land acres of 2.8, U Mya Thein has practiced agroforestry for 30 years. Land relief of the plots is flat type. Soil type is sandy in fairly good condition. It depends on rainwater. Major species are Toddy Palm, Mango, corn for fodder and agricultural crops such as peanuts, pigeon pea. High density of Toddy Palms is in fences of plot. Major income is from selling Mango and Shaw Phyu. He used to emphasize on plantation of different species of Mango. He owns two cows and ten chicken. Grass and bean are fodder for cows and corn seeds for chicken. Cows are pastured in community land. He got the idea of agroforestry knowledge in 2016. Informal knowledge sharing is common in the village. Private input company and NGOs are active He cut three Toddy Palm to remove shading and avoid from destroy of squirrels. He is interested to grow Shaw Phyu due to high market demand.

His sample plot is in Picture B & B-1.

31

Picture A

Picture A-1

32

Picture B

33

Picture B-1

Ongoing agroforestry practices in Monywa were noted as per short discussions with U San Kwit from Pa Lin village, Monywa, who is moderate class and U Hla Myo from Nyaung Pin Ywar Thit, Monywa who is also from moderate social class in the village.

U San Kwit has 10 acres of agroforestry plots and has been practicing agroforestry for 40 years. Land relief of the plots is flat type in silty soil. Soil fertility is in good condition. Rainwater is a sole water source. Common species in the plot include a few different species such as Mangos that are scattered in the plot, Tamar and Zee in the fences, Thanatkha in random pattern, Betel, lime etc. The Betel is grown in three acres of his total plot and major income is from selling betel while some income is from selling other fruit trees and crops. Trees in the fields serve the purpose of shade and protection for workers. Awayyar is used as fencing and partial windbreak.He possesses two cows. In rainy season, they are pastured in field and in other seasons, corn and bean cake are fed. Scarcity of labor is an issue for this farmer. He used to chop Zee annually. Teak and Shaw Phyu are preferred species. Technical assistance is acquired from sharing knowledge with other farmers in the village and from NGOs- Cesvi. He plans to grow agroforestry species to be in line with market demand.

His sample plot is in Picture C & C-1.

34

Agroforestry has been practiced across 20 acres of his land for six years by U Hla Myo. Land relief of the plots is flat type and slope. Soil type is fairly good condition. Rainwater and tube wells are water sources. Main agroforestry species in the plots are Thanatkha with ten feet in height and six inches in girth and nine feet between rows and six feet between plants, betel with three feet between rows, lime that is six feet in height and eight inches girth, tomato, many other crops such as sesame, butter bean and green gram. He substituted Thanatkha in the places of crops land in combination with green gram and sesame. He like gardening and already cultivated Mango, Magyi, Zee and Teak from this project. He owns a pair of oxen. Fodder is from his plots and they are freely pastured in 120 acres of public pasture in the village. Self-learning and private sector are the main sources for technical support.He had poles from Shar and firewood from Gandasein. He prefers to grow perennial trees such as Thanatkha and Shaw Phyu in long term in his own plots rather than agricultural crops.

His sample plot is in Picture D & D-1

Picture C

35

Picture C-1

36

Picture D

Picture D-1

37

The fact that agroforestry can help manage watershed has been shown in Myingyan township. They perceive it reduces the levels of pollution and soil erosion. Agroforestry in Myingyan was discussed in some details by two farmers. Gardening and random practicing prototypes in Myingyan township are as follows:

U San Lin in Myingyan, Bon village who is from better-off social class in the village.He has got nine acres of agroforestry land and practiced it since 2015. His plots are in flat land relief, silty soil texture, medium soil fertility, and sufficient water is accessible throughout the year. Major fruit trees in his plots are banana, lime, Mango with Kyatsu. When Mango is mature, Kyatsu is cut for more space and sufficient nutrient for Mango tree. Teak that is 30 feet height and 1.5 feet girth and Toddy Palms and Shar are in fences and crops are in plots. Shaw Phyu was provided by the project. Pruning was practiced for removing shades. Major income is selling crops such as peanuts and cocaine leaves as Peagon pea price was not good last year. He owns five oxen. Community pasture is available for free pasture now but it was recently labeled as land under Ministry of Industry. He gained agricultural knowledge from NGOs. He will keep agroforestry practice. He wants more Shaw Phyu and Mango due to rapid growth and good market price.

His sample plot is in Picture E & E-1

U San Kyi from Myingyan, Htan Taw Gyi village who is from poor class in the village. He is also a handicraft expert. Agroforestry has been practiced across three acres of his land for 60 years. Land relief of the plots is flat type in silty soil. Soil type is in good condition. Rainwater is sole water source for agriculture. Main species in his plots are Shar (15feet in height and 1.5 feet in girth), Toddy Palm ( 20 feet height and 2.5 feet in girth), Thabut ( 15 feet in height and 2 feet in girth), Dahat, Lima bean and Peagon pea, watermelon and corn. He got poles and firewood and fencing from Shar and fruits from guava for family consumption. Shading of trees was pruned regularly. Number of trees got decreased due to soil infertility. He earned money from selling corn. He owns two oxen, fodder can be obtained from his agroforestry species in his plots. Agroforestry will be carried out as a livelihood option, particularly gardening. He learnt from agroforestry techniques from his parents and Cesvi. He wants to know more how to grow Mangos in his plots.

His sample plot is in Picture F & F-1

38

Picture E

Picture E-1

39

Picture F

Picture F-1

40

Present day agroforestry in Nyaung U was proved by U Kyauk Khel from Yin San village, Nyaung U who is from moderate class in the village.

Over 40 years, agroforestry has been practiced across 11 acres in three different plots of his land. Land relief of the plots is flat type. Soil type is sandy in fairly good condition. It depends on rainwater, so water access is limited in some season. Main agroforestry species in the plot are peanuts, sesame, palm, millets, Thint Won, Shar, plum, Thin Khaung Pin, Thit Nyo, Thanakha, Hshaw Phyu. On fences of the plot, palm trees, with 30 feet height and five feet girth, act as a boundary with intensive pattern. Sides of the plot are composed of Thit Khaung Pin, Toddy Palm, Thit Nyo and Shar plants. Peanut is grown in almost half of the plot. Shaw Phyu and Thanatkha seedlings were provided by the project and are grown alternatively with food production crops-peanuts. Planting practices including digging, fertilizing and how to plant seedling, specific spacing between plants were shared by the project staff. Exact spacing distances between plants are 15 feet x 15 feet and gaps among peanuts are from 10 inches to 18 inches. Sesame is grown in random orientation with Hshaw Phyu in the plot. He is aware that agroforestry improved soil fertility and microclimate and tree litter can improve soil nutrient availability, increase the level of organic matter, and improve soil structure.

U Kyauk Khel’s practice is not indigenous local agroforestry practice in terms of spacing, species composition etc but the project’s formatted intervention. He owns four oxen that are well suited for agroforestry application. Although in his village there are 65 acres of public pasture, he usually use his post harvested plot as pasture. He desires to plant Mangos due to potentially high market demand.

His sample plot is in Picture G & G-1.

41

Picture G

Picture G-1

42

In addition to U Myint Aung, Shwebo, Gway Pin Kone village who is better-off social class in the village and U Nyunt Htun Hlaing, Shwebo, Gway Pin Kone who is from moderate social class in the village, farmers in Shwebo claimed that agroforestry is an age-old practice revised time by time with an economic interest but to maintain the sustainability of agro ecosystems. Details of notes from discussions with the two farmers mentioned above are as follows:

Agroforestry has been practiced across 60 acres in 15 different plots of his land for 45 years by U Myint Aung. Land relief of the plots is flat type and slope. Soil type is stony in non-fertile condition. It depends on rainwater. 1,500 teak trees are planted in one of his plots, in other plots, Teak and Shaw Phyu and Eucalyptus spp are mixed. Main agroforestry species in the plots are Teak, Tamar, Thanatkha, Magyi, Teak,Shaw Phyu, Mango, Kokeko, Zee, Toddy Palm. On fences of the plot, palm trees, with 15 feet height and three feet girth, Zee with four feet height and three inches girth, Shaw Phyu with nine feet height and six feet girth etc act as a boundary with intensive pattern. Teak with nine feet height and four feet girth in combination with Eucalyptus spp is planted in the plot. Sesame and lima bean are also grown. He used to cut trees and prune mature shade trees to remove shades on crop species. Shaw Phyu is preferred to grow due to possibility of rapid earning livings. He bought more agroforestry plots to grow perennials. He gained agroforestry knowledge from other farmers in the village and forest department. He owns 14 oxen and fodder is got from his own plots and the animals are also pastured in free public pasture. He wants to plant more Shaw Phyu, Teak and Eucalyptus spp.

His sample plot is in Picture H & H-1.

U Nyunt Htun Hlaing has been practicing agroforestry across 15 acres of his land for 10 years. Mixture of guava with 15 feet height and 1 foot girth, mango trees with 20 feet height and four feet girth, coconut, betel, peanut are planted in his plot. Land relief is flat type. Soil type is silty soil and/or clay soil and half of the plot is good at soil fertility and the other half is just moderately good. Rainwater and private wells are water sources. Density of bananas is planted in boundary of the plot and Yin Mar, hedge rows of lead trees are in the bound act as windbreak for betel plant cultivation. In other bound of the plot, Tamar with 20 feet height and 1 foot girth, Shar with 20 feet height and 1 feet girth and Phat Than with 20 feet and 1 foot. Since two tube wells were dug at the center of the plot, betel plants can be watered from the wells all around the year and also onion is watered in the winter that is subsidized as part of relay cropping after sesame in late rainy season. Practice of this plot is indigenous. The farmer owns three oxen. Benefits to farmers are: increased cash flow, diversified production, and improved growth and productivity of fruit trees and having fuelwood from fencing species. Agroforestry knowledge was gained from NGOs and private sector company and training by DoA. His preferred practice is gardening in intercropping that is mixed with fruits, betel trees and annual crops.

His sample plot is in Picture I & I-1.

43

Picture H

Picture H-1

44

Picture I

Picture I-1

45

Annex I

List of Agroforestry Prototypes and Common Tree Species Found

Boundary 215

plants Boundary and Alley Cropping

97 Plants

Boundary and Pasture

41 Plants Fencing 16 Plants

Toddy Palm 37 Toddy Palm 15 Toddy Palm 6 Shar 3

Shar 25 Tamar 12 Thabut 4 Thabut 2

Thabut 22 Thanatkha 10 Shar 4 Todddy Palm 2

Zee 19 Thabut 10 Dahat 3 Tamar 2

Tamar 16 Shar 7 Ma Gyi 3 Mango 2

Htanaung 14 Shaw-phyu 7 Tama 3 Fencing and Fodder Crop 4 Plants

Phalan 9 Zee 7 Tha yet 3 Thanakha 1

Mango 9 Dahat 4 Zee 3 Shaw-phyu 1

Shaw-phyu 5 Kokeko 4 Tel Pin 2 Tamar 1

Teak 5 Awzar 3 Alley 9 Plants Mango 1

Bamboo 4 Mango 3 Thanatkha 2 Garden 38 Plants

Dahat 3 Seik-chi 2 Tamar 2 Mango 7

Eucalyptus spp 3

Boundary, Alley Cropping and Pasture

27 Plants

Windbreak and

Pasture

2 Plants

Banana 3

Gandasein 3 Shaw-phyu 5 Mango 1

Toddy Palm 3

Kokeko 3 Toddy Palm 4 Zee 1

Gandasein 2

Bawsakhine 3 Shar 3 Htanaung 2

Thanatkha 3 Thanatkha 2 Bawsakhine 2

Pyin (Pyin Ma) 3 Zee 2 Thabut 2

Thanat 3 Ma Gyi 2

Thit-pok 3 Shar 2

Tamar 2

Thin Baw 2

46

List of Agroforestry Prototypes and Common Tree Species Found

Random 88 Plants Random and Betel

Garden 10 Plants Random and Pasture 4 Plants

Toddy Palm 13 Bawsakhine 2 Bamboo 1

Shar 10 Tamar 2 Thabut 1

Tamar 10 Mango 2 Toddy Palm 1

Mango 10 Mango 1

Thabut 9

Zee 7

Thit-nyo 3

47

Annex II

Received training (Org)

MOALI NGOs FD Fertilizer Companies Media Yezin University

Chauk 1 9 1 3 1 0

Monywa 1 5 0 4 0 0

Myingyan 5 10 0 4 0 0

Nyaung U 8 11 0 2 2 1

Shwebo 2 7 1 0 1 0

Total 17 42 2 13 4 1

Acquire knowledge and skills

Sharing one another

Inherited from parents/elders

Fertilizer Companies MOALI NGOs Media

Chauk 4 14 0 0 7 2

Monywa 7 14 1 1 5 0

Myingyan 6 11 3 3 4 1

Nyaung U 9 11 0 4 9 1

Shwebo 12 10 2 5 6 2

Total 38 60 6 13 31 6

48

Agro forestry network

Farmer to Farmer

MOALI NGOs FD Media Fertilizer Companies

Chauk 0 1 5 2 1 1

Monywa 4 3 4 0 1 0

Myingyan 3 4 3 1 1 3

Nyaung U 3 0 1 0 0 1

Shwebo 6 0 3 0 0 1

Total 16 8 16 3 3 6

Suggestion Quality

seed Technical Support

Market Access

Infrastructure Farm Tools Livelihood Diversify

Farm Land Capital

Chauk 6 14 2 1 1 1 1 1

Monywa 8 9 2 0 0 0 0 0

Myingyan 7 11 4 0 1 0 1 0

Nyaung U 8 13 4 1 0 0 0 1

Shwebo 9 8 6 2 0 0 0 0

Total 38 55 18 4 2 1 2 2