Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Pepijn Schreinemachers
Suwanna Praneetvatakul
Aer Sirijinda
Thomas Berger
University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart
Kasetsart University, Bangkok
February 2008
Pepijn Schreinemachers
Aer Sirijinda
Sureeporn Sringarm
Chakrit Potchanasin
University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart
Kasetsart University, Bangkok
2 December 2010
Agricultural statistics of the Mae Sa watershed area, Thailand, 2009/10
1 | P a g e
Agricultural statistics of the Mae Sa
watershed area, Thailand, 2009/10
Dr. Pepijn Schreinemachers. The Uplands Program, Hohenheim University Office, Faculty of Agriculture,
Chiang Mai University, 50200 Chiang Mai, Thailand. Email: [email protected]
Phone: (+66) 053 944 647, Fax: (+66) 053 893 099
Aer Sirijinda. Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Economics, 10900 Bangkok,
Thailand. Email: [email protected]
Sureeporn Sringarm. The Uplands Program, Hohenheim University Office, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang
Mai University, 50200 Chiang Mai, Thailand. Email: [email protected]
Dr. Chakrit Potchanasin. Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Economics, 10900
Bangkok, Thailand. Email: [email protected]
2 | P a g e
Acknowledgement
We are very grateful to the many people in the Mae Sa watershed who generously contributed
their time for the interviews. Interviews were conducted by Alisa Kaewkao, Chompunuch
Nantajit, Kamonrat Thirapong, Kanwipa Suksai and Nanthaka Thuychan, graduate students at the
Kasetsart University, and Kanikka Banyai of the Uplands Program in Chiang Mai. Suwanna
Sayruamyat from Kasetsart University assisted in the data analysis. We gratefully acknowledge
all their contributions.
About the Uplands Program
The objective of the Uplands Program is to make a scientific contribution to the conservation of
natural resources and the improvement of living conditions of the rural population in
mountainous regions of Southeast Asia. The program, which started in 2000, is a collaboration
between the University of Hohenheim in Germany and Chiang Mai University, Kasetsart
University, Maejo University, and Silpakorn University in Thailand; and Hanoi Agricultural
University, Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry, and the National Institute of
Animal Husbandry in Vietnam. The program is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(DFG) and co-funded by the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) and the Ministry of
Science and Technology (MOST) in Vietnam.
This report is available online at: https://www.uni-hohenheim.de/sfb564/
On the cover: A litchi orchard converted to cabbage in Mae Sa Noi. Productive trees are still
visible on the slope at the right-hand side.
© SFB 564 - The Uplands Program
3 | P a g e
Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6
2. Farm households ....................................................................................................................... 8
3. Agricultural land ...................................................................................................................... 12
4. Agricultural labor ..................................................................................................................... 17
5. Irrigation .................................................................................................................................. 19
6. Cropping patterns .................................................................................................................... 21
7. Crop output and markets ........................................................................................................ 27
8. Pest management.................................................................................................................... 30
9. Livestock .................................................................................................................................. 33
4 | P a g e
List of tables
Table 1 Population and sample characteristics ................................................................................ 7
Table 2 Comparison between 2006-07 and the 2009-10 surveys .................................................... 7
Table 3 Farm household characteristics ........................................................................................... 8
Table 4 Literacy and maximum education level of the household head, in % per village ............. 10
Table 5 Membership of Royal Project, BAAC, and product networks, % of households ............... 10
Table 6 Share of households engaged in paid work outside the own farm ................................... 11
Table 7 Average land area, agricultural area, and number of fields per household ...................... 12
Table 8 Land area by type of land ownership, average per household ......................................... 13
Table 9 Agricultural land by slope, in % of agricultural land .......................................................... 16
Table 10 Soil erosion and use of conservation methods, in % of agricultural land ....................... 16
Table 11 Agricultural labor use in total and by source of labor ..................................................... 17
Table 12 Share of households hiring labor and ethnicity of hired labor, in % of households ....... 18
Table 13 Irrigated area by type of equipment, in % of agricultural land ....................................... 19
Table 14 Irrigation area by source of irrigation water, in % of agricultural land ........................... 20
Table 15 Cropping pattern in Northern Thai villages by crop and by season, in rai ...................... 21
Table 16 Cropping pattern in Hmong villages by crop and by season, in rai ................................. 22
Table 17 Cropping pattern in all villages by crop and by season, in rai ......................................... 23
Table 18 Average annual cropping pattern by village, in rai .......................................................... 24
Table 19 Average annual cropping pattern by village, in % of total area under crops .................. 25
Table 20 Change in litchi area, 2007-2010 ..................................................................................... 26
Table 21 Total value of crop output in Northern Thai villages by crop, in 1,000 baht .................. 27
Table 22 Total value of crop output in Northern Thai villages by crop, in % ................................. 28
Table 23 Crop output markets, in % of total output value ............................................................. 29
5 | P a g e
Table 24 Share of farmers using chemical pesticides and the average number of sprays by crop 30
Table 25 Total planted area by crop and by type of pest control .................................................. 31
Table 26 Planted area by crop and by type of GAP, in % of planted area ...................................... 32
Table 27 Farm households raising livestock, in % of households, and animals per household ..... 33
Table 28 Value of livestock output and % consumed within the household ................................. 34
List of figures
Figure 1 Age distribution in the watershed, in % of total population .............................................. 9
Figure 2 Land by type of ownership title, average per household in rai ........................................ 14
Figure 3 Land by type of ownership title, average per household in % ......................................... 14
Figure 4 National Park area ............................................................................................................ 15
Figure 5 Elevation classes in the watershed ................................................................................... 15
Figure 6 Outlets for crop produce, in % of total output value ....................................................... 29
Area and currency units
Area units are in rai.
1 rai = 0.16 ha = 1,600 m2
Currency units are in Thai baht.
1000 Baht = Euro 21.1 = USD 28.2 (30 April 2009; source: http://www.bot.or.th)
6 | P a g e
1. Introduction
This report shows results from a farm household survey conducted in April/May 2010 in the upstream
area of the Mae Sa watershed. The area is approximately 100 km2 in size and lies 40 km northwest of
Chiang Mai, the main urban area in northern Thailand. It is part of the larger Ping tributary, one of the
five major tributaries of Thailand’s main river, the Chao Praya. The downstream area of the watershed,
including 8 villages, was not included in this survey because only few people are doing agriculture.
The survey used a two-stage stratified random sample of 295 farm households in the watershed. To
construct a sampling frame we started with the village election lists. The use of these lists has two main
problems. First, the lists contain registered household, but some households might have moved in or out,
which makes the list inaccurate. In Thailand there is no up to date registry of households; people can
move around the country without a requirement to register with a local government office. Second, the
list does not show whether a household engages in agriculture or not. Both problems were addressed by
working with the local village headmen to update the list and to identify farm households. For some large
villages this was difficult as the village headmen did not know each household individually. We then took
a random sample from the complete list, visited each household and if we found that a household did not
do farming then took another sample. Using this method we could estimate the total number of farm
households in each village. Table 1 shows the result of this. We note that all data in this report are
sample estimates and might have a degree of sampling error. We further note that all tables and figures
are farm household averages with the exception of Tables 18-19 and 20-22, which give totals.
The recall period in the survey was from April 2009 to March 2010, which roughly coincides with the
annual cropping calendar as many farmers start planting crops towards the end of May at the start of the
monsoon. Interviews took between two and four hours, depending on the number of crops the
household grew. Eight interviewers conducted the interviews after a one week training period. The
willingness of households to participate in the survey varied.
For analytical purposes, we divided the watershed in two parts of Northern Thai villages and Hmong
villages. Most Northern Thai villages, except Pong Krai and Kong Hae, are located in the central valley and
occupy the plains. All Hmong villages are located on the fringes of the watershed at higher altitudes. The
report shows that, although the watershed is relatively small, cropping patterns are strikingly
heterogeneous. Land use in the plains is dominated by bell pepper (in greenhouses), chrysanthemum,
and sayote, while Northern Thai at higher altitudes mostly grow onion, cabbage, and rice. Hmong
households mostly grow litchis, cabbages, roses, maize, and potatoes.
Data in the present report can be compared to data from a similar survey conducted in 2006. Table 2
compares some important aspects of both surveys. The main changes were to focus only on the
upstream area and only on households engaged in agriculture. We also used the election list instead of
the census list as a sampling frame as the census list had not been updated and village headmen were
more familiar with the election list. The interview and recall periods are also different, which might have
an effect on the responses as respondents can recall recent events in more detail.
7 | P a g e
Table 1 Population and sample characteristics
Village
Total households Households engaged in
farming (%)
Farm households
Sample size
Sampling fraction Based on
election list According to
village head
N. Thai villages 1,008 942 77 727 152 0.21
Pong Yang Nai 288 253 60 152 40 0.26
Pong Yang Nok 300 275 75 206 39 0.19
Muang Kam 199 199 92 183 35 0.19
Kong Hae 131 131 96 126 21 0.17
Pong Krai 90 84 71 60 17 0.29
Hmong villages N/A 899 85 764 143 0.19
Buak Chan 102 145 98 142 19 0.13
Buak Tui 85 135 85 115 21 0.18
Pha Nok Kok 68 85 82 70 19 0.27
Mae Sa Noi 81 83 76 63 17 0.27
Mae Sa Mai 122 130 77 100 26 0.26
Nong Hoi Gao N/A 171 90 154 18 0.12
Nong Hoi Mai N/A 150 80 120 23 0.19
All villages N/A 1,841 81 1,490 295 0.20
Table 2 Comparison between 2006-07 and the 2009-10 surveys
2006-2007 survey 2009-2010 survey
Study area 20 villages, including 8 in lower part 12 villages, excluding lower part
Sample size 303 farm (and 60 non-farm) hh 295 farm households
Population size estimate 1309 farm households 1490 farm households
Sampling fraction 0.23 (of farm households) 0.20
Sampling frame Census list Election list and village leaders
Method to estimate
population size
Village leaders and census list Village leaders and election list
Interview period Oct. 2006 – Nov. 2006 Apr. 2010 – May 2010
Recall period Nov. 2005 – Oct. 2006 Apr. 2009 – Mar. 2010
8 | P a g e
2. Farm households
Table 3 Farm household characteristics
Village Total farm population
Persons/ household
By age (%)
By sex (%)
Adults Children Male Female
N. Thai villages 2,608 3.6 82.9 16.7
50.1 49.9
Pong Yang Nai 559 3.7 86.9 13.1
46.5 53.5
Pong Yang Nok 755 3.7 81.5 17.1
48.0 52.0
Muang Kam 591 3.2 80.0 20.0
51.4 48.6
Kong Hae 474 3.8 85.6 14.4
53.0 47.0
Pong Krai 229 3.8 81.2 18.8
56.7 43.3
Hmong villages 5,064 6.6 69.8 30.2
51.5 48.5
Buak Chan 974 6.9 67.8 32.2
52.0 48.0
Buak Tui 706 6.1 74.8 25.2
48.4 51.6
Pha Nok Kok 372 5.3 71.1 28.9
53.8 46.2
Mae Sa Noi 389 6.2 69.2 30.8
54.5 45.5
Mae Sa Mai 688 6.9 72.7 27.3
52.6 47.4
Nong Hoi Gao 1,078 7.0 73.7 26.3
51.9 48.1
Nong Hoi Mai 856 7.1 59.6 40.4
49.7 50.3
All villages 7,672 5.1 76.2 23.6
50.8 49.2
Note: Children are defined here as 16 years or younger.
9 | P a g e
Figure 1 Age distribution in the watershed, in % of total population
Male Female
0 - 45 - 9
10 - 1415 - 1920 - 2425 - 2930 - 3435 - 3940 - 4445 - 4950 - 5455 - 5960 - 6465 - 69
70+
10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10
% of population
N. Thai villages
Male Female
0 - 45 - 9
10 - 1415 - 1920 - 2425 - 2930 - 3435 - 3940 - 4445 - 4950 - 5455 - 5960 - 6465 - 69
70+
10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10
% of population
Hmong villages
Male Female
0 - 45 - 9
10 - 1415 - 1920 - 2425 - 2930 - 3435 - 3940 - 4445 - 4950 - 5455 - 5960 - 6465 - 69
70+
10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10
% of population
All villages
Fertility rates in Hmong
villages have declined. The
average household size can
be expected to shrink as a
result.
For Northern Thai
households, 34% of the
people are 50 years old or
above.
10 | P a g e
Table 4 Literacy and maximum education level of the household head, in % per village
Village Can read and
write No formal education
Education up to grade 6
Education higher than grade 6
N. Thai villages 98.2 3.5 72.2 24.3
Pong Yang Nai 95.0 7.5 72.5 20.0
Pong Yang Nok 97.4 5.1 69.2 25.6
Muang Kam 100.0 0.0 74.3 25.7
Kong Hae 100.0 0.0 85.7 14.3
Pong Krai 100.0 5.9 47.1 47.1
Hmong villages 64.0 37.4 37.1 25.5
Buak Chan 61.9 42.9 42.9 14.3
Buak Tui 57.1 38.1 28.6 33.3
Pha Nok Kok 78.9 21.1 31.6 47.4
Mae Sa Noi 58.8 41.2 29.4 29.4
Mae Sa Mai 61.5 42.3 38.5 19.2
Nong Hoi Gao 47.1 52.9 29.4 17.6
Nong Hoi Mai 90.9 13.6 54.5 31.8
All villages 80.7 20.8 54.2 24.9
Table 5 Membership of Royal Project, BAAC, and product networks, % of households
Village Royal Project BAAC Product networks
N. Thai villages 16.7 67.4 13.9
Pong Yang Nai 10.0 52.5 2.5
Pong Yang Nok 5.1 76.9 23.1
Muang Kam 14.3 68.6 17.1
Kong Hae 52.4 52.4 14.3
Pong Krai 5.9 100.0 0.0
Hmong villages 57.7 53.0 17.3
Buak Chan 75.0 80.0 20.0
Buak Tui 33.3 14.3 19.0
Pha Nok Kok 47.4 26.3 5.3
Mae Sa Noi 35.3 35.3 17.6
Mae Sa Mai 69.2 61.5 38.5
Nong Hoi Gao 58.8 70.6 11.8
Nong Hoi Mai 68.2 54.5 9.1
All villages 37.6 60.0 15.6
Note: BAAC=Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives
11 | P a g e
Table 6 Share of households engaged in paid work outside the own farm
Village Any off-
farm work 1
By activity (% of all households)2
Selling things3
Non-agr. laborer
Agricultural laborer
Services 4 Other
N. Thai villages 66.5 8.7 34.7 13.8 10.6 22.8
Pong Yang Nai 72.5 10.0 37.5 7.5 12.5 25.0
Pong Yang Nok 76.9 15.4 41.0 12.8 12.8 30.8
Muang Kam 51.4 5.7 22.9 17.1 5.7 14.3
Kong Hae 61.9 4.8 38.1 19.0 14.3 19.0
Pong Krai 70.6 - 35.3 11.8 5.9 23.5
Hmong villages 50.3 14.0 14.0 7.2 10.0 16.4
Buak Chan 42.9 9.5 14.3 4.8 - 23.8
Buak Tui 28.6 4.8 9.5 4.8 14.3 9.5
Pha Nok Kok 63.2 15.8 31.6 10.5 - 31.6
Mae Sa Noi 70.6 23.5 5.9 23.5 29.4 11.8
Mae Sa Mai 73.1 38.5 11.5 11.5 26.9 7.7
Nong Hoi Gao 58.8 11.8 17.6 5.9 5.9 17.6
Nong Hoi Mai 31.8 4.5 9.1 - 4.5 13.6
All villages 58.2 11.4 24.1 10.4 10.3 19.5
Note: 1
Share of households of which at least one household member engages in paid off-farm work. 2 Sum of categories may exceed the total as household may engage in multiple activities.
3 For instance, souvenir
selling and shop keeping. 4 For instance, repairs and transport. “-” means zero.
Most households engage in
paid work outside the farm.
12 | P a g e
3. Agricultural land
Table 7 Average land area, agricultural area, and number of fields per household
Village Total land area
(rai/hh) Agricultural land
area (rai/hh) 1 Number of
agricultural fields Land sufficiency
(rai/person) 2
N. Thai villages 6.3 4.5 1.8 1.9
Pong Yang Nai 5.7 3.5 1.6 1.7
Pong Yang Nok 7.2 5.4 1.8 2.2
Muang Kam 5.3 3.9 2.3 1.6
Kong Hae 6.2 4.6 1.7 1.9
Pong Krai 7.8 5.0 1.6 2.1
Hmong villages 13.8 12.2 3.4 2.2
Buak Chan 11.3 9.7 3.1 1.7
Buak Tui 14.3 12.0 2.3 2.3
Pha Nok Kok 15.0 12.4 2.8 3.1
Mae Sa Noi 11.8 10.1 2.9 2.1
Mae Sa Mai 16.5 14.4 3.1 2.5
Nong Hoi Gao 13.8 13.0 4.2 2.1
Nong Hoi Mai 14.5 13.5 4.5 2.2
All villages 10.1 8.4 2.6 2.1
Note: 1
The agricultural land area does not exactly overlap with the Mae Sa watershed area as many farmers have
plots, often for growing paddy rice, outside the watershed. In addition, farmers located at the fringes of the
watershed, such as Mae Sa Mai, Buak Tui, and Nong Hoi Mai, have plots located outside the physical watershed
boundaries. 2 Agricultural land area divided by the number of persons in the household.
Hmong households have on average more land
than Northern Thai households, but the average
area per person is about the same.
13 | P a g e
Table 8 Land area by type of land ownership, average per household
Village Total land area (rai/hh)
… of which owned by
household (%) 1
By type of ownership (in % of owned land)
Secure titles 2 Insecure titles 3
N. Thai villages 6.3 75.5 53.9 46.1
Pong Yang Nai 5.7 71.6 54.8 45.2
Pong Yang Nok 7.2 71.9 69.0 31.0
Muang Kam 5.3 80.2 57.4 42.6
Kong Hae 6.2 75.5 31.4 68.6
Pong Krai 7.8 83.4 33.5 66.5
Hmong villages 13.8 90.7 0.6 99.4
Buak Chan 11.3 96.1 1.1 98.9
Buak Tui 14.3 92.8 0.0 100.0
Pha Nok Kok 15.0 89.0 0.0 100.0
Mae Sa Noi 11.8 88.9 0.0 100.0
Mae Sa Mai 16.5 91.4 0.7 99.3
Nong Hoi Gao 13.8 84.7 0.3 99.7
Nong Hoi Mai 14.5 91.5 1.3 98.7
All villages 10.1 83.3 26.3 73.7
Note: 1 Ownership is here loosely defined and includes all land that is not rented in.
2 Secure land rights include:
deed (chanot), NS.3G. and NS.3. 3 Insecure land rights include: land without a title, STG., SPG., and ST.1.
Virtually no secure land titles have been given to
Hmong households, although both Hmong and
Northern Thailand households farm inside the
National Park boundaries (Figure 4).
14 | P a g e
Figure 2 Land by type of ownership title, average per household in rai
Notes: Secure land rights include: deed (chanot), NS.3G. and NS.3, insecure land rights include land without a title,
STG., SPG., and ST.1
Figure 3 Land by type of ownership title, average per household in %
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14ra
i
Northern Thai Hmong All villages
Insecure
Secure
Rented in
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
perc
ent
Northern Thai Hmong All villages
Insecure
Secure
Rented in
15 | P a g e
Figure 4 National Park area
Figure 5 Elevation classes in the watershed
16 | P a g e
Table 9 Agricultural land by slope, in % of agricultural land
Village Mostly flat About
15% slope About
25% slope About 35% slope
and above
N. Thai villages 48.0 18.0 16.5 17.2
Pong Yang Nai 45.2 12.7 21.7 20.3
Pong Yang Nok 51.0 16.7 16.5 15.8
Muang Kam 64.0 21.6 9.4 4.0
Kong Hae 32.9 24.2 17.8 25.1
Pong Krai 27.6 11.8 22.5 38.1
Hmong villages 8.3 21.3 33.4 37.0
Buak Chan 19.1 13.6 26.9 40.5
Buak Tui 0.0 16.2 26.9 56.9
Pha Nok Kok 6.1 34.4 32.6 27.0
Mae Sa Noi 8.6 18.6 50.9 21.9
Mae Sa Mai 14.1 24.2 30.7 30.9
Nong Hoi Gao 3.4 24.7 34.1 37.8
Nong Hoi Mai 6.0 22.5 40.0 31.4
All villages 27.6 19.7 25.2 27.3
Table 10 Soil erosion and use of conservation methods, in % of agricultural land
Village Affected by erosion (%)
Of which with erosion
control (%)
By conservation method (in % of agricultural land with erosion control)
Terracing Contour planting
Tree planting
Other
N. Thai villages 4.5 10.9 48.2 24.3 10.5 4.1
Pong Yang Nai 3.5 13.8 66.7 33.3 16.7 16.7
Pong Yang Nok 5.4 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Muang Kam 3.9 10.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kong Hae 4.6 10.9 100.0 66.7 33.3 0.0
Pong Krai 5.0 17.0 62.3 29.0 0.0 0.0
Hmong villages 12.2 23.6 87.1 60.7 7.6 11.4
Buak Chan 9.7 33.9 99.5 64.2 2.5 32.8
Buak Tui 12.0 18.1 55.0 35.0 0.0 0.0
Pha Nok Kok 12.4 11.0 75.0 25.0 25.0 25.0
Mae Sa Noi 10.1 21.1 100.0 42.9 14.3 14.3
Mae Sa Mai 14.4 27.8 71.9 33.8 9.1 8.6
Nong Hoi Gao 13.0 25.1 85.7 71.4 14.3 0.0
Nong Hoi Mai 13.5 20.0 99.5 99.5 0.0 0.0
All villages 8.4 17.4 77.6 51.8 8.3 9.6
Note: Data are based on a self-assessment by respondents, not a survey of fields.
17 | P a g e
4. Agricultural labor
Table 11 Agricultural labor use by source of labor
Village Agricultural labor
use (person-days/household)
Agricultural labor use (person-days/
rai of agr. land)
By source of labor (in % of agricultural labor use)
Own household Hired
N. Thai villages 387 137 79.7 20.3
Pong Yang Nai 284 127 82.4 17.6
Pong Yang Nok 498 148 79.9 20.1
Muang Kam 346 136 78.4 21.6
Kong Hae 363 131 76.6 23.4
Pong Krai 439 135 82.2 17.8
Hmong villages 646 76 72.6 27.4
Buak Chan 791 105 72.5 27.5
Buak Tui 787 106 77.0 23.0
Pha Nok Kok 545 86 81.2 18.8
Mae Sa Noi 555 56 75.9 24.1
Mae Sa Mai 480 57 73.7 26.3
Nong Hoi Gao 642 65 75.2 24.8
Nong Hoi Mai 592 48 57.7 42.3
All villages 520 106 76.0 24.0
Note: A person-day is approximately 8 hrs of work.
Roughly a quarter of all labor use is hired from
outside the own household.
18 | P a g e
Table 12 Share of households hiring labor and ethnicity of hired labor, in % of households
Village Households
hiring labor (%)
By ethnicity of hired labor (in % of households hiring labor)
Thai Hmong Shan Other Unknown 1
N. Thai villages 90.9 39.6 1.2 31.9 2.3 21.1
Pong Yang Nai 87.5 40.0 2.5 17.5 - 32.5
Pong Yang Nok 89.7 28.2 2.6 53.8 2.6 12.8
Muang Kam 94.3 34.3 - 37.1 2.9 22.9
Kong Hae 90.5 61.9 - 9.5 4.8 14.3
Pong Krai 94.1 47.1 - 23.5 - 29.4
Hmong villages 93.5 2.9 35.9 43.2 2.4 16.4
Buak Chan 85.7 4.8 33.3 33.3 - 19.0
Buak Tui 100.0 - 42.9 19.0 - 42.9
Pha Nok Kok 84.2 5.3 47.4 5.3 10.5 21.1
Mae Sa Noi 100.0 5.9 58.8 5.9 11.8 23.5
Mae Sa Mai 100.0 7.7 73.1 26.9 3.8 19.2
Nong Hoi Gao 88.2 - 11.8 76.5 - -
Nong Hoi Mai 100.0 - 13.6 90.9 - -
All villages 92.2 20.8 19.0 37.7 2.4 18.7
Note: 1 A large number of respondents did not want to reveal the ethnicity of their hired labor.
Most Northern Thai farmers hire Northern Thai
laborers while most Hmong households hire
Hmong laborers; yet both groups hire many Shan
(“Tai Yai”) laborers.
19 | P a g e
5. Irrigation
Table 13 Irrigated area by type of equipment, in % of agricultural land
Village Agricultural land
with irrigation (%)
By type of equipment (in % of total agricultural land) 1
Sprinkler Drip Other
N. Thai villages 93.9 49.8 36.2 19.6
Pong Yang Nai 94.8 52.7 40.9 8.7
Pong Yang Nok 91.1 41.4 22.4 44.2
Muang Kam 96.2 48.8 53.9 4.8
Kong Hae 93.7 85.0 14.3 0.0
Pong Krai 94.9 0.0 64.1 49.4
Hmong villages 64.4 43.3 13.5 16.3
Buak Chan 73.3 41.0 32.6 16.8
Buak Tui 80.9 17.1 12.6 66.1
Pha Nok Kok 80.6 60.9 12.3 16.9
Mae Sa Noi 61.7 53.1 2.7 5.9
Mae Sa Mai 77.0 67.7 17.5 9.1
Nong Hoi Gao 48.0 40.8 7.2 0.0
Nong Hoi Mai 40.9 38.3 2.6 0.0
All villages 78.8 46.4 24.6 17.9
Note: 1
Sum over equipment types may exceed the total share of irrigated agricultural land as farmers may use more
than one type of equipment on the same piece of land.
20 | P a g e
Table 14 Irrigation area by source of irrigation water, in % of agricultural land
Village Agricultural land
with irrigation (%)
By irrigation source (in % of total agricultural land) 1
Stream Groundwater Reservoir Other
N. Thai villages 93.9 66.6 18.7 13.7 2.5
Pong Yang Nai 94.8 74.9 13.6 7.5 4.5
Pong Yang Nok 91.1 76.5 15.6 7.2 3.8
Muang Kam 96.2 48.7 32.2 21.9 0.2
Kong Hae 93.7 72.9 0.0 20.8 2.7
Pong Krai 94.9 52.6 39.7 11.8 0.0
Hmong villages 64.4 57.6 3.9 4.4 8.8
Buak Chan 73.3 48.8 8.1 16.4 12.6
Buak Tui 80.9 78.0 0.0 3.6 4.6
Pha Nok Kok 80.6 80.6 5.3 0.0 5.3
Mae Sa Noi 61.7 52.4 10.6 2.5 14.5
Mae Sa Mai 77.0 75.6 0.5 0.9 8.8
Nong Hoi Gao 48.0 47.6 3.6 0.0 3.0
Nong Hoi Mai 40.9 35.8 1.9 3.1 15.0
All villages 78.8 62.0 11.1 8.9 5.8
Note: 1 Sum over irrigation sources may exceed the total share of irrigated agricultural land as farmers may use
water from more than one source on the same piece of land.
Most land has irrigation equipment. Hmong
households rely mostly on water from streams
while many Northern Thai households can also
withdraw from groundwater and reservoirs as
alternatives.
21 | P a g e
6. Cropping patterns
Table 15 Cropping pattern in Northern Thai villages by crop and by season, in rai
Crop Total area in rai, by season In percent by season
Summer Rainy Winter Summer Rainy Winter
Total planted area 1,109 1,560 1,534 100.0 100.0 100.0
Litchi 47 47 47 4.2 3.0 3.1 Tangerine 4 4 4 0.3 0.2 0.2
Roses 64 64 64 5.8 4.1 4.2
Gerbera 4 4 4 0.3 0.2 0.2
Chrysanthemum 285 372 298 25.7 23.8 19.4
Bell pepper 168 314 288 15.2 20.1 18.8
Tomatoes 10 8 22 0.9 0.5 1.4
Sayote 100 116 186 9.0 7.5 12.1
Cabbages (various) 53 80 70 4.8 5.1 4.5
Lettuce (various) 20 16 9 1.8 1.0 0.6
Kale 24 47 13 2.2 3.0 0.9
Potatoes - - - - - -
Carrots - - - - - -
Onions 74 10 166 6.7 0.7 10.8
Rice (upland/paddy) 10 147 56 0.9 9.4 3.6
Feed maize 5 7 6 0.5 0.5 0.4
Other crops 240 323 303 21.6 20.7 19.8 Note: Summer (March – May), rainy (June – October), winter (November – February)
For Northern Thai households, chrysanthemum,
bell pepper, sayote, and onion are the most
important crops by area.
22 | P a g e
Table 16 Cropping pattern in Hmong villages by crop and by season, in rai
Crop Total area in rai, by season
In percent by season
Summer Rainy Winter Summer Rainy Winter
Total planted area 4,212 5,977 5,144 100.0 100.0 100.0
Litchi 2,167 2,167 2,167 51.4 36.2 42.1
Tangerine 190 190 190 4.5 3.2 3.7
Roses 355 355 355 8.4 5.9 6.9
Gerbera 56 76 69 1.3 1.3 1.3
Chrysanthemum 11 10 10 0.3 0.2 0.2
Bell pepper 69 107 133 1.6 1.8 2.6
Tomatoes 59 109 64 1.4 1.8 1.2
Sayote 136 145 220 3.2 2.4 4.3
Cabbages (various) 536 1,298 738 12.7 21.7 14.3
Lettuce (various) 49 180 80 1.2 3.0 1.6
Kale 12 26 - 0.3 0.4 -
Potatoes 42 34 304 1.0 0.6 5.9
Carrots 48 91 41 1.1 1.5 0.8
Onions - - - - - -
Rice (upland/paddy) 14 221 48 0.3 3.7 0.9
Feed maize 61 396 251 1.4 6.6 4.9
Other crops 408 573 475 9.7 9.6 9.2 Note: Summer (March – May), rainy (June – October), winter (November – February)
For Hmong households, litchi and cabbage are the
most important crops by area.
23 | P a g e
Table 17 Cropping pattern in all villages by crop and by season, in rai
Crop Total area in rai, by season In percent by season
Summer Rainy Winter Summer Rainy Winter
Total planted area 5,321 7,537 6,678 100.0 100.0 100.0
Litchi 2,214 2,214 2,214 41.6 29.4 33.1
Tangerine 194 194 194 3.6 2.6 2.9
Roses 419 419 419 7.9 5.6 6.3
Gerbera 60 80 73 1.1 1.1 1.1
Chrysanthemum 296 382 307 5.6 5.1 4.6
Bell pepper 238 420 421 4.5 5.6 6.3
Tomatoes 69 117 85 1.3 1.6 1.3
Sayote 235 262 406 4.4 3.5 6.1
Cabbages (various) 589 1,378 808 11.1 18.3 12.1
Lettuce (various) 69 196 89 1.3 2.6 1.3
Kale 37 73 13 0.7 1.0 0.2
Potatoes 42 34 304 0.8 0.4 4.5
Carrots 48 91 41 0.9 1.2 0.6
Onions 74 10 166 1.4 0.1 2.5
Rice (upland/paddy) 24 368 103 0.4 4.9 1.5
Feed maize 66 404 257 1.2 5.4 3.8
Other crops 647 896 779 12.2 11.9 11.7 Note: Summer (March – May), rainy (June – October), winter (November – February)
24 | P a g e
Table 18 Average annual cropping pattern by village, in rai
Village Total area
under crops Litchi
Tange-rine
Rose Chry-
san-them.
Bell pep-
per
Sa-yote
Cab-bage
Onion Rice Other
N. Thai villages 1,438 47 4 64 325 269 135 70 78 82 363
Pong Yang Nai 261 11 4 11 55 46 42 2 - 12 78
Pong Yang Nok 512 3 - 53 147 76 37 49 - 49 99
Muang Kam 289 - - - 62 101 30 18 4 10 64
Kong Hae 276 33 - - - 9 26 2 74 12 120
Pong Krai 100 - - - 60 38 - - - - 2
Hmong villages 5,258 2,167 190 355 10 106 168 921 - 111 1,231
Buak Chan 764 294 - 3 - 71 25 68 - 41 261
Buak Tui 789 225 - 346 10 11 4 - - - 194
Pha Nok Kok 598 421 - 6 - 6 92 24 - 6 43
Mae Sa Noi 480 323 - - - - 17 29 - 16 94
Mae Sa Mai 1,112 828 - - - 15 12 78 - 2 177
Nong Hoi Gao 785 54 72 - - 3 14 346 - 42 255
Nong Hoi Mai 730 22 117 - - 1 4 375 - 5 206
All villages 6,696 2,214 194 419 335 375 303 991 78 194 1,594
Note: This is the cropping pattern averaged over 12 months. It does not reflect the total cropping area under each crop. For instance, if a field of 1 rai is 3 months under cabbage, 4 months under carrot, and 5 months fallow then the average annual area is 0.25 rai cabbage (3/12*1 rai) and 0.33 rai carrot (4/12*1 rai).
25 | P a g e
Table 19 Average annual cropping pattern by village, in % of total area under crops
Village Total area
under crops Litchi
Tange-rine
Rose Chry-
san-them.
Bell pep-
per
Sa-yote
Cab-bage
Onion Rice Other
N. Thai villages 100 3.4 0.3 2.9 26.3 21.6 8.7 3.4 5.7 4.3 23.4
Pong Yang Nai 100 4.4 1.5 4.4 21.2 17.5 16.3 0.7 - 4.4 29.7
Pong Yang Nok 100 0.5 - 10.3 28.8 14.8 7.2 9.5 - 9.6 19.4
Muang Kam 100 - - - 21.5 34.9 10.4 6.2 1.4 3.4 22.2
Kong Hae 100 12.0 - - - 3.3 9.4 0.5 27.0 4.4 43.5
Pong Krai 100 - - - 60.1 37.5 - - - - 2.4
Hmong villages 100 41.3 3.6 6.5 0.2 1.9 3.7 17.4 - 2.3 23.2
Buak Chan 100 38.5 - 0.4 - 9.4 3.3 8.9 - 5.3 34.2
Buak Tui 100 28.4 - 43.9 1.3 1.3 0.5 - - - 24.6
Pha Nok Kok 100 70.4 - 0.9 - 1.0 15.4 4.1 - 1.0 7.2
Mae Sa Noi 100 67.3 - - - - 3.6 6.1 - 3.4 19.7
Mae Sa Mai 100 74.5 - - - 1.4 1.0 7.0 - 0.2 15.9
Nong Hoi Gao 100 6.9 9.2 - - 0.3 1.7 44.1 - 5.3 32.4
Nong Hoi Mai 100 3.0 16.1 - - 0.1 0.6 51.4 - 0.6 28.3
All villages 100 25.5 2.2 5.0 11.1 10.1 5.8 11.5 2.4 3.1 23.3
26 | P a g e
Table 20 Change in litchi area, 2007-2010
Village Litchi area (rai) % annual change 1
Growers in 2010
Of whom had decreased their
litchi area (%)
Litchi area harvested in
2009 (%) 2007 2010
N. Thai villages 58 47 -6.5 29 34 49
Pong Yang Nai 19 11 -15.7 11 33 100
Pong Yang Nok 3 3 0.0 5 - 100
Muang Kam - - - - - -
Kong Hae 36 33 -2.9 12 50 27
Pong Krai - - - - - -
Hmong villages 2,561 2,167 -5.4 374 25 78
Buak Chan 372 294 -7.5 95 21 48
Buak Tui 225 225 0.0 55 - 73
Pha Nok Kok 441 421 -1.6 55 13 74
Mae Sa Noi 340 323 -1.7 52 29 82
Mae Sa Mai 1,006 828 -6.3 88 35 90
Nong Hoi Gao 91 54 -15.7 18 50 100
Nong Hoi Mai 87 22 -37.0 11 100 -
All villages 2,618 2,214 -5.4 403 26 77
Note: 1
Assuming an exponential growth function of Xt=X0(1+g)t
Our data suggest an average annual decline in litchi
area of 5.4%, which would imply a reduction of
about 1,000 rai over the next 10 years.
27 | P a g e
7. Crop output and markets
Table 21 Total value of crop output in Northern Thai villages by crop, in 1,000 baht
Crop Northern Thai villages Hmong villages All villages
All crops 171,000 271,000 443,000
1. Bell pepper 90,100 48,500 139,000
2. Cabbage (various) 4,426 82,500 86,900
3. Rose 2,888 37,300 40,200
4. Tomato 9,409 26,600 36,100
5. Chrysanthemum 27,000 977 27,900
6. Sayote (shoots/fruits) 7,070 8,442 15,500
7. Lettuce (various) 443 14,000 14,400
8. Tangerine 171 11,500 11,600
9. Potato - 10,000 10,000
10. Onion 9,357 - 9,357
11. Litchi 151 8,860 9,012
12. Strawberry 6,898 2,063 8,961
13. Beans (various) 4,593 272 4,865
14. Gerbera 271 4,094 4,365
15. Rice (upland/paddy) 2,285 1,768 4,053
16. Carrot - 3,097 3,097
17. Kale 1,495 477 1,971
18. Feed maize 32 1,283 1,316
19. Other crops 4,877 9,728 14,600
Note: Only main crops by area are listed. Table sorted by column 4.
28 | P a g e
Table 22 Total value of crop output in Northern Thai villages by crop, in %
Crop Northern Thai villages Hmong villages All villages
All crops 100.0 100.0 100.0
1. Bell pepper 52.7 17.9 31.4
2. Cabbage (various) 2.6 30.4 19.6
3. Rose 1.7 13.8 9.1
4. Tomato 5.5 9.8 8.1
5. Chrysanthemum 15.8 0.4 6.3
6. Sayote (shoots/fruits) 4.1 3.1 3.5
7. Lettuce (various) 0.3 5.2 3.3
8. Tangerine 0.1 4.2 2.6
9. Potato - 3.7 2.3
10. Onion 5.5 - 2.1
11. Litchi 0.1 3.3 2.0
12. Strawberry 4.0 0.8 2.0
13. Beans (various) 2.7 0.1 1.1
14. Gerbera 0.2 1.5 1.0
15. Rice (upland/paddy) 1.3 0.7 0.9
16. Carrot - 1.1 0.7
17. Kale 0.9 0.2 0.4
18. Feed maize 0.0 0.5 0.3
19. Other crops 2.9 3.6 3.3
Note: Only main crops by area are listed. Table sorted by column 4.
Bell peppers and cabbages together account for
50% of the agricultural output in the watershed.
29 | P a g e
Table 23 Crop output markets, in % of total output value
Village Bring
products to trader
Trader coming to
farm
Sell to Royal
Project
Sell directly to consumers
Other outlets
N. Thai villages 37.9 51.6 2.7 4.8 3.0
Pong Yang Nai 44.1 46.4 2.5 6.2 0.8
Pong Yang Nok 26.2 63.9 2.1 7.5 0.3
Muang Kam 42.2 42.9 2.8 4.3 7.8
Kong Hae 50.7 38.2 5.0 1.5 4.6
Pong Krai 22.4 77.4 0.0 0.2 0.0
Hmong villages 62.3 10.1 10.9 15.4 1.3
Buak Chan 52.8 14.1 22.2 10.9 0.1
Buak Tui 64.9 23.6 3.4 8.0 0.0
Pha Nok Kok 53.7 16.5 1.7 28.1 0.0
Mae Sa Noi 51.1 11.8 0.0 21.5 15.6
Mae Sa Mai 49.2 7.3 22.9 20.5 0.1
Nong Hoi Gao 72.5 1.2 7.4 18.9 0.0
Nong Hoi Mai 80.1 1.5 10.2 8.3 0.0
All villages 50.4 30.3 6.9 10.2 2.1
Figure 6 Outlets for crop produce, in % of total output value
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
perc
en
t
Northern Thai village Hmong village
Bring productsto trader
Trader comingto farm
Sell to RoyalProject
Sell directlyto consumers
Other outlets
30 | P a g e
8. Pest management
Table 24 Share of farmers using chemical pesticides and the average number of sprays by crop
Crop Share of farmers growing the crop
Share of growers using chemical pest
control
Average number of sprays per cropping
cycle
Bell pepper 30.1 98.0 16.9
Chinese cabbage 26.8 96.4 3.4
Litchi 1 25.1 47.8 3.4
White cabbage 23.8 100.0 3.8
Chayote (for shoots) 17.9 33.6 4.2
Feed maize 16.1 19.9 1.0
Chrysanthemum 15.6 98.4 15.8
Lettuce (various) 13.4 83.8 2.4
Green bean (various) 12.0 87.9 3.9
Upland rice 9.6 46.5 1.2
Tomato 8.5 94.7 12.5
Onion 8.3 100.0 6.4
Rose 1 7.9 100.0 23.7
Kale 7.4 100.0 3.4
Potato 6.5 100.0 4.3
Pointed cabbage 5.4 100.0 4.7
Cucumber 4.6 87.2 3.7
Gerbera 1 4.4 100.0 35.0
Carrot 4.4 88.4 2.1
Chayote (for fruits) 3.8 15.9 1.8
Note: Sorted by the share of farmers growing the crop. 1 For perennial crops, column 4 shows the average number
of sprays per year.
31 | P a g e
Table 25 Total planted area by crop and by type of pest control
Crop Total planted
area (rai)
Planted area by type of pest control (%)
Chemical pesticides
Non-chemical methods
No pest management
Bell pepper 488 99.3 25.0 0.5
Chinese cabbage 1,715 99.7 5.5 0.1
Litchi 2,214 61.9 3.4 38.1
White cabbage 1,709 100.0 6.8 -
Chayote (shoots) 367 36.7 9.8 55.0
Feed maize 621 16.2 7.2 76.6
Chrysanthemum 469 99.2 5.4 -
Lettuce (various) 368 88.6 1.4 11.4
Green bean (various) 168 86.9 13.7 9.8
Upland rice 303 39.1 13.8 47.1
Tomato 189 92.9 14.7 -
Onion 222 100.0 5.4 -
Rose 419 100.0 20.9 -
Kale 128 100.0 21.2 -
Potato 364 100.0 - -
Pointed cabbage 145 100.0 9.3 -
Cucumber 55 88.9 9.5 11.1
Gerbera 85 100.0 23.8 -
Carrot 176 87.1 11.5 8.8
Chayote (fruits) 111 16.3 21.0 66.1
Note: Sorted by the share of farmers growing the crop (previous table).
Chemical pest control clearly dominates non-
chemical methods. For sayote, litchi, feed maize,
and upland rice, a large share of the area is
without pest management.
32 | P a g e
Table 26 Planted area by crop and by type of GAP, in % of planted area
Crop Not following GAP
guidelines Following Q-GAP
Following Global GAP
Bell pepper 74.5 23.4 2.1
Chinese cabbage 83.6 16.4 -
Litchi 96.1 3.9 -
White cabbage 88.7 11.3 -
Chayote (shoots) 99.6 0.4 -
Feed maize 100.0 - -
Chrysanthemum 100.0 - -
Lettuce (various) 63.7 36.3 -
Green bean (various) 100.0 - -
Upland rice 100.0 - -
Tomato 69.6 22.9 7.5
Onion 100.0 - -
Rose 100.0 - -
Kale 100.0 - -
Potato 91.7 8.3 -
Pointed cabbage 87.5 12.5 -
Cucumber 88.8 11.2 -
Gerbera 100.0 - -
Carrot 64.5 35.5 -
Chayote (fruits) 68.6 31.4 -
Note: GAP= Good Agricultural Practice. Sorted by the share of farmers growing the crop (previous table).
33 | P a g e
9. Livestock
Table 27 Farm households raising livestock, in % of households, and animals per household
Village % of farm households Average number of animals/farm
Chicken Pig Cattle Chicken Pig Cattle
N. Thai villages 54.0 10.2 2.1 15.6 0.6 0.1
Pong Yang Nai 42.5 12.5 2.5 15.1 0.5 0.1
Pong Yang Nok 51.3 12.8 2.6 16.7 0.4 0.1
Muang Kam 54.3 5.7 - 14.9 0.3 -
Kong Hae 81.0 14.3 4.8 18.7 1.6 0.4
Pong Krai 35.3 - - 8.5 - -
Hmong villages 78.9 47.8 0.5 19.9 2.1 -
Buak Chan 81.0 76.2 - 24.3 3.5 -
Buak Tui 76.2 4.8 - 15.0 - -
Pha Nok Kok 31.6 10.5 - 4.9 0.3 -
Mae Sa Noi 94.1 76.5 5.9 24.8 3.9 -
Mae Sa Mai 88.5 61.5 - 28.1 3.6 -
Nong Hoi Gao 82.4 41.2 - 17.2 1.6 -
Nong Hoi Mai 86.4 59.1 - 22.3 2.1 -
All villages 66.8 29.4 1.3 17.8 1.4 0.1
34 | P a g e
Table 28 Value of livestock output and % consumed within the household
Village Total value
(baht) Consumed
(%)
% consumed, by farm animal
Chicken Pig Cattle
N. Thai villages 3,077 74.7 86.7 12.5 30.6
Pong Yang Nai 4,162 68.2 93.3 23.6 -
Pong Yang Nok 2,597 71.3 85.4 - -
Muang Kam 3,375 75.5 81.3 6.2 -
Kong Hae 3,355 80.1 88.0 19.1 50.0
Pong Krai 481 91.2 91.2 - -
Hmong villages 4,825 98.1 98.0 97.9 -
Buak Chan 6,399 100.0 100.0 100.0 -
Buak Tui 1,974 96.9 96.9 - -
Pha Nok Kok 996 100.0 100.0 100.0 -
Mae Sa Noi 8,431 91.7 95.2 85.0 -
Mae Sa Mai 6,774 95.2 93.1 100.0 -
Nong Hoi Gao 4,014 100.0 100.0 100.0 -
Nong Hoi Mai 5,453 100.0 100.0 100.0 -
All villages 3,973 89.6 94.0 82.6 30.6
35 | P a g e
