IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

Research article
erd

Effect of Agricultural Land Reform Development Projecton Rural Livelihood: Experience from Thailand
NIRAMON KAEWKALLAYA
ALRO, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand

RAJENDRA P. SHRESTHA
School of Environment Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology,
Pathumthani, Thailand

ANISARA PENSUK TIBKAEW*
Faculty of Technology and Community Development, Thaksin University, Thailand
Email: anisara.pensuk@gmail.com
Received 22 December 2012

Accepted 10 June 2013(*Corresponding author)

Abstract Thailand has faced from long time the problem of land tenure, and agriculture
land reform program has been implemented in Thailand for about three decades
particularly in the areas identified as the encroached national reservation forest. Todate
more than 5.12 million ha of land have been allocated to the farmers in 69 provinces of thecountry for settlement and agricultural purposes. The collaborative project between JICA
and ALRO called D/S North project has been implemented during 2004-2007 aiming to
improve the living standard of farmers through promoting the practices of sustainableagriculture and integrating the proper natural resource management and environmentalconservation measures into their living activities. This study, therefore, examines theachievement of the integration of the natural resources conservation measures to farmers'
livelihood under the D/S North Project in the representative site, namely BorLek Long
sub-district, Phrae Province. The Sustainable Livelihood Framework, developed by DFID
was used to investigate the livelihood situation of the people who implemented the project.
The study shows that the people have better living condition with better natural, financial,and social capital as a result of project implementation.
Keywords Agricultural Land Reform Office, agricultural land reform, rural livelihood,sustainable livelihood framework

INTRODUCTION
Like other developing countries, Thailand also had adopted the liberal market-oriented policies todevelop the country (Isarangkun and Pootrakool, 2005). The developmental strategy wasimplemented in Thailand aiming to improve the quality of life of its people by expanding the basic
infrastructure throughout the country such as roads, electricity and irrigation projects.
Consequently, the expanding of the basic infrastructure can bring in the foreign and local
investments were encouraged to increase agricultural commodities in order to support country’seconomic. Focusing on economic growth gave a great pressure especially on forest areas, whichwere rapidly destroyed and encroached for agricultural expansion (Department of Environmental
Quality Promotion, n.d.). Furthermore, the need for land areas was high to meet the demand ofincreasing population and the high competition on land for residential, industrial, and agricultural
purposes has also led to the land tenure insecurity for farmers. Accordingly, in response to thoseproblems and the land protection for agriculture, the Agricultural Land Reform Office (ALRO) wasestablished under the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives in 1975 to take responsibility
concerning the access of the poor people to land through implementation of land reform. ALRO’s
mission was in line with the King’s wish to have agricultural land protection in order to have theⒸ ISERD

20

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

most efficiency farming (Agricultural Land Reform Office, 2009). ALRO is not only responsiblefor distributing land to poor farmers for agriculture and resident purpose, developing infrastructure
and occupation but also promoting the effective natural resources of rehabilitation and utilization.
One of many rural livelihood improvement projects initiated by ALRO, The Development
Study on Planning and Capacity Building for Natural Resources Management and Sustainable
Rural and Agricultural Development in the North Thailand Project or “D/S North Project” had been
implemented in cooperation with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) during 20042007 (Satutum, 2009) aiming in improving the living standard of farmers in the project areas
through the practice of sustainable agriculture, integrated to proper natural resources managementand environmental conservation of the protected areas, including local capacity building. Varietiesof activities and provision of required basic infrastructure were carried out within the project,including forest plantation, making firebreak line, forest boundary marking, small-scale checkdams construction, nursery of local plants, head water source protection, herbal harvesting andutilization, producing bio-gas using pig manure, organizing saving group and membership, swine
meat processing, practicing kitchen garden, low chemical inputs farming, soil surface protection
farming, soil improvement by bio-fertilizer/compost, livestock raising extension, plant material
processing, water melon cultivation extension and Wood vinegar production.
This study examined the achievement of the integration of the natural resources conservation
measures to farmers livelihood under the D/S North Project in the representative site, namely
BorLek Long sub-district, Phrae Province. The Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF),
developed by DFID. According to DFID, SLF assumes that livelihood resources comprised of fivedifferent capitals or assets, namely human, natural, financial, social and physical asset and each
asset can be represented by number of factors affecting livelihoods. Different researchers useddifferent indicators for assessing the livelihood asset, such as skill, literacy, knowledge, ability tolabor and health of household members as human asset (Ahmed and Chowdhury 2006; Cramb et al.
2004; de Sherbinin et al. 2008; DFID 1999; Kristjanson et al. 2005; Scoones 1998; Westley andMikhaev 2002) and also family structure, education, occupation, link to outside the farm sources ofincome (Soini 2005). Natural assets are the natural stocks and environmental services (de Sherbininet al. 2008; Scoones 1998). Land holding size is one of the most commonly used natural asset
indicator by several researchers, e.g. Ahmed and Chowdhury (2006); Cramb et al. (2004); Westleyand Mikhaev (2002). Some other natural asset indicators in use are rainfall, wildlife density, andlikelihood of having tick diseases (Kristjanson et al. 2005). Financial asset can be represented bycash, savings and credit (DFID 1999). In other cases, livestock possession (Kristjanson et al. 2005;
Ahmed and Chowdhury 2006; Cramb et al. 2004; Westley and Mikhaev 2002; Soini 2005) andremittances (de Sherbinin et al. 2008; Westley and Mikhaev 2002) are also used as financial asset.
Social asset are found to be represented by networks and connections, memberships of formalizedgroups and the relationship of trust (de Sherbinin et al. 2008), density of active community andbenefit from kinship (Kristjanson et al. 2005; Westley and Mikhaev 2002; Ahmed and Chowdhury2006) and collective action and accessibility to knowledge (Soini 2005). Physical asset comprisesof basic infrastructure and producer goods (DFID 1999), houses and occupational equipments(Ahmed and Chowdhury 2006; Cramb et al. 2004; de Sherbinin et al. 2008), transportation network(Kristjanson et al. 2005), vehicles, machinery, shops and other agricultural implements (Westleyand Mikhaev 2002) and even land under possession (de Sherbinin et al. 2008). Besides assessing
livelihood using five assets, the SLA has also been used in studying the coping strategies andadaptation to change of rural livelihoods (Salisbury and Schmink 2007; Soini 2005). SLA as awider view-based approach for addressing poverty and environment than conventional incomebased approach, which recognizes the importance of the ability to access to resources, however thecompleteness of the assessment depends on the availability of data (Cramb et al. 2004). The
indicators selected to be used in this study was appropriately designed as good representative ofeach asset in order to give the best responses of the villagers’ livelihood.

Ⓒ ISERD21

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

Study Area
The project has been implemented in Phrae province, North region in Thailand (Fig. 1) where is themost significant area of the country for management and conservation of natural resources becauseof its extensive forest cover with unique biodiversity. The area is surrounded on all sides bymountains with level plains in the middle. The main occupation of the people is agriculture,
particularly rice cultivation, cash crops and orchards. It was found that villagers have unbalanced
income and high expenditure problem. Their main income source was from agriculture, livestockraising and fishery, etc.

Fig. 1 The location and the aerial photo of the study area
METHODOLOGYThe D/S North Project activities were implemented during 2004-2007. The project had adopted themethod of participatory approach by which villagers were encouraged to conduct all process of theproject by themselves. The outcome of the project was evaluated 3 years after project has been
terminated in order to investigate the changes of villagers’ livelihood as policies, institutions andprocesses can have a great influence on access to assets (DFID, 1999). The study made use of thesustainable livelihood framework (SLF) developed by DFID (Department for International
Development).The primary data was collected through household survey. A total of 75 households,
who participated in the project from the beginning until the project termination, were interviewed
using semi-structured questionnaire to determine significant change by asking specific questions
relating to before and after implementation of the project. The indicators representing those five
livelihood assets were assessed in order to investigate by comparing the changes of their livelihood
after project has been implemented. Thirteen indicators were used to represent four livelihood
assets. The physical asset comprised of the necessary infrastructures especially for agriculturalactivities was constructed with the supports of the D/S North Project, therefore this asset wasconsidered significantly improved. The human asset indicators were derived from two indicators,
namely experience/knowledge from training and gaining indigenous. The natural asset was derived
from four indicators, namely forest condition, forest product dependence, quality of water resourceand soil condition. The financial asset was assessed based on household income, expenditure,saving and debt. The social asset was derived from network building, cooperation among group,cooperation between local organizations, networking between neighboring communities, therelying on external services. The collected household information was described and analyzed
using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software.

Ⓒ ISERD

22

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Natural Asset
The natural asset of the villagers under the D/S North Project was assessed through four important
indicators included forest condition, forest production dependence, quality of water resource andsoil condition. Nearly 89% of the respondent perceived that their natural asset became better after
the project has been implemented, whereas only 1% claimed that their livelihood was getting worseand 10% perceived that their livelihood remained unchanged (Fig. 2). Forest, water and soil
condition were investigated as the indicators of natural asset. Nearly 95% of the villagers perceived
that the condition of the forest was increase while only 5% of the respondent perceived no change
in condition of the forest but none of the respondent detected the decreasing of the forest. However,the forest condition is better but the villagers whose livelihood rely on the forest was decreasing as
only about 4% of the respondent still live by using the forest product whereas 86% perceived thatthey stopped relying on the forest product. The better forest condition consequence the better water
quality and soil condition as 80% and 92% of the respondent perceived the better water and soil
condition, respectively.

100.00
80.00

%

60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00

Natural Asset

Nochange

Worse

Better

10.33

1.33

88.35

Fig. 2 Perceived natural asset due to the D/S North Project
Table 1 Perception of respondents on natural asset indicators
Perception onForest conditionForest products dependence
Quantity of water resource
Soil condition

No change
3.5
7.5
00.0..9%Decrease
0.0
7..90.0
3.5

Increase
7..9..070.0
70.0

Source: Household survey

Financial Asset
The financial asset was assessed mainly through income and expenditure of the respondent. Overall
financial asset of the villagers under the D/S North Project became better as about 86% of therespondents perceived that their income and saving has been increasing (Fig. 3) whereas theexpenditure has become smaller after the project has been implemented. However, 1.68%respondents perceived that their financial situation got worse due to their higher expenditure anddebt whereas 12% of the total respondents mentioned their financial situation remained almost thesame (Table 2). In detail, the financial indicators showed positive results which help improving
their livelihood. The respondents responded that they have higher income (according to 86.7%respondents) with higher saving (89.3% respondents) and reduction of expenditure (89.3%respondents) and debt (80% respondents).

Ⓒ ISERD23IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

Table 2 Perception of respondents on financial asset indicators
Perception onNo change
35.5
7.0
30.9
3..0

Household income
Household expenditure
Household saving
Household debt%
Decrease
0.0
89.3
0.0
70.0

Increase
7..9
0.9
77.5
..0%

Source: Household survey

100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00

Financial Asset

Disagree
4.65

Nochange
12.00

WorseBetter

1.68

86.33

Agree
95.35

Fig. 3 Perceived financial asset due to theD/S North Project

Fig. 4 Perception of the respondent on
benefit of community networking
and farmers group on overall social
asset

Social Asset
The social asset of the respondent was assessed through various indicators which related mostly tofarmers group and the networking. The questionnaire was designed to investigate the benefit of thenetwork and the farmer group on their livelihood. The positive results were found from thehousehold survey as more than 95% of the respondents have agreed that having network andfarmer group can support their livelihood (Fig. 4). Especially networking and farmer group canhelp reducing their dependency on external services (Table 3), as they can produce and use theproduction within group member. All respondents have agreed that the D/S North Project wascapable to improve their livelihood through social asset as they can reduce their dependency on
external service by being self-reliance. About 98% of the respondents had agreed of making
network and established the farmer group can improve their livelihood by having better
cooperation from local organizations and neighboring communities (Table 3).
Table 3 The percentage of perception of the respondent on benefit of community networking
and farmers group on the social asset indicators
Benefits from network and farmers group
Benefit on gaining a better cooperation with local organization
Benefit on creating a better networking with neighboring communities
Benefit on gaining less dependency on the external services and being self-reliance

Disagree
3.5
3.5
0.0

Agree
77.9
77.9
300.0

Source: Household survey

Human Asset
All respondents (100%) had agreed that their human asset was perceived significantly improved
through various types of training organized by the D/S North Project. They perceived that theyⒸ ISERD24IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2014) 5-1

gained more experience and knowledge from training and meeting. On the other hand, theindigenous knowledge can be transferred among the group members.
CONCLUSION
As in other places of Thailand, agriculture has remained the major source of income to support
people’s livelihood in the BorLek Long land reform project (the D/S North Project) area. The
investigation showed that the farm households are better off with regard to every livelihood asset
after the project has been implemented. The physical asset was improved through various basicinfrastructure obtained from the project. The villagers perceived that their natural asset was betteras the conservation measurement were integrated into the project. Similarly, the financial asset wasimproved as they can reduce their expenditure by living on their own farm production, for example,
the kitchen garden, low chemical input farming, organic fertilizer, etc. Their social asset and humanasset were also improved through various types of training and they can make connection throughtrainings and forming farmers group.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks are due to the Agricultural Land Reform Office, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives,
Thailand for providing the information of BorLek Long and the D/S North Project.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, K.A. and Chowdhury E.H., 2006. Study on livelihood systems assessment, vulnerable groupprofiling and livelihood adaptation to climate hazard and long term climate change in drought prone
areas of NW Bangladesh, FAO.
Alex de Sherbinin, A., VanWey, L.K., McSweeney, K., Aggarwal, R., Barbieri, A., Henry, S., Hunter, L.M.,
Twine, W. and Walker, R., 2008. Rural household demographics, livelihoods and the environment.
Global Environmental Change 18, 38-53.
Agricultural Land Reform Office. 2009a. Agricultural Land Protection. Pamphlet No. 455 May 2009.
Cramb, R.A., Purcell, T. and Ho. T.C.S. 2004. Participatory assessment of rural livelihoods in the central
highlands of Vietnam. Agricultural Systems 81, 255-272.
Department of environmental quality promotion. n.d.. Thailand National Environment PerformanceAssessment (EPA) Report. P.6 (retrieved: 21 June 2010, from http://www.gms-eoc.org/CEP/Comp3/
docs/Thailand%20EPA%20Report_reduced.pdf).
DFID. 1999. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. (retrieved: 17 May, 2007, from: http://www.
livelihoods.org /info/info_guidancesheets.html).
Isarangkun, C. and Pootrakool, K. 2005. Sustainable economic development through the sufficiency
economy philosophy. (retrieved: 7 July 2010, from http://www.sufficiencyeconomy.org/old/en/files/3.pdf).
Kristjanson, P., Radeny, M., Baltenweck, I., Ogutu, J. and Notenbaert, A., 2005. Livelihood mapping andpoverty correlates at a meso-level in Kenya. Food Policy 30, 568-583.
Scoones, I., 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Brighton. Institute ofdevelopment studies. University of Sussex, UK.
Salisbury, S.D. and Schmink, M., 2007. Cows versus rubber: Changing livelihoods among Amazonian
extractivists. Geoforum 38, 1233-1249.
Satutum, P. 2009. People’s participation: Lessons learnt from international cooperation in Thailand’s land
reform area in proceedings of an international conference on land reform for wealthy life. Staff Paper
Number 116, Vol. 500. Feb. 2009, 86.
Soini, E. 2005. Land use change patterns and livelihoods on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania.
Agricultural Systems 85, 306-323.
Westley, K. and Mikhaev, V. 2002. The use of participatory methods for livelihood assetment in situations ofpolitical instability: A case study from Kosovo. Overseas Development Institute Report No. 190.

Ⓒ ISERD

25