came into effect in 1989, the cutting of wood has been prohibited in Thailand, and
now wood can only be used in small quantities for private purposes, such as house
construction. In even smaller amounts and based on a so-called “hidden agreement”
with the National Park authorities, timber extraction for constructing dwellings
inside protected areas is tolerated.
5.4.2 Poverty and Short-Term Soil Fertility Maintenance
in Northern Vietnam
In Yen Chau, the use of mineral fertilizer is a key determinant of short-term soil
fertility replenishment. Since, with an average share of 73 % of the households’
cultivable area, maize is the dominant crop in Yen Chau district, we investigated the
potential differences in fertilizer use and maize yields between wealth groups, again
applying both our absolute and relative poverty classifications. Our analysis was
based on panel data covering the years 2006–2010 (cf. Sect. 5.3.1), whereby we
made a differentiation between the climatically normal years of 2006–2009 and the
drought year of 2010. This drought was mentioned as a major shock and affected
the welfare of many households, and our analysis revealed that the drought-induced
loss was significantly larger for the wealthiest tercile than the poorest. As well as
exploring potential differences in short-term natural resource maintenance between
the wealth groups, our analysis of maize production also served to shed light on the
reported differences in drought-induced losses, as this section will discuss.
The upper half of Table 5.8 shows the major household maize cultivation
characteristics averaged across the non-drought years of 2006–2009, indicating
that while the absolute poverty classification for the maize area grown by the
poor was slightly larger than that of the non-poor, the relative poverty index showed
no difference between the poorest and wealthiest terciles. The middle tercile
allocated approximately one-third of a hectare less to maize on average than the
two other terciles. In terms of mineral fertilizer use, both poverty measures show
that the poor (the poorest tercile) used only around 65 % of the amount of fertilizer
with their maize as the non-poor (wealthier terciles). As a consequence, the nonpoor (wealthier terciles) achieved significantly higher yields and gross margins.
This finding was applicable to each individual year over the considered period
(2006–2009) (not shown in the table). The large and statistically highly significant
difference in gross margins between the middle and the wealthiest terciles may be
explained by differences in crop management practices, as well as the input prices
paid and output prices received.
The lower half of the table reveals that in the drought year 2010, differences
between wealth groups were much less pronounced. The poor (poorest tercile) still
used significantly less fertilizer on their maize than the non-poor (wealthier
terciles), but, relative to the amount applied by the wealthier terciles, the proportion
increased to approximately 80 % as compared to 65 % across the period
2006–2009. This may indicate a trend towards increasing fertilizer use in the
5 Linkages Between Agriculture, Poverty and Natural Resource Use. . .
201
now wood can only be used in small quantities for private purposes, such as house
construction. In even smaller amounts and based on a so-called “hidden agreement”
with the National Park authorities, timber extraction for constructing dwellings
inside protected areas is tolerated.
5.4.2 Poverty and Short-Term Soil Fertility Maintenance
in Northern Vietnam
In Yen Chau, the use of mineral fertilizer is a key determinant of short-term soil
fertility replenishment. Since, with an average share of 73 % of the households’
cultivable area, maize is the dominant crop in Yen Chau district, we investigated the
potential differences in fertilizer use and maize yields between wealth groups, again
applying both our absolute and relative poverty classifications. Our analysis was
based on panel data covering the years 2006–2010 (cf. Sect. 5.3.1), whereby we
made a differentiation between the climatically normal years of 2006–2009 and the
drought year of 2010. This drought was mentioned as a major shock and affected
the welfare of many households, and our analysis revealed that the drought-induced
loss was significantly larger for the wealthiest tercile than the poorest. As well as
exploring potential differences in short-term natural resource maintenance between
the wealth groups, our analysis of maize production also served to shed light on the
reported differences in drought-induced losses, as this section will discuss.
The upper half of Table 5.8 shows the major household maize cultivation
characteristics averaged across the non-drought years of 2006–2009, indicating
that while the absolute poverty classification for the maize area grown by the
poor was slightly larger than that of the non-poor, the relative poverty index showed
no difference between the poorest and wealthiest terciles. The middle tercile
allocated approximately one-third of a hectare less to maize on average than the
two other terciles. In terms of mineral fertilizer use, both poverty measures show
that the poor (the poorest tercile) used only around 65 % of the amount of fertilizer
with their maize as the non-poor (wealthier terciles). As a consequence, the nonpoor (wealthier terciles) achieved significantly higher yields and gross margins.
This finding was applicable to each individual year over the considered period
(2006–2009) (not shown in the table). The large and statistically highly significant
difference in gross margins between the middle and the wealthiest terciles may be
explained by differences in crop management practices, as well as the input prices
paid and output prices received.
The lower half of the table reveals that in the drought year 2010, differences
between wealth groups were much less pronounced. The poor (poorest tercile) still
used significantly less fertilizer on their maize than the non-poor (wealthier
terciles), but, relative to the amount applied by the wealthier terciles, the proportion
increased to approximately 80 % as compared to 65 % across the period
2006–2009. This may indicate a trend towards increasing fertilizer use in the
5 Linkages Between Agriculture, Poverty and Natural Resource Use. . .
201