Leaflet No. 24

The Republic of the Union of Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation Forest Department

Assessing different livelihood of the local people and causes of forest degradation and deforestation in the

Dr. Chaw Chaw Sein, Staff Officer Dr. Thaung Naing Oo, Director Kyi Phyu Aung, Range Officer Forest Research Institute

December, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i Abstract ii 1 Introduction 1 2 Objectives 2 3 Literature Review 2 3.1 What do we mean by sustainable livelihoods? 2 3.2 Why are sustainable livelihoods important for conservation? 3 3.3 How do we identify locally appropriate livelihoods strategies? 3 4 Material and Method 5 4.1 Study Area 5 4.2 Data collection and analysis 6 5 Results and Discussion 6 5.1 Livelihood surveys in the Kayah Region 6 5.2 Causes of forest degradation and deforestation in the study area 12 6 Conclusions and Recommendation 15 7 Acknowledgements 17 8 References 18

၊ ၊ ၊ ၊

၁.၄%

Assessing different livelihood of the local people and causes of forest degradation and deforestation in the Kayah State

Dr. Chaw ChawSein, Staff Officer Dr. Thaung Naing Oo, Director Thein Saung, Staff Officer Kyi Phyu Aung , Range Officer

Abstract

About annual rate of 1.4% of the forest degradation and deforestation was occurred in Myanmar. There are many causes of deforestation and forest degradation. Especially in the hilly region like Kayah state, the main causes of forest degradation and deforestation are due to shifting cultivation. The present study reports different livelihood activities to settle their daily needs in the Kayah areas and the causes of forest degradation and deforestation. Consequently, alternative livelihood activities are also recommended in the study area.

Key words: Forest degradation and deforestation, daily needs, alternative livelihoods, hilly region.

Assessing different livelihood of the local people and causes of forest degradation and deforestation in the Kayah State

1. Introduction

Myanmar is endowed with a rich diversity of habitat types arising largely from its unusual ecological diversity. About 42.92% of the country‟s total land area is still covered with natural forests. Myanmar has been protecting and conserving its diverse biological resources on a sustainable basis. Myanmar‟s forests are socially and economically significant to the country. As a matter of fact, over 70% of the country‟s total population is rural and dependent on forest resources for basic needs such as food, fodder, fuel, and shelter. Relative abundance of natural forests in the country is a reflection of the consistent exercise of sound forest management practices for years.

Myanmar‟s forests have been affected by degradation, shifting cultivation, and conversion to commercial oil palm plantations (the latter is particularly relevant in the lowland forests of the Tanintharyi Region). Deforestation pressures include: i) fuelwood consumption (the principle source of energy); ii) unplanned and unrestricted agricultural expansion; iii) aquaculture (e.g. shrimp farming in the Delta region); iv) infrastructure development; and v) commercial clear cutting. Over the period 1989-1998, the annual deforestation rate in Myanmar has been estimated at 466,420 ha/annum. The central and/or more populated States and Regions show the highest losses of forest resources.

According to the FRA 2015, it was observed that forest cover of Myanmar accounted for 151,421 square mile in 1990, 134,626 square mile in 2000, 128,653 square mile in 2005, 122,676 square mile in 2010 and 112,127 square mile in 2015. Accordingly, forest cover loss during 1990 and 2015 is shown in table (1).

Table ( 1 ) Forest cover loss in Myanmar during 1990 and 2015

Year Annual forest loss (thousand ha) Annual forest loss (%)

1990-2000 -435.0 -1.2

2000-2010 -309.5 -0.9

2010-2015 -546.4 -1.8

Myanmar has a tropical monsoon climate. Rainfall is highly seasonal, being concentrated in the hot humid months of the southwest monsoon (May-October). In contrast, the northwest monsoon (December-March) is relatively cool and almost entirely dry. Tropical storms regularly develop in the Bay of Bengal between May and October, threatening the vulnerable, often unprotected coastline and the people living close by. Myanmar has a total coastline of nearly 3,000 km, extending about 1,900 km from 10° to 21° north of the equator and 93° to 97° east of Greenwich. Ranked 149 out of 169 on the Human Development Index (UNDP, 2010), Myanmar is the lowest ranked country in East and Southeast Asia and the only one classified as having a “low” level of human development. (http:// hdrstats. undp.org/en/ countries/profiles/MMR.html) Poor people generally depend more on forest ecosystem services and products for their livelihoods than wealthy people. The means by which a poor family gains an income and meets its basic needs are often met by multiple livelihood activities. For example, exploiting common property resources such as grazing land or forests can provide income, food, medicine, tools, fuel, fodder, construction materials, and so on.

Poor people are therefore severely affected when the environment is degraded or their access to it restricted. This link between poverty and the environment has been recognized for some time. As a result of this dependency, any impact that forest degradation and deforestation has on natural systems threatens the livelihoods, food intake and health of poor people. The result is deforestation and forest degradation problem in the Kayah region. Therefore, it is necessary to review the different livelihood activities in the Kayah Region and to find out the alternative ways for improvement of their livelihood activities.

2. Objectives

The study was conducted to achieve the following objectives:

(a) To assess different livelihood activities. (b) To estimate the percentage of degradation and deforestation due to livelihood activities. (c) To recommend the alternative ways for the fulfillment of their livelihood activities.

3. Literature Review 3.1 What do we mean by sustainable livelihoods?

“A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base.” (Scoones, 1998) This most widely used definition of sustainable livelihoods was first adopted in the late 1990s by agencies including the UK Department for International Development (DFID), the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO, 2010) and Oxfam, amongst others. The accompanying conceptual framework illustrates that people‟s ability to access and use assets (including natural resources), and hence the activities and strategies they employ, are influenced by a wide range of policies, institutions and processes, including market and governance mechanisms, and social norms. If conservation organisations are to help local communities achieve truly sustainable livelihoods then we need to understand that livelihoods are diverse, complex and dynamic. They are the means by which people seek to achieve their life‟s goals. These goals are usually not solely about achieving increased income or even entirely about meeting the tangible basic human needs of food, shelter, physical health and security. Often of equal priority are other aspects of well-being, including having a sense of purpose and autonomy, and the fulfilment of socio- cultural and spiritual values. In many cases, people‟s livelihoods choices should be seen as “ways of living” not just “means of making a living”. This understanding helps us better appreciate why many people do not want to fundamentally change key aspects of their way of life even if incentivised to do so – and hence why many of the assumptions behind interventions to create „alternative‟ livelihoods are fundamentally flawed

.

3.2 Why are sustainable livelihoods important for conservation?

There are a number of reasons for conservationists to engage with sustainable livelihoods issues. The most commonly stated rationales include:

 “Conservation underpins sustainable livelihoods”: An „ecosystem based approach‟ relies on the premise that biodiversity provides ecosystem goods and systems that, if managed sustainably, can support people‟s livelihoods and well-being.  “Sustainable livelihoods and good governance support conservation outcomes”: This assumes that support to sustainable livelihoods and participatory governance of natural resources can help relieve pressure on biodiversity by reducing unsustainable use.  “Conservation hinders livelihoods and well-being”: This premise recognizes that conservation activities can reduce local access to natural resources or restrict how much of a say local people have in the management of those resources. There is therefore a moral imperative to „do no harm‟ and mitigate the costs of conservation by ensuring equitable sharing of any benefits from conservation related activities, as well as supporting people to utilize other livelihoods assets and to maximize potential benefits from the natural resources that they are able to access.  “Poverty reduction hinders conservation”: In many contexts, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss is caused by increased affluence and consumer demand in developed as well as developing countries, together with economic growth policies that lead to an expansion of land under production for agricultural and other commodities. This implies that we need to address these wider drivers of change, alongside providing appropriate support to the local communities affected by them.  “Supporting livelihoods activities generates goodwill and trust”: This rationale is based on the premise that support for livelihoods generates a „local constituency of support for conservation‟ or provides „social licence to operate‟ i.e. that local community members are more likely to be supportive of conservation activities, or at least not actively opposed to them, if they benefit in other ways (Shankland, A ,2000).

3.3 How do we identify locally appropriate livelihoods strategies?

As conservationists our starting point should be to try and understand and address the key drivers of deforestation, ecosystem degradation and unsustainable use that have negative impacts on the biodiversity we are trying to conserve. From here we can explore, alongside female and male stakeholders, the most appropriate approaches to increasing livelihood sustainability that will also contribute to positive biodiversity impacts. This may involve challenging commonly held assumptions both with regard to key threats and to the best livelihoods options. A comprehensive context analysis may well demonstrate in some cases that local livelihood activities are not the main, or exclusive, drivers of ecosystem change. For example, in many landscapes expansion of large-scale commercial agriculture or extractive industries may have a larger part to play in habitat destruction and/or may be displacing local communities from their traditional lands into areas of high conservation value. In these cases, part of our approach can be to support tenure security, including exclusive or preferential use or management rights that enable people to „defend‟ their small-scale, potentially sustainable, livelihoods activities against external and/or more powerful destructive forces. Secure tenure is a key element of some of FFI‟s work with forest-dependent communities in Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam and the Philippines (Neefjes, K, 2000). When trying to identify locally appropriate livelihoods strategies we need to help stakeholders consider economic, as well as environmental, sustainability. For livelihood strategies that yield products for sale, there are a number of key questions to be asked when designing appropriate interventions. For example, is there a market demand that will sustain production and sale of those products beyond the period of project support or subsidy? Do producers have the access to information and the relationships with other actors in the market value chain that will enable them to negotiate a fair price and to be able to adapt to future market changes? An often fatal flaw is to start with the supply side of the market – encouraging small-scale producers to take risks by diversifying into „new‟ products that are considered biodiversity friendly without understanding how the market chain works and what the barriers are to entry for new producers. Economic sustainability is about durability and adaptability i.e. positive changes to market systems that can be sustained by the system and the actors within it. Social sustainability is also important – are the activities supported consistent with the choices of community members themselves? Such strategies have a greater chance of being adopted and continued in the longer term than a „menu‟ of options that external actors, such as NGOs or government agencies, may choose to promote. We also need to take into account social norms and cultural values which affect both tangible and more intangible elements of livelihoods and well- being, including gender equity. Social sustainability also means that livelihoods choices don‟t undermine the well-being of others, causing further marginalization of disadvantaged community members or fuelling conflict. This implies that they are based on a shared vision of a common future for a particular community and consistent with a spatial plan for the wider landscape that has been negotiated and agreed with multiple stakeholders from civil society, government and the private sector (Odero, KK, 2006).

4. Material and Method 3.4 Study area

Kayah region is situated in eastern Myanmar; it is bounded on the north by Shan State, on the east by Thailand's Mae Hong Son Province, and on the south and west by Kayin State. It lies approximately between 18° 30' and 19° 55' north latitude and between 94°40' and 97° 93' east longitude. The area is 11,670 km2 (4,510 sq mi). Its capital is .

The major source of livelihood is shifting cultivating and farming. Nearly 50 years ago, the region had very little population and had dense forest. With the increase in population, the forests were cut down for shifting cultivation and farming which lead to reduced water springs. Water pipeline was laid 6-7 years ago but people have been residing there since past 35 years. So the community majorly depends on traditional water sources for drinking water supply. Paddy, sesame and groundnuts are the major crops cultivated. As irrigation is rain-fed the agriculture is impacted due to climatic changes like rainfall variability, high temperature, extreme weather events leading to landslides etc.

Kayah State

Figure (1) Study area

4.2 Data collection and analysis

The study was conducted from 1st March to 31st March 2016 and qualitative and quantitative data was gathered to gain a better understanding of different livelihood activities within area. Semi Structure interview was conducted for each household with sampling intensity of 10- 15%. Focus group discussion was also carried out with different -aged of people to focus dependency of forest for their livelihood activities. The data was analysed by suing Spearman Correlation and Microsoft Excel.

4 Results and Discussion 5.1 Livelihood surveys in the Kayah Region

Table ( 2 ) supports the demographic information of surveyed villages in the Kayah region. By this survey, it was found the smallest size of sample village was 38 households and the largest size of sample village was 120 households and the households are not only Bamar but also Kayah, Kayan, Kayin Manaw, Yintalae, Payat and Shan.

Table ( 2 ) Village survey coverage in the Kayah region by agro-ecological zone

State/ Township Village Ethnic Household Region

1 Kayah Phruso Rabaea Kayaw 57

2 Lauja Christan 81

3 Wartawkho Kayah, Kayin, Shan 73

4 Bawlakhae Minehtan Kayah, Shan, Bamar 103

5 Kayin, manaw, Yintalae, Nanphae 120 Payat, kayah 6 Maesae Kyauksu Kayah, Kayan, Shan 94

7 Maesaenan Bamar, Kayah 38

The main source of income for the people living in the Kayah region is farming and shifting cultivation and mainly growing paddy and sesame. A small number of the population is working in Thailand since employment opportunities are very scarce in their native areas. Moreover, the income from working in Thailand is comparatively high compared to other incomes in native areas. Moreover Kayah is also very close to Thailand.

Table ( 3 ) Livelihood activities and average income of the surveyed Townships in the Kayah Region

Phruso Demoso Bawlakhae Maesae Average Source of income income No. % No. % No. % No. % (US$/Year) HH HH HH HH

Farming 44 54.32 61 83.56 90 87.38 109 78.36 1260.42 Shifting cultivation 53 41.29 114 47.91 6 15.79 486.11 Livestock production 14 10.46 14 19.18 66 30.87 66 42.95 47.08 Sale of food aid 9 6.34 24 11.24 10 7.67 66.67 Casual labour at any job 29 21.02 18 7.98 17 13.75 352.78 Carpenter/Mason 8 5.46 14 6.38 7 5.29 286.11 Permanent Staff 4 2.73 5 6.85 5 2.22 4 2.91 1162.50 Transport Service(car) 2 2.74 3 1.32 452.08 Transport service (motorbike) 4 5.48 7 3.12 2 1.85 66.67 Work in Foreign (Thailand ) 12 8.71 1 1.37 5 2.36 1312.50 Shop 5 3.61 8 3.54 8 7.39 313.54 Charcoal making 17 7.56 16 10.86 727.08 Cutting and collection of Bamboo 15 6.66 11 7.42 83.33 Collection of medicinal plant 2 1.94 25.00 Banana (shwe ni,shwe wa, phegyan)plantati on 22 21.36 333.33

Cutch making 3 2.50 2333.33 Cutting and collection of timber 10 7.67 825.00

Lime Baking 58 79.45 250.00

Wa u planting 13 17.81 58.33

Homegarden 20 27.40 60.00

Kyaepe 4 5.48 500.00

Coffee 16 21.92 41.67 Bamboo Shoot Collecting 3 4.11 29.17 Livelihood survey was conducted in Phruso, Demoso and Bawlakhae and Maesae Township of the Kayah region. Farming and shifting cultivation is the key livelihood activity. Other alternative livelihood activities found in these townships are livestock production, banana planting, collecting and cutting of bamboo, lime baking, collection of bamboo shoots, cutch making and some are serving as transport service (motorbike). Kayah is easy access to Thailand and some are working in Thailand. Figure ( 2 ) to ( 8 ) show different livelihood activities in the studied villages.

Shifting cultivation Livestock production Sale of food aid Casual labour at any job Carpenter/Mason Permanent Staff Work in Foreign (Thailand) Shop

Figure ( 2) Different livelihood activities in the Rabaea village

Shifting cultivation Farming Livestock production Sale of food aid Casual labour at any job Carpenter/Mason Permanent Staff Work in Foreign (Thailand) Shop Transport service (motorbike)

Figure ( 3) Different Livelihood Activities in the Lauja village

Farming CF Lime Baking Wa u planting Homegarden Kyaepe Coffee Permanent Staff Transport Service(car) Transport service (motorbike) Shop Work in Foreign (Thailand ) Bamboo Shoot Collecting Livestock production

Figure (4 ) Different Livelihood Activities in the Warthawkho village

Farming Shifting cultivation Livestock production Sale of food aid Casual labour at any job Carpenter/Mason Permanent Staff Transport Service(car) Transport service ( motorbike) Work in Foreign (Thailand )

Figure (5 ) Different Livelihood Activities in the Minehtan village

Shifting cultivation Livestock production Sale of food aid Casual labour at any job Carpenter/Mason Permanent Staff Transport Service(car) Transport service (motorbike) Work in Foreign (Thailand ) Shop Charcoal making Cutting and collection of Bamboo Cutch making

Figure ( 6) Different Livelihood Activities in the Nanphae village

Farming Livestock production Sale of food aid Casual labour at any job Carpenter/Mason Permanent Staff carrier by motorbike Work in Foreign (Thailand ) Shop Charcoal making Cutting and collection of Bamboo Cutting and collection of timber

Figure (7 ) Different Livelihood Activities in the Kyauksu village

Farming Shifting cultivation Livestock production Sale of food aid Casual labour at any job Carpenter/Mason Permanent Staff Transport service ( motorbike)

Figure (8) Different Livelihood Activities in the Maesaenam village

Household percentage according to livelihood activities

in Kayah Region

Phruso Demoso Bawlakhae

Maesae Household percentage (%) percentage Household

Figure (9) Household percentage according to different livelihood activities

Figure (9) represents the household percentage according to different livelihood activities in surveyed townships in the Kayah region. According to the surveyed results, in the Phruso Township, about 50 % of total households in surveyed villages earned their income by farming and shifting cultivation and the rest are transport service by motorbike, sale of food aid, shop and others. But in the , about 80% of total households in surveyed villages are baking the limestones and others are Wau planting, homegarden, kyaepae and coffee planting. In the Bawlakhae township, about 90% are adapting with farming and shifting cultivation and only some portion of their livelihood is depend on the banana planting, charcoal making and others. In the Maesae township, most households are practicing farming and their mainly crop is sesame and others are working in Thailand as it is closed to Thailand.

Average Income Per year according to Livelihood

activities in the Kayah Region Average Income (US$/year) Income Average

Figure ( 10) Level of average income by livelihood activities of surveyed Townships

Figure (10 ) represents the level of average income by livelihood activities of surveyed Townships in the Kayah Region. According to results, cutch making in large scale had the highest relative level of average income per year about 2300 US$ and followed by farming and work in foreign and then follow by the lime baking and kyaepe planting and charcoal burning and others.

5.2 Causes of forest degradation and deforestation in the study area The forest is the main source of shifting cultivation in the Kayah Region. The use of forested land is the only form of their livelihood activities for their daily food. Men and women at different ages from nearby forest areas cut and clear the forest. At higher elevations, people practice shifting cultivation whereas at flat elevations, they practice farming and planting throughout the year with seasonal crops. As a consequence, the forests nearby the villages are degraded day by day. Due to shifting cultivation and farming, forests near to the villages are subjected to rapid degradation and over exploitation. According to the focus group discussion, it was observed that the main causes of forest degradation and deforestation is shifting cultivation and farming about 40% and the local people mainly depend on the forest for those practices. Other livelihood activities include banana planting, carpenter/ mason, collection of medicinal plants, livestock production and so on.

Percentage of shifting cultivation/farming leading to forest degradation and deforestation in the study area(descriptive characteristics)

Shifting cultivation Township Village Farming (%) Others (%) (%) Rabaea 51 49 Phruso Lauja 17 38 45 Demoso Warthawkho 22 26 (CF)+52 Minehtan 3 39 58 Nanphae 58 42 Bawlakhae Kyauksu 41 59 Maesae Masaenam 8 36 56

.Table ( 4 ) Spearman correlations for shifting cultivation/farming and socioeconomic characteristics of households in the study area.

Spearman correlation was used to know the correlation between the shifting/farming and the socioeconomic characteristics of the households in the studied villages.

(a) Rabaea (b) Lauja No n Mean SD R No n Mean SD R

1 8 46.62 15.86 -0.49* 1 10 41.2 16.61 0.69*

2 8 4.5 1.92 -0.67 2 10 4.3 1.33 -0.33

3 8 5 1.30 0.75* 3 10 4.90 1.91 0.057

4 8 E 2 0.76 -0.97* 4 10 1.70 0.67 0.43*

5 8 3332 437.33 -0.34 5 10 369.42 440.62 0.25

6 8 2.18 0.59 0.75 6 10 2.25 0.75 -0.40

7 8 5 2.39 0.64* 7 10 5.4 2.45 -0.67*

8 8 1.5 0.75 0.26 8 10 1.6 0.69 -0.14*

( c ) WarthawKho (d ) Minehtan

No n Mean SD R No n Mean SD R

1 9 42.33 13.07 0.71 1 15 36 12.65 -0.78

2 9 3.88 1.16 0.54* 2 15 3.73 1.03 0.61

3 9 3.11 1.05 -0.54* 3 15 2.46 0.44 0.14*

4 9 1.88 0.78 0.22 4 15 1.93 0.70 -0.66*

5 9 32472.22 35092.24 0.71 5 15 548.88 541.12 -0.76

6 9 2.66 0.66 0.73* 6 15 2.7 0.49 0.66*

7 9 5.88 2.20 -0.48 7 15 5.53 1.92 0.40

8 9 2.22 0.66 -0.04* 8 15 1.53 0.64 -0.12*

( e ) Nanphae ( f ) Kyauksu

No n Mean SD R No n Mean SD R

1 15 36 12.65 -0.78* 1 12 46.33 14.96 -0.13

2 15 3.73 1.03 0.61 2 12 3.00 1.13 -0.33*

3 15 2.46 0.44 0.14 3 12 3.42 0.99 -0.65

4 15 1.93 0.70 -0.66* 4 12 1.75 0.75 -0.87*

5 15 548.88 541.12 -0.76* 5 12 552.43 733.115 0.69

6 15 2.7 0.49 0.66 6 12 2.75 0.62 -0.09*

7 15 5.53 1.92 0.40* 7 12 5.83 2.20 0.71*

8 15 1.53 0.64 -0.12 8 12 1.67 0.65 0.43

( g ) Masaenam

No n Mean SD R 1= Age of households

1 13 42 14.76 -0.48 2= No of household members

2 13 2.69 0.94 -0.81* 3= Total land areas(acres)

3 13 2.77 0.72 -0.75 4= No of income earnings household

4 13 2.15 0.68 -0.20 Members

5 13 735.78 750.05 -0.89 5= Income per month

6 13 2.54 0.52 0.35* 6= Distance for farming/shifting cultivation 7 13 5.46 2.10 0.09 7= Education (years of study) 8 13 1.85 0.68 -0.49* 8= No of livelihood activities

* P < 0.05, n= number of sample households in the village.

In Rabaea Village, all socio-economic characteristic are negatively correlated with the shifting cultivation/ farming except total land areas (acres), distance for farming, education and number of livelihood activities. A significant difference was noticed about the number of household members, total land areas, number of income earning household members and education.

Significant differences were observed about the age of households, number of income earning household members, education, number of livelihood activities and all significant are negatively correlated with the shifting cultivation/ farming except age of household in Lauja village.

Shifting cultivation/farming by households is contributing towards age of household, income per month, number of income earning household members, in Warthawkho village. Except number of household members and distance for farming, all socioeconomic characteristics are negatively correlated with the shifting cultivation/ farming by households in Warthawkho Village.

In Miehtan village, a positive significant difference was occurred about the total land area and distance for farming/shifting cultivation and the rests; age of households, number of income earning household members, number of livelihood activities and income per month are negatively correlated with shifting cultivation and farming. Significant differences were occurred about the age of households, the number of income earnings household members, income per month and education in Nanphae Village. Only positive significance was observed about the education in Kyauksu village. The rests; the age of household, number of household members, number of income earning household members and distance for farming were negatively correlated with the shifting cultivation/farming.

Significant differences were occurred about the shifting cultivation/farming by households contributing towards the number of household members, distance for farming/ shifting cultivation and number of livelihood activities in Masaenam village. Only one positive significance was observed about the shifting cultivation/farming by households in Masaenam village.

6. Conclusion and Recommendation

According to the results of the livelihood survey of the study area, it was clearly observed that the alternative livelihoods opportunities are very important to reduce deforestation and forest degradation and the socio-economic development of the rural communities. The survey also underlined that shifting cultivation/ farming are correlated with the socio-economic conditions of the local households.

On the other hand, actions to reduce shifting cultivation will ultimately reduce vulnerability to deforestation and may also reduce unsustainable natural resource use. Ecosystem approach would be the most appropriate way of integrating environmental, social and developmental priorities. Participatory processes and a holistic approach incorporating all aspects of sustainable development should be promoted. Development activities should integrate responses to forest degradation and deforestation and as a consequence climate risks and thereby minimize the impacts of climate change.

In order to improve livelihood opportunities related to agriculture sector, improved production and post-harvest technologies, improved access to inputs and markets should be supported. It is necessary to create job opportunities to increase food and livestock production for both consumption and sale thereby supporting food security and income. Support can be provided as inputs (e.g., seed, credit), investments in raising productivity (e.g., tillage equipment, bunds, irrigation equipment),technical knowledge and skills (new varieties, optimal fertilizer use, pest/disease control),post-harvest management and marketing support (market linkages, quality control). Increasing the diversity of agricultural income sources and dietary diversity are of crucial importance for socioeconomic development of the rural communities in the study area.

Creating job opportunities in all study sites should cover a variety of enterprises and vocations including: mechanical repairs, blacksmiths, masons, carpenters, tailors, food processing, ceramics, and fuel efficient stoves. Again support should be in the form of inputs, capital investments, credit, training and technical assistance, and marketing support.

Non-agricultural livelihood activities and/or trainings for livelihood skills for employment need to be created especially for landless and it can contribute to household incomes, but also contribute to food security (e.g., support to wild capture fishery production depending on local situations). Many livelihoods can be affected by environmental degradation and hence livelihood activities should be linked to sustainable natural resource management. Community forestry, various types of agroforestry should be promoted and supported to rural communities in the study area.

Acknowledgements

I am greatly indebted to Dr .Thaung Naing Oo, Director of Forest Research Institute for granting us the opportunity to carry out this study. I am very much grateful to Ms. Htike San Soe and Ms. Kyi Phyu Aung, Range Officer, Forest Research Institute for the coordination of the data collection in the Kayah State. I highly appreciate to Mr Tin Maung Than, Director, and all staffs of the Kayah Forest Department for accompanying and gathering data to carry out the present study. Last but not least, I would like to thank my parents for their patience, encouragement and love throughout my forester life.

References

DFID, 1999: Sustainable Livelihoods and Poverty Elimination. Department for International Development, London. FAO, 2010: Livelihood zone analysis: A tool for planning agricultural water management investments FRA, 2015: Forest Resource Assessment. FFI, 2013: Why not „alternative livelihoods‟? Neefjes, K , 2000 : Environments and Livelihoods: Strategies for Sustainability. Oxfam, Oxford. Odero, KK , 2006: Information capital: 6th asset of sustainable livelihood framework. Discovery and Innovation 18(2), 83-91. Schneider, H and Anthem, H , 2011: Integrating Conservation, Livelihoods & Governance: Learning from Experience FFI ,Livelihoods-and-Governance-with-Conservation- Learning-from-Experience.pdf Scoones, I ,1998 : Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis‟, Working Paper 72, Brighton, UK: Institute for Development Studies. UNDP, 2010: Livelihoods Strategies and Household Resilience to Food Insecurity: An Empirical Analysis to Kenya Shankland, A ,2000 : Analysing Policy for Sustainable Livelihoods‟, Research Report 49, Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.

Appendix

Different Livelihood Activities in the Kayah Region

Homegarden Kyepae planting

Lime making Traditional Oil Making

Banana planting Livestock production

Wa U planting Farming