Study of Farm Level Impact
of the Barai Irrigation System
Introduction
The Labour Based Rehabilitation Programme
(LBRP) executed by the International Labour Organization (ILO) has been part of
an employment generation programme since the early 1990s. This programme
generated employment for displaced persons, demobilized persons through the
development and implementation of labour-based infrastructure and irrigation
rehabilitation works. Through this programme ILO has been engaged in the development
of roads and irrigation schemes in various provinces of the kingdom of
Cambodia, which includes Siem Reap, Battambang, Banteay Meanchey, Takeo, Pursat
and Kandal provinces. The Barai Irrigation Scheme in Siem Reap is one of the
important projects in this programme.
Since 1993 the International Labour Organisation (ILO) through three consecutive technical
cooperation projects has been assisting the construction, the rehabilitation
and the maintenance of the Barai Irrigation System (BIS) in Siem Reap Province.
The Department of Hydrology within the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries (and later of the Ministry of Water Resources and Metrology) was the
counterpart of the ILO projects for these activities. The ILO Upstream Project
has terminated its technical support to the Barai Irrigation System (BIS) at
the end of the year 2000. Although the achievements of the ILO Upstream
Projects assistance to the Barai Irrigation System are well known, the impact
at the farmersf level has not been well documented.
The Center for Advanced Study (CAS) was asked
by ILO to conduct a study on impact of the ILO support to the irrigation
rehabilitation schemes on the farmers. This study aims to assess the actual
impact of the improvements made in the irrigation scheme on the farmers. The
study is also to provide information on the results of the ILO support to the
Barai Irrigation System to others who are investing in the irrigation sector
and to those who intend to provide similar support to the Barai Irrigation
System.
The study is aimed to assess
the following issues:
-
Land utilization before and after ILO assiatance;
-
Production, consumption and surplus before and after the ILO
intervention;
-
Impact on expenditure and income patterns before and after the ILO
intervention;
-
Economic benefits (increase in surplus/diversification, etc);
-
Social aspects (relation to community/Water Users Group);
-
Technical capacity;
-
Institutional support;
-
Overall economic situation
The terms of reference
emphasize a focus on changes in land use, crop production, and productivity; as
well as on the overall change in the farmers' economy. The main focus of the
study is the direct impact at the farmersf level. The survey was based on the
command area of secondary canal number 5 (SC-5) of the Barai Irrigation System.
The center for Advanced Study
(CAS) was asked to carry out the study by taking small representative samples
of different farming zones.
Methodology
An analysis of a complex
irrigation system, such as the Barai, could involve very detailed and
time-consuming survey work. The most practical approach to an impact assessment
would be to confine it to a study area formed by the command area of just one
canal. For this study the Sub-Project Canal, SC-5 was chosen. This area was
subject of the 1994 baseline survey and is covered by regular water
measurements. The entire SC-5 was
maintained and rehabilitated in 1993 by ILO. The impact survey samples for SC-5
stretches to two districts (Pouk and Seam Riep), five communes and nine
villages.
Representative samples were
taken at tertiary canal level, where the impact of ILO irrigation assistance to
the farmers since 1993 could be studied. As the survey teams could not visit
all farms, it was necessary to use farm level microanalysis to understand the
changes that have occurred as a result of ILO support.
The samples were taken from
11 tertiary canals on average six samples for each tertiary canal. Eleven tertiary canals within the secondary
canal 5 (SC-5) were selected. Each tertiary canal into was divided three
irrigation-farming zones: upstream, center and downstream. Those farmers who
had irrigated land within the radius of half a kilometer from the SC-5 were
categorized as part of the upstream irrigation-farming zone. Farmers who had
cultivable irrigated land between half and one kilometer from SC-5 were
classified within the central irrigation-farming zone and those who have land
beyond one kilometer from SC-5 are classified in the downstream
irrigation-farming zone. The number of interviewees for the upstream
farming-zone, central farming-zone and downstream farming-zone were 25, 23and
21, respectively. In total, 69 interviewees were conducted with farmers. Ten
more interviews were conducted with the chiefs of Water User Group (WUG), which
makes a total of 79 interviews for this study (see, Appendix, Table 1).
The
study used both semi-structured interviews and a formal survey.
Semei-structured interviews were used to assess the management of irrigation
water at the farm level. The survey was used to obtain estimates of the
efficiency of irrigation service, land utilization, cropping patterns, crop
productions, consumption, surplus and deficits in order to measure impact. During the first week of the
fieldwork the questionnaire was tasted and adapted. In the process of testing
the questionnaire, the researchers were trained on how to obtain the basic data
from the farmers, and how to document those data.
The survey was carried out by
two teams of two researchers each, one interviewer and the other one recorder.
The first team consisted of Ms. Nguan Sokunthea
(B.A) and Mr. Kim Van (B.A) and the second team consisted of Mr. Khat
Sokha (B.A) and Ms. Mak Sophea (B.A.). The interview took 3-4 hours each
depending on the interviewee's capacity to provide the required data.
Considerable time was reserved during this interview period to help the farmers
concentrate and complete the task with accuracy. In the absence of baseline
information on the situation prior to the ILO activities (i.e. 1993) part of
the questions required memory recall of the interviewees.
On arrival at the tertiary
canals, Water User Group (WUG) chiefs of tertiary canals were first approached
and interviewed in order to get basic information on the management of
irrigation. The farmer interviewees were selected with the help of the WUG
chief. With the permission of the interviewees, interviews were recorded on
tape, which are available from the Center for Advanced Study office. Survey
forms were completed in Khmer and translated into English.
All data were entered into
the Integrated Microsoft Processing System (IMPS) and then processed in
Microsoft Excel by CAS researchers. Dummy tables were developed to facilitate
the analysis and a comparison was made between the baseline, 1993 (before the
ILO support) and the present day, 1999 (the impact of ILO support). The year
1999 was taken as present day because it was the latest crop year that enables
us to determine the impact of ILO support on the farmers in order to compare it
with the baseline (1993), the year that ILO started to provide service to the
Barai Irrigation System.
In the course of the field
survey several government and non-government organizations were contacted. The following government organizations were
visited: Siem Reap Provincial Ministry of Agriculture (PMA); Provincial
Department of Agronomy (PDA); Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology;
Provincial Department of Hydrology, and Tukville Research Center. The following
non-governmental organizations were visited: FAO- Siem Reap Office, Adventist
Development and Relief Service (ADRA); Agrisiod, a French Agricultural
Development Assistance Organization; and CARERE Siem Reap Office. Interviews with some of the village, commune
and district chiefs was, unfortunately, not possible due to time
constraints.
1. Background to ILO Assistance, Geographical and External Attributes
1.1.
Background to the ILO
Involvement in the Barai Irrigation System
The Barai Irrigation System
(BIS) is located approximately 8 kilometers from Siem Reap town. Agriculture
based on irrigation has taken place in the Siem Reap area since the days of the
Angkor Empire in the 11th century. However, the present scheme was
designed and built by the French during the 1930's with some modifications
being carried out by the Americans in the 1960's. A diversion weir (Prast Keo)
that was constructed in the 1930s on the Stung Siem Reap River presently serves
the Barai. The diverted Water runs to the Barai Occidental reservoir (storage
capacity 40 Million m3) with full supply level of 25 meters1.
The system ran efficiently up
until the early 1970's. It was regulated and maintained by the Provincial
Department of Hydrology (DoH) with technical input and decision making from the
central DoH. The whole scheme was used for wet season supplementary rice
irrigation and some dry season rice irrigation in the more fertile soils
adjacent to the Tonle Sap Lake. Irrigation water for dry season fruit and
vegetable production was also provided.
Due to the civil war during
the early 1970's the scheme's condition began to deteriorate. During the reign
of the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1979 some changes were made to the scheme. From
1979 to 1989 the Barai irrigation system was working on a greatly reduced area
due to the deterioration in the condition of the canals. In 1989 the Adventist
Development Relief agency (ADRA) in conjunction with Siem Reap Provincial
department of Hydrology (DoH) began a series of structural repair works to the
Barai scheme. Renovation of secondary canals (SCs) 2, 4 & 5 was carried
out. ADRA completed these repair works in 1991.
The
ILO activities in the Barai started in 1992 with an emergency rehabilitation
project. The main ILO assistance program started in 1993. It largely
concentrated on the clearing and repair of the main canal system, secondary
canals, including bank restoration, and the re-building and replacing of
control structures. At the start of the works, the levels of the canal banks
were below design level, 30 per cent of the banks were washed away and all the
existing structures were damaged or destroyed.
Subsequently,
the ILO was involved with the establishment and operation of Water Users
Associations (WUA). ILO's assisted in the setting up of Water Users'
Associations based on Tertiary Canals (TC). They instigated maintenance of the
TC's by the WUA's secured agreement for a water management plan (water
schedule), drafted and implemented a WUA agreement Bye Laws for the scheme
through the Provincial Governors office and secured an agreement for water
charges.
The agricultural area,
covering around 12,000 hectares has an irrigated command area of around 4,000
hectares of double-cropped rice land served by gravity distribution system.
Three kilometers main canal and eight secondary canals serve the irrigated area
with a total length of 50 kilometers. The beneficiariesf population of the
Barai Irrigation System in the early 1990s was 5,465 households.
1.2.
Soil Type
Research
by the
Cambodia-IRRI-Australia Project has so far identified eleven main soils in the
country. The Barai Irrigation System
(BIS) soil is one of them, known as Group
0 - Prey Khmer Soil (Plate 6)
that is estimated to exist in 10 to 12 % of the rice-growing area of all
Cambodia. [1]
It is also widely known that the quality of the soil in the command area of the
Barai Irrigation system is very poor, sandy, lacking organic matter, which is
easily being washed out by the rains. Moreover, it coagulates in the dry season
forming a hard layer 50 centimeters below ground level.
An increased use of
fertilizer is recommended for the soil of the Barai area. However, with poor
water supply and low rice prices it is recommended not to apply fertilizer.
Water standing on the surface only occurs for a short period during the height
of the rainy season when the entire surface profile is saturated.3
The character of the Barai area soil requires both natural and
artificial fertilizers to increase production. This implies that the
availability of water alone could not affect yield and production; there must
be sufficient fertilizer application.
Since the Barai Irrigation
System soil is sandy, its water holding capacity is very poor and makes it
difficult to estimate of irrigation scheduling and irrigation water
requirements, particularly for rice. No intensive study on the Barai's soil
mapping and land capacity has been undertaken, so far.
1.2. Metrology
Presently, rainfall,
temperature, sunshine, wind, and water gauges at the Tonle Sap and Siem Reap
River are recorded by the Department of Hydrology. The Siem Reap region has a
tropical monsoon climate, which is warm and humid during May to November and
almost dry during the rest of the year.
Maximum day temperatures of 40.80C and a minimum night
temperatures of 13.6 0C were recorded at the meteorological office,
Siem Reap. There has been an average annual rainfall of 1438.5 mm during the
last 10 years record, 1990 1999, (see, appendix).
The total rainfall recorded
in the baseline year (1993) was 142 days. This was 193 days for the year 1999.
The total rainfall for 1993 was 1524.4 mm and for 1999, 1468.3 mm. The number
of rainy days per year and the total amount of rainfall per year in the area
determines the demand and the supply of irrigation water.
1.3.
External Influence
There have been several other external factors that obviously have played a role in the yield of crop and that have to be taken into account in any assessment of impact. Among those factors are activities from other (inter)national organisations in the area such as agricultural extension service as well as negative effects due to natural causes. But the services provided by the INGOs were mostly for short period as compared to ILO's assistance, which was provided for more than six years to the BIS farmers. Besides in the irrigation sector, ILO has been rehabilitating and maintaining the road of the BIS with the objectives of improving the infrastructure rural Cambodia and in order to promote employment.4
Activities of other
organisations in the area
Besides ILO, other
development organisations have been working in the area. Most organisations
worked for only one or two and even some of them less than one year in the area
of secondary canal 5 (SC-5).
q
The Hydrology Department has been involved in maintenance of the canal
and has provided training on maintenance.
q
ADRA has been involved in activities of animal raising, gardening and
pond/well digging, and has provided seeds and (natural) fertilizer.
q
AGRISIOD had been involved in animal raising, extension service and the
construction of pump wells, and has provided seeds and natural fertilizer.
q
FAO/IPM has been involved in fishing and animal husbandry, and has
provided extension on agricultural techniques and pest management.
q
UNICEF and ACLEDA have been involved in credit activities.
q
WFP and ILO have been involved in road construction.
q
CARERE has set up health care activities.
q
ADHOC has provided trainings about human rights.
The organisations ADRA and
AGRISUD were most often mentioned, and seem to have worked in all the tertiary
canals under study. But, ADRA was active in providing irrigation service before
ILO intervention in the Barai Irrigation System (BIS) and AGRIZIOD has been
providing service after 1999. That means ILO has been the major service
provider to the Barai irrigation scheme. The respondents confirmed that ILO's
service to the barai has been effective and sustainable than the other
organizations' assistance.
One important issue here is
that the service input of ILO to the Barai Irrigation System was not
appropriately integrated with other inputs such as extension service, training
progromme on basic agricultural technique, provision of fertilizers with
subsidy, pesticide provision, soil survey and agricultural research. This has
undoubtedly obstructed the expected yield and productivity.
The local authorities such
as the district, commune, and village chiefs were playing an important role to
the BIS. There was distinction between the organization of WUGs in Siem Reap
and Peuk districts. Those WUGs in the Peuk district are better organized than
the WUGs of Siem Reap district.
According to the information of Department of Hydrology, this was
because the of the of the Peuk district chief, which usually gives enough
attention to the WUGs by providing advice and organizing meetings.
Natural damage to crops
Problems of flood, drought,
mice, rats and worms, storm, and cattle diseases were all reported for both the
baseline year (1993) and 1999. Floods seemed to have been a more serious
problem in 1993 (with 6 of the 10 canals reporting floods) than in 1999 (floods
reported by only 2 canals). In 1993 the floods mainly occurred in the first
part of the canal (TC 1-15). Droughts were reported by many WUGs, both for 1993
and 1999. However, most WUGs stated that droughts are no serious problem, as the
farmers can get water from the canal and ponds. Plagues of mice, rats and worms
had occurred equally in 1993 and 1999, and took place in both years in the same
tertiary canals (i.e. TC 1,15,18,20 and 21).
2. Demography, Access for Irrigation, and
Ownership of Farm Animals
2.1. Demographic Data
The
demographic background variable shows the household structure of the farmers in
terms of age category, family size and the high rate of increase of the
population in relation to the productivity of the farmers. For example, there is a high unproductive age
category (52%) of the total household population of the interviewees
indicating, the high rate of Age-Dependency Ratio. During the present day
(1999), the total population for the whole sample of the interviewees including
farmers' family members was 448, while the population in the baseline (1993)
was 329 (see, Figure 1).
The
present day total population of interviewees including all of their family
members has increased by 27% from that of the baseline (1993). Due to high population rate of increase and
the nature of extended family in the area, the average household size has
substantially increased. Most importantly the farmers informed both the two
research teams that the availability of irrigation have attracted people to
live around the Barai irrigation system.
Figure 1: Household
Population by Age Group
For
instance, the average household size in the baseline (1993) was 4.8 whereas the
average household size of the present day (1999) is 6.6. Thus the average
household size of the present day is higher than the average baseline household
size by 27%. This suggests the increase in the size of the family causing
shortage of food especially for those farmers who are poor possessing small
plot of land. The other issue is the 1-16 age group was less in the baseline
(37%) than in the present day (42%).
Whereas the productive age group 17-45 is higher in the baseline (50%)
than in the present day (43%). Those people in the age group of 1-16 and above
the age of 65 are considered as dependent with the other age groups. When we
consider Age-Dependency Percentage of the baseline, for instance, 39% of the
total population was dependant, which is in fact less than the present day
being 44%.
2.2. Farmers' access for irrigation
During
the survey we asked each respondent when he or she started to utilize the Barai
irrigation. Out of the 69 respondents, 39 of them (57%) of the total sample
started to live in the period of 1961-1980. Twenty-two farmers (32%) of the
total interviewees started to use the Barai irrigation waster in the period of
1930-960 (see, Figure 2).
Figure 2: Since when have you access from Barai
Irrigation?
In
the last three decades, 8 farmers (11%) started to live in the Barai irrigation
System. Most of those farmers who started to live in recent years in the Barai
irrigation system are demobilized soldiers and refugee returnees from Thailand
in the early 1990's.
2.3. Possession of Farm Animals
Farm
animals are an important of the farming system in most developing countries
including Cambodia.
During
the survey, respondents were asked to tell us the type and number of animals
they owned in 1993 and 1999. All farmers interviewed owned one of the following
five types of farm animals: cattle, buffalo, chicken, duck, and pig. The
aggregate number of farm animals owned by all farmers interviewed has increased
from 768 in 1993 to 1103 in 1999, which is a 30% increase from 1993. There has
been significant change for buffalo from the baseline being 43% increase in
1999. The average farm animal possessed per farmer household has increased from
11.1 in 1993 to 16 in 1999.
Figure 3:
Farm Animals Owned (Whole Household Samples)
The total numbers of other farm-animals for the
whole sample survey has also increased in 1999 as compared to1993 being for cattle,
22%; chicken, 25%; duck, 37%; and pig, 30%. The increase in farm-animals in
1999 suggests an increase in wealth, which could be associated with the
improvements of the access for irrigation by the farmers.
3.
The Barai Irrigation Utility, Management & Efficiency
3.1. The Utility of
Irrigation
We asked respondents for
what activities farmers have been utilizing irrigation during the baseline
(1993) and the present day (1999). They were requested to rank in ascending
order the utility of irrigation. During the survey, three major activities
(rice, vegetables, and maize) and two minor activities (animal husbandry, and
fruit productions) were identified in which farmers have been using irrigation
in the baseline as well as in the present day. The utility of irrigation water
for rice is ranked first both in the baseline, 99% and in the present day, 94%
(see, Figure 4). However, utility of irrigation water for rice has declined in
the present day by 5% due to the increase in diversification in particular for
vegetables and maize production, which are ranked second and third,
respectively. The use of irrigation water for vegetables increased from 56% in
the baseline to 62% in the present day in the second ranking. Regarding maize,
it was 34% in the baseline while it is 22% in the present day in the second
ranking (see, Figure 4).
Figure 4: Ranking the Utility of Irrigation Impact
The shift of trend from rice
to vegetables production during the present day (after the ILO intervention)
implies a new tendency of diversification of crop production due to the
improvement of access for irrigation to the farmers.
3.2 Institutional
Development: Management of the Barai Irrigation
The management before the
ILO Assistance:
During the survey we were
told by the farmers that the situations of the Barai irrigation secondary
canals were poorly maintained before the ILO intervention as a result the
supply of irrigation services to the farmers was not adequate. Because of poor
maintenance, the canal water gates could not move due to rust or because parts
were missing or broken, canal sections had collapsed or were full of silt,
water level gauges had disappeared, etc.
Prior to the ILO intervention
the whole Barai Irrigation System was managed by the provincial Hydrology
Department (HoD) with collaboration of village and commune chiefs. At that
time, no specific rules and regulations existed for water distribution in the
tertiary canals. Before 1993, at the farmers level the village and commune
chiefs were responsible for the management before. The most common practice was
"first come, first served". Frequent conflicts among the farmers were
reported during that time particularly between farmers in the downstream
farming zones with farmers in the central farming zones due to competition for
irrigation water.
The management After the ILO
Assistance:
Since 1993 ILO started
providing assistance carrying out routine maintenance (greasing of gates;
removing vegetation from embankments, canal and drains; and removing silt from
canals, drains and structures) of the secondary canals of the Barai Irrigation
System. After the ILO intervention, the reservoir of the Barai and the main
canal has been managed by the provincial Hydrology Department (HoD) and with
ILO technical assistance.
The lack of proper water
management procedures and systems to resolve conflicts often limit the
realization of the potential benefits of an irrigation system. Conflicts over
water use can occur between different farmers when water distribution is
inequitable. With this basic premise, ILO's main focus in the beginning of the
service from 1993 up to 1995 was organizing the Water Users' Group (WUG) by
institutionalizing one association for each tertiary canal. ILO has assigned
also two irrigation technicians to the Barai Irrigation System (BIS) in order
to provide technical assistance and training to the water user farmers.
The Role of Water Users'
Associations:
There is one Water Users'
Association (WUA) for each tertiary canal. For secondary canal 5 (SC-5), for
example, with the exception of TC 501 and 502 the rest have one Water Users'
Association per TC, which are 28 WUA for 29 TCs. During the survey WUG chiefs
told us about their main roles and activities and it can be summed up as
follows:
q Organize farmers to develop,
operate and maintain the secondary and the tertiary canals;
q Take responsibility and
manage water distribution to the water users; WUG chief has to supervise and
coordinate water allocation to individual farmers; fields which are located-end
(downstream-farming zone) or far from the canal have to get water in the first
place while farmers who have land in the head or near the canal
(upstream-farming zone), would receive water afterwards;
q Responsible for collecting
irrigation fees from its users;5
q Delegate the water users to
present any issue or problem to concerned body;
q Resolve conflicts that are usually arise between
different water users;
In general, the WUA chiefs
were either village chiefs or commune chiefs. Some of them still serve as
village chief and WUA chief.
Members of WUAs are all
beneficiaries who own land or share crop in the command area of the same irrigation
tertiary canal. One individual known as WUA chief represents the WUA, which
means there is no committee that could work as a team. WUA chief is responsible
for the day-to-day management of the tertiary canal for development and O &
M.
The WUAs are responsible for
maintaining, rehabilitating and managing of the tertiary canal. The WUAs are
also responsible for settling disputes between the beneficiaries. When farmers
need irrigation water they request the WUG chief to ask the HoD to open the main
gate and get sufficient flow rate for one or two days depending on the actual
irrigation demand of the farmers.
The Number of Irrigation
Water Beneficiaries:
During the survey we asked
each WUA chiefs how many farmers (water users) are registered in the baseline
(1993) and in 1999. According to the information we got from WUGs chiefs, the
total number of water users for the 11 tertiary canals under study was 528 in
the baseline and 688 in the present day, with a substantial increase in the
present day (23%) as compared to the baseline. In 1993, out of the total number
of water users 412 (78%) of them are male-headed households and 116 (22%) are
female-headed households. In 1999, out of the total number of water users
502(72%) are male-headed households and 186 (28%) of are female-headed
households. In the present day, the percentages of female-headed households
have increased by 4% from the baseline (see, Table 1).
Table 1:
Total Number of Irrigation Water Users' by Sex and Tertiary Canal
|
I.D. NUMBER OF TERTIERY CANALS |
|
||||||||||||
|
|
501 |
503 |
505 |
507 |
514 |
515 |
516 |
518 |
519 |
520 |
521 |
Average |
Total |
|
|
1. Baseline (total) |
25 |
40 |
45 |
35 |
66 |
42 |
38 |
70 |
59 |
40 |
68 |
48 |
528 |
|
|
a. Male |
12 |
30 |
35 |
32 |
36 |
31 |
28 |
65 |
57 |
28 |
58 |
37 |
412 |
|
|
b. Female |
13 |
10 |
10 |
3 |
30 |
11 |
10 |
5 |
2 |
12 |
10 |
11 |
116 |
|
|
2. Present day (total) |
53 |
50 |
58 |
60 |
78 |
54 |
52 |
84 |
59 |
60 |
80 |
62 |
688 |
|
|
a. Male |
20 |
35 |
38 |
52 |
48 |
38 |
45 |
79 |
57 |
40 |
50 |
45 |
502 |
|
|
b. Female |
33 |
15 |
20 |
8 |
30 |
16 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
20 |
30 |
17 |
186 |
|
The total average of water
users' number in the baseline was 48 (37 of water users' are male and 11 of
them are female headed) households. Whereas the total average of water users'
increased in 1999 to 62 households in which 45 of water users' are male and 17
are female-headed households.
3.3. Impact on the
efficiency of irrigation service
The most important service
that the irrigation system operators (managers) provide to farmers is the
delivery of irrigation water in an efficient management. Ideal from a farmer's
point of view is freedom in terms of:
q
Timing
q
Flow-rate, and
q
Farmers participation in scheduling (planning)
q
Duration of irrigation applications.
During the survey, we asked
each farmer interviewee whether irrigation supply by the central management
were efficient in relation to: Timing, flow rate, participation in the planning
(scheduling) and duration of irrigation application in the baseline and in the
present day.
Timing:
We asked whether the delivery of irrigation water has been ideal in terms of timing during in the baseline and the present day. The majority of them responded (64%) the timing is good in the present day, while in the baseline only 17% of them think the efficiency of irrigation in terms of timing is good. However, 49% of the respondents thought that the delivery of irrigation water timing in the baseline was medium whereas only 25% of respondents in the present day believe the timing is medium. 34% of respondents consider the timing of irrigation water delivery in the baseline poor and only 11% of respondents said the timing of irrigation water in present day is poor (see, Figure 5).
Figure
5: How was the Delivery of Irrigation Water in Terms of Timing?
|
Flow
Rates:
Regarding the amount of flow rates it depends on the design that allows every farmer to take as much irrigation water as he/she wants, at any time, for as long as he/she wants. During the survey we asked each farmer about the efficiency of the irrigation service in terms of flaw rates in the baseline and the present day.
In the baseline, only 7% of
the respondents considered the delivery of water in terms of flow rates was
good. Whereas in the present day 54% of respondents said that the flow rate is
good. The majority of respondents (62%) said that in the baseline the flow rate
of irrigation was medium, while only 38% of the respondents believe the flow
rate in the present day is medium. Similarly, 31% of the respondents said the
flow rate of irrigation water in the baseline was poor, whereas only 8% of the
respondents believe in the present day irrigation water flow rate is poor (see,
Figure 6).
Figure 6: How was the Delivery of Irrigation Water in
Terms of Flow Rate?
|
Irrigation scheduling:
Irrigation scheduling is the
activity of making the programme for the coming week (or 10 days, 2 weeks, one
month) of the water distribution in the scheme during that period. We were told
by the Department of Hydrology Siem Reap Province is the key institution which
sets the water delivery schedule for all the Barai Irrigation System (BIS).
Preparing feasible schedule (plan) is vital because of the two reasons:
1.
The farmers wants to know when they will receive irrigation water (=
timing), how much (= flow rate) and for how long (= duration).
2.
The irrigation system manager(s), in this case the Hydrology
Department, could know when and how to adjust the gate settings.
After the ILO intervention
in the Barai Irrigation System, the Water User Group (WUG) chiefs participate
in the irrigation water scheduling. First the farmers request in group the WUG
chief formally request the HoD indicating:
q
The number of hours per day for which they want to receive irrigation
water in their tertiary unit (canal);
q
The flow rate they want to receive at the tertiary off take.
The HoD operators prepare
the irrigation schedule on the basis of the above-mentioned request.
We asked the farmers whether
their participation in the scheduling of irrigation is sufficient or not (see,
Figure 7). The majority of our respondents (90%) said there is good
participation after ILO assistance in terms of scheduling of irrigation water.
Whereas in the baseline (before ILO intervention), 70% of them responded that
there was no participation of the farmers in the process of scheduling
irrigation water. However, only 30% of them said that there was participation
in scheduling irrigation water before ILO intervention.
Figure 7: Do farmers participate in the
scheduling of irrigation water demand?
|
According to the
respondents, the schedule and the distribution of water after 1993 (during ILO
intervention) have been good. Nevertheless, when we see the efficiency of
irrigation scheduling, the nearest farmer to the tertiary or secondary canal
(upstream-farming zone) can get relatively enough water, those farmers who are
situated in the central-farming zone and downstream irrigation-farming zone
have been encountering problems in accessing enough irrigation water.
Duration of irrigation
applications:
The duration of irrigation
application depends on the cropping patterns of the farmers. During the wet
season, farmers usually request irrigation water only when there is no rain for
about 10 days. For the period of the dry season, farmers who produce dry season
rice request irrigation water for few days once in a month.
Figure 8:
How was the Duration of Irrigation Applications?
However, the duration of
irrigation applications were not enough in the baseline as compared to the
present day (see, Figure 8). The majorities of farmers interviewed (88%) said
that in the baseline the duration of irrigation applications were not enough,
while 12% of the farmers believe that there was enough duration of irrigation
in the same period. On the contrary, the majority of the farmers (81%) said
that the duration of the irrigation applications were enough in the present
day, while the minority (19%) of the respondents reported the duration of
irrigation application in the present day has been insufficient.
Some constraints for the
efficiency of irrigation service:
Four major problems were
mentioned by almost all WUG chiefs regarding the inefficiency of the irrigation
water (poor) flow rate: (1) the low water level; (2) farmers at the tail end of
tertiary canals; (3) farmers at the tail end of the secondary canal and (4) the
informal tertiary canals.
(1)
One of the problems reported by the farmer interviewees and the WUGs
chiefs is the low level of irrigation water due to poor maintenance of the
canal particularly it was an important problem before 1993. This low water
level issue still exists in some tertiary canals (TCs). For instance, farmers
who have land in the TCs such as 501, 502, 507, and 514 could not get enough
water because the flow rate is not good due to the low level of water and the
high level of farm land.
(2)
Farmers who have farm at the head of the TC (near the
SC-upstream-farming zone) have clearly more advantage than people living at the
middle. Farmers who have at the tail end (downstream-farming zone) are worst
off: they get the least water, and often have to make use of the most important
problems.
(3)
The biggest problems occur at the tail end (downstream) part of the
secondary canals. The WUGs chiefs of the tertiary canal 520 and 521 were both
complaining that the water flows first to the territories of the head part (or
the TC at the upstream part) of the secondary canals. However, according to the
chiefs of TC 520 and 521, the gates of the other TCs are often left open during
nighttime, which means that very little water is left for TC 520 and 521. WUG
21 has completely stopped functioning and farmers no longer request water,
because they could not get water even if they ask.
(4)
The most important problem regarding the problem in flow rate is the
existence of informal tertiary canals. Farmers who live at the head
(upstream-farming zone) of the TCs make small holes from the secondary canals
in order to get water outside the formal TC.
According to respondent farmers and WUGs
chiefs, they make informal TCs for two reasons: (a) since the level of the
water is low they can not get enough water from the formal TC that is why they
have to make a hole by digging at lower level where they can easily get the
water; (b) Since the distance between the two TCs is half kilometer (500
miters) and farmers who have farmland far from TCs could not get enough water.
So, they have to dig a hole from the secondary canals to get water directly to
their farms.
Thus, the informal tertiary
canals affects the flow rates of the irrigation water as most of the water is
distributed without the proper canal. In addition, these informal canals
created problems of drainage and water logging.
4. Land Use and Cropping
Patterns
In the Barai irrigation
command area, all of the land is privately owned. But there is, however, a wide
gap in the land holdings, ranging from half hectare up to eight hectares for
the whole sample survey. Most female-headed households have smaller area of
land and in most cases they live in the middle or in the tail section of the
tertiary canal.
The total land cultivated
with and without irrigation has increased from 149 hectares in the baseline to
187 hectare in the present day. This includes the double cropping and land
leased/ bought. The area of double cropping was 25 ha in the baseline and 33 ha
in the present day. The total area leased or bought was 1ha in the baseline and
15 ha in the present day (see, Figure 9).
4.1 Cultivated land with and
without irrigation (whole sample)
The cultivated land area
with irrigation in the baseline was 118 ha, but in the present day the
cultivated land with irrigation has increased to 141 ha. Similarly, the
cultivated land without irrigation also increased from 31 ha in the baseline to
42 ha in the present day (see, Figure 9).
Figure 9: Land Use (Whole Samples)
The
double cropping for
the whole sample has increased becoming 25 ha in the baseline (1993) and 33 ha
in the present day (1999). The increase of double cropping suggests the
improvement to the access for irrigation by the farmers after the ILO
intervention.
The per capita land
utilization (land use/ household) has also increased from 2.16 ha in the
baseline to 2.71 ha in the present day, which is a 20% increment in the present
day. But the total land use per family member in the present day (0.42) is less
than in the baseline (0.45 ha) due to high rate of population growth.
The survey data on the land use was also collected by irrigation farming-zones (upstream, center, and downstream). Due to the proximity to the SC-5, those farmers who have land at the upstream irrigation-farming zone take advantage for better irrigation access as compared to the center and downstream-farming zones.
4.2. Cultivated Land With
and Without Irrigation (by farming-zone)
The total land cultivated with irrigation in 1993 was 70% while the cultivated land without irrigation was 30% of the total cultivated land area. Whereas in the present day (1999) the cultivated land with irrigation was 86% and cultivated land without irrigation being 14% of the total cultivated land. This implies that the cultivated land with irrigation has increased significantly (16%) from the baseline, 1993 in the present day, 1999 (see, Table 2 and Figure 10).
|
Table 2: Area of Land Cultivated
With and Without Irrigation by Farming-Zones (%) |
|||||
|
|
Baseline
(1993) |
Present
day (1999) |
Baseline
(1993) |
Present
day (1999) |
|
|
|
With irrigation |
With irrigation |
Without irrigation |
Without irrigation
|
|
|
Upstream
zone |
65 |
92 |
35 |
8 |
|
|
Central
zone |
68 |
83 |
32 |
17 |
|
|
Down-stream-zone |
78 |
82 |
22 |
18 |
|
|
Average |
70 |
86 |
30 |
14 |
|
The land area cultivated land with irrigation in the baseline (1993) for the upstream irrigation-farming zone was 65% of the total land cultivated, while the cultivated land without irrigation was 35% of the total land cultivated in this zone. Whereas land area cultivated with irrigation in the present day (1999) for upstream-farming zone was 92% and the land cultivated without irrigation was only 14% of the total cultivated land in this upstream zone.
Figure
10: Cultivated Land With and Without Irrigation (by Farming-zone)
In the case of central irrigation-farming zone, during the baseline the cultivated land with irrigation were 68% and the land cultivated without irrigation was 32% of the total area of land cultivated. During the present day (1999) the cultivated land with irrigation for central farming zone was 83% and cultivated land without irrigation was 17% of the total cultivated land in the central zone.
The cultivated land with irrigation for downstream farming zone was 78% and cultivated land without irrigation being 22% of the total cultivated land of the farming zone. Whereas the cultivated land with irrigation in 1999 for the down-stream zone was 82% and cultivated land without irrigation being 18% of the aggregate cultivated land of the downstream-farming zone.
One important
development was that during the baseline the total cultivated land with
irrigation for the downstream-farming zone was higher (78%) than the central
and upstream farming zone, being 68% and 65% of the total cultivated land of
its own zone, respectively. However, in 1999 the upstream farming zone's
cultivated land with irrigation has increased substantially as compared to the
other zones. According WUG chief this development occurred because after 1993
the water flow has been improved and the upstream farming zones take advantage
of this while the central and downstream farming zones receive inadequate
irrigation water their far proximity from the TCs.
4.3. Cropping Patterns
The key determinants of cropping patters under irrigated conditions are water availability, land suitability and the farmers' willingness to adopt alternative cropping patterns, which is determined in part by profitability considerations. These suitable physical and market conditions leads to diversification into non-rice crops.
Rice cultivation is the most important agricultural
practice carried out in the Barai irrigation area. Recently, vegetables
(lettuce, cabbage, cauliflower, tomato, eggplant, etc) are widely grown using
irrigation water. Other cropping practices on much reduced scale to that of
rice and vegetables includes, fruits (coconut, papaya, watermelon, pineapples,
etc), maize and sugarcane.
Data collected during the course of the survey provides the baseline and the present day cropping patterns (see, Table 4) for the whole sample survey. During the baseline and present day the main crops and area of land cultivated in the area under study, excluding vegetables were: Wet season rice: 68 ha in the baseline and 76 ha in the present day; dry season rice: 45 ha in the baseline and 58 ha in the present day; beans: 1.31 ha in the baseline and 1.28 ha in the present day; maize: 6 ha in the baseline and 6.5 ha in the present day and sugarcane: 2 ha in the baseline and 1.66 ha in the present day. The total area cultivated for those main crops being 122 ha in the baseline and 143 ha in the present day, which is 15% increase from the baseline.
There is a considerable increase in cultivated land for wet season rice land and dry season rice land for production year, 1999 as it is compared with the baseline production year, 1993 being 11% increase for wet season rice land and 23% increase for dry season rice land. The increment in the cultivation of dry season rice land in the present day as compared to the baseline implies the improvement for the access of irrigation water after the ILO intervention.
In the case of other crops: bean, maize and sugarcane there is no significant change in terms of cropping pattern between the baseline and the present day. In the case of bean and sugarcane we see even a decreasing pattern in the cultivated land in the present day as compared to the baseline. This is because of increased popularity of vegetable production after the ILO intervention due to improvement to the access of irrigation water and the increasing need of farmers using vegetables as a means of cash income.
Cropping
Pattern by Irrigation-Farming Zone:
In the three farming zones: upstream, central and downstream-cultivated land has increased in aggregate terms. But the cultivated land for maize, beans and sugarcanes did not increase, because vegetables and other high value production are substituting them.
When we see in detail the cropping pattern of each irrigation farming zone, wet season rice land cultivation in the baseline were: 27, 22, and 19 hectares for upstream, central and downstream farming zones, respectively. The three zones cultivation for wet season rice in the present day were recorded: 30, 25, and 20 hectares, respectively (see, Figure 11).
|
|
Figure
11: Cropping Patterns by Farming Zone
On the other hand, the cropping pattern for dry season rice land has increased much more than the wet season rice cultivation particularly for upstream and down stream farming zones. The recorded cultivation of dry season rice in the baseline (1993) was 12 ha for upstream zone, 17 ha for central zone and 16 ha for downstream zone; and the cultivated land for dry season rice land during the present day (1999) was: 19, 16, 22 hectares, respectively. For the central farming zone the cultivation for dry season rice land has decreased by one hectare.
The land that has been used for baseline and present day for maize, beans and sugarcanes are also utilized for cultivating vegetables and other high value cash crops through double cropping. Since this cropping trend is increasing with the improvement of the irrigation service, the cultivated land of maize, beans and sugarcanes are either constant or it has decreased over time.
5. Crop Productions, Yield, Consumption and Surplus/deficit
Irrigation development, rehabilitation and maintenance programs are primarily concerned with the improvement of food production to meet the demand of an increasing population. Higher food production may result from various factors: an expansion in the area planted to a food crop; an intensification of use of currently cultivated area, and an increase in the productivity of the land. Irrigation development, rehabilitation and maintenance provide critical support both for effectively increasing food crop area and for creating an environment wherein yield-enhancing technologies can be utilized profitably.
In this section
we will see how food production, yield, consumption and surplus were improved
after the ILO assistance by comparing the situation of the baseline (1993) and
present day (1999) for the whole samples and by irrigation farming zone.
5.2. Cultivated Land, Crop
production and Yield
The cultivated
land prior the ILO assistance, the total cultivated land for the whole sample
was 122 ha (wet season rice 68 ha; dry season rice 45 ha; Soya beans 1 ha;
maize 6 ha and sugarcane 2ha). But after 6 years of ILO assistance, the
cultivated land in the present day (1999) has increased to 143 ha (wet season
rice 76 ha; dry season rice 58 ha; Soya beans 1 ha; maize 6 ha, and sugarcane 2
ha). The total land cultivated in 1999 has increased by 15% from the total
cultivated land of 1993. The percentage change of cultivated land in 1999 from
1993 was recorded as follows: wet season rice 10%; dry season rice 23%; Soya
beans 0%; sugarcane 25% and maize 10%.
Table
3: Cultivated Land, Production and Yield (1993 and 1999)
|
Type of crops |
Cultivated
land (ha) |
Productions
(Kg) |
Yields (ha) |
||||||
|
1993 |
1999 |
%age change |
1993 |
1999 |
%age change |
1993 |
1999 |
%age change |
|
Wet
season rice
|
67.98 |
75.68 |
10 |
66,883 |
73,018 |
8 |
984 |
965 |
-2 |
|
Dry season rice |
44.87 |
58.07 |
23 |
71,048 |
95,874 |
26 |
1,583 |
1,651 |
4 |
|
Soya beans |
1.31 |
1.28 |
0 |
1,185 |
1,560 |
24 |
905 |
1,219 |
26 |
|
Maize |
5.73 |
6.39 |
10 |
16,279 |
23,027 |
29 |
2,841 |
3,604 |
21 |
|
Sugarcane |
2.08 |
1.66 |
-25 |
20,370 |
22,760 |
11 |
9,793 |
13,711 |
29 |
|
Total |
121.97 |
143.08 |
15 |
175,765 |
216,239 |
19 |
1,441 |
1,511 |
5 |
The total food production before the ILO support for the Barai Irrigation System (in 1993) was 175.8 ton (wet season rice 66.9 ton; dry season rice 71 ton; Soya beans 1.2 ton; maize 16.3 ton; and sugarcane 20.4 ton). The total production after the ILO assistance in 1999 was 216.2 tons (wet season rice 73 tons; dry season rice 95.9 tons; Soya beans 1.6 tons; maize 23 tons and sugarcane 22.8 tons). Thus, the total production of 1999 has increased by 19% from the total production of 1993. The percentage change of production by crops in 1999 from 1993 was: wet season rice 8%; dry season rice 26; Soya beans 24; maize 29% and sugarcane 11% (see, table 3 and Figure 13).
Figure
13: Crop production (Whole Sample)
The average total yield per hectare for all crops in 1993 was 1.44 tons/ha (wet season rice 0.98 tons; dry season rice 1.58 tons; Soya beans 0.91 tons; maize 2.84 tons and sugarcane 9.79 tons). The total average yield in 1999 has substantially increased being 1.51 tons per ha which is an increase of 5% from the baseline (1993).
5.3. Food Crops Consumption,
Surplus and Deficit
The total annual food consumption for the whole samples, prior ILO assistance, in 1993 was 106.7 tons (wet season rice 57.7 tons; dry season rice 44.8 tons; Soya bean 0.99 tons; maize 2.51 tons and sugarcane 0.70 tons). The 1999 annual food consumption has increased due to population increase being 110.5 tons (wet season rice 59.9 tons; dry season rice 45.7 tons; Soya beans 1.1 tons; maize 3 tons and sugarcane 0.80 ton). The average total food consumption of 1999 had increased by 4% from the 1993 total food consumption. here was an increase of food consumption by crops being for wet season rice 4%; for dry season rice 2% and Soya bean 12%; maize 17% and sugarcane 13%.
Table
4: Food Crops Consumption, Surplus and Deficit
|
Type of crops |
Consumption |
Surplus |
Deficit |
||||||
|
1993 |
1999 |
%age change |
1993 |
1999 |
%age change |
1993 |
1999 |
%age change |
|
|
Wet season rice |
57,738 |
59,877 |
4 |
9,145 |
13141 |
30 |
137 |
48 |
185 |
|
Dry season rice |
44,784 |
45,677 |
2 |
26,264 |
50,197 |
48 |
0 |
3 |
100 |
|
Soya bean |
990 |
1,130 |
12 |
195 |
430 |
55 |
6 |
3 |
-100 |
|
Maize |
2,508 |
3,011 |
17 |
13,771 |
20016 |
31 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Sugarcane |
700 |
800 |
13 |
19,670 |
21960 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Total |
106,720 |
110,495 |
4 |
69,045 |
105,744 |
35 |
143 |
54 |
165 |
|
Total cultivated land |
Baseline (1993) |
Present day
(1999) |
||||
|
Consumption (kg) |
Surplus (kg) |
Food deficit (months/ year) |
Consumption (kg) |
Surplus (kg) |
Food deficit (months/ year) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production
(Whole Sample):
The total production before ILO intervention (1993) main crops: wet and dry rice, beans, maize and sugarcane were 176 tons, while it was 216 tons in the present day (1999), which is a 19% increment of total output since the ILO intervention from 1993 up to 1999 (see, Figure 13).
The average yield for main crops: wet and dry season rice; beans, maize, and sugarcane in the baseline was 1.44 tons per hectare. After the ILO intervention (the 1999 production), the average yields per hectare for the same crops was1.51 tons.
The yield by crop type is presented as follows: wet season rice, 0.98 ton/ha in the baseline (1993) and 0.97 tons/ha in the present day; dry season rice, 1.6 tons/ha in the baseline (1993) and 1.7 ton/ha in the present day; beans, 0.91 ton/ha in the baseline (1993) and 1.2 ton/ha in the present day (1999); maize, 2.8 ton/ha in the baseline (1993) and 3.6 ton/ha in the present day (1999) and Sugarcane, 9.8 ton/ha in the baseline and 13.7 ton/ha in the present day (1999). All of the crops have increased in absolute terms and in productivity except for the wet season rice (see, Table 2).
The reason for the decrease for wet season rice yield/ha is because of the quality of the soil becoming poor quality over time. Due to the high opportunity cost of applying fertilizer for the wet season rice field, all farmers do not use fertilizer and as a result the yield of the wet season rice production ultimately has declined.
Production
and Yield for the Upstream-Farming Zone:
The upstream farming-zone is considered as the strategic place in terms of better access for irrigation water as compared to the other irrigation-farming zones.
Figure
14: Crop Production (Upstream zone)
Figure
15: Crop Production (Central Farming-Zone)
Figure
16: Crop Production (Downstream Farming-Zone)
6. Socio-Economic Patterns:
Impact on Employment Opportunity, Expenditure and Income
According
the CDRI's recent study, the active labour force in 1996 was estimated at 4.5
million people, of which 75% worked in agriculture (including farming, fishing
and forestry), 20.5% in services (trade, transport, hotels, public
administration, etc) and 4.5% in industry.6
The
Barai Irrigation System economic pattern cannot be different from the Cambodia's
agricultural economy in which it remains a subsistence economy. However, while
rice production predominates farmers are engaged in a range of both non-cash
and cash income-generating activities, particularly after the harvest of the
wet season crop, i.e. during the dry season.
6.1. Employment Opportunity
During
both in the baseline (1993) and in the present day (1999), the most important
farm activities in the SC-5 area are rice production. In the present day
(1999), most farmers are busy with their own farm activities more than doing
out side their farm activity, in which the improvement of irrigation service
have played an important role for a better access for irrigation and increase
the double cropping to some extent .7
The
farmers in the command area of the Barai Irrigation System have two major types
of activities:
On-farm
and off-farm activities, and the list include:
1.
On-farm activities
q
Rice cultivation;
q
Livestock and animal husbandry;
q
Cultivation of cash crops such as Soya bean,
sugarcanes, watermelon, etc.
q
Cultivation of vegetables
1.
Off-farm activities
q
Fishing;
q
Small business;
q
Wage worker;
a.
Construction worker
b.
Service sector
c.
Manual labour
This
list is not at all exhaustive and is just an illustration of the wide array of
activities in which a household in the Barai Irrigation System might be engaged
during the dry season and wet season. Most of the on-farm activities are wet
season activities while most of the off-farm activities are a dry season
activities. If there is no any opportunities are available in the Barai areas,
farmers temporarily migrate to Siem Reap to find unskilled labour jobs. One important trend we observed during the
survey is that unlike the baseline in 1999 the off-farm activities are
decreasing over time due to the farmers' engagement on their own farm
activities, which reduced their off-farm activities.
According
our survey result, farming activity is more significant for every household
particularly after the ILO intervention indicating the improvement to the access
of irrigation water. Besides farming,
45% (fishing 5%, small business 9%, construction work 12%, service work 11% and
manual worker 8%) of households in the baseline (1993) have had other
activities besides rice and other crop production activities. Moreover, 55% of
the households in the baseline were doing only farming activities. In the
present day (1999), 85% of the total farmer households surveyed were engaged on
their own farm activity and only the remaining 15% (fishing 4%, small business
5, construction worker 1%, work in service sector 4%, and manual work 1%) were
doing off-farm activities (see, Figure 17).
Figure 17: On-Farm & Off-Farm Activities (Whole
Sample Survey)
The
farmers' on-farm activity in 1999 as compared to the baseline (1993) is higher
in 1999 than in 1993, which suggests the improvement made to the Barai
irrigation system encouraged them to be busy in their farming activity. Our survey outcome indicts,
however, the off-farm activities have decreased in 1999 due to an increase of
farmers' on-farm activity.
The short-term off-farm
activities are diverse but three major patterns were apparent during the
survey:
q
Cultivation of vegetables has increased in the present day, which has
substituted off-farm activities.
q
Throughout the year, whenever paddy field work is over, fishing and
producing household equipments for sale as means of small cash income
generation has been very popular during the baseline. However, the off-farm activities
have been reduced during the present day since many farmers are busy with their
farm activity.
q
Work migration of the adult male and female household member to Seam
Riep for short-periods (2-3 months) as construction workers, hotel
receptionist, motorcycle drivers and more generally as unskilled labour. Even
though those activities still exist, compared to the baseline the off-farm
activities are increasingly becoming less significant in 1999.
The research teams observed that a few poor families with limited land area could get on-farm employment as hired labour in the present day more than in the baseline, which implies the increase in the employment opportunity of the poor farmers after the ILO assistance to the Barai Irrigation System. However, disabled households and female-headed families could not earn income from off-farm activity, because labour is scarce and they can only do on-farm activity.
6.2. Income Trend of the
Farmers (1993 and 1999)
During the survey each
interviewee was asked to rank their annual income of 1993 and 1999 by
recollection approach in order to look into whether the farmers' income trends
has changed or not. We asked respondents to rank all incomes (cash and
non-cash) including rice and other crops production. The list of income items
to be ranked by each respondent is 17, but we present in this discussion only
five major incomes (i.e., rice, pig &animals, vegetables, small business
and off-farm employment) can be shown (in Figure 18), while all the rest are
summed up and ranked them as others.
Figure 18:
Income Trends
The income trend in the first ranking
|
Rice |
Pig & animals |
Vegetables |
Small business |
Off-farm employment |
Others |
|||||||
|
1st Ranking |
2nd Ranking |
1st Ranking |
2nd Ranking |
1st Ranking |
2nd Ranking |
1st Ranking |
2nd Ranking |
1st Ranking |
2nd Ranking |
1st Ranking |
2nd Ranking |
|
|
Baseline |
67 |
24 |
4 |
23 |
6 |
14 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
11 |
23 |
|
Present day |
52 |
26 |
16 |
12 |
4 |
24 |
9 |
10 |
10 |
5 |
9 |
23 |
6.3. Farmers' Expenditure
Pattern
Figure 18:
Farmers' Expenditure Pattern (Whole Sample)
REFERENCES
Asian
Development Bank, 2000, Memorandum
of Understanding Between the Royal Government of Cambodia and Asian Development
Bank for the Stung Chint Irrigation and Rural Infrastructure Project, 18 May
2000.
Bottrall Anthony, 1985, Managing Large Irrigation Schemes: a Problem of Political
Economy, Agricultural Administration Unit Occasional Paper 5, Overseas
Development Institute (ODI), 1985.
FAO, 1993, Integrated Rural Water
Management, Proceedings of the Technical Consultation on Integrated Rural Water
Management, 15-19 March 1993, Rome.
FAO, 1995, Irrigation Management Transfer in Asia, Papers from the Expert
Consultation on Irrigation Management Transfer in Asia, Bangkok and Chiang Mai,
RAP Publication, 25-29 September 1995.
FAO, 1996, Irrigation Scheme Operation and Maintenance, By Bart Snellen,
International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Irrigation Water
Management Training Manual No. 10, Rome, 1996.
FAO, 1996, Guidelines for Planning
Irrigation and Drainage Investment Projects, FAO Investment Center Technical
Paper 11.
FAO, 2000, Participatory Evaluation of the First Phase of the Special Programme
for Food Security in Cambodia, Prepared by the National Team of the Special
Programme for Food Security, Phnom Penh, May 2000.
FAO, 2000, Impact Assessment Analysis of the Special Programme for Food Security
in Cambodia, A Comparison between 1997 and 1998, Prepared by the National Team
of the Special Programme for Food Security, Phnom Penh, May 2000.
ILO, Project Evaluation: Pemba Small Scale
Irrigation Project, Draft Main Report, and September 1993.
ILO,
1996, Irrigation an Entry
Point for Poverty Alleviation and Mountain Development? Experiences of
Dhaulagiri Irrigation Development Project Perspectives and Debate on Future
Strategies, Proceedings of Seminar held in Kathmandu, Nepal 6 August, 1996.
ILO,
1994, Rapid Appraisal of Six
Rice Production Areas, (Bovel, Battambang and Barai, Siem Reap), ILO Project
CMB/92/008, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, January 1994.
ILO,
1998, ILO CMB/95/011, Labour
Based Rural Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Maintenance Project, Barai
Irrigation System Canal Inventory, Siem Reap Province, 1998.
ILO,
1991, The Impact of SPWP
Nepal: The Cases of Kalyan Majuwa and Goyang Shantipur Two Terrace Irrigation
Projects, ILOfs Special Public Works Programme, Nepal, Kathmandu 1991.
Mekong
Secretariat, 1994, Irrigation
Rehabilitation Study in Cambodia, Final Report, June 1994.
Murshid,
K.A.S., 1998, Food Security in an Asian Transitional Economy: The Cambodian
Expenditure, Working Paper 6, Cambodia development Resource Institute, Phnom
Penh, December 1998
T. Oberthor, P.F. White, & R.T. Reyes, 1996, CARDI, Major Soils of the
Rice Growing Areas.
Zweers,
G., and Kassie, 2000, Employment in ILO supported Road Construction and maintenance:
The Impact of Wage Earning on Workers, Center for Advanced study, August 2000.