Incentives of land users in projects of soil and water conservation, the weight of intangibles
Many studies of soil and water conservation in third world situations show that among the farmers' incentives the commercial view on rural management is important and that at the same time intangible considerations are playing an important role. Traditional belief, local customs as well as inner conviction are also significant in the farmer's life. An example of incentives of land husbandry in the first world is given by a case of the Swiss Alp-farming. Their great attachment to this type of farming as well as the national support for mountain farmers' income play a role. In activities aimed at improvement of rural development in a third world country, the viewpoint of the expert may easily dominate any kind of plan making because of his position in the projects. However, his cultural background may limit his understanding of the rural situation in countries foreign to him. This has frequently lead to misjudging the importance of other than commercial incentives. A critical self-appraisal of motives and attitude to life by the adviser would often be needed in order to take immaterial incentives into account in development projects and in the achievement of agricultural policy. From the experience obtained in the third world and from the case study of the european alp-farming, the weight of intangibles in the land users' incentives appears as one of the crucial factors in rural management. This weight will grow with the present increasing need for sustainable agricultural productivity as well as with the need to create a sustained use of the environment in many parts of the world.
BETTER LAND HUSBANDRY: RE-THINKING APPROACHES TO LAND IMPROVEMENT AND THE CONSERVATION OF WATER AND SOIL
Soil erosion has conventionally been perceived as the chief cause of land degradation, yet the limited effectiveness and poor uptake of widely promoted physical and biological anti-erosion methods challenges this logic. An alternative perception focusing on prior land damage notably to soil cover, architecture and fertility permits an holistic, farmer-centred approach which has generated positive response to date.
Trade, exchange rate, and agricultural pricing policies in Thailand
Thailand is still largely an agricultural country. In 1984, agricultural work was still the main source of earnings for more than 70 percent of the population. For much of the 25 year period covered by this report, government intervention in the prices of rice, maize, and natural rubber was extensive. For these products, intervention took the form of explicit export taxes and restrictive quotas. Sugar, on the other hand, was imported until 1960. For many years prior to that, government policy was to encourage growers and thus achieve self-sufficiency. One conclusion of this study is that the Thai sugar industry would have shrunk dramatically if the government had refrained from intervention. Intervention in the prices of rice and natural rubber had the effect of penalizing farm producers by reducing their output prices. There was, as a consequence a shift of resources towards Thailand's small industrial sector. In 1981, the Thai government lifted its quota restrictions, and liberalized its trade by eliminating its intervention in the maize, rice, sugar and natural rubber markets. Unfortunately for export growers, however, the gradual elimination of intervention was overshadowed by sharp declines in the world prices of Thailand's major agricultural exports.