The Geographical Focus and Conceivable Activity Options for the Proposed LIFT Dry Zone Programme

Home , Minbu, Minbu Township, Mu river, Myinmu Township, Pwintbyu, Seikphyu

The geographical focus and conceivable activity options for the proposed LIFT Dry Zone programme

This is a follow up paper to “opportunities/constraints and Options for Consideration in a Dry Zone programme” as considered by the LIFT Fund Board on 18/19 March 2013

LIFT Fund Management Office

May 2013

Table of Contents

1 Purpose of the report ...... 5 2 Poverty focus of the proposed LIFT Dry Zone Programme ...... 5 3 Zoning in the Dry Zone according to the JICA typology ...... 6 Size of holdings and landlessness ...... 8 Prevalence and distribution of poverty ...... 8 Economic stratification within zones ...... 9 4 Defining subzones (clusters of townships) in the Dry Zone ...... 10 Rainfall variability ...... 10 Population density and agriculture population ...... 11 Clusters of townships ...... 11 Five proposed subzones ...... 12 1. Subzone around Shwebo with JICA type V including Tabayin, Shwebo and Wetlet townships...... 12 2. Subzone around Magway with JICA level III, IV and V: Magway, Yenangyaung, Minbu and Pwintbyu townships ...... 13 3. Subzone around Myingyan with JICA type II and III including Myingyan, Natogyi, Taungtha and Mahlaing townships ...... 14 4. Subzone around Monywa with JICA type II and III including Monywa, Yinmabin, Salingyi and Yesagyo with townships ...... 14 5. Subzone around Pakokku with JICA type I and II including Pakokku, Seikphyu, Nyaung- U and Kyaukpadaung townships ...... 15 Presence of development organizations ...... 16 5 Past and future interventions in the Dry Zone ...... 16 Lessons from on-going LIFT supported projects ...... 16 Evaluations of selected NGO projects in the Dry Zone ...... 17 Lessons from community development and the formation of CBOs ...... 18 Some agency plans for the Dry Zone ...... 20 6 Conceivable activity options per subzone ...... 22 6.1 Activity options for the subzone 5 around Pakokku ...... 22 6.1.1 Activity option 1 – A social protection activity responding to the needs of the poorest of the poor ...... 23 6.1.2 Activity option 2 – Responding to the needs at village level through a CD approach .. 24

6.1.3 Activity option 3 – addressing water related constraints in farming...... 24 Water and soil conservation ...... 24 Micro gravity irrigation ...... 25 Provision of improved seed ...... 26 6.1.4 Activity option 4 – Facilitate migration and provision of consumption credit ...... 27 6.1.5 Activity option 5 – livestock ...... 28 6.2 Activity options for the subzone 3 around Myingyan ...... 28 6.2.1 Activity option 1 - Responding to the needs at village level through a CD approach .. 29 6.2.2 Activity option 2 – Addressing water related problems ...... 29 Making improved seed available to farmers ...... 29 Water and soil conservation ...... 32 Micro gravity irrigation ...... 32 6.2.3 Activity option 3 – Provision of credit ...... 32 6.2.4 Activity option 4 – Livestock ...... 33 Cattle ...... 33 Pigs ...... 34 Chicken ...... 34 6.2.5 Activity option 5 – Diversification of crop farming activities to high value commodities 35 6.2.6 Activity option 6 – Activities of particular relevance for landless...... 37 Vocational training ...... 37 Cash for work schemes ...... 37 Transfer of productive resources ...... 37 6.3 Activity options for the subzone 1 around Shwebo ...... 38 6.3.1 Activity option 1 –Improve agriculture production on irrigated land ...... 38 6.3.2 Activity option 2 - Making improved seed available to farmers ...... 40 6.3.3 Activity option 3 – Financial services ...... 40 6.3.4 Activity option 4 – water and soil conservation ...... 40 6.3.5 Activity option 5 – diversification to higher value commodities ...... 40 6.3.6 Activity option 6 – livestock ...... 41 6.3.7 Activity option 7 – Activities of particular relevance for landless...... 41 7 Conclusion: How to Achieve Poverty Impact ...... 42 7.1 An overriding consideration on how to achieve poverty impact ...... 42 7.2 Geographical focus: subzone selection for a Dry Zone programme ...... 42 3

References ...... 44 Annexes ...... 45 Annex 1: Map of townships in the Dry Zone according to the JICA typology: ...... 45 Annex 2: Strengths and limitations of the JICA study (2010) ...... 46 Annex 3: JICA study data per township / region and whole Dry Zone ...... 47 Annex 4: Analysis for selecting priority townships based on the data from IWMI study (2013) and annex 2 analysis ...... 48 Annex 5: FSWG members present in Dry Zone (MIMU, 2012) ...... 49 Annex 6: Basic data on LIFT IP projects in the Dry Zone ...... 50 Annex 7: Tentative scoring of the activity options per subzone...... 52

1 Purpose of the report

The purpose of this paper is to provide a basis for a decision on the geographical focus of the proposed LIFT Dry Zone programme and to provide guidance on what the options might be for in- depth analyses and programme design. This paper should be read in conjunction with “Opportunities/Constraints and Options for Consideration in a Dry Zone Programme” submitted to the LIFT Fund Board on 18 March 2013.

2 Poverty focus of the proposed LIFT Dry Zone Programme

The proposed objective of the programme:

- to improve food security and income for landless and marginal farmers prescribes a strong poverty focus.

The geographical focus, identification and design of activities selected for programme intervention should be determined to ensure a significant and cost-effective contribution to this objective. Distributive considerations are a key concern in the LIFT strategy. LIFT’s paramount goal is to contribute to poverty alleviation. Hence, impact on poverty, defined in relation to food security and income in the proposed programme objective, should be the key guiding principle in the design of the Dry Zone programme.

At first glance, it would then seem to compel the programme formulation to focus on poor areas and where poverty is most prevalent. However, such a focus will not necessarily lead to a programme with maximum impact on poverty. There are two main considerations.

It is easier to identify activities with a potential to impact poverty in a context where the preconditions for economic advancement are better than in areas where the preconditions are less/ poor. Furthermore, if the government is foreseen to be an implementing partner, the strength of government structures is likely to be higher in better off areas.

The bottom line is that it is difficult to identify activities that directly or indirectly make a significant contribution to poverty alleviation in resource poor areas. Not only are the options to improve the return from agriculture activities that directly benefit farm households and indirectly benefit landless households better in better off areas, but a more diversified economy in better off areas also offers more opportunities to non-farm sources of income.

The second aspect to consider is that there are probably many poor households in better endowed areas as well. Targeting these areas would not necessarily require a Dry Zone programme to give up its ambitions to address poverty as long as programme activities are selected, targeted and designed with a poverty reduction objective in mind.

3 Zoning in the Dry Zone according to the JICA typology

The diversity of the Dry Zone is well established. Any analysis of the Dry Zone has to strike a balance between the ambition to be relevant and accurate and the need to aggregate and generalise information to make a broader analysis possible. The availability of secondary data and the cost and time required to generate primary data will also influence the choice of analytical approach.

By far the most ambitious effort to define relatively homogeneous areas in the Dry Zone has been made in a major JICA funded study.1 Townships are the unit of analysis for which government data was available. It is the only complete set of data at township level for all townships in the Dry Zone; other studies look only at selected townships or provide information for the whole Dry Zone based on an unevenly distributed sample of villages / households (PACT ShaeTot baseline, 2013, LIFT baseline, 2012), therefore not recognizing the variety of environments within the Dry Zone.

The major weakness of the JICA study is that it is entirely based on government data, mostly from the Township and District Peace and Development Councils (PDCs), 2005 and the Myanmar Agricultural Service (MAS) Land Use Division, 2003. The quality of this data is questionable.

Moreover this government data does not include a poverty assessment. The JICA study includes a poverty analysis that is based on a PRA made in 17 villages in 2006-07 and a questionnaire survey in six villages made in 2007-08, so it does not extend to a large sample covering the whole Dry Zone. The poverty analysis was done in view of pilot interventions in six selected villages.

Based on this government data at township level, the JICA study has defined five township types based on the following variables: topography, rainfall, soil type, mean size of holdings, the ratio of small farm households, the ratio between upland and paddy land, the share of irrigated paddy land, the share of landless, agriculture sector contribution to township Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and market access. In the study report the characteristics of the zones / types of townships are summarise as follows.

1 The development study on sustainable agricultural and rural development for poverty reduction programme in the central Dry Zone of Myanmar, JICA, 2010. Refer to annex 2 and the attached Executive Summary of the JICA study for further detail. 6

Zone Characteristics Explanatory remarks

Plateau, extensive The area extends over Bago hills. Soils are infertile farming, livestock area and very much dry due to scanty rainfall. with goats, limited Agriculture productivity is low and goats are raised. I cottage industry acti- Poverty is the highest of all areas. vities, highly poverty stricken area

Plain, remote and Located in plain but particularly nearer Bago hills extensive farming area. or remote area from township. Farming is chiefly II Limited cottage industry practised on upland, rather extensively though activities. High rate of soils and other conditions are better than in zone I. poverty.

Plain, in the vicinity of Area develops along Ayeyarwaddy river and its streams, fertile soil, tributaries and slightly intensive [agriculture] with nearer to township with favourable ambient conditions with better soils. III favourable market access, Industries have more developed than in zone I and fairly active cottage II because of large townships are located inside the industries, medium area nearer to it. poverty rate

Paddy land zone, Paddy area occupies over one-third of all farmland. intensive farming area, Up-land farm productivity is higher than In zone I- more cattle, fairly active III owing to fairly flat land with better rainfall; IV cottage industry, low farming more intensive. Cattle as draught animals. poverty rate. Well developed cottage industry near townships.

Intensive farming with Paddy area occupies over one-third of all farmland irrigated paddy. Cattle as and one third of paddy land is irrigated. Intensive draught animals. Low farming. Cattle as draught animals. Various V poverty rate but larger industries prosper from cottage scale weaving to disparity. Industries like rice milling starting by investing surplus of farm rice mills exist. income. Poverty rate is low but wider disparity between farm households and landless.

The JICA authors recognise that townships are not uniform and that agro-ecological zones inside the Dry Zone are not coherent with township borders. There are significant variations within the townships, especially for the townships bordering the Irrawaddy River. In a very schematic description: there is a high population density and better agriculture close to the river (flooded plains with higher fertility, with irrigated or residual moisture cultivation), rain fed agriculture on less fertile soils in the higher plains and dry pasture land in the hills further from the river with lower population density. Differences are also important according to the access to a market, irrigation and infrastructure. For example, the WFP Food security assessment (2011) defines subzones within

townships according to transportation and conditions for land access but for ten townships only. Refer to annex 1 for a mapping of the JICA zones.

Broadly speaking the following can be observed when moving from Zone I to Zone V:  Topography – from hilly areas towards plains  Rainfall – increases  Soil fertility – improves  Average size of holdings – decreases (see comment below)  Intensity of farming – increases  Market access – improves  Landlessness – no clear pattern (see comment below)  Economic stratification (within zone) – increases (see comment below)  Share of population facing poverty – decreases  Share of population facing food insecurity - decreases2

Size of holdings and landlessness

The JICA study reports average size of holding per township3. When these averages are plotted on the identified zones, a pattern results inconsistent to that shown in other documents on the Dry Zone, i.e. areas with poorer conditions for agriculture tend to have larger holdings (on average).

Thirty percent of the Dry Zone farmers have very small landholdings (<5 acres) according to government data (TPDC, 2005), but (36.9% according to the LIFT baseline, 2012). Significant is the wide variation from one township to another which can range from 10 to 60%.

Landless households represent 30% of Myanmar’s total population according to government data (42.6% according to LIFT baseline) and also with a very high variation (5 to 70% at a township level). This data is however, unreliable making it difficult to use with reliability in the analysis of this paper.

Prevalence and distribution of poverty

There is no source of household data that can give a clear picture of the depth and prevalence of poverty at the township level of the Dry Zone, never mind sub township, village tract or village levels.

The LIFT baseline study reports that some 40% of the households in the Dry Zone earn a monthly income less than 50,000 Kyat (USD 57). If an average household of five members is converted to adult equivalents (approximately three) the daily income per adult would be less than one dollar. This is clearly a rough calculation but tentatively indicates the frequency and level of poverty in the Dry Zone.

2 The ranking of zones in the JICA study is largely corroborated by the ranking of townships made by the World Food Programme Food Security Assessment for the Dry Zone 2010. 3 Information is not given on how these estimates were calculated. 8

Landlessness is generally taken as an indicator of poverty. The JICA study estimates that the 60% of the landless who rely on casual labour income are the poorest. Landlessness as a proxy for poverty is a rough indicator at best. A high incidence of landlessness may be related to more urban population and more population employed in non-agricultural activities which could contribute to less poverty rather than more. It could be linked to more intensive agriculture which could also reduce poverty.

It should also be noted that the poor are highly mobile with temporary or long term migration out of the poorest areas which may lead to a lower poverty rate with the poor families leaving an area with less opportunities. An analysis of people movement within and outside the Dry Zone could help understand people’s coping strategies and identify where opportunities could be enhanced to support the efficiency of these strategies.

Economic stratification within zones

The JICA study reports Gini-coefficients for a sample of villages chosen to represent the different zones. The findings show that equality is higher in poorer than in better off areas.

In general a high level of poverty combined with a relatively high degree of equality arguably has a number of implications. One implication is that the market for casual labour is expected to be more limited and remuneration lower. Furthermore, with fewer households generating a surplus (in terms of income) the capacity of the informal finance sector will be lower, at the same time poverty and dependence on agriculture in higher risk areas is likely to create increased needs for consumption credit.

World Food Programme (WFP) has also attempted to define zones for a food security assessment of the Dry Zone. The zoning for the 2011 report covers only ten townships and was based on a limited set of variables. With these limitations it is interesting to note a relatively high degree of consistency between the JICA zoning and the WFP zoning. The townships in the WFP report with a relatively low level of food insecurity are in the JICA zones III-IV-V.

4 Defining subzones (clusters of townships) in the Dry Zone

Principles and selection criteria are necessary for determining a geographical focus for the proposed Dry Zone programme. Given the poverty focus of LIFT, the characteristics of the agro-ecological zones identified by JICA and noting what other organisations are doing or planning to do the following principles and criteria are recommended:

1) Subzones within the 51 townships included in the JICA study; 2) Subzones have the clear features of the Dry Zone with low and high variability of rainfall; 3) The number of townships in each subzone include a high population (compared to other township combinations) ; 4) Subzones have a significant population density and a high agriculture population with mostly small farmers to ensure that the programme will reach its main target; 5) Subzones are formed with contiguous townships that have a some degree of homogeneity in terms of resource endowment and development potential; 6) Subzones have a limited presence of development organisations (local and international).

Not all principles and criteria will apply in the same way in the following discussion. Firstly, some areas will be prioritized and others excluded according to principle 2.

Principle 3 is applied after definition of the subzones to determine the number of townships that will be included in each subzone.

Principle 4 is important to this exercise, but with insufficient and unreliable data, it will be difficult to reduce priority townships further based on this principle.

In sum, the main idea is to provide a description of coherent subzones which present different agro- ecological features, resource endowment and hence development potential. A decision on the subzone(s) to focus on will provide a basis for subsequent definition of the technical focus of a future Dry Zone programme.

Rainfall variability

The subzone should have the clear features of the Dry Zone with low and high variability of rainfall. This can be assessed by using the following criteria:

a. With average annual rainfall lower than 1020 mm based on the isohyiet map produced by JICA b. Or/and rainy season rainfalls lower than 700 mm according to the data presented in the IWMI study (2013, figure 3.2, p.11) c. Or/and with a duration for the wet season lower than 145 days as presented in the IWMI study (2013, figure 3.1, p.10) d. Or/and with a high inter-annual variability of annual rainfall (coefficient of variation > 19%) as presented in the IWMI study (2013, figure 3.3, p.11) 10

If a township does not respond to these criteria, it is not prioritized. Only 39 townships over 51 correspond to these criteria (see annex 4). The four most northern townships in Sagaing and the 8 most southern townships of Magway have then been excluded.

Kyaukse, Meikhtila and neighbouring townships are important centres in the Dry Zone, but they are crossed by the 1000 mm annual rainfall isohyet according to the JICA map. However they still present low rainfall and high variability according to the IWMI study. Considering that they are comparatively well-off with irrigated areas and on the cross roads between Yangon, Mandalay and Southern Shan, they have been eliminated, but this could be discussed further.

Population density and agriculture population

The subzone should have a reasonable population density which predominantly agriculture based with mostly small farmers to ensure that the programme reaches LIFT’s main target. However setting specific criteria to assess this on a township level is problematic. Firstly, reliability of the government data in the JICA study is poor, and secondly in some townships the low population density does not reflect that the population density may be high in some parts of the township and not in others. It could be relevant to intervene in these specific areas, excluding the rest of the township.

According to government data there are only four townships with an agricultural population of less than 50 people/km2 (MAS, 2003) : Ayadaw and Pale in Sagaing, Myitha and Thazi in Mandalay. So, they would probably be of low priority for a future programme.

The validity of the data available regarding the proportion of very small farmers (<5 acres) at township level is questionable and is best avoided (Township PDC data, 2005). When trying to apply a threshold of at least 25% of very small farmers in selected townships, the result was not coherent: most townships in Sagaing region where then excluded and none in other region (see annex 4).

Clusters of townships

It is difficult to apply other criteria systematically to set priorities. Further analysis could be based both on the zones defined by the JICA study and on population and agro-ecological factors that would be relevant for designing a programme. The principle we have followed is to combine neighbouring townships with more or less similar features (but not looking for perfect homogeneity given large variations exist within townships).

The programme should target a number of townships that are located close to one another, forming clusters in one or two subzones, rather than in a number of scattered townships. This will concentrate impact, facilitate management and reduce costs. Alternatively, the programme could be built by selecting one township each in several of the subzones defined below.

A further consideration is whether a subzone could extend over one or two regions. If extending over two regions there will be more work engaging with local authorities and involving them in the programme definition. On the other hand, it would provide selection options giving scope to later

decide on the most collaborative authority in the event the administration in one region was less cooperative.

The broader bio-physical and socio-economic characteristics and farmer response and adaptation to changing climatic and agro-ecological conditions over time in the Dry Zone has been discussed in the earlier paper titled ‘opportunities/constraints and options for consideration in a Dry Zone programme’ and will not be repeated here. That discussion, however, is relevant as an introduction to the rural context as well as the specific constraints and opportunities that farmers in the Dry Zone experience.

The definition of subzones has been made according to a relatively limited set of criteria based on the data provided in the JICA report. Although the study was reported in 2010, most of the statistics used date back to 2005. This means that present day conditions may differ from what is presented. Nevertheless this exercise is intended to only help determine a focus on a specific area or areas that would then be the subject of much more in-depth analysis of opportunities and constraints to develop a programme. The final decision on which townships should be included in a target subzone can be determined when the focus area(s) is more carefully described.

Five proposed subzones

On the basis of JICA’s zoning of the Dry Zone (see Section 3), five subzones are defined below. This selection intends to reflect the different levels of resource endowment and general development potential.

1. Subzone around Shwebo with JICA type V including Tabayin, Shwebo and Wetlet townships.

Located in the north and notable to this subzone is the high percentage of irrigated land thanks to diversion weirs on the Mu river which are amongst the largest and oldest in the country with the Shwebo and the Ye-U canals. Paddy is important both as a monsoon and a winter crop. Shwebo is known to be the rice bowl of the Dry Zone. Access to the large and growing market in Mandalay is important for the potential of the townships in this subzone. Agriculture diversification is probably high with both irrigated and dry land (outside irrigated areas). These townships have a high potential for agriculture production and would be more suitable for a commodity market approach and for intensification of the agriculture production. Although a significant portion of land is irrigated, the majority the land is still dependent on rainfall which would make securing and diversifying dry crops outside irrigated areas relevant. The agrarian structure in the subzone is close to the average for the Dry Zone, but with small holdings less than five acres being less.

Small Proportion of Agricultural landholders Township Type Population paddy area population (<5 acres) irrigated proportion

Shwebo V 326,835 29% 36% 72%

Tabayin V 171,841 48% 18% 83%

Wetlet V 271,174 43% 20% 70%

Data source: JICA, 2010

Potentially the subzone could be extended to the townships along the lower parts of the Mu river: Ayadaw, Myinmu and Sagaing which have a high agriculture population density, less irrigation potential and a lower JICA type (IV and III).

2. Subzone around Magway with JICA level III, IV and V: Magway, Yenangyaung, Minbu and Pwintbyu townships

This subzone in the south is well connected to Magway which is an important agricultural centre of the Dry Zone, known in particular for oil crops. It has good agricultural potential, nevertheless probably less than Shwebo. Except for Minbu, the agricultural population of the townships is high and concentrated in particular close to the Irrawaddy River. Conversely the agricultural population is sparse in the hilly areas. Pwintbyu (and Salin, if included) has a large irrigated area due to the weirs built on the Mon, Man and Salin rivers west of the Irrawaddy river.

Small Proportion of Agricultural landholders Township Type Population paddy area population (<5 acres) irrigated4 proportion

Magway III 360,797 49% 65% n/a

Yenangyaung III 234,908 59% 66% n/a

Minbu III 212,828 57% 53% 97%

Pwintbyu V 207,054 93% 64% 99%

Data source: JICA, 2010

4 Note that this is the proportion of rice fields which are irrigated. If the rice field area is small, but that most of it is irrigated, the percentage might be very high even if the actual area of irrigated paddy is very small.

3. Subzone around Myingyan with JICA type II and III including Myingyan, Natogyi, Taungtha and Mahlaing townships

This central subzone is at the heart of the Dry Zone with high rainfall variability, with a very dense agriculture population and a high proportion of very small farmers. Landlessness is close to the average for the Dry Zone (42.6%) except in Mahlaing where it is lower. There is much less irrigation and rice production than in the previous subzones. Farmers rely on rain fed mixed crop and livestock farming. In addition to monsoon paddy, pigeon pea is an important crop and sesame is important in Mahlaing. Livestock is prevelant in Natogyi and Myingyan. Water related problems and soil fertility are key constraints to farming. Limited access to financial services and improved seed impedes adoption of productivity increasing technologies. Risk bearing capacity is small and limits the capacity for productivity increasing investments and application of improved technologies. Hence, while the constraints for households are less severe in type II and III areas than in type I, the constraints themselves are similar.

This subzone would be suitable for an agricultural programme around drought resistant seeds production, leguminous plant production, agriculture extension for dry crops and livestock management in order to secure incomes of small farmers.

Small Proportion of Agricultural landholders Township Type Population paddy area population (<5 acres) irrigated proportion

Myingyan III 417,541 40% 68% 2%

Natogyi II 272936 56% 67% 17%

Taungtha II 334,480 54% 42% 8%

Mahlaing II 240,283 61% 32% 6%

Data source: JICA, 2010

4. Subzone around Monywa with JICA type II and III including Monywa, Yinmabin, Salingyi and Yesagyo with townships

This subzone is rather similar to the subzone 3 with high agricultural population density and likely similar opportunities and problems linked to the unreliable rainfall pattern. There are probably more irrigation opportunities close to the lower Chindwin River (to be confirmed). According to government data, the proportion of small farmers in Yinmabin and Salingyi is much lower than in the subzone 3.

Small Proportion of Agricultural landholders Township Type Population the paddy area population (<5 acres) irrigated proportion

Monywa III 384,411 37% 53% 50%

Yinmabin II 162,375 60% 13% 45%

Salingyi III 166,844 46% 14% 25%

Yesagyo II 330,858 64% 80% <1%

Data source: JICA, 2010

5. Subzone around Pakokku with JICA type I and II including Pakokku, Seikphyu, Nyaung-U and Kyaukpadaung townships

This subzone is probably the most food insecure. There are few irrigated crops and farming is characterised by high risks and low returns. Green gram, groundnuts and sesame are widely grown in addition to monsoon paddy. Small livestock is a crucial livelihood activity. Bio-physical conditions are often poor with a high proportion of degraded soils. Water related problems (level, variability) are more pronounced than in better endowed areas. Population is dense close to the Irrawaddy River.

Households are severely cash constrained and risk adverse. This limits the options that can be considered to improve food security and income. Production constraints and poor market access limits livelihood options in terms of what to produce and tends to preclude diversification to more profitable enterprises.

There are probably less opportunities in terms of agricultural development than in other subzones. The selection of this subzone would probably drive the programme toward a combination of interventions to improve access to water, soil rehabilitation and livestock management.

Small Proportion of Agricultural landholders Township Type Population the paddy area population (<5 acres) irrigated proportion

Pakokku I 402,981 43% 67% 0%

Seikhphyu II 120,944 86% 66% 4%

Nyaung-U I 326,189 26% 46% 0%

Kyaukpadaung I 377,741 44% 38% 22%

Data source: JICA, 2010

Presence of development organizations

Some areas of the Dry Zone have attracted more support from other development organisations than others. The distribution of development interventions according to geographic area and development issue by members of the Food Security Working Group is documented by the Myanmar Information Management Unit (MIMU) and presented in annex 5. This shows subzones 2, 4 and 5 to have received more international support than the subzones 1 and 3.

A preference could be given to areas which have attracted less attention. Or alternatively, the programme could seek to build on the work of others where their experience has been positive and potential for further successful intervention is evident.

5 Past and future interventions in the Dry Zone

Lessons from on-going LIFT supported projects

The lessons from ongoing and past activities in the Dry Zone that can inform the selection and design of activities for the new Dry Zone programme. There are a number of difficulties in drawing lessons from the projects that LIFT funds in the Dry Zone. Firstly, it is generally too early to assess whether these activities have had an impact or not. We can however draw lessons from implementation. The establishment of a seed bank for example can be observed but whether the intended benefits will be lasting or not will be unclear.

Secondly, the present LIFT M&E mechanism is not geared to monitor for impact. Neither do the field visit reports by FMO programme staff provide insight on the relevance and effectiveness of concepts (e.g. seed banks, revolving funds, Farmer Field Schools) other than at a general level.

The Farmer Field Schools provide some limited anecdotal insights to how farmers may be changing their practices but we do not yet have any quantitative evidence. Income benefits from the establishment of seed banks and the effect on income from the collection and dissemination of price information on agriculture products, for example remain unclear. We do not know if the improved stoves introduced have resulted in the intended benefits, and we do not know how these ‘benefits’ have been perceived by the beneficiaries. For these reasons current LIFT supported activities only provide an anecdotal guide to choosing activity content for the new Dry Zone programme.

Finally, the efforts to establish ‘what works and what does not work’ need to be qualified. The fact that an activity is successfully implemented and seems to be sustainable can be taken as an indicator that ‘it works’. However, if that activity does not contribute significantly and effectively to LIFT’s priority food security and income outcomes, claiming that it works will be questionable.

For these reasons we have to accept that the information on impact that we would like to have on the LIFT supported projects is either not yet measurable or only incompletely measured at best.

The LIFT mid-term review soon to report at the time of writing this paper will hopefully make it possible to draw some tentative conclusions on what works and what does not work in the present programme even if it will not provide quantitative information on impact.

Evaluations of selected NGO projects in the Dry Zone

A selection of evaluative work from other Dry Zone projects has been reviewed.5 A summary of the findings of the evaluations available is provided below. A full review of lessons from a range of project evaluations completed for Dry Zone projects by different donor and implementation organisations is available in the attached report.

Two of the three evaluations reviewed so far are qualitative in nature and all three were undertaken at the end of the projects. This means that the question of sustainability is generally left unanswered although the evaluators tend to take the functioning of activities and CBOs during project implementation as a basis for (positively) projecting sustainability.

A number of activities were reported to have worked including  Establishment of community forests (Save the Children); no harvesting was reported.  Provision of drinking water (tube wells, dams), (ADRA, CESVI)  Distribution of hand tools to poor (Save the Children)  Improved stoves (ADRA)  Seed banks (ADRA, Save the Children)  Savings and credit groups (ADRA, Save the Children  Food preservation (CESVI)

Various activities that have involved project distribution of productive resources – cattle, pigs, goats, improved seed fertiliser are also reported as successes (ADRA, CESVI, Save the Children).

Unfortunately the evaluation reports do not generally provide explanations of the successes, or more importantly perhaps, the activities that have been less successful.

Activities that were reported as less successful (limited Household adoption) include  Kitchen gardening (Save the Children, ADRA)  Distribution of tree seedlings to households (Save the Children)  Agriculture machinery to Village Development Committee for rental (ADRA)  Food processing (Save the Children)

5 Other evaluations that could be considered include the final evaluation mission report on Community-based food security programme in Pyin Lwin TS, Mandalya Division (2010), implemented by CESVI, External Final Evaluation Report on Increased food security in Myanmar amongst the poorest households, (2010), implemented by Save the Children and End of project evaluation report on Food insecurity reduction in Myanmar (2010), implemented by ADRA. 17

Lessons from community development and the formation of CBOs

Lessons can also be learnt by looking more broadly at experience both in Myanmar and abroad. Two relevant approaches pursued by several LIFT Implantation Partners (IPs), including in the Dry Zone, and in other projects are commented on below.

Formation of Community Based Organisations and the use of revolving funds

One basic concept is the idea that communities need to and should take on responsibility to plan for their development and undertake activities to implement their plans. For this they have to mobilise and organise their human resources and form Community Based Organisations (CBOs). The processes should be inclusive, democratic and transparent. Development should be demand driven and reflect prioritised community needs.6,7

The external agent, generally an NGO, provides concepts and plans (e.g. a village development plan, revolving funds), techniques (e.g. PRA, wealth ranking), access (e.g. to inputs, knowledge) and importantly, financial resources. Commonly the NGOs prescribe conditions for support (e.g. formation of CBOs and the composition of management bodies and selection of beneficiaries).

While attempts are made to establish sources of funding within communities (e.g. revolving funds), Community Development (CD) activities are usually heavily dependent upon external financial resources.

Of the LIFT funded projects in the Dry Zone, the projects implemented by ADRA, Help Age, Mercy Crops, Oxfam and Action Aid are close in their design to this characterisation of CD. Others, such as Proximity Designs (pond rehabilitation and micro irrigation) and MBCA (market info) are narrow in scope, do not involve development of village plans and do not introduce revolving funds.

The five broad CD IP projects taken together operate in 17 townships and 260 villages.8 The combined funds for the five projects amount to USD 13.1 million or USD 50,500 per village.

There are a number of appealing characteristics of a CD approach.

While a CD approach seldom results in a fully demand driven set of activities, experience suggests that it is more likely to do so than service delivery from a government structure.9

6 In practice there is often a mix of needs and activities prioritised by external agencies and the needs and priorities reflecting community views. 7 Such a Community Development concept is generally implemented without a more long term perspective on the role of the state and civil society. Over time both the political structure of the state reaches out and down as local government structures emerge and the administrative structure (ministries) expands capacity and local presence. This changes the role that can and will be played by CBOs. This is not an immediate issue in Myanmar where Community Development activities in part at least can be seen as a bridging measure in view of the limited capacity of the state. 8 To give figures on numbers of beneficiaries easily becomes somewhat misleading when training, including short course training for large numbers of participants, is included. Not that such training is without benefits, but it is probably different from the benefits of more direct farm and livelihood interventions e.g. distribution of livestock. 18

NGOs generally make conscious and strong efforts to foster democratic processes to ensure inclusion of women, poor and elderly. While the exposure to democratic principles is of value, it begs the question whether brief exposure for a few years will influence and alter the established social order of inequality, power relationships, attitudes and modes of conducting community business in any significant degree. Two studies in Myanmar lend support to the view that this is unlikely to happen.10 These studies show the importance of the village authority, often balanced by the influence of councils of elders, as the prime structure of power in managing village affairs. This structure and its mode of operation are seldom affected by the presence of CBOs formed through external initiatives.

The formation of CBOs is an effort to create social capital.11 The five LIFT IP CD projects have formed several CBOs in the villages with one, generally called the Village Development Committee at the top. The support of the external agent, the NGO, is rightly seen as temporary. Hence, the formation and development of CBOs is a fundamental dimension of a CD approach. The CBOs are expected to perpetuate the development process initiated with the support of the external agent.

The potential to achieve synergies and integration is another strength of the CD approach. This can be achieved as the implementing agency, normally an NGO, has management control over all activities.

NGO activities with a CD approach also have the potential to respond to several different community needs (although not all choose to do so).

In most instances CD projects are relatively small which makes them easier to operate efficiently. Project specific administrative rules and procedures can be designed avoiding cumbersome administrative rules typical to, for instance, a government bureaucracy.

Assumptions on sustainability can be a major limitation of the CD approach, as it is generally implemented, including by the LIFT IPs. All IPs argue that the establishment of CBOs will lead to sustainability (presumably of activities and benefit streams although this is not stated). This is a daring assumption with limited evidence to support it.

During project implementation the CBO’s primary function with the support of external inputs is to provide (i) concepts, procedures and knowhow, (ii) facilitation/gentle pushing, implied demand for performance and most importantly (iii) provision of capital in cash or in kind. When this support is withdrawn as projects come to an end, most CBOs are at risk.

Recognising the importance of capital, several of the IPs have introduced revolving funds with the argument that revolving capital will provide the material base needed for the justification and

9 When communities are required to develop community action plans for disaster risk reduction the activity is hardly demand driven. This does not necessarily mean that the activity is ineffective. 10 What lies beneath? An operational Analysis on Leadership and Institutions at the Local Level in Myanmar, 2011 and Village Institutions and Leadership in Myanmar: A view from Below (2012). 11 DFID defines social capital as a category of livelihood assets that relates to the formal and informal social relationships (or social resources) from which various opportunities and benefits can be drawn by people in their pursuit of livelihood. 19

existence of many of the CBOs.12 Unfortunately there is evidence including in Myanmar to prove that it is difficult and requiring of extensive support over an extended period to make a CBO-based revolving fund sustainable.

For instance in the Humanitarian Development Initiative (HDI), implemented by UNDP, established more than five thousand revolving funds (labelled SRGs). Most of the SRGs have been supported for several years and many more than five years. Yet in 2010 not one SRG had reached a level of maturity that was considered sufficient to withdraw support. The average loan repayment rate in the SRGs was around 70%. A second form of revolving funds was also launched under HDI that was based on interest groups. More than 1,500 such groups were formed. The loan recovery rate (in 2010) was 56%. In both cases the loan capital is destined to disappear.

The sustainability potential of the CBOs established by externally supported projects is also compromised by deliberate and well-intended efforts to avoid elite capture. To this end both formal (village and village tract authorities) and informal village institutions (e.g. councils of respected elders) are often by-passed or given a subordinate role as projects form new CBOs in an attempt to break prevailing patterns of power, status and relationships. An analysis of local leadership in the two studies referred to in footnote 10 gives reason to question the longevity of the changes projects impose with the power of the purse.

These observations are not an argument against a prospective NGO led programme as long as it responds to community needs as they are articulated in local level planning processes. However, it would be advisable to adopt a modified design for the Dry Zone programme that provides greater alignment with existing community level institutions and a reconsidered CBO concept.

Some agency plans for the Dry Zone

The exploration of activities and plans from a range of agencies for the Dry Zone are on-going. Information gathered so far suggests that while there seems to be considerable interest in the Dry Zone there are few if any significant commitments (in terms of funding) supporting agriculture or livelihoods.

As referred to earlier, JICA has financed a substantial study of the Dry Zone that was completed in 2010. The study report contains 44 detailed proposed activities which in total makes for a significant programme.

JICA determined not to implement this programme but rather, three more limited projects which will start in 2013. The first is a crop production project with a three year implementation period and a budget of USD 5 million. The project remains at a formulation stage. The second is a technical assistance project on livestock. JICA will provide one Technical Advisor for three months a year for three years to the Livestock Breeding and Veterinarian Department in Mandalay. The third is a three year aquaculture project which is also at the formulation stage.

12 Not all IPs have introduced revolving funds. Oxfam provides material input to households with no repayment obligations. Help Age requires only a 25% repayment, which obviously will significantly reduce the funds that can be revolved. 20

AusAid through the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) plans to fund three research projects in the Dry Zone on legumes, livestock and extension for four years with a budget AUD 2 million each. The legume project is a continuation of a previous project running from 2006 to 2010.

USAID has indicated interest in developing agriculture related activities in the Dry Zone. At present there are only tentative ideas that include improvement of paddy cultivation and crop diversification on irrigated land. Since there is yet no known budget allocation the efforts of the USAID have been limited to an agriculture scoping study undertaken by the Michigan State University (report expected in May) and the budget contribution of USAID to LIFT.

IFAD is currently exploring opportunities in Myanmar and is in the process of formulating a pilot project to be located in the Dry Zone that will develop horizontal and vertical coordination mechanisms in the agriculture sector at different levels (union, region/state, district, and township) and link these to a bottom up planning approach at the village level. IFAD is also looking at more substantive involvements in the Dry Zone but has explained that information on these options cannot be shared yet.

FAO has implemented a vegetable oil production and processing project that comes to an end in 2013. The project comprises variety testing, demonstrations, strengthening research and installation of an oil pressing plant in Mandalay. FAO is also planning a regional smallholder dairy development project in which Myanmar is included.13 The project will target 1,100 households in Mandalay and address constraints related to production and handling of milk, marketing and processing.

The Global Mechanism has developed a concept note on Enhancing Climate Change Resilience and Food Security through Sustainable Land Management in the Dry Zone of Myanmar for which funding is yet to be identified.

LIFT is in the advanced stages of confirming the design for a new Pumped irrigation Programme that will focus on Myinmu township in Sagaing and Minbu township in Magway. This programme will prioritise rehabilitation of government pumped irrigation schemes. Myinmu township falls within subzone 1 and Minbu in subzone 2.

13 New Zealand has also committed to a significant dairy investment in Myanmar that will have a smallholder focus. The project planning is at the concept stage and so it is not yet known where the project will be located. 21

6 Conceivable activity options per subzone

The options per subzone are discussed for three of the above subzones from the less resource endowed to the best resource endowed: - Subzone 5 (Pakokku) - Subzone 3 (Myingyan) - Subzone 1 (Shwebo)

The discussion could apply to other subzones considering that subzone 2 (Magwe) is intermediate between 1 and 3 and is also one of the two target areas for the LIFT Pumped Irrigation Programme. Subzone 4 (Monywa) has similarities to subzone 3.

In this section a number of conceivable activity options for the different zones in the Dry Zone are suggested. In addition to the information provided in this document these options have been identified on the basis of a more thorough and extensive analysis of major constraints and opportunities in relation to food security and income in the Dry Zone. 14

An attempt is also made to tentatively indicate the potential of the different options. Clearly caution is called for regarding the validity and reliability of these assessments; only an elaboration and design of the different activity options based on further scoping and feasibility study would provide the basis for a more reliable assessment. A tentative choice of options for further enquiry is unavoidable, even if the information available is less than ideal.

Comments are made on the potential of the activity options identified namely their relevance, the potential to benefit many and feasibility. Feasibility may refer to implementation capacity, the existence of a technical solution, value for money, the social and economic acceptability on the part of the intended beneficiaries, and the potential for a reasonable degree of sustainability.

The evaluative observations on the options are summarised in annex 7.

6.1 Activity options for the subzone 5 around Pakokku

To recapitulate, farming in JICA zone I areas is characterised by high risks and low returns. Bio- physical conditions are often poor and water related problems (level, variability) are more pronounced than in better endowed areas. Water related problems (level and variability of rainfall, erosion, soil texture) and problems related to land degradation and soil fertility are key constraints in farming. Households are severely cash constrained and risk adverse. This limits the options that can be considered to improve food security and income. Measures to improve productivity will find widespread acceptance only if they do not demand significant cash expenditure and are proven to (farmers) to carry limited risk. Production constraints and poor market access limits the production options.

14 L Birgegaard, Opportunities/constraints and options for consideration in a Dry Zone programme, March 2013. 22

6.1.1 Activity option 1 – A social protection activity responding to the needs of the poorest of the poor

The desirability of responding to the needs of the poorest of the poor has featured in frequent discussions on the options for a LIFT Dry Zone programme.

There are extremely poor and destitute individuals and households in all zones. Beyond what they can do to support themselves their needs are generally catered to through the informal social networks prevalent in all communities.

Given the high prevalence of extreme poverty in areas that are generally poor it is fair to tentatively conclude that a social protection activity is called for in subzone 5.

Questions are sometimes raised on the merit of defining cash for work schemes as a social protection activity. This seems to be more a matter of labelling than a matter of substance for those in need. While cash for work provides an immediate response to need it is usually short term (ie for short one off capital or similar activities). This can be effective in meeting temporal food security needs of the extreme poor and destitute. They equally have many needs that are continuous in nature and so any protection activity responding to these needs has to be continuous a well.

The government has indicated its concern for the prevalence of widespread poverty by advancing the idea of an employment guarantee scheme in an effort to address the on-going social protection needs of the extreme poor. This implies that the beneficiaries have the capacity to take up employment despite the fact that experience suggests that those who are employable are generally not the poorest of the poor.

A social protection scheme for this category (JICA zone I) would have to be a grant scheme without any expectations of a contribution on the part of the beneficiaries. Such an activity implies a continuous commitment without a logical end which cannot be made at scale by other than the public sector. Without such a commitment manifested in a national policy for which financial resources are allocated in the government budget, even a pilot activity demonstrating alternative approaches to the provision of social security would not be advisable.

Hence, while social protection is desirable in an effort to assist the poorest of the poor from a distributive point of view, there are several reasons why it may not be advisable within a time bound programme, even with a government body as the implementing agency.

A budget of USD 30 million would be sufficient to provide some 57,000 beneficiaries with enough rice for a three year period.15 Would this be considered value for money?

In terms of identified criteria, a social protection activity is clearly relevant for the subzone and it has the potential to reach many. However, it has a very low sustainability potential.

15 ‘Assuming an annual consumption of rice of 150 kilo at a p rice of Kyat 1,000/kilo. 23

6.1.2 Activity option 2 – Responding to the needs at village level through a CD approach

In order to be true to the philosophy of community development, the activity content should not be predetermined but should emerge in a process whereby communities make their needs and priorities known. Even with a negative list of what cannot be funded, such an approach is likely to result in broad programmes covering a range of activities as is the case with several of the present LIFT funded projects in the Dry Zone. (See annex 6 summarising the activities of the current LIFT projects).

A CD approach is conceivable as an option but the questions discussed in section 5 give reason to question the role of CBOs in a Dry Zone programme and the weaknesses of the revolving fund concept usually applied and its particular limitations in a poor, cash constrained context where agriculture activities are notoriously risky.

The limited economic stratification in JICA zone I communities may make a CD approach more appropriate there than in the other zones, e.g. zone V with a considerably higher degree of stratification.

As generally designed a CD approach may be relevant and have the potential to reach many beneficiaries, but it is weak in terms of sustainability.

If the present LIFT IP projects with a CD design are taken as an indicator, a programme budget of USD 30 million could cover approximately 600 villages. (This would limit the geographical focus of the proposed Dry Zone programme to three (average sized) townships out of 51 in the Dry Zone).

6.1.3 Activity option 3 – addressing water related constraints in farming

One of the defining characteristics of the JICA zone I is severe problems related to water. There are different ways in which water related problems can be addressed in the zone I townships.

Water and soil conservation

The search for alternative approaches that do not involve cash outlays may suggest water conservation measures such as (i) construction of retention bunds, trenches and terraces, (ii) gully closures, (iii) sediment storage, (iv) planting wind breaks, (v) cover crop planting, (vi) breaking hardpan (by organic or mechanic means), (vii) contour ploughing, (viii) mulching, (ix) composting, (x) biological nitrogen fixation and(xi), and dry seeding. Some of these measures can be undertaken on an individual farm basis. Others may require collective and more substantive efforts that can lend themselves to cash for work activities (investments).

Which measures to apply would depend upon a number of locally specific agro-ecological and physical conditions which often not only vary from village to village but also between different localities in a village as well as socio-economic conditions, which vary from farmer to farmer. The manual for soil and water conservation measures for the Dry Zone developed under a FAO

supported farming systems project makes a point of the need for a locally specific selection of measures based on a proper analysis.16

It stands to reason that considerable technical skill is required in order to make the necessary assessments and to select effective means out of a range of options. Furthermore, there is a need for communication skills to make this a collaborative process with farmers. Their active involvement is likely to be a precondition for adoption.

Even when a collaborative process is ensured, experience shows that adoption cannot be taken for granted. Improvements may not yield immediate and tangible results that convince farmers to continue the activities, ie improvement of soil texture and measures to reduce sheet erosion are two examples.

Water harvesting and retention through land and soil husbandry measures would address concerns that are shared by a majority of farmers. However, the contribution to objective fulfilment may have limitations for three reasons.

Firstly, the extension service (in one form or another) that would have the necessary knowledge and skills is limited and could not easily be developed to a scale that would make a difference. The capacity, and in this case more importantly capability, of township Ministry of Agriculture offices that could provide such extension services is limited. This is ostensibly the case in particular in zone I townships.

Secondly, the need for locally specific measures reduces the number of situations that can be addressed and hence the number of farmers that can benefit within the capacity constraint of the service delivery mechanism (extension service or other). Thirdly, experiences elsewhere raise questions on the likelihood of wide farmer adoption unless measures can be seen to have immediate and tangible benefits. Some others do not.

A water and soil conservation activity is highly relevant but has limited potential to reach many beneficiaries due to the nature of the activity and limitations in terms of implementation capacity.

Micro gravity irrigation

A number of agencies, including GRET and FAO, have implemented micro irrigation schemes (dams) in Northern Rakhine State. Attempts to provide landless access to irrigated land for winter crop cultivation was an important and innovative part of the design. These schemes are generally small (on average 40 hectares) and the number of beneficiaries is consequently limited (80-100). The command areas have been divided into small parcels and each cultivator has been given access to a small plot in order to increase the number of beneficiaries. Seven dams constructed by GRET up to 2007 irrigate 102 hectares from which some 600 farmers/landless benefit. In 2007 40% of the cultivators were landless.

16 Carucci, Guideline on Soil and Water Conservation for the Myanmar Dry Zone (2001). 25

The GRET experience is well documented and shows that an important aspect of the programme was the process of reaching an understanding and agreement between the different local interests affected by the dam. Developing an institutional framework (organisation, rules and regulations) for the maintenance and operation of the schemes is also said to be important. The detail analysis of the process suggests that advanced mobilisation and facilitation skills are needed in order to succeed. 17

The LIFT Fund Management Office has undertaken an updated review of GRET’s experience with the implementation of earth dam constructions in the Northern Rakhine State and will be available at the end of May. The study will put particular emphasis on assessing the extent to which the innovative aspects of the dam programme have been sustained (giving landless access to land) and the degree to which the model is replicable in the Dry Zone.

Irrespective of the findings of the study the following tentative observations on this activity can be made.

There are likely to be many locations in the Dry Zone, including in less favourable areas, where micro irrigation schemes with earth dams can be constructed. Such construction work can be implemented with cash for work.

The ambition to provide landless access to land in these schemes precludes the involvement of government other than possibly in the technical assessment of mini catchments as government bodies do not have the necessary mobilisation skills.

The mobilisation and facilitation skills required for this option are significant. The process for each scheme is demanding and time consuming. Hence, even with an NGO framework for implementation, there will be notable constraints in terms of implementation capacity.18 Even if the capacity that GRET allocated to the construction of dams could be increased ten-fold, the result would still be limited to some 60-70 dams each irrigating a small area of some 40 hectares.

Finally, the dam projects in Northern Rakaine were implemented in the highly specific socio- economic context involving the Muslim communities in the area. This raises questions regarding the replicability of the concept in the very different context of the Dry Zone.

Micro irrigation dams are relevant in addressing a key constraint in farming. However, it has limitations in terms of the number of beneficiaries that can be reached.

Provision of improved seed

One alternative is to give farmers access to crop varieties with better draught resistance and shorter growth periods than the varieties they use. Potentially this activity would be relevant for virtually all farmers in the subzone. However, such an activity would meet with a number of constraints. Firstly,

17 Deligne, A. Négocier les règles du jeu de la gestion d’une retenue d’eau collinaire (Arakan, Myanmar/Birmanie), 2007. Ferrand, P. Overview of the situation of the permanent dams built by GRET in NRS (2004-2007), 2007. 18 GRET implemented two dams in 2004, three in 2005 and two in 2006. 26

the supply of such seed is not readily available. This constraint is further elaborated under subzone 3 where improved seed has more potential than in this subzone.

Furthermore, improved seed costs money wherever it is multiplied (community level or by a seed industry) which severely cash constrained and indebted farmers are reluctant to consider spending.

Taken together it seems that the promotion of improved seed may not be the most promising option in subzone 5. The JICA study came to the same conclusion.

6.1.4 Activity option 4 – Facilitate migration and provision of consumption credit

While longitudinal and detailed data covering even a number of townships in the Dry Zone are missing, we know that migration is significant and particularly high in poor areas. Migration is an important coping strategy in times of food insecurity and financial stress.

From qualitative information we know that the decision to migrate is often hard to make involving uncertainty and risk and disruption of immediate social contacts. It is often made under pressure of food insecurity and financial stress. Crop failures invariably trigger migration. A decision on whether to migrate and where to go is strongly dependent on social contacts; to know someone, somewhere, who can provide initial shelter on arrival and who can assess the prospect for work and who can provide contacts with employers.

It is hard to see what an external agency can do to support households in their migration ‘activities’ except, in principal, in one respect.

There are costs involved in migrating. Households (in the central Dry Zone) have indicated that they need to raise 20-25,000 Kyat for a family member to migrate to Mandalay. Whatever the figure is, cash is needed. For heavily indebted, cash constrained and risk adverse households 20-25,000 is a major investment particularly if it is made in a situation of financial stress. A case could be made for a ‘migration loan’. Such a loan should be seen as an investment and should be possible to justify as a MFI loan product.

The remuneration from migration can also be improved if skills are imparted to migrants through vocational training.

Poor households have persistent needs for consumption credit, notably for food, which are satisfied at high costs on the informal market. If a saving could be made on the interest rate with seven percentage points (from 10% per month with a money lender to 3% from a MFI) on a debt of Kyat 25,000, the disposable income could be increased with some Kyat 20,000 in a year.

A migration loan would be relevant and have the potential to serve many beneficiaries.

However, MFI’s are unlikely to be willing to provide consumption credit.

6.1.5 Activity option 5 – livestock

Livestock is an integral part of mixed farming systems in subzone 5. The potential for livestock development is constrained for a number of reasons that will be further elaborated under subzone 3. Constraints related to fodder and feed are particularly pronounced in this subzone. Pigs are less frequently raised than in better off areas whereas goats are more important.

Primarily goats and in some cases sheep are increasingly seen as an option to diversify production and improve income particularly in poorer areas by the poorer sections of the farming community and landless in the Dry Zone. This option would apply to the subzone 5. FAO has estimated that the population of small ruminants in the Dry Zone has doubled since 2003.19 However, it remains that only a minority of farmers raise sheep and goats. According to the LIFT base line survey only 7% of the sampled households in the Dry Zone owned sheep and/or goats.

The ACIAR livestock scoping study referred to above suggests that there is considerable potential for expanding sheep and goat production and reports a strong domestic demand for meat. The proposed research will focus on addressing low productivity, animal health problems and high mortality rates of kids.

Goats and sheep are grazed on communal land and on fallow fields and seldom given any supplementary feeding.20 Farmers seldom experience fodder to be a constraint.

This said, raising goats is not without its challenges. In an environment with thin vegetation cover and erosion prone soils, which characterises much of the Dry Zone, raising goats has definite and negative environmental consequences. Given the precarious situation in the Dry Zone in terms of land degradation and soil erosion, the wisdom of promoting goat production on a large scale is questionable.

6.2 Activity options for the subzone 3 around Myingyan

Rain fed mixed crop livestock farming dominates in the subzone 3. Although better endowed than areas in subzone 5, farming in JICA zone II and III is exposed to significant risks and water related problems (level and variability of rainfall, erosion, soil texture) and problems related to land degradation and soil fertility are key constraints in farming.

Limited access to financial services and improved seed impedes adoption of productivity increasing technologies. The declining size of farms and fragmentation due among other things to inheritance is reducing the capacity to sustain food security and incomes. It is also risking limitation of capacity for productivity increasing investment and the application of improved technologies. Hence, whereas the constraints are less severe in the JICA zone II and III areas, households face similar constraints.

19 Report on the market chain of small ruminants in the central Dry Zone. FAO Burma 2011. 20 More generally improvements by grazing on common land are constrained by open access and the well known problem of the tragedy of the commons. 28

A value chain analysis does not suggest major inefficiencies in the market for pulses and beans which are important crops in the areas.21

6.2.1 Activity option 1 - Responding to the needs at village level through a CD approach

Please refer to the discussion of this option under subzone 5.

6.2.2 Activity option 2 – Addressing water related problems

There are a number of ways in which water related problems in rain fed agriculture can be addressed.

Making improved seed available to farmers

The problem to be addressed is a market failure inhibiting farmer access to improved seed varieties. The underlying reasons for addressing this market failure are the following.

Crop production is and will remain the most important direct and indirect source of food and income security for the majority of rural households in the subzone townships. Water related problems are undoubtedly the key constraints faced by farmers. The increasing variability and unpredictability of rainfall over recent years has made farming more challenging and with higher risk.

The characteristics of many of the seed varieties that farmers use not only have limitations in terms of yield capacity but they do not respond to farmers´ need for drought resistance which together with long growth periods increases the risk of crop failure.

Crop failures due to water related problems have diverse and far reaching and well known consequences in terms of loss of income, increased food insecurity, increased need to borrow for (food) consumption and increased indebtedness.

Crop failure reduces the demand for labour in the season it occurs. It also reduces the capacity of the informal financial sector, generally dominated by larger farmers, to provide credit at a time when credit needs are increasing. The same goes for shopkeepers who see their business activities drop.

A crop failure reduces the amount of grazing and fodder that is available. When travelling in the Dry Zone in December (2012), the underfed condition of most cattle was notable, and this at a time when grazing at the close of the monsoon should have been at its best. The explanation given was the failure of the late monsoon rains.

Farmers confirmed that they would have increased problems with insufficient fodder as a result of the winter crop failure (crop residues are an important source of fodder). They also confirmed that this will cause problems for land preparation in May-June as the draught animals will be weak. From experience they foresaw that the oxen will only manage a two hour working session rather than a

21 Agriculture commodity selection for Pyoe Pin issues based support (2010), p 19 29

normal three hour session. They knew that this may result in poor and late land preparation with consequences on yields.

To counter these risks farmers are asking for shorter rotation drought resistant crop varieties. The reason for drought resistance is obvious. Shorter growth periods make it possible to plant the crops to reduce the risk of a mismatch between the vegetative period and the period with adequate moisture. It also gives more time for land preparation between monsoon and winter crop cultivation.

Farmers’ focus on drought resistance and growth period does not mean that yield is unimportant and the best of options would be varieties that are high yielding, drought resistant and early maturing.

The preferences expressed by farmers would seem to imply that they are more concerned with stabilising production over multiple years rather than maximising output in a single year. The preference also reflects the high degree of risk aversion and the difficulty that most farmers have to cope with crop failures in a particular year.

A collaboration between MAR ICRISAT and the AusAid supported research project on legumes has screened and tested thousands of varieties of legume crops. While this work is on-going, varieties for a number of crops that are more drought resistant, have a shorter growth period and a higher yield potential (than local varieties) have been identified.22 Farmers have been largely unable to tap this opportunity as seed multiplication, certification and distribution systems are inadequate and of insufficient scale. Various surveys consistently report unmet needs of improved seed.

Some projects have recognised this and attempted to respond by accessing base seed from MAR and developed (project based) seed multiplication activities and seed banks with farmers either with a more limited ambition to serve farmers in a particular community or with the idea that seed producing farmers will sell seed to other farmers.23

These are highly commendable efforts. At the same time they have inherit limitations. There are technical problems in ensuring purity in seed production over time. There is no system for certification which, in combination with the problems of maintaining the genetic characteristics of the seed, will make it hard to determine what seed is offered to farmers. Yet another obvious limitation is the scale of such project based activities. While some thousands of farmers may be reached, tens or hundreds of thousands need to be reached.

The fact that there is a need that is experienced by hundreds of thousands of farmers (that could translate into a demand) that is not met suggests that there is a market failure. Private investors have not seen opportunities in seed multiplication and marketing. From a development point of

22 Confirmed by the former project manager of the ACIAR project entitled Increasing Food Security through Enhanced Legume Cultivation in the Central Dry Zone of Burma (Myanmar) 2006-2010. 23 Such activities have been implemented in a number of LIFT supported projects in the Dry Zone (including ADRA, Help Age and Action Aid) as well as by other projects such as the ACIAR legume research project. 30

view there should have been more investment into seed multiplication and distribution than the market effect has provided for.

There are a number of conceivable reasons for this. One important reason is that a need for improved seed does not easily translate into demand. The reason for this in turn is ostensibly that farmers are highly risk averse and need to see that what is offered holds what it promises in their own locality. Furthermore, farmers are cash constrained with inadequate access to funding. A business enterprise will not consider a marketing strategy which would meet these customer needs; it would simply be too costly.

While the efforts by NGOs to improve famer access to quality seed are laudable, their activities are of insufficient scale and technical design, and the lack the necessary sustainable institutional arrangements. It is also unlikely that the private sector alone will make the necessary investment without some incentive. A public-private partnership arrangement may hold the best prospects. The following dimensions of a seed programme would have to be considered.

1) Seed with demanded characteristics which is certified; 2) Promotion to demonstrate benefits to risk averse farmers; 3) A system for making seed available; 4) Measures that make seed accessible to farmers which would include 3) but also credit.

Laying the foundations to a seed industry, which this activity option entails, probably cannot be contained to the boundaries of the four townships in subzone 3. Production of registered seed and multiplication will have to be located where MAR is operational and land for multiplication is available.

In the long run a seed industry should service the entire Dry Zone and beyond. However, the development of modes of promotion and dissemination has to start more locally from where a seed industry with its different elements can grow. This important dimension of a seed industry project can be implemented in the four subzone 3 townships.

Direct benefits would accrue to farmers by stabilising production over a number of years and by increasing yields in single years (when rainfall is adequate).

The potential number of beneficiaries both within the subzone townships and beyond is huge (several hundred thousand in JICA zones I-III alone). Only a (small) part of this potential number can realistically be reached by a time limited programme. However, in addition to serving farmers during the programme period, the foundation of a seed industry that can grow and serve farmers on a large scale in the future will have been laid.

Making improved seed accessible to farmers would be highly relevant and have the potential to benefit a large number of farmers.

Water and soil conservation

Water and soil conservation measures would address key constraints to agriculture production that most farmers in the subzone 3 face.

Please refer to section 13.1.3 where the potential of this option is discussed. The specific measures that are appropriate in subzone 3 will in part be different to the measures that are appropriate in subzone 5 due to differences in agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions. However, in both areas, highly local specific conditions will determine which measures are feasible and effective. Water and soil conservation as a headline for an activity is relevant in both subzones but will imply different activities depending on local specific conditions.

Micro gravity irrigation

Please refer to section 6.1.3 where the potential of this option is discussed.

6.2.3 Activity option 3 – Provision of credit

There is conclusive evidence to suggest that there are significant unmet needs for credit in subzone 3 and in the Dry Zone in general. Furthermore, rural households depend primarily on the informal financial sector where the cost of credit is high.

Credit needs and the use of loans vary significantly between social strata of rural communities. The poor primarily borrow money for consumption purposes (notable to buy food) followed by expenditures related to health care. Well off households (relatively speaking) primarily borrow money to purchase agriculture inputs and to invest in non-farm activities.24

While there are significant needs for consumption credit, it is unlikely that any financial service provider at this stage of development of a micro finance industry would be prepared to consider such loan products. Realistically the focus will have to be on credit for economic activities.

LIFT is already supporting a number of MF activities in the Dry Zone (PACT, GRET, PROXIMITY). An expansion of LIFT support to financial service provision beyond present plans should be looked into as an option for the Dry Zone programme. By the same token the possibility to direct the activities of the MFIs that already receive LIFT support to selected cluster townships should be explored.

As in the case of subzone 5, a migration loan should be considered to facilitate migration also for subzone 3.

Provision of credit would be highly relevant. The number of beneficiaries would be determined by the capacity of providers to expand their activities. Programme intervention could focus at enhancing that capacity.

24 LIFT base line survey, p 62 32

6.2.4 Activity option 4 – Livestock

Livestock production, including sheep, goats, pigs and chicken, is important in the rural economy of the Dry Zone at large and in the four townships of the subzone 3 as well with the exception of sheep and goats. Over time livestock activities have developed partly in response to the need for draught animals, partly as a means to diversify sources of income on very small holdings and in response to the increased risks in crop production. This development has met with problems at household level (access to fodder and feed) and it has contributed to environmental problems (through grazing).

Limited research efforts have left development agencies with an inadequate basis for designing interventions that would improve productivity in livestock production. It is no coincidence that there are few projects focusing at livestock in the Dry Zone. The ACIAR project, which is starting in 2013, has a livestock component that will help to fill some of the information and data gaps over the coming years.25 As indicated in section 7 JICA will provide technical assistance a few months each year to the Livestock Breeding and Veterinarian Department in Mandalay.

Our present knowledge suggests the following.

Cattle

Seen in a longer time perspective the livestock sector will undergo structural change when preconditions in crop production lead to mechanisation of land preparation (and off-farm transport). Cattle draught power will be needed less. Cattle rearing will move to a greater focus on beef and milk production.

This is to say that the real potential of raising cattle for food security and income generation is yet to come when fodder resources are no longer largely used to raise and hold draught animals. This is what happened in Thailand where almost the entire buffalo population disappeared over a period of 15-20 years.

Looking at the present situation, the constraints on cattle production centre on the issue of fodder, and to a lesser extent water. In addition there are issues related to disease and animal husbandry.

Cattle are primarily fed on a cut and carry basis with crop residues, gathered native grasses and grazing. Feed is generally too costly and the option to cultivate fodder crops only makes sense for households with considerable land resources. In this case sorghum is a popular fodder crop. The growth of fodder trees has been attempted in the Dry Zone promoting leucaena as a fast growing fodder tree with the added benefit of nitrogen fixation. Farmer acceptance however, was poor. Among the reasons given by farmers was the perceived competition for moisture and nutrients when the trees were planted on bunds between fields. Plantation on common land met with tenure problems.

In short, there is presently no good answer on how to address fodder constraints.

25 Improving livelihoods of small-scale livestock producers in the central Dry Zone through research on animal production and health in Myanmar (a component of the ACIAR project referred to earlier). 33

The ACIAR research project will explore issues related to reproduction, health and husbandry and is expected to provide the basis for designing relevant interventions that are presently lacking.

Pigs

Interestingly the ACIAR livestock research project has excluded pigs from its focus arguing that “the need for purchased feed inputs, the risk of fluctuating prices and risk of disease outbreaks makes this production system less desirable for resource-poor households”.

At the same time the LIFT base line survey reports that about a third of the sampled households in the Dry Zone raise pigs. The landless and households with limited land are reported to rear a somewhat higher share of pigs than larger farmers.

Raising pigs is a risky proposition and high costs and constraints on availability of feed are problematic. The extent to which these constraints restrict the potential to expand production is yet to be established. It can probably be hypothesised that feed constraints will loom large on the margins and that a rapid and significant expansion of production would be met with feed limitations.

Chicken26

Most rural households raise chicken that are feeding through scavenging around the homesteads. High mortality rates of chicks (up to 50% have been recorded) and the prevalence of disease (particularly Newcastle disease) are major constraints that limit the contribution to food security and income.

It has been proven that with 1-2 vaccinations against Newcastle disease, protection of chicks from predation, and feeding chicks with commercial chick-starter feed it is possible to significantly increase the number of chickens that reach marketable age.

Tentatively, the outcome of this brief review seems to be the following.

As long as cattle are primarily held as draught animals and as long as there is no convincing answer to the question how the fodder constraint can be overcome, it is hard to see obvious areas for intervention to expand cattle production. Identification of interventions related to health and husbandry in order to increase productivity of the existing herd is constrained by limitations in the knowledge of health status, reproductive management and husbandry practices, issues that will be addressed by the ACIAR livestock project.

The potential to expand pig production is yet to be established and should be looked into as an option for marginal farmers and landless in subzone 3.

26 Reported in the ACIAR scoping study Improving livelihoods of small-scale livestock producers in the central Dry Zone through research on animal production and health in Myanmar. 34

There are evidence based interventions that can significantly increase productivity of chicken production. If the activities can be scaled up, and this needs to be established, there is a potential to address constraints that the majority of rural households would face.

Tentatively and given our present knowledge improvement of productivity in chicken production appears to have the greatest potential to make a difference to a large number of rural poor. Vaccination of chicks would be a central activity.27

6.2.5 Activity option 5 – Diversification of crop farming activities to high value commodities

Diversification of agriculture production to higher value commodities is an option to improve farm income and food security. Diversification can be seen as a particularly attractive option for farmers with small holdings. The return from production of vegetables per acre by far exceeds the return from many other crops. Diversification into livestock activities has already been discussed.

It should be noted that diversification of farming activities is already actively pursued by farmers when market opportunities present themselves and the preconditions for production are met. The developments in the livestock sector bears witness to this. So does the expansion of production of chilli, onion, tobacco and sunflower in the Dry Zone over a number of years. No particular external effort was needed to make this happen.

It is essential that diversification strategies are based as much on a realistic assessment of market demand as on issues related to production. There are too many examples when successful diversification strategies based on production parameters only in the end fail to benefit producers.28

Furthermore, any projection of demand should be limited to incremental demand; present levels of supply probably fairly well satisfy current demand (with reservations for market distortions). 29 It is easy to overestimate the potential of diversification by overestimating the size of the market.30

The market demand for most of the commodities generally considered in a diversification strategy is primarily to be found in urban areas. The demand for many, but not all, such commodities is income

27 During a field trip (to the Dry Zone) it was observed that a Village Administrator had been trained by the Township technicians and given the right to perform vaccination of animals. There are reasons to explore if this is an exception or whether there is a more general opportunity to relocate vaccination activities from the MoA offices. In theory this would open the possibility to train individuals who could make vaccination of animals a business. However, there are indications that vaccination might be a ‘business’ for government staff. Information gathered during the same field trip suggests that the township office pays 20 Kyat for a dose of vaccine and charges the farmer 500. That may be a disincentive to privatise the activity. 28 A successful attempt to promote apple production in remote areas of Nepal, for instance, resulted in marvellous spot free apples for which there was no accessible market. ‘Successful’ promotion of mandarin production in northern Vietnam resulted in prices falling through the floor due to oversupply. 29 Demand can increase with increased supply that lowers prices. For instance, local production of dragon fruit would clearly depress current prices of imported fruit (from Vietnam) and increase the size of the market. 30 If 5% of the landless and small farmers with less than 5 acres of land in the Dry Zone seceded in raising two pigs each a year some 16 million kilos would have to find a market made up by incremental demand on accessible markets. 35

sensitive. This is particularly the case for more expensive commodities such as meat, including poultry, and fruit. While the urban population is counted in millions it must be remembered that many urban inhabitants are poor and do not represent much purchase power.

Furthermore, experience from other countries indicates that (urban) demand is primarily stimulating production close to markets. Extensive vegetable production on the outskirts of Yangon bears local witness to this.31

Profitable diversification options also tend to be exploited by more resourceful farmers and entrepreneurs. A case in point is egg and poultry production to serve increasing demand notably in urban centres. Barriers to entry and fixed costs are low in such ventures. Experience from other countries shows that units with hundreds of birds tend to mushroom around urban centres. Such developments also take place around major urban centres in Myanmar.

None of these observations is an argument against diversification as a strategic option. The argument is valid that diversification to high value commodities can make a significant difference in terms of food security and income. However, the arguments suggest that considerable care is called for in designing such strategies. Furthermore, it should be accepted that the opportunities for diversification to production of high value (agriculture) commodities will primarily be captured by more resourceful farmers, not by marginal farmers.

Agriculture diversification should be market driven. The implication is to leave it to farmers to identify opportunities rather than making government agencies or project designers responsible for identifying such opportunities.

However, programme activities can support a diversification process by providing technical advice and financial services to farmers interested in diversification ventures. MFIs can promote diversification by providing loan products for such purposes. To some degree support by positive discrimination can also be designed to influence which farmers attempt to diversify (provision of credit for example).

It is less clear where the technical advisory services that would benefit farmers would come from. Firstly, it is not clear that the technical expertise can be mobilised at a scale sufficient to benefit many farmers. Secondly, whatever technical capacity that can be mobilised, the same resource would be considered for alternative ‘extension’ tasks that might be considered for inclusion in the programme. It would be necessary to consider where that resource is best used (reaching as many households as possible and contributing significantly to improvement of food security and income for these households).

Value chain analyses for high value diversification crops and livestock products could reveal potential points for intervention.

31 Agro ecological conditions and other factors may favour production at longer distance. An example is the tomato production at Inle lake. 36

6.2.6 Activity option 6 – Activities of particular relevance for landless

Vocational training

Vocational training is often suggested as a means to improve the earning capacity of poor people and would seem to be particularly relevant for the landless. The rationale behind the idea is sound. However, careful assessment is needed of the demand for the skills that are imparted. The consequences of not making such an assessment are illustrated by ADRA’s vocational training programme in its current project in the Dry Zone. No less than 500 were trained in welding and mechanics, 500 in carpentry and masonry, 500 in sewing and 1,500 in food processing. Only a minority of those trained found a market for their skills reflecting the structural weaknesses of the economy (ADRA, 2010).

Presently, vocational training is unlikely to be a valid option for any considerable number of poor particularly in poorer areas.

Cash for work schemes

Cash for work schemes have been successfully implemented by a number of LIFT IPs in the Dry Zone. The most extensive scheme is the rehabilitation of some 700 ponds implemented by Proximity. Cash for work schemes have a number of advantages:

 Can target specific beneficiaries  Can serve two objectives – provide income to poor and build assets (roads, irrigation infrastructure, rehabilitate and construct new ponds, water harvesting structures, reforestation)  Relatively easy to identify objects  At least some projects, relatively easy to implement at considerable scale  Timing of activities can be made to offer employment in slack season

These schemes also have limitations, not the least that they offer a one off only income boost for beneficiaries.

It is not clear at this stage what activities in the four townships would lend themselves to cash for work implementation. The continued formulation process should explore this possibility.

Transfer of productive resources

If possible it would be desirable to find means to transfer productive resources to landless households on which they could sustain themselves, at least partially. The micro dam concept discussed in section 13.1.3 is an example of resource transfer.

A possibility which may go beyond what can be considered in the context of this programme could be to re-classify seriously depleted forest land to agriculture land thereby opening up for settlement and cultivation. This option should be considered by the present work on a revised land use policy for the country.

There may be reasons to engage with the relevant government bodies in the programme formulation process to see whether there is a potential interest in the issue and if the programme on a pilot basis could develop an activity related to such a change in land use.

In its Food Insecurity Reduction in Myanmar project ADRA distributed hand tools to landless individuals in order to make them more attractive as casual labourers. An evaluation suggests that casual labourers increased the number of days worked in a season by five days on average.32 However, the distribution of tools does not increase the demand for labour and is therefore an income redistribution scheme (persons with tools get a larger share of the labour demand). Hence, the distribution should be designed to favour very poor households.

Still another option is to make treadle pumps accessible to households that have at least a compound on which they can establish a kitchen garden. The potential for such an activity in subzone 3 and elsewhere is not known.33 It is expected that the IWMI water study will provide information on groundwater availability that will allow an assessment of the (hydrological) potential of treadle pumps. In addition locally specific analyses will have to establish market potential for crops grown with this technology.

6.3 Activity options for the subzone 1 around Shwebo

The JICA zone V areas are generally significantly better endowed than areas in zone I and II, in particular. Yet, agriculture activities in zone V areas are subject to several of the concerns that are also typical to the Dry Zone in general. In particular this refers to water and soil fertility related problems in rain fed cultivation. Although a significant portion of land is irrigated, most is still dependent on rainfall.

6.3.1 Activity option 1 –Improve agriculture production on irrigated land

Extrapolating from the findings in LIFT’s Pumped Irrigation Project design suggest the main problems to be addressed are:

1. Government policy on crop selection. 2. Physical shortcomings of irrigation facilities. 3. Water management and institutional arrangements. 4. Access to credit and inputs.

The International Water Management Institute water study in the Dry Zone is expected to provide information that will make it possible to assess the potential of irrigation in the Dry Zone. Furthermore, it will provide data on the existing schemes for other command areas and actual irrigated areas. The LIFT Fund management Office review of the GRET earth dams project in Northern Rakhine State will provide a useful complement to the IWMI study in assessing whether the listing above is an accurate understanding of the water problems and to assess the potential of

32 ADRA Myanmar, End of Project Evaluation (2010) 33 To date Proximity Designs has sold some 50,000 treadle pumps in the Dry Zone. 38

improving gravity irrigation schemes. These two studies will place us in a better position not only to assess the potential of this option but also to suggest what it may comprise.

The government policy on crop selection for cultivation on irrigated land is unclear. The land law prescribes that paddy is to be grown on paddy land (defined as land on which paddy is normally grown – no distinction is made between irrigated and rain fed land). It is not clear if that prescription refers to all seasons or not. In practice, however, the law does not seem to be consistently enforced. Casual observation suggests that enforcement varies. The answer to what the policy is varies depending upon who is asked. There seems to be considerable flexibility except in the monsoon season. A cautious interpretation is that the policy is in a state of flux.

The potential of a full liberalisation of the policy is therefore not clear and so difficult to estimate. Furthermore, it is anyone’s guess what acreage would still be planted to paddy had the farmers the freedom to choose.

Clearly a change of policy, which can be made without ‘cost’, is highly desirable and should be a high priority topic for discussions with the government.34

A programme option addressing problems related to agriculture production on gravity irrigation schemes could comprise of the following.

Alt 1 Improvement of physical structures

Water management, Alt 2 Improvement of + physical structures institutional arrangements

Improvement of Water management, Agriculture practices, Alt 3 + + physical structures institutional arrangements inputs, credit

By implication these activities would focus on better off areas in the cluster townships.

The long-term beneficiaries of this option would primarily be farmers that are comparatively better off. The size distribution of holdings within schemes will determine distributive effects per scheme. Data are presently not available and are likely to be location specific.

If improvements result in an increase in command areas cultivated and/or in increased cropping intensity casual labourers would benefit. These indirect benefits are not likely to be significant.

34 Negotiating an exception to this land law policy could be made a precondition for the implementation of LIFT’s planned Pumped Irrigation Programme. 39

If improvement to physical structures is undertaken with cash for work some benefits will accrue to landless and poor farmers in the implementation phase.

The Irrigation Department would be a key stakeholder in this activity.

The potential scale of this alternative and the number of potential beneficiaries remain to be established.

6.3.2 Activity option 2 - Making improved seed available to farmers

Yield is the primary additional consideration for seed for cultivation on irrigated land, ie compared to the draught tolerance and growth period considerations for rain fed cultivation. Under rain fed conditions farmers in subzone 1 face similar problems to the farmers of subzone 5. Fundamentally, the arguments related to an activity to make improved seed accessible to farmers are the same. In order to avoid repetition please refer to section 6.2.2.

6.3.3 Activity option 3 – Financial services

Farmers in subzone 1 pursue their activities under generally better preconditions in terms of the agro-ecological conditions, irrigation potential, and, access to markets, than farmers in other subzones. In particular, farmers with access to irrigation farm under conditions of considerably less risk. Hence, their willingness to incur expenditure to purchase inputs is greater. Access to credit to exploit these productivity increasing options becomes crucial.

The coverage of financial services is inadequate and the maximum amount per acre that the main provider, the MADB, is providing is insufficient.

An expansion of LIFT support to financial service provision beyond present plans should be looked into as an option for the Dry Zone programme. By the same token the possibility to direct the activities of the MFIs that already receive LIFT support to the subzone townships should be explored.

6.3.4 Activity option 4 – water and soil conservation

Water and soil conservation measures are relevant for the rain fed areas also in subzone 1. They will partly be different from such activities in subzone 5 (JICA zone I). Locally specific conditions within subzone 1 suggest a variety of different measures.

In addition to the discussion of the potential of this activity option in section 6.1.3 it could be argued that acceptance of investments in conservation measures should be more willingly made by farmers who operate under less risky conditions and who are more resourceful than farmers in JICA zone I.

6.3.5 Activity option 5 – diversification to higher value commodities

Please refer to section 6.2.5 for a discussion of this option. To the discussion in that section the following could be added.

There are reasons to expect that diversification to higher value commodities has relatively higher potential in subzone 1 than in subzone 3 and particularly more potential than in subzone 5 due to a general better resource endowment and better market access. The access to the Mandalay market is expected to be a strong driver for diversification.

The fundamental argument remains; diversification should be market (demand) driven and farmers should be the ones taking the decision to diversify. The key support that should be provided is provision of credit. Consultations with credit providers supported by LIFT should explore the possibility to offer loan products in support of diversification.

6.3.6 Activity option 6 – livestock

By and large the same constraints on livestock activities as discussed in section 6.2.4 apply also in subzone 1.

As for subzone 3 it is suggested that the potential of pig production as a source of income for marginal farmers and landless households is further looked into as an activity option in subzone 1.

6.3.7 Activity option 7 – Activities of particular relevance for landless

The economy of the subzone 1 is more diversified than the economy of the subzone 5. Higher levels of income are generated which translates into demand for non-traded products and services (the multiplier effect). This expands the potential of non-farm sources of income for landless households. Special activities should be designed to capture such opportunities. These could include credit for small business activities and vocational training for skill enhancement.

As for subzone 3 the potential of treadle pump micro irrigation should be assessed and the potential of making treadle pumps accessible to landless households and to marginal farmers should be established. This is an activity that is expected to have much greater potential in this subzone than in the subzone 5.

For the same reason and with the same limitations as argued for the subzone 3, cash for work schemes can be considered. Should improvement of cultivation on irrigated land be selected as an activity and if part of that activity were to involve improvement or rehabilitation of physical structures, then the design approach could have a cash for work component.

7 Conclusion: How to Achieve Poverty Impact

The paper is prededicated on a proposed objective for the Dry Zone programme “to improve food security and income for landless and marginal farmers”.

7.1 An overriding consideration on how to achieve poverty impact

The allocation of productive resources (notably land), the structure of the economy and the pattern of employment (including self-employment) largely determine the avenues for alleviation of poverty. Productive resources cannot easily be created or reallocated. The structure of the economy which largely determines the availability of income opportunities in different sectors is a given from a programme point of view. Furthermore, a programme cannot create demand for products and services other than indirectly by providing support that increases productivity and marketability of on-going activities which generates income streams that will translate into demand.

The structure of the economies in the different zones differs in degree rather than in substance.

The underlying argument is that landless and farmers with very little land stand the most to gain in large numbers from improvements in agricultural activities among farmers with land. The landless will benefit indirectly by the demand for labour that stabilisation and intensification of agriculture and its related value chains will generate over time. Improvements of productivity and profitability of farming will increase money streams into rural areas and create demand for off-farm services and products. Such improvements will also capitalise the informal financial sector on which landless and marginal farmers are and will continue to be heavily dependent. Farmers with land, including marginal farmers, will benefit directly from improvements that may be achieved in agriculture activities.

Significant therefore, is the conclusion that landless households and farmers with very little land stand the most to gain in large numbers from broad based improvements in agriculture activities among farmers with land.

7.2 Geographical focus: subzone selection for a Dry Zone programme

In the Section 6 of this paper an attempt has been made to identify and discuss the potential of conceivable activity interventions in clusters of townships (or part townships) in three of the five identified subzones.35 This has been done against a background of variable resource endowment and development constraints across different subzones and characteristics of the townships included. Activities of development organisations, including activities of LIFT implementing partners, and their experience have been reviewed.

There are notable limitations on the data that is available for a more profound analysis of conditions in the different subzones. Furthermore, only a full-fledged analysis and design of different activity

35 Subzones 1, 3, and 5.

options in the different subzones would give conclusive information on their expected poverty impact. The lack of data means it is not possible to bring the analysis to that point for a fully robust basis for selecting the geographical focus of the Dry Zone programme.

However, the preceding analysis does provide a basis for some direction on what geographical focus would present poverty impact potential. The scoring of the activity options in annex 7 is made on the potential of the activity options identified namely their relevance, the potential to benefit many and feasibility. Feasibility may refer to implementation capacity, the existence of a technical solution, value for money, the social and economic acceptability to the intended beneficiaries, and the potential for sustainability.

A number of activity options score high on relevance for subzone 5. Several, however, face constraints either in terms of the potential number of beneficiaries (micro gravity irrigation schemes, water and soil conservation measures given implementation capacity constraints). Others face constraints in terms of sustainability (social protection and the CD approach as presently applied by LIFT IPs) and yet others for which identifying a service provider may be difficult (consumption credit, migration loans). Still others are constrained as they would stretch beyond the means of the poor and risk adverse households (improve seed).

It is considerably easier to identify activity options that do not meet with the same constraints and that have higher potential in subzone 1 (e.g. provision of improved seed, production credit, diversification to high value crops and improvement of cultivation on gravity irrigation schemes). The level of relative prosperity and the lower prevalence of landless and poor however, raise questions on the potential to achieve poverty impact. On the other hand subzone 1 is one of the two target areas for the proposed LIFT Pumped Irrigation Programme. Locating there would provide some efficiency for LIFT and potentially leverage benefit and impact from a concentration of LIFT resources.

While the resource endowment and the agro-ecological preconditions are less favourable in the subzone 3 than in the subzone 1, it is still possible to suggest a number of activity options of high relevance that have potential. These include the provision of improved seed for major crops and provision of financial services for economic activities. Closer access to markets than in zone I townships increases the potential for commercial production of livestock, notably pigs, and access to no non-farm employment opportunities. Landlessness and poverty is significant in the subzone 3.

On balance the proposed subzone 3 would seem to be the strongest candidate for a LIFT Dry Zone programme in terms of relevance, the potential to reach many beneficiaries and feasibility. If this is agreed further scoping and analysis of conditions and the suggested activity options will be required. Once decisions on the focus of the programme are to hand programme design can proceed.

Alternatively, LIFT might wish to hedge its impact bets and divide its investment across two or even all three proposed subzones. The latter approach would provide for less concentration of impact but would give greater scope for tolerating less successful interventions within an overall investment.

References

ADRA Myanmar. End of project evaluation report on Food insecurity reduction in Myanmar, 2010

Birgegaard, L. Opportunities/constraints and options for consideration in a Dry Zone programme, March 2013

Carucci, 2001, Guideline on Soil and Water Conservation for the Myanmar Dry Zone

CESVI. Final evaluation mission report on Community-based food security programme in Pyin Lwin TS, Mandalya Division, 2010

Deligne, A. Négocier les règles du jeu de la gestion d’une retenue d’eau collinaire (Arakan, Myanmar/Birmanie), 2007

Food and Agricultural Organisation, Burma. Report on the market chain of small ruminants in the central Dry Zone, 2011

Ferrand, P. Overview of the situation of the permanent dams built by GRET in NRS (2004-2007), 2007

International Water Management Institute. Study, 2013

JICA. The development study on sustainable agricultural and rural development for poverty reduction programme in the central Dry Zone of Myanmar, 2010

LIFT. Baseline Study, 2012

Myanmar Township and District Peace and Development Councils (PDCs), 2005

Myanmar Agricultural Service (MAS). Land use division, 2003

PACT. ShaeTot Baseline Study, 2013

Save the Children. External Final Evaluation Report on Increased food security in Myanmar amongst the poorest households, 2010

World Food Program (WFP). Food security assessment, 2011

[Author?] What lies beneath? An operational Analysis on Leadership and Institutions at the Local Level in Myanmar, 2011

[Author?] Village Institutions and Leadership in Myanmar: A view from Below, 2012

[Author?] Agriculture commodity selection for Pyoe Pin issues based support, 2010

Annexes

Annex 1: Map of townships in the Dry Zone according to the JICA typology:

Annex 2: Strengths and limitations of the JICA study (2010)

The following features should be noted about the JICA study:

1. Advantages

- Only complete set of data at township level for all townships in the Dry Zone; other studies look only at selected townships or provide information for the whole Dry Zone based on an unevenly distributed sample of villages / households (PACT ShaeTot baseline, 2013, LIFT baseline, 2012), therefore not recognizing the variety of environments within the Dry Zone - The 5 townships categories defined by JICA seem to somewhere coincide with the results of food security assessment (WFP, 2011), but the comparison is difficult and available only for few townships.

2. Limitations

- JICA study is entirely based on government data, mostly Township and District PDC (2005) and MAS land use division (2003), the quality of this data is very much questionable. - The poverty analysis of the JICA study is based on a PRA made in 17 villages in 2006-07 and a questionnaire survey in 6 villages made in 2007-08, so it does not extend to a large sample covering the whole Dry Zone. The poverty analysis was based on pilot interventions in 6 selected villages. - The agro-ecological zones inside the Dry Zone are not aligned with townships borders. There are significant variations between subzones inside townships. For example, the WFP Food security assessment (2011) defines subzones within township according to transportation and conditions for land access but on a limited number of townships. - There is also a possibility that the classification in category I for the most southern townships of the Dry Zone hides significant agro-ecological differences with the townships in the center of the Dry Zone also classified in the same category. - The proportion of irrigated lands and paddy lands in the township is an overarching factor for classes IV and V, it does not necessarily reflect the situation of these townships in terms of poverty or landlessness. - In general the assumption that poverty is higher for the township in the lower categories defined by JICA is not clearly evidence-based. - The references for the JICA classification (source data, weight given to each parameter) are not available.

Annex 3: JICA study data per township / region and whole Dry Zone

Source: MIMU Source: JICA 2010 - MAS (2003) Source: JICA 2010 - TPDC & HMIS (2005) Source: JICA 2010 - DPDC (2005)

Population Agriculture population Farm HH HH w ith Farm size Landless HH All HH size Area Area Name Agri popu- Others JICA (Region & lation Casual type Number < 5 ac 5 - 10 ac 10 - 20 ac > 20 ac Non-farm All Number Tow nship) Square density labor Number Number % kilometer Total Number % Number Number Number Number Number % Number Total

All DRY ZONE 0 85,487 79 12,261,897 6,769,658 55 1,028,535 539,289 30 294,295 154,544 40,407 288,422 242,506 29.39 247,007 1,806,470 Sagaing (DZ) 0 23,208 67 3,625,666 1,555,704 43 375,710 142,909 26 141,209 73,089 18,503 62,947 60,600 25 54,092 553,349 Sagaing III 1,257 142 370,231 178,025 48 35,605 18,983 38 10,623 4,417 1,582 1,021 3,095 10 10,572 50,293 Myinmu III 776 94 154,362 72,994 47 18,443 8,986 41 5,318 3,681 458 782 1,550 11 1,177 21,952 Myaung IV 451 132 171,175 59,752 35 12,438 7,463 38 3,996 919 60 2,438 3,588 33 1,244 19,708 Shw ebo V 1,068 90 326,835 95,894 29 39,297 18,985 36 15,737 3,887 688 3,124 6,209 19 4,391 53,021 Khin-U IV 1,038 79 182,526 82,245 45 11,315 6,287 23 2,822 1,415 791 6,720 3,240 47 5,837 27,112 Wetlet V 1,333 87 271,174 116,558 43 32,917 6,703 20 17,613 6,952 1,649 0 32,917 kanbalu IV 6,636 19 290,142 123,245 42 33,501 21,556 51 5,950 4,945 1,050 4,506 3,044 18 1,368 42,419 Ye-U V 1,445 45 160,502 65,454 41 18,608 4,302 16 6,490 6,280 1,536 4,652 1,667 25 1,822 26,749 Tabayin V 1,326 62 171,841 82,096 48 18,026 4,415 18 8,143 4,417 1,051 2,803 3,505 26 216 24,550 Taze IV 1,855 51 202,839 95,227 47 23,403 9,867 28 11,187 1,895 454 7,229 2,806 30 1,649 35,087 Monyw a III 689 205 384,411 141,480 37 15,936 8,390 14 5,139 1,367 1,040 12,920 15,092 64 17,021 60,969 Budalin II 413 236 177,739 97,533 55 28,513 5,357 17 7,594 12,702 2,860 1,584 950 8 635 31,682 Ayadaw IV 1,224 47 130,913 57,420 44 25,085 5,565 21 9,016 7,941 2,563 378 544 4 420 26,427 Chaung-U IV 488 118 130,913 57,420 44 15,432 9,002 28 4,194 1,787 449 8,643 4,500 46 3,520 32,095 Yinmabin II 939 103 162,375 97,172 60 20,095 2,594 11 14,435 2,736 330 500 2,601 13 500 23,696 Salingyi III 681 113 166,844 76,789 46 9,434 1,334 6 3,102 4,336 662 2,624 5,855 47 3,210 21,123 Pale II 1,590 35 170,844 56,400 33 17,662 3,120 13 9,850 3,412 1,280 3,023 2,354 23 510 23,549 Magw ay (DZ) 0 31,139 108 4,719,486 3,364,133 71 342,511 235,597 41 53,771 43,414 9,729 110,062 127,410 41 0 579,983 Magw ay III 682 261 360,797 178,279 49 20,172 13,210 28 1,305 4,558 1,099 16,147 11,372 58 47,691 Yenangyaung III 1,007 138 234,908 139,500 59 9,324 6,183 19 570 2,109 462 13,050 9,757 71 32,131 Chauk I 992 151 294,804 149,478 51 13,395 7,956 29 812 3,496 1,131 8,994 5,107 51 27,496 Taungdw ingyi IV 1,968 113 301,360 223,280 74 32,886 21,554 51 8,450 2,749 133 9,507 0 22 42,393 Myothit IV 1,587 110 193,868 175,337 90 20,849 11,025 45 5,567 3,669 588 1,231 2,446 15 24,526 Natmauk I 2,309 108 292,060 248,345 85 24,526 10,931 34 5,743 6,327 1,525 2,568 4,652 23 31,746 Minbu III 1,665 73 212,828 121,925 57 12,789 6,716 29 3,408 2,125 540 6,369 4,296 45 23,454 Pwintbyu V 1,220 158 207,054 192,347 93 10,157 6,537 23 3,174 377 69 1,033 16,863 64 28,053 Ngape IV 1,311 33 51,827 43,226 83 4,128 3,633 50 495 0 0 657 2,476 43 7,261 Salin IV 2,313 117 299,618 269,959 90 27,324 22,046 61 4,883 349 46 1,895 7,173 25 36,392 Thayet IV 1,189 65 145,246 77,426 53 9,995 8,898 56 954 137 6 4,879 1,145 38 16,019 Minhla I 1,371 87 145,215 118,651 82 16,010 15,014 76 725 246 25 2,001 1,865 19 19,876 Mindon IV 987 74 84,407 72,584 86 10,517 10,465 80 50 2 0 984 1,565 20 13,066 Kamma IV 1,153 76 104,836 87,744 84 9,688 9,688 70 0 0 0 1,232 2,961 30 13,881 Aunglan I 1,034 163 271,890 168,404 62 21,521 15,438 50 4,501 1,460 122 7,227 2,000 30 30,748 Sinbaungw e I 1,523 76 135,747 115,774 85 11,909 8,053 44 1,573 1,953 330 1,438 4,762 34 18,109 Pakokku I 1,258 138 402,981 173,536 43 12,679 8,507 19 594 2,625 953 17,979 14,517 72 45,175 Yesagyo II 999 212 330,858 211,762 64 15,301 12,276 28 1,292 1,473 260 9,515 18,536 65 43,352 Myaing II 2,035 153 328,042 310,686 95 34,063 20,849 53 5,505 5,918 1,791 1,073 4,351 14 39,487 Pauk I 2,486 73 200,196 181,378 91 12,305 8,093 34 1,583 2,249 380 1,190 10,635 49 24,130 Seikphyu II 2,050 51 120,944 104,512 86 12,973 8,525 57 2,587 1,592 269 1,093 931 13 14,997 Mandalay (DZ) 0 16,338 110 3,820,179 1,792,381 47 310,314 160,783 28 99,315 38,041 12,175 110,737 49,928 364 101,428 572,407 Kyaukse V 1,878 96 238,923 180,605 76 18,531 9,910 21 6,647 1,694 280 11,656 11,195 55 5,806 47,188 Myittha V 887 40 216,544 35,551 16 17,334 9,954 23 5,178 1,873 329 1,914 5,338 29 18,728 43,314 Tada-U III 943 146 200,707 137,991 69 17,249 7,142 28 3,766 4,566 1,775 985 364 7 6,875 25,473 Myingyan III 969 172 417,541 166,948 40 32,607 22,158 27 10,354 95 0 16,677 0 34 32,271 81,555 Taungtha II 1,379 132 334,480 181,893 54 31,270 13,192 20 11,051 4,953 2,074 3,500 2,480 16 28,193 65,443 Natogyi II 1,246 123 272,936 153,855 56 30,771 20,717 39 10,009 45 0 22,540 0 42 0 53,311 Kyaukpadaung I 758 221 377,741 167,920 44 8,245 3,093 12 3,242 1,443 467 7,680 9,195 67 0 25,120 Ngazun II 922 85 222,256 78,250 35 23,930 14,704 40 5,211 3,058 957 3,956 7,162 32 1,921 36,969 Nyaung-U I 1,483 57 326,189 83,847 26 24,370 11,132 34 6,105 5,141 1,992 829 68 4 7,387 32,654 Meiktila IV 1,312 182 449,026 239,182 53 26,519 9,219 19 13,757 3,220 323 23,179 0 47 0 49,698 Mahlaing II 1,110 132 240,283 146,572 61 18,365 5,939 20 6,737 4,117 1,572 1,449 10,392 39 0 30,206 Thazi IV 2,040 41 237,023 84,591 36 29,829 18,124 46 9,955 1,590 160 8,105 1,532 24 0 39,466 Wundw in IV 1,408 96 286,530 135,176 47 31,294 15,499 37 7,303 6,246 2,246 8,267 2,202 25 247 42,010

Annex 4: Analysis for selecting priority townships based on the data from IWMI study (2013) and annex 2 analysis

Interannual Small land JICA isohyet Wet season Wet season rainfall Agricultural holder JICA Region / Township rainfall duration variability pop. density proportion category below 1020 below (mm) < 50 people / < 25% of < 145 days >20% mm km2 farmers Sagaing Sagaing III y 600 y y Myinmu III y 600 y y Myaung IV y 500 y y Shwebo V y 700 n y Khin-U IV y 800 n n Wetlet V y 600 y y y kanbalu IV n 800 n n y Ye-U V n 800 n n y y Tabayin V y 700 y y y Taze IV n 800 n n Monywa III y 700 y y Budalin II y 600 y y y Ayadaw IV y 600 y y y y Chaung-U IV y 600 y y Yinmabin II y 600 y y y Salingyi III y 700 y y y Pale II y 700 n y y y Magway Magway III y 600 n Yenangyaung III y 500 y y Chauk I y 500 y y Taungdwingyi IV n 600 n n Myothit IV n 600 y y Natmauk I y 500 y y Minbu III y 700 n n Pwintbyu V y 700 n y Ngape IV n 800 n n y Salin IV y 600 y y Thayet IV n 800 n n Minhla I n 700 n n Mindon IV n 900 n n Kamma IV n 900 n n Aunglan I n 800 n n Sinbaungwe I n 700 n n Pakokku I y 500 y y Yesagyo II y 500 y y Myaing II y 600 y y Pauk I n 600 y y Seikphyu II n 600 y y Mandalay Kyaukse V n 500 y y Myittha V n 500 y y y Tada-U III y 500 y y Myingyan III y 500 y y Taungtha II y 500 y y Natogyi II y 500 y y Kyaukpadaung I y 500 y y Ngazun II y 500 y y Nyaung-U I y 500 y y Meiktila IV y 500 y y Mahlaing II y 500 y y Thazi IV n 500 y y y Wundwin IV y 500 y y

Annex 5: FSWG members present in Dry Zone (MIMU, 2012)

Annex 6: Basic data on LIFT IP projects in the Dry Zone

Operating Number Village Revolving IP number of of villages Scope/activities CBOs? level funds? JICA zones and HHs planning?

ADRA 3 50/ Very wide Several Yes Yes, several in 5,500 Ag inputs, seed banks, livestock, $ 2,815,000 zone I, II, grain storage home garden, compost, fodder production, small business, reforestation, cash for work – dams, ponds, wells, land rehabilitation, various trainings incl vocational, climate change Help Age 2 30/ Very wide Several Yes Yes, in 4,100 Ag inputs, livestock distribution, several $ 2,708,000 zone FFS, seed banks, grain storage, II, IV animal shelters, paravets, rain water harvest, minor irrigation, home garden wells, ponds, trainings Proximity 27 18,000 Narrow One No No in zone (irrigation) Pond rehabilitation $ 5,940,000 I, II, III, IV V 51,000 Micro-irrigation (CFW) 139,000 (water) MercyCrops 4 80/ Relatively wide Several Yes No, grants in zone 8,200 FFS, micro-business grants, starter $ 3,450,000 IV, V kits to farmers, kitchen garden, CFW for water systems, sanitation systems, well, small transport infrastructure, seed storage, planting wind breaks MCS 2 4/ Relatively narrow Several No Yes in zone 1,000 Develop pottery business, credit, $ 184,000 I market contacts, pro-cessing facilities, community forestry, water DPDO 3 22/ Wide Several No Yes in zone 1,500 Ag inputs, distribution live-stock, $ 237,400 I, III, IV saving/credit SHGs, home garden, mush-rooms, small enterprises, vocational training, nutrition, hygiene ECODEV 3 10/ Relatively narrow Several No Yes in zone 2,700 (related to drying vegetables) $ 281,000 I, III, V Credit, processing facilities, trade fairs, packaging, Oxfam 2 63/ Wide Several Yes Yes in zone 7,800 Develop bulk purchase of inputs $ 2,187,000 III, IV and bulk sale of output, training related to water mgt, soil fertility, erosion, post harvest, market info,

collection centres, community infra through CFW, vocational training MBCA 3 Those HHs Narrow Yes No No in zone reached by Market info collection and $ 709,000 III radio dissemination (radio) station Market trials new products Action Aid 3 37/ Wide Yes Yes Yes $ 1,965,000 in zone 5,600 Seed banks, grain storage, livestock several I, III banks, CFW (ponds), develop grazing, community forestry, ag research PACT 12 Single purpose Yes, No No In zone Micro credit joint I,II,III,IV, V liability groups

Annex 7: Tentative scoring of the activity options per subzone

In the table below an attempt is made to tentatively assess the potential of different activity options. The table is intended to provide an overview of the activity options that have been suggested in the text for the different subzones and to provide a basis for a structured tentative discussion of the merit of different activity options.

There are reasons to underline the limitations of this attempt. Firstly, the different activity options would need to be fully designed to provide a basis for firm conclusions on their potential in the three subzones. While drawing upon a relatively broad information base, an assessment will suffer from lack of solid data and will to some degree reflect a subjective interpretation of experience.

It should be noted that in the absence of data the assessment of the activity option potential has primarily become a relative assessment between subzones. The scoring therefore cannot be taken as basis for ranking the different activity options for the subzones without further elaboration.

Three dimensions of potential have been considered, namely

1) relevance (is the activity addressing an important problem/constraint/opportunity) – marked in black in the table 2) potential to benefit many – marked in blue in the table 3) feasibility (capacity to implement, technically feasible – there is a known solution, reasonable demands on sustainability) – marked in green in the table

Three levels have been considered marked +, ++ and +++.

Section 6 provides the arguments behind the scoring.

Activity options Subzone I (poor) TS Subzone III TSs Subzone V TSs

Social protection scheme +++ +++ + ++ ++ + + + +

CD approach as +++ ++ + +++ + + + + ++ + presently designed

-Water and soil conser- +++ + + +++ + + ++ + + vattion

Micro gravity irrigation +++ + ++ ++ + ++ + + ++

Improved seed +++ +++ + +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++

Improve cultivation on gravity irrigation + + + ++ ++(?) ++ +++ +++ +++ schemes

Provision of credit

a) Consumption +++ +++ + ++ ++ + + + +

b) production + + + ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++

Diversification, high + + + ++ ++ ++ +++ +++ +++ value crops

Livestock

- cattle + + + +++ +++ + +++ +++ +

- pigs + + + ++(?) ++ + ++(?) ++ +

- goats/sheep +++ +++ + ++ ++ + + + +

- chicken ++ +++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ +++ ++

Vocational training ++ + ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++

Cash for work ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Facilitate migration, +++ ++ + ++ ++ + + + + migration loans

+ = Relevance + = potential to reach many + = feasible (black, blue and green from left to right)