UMAOYA UPPER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT UWMP IN SRI LANKA: THE IMPACTS AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL By J. M.

1
UMA-OYA UPPER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
(UWMP) IN SRI LANKA THE IMPACTS AT HOUSEHOLD
LEVELByJ. M. U. I. JayaweeraMangala De
ZoysaDepartment of Agricultural Economics,
University of Ruhuna, Sri LankaDayananda
KariyawasamForest Department, Sri Lanka
2
BACKGROUND

• Uma-Oya catchment covers 768-km2 land with
• Natural forest

• Tea estates, rice, potato and vegetable
  cultivation in steep slopes
• Home-garden cultivation without soil
  conservation

• -Severe soil erosion

3

• UWMP initiated
• With the assistance of ADB
• To address land degradation problems
• For socio-economic growth through environmental
  stabilization

4

• The project was
• A farmer lead Integrated Watershed Management
  endeavor
• Coordinated implementing agencies at community
  level

5

• Management approach was a combination of
• Farming Systems Approach for farmers own
  resources and
• Watershed Approach for common property resources

6

• The Project spent average
• Rs. 26,081 (US 274) / ha
• To improve knowledge of households
• For environment conservation and
• Improvement of sustainable farming system

7
OBJECTIVE

• To ascertain socio-economic profile of households
  in the watershed
• To analyze improvement of household knowledge on
  environment conservation
• To assess influence of socio-economic characters
  of households for conservation of environment

8
METHODOLOGY

• Study conducted in villages selected from
• With-project area (70 households)
• Without-project area (70 households)
• Field survey
• Interviewed households and
• Observed actual field conditions.

9
SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF HOUSEHOLDS
10

• Age Composition

Percentages are in parentheses The
Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test Observed vs.
Expected frequencies Significant at p 0.05
11
(No Transcript)
12
Age Composition con

• Similar composition in project and non-project
  areas
• Majority belongs to working age group (19 55
  years)
• 52 are male - better contribution for watershed
  management

13
Occupational Status
Percentages are in parentheses Yates corrected
Chi-square N gt 15 (2 x 2)
14
(No Transcript)
15
Occupational Status con

• Others - mainly hired labor in tea plantations
• Project has not changed households from
  non-farming to farming
• Non-farming households prefer labor occupations
  despite poor wages

16
Educational Level

• Percentages are in parentheses
• The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test

17
(No Transcript)
18
Educational Levelcon

• 21 households are illiterate (National average
  92.5)
• 31 have only primary education
• Project has no influence to promote education

19
Ownership of lands
Percentages are in parentheses The Gamma
Statistic G
20
(No Transcript)
21
Ownership of lands con

• Households cultivate crops and rare animals
• Only 32 on own lands
• 68 cultivate lands without proper ownership
• Project has
• Not considered ownership in selecting area
• Not attempted to change land ownership

22
Extent of lands (Hectares)
Percentages are in parentheses
23
(No Transcript)
24
Extent of lands..con

• Very low land man ratio (0.36) has created
• Socio-economic problems and
• Severe environmental hazards
• 68 households utilize non-owned lands
• Mostly (40) encroached lands
• If encroachment continued
• Unable to reap expecting benefits of UWMP
• Rapid destruction of environment.

25
Annual Family Income Distribution
Percentages are in parentheses The
Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test
26
(No Transcript)
27
Annual family income Distribution

..con

• Average annual income of Rs. 51,250 (US 550)
• Below national average of Rs. 80,000 (US 830)
• 59 below average income in watershed
• Project has not improved the income of
  beneficiaries

28

• KNOWLEDGE OF ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION

29
Knowledge of Environment Conservation

• Objective to uplift
• Knowledge on watershed environment
• Skills in environment conservation
• Through demonstrations and training programs
• Trained on main conservation methods
• Physical - Slip and spot drain, and stone terries
• Agronomic - SALT, reforestation and low tillage

30
Knowledge of Environment Conservation con

• Knowledge is measured
• Using 5 point Likert Scale
• 1-very bad, 2-bad, 3-Indifferent, 4-good and
  5-very good

31
Knowledge on environment conservation
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Two-sample Test
Significant at p0.05
32
Knowledge of Environment Conservation con

• Project beneficiaries have
• Sufficient knowledge on physical soil
  conservation
• Very poor knowledge on agronomic soil
  conservation
• Very bad knowledge of households in non-project
  area on
• Impact of soil erosion and
• Soil conservation methods
• Very destructive situation

33
CONSERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT
34

• Degree of environment Conservation
• Evaluated using the score methods
• Ranging from 0 to 100
• Through a thorough observation
• Scores based on expectation of project and
  achievement of
• Soil erosion control
• Improvement of soil fertility and
• Regeneration of vegetation

35
Degree of environment conservation
Percentages are in parentheses The
Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test Significant at
p0.05
36
(No Transcript)
37

• Degree of environment Conservation
• 
  con
• 58 households improved environment more than 50
  
• They poorly scored for regeneration of vegetation
• Only few adopted agronomic methods
• SALT
• Reforestation and
• Low tillage

38

• Degree of environment Conservation
• 
  con

• Impact on productivity of land
• Slow under physical conservation methods
• Rapid under agronomic conservation methods
• Lack of financial benefits prevent non-farming
  households to enter farming

39
Factors Influencing Degree of Environment
Conservation
Spearman Rank Order Correlation Significant
at p0.05
40
Factors Influencing Environment Conservation con

• Demonstration and training highly influenced
  knowledge
• Low-income households not adopted low cost
  agronomic conservation measures
• Low education influenced to neglect or damage
  environment
• Increase extent of land reduce degree of
  conservation

41
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
42

• Conclusions
• The project has not influenced to change
• Farming non-farming ratio
• Educational level of family members
• Land ownership
• Extent of lands
• Income and income distribution
• Poor adoption of agronomic conservation methods
  has prevented households in reaping higher income

43

• Conclusions. con
• Project improved knowledge on soil erosion,
  impacts of soil erosion and environment
  conservation remarkably
• The households have successfully adopted the
  conservation measures in their lands.
• Educational levels, extent of land and knowledge
  have influenced the households to conserve lands.

44
Policy implications

• Promote educational of families and secure land
  ownership to sustainably conserve environment of
  watershed in long run.
• Improve knowledge and encourage them to adopt
  agronomic conservation methods to
• Generate more income
• Attract for sustainable agriculture and
• Conserve the environment.