Cost-Benefit Analysis of Fruit
Tree Based Agro-Forestry
Systems: The Case of The Htee
Pu Climate-Smart Village,
Nyaung-U Township, Central
Dry Zone, Myanmar
Alessandro Manilay
Phyu Sin Thant 
Chan Myae
Wilson John Barbon
Julian Gonsalves
Correct citation 
Manilay A, Thant PS, Myae C, Barbon WJ, Gonsalves, J. 2022. Cost-Benefit Analysis of
Fruit Tree Based Agro-Forestry Systems: The Case of The Htee Pu Climate-Smart
Village, Nyaung-U Township, Central Dry Zone, Myanmar. Wageningen, the
Netherlands: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food
Security (CCAFS). 
 
About CCAFS
The CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
(CCAFS) is led by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), part of the
Alliance of Biodiversity International and CIAT, and carried out with support from
the CGIAR Trust Fund and through bilateral funding agreements. For more
information, please visit https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors. 
 
Contact us
CCAFS Program Management Unit, Wageningen University & Research, Lumen
building, Droevendaalsesteeg 3a, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands. Email:
ccafs@cgiar.org
Photos: International Institute of Rural Reconstruction
Disclaimer: 
This report has not been peer reviewed. Any opinions stated herein are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of CCAFS, donor
agencies, or partners. All images remain the sole property of their source and may
not be used for any purpose without written permission of the source.
 
This Report is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial 4.0
International License.
2022 CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
(CCAFS).
 
Abstract
Htee Pu is a farming village located in the Central Dry Zone of Myanmar, where
drought, high atmospheric temperature, and infertile and degraded soils are
constraints to sustaining and increasing agricultural productivity and farm income.
Dryland fruit-tree-based agroforestry and the raising of goats were the prominent
CSA options introduced to supplement the risk-prone prevalent annual cropping
systems. This study was conducted to measure the financial benefits of introducing
dryland-appropriate fruit trees (with one group having an additional
complementary goat component) to Htee Pu households. The Cost and Return
Analysis, Payback Period for Investment Analysis, and Household Liquidity Analysis
were the analytical methods that were used in the study. Estimating the Net Value
generated from potential fruit harvests showed that planting fruit trees on farms or
homesteads can be highly profitable. Adding the financial benefits from fruit trees
to the households’ farm and off-farm income resulted in improvements in the
liquidity condition of a number of households. While the Cost-Benefit Analysis
results were less impressive than the fruit tree project, the longer-term outcomes
would improve once all the female goat breeders had reached their reproductive
age. Goats would be significant additional sources of income and food for home
consumption, thus a relevant CSA option as well.
i
Keywords
Climate smart agriculture, climate smart villages, cost-benefit analysis, agro-forestry
systems
iiii
About the authors
Alessandro Manilay is a Technical Consultant/Economist for the Cost and Benefit
Analysis (CBA) at the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. Email:
amanilay07@gmail.com.
Phyu Sin Thant is the Country Researcher at the International Institute of Rural
Reconstruction-Myanmar. Email: phyu.thant@iirr.org
Chan Myae is a Project Coordinator at the International Institute of Rural
Reconstruction-Myanmar. Email: chan.myae@iirr.org
Wilson John Barbon is the Country Director for Myanmar at the International
Institute of Rural Reconstruction. Email: wilsonjohn.barbon@iirr.org.
Julian Gonsalves is the Senior Program Advisor for Asia at the International Institute
of Rural Reconstruction. Email: juliangonsalves@yahoo.com.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract...................................................................................................................................................................i
Keywords...............................................................................................................................................................ii
About the Authors.........................................................................................................................................iii
List of Tables.......................................................................................................................................................v
Acronyms..............................................................................................................................................................1
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................2
Objective of the Study.................................................................................................................................3
Methodology......................................................................................................................................................3
Mode and year of data collection and location of the study.................................3
Sample size determination...........................................................................................................3
Analytical methods used in the study..................................................................................4
Results and Discussion...............................................................................................................................6
Group 1: Households that Planted Fruit Trees in Their Farms...................................6
Characteristics of the households...........................................................................................6
Value Estimation of Fruits to be Harvested......................................................................8
Household Liquidity Analysis......................................................................................................11
Sources of income of the 30 households...........................................................................11
Income from agricultural crops.............................................................................................11
Income from own microenterprise.....................................................................................12
Income from off-farm employment...................................................................................12
Household Liquidity based on Farm and Off-farm Sources of 
Incomeless Household Expenses.............................................................................................12
Financial impact of planting fruit trees on household liquidity......................13
Group 2: Households that Planted Fruit Trees in conjunction with Goats......14
Characteristics of the households...........................................................................................14
Value Estimation of Fruits to be Harvested and Goats Raised in 
the Homesteads..................................................................................................................................16
Household Liquidity Analysis.....................................................................................................21
Other sources of income...............................................................................................................21
Household liquidity status based on income from farming 
and off-farm employment...........................................................................................................22
Impact of adding financial benefits from raising fruit trees and goats 
on household liquidity....................................................................................................................23
Summary and Conclusions....................................................................................................................24
References.........................................................................................................................................................27
iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Total number of households......................................................................................................3
Table 2. Number and type of fruit trees planted per year by 
households (Group 1).........................................................................................................................................7
Table 3. Gross value of fruits per household by type of fruit trees per farm 
at growing and mature fruiting age of trees (Group 1).............................................................7
Table 4. Assumptions used in estimating the gross value of fruits 
from trees planted in farms (Group 1.....................................................................................................8
Table 5. Gross value, operating cost, and net value of fruits by combination 
of fruit trees at growing and mature fruiting age of trees (Group 1)...............................9
Table 6. Operating profit margin ratio (OPMR) by type of fruit trees planted
per household (Group 1)Table 6. Operating profit margin ratio (OPMR)
by type of fruit trees planted per household (Group 1)............................................................10
Table 7. Payback period for investing in fruit trees (Group 1)...............................................11
Table 8. Dry zone crops planted by 30 households (Group 1)...............................................11
Table 9. Income of 30 households from crops planted 
in their farms (Group 1)...................................................................................................................................12
Table 10. Household liquidity based on income from farming and 
off-farm sources (Group 1)............................................................................................................................13
Table 11. Improvement in liquidity status of 30 households after adding the 
gross value of harvested fruits (Group 1)............................................................................................13
Table 12. Number and type of live fruit trees planted per year and number 
household recipients (Group 2)...............................................................................................................14
Table 13. Types of fruit trees planted in homesteads by households (Group 2).....15
Table 14. Number of goats raised and number of households participating 
in IIRR goat project by year (Group 2)..................................................................................................16
Table 15. Assumptions used in estimating the gross value of fruits from trees 
planted in homesteads (Group 2)...........................................................................................................16
Table 16. Gross value, operating cost, and net value of fruits by combination 
of fruit trees by growing and mature fruiting age of trees (Group 2) ...........................17
Table 17. Operating profit margin by combination of fruit trees planted 
in homestead per household (Group 2)) ...........................................................................................18
Table 18. Payback period for investing in fruit trees (Group 2)............................................19
Table 19. Cost and return analysis of raising goats by 9 households that sold
or consumed goats in 2020 (Group 2) ................................................................................................20
Table 20. Estimated year that invested cost can be recovered by homestead 
goat-raisers(Group 2).......................................................................................................................................20
v
Table 21. Number of households that planted dry zone crops (Group 2)....................21
Table 22. Total and average net value generated by 12 households from 
raising dry zone crops(Group 2................................................................................................................21
Table 23. Off-farm sources of income by number of households generating 
the income and amount of income earned (Group 2)............................................................22
Table 24. Household liquidity based on income from farming and off-farm 
sources (Group 2) 38........................................................................................................................................22
Table 25. Household liquidity after adding the benefits from planting fruit 
trees and raising goats (Group 2) ..........................................................................................................23
vi
Acronyms 
CCAFS               Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
CDA                   Canada and the Community Development Association
CSA                    Climate Smart Agriculture
CSV                    Climate Smart Village
IDRC                  International Development Research Centre
IIRR                    International Institute for Rural Reconstruction
1
Introduction
The Dry Zone in Central Myanmar is an arid region where annual precipitation
seldom exceeds 40 inches (1,000 mm), and the temperature reaches a maximum of
43 degrees Celsius during the summer period (MOAI, 2015 & NCEA, 2010). This is in
contrast to the other parts of the country, such as the Coastal Region, which
experiences rainfall that reaches a maximum of 179 inches per year and where the
maximum temperature seldom exceeds 31 degrees Celsius (Thein, 2005). As a result
of this uneven distribution of rainfall and extreme temperature, drought, water
scarcity, and infertile soil with low water retention capacity become a significant
setback in increasing agricultural productivity in the Central Dry Zone (Yee &
Nawata, 2014). This condition is a consequence of past human activities that led to
the denudation of lush natural forests that used to exist in the area (Sein & Htun,
2013 & Tun, 2000). The current state of natural resources and the existing ecosystem
in the Central Dry Zone pose a significant challenge to farming communities in the
area.
 Nyaung-U Township of the Mandalay region, which houses the Htee Pu Village, has
the lowest rainfall intensity among townships within the Central Dry Zone. Rainfall
data of the area from 2007 to 2017 shows that precipitation was lowest in 2009 at
only 13.5 inches, while the maximum was recorded in 2011 at 40.3 inches. The
maximum temperature ranges from 33 to 35 degrees Celsius (International Institute
of Rural Reconstruction, 2018). Subsistence farming is an everyday economic activity
among the households in Htee Pu Village, where farmers grow sesame, pigeon pea,
horse gram, tomato, and groundnut, as well as small livestock. They are greatly
dependent on the rain to grow their crops.
 To complement the existing annual-crop-based livelihood of the households in
Htee Pu, fruit tree agroforestry and backyard goat-raising were introduced in 2018
by the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) with the support of the
Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) Southeast Asia,
International Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada and the Community
Development Association (CDA), a local Myanmar NGO. These Climate-Smart
Agriculture (CSA) technologies were aimed at helping farmers adapt to the harsh
climatic conditions of the Central Dry Zone through diversification of cropping
systems and the introduction of a biodiverse range of fruit tree species and small
livestock. The project was completed in 2020.
2
Objectives of the study
 The study was conducted to estimate the current and future financial benefits to the
farm households in Htee Pu Village by adopting fruit tree-based agroforestry and
goat-raising. 
Specifically, the study was conducted to: 
1.Estimate the net financial benefits that households could generate from planting
fruit trees on their farms or homesteads;
2.Estimate the net financial benefits that could be generated from goats’
components that complement fruit trees; and
3.Determine the effect of planting fruit trees and raising goats on household
liquidity.
Methodology
Mode and year of data collection and The sample sizes for each of the two
location of the study groups were determined following the
Primary data for this study were minimum requirements for a
generated through personal interviews representative statistical sample. For the
of households in the village of Htee Pu first group, the sample size was initially
in the Nyaung-U Township of the determined using the Krejcie and Morgan
Central Dry Zone using a structured equation based on a 95% confidence level
questionnaire. Data gathering was (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970) which yielded a
done in 2021. sample size of 45. However, this was
further reduced to 30 households,
considering the mobility issues brought
Sample size determination by the Covid-19 pandemic and political
The households were classified into issues in the country. 
two groups based on the adapted type
of CSA. The first group is composed of On the other hand, since there were only
51 households that planted fruit trees 21 households under the second group,
around their farmland. On the other the number was retained as the sample
hand, the second group is composed size for the case study. The resulting
of 21 households that planted fruit sample sizes are presented in Table 1. 
trees while raising goats within their
homesteads. 
Table 1. Total number of households 3
Analytical methods used in the study
Cost and Return Analysis
The Cost and Return Analysis measured the financial benefit to the Htee Pu
households that adopted agroforestry as a climate-smart technology. Estimates of
the households’ Gross Value (GV) were compared with the estimates of the
operating costs incurred in employing the technology. The GV represents the
potential market value of fruits that can be harvested from the fruit trees planted
by the households on their farms, regardless of whether they are sold or consumed
at home. The Net Value (NV) was obtained by taking the difference between the
GV and the operating cost.
Since fruit trees are perennial crops, it would take three to five years before they
become productive. Thus, the study estimated the Gross Value by valuing the
potential annual fruit harvests once the trees reach their fruit-bearing stage. The
prevailing farmgate prices of the fruits in 2021 in Htee Pu were used in the
valuation. On the other hand, costs were estimated by determining the costs of
materials and hired labor incurred in applying fertilizer, watering, weeding, and
harvesting the fruits. 
Financial benefits from goat raising were similarly determined using the Cost and
Return Analysis method. Gross Value was estimated based on the income from the
sale of goats, the market value of goats consumed at home, and the market value
of offspring produced by the start-up (breeder) female goats. Costs related to
raising the goats (e.g., cost of commercial feeds, vaccines, hired labor) were
subtracted from the Gross Value to arrive at the Net Value.
Profitability Analysis
 The Profitability Analysis is an important component of the Cost and Return
Analysis. After the Cost and Return Analysis has determined the profit (termed as
“Net Value” in this study), the profitability analysis measures how “profitable” the
Net Value is in relation to the GV. This study used the Operating Profit Margin Ratio
(OPMR) to gauge the profitability of growing fruit trees and raising goats. The
OPMR reflects the percentage of Net Value (profit) the farmer retains out of the
GV. A high percent value is preferred over a lower one. For instance, an OPMR of
65% means that a farmer keeps 65% of the GV as his profit while the remaining
35% pays for his operating expenses. On the other hand, an OPMR of 10% means
that the farmer only retains 10% of his GV as profit while 90% goes to expenses. A
low OPMR of 10% indicates that the farmer is operating in a disadvantaged
position and will continue to do so unless his operating costs are minimized. On
the other hand, the farmer with a 65% OPMR is better off because he is getting
more than half of the GV as earnings, while 35% goes to his expenses in the farm
operation.
4
Investment Analysis
 The Payback Period (PP) is a simple method used to evaluate climate-smart
interventions in terms of the time (in years) it would take to recover the cost of
establishing the fruit farm or starting a goat herd through the accumulated yearly
gross earnings. A short recovery period makes an investment more attractive than
another with a longer recovery period. 
Household Liquidity Analysis
 The Household Liquidity Analysis was another analytical method used to determine a
household's cash position by summing up all of the family's annual income. The
change in household liquidity following the financial benefits from climate-smart
technology(ies) was estimated by comparing the average income of households with
the technology (ies) against their average income without the technology(ies). The
Average Net Value, which considers both the produce sold and those consumed at
home, represents the amount of household income with the technology(ies).
5
Results & Discussion 
 Fruit-tree agroforestry is a practical and low-cost means of diversifying agricultural
production, especially for small-scale producers in Htee Pu. It is another avenue for
income generation and reducing food insecurity among village households
(Thangata, 2002). Fruit trees can also provide the villagers with dietary requirements
for vitamins and other nutrients needed by the body (Marais et al., 2019). Upon
consultation with the local community in Htee Pu, mango was chosen as a primary
tree crop because it is known to tolerate rainfall variability while fetching assured
incomes. Aside from mango, a range of tree species that tolerated poor soil
conditions and erratic weather was also selected, including guava, lime, lemon,
custard apple, and dragon fruit. All fruit tree planting materials were secured from
local nurseries, thus providing some assurance that these were locally adapted
cultivars.
Goats are the preferred livestock species that can complement an agroforestry
project (Preston and Gomez, 2018). Goats are browsers of foliage and do not pose a
threat to the fruit trees and crops as long as the backyard raisers manage their
feeding behavior well, i.e., by harvesting forage and feeding the animals themselves
instead of allowing them to graze freely. Furthermore, goat raising is considered to
be a gender-positive livelihood activity because goats are “traditionally managed by
women” (Leeger & Gold, 2013). Finally, the Central Dry Zone is  known for the Bagan
breeds of goats which the project endorsed and promoted as a way of conserving
valuable livestock agrobiodiversity
Group 1: Households that Planted Fruit Trees in Their Farms
Characteristics of the households
Number of household members Area of farm land and land ownership
The majority (84%) of the 30 households The area of the respondents’ farms
in Htee Pu had three to five members. ranged between 0.80 to 6.1 hectares. The
Five percent of the households had only average size was 2.25 hectares. All
two family members, while 11% had six. In households own the land that they farm.
total, there were 113 persons living in the Fruit trees grown by the households
households under Group 1. Planting fruit trees was done in three
Age of family members years, from 2018 to 2020, with all 30
The age of the family members ranged households planting mango trees on
between 5 to 87 years old. The majority their farms (Table 2). A total of 2,110 live
(54%) were young adults (20 to 29 and 30 to mango trees were accounted for during
39 years old) and middle-aged persons (40 the interview. In addition to mangoes, the
to 49 years old). The proportion of the households also planted pomegranate,
younger family members (1 to 19 years old) custard apple, lime, and guava trees,
to the total household age distribution was although in varying combinations of the
only 15%, while the older members (50 to kind of trees. Table 2 also presents the
80 years old) was 31%. population of these other trees.
Altogether, 2,657 live fruit trees were
reported by the households. 6
Table 2. Number and type of fruit trees planted per year by households (Group 1)
Types of fruit trees planted by number of households
 The project emphasized biodiverse agroforestry systems relying on intra- and inter-species
diversification (as a hedge against crop failure). A diverse range of climate-hardy fruit tree
species with different maturity periods (short, medium, and long) was introduced. The number
of households classified by the type and the number of fruit trees planted on their farms is
summarized in Table 3. Seven (7) households planted mango, lime, and pomegranate with 479
trees. Six (6) households planted 587 mango, lime, custard apple, and pomegranate trees.
Another six (6) households chose to grow mango, lime, and custard apple, totaling 574 trees.
Four (4) households planted a combination of mango, lime, custard apple, pomegranate, and
guava, totaling 526 trees. Three (3) households planted mango, lime, guava, and pomegranate,
totaling 301 trees. Lastly, there were solo households that planted other combinations of fruit
trees.
Table 3. Gross value of fruits per household by type of fruit trees per farm at growing and mature fruiting age of
trees (Group 1)
7
Value Estimation of Fruits to be Harvested
Assumptions used in estimating the value of fruits
The assumptions that were used to estimate the value of the fruits to be harvested are
presented in Table 4. Included in the assumptions were the fruit-bearing age of the trees,
yield per tree, and farmgate prices. The fruit-bearing age of most of the trees varied in
terms of the earliest and latest year that the trees would start producing fruits. Taking a
conservative stance, this analysis used the maximum number of years for the trees to
reach the productive stage to determine which year each type of tree will start bearing
fruits. The earliest fruit-bearers are custard apples and pomegranate. These perennials
will reach their fruit-bearing age three years after planting. The mango trees would take
the longest time (5 years) before they could be productive. A lesser yield was expected
during the first five years of fruiting (growing stage). Thereafter, the harvest volume
would increase when the perennials reach their mature age, where the maximum yield
can be attained. This is assumed to be after five years of fruiting.
Table 4. Assumptions used in estimating the gross value of fruits from trees planted in farms (Group 1)
Gross and net value of fruits to be harvested by the households
Produce harvested from the fruit trees is sold to buyers or consumed at home. Since not
all fruits are expected to be sold, the term Gross Value, instead of Gross Revenue, was
applied to refer to the value of the potential annual harvest from the perennials. Annual
fruit production was valued by applying the average farmgate prices presented in Table 4.
In computing Gross Value, possible changes in farmgate prices due to market movements
and inflation were not factored in. The value increases only reflected the increases in yield
per tree and the number of trees reaching their fruit-bearing age over time. In addition,
the Net Value (as a substitute term for Net Income or Profit) was also derived by
subtracting the Operating Costs incurred by the households for raising the trees from the
Gross Value. 
 The Gross and Net Value was estimated for each of the 30 households depending on the
type of fruit trees planted on their farm. The computation was based on the maximum
potential quantity of harvest during the growing and mature stages of the trees.
Table 5 summarizes the Gross and Net Value of potential fruit harvest grouped into the
type of trees planted by households. The total Operating Costs incurred by the households
under each subgroup are also shown in the table. Each of the households that planted
mango, lime, 
8
custard apple, guava, and pomegranate would be able to harvest fruits with an average
maximum Gross Value equivalent to USD 754.00 per year during the growing stage of
the trees. Subtracting the operating cost (fertilizer, hired labor for fertilizer application,
field clearing, and harvesting), these households would generate a “profit” (average Net
Value) of USD 550.00. When the trees reach their mature fruiting age, the households
would be able to harvest fruits with a maximum average annual Gross Value of USD
1,507.00 and a Net Value of USD 1,303.00. 
Households that planted mango, lime, custard apple, and pomegranate would be able to
harvest fruits with an average Gross Value of USD 594.00 and USD 1,188.00 during the
growing stage and when the trees reach their maximum productivity, respectively. The
Net Value to be generated would be USD 563.00 and USD 1,157.00 during the growing
and mature stages of the trees. 
The average Gross Value of fruits that would be harvested by households that planted
mango, lime, and pomegranate was estimated to be USD 431.00 and USD 863.00 during
the growing and maturity stages of the trees. Profit (Net Value) would be USD 406.00
and USD 837.00 for the two stages of tree growth. 
The households with mango, lime, and custard apple trees would be able to harvest fruits
with an average Gross Value of USD 569.00 and USD 1,138.00 during the two stages of
fruit-bearing. The corresponding Net Value would be USD 557.00 and USD 1,126.00,
respectively. 
Three households planted mango, lime, guava, and pomegranate. Fruit harvest from
these trees would have an average Gross Value of USD 590.00 at the growing stage and
USD 1,180.00 upon maturity of the trees. “Profit” was estimated at an average of USD
579.00 during the growth stage and USD 1,180.00 upon maturity. The Gross and Net
Value of fruits harvested by the remaining households are also shown in Table 5. 
All 30 households, regardless of the type of fruit trees they planted, would generate a
total Annual Gross Value of USD 15,944.00 from the 2,657 trees during the growing stage
a corresponding total Net Value of USD 14,573.00. When the trees mature, the total Gross
Value will increase to USD 31,884.00, while the total Net Value will be USD 30,549.00.
Table 5. Gross value, operating cost, and net value of fruits by combination of fruit trees at growing and
mature fruiting age of trees (Group 1)
9
Profitability of growing fruit trees
The total cost of maintaining the fruit trees was reported to be USD 1,370.00 for all 30
households. The cost includes expenses for fertilizer and wages for hired labor for fertilizer
application, harvesting and other farm maintenance costs. This amount represents only
8.6% of the total Gross Value of fruits at the growing stage and 4.3% of the total Gross
Value when the trees reach their mature stage. With a minimal Operating Cost, growing
the types of fruit trees selected by the households can be considered to be highly
profitable. A profitability analysis using the Operating Profit Margin Ratio (OPMR) showed
that, in each combination of fruit trees, the Net Value or “profit” showed very high values of
OPMR (Table 6). Considering profit at the growing stage, the OPMR ranged between 73%
to 99%. This indicates that the households would be able to retain 73% to 99% of their
Gross Value after deducting their operating costs. Upon reaching the trees’ mature stage,
the expected increase in the volume of harvest would also increase “gross sales” (Gross
Value), thereby resulting in higher values of OPMR. This analysis assumes that the
households are the ones that will be directly involved in caring for the trees as well as
harvesting and selling the fruits. 
Table 6. Operating profit margin ratio (OPMR) by type of fruit trees planted per household (Group 1)
Investment cost and Payback period
The 30 households would be spending USD 2,349.00 as an investment cost in raising fruit
trees (Table 7). This would include the cost of seedlings, basal fertilizer, and hired labor for
planting. By comparing the total cost to the expected Gross Value of fruits that can be
harvested as early as the growing stage, we can conclude that the investment cost could
be recovered in less than five years (Payback Period) after the trees start bearing fruits. The
gross earnings after that period would all go to “profit” and cover any maintenance cost.
10
Table 7. Payback period for investing in fruit trees (Group 1)
Household Liquidity Analysis 
Sources of income of the 30 households
 The 30 households generate income from a combination of income-generating activities:
growing and selling dry zone crops, operating a microenterprise, and holding off-farm
skilled or unskilled jobs. The liquidity of each household in 2021 based on their reported
source(s) of income is reported below.
Income from agricultural crops
Pigeon pea was grown by 80% of the 30 households in 2021 (Table 8). The other crops
grown (in descending number of households) were tomato, groundnut, sorghum, and
sesame.
Table 8. Dry zone crops planted by 30 households (Group 1)
A cost and return analysis of the production and marketing of the crops revealed that
only 16 of the 30 households could generate a positive net income in 2021 from raising
the crops (Table 9). On average, these households earned USD 1,345.00 from their
farming activity. On the other hand, 14 households could not profit from the crops
they raised. Each household lost an average of USD 415.00. Some households ended
with a negative net income due to the high labor costs during the 2020 production
season to do planting and harvesting for field crops. 
11
Table 9. Income of 30 households from crops planted in their farms (Group 1)
Income from own microenterprise 
 Twelve (40%) of the 30 households own a micro business that provides additional family
income. Income ranged from MMK 200,000.00 (USD 120.85) to MMK 3.06 million (USD
1,849.00) for one year, or an average of MMK 1.12 million (USD 678.00) from operating a
micro business. 
Income from off-farm employment 
Off-farm employment includes casual labor (odd jobs from time to time), unskilled
employment (e.g., house help), and skilled formal employment (e.g., hospital worker,
driver). Fifty (50%) of the 30 households have family members that found odd jobs to earn
extra income. Earnings ranged from MMK 30,000.00 (USD 18.13) to MMK 1.26 million (USD
761.33) per year. On average, each of the 15 households earned MMK 397,000.00 (USD
240.00) from odd jobs. 
Six households had family members that generated additional income from skilled formal
employment such as working in factories. They earned an average of MMK 2.42 million
(USD 2,671.00) per year and ranged between MMK 1.44 million (USD 870.10) and MMK 4.2
million (USD 2,537.80). Lastly, three households earned extra income by working as
unskilled employees. The average revenue from this source of income was MMK 1.4 million
(USD 845.90). The income was between MMK 1.2 million (USD 725.10) and MMK 1.8 million
(USD 1,087.60).
Household Liquidity based on Farm and Off-farm Sources of
Incomeless Household Expenses
While almost half of the 30 households had a negative net income when revenue from
agricultural crops was solely considered, their total income improved when salary/wage
from off-farm employment and sales from microenterprises were included. However, after
deducting household expenses from income, the liquidity analysis showed that only 16 or
53% of the number of households exhibited a positive cash position (Table 10). They
generated an average annual income of MMK 3.97 Million (USD 2,401.00) while average
annual household expense was reported to be MMK 1.53 Million (USD 927.00). Thus, these
households were left with a positive balance of MMK 2.44 Million (USD 1,474.00). On the
other hand, 14 or 47% of the households were not liquid. The estimated average annual
income was only MMK 1,264.00 considering that several of these households reported a
negative income from farming, thereby reducing the positive gains obtained from off-farm
jobs. In contrast, their average household expense was MMK 1.84 Million (USD 1,114.00),
resulting in a negative balance.
12
Table 10. Household liquidity based on income from farming and off-farm sources (Group 1)
Financial impact of planting fruit trees on household liquidity
Measuring the potential benefit of planting fruit trees on household liquidity was
accomplished by adding the average Gross Value of potential harvest at the growth and
mature stages of the fruit trees to the total household income generated from farming
and off-farm employment. The liquidity analysis determined the number of households
that would be able to improve their liquidity from the benefits that would be gained from
planting fruit trees. 
By adding the Gross Value of fruits to be harvested during the growing stage to the
household income, three of the 14 households with a negative cash position would be able
to improve their liquidity and move up to a positive cash position (Table 11). The average
income of these households would increase from a negative MMK 1,841,665.00 (USD
1,113.00) to a positive value amounting to MMK 665,310.00 (USD 402.00). Eleven of the 14
households would remain to have a negative cash position. However, the negative income
would also improve, ie., from negative MMK 1,841,665.00 (USD 1,113.00) to negative MMK
1,658,310.00 (USD 1,002.00). Meanwhile, the average income of the 16 households that were
initially in a liquid position before adding the Gross Value of fruits would increase from
MMK 2,439,096.00 (USD 1,474.00) to MMK 3,267,104.00 (USD 1,974.00) after adding
“revenue” from fruit harvests. This represents a 34% increase in gross income. The outlook
improves further when the Gross Value of fruits during the mature stage is considered. The
average gross income would increase by 59%, ie., from MMK 2,439,096.00 (USD 1,474.00) to
MMK 3,889,250.00 (USD 2,350.00). 
13
Table 11. Improvement in liquidity status of 30 households after adding the gross value of harvested fruits (Group 1)
Group 2: Households that Planted Fruit Trees in
conjunction with Goats 
Characteristics of the households
Number of household members Area of farm land and land ownership
Twenty-one households in the village of  Fourteen of the 21 households own the
Htee Pu planted fruit trees and raised land that they farm. The remaining
goats in their homesteads. A total of 64 households do not engage in farming.
persons lives in these households. The The area of the farmlands ranged
number of family members occupying between 0.40 to 2.80 hectares, with an
the households ranged from one to six. average size of 1.96 hectares. 
The majority (58%) of the households
had two to three family members, Fruit trees grown by the households
while 29% had four to six. There were There are 456 live fruit trees in the
three households (14%) with single homesteads of the 21 households (Table
occupants. 12). These include custard apple, lime,
guava, pomegranate, dragon fruit, and
Age of family members jackfruit. The majority of these trees were
The age of the family members ranged planted in 2019 and 2020, where 193 (42%)
from 13 to 90 years old. Thirty-nine of the trees are custard apples. Jackfruits
percent were young adults (20 to 29 (7%) were the least preferred. 
and 30 to 39 years old), while 25% were It is worth noting that each household
in the middle age group (40 to 49 and planted more than one type of fruit tree
50 to 59 years old). The proportion of on their homestead. The number of
the younger family members (13 to 19 households and the types of fruit trees
years old) was only 11%, while the older planted in their homesteads are shown in
members (60 to 90 years old) was 25%. Table 13.
Table 12. Number and type of live fruit trees planted per year and number household recipients (Group 2)
14
Table 13. Types of fruit trees planted in homesteads by households (Group 2)
Number of goats raised by the households
In addition to planting fruit trees, the 21 households also participated in raising
goats under the IIRR-Myanmar’s CSV goat project. Initially, four (4) of the
households joined the project in 2018 to raise eight heads of female goats (doe) (e.g.,
two goats per household) (Table 14). The following year, six more households were
added, and altogether started with 14 female goats. No male goats (billies) were
procured since billy goats are available within the community. In 2020, 11
households joined the project, with 27 female and five (5) male goats. The total
number of goats that were procured as startup (breeder) herd summed up to 52
heads. 
In this study, it was assumed that female goats are mated when they are 12 months
old. While goats attain puberty in seven to 12 months, as a rule, the female “should
not be mated until it is one year old”. Twelve-month-old female goats are old
enough to give birth without suffering from any complications (TNAU, 2019). It is
also better to breed the doe once a year. The study also assumed that the
households purchased female goats when they are two months old at the start of a
calendar year and are ready for mating at the end of the year. Each doe produces
two offspring per gestation given a pregnancy period of five months (150 days)
(Stewart, 2021). Thus, for this study, each startup female goat bought in 2018 would
be able to produce two kids in 2019 and another set of two kids in 2020. In addition,
each two-month-old female goats bought in 2019 would produce two kids in 2020.
Thus, female goats bought in 2019 and 2020 would have collectively produced a
total of 48 kids by end of 2020. Adding the number of startup goats, the households
have in their possession 76 heads of goats by the end of 2020.
15
Table 14. Number of goats raised and number of households participating in IIRR goat project by year (Group 2)
Value Estimation of Fruits to be Harvested
Assumptions used in estimating the value of fruits
Table 15 presents the assumptions in estimating the Gross Value of fruits expected to be
harvested by the households from their homesteads. Included in the assumptions were
the number of years it would take for the trees to bear fruits, yield per tree, and farmgate
price. The assumptions adopted for custard apple, guava, lime, and pomegranate are the
same as the ones used earlier in estimating the Gross Value of fruits to be harvested from
trees planted by households under Group 1. Dragon fruit and jackfruit were added in
Table 15 since these perennials were planted by a number of households belonging to
Group 2.
Table 15. Assumptions used in estimating the gross value of fruits from trees planted in homesteads (Group 2)
Gross and Net Value of fruits to be harvested in homesteads
The 21 households differed in the kind and number of fruit trees they planted in their
homesteads. The various combinations of fruit trees and the number of households
under each combination were identified in Table 13. The Gross Value of fruits that can be
potentially harvested from the combination of trees present in each homestead was
estimated. Furthermore, the Net Value or “profit” was determined by deducting the
Operating Cost from the Gross Value. Note that the Operating Costs incurred by the
households in maintaining the fruit trees were minimal. 
16
Similar to Group 1, the computations were based on the year where the maximum
quantity of harvest could be obtained during the growing and mature stages of the trees.
On the other hand, the value of the Operating Cost was derived from the data obtained
from the household interviews when they were asked to recall their 2020 expenses. Table
16 presents a summary of the maximum Gross and Net Value of fruits to be harvested by
the households for one year. These were classified into the various combination of fruit
trees present in the homesteads. The Operating Costs that were reported by the
households are also shown. During the growing stage, the Total Gross and Net Value by
type of tree combination for one year would range from USD 98.00 to USD 3,780.00 and
from USD 98.00 to USD 3,771.00, respectively. The Gross Value per year that all 21
households could generate is USD 9,337.00, or an average of USD 4,456.00/household.
The Total Net Value for all households was estimated at USD 9,301.00 or USD 4,433.00 per
household.
During the mature fruit-bearing stage, the maximum Gross and Net Values across
combinations would range from USD 158.00 to USD 4,820.00 and from USD 158.00 to
USD 4,811.00, respectively. The same set of values for the Operating Cost used during the
growing stage was also applied during the mature stage. All 21 households could
collectively generate a maximum Gross Value of USD 12,479.00 per year or USD 5,636.00
per household. On the other hand, the total Net Value for all households would be USD
12,443.00 per year or USD 6,115.00 per household.
Table 16. Gross value, operating cost, and net value of fruits by combination of fruit trees by
growing and mature fruiting age of trees (Group 2) 17
Profitability of growing fruit trees 
With minimal expenses required to care for the fruit trees, almost 100% of the Net Value
of the fruits that the households will harvest could be retained as “profit.” Table 17 shows
that the “profit” that could be generated after deducting operating costs would range
from 95.9% to 100% during the growing stage and 97.9% to 100% during the mature
phase. A 100% OPMR indicates that households did not incur any operating expenses
until the interview for this study was conducted.
Table 17. Operating profit margin by combination of fruit trees planted in homestead per household (Group 2)
Investment cost and Payback period from planting fruit trees
The 21 households under Group 2 collectively spent USD 527.00 as an investment cost to
start raising the fruit trees (Table 18). This amount covered the cost of seedlings, land
preparation, hired labor for planting, and the cost of basal fertilizer application.
Considering the total Gross Value that could be generated, the investment cost could be
recovered in less than five years after fruit-bearing. The maximum Gross Value for one
year during the growing stage was estimated at USD 9,337.00, which significantly
exceeds the investment cost. Table 18 also shows that households under each sub-group,
based on the combination of trees planted, would have a payback period of less than five
years after the trees start bearing fruits. 
18
Table 18. Payback period for investing in fruit trees (Group 2)
Cost and return analysis of raising goats
The profitability of raising goats was analyzed for the year 2020. The cost and return data
used in the analysis were obtained from nine households that joined the goat project in
2018 and 2019 (except for one of the households that consumed the goats in 2018, the
same year that the goats were purchased). The Gross Value was estimated by
considering the market value of the goats sold or consumed at home. In addition, the
Gross Value estimation included the value of kids produced but not yet sold by 2020. The
analysis considered the unsold kids as a “savings-in-kind” that the household can sell
when needed. The total Gross Value of the nine households was estimated to be MMK 2.
68 million (USD 1,619.00). 
Based on costs incurred in 2020, the Operating Cost amounted to MMK 1.83 Million (USD
1,108.00). It included expenses for commercial feeds, veterinary supplies, and hired labor.
The latter represents 92% of the total cost. The interviews with the households revealed
that they hire labor to care for the goats instead of using family labor. The cost of hired
labor also covers using the hired labor’s homestead to house the goats. 
    
19
The resulting Net Value was estimated to be MMK 846,400.00 (USD 511.00). This “profit”
represents 32% of the Gross Value. In other words, after deducting the expenses incurred
to raise the goat herd, the households retain 32% of the benefits they generated from
sales, including the market value of heads consumed and unsold offspring. 
Table 19. Cost and return analysis of raising goats by 9 households that sold or consumed goats in 2020 (Group 2)
Payback Period
The average investment cost incurred by each household for raising goats was
computed to be USD 257.00 (Table 20). This was based on the price of goats purchased
by the households at an average of two goats per household. Families that started to
raise goats in 2018 could generate an average gross return of USD111.00 in 2019 and USD
269.00 by 2020, combining the GV of two years more than covers the investment cost.
Thus, the payback period for these households is two years. On the other hand,
households that started to raise goats in 2019 could still not recover their investment
based on the average income they generated in 2020. Another year (2021) was required
to recover their investment. Lastly, households that started goat-raising in 2020 would
also need two years to recover their start-up cost, i.e., by 2022.
Table 20. Estimated year that invested cost can be recovered by homestead goat-raisers  (Group 2)
20
Household Liquidity Analysis 
The 21 households under Group 2 earn a living by planting crops suited to the climate of
the Central Dry Zone, operating a microbusiness, and/or seeking employment off-farm.
More than half (57%) of the Group 2 households grow dry zone crops (Table 21). 
Nine households (43%) did not grow crops. Four of these do not own land that they can
farm. The remaining five opted not to grow any crop on their land at the time of the study.
Table 21. Number of households that planted dry zone crops  (Group 2)
The combined gross earnings from crops sold or consumed at home in 2020 amounted to
MMK 17.63 million (USD 10,654.00), while the operating cost was MMK 5.82 million (USD
3,515.00) (Table 22). The resulting Net Value from farming was MMK 11.82 million (USD
7,139.00). Household earnings (Net Value) ranged from MMK 11,500.00 to MMK 2.27 million
(USD 6.95 to USD 1,369.50). On average, each household that grew crops earned MMK
984,583.00 (USD 595.00). 
Table 22. Total and average net value generated by 12 households from raising dry zone crops  (Group 2)
Other sources of income
In addition to farming, a number of households under Group 2 draw income off-
farm from working as part-time laborers (piece work/short-term jobs), skilled
(office or blue-collar jobs), and unskilled (e.g., domestic helper, janitor) employees
or as owners of a micro-business (e.g., vending or tending small stores). Almost
half (48%) of the 21 households have members that work as laborers (e.g., in
construction) where annual income ranged from MMK 90,000.00 to MMK 2.70
million (USD 54.40 to USD 1,631.42) with an average of MMK 638,000.00 (USD
385.00) (Table 23). However, operating a microbusiness was found to provide the
highest average income, i.e., MMK 1,216,667.00 (USD 735.00). Only a small number
of the households (10%) have family members that earn a living from unskilled
employment, where the average annual income was MMK 325,000.00 (USD
196.00). 
21
Recall that four of the 21 households under Group 2 had no land to farm and,
therefore, had no farm income. Of these households, two generated income from
off-farm sources by having family members that worked as part-time laborers. The
third household had a member employed as a skilled worker, while the fourth
operated a microbusiness. 
Similarly, of the five households that owned a farm but did not grow crops
(possibly to give their land a rest), four had family members that earned some
income by working off-farm as part-time laborers or as unskilled or skilled
employees. The fifth household, however, did not report any additional income
from any off-farm job.
Table 23. Off-farm sources of income by number of households generating the income 
and amount of income earned  (Group 2)
Household liquidity status based on income from farming and off-farm employment
Out of the 21 households, five were found to be liquid based on family income from
farming (value of products sold and consumed at home) and off-farm employment
fewer household expenses (Table 24). Each of these households earned an average
annual income of MMK 1,906,400.00 (USD 1,152.00), while the average annual
household expense amounted to MMK 892,000.00 (USD 539.00). On the other hand,
16 households were not liquid. Their average annual income was estimated to be
MMK 1,124,438.00 (USD 679.00). However, the average expense for household needs,
i.e., MMK 1,736,188.00 (USD 1,049.00), exceeded their income by MMK 611,750.00
(USD 370.00).
Table 24. Household liquidity based on income from farming and off-farm sources  (Group 2)
22
Impact of adding financial benefits from raising fruit trees and 
goats on household liquidity
Combining the Net Value obtained from planting fruit trees and raising goats with
income from farming and off-farm employment resulted in a significant increase in
the number of households considered liquid. From five households, the number
increased to 12 after adding the Net Value of harvested fruits from trees at their
growing stage (Table 25). This represents a 140% increase in the number of liquid
households. 
 When the trees reach their mature fruiting age, the increase in the estimated Net
Value generated from harvested fruits further improves the number of liquid
households, i.e., from five to 14 households. This represents a 180% growth in the
number of liquid households.
 Adding the income from goats to the Net Value from trees did not increase the
number of liquid households. However, the Net Value for both liquid and non-liquid
households showed an improvement in values. The goat project's limited
contribution to improving liquidity conditions stems from the fact that more than
50% of the households started to raise goats only in 2020. Thus, the start-up goats of
these households were not yet mature to bear offspring that could be sold,
consumed, or valued as savings-in-kind.
 In summary, from the initial count of five households, the liquidity analysis showed
that seven additional households would migrate from being not liquid to a liquid
condition when the Net Value from fruit trees at their growing stage plus goat
raising were added to income from farming and off-farm employment. In the
longer term, when the mature stage of the fruit trees is considered, the additional
number of households would be nine instead of seven when the Net Value from
harvested fruits and "income" from goat raising are added. 
Table 25. Household liquidity after adding the benefits from planting fruit trees and raising goats (Group 2)
23
Summary and Conclusions
Two types of households were tested in this study. The first group was 30
families that planted fruit trees on their farms. The second group was composed
of 21 households that grew fruit trees and raised goats in their homesteads.
Households belonging to the first group planted varying combinations of
mango, guava, lime, custard apple, and pomegranate from 2018 to 2020. The
households planted a total of 2,657 fruit trees. On the other hand, households
under the second group planted 456 fruit trees within the same period, which
included custard apple, lime, guava, pomegranate, jackfruit, and dragon fruit. In
addition, the latter invested in goat-raising, starting with 52 heads between 2018
and 2020. 
The Cost and Return Analysis showed that all 30 households under Group 1
would generate a maximum annual Gross Value of USD 15,944.00 from the 2,657
trees during the growing stage (first five years of fruit-bearing) of the perennials
with a corresponding Net Value of USD  14,573.00. Upon reaching their mature
fruit-bearing age, the total Gross Value would increase to USD 31,884.00, while
the Total Net Value would be USD 30,549.00 after subtracting maintenance
costs. The profitability analysis revealed high operating profit margins ranging
from 73% to 99%. These values indicate that the households could retain 73% to
93% of the value of the fruits they could potentially harvest during the trees'
growing stage as their "profit." Likewise, the expected increase in harvest
volume when the trees reach their mature stage of growth would result in a
corresponding increase in Gross Value, thereby triggering higher values of the
operating profit margin. 
For the 21 households under Group 2, the estimated total Gross Value and Net
Value during the growing stage would be USD 9,337.00 and USD 9,301.00 per
year, respectively. Reaching the mature fruit-bearing age, the Gross Value for all
households combined would be USD 12,479.00, while the total Net Value would
be USD 12,443.00 per year. With minimal costs to care for the trees, the
households could retain 96% to 100% of the Net Value as their "profit." 
 Goat-raising would enable households to generate a combined annual Gross
Value of USD 1,619.00. After subtracting the operating cost, estimated to be USD
1,108.00, the resulting Net Value was USD 511.00. The Net Value to Gross Value
ratio represents a 32% operating profit margin. The financial benefits from
raising goats will further improve when all female goats bought as start-up
breeding stock reach their proper reproductive age. It is also worth mentioning
that the households opted to hire labor to take care of their goats. This practice
has significantly increased their operating cost leading to a lower profit margin. 
24
The Household Liquidity Analysis showed that the estimated Net Values that
could be generated from growing fruit trees and raising goats would improve
the liquidity condition of households. A number of households were able to
migrate from a non-liquid to a liquid financial state. For households that
remained non-liquid, the Net Values obtained from the climate-smart
interventions could minimize their negative cash balances. While goat-raising
showed a minimal positive impact on liquidity at the time of the study, this
would change once all female goats can breed and produce offsprings to
increase sales revenue and generate benefits from goats consumed at home
and increases in goat herds which are considered as "savings-in-kind." 
 For both groups of Htee Pu households, planting fruit trees is a financially viable
means of mitigating the negative effect of climate change on their agriculture-
based livelihood. In addition to earning revenue from the sale of fruits,
perennials' presence contributes to minimizing household food insecurity by
providing additional sources of nutritious food for the homes. Most importantly,
these are assets households can rely on in case of intermittent failure of rains.
 
Goat-raising is likewise a financially beneficial complementary CSA intervention
to fruit tree-based agroforestry. While the results of the initial Cost-Benefit
Analysis of goats were less impressive than that of the fruit tree project, the
longer-term effect would improve once all the female goat breeders had
reached their reproductive age. Goats serve as additional sources of income and
food for home consumption. With climate change, these breeds of animals
would be important assets for farmers, including in times of annual crop failure.
25
26
References
International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. 2018. Climate Smart Village
Profile: Htee Pu Village Nyaung-U Township, Mandalay Region. Retrieved from
https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/57254/57315.pdf
Leeger, B. and M. Gold, 2013. Using Goats in Agroforestry Systems to Enhance
Food Security for Subsistence Farmers, Proceedings of the 13th North
American Agroforestry Conference, June 19-21, 2013, Prince Edward Island,
Canada
Marais ZE, Baker TP, O’Grady AP, England JR, Tinch D, Hunt, MA. 2019. A natural
Capital Approach to Agroforestry Decision-Making at the Farm Scale. Forests
10(1)
MOAI. 2015. Climate Smart Agriculture Strategy. Myanmar: Ministry of
Agriculture and Irrigation, Government of Myanmar 
NCEA. 2010. Myanmar’s Initial National Communication Report. Nay Pyi Taw,
Myanmar: Environmental Conservation Department, Ministry of natural
Resources and Environmental Conservation 
Preston, T. R. and M. E. Gomez, Goat Production Integrated with Agroforestry
System: A Strategy to Reduce the Impact of Livestock on Global Warming,
Center for Research in Sustainable Systems for Agricultural Production, Cali,
Colombia
Sein CC, Htun K. 2013. Investigation of Tree species Composition and Above
Ground Biomass, Tree Growth and Productivity After Seven Years of
Rehabilitation Through Natural Means in the Ngalaingan Degraded Forests.
Forest Research Institute.
Stewart, J.L., 2021. Pregnancy in Goats, MSD Veterinary Manual
Thein M. 2005. Economic Development of Myanmar, Singapore Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies.
TNAU Agritech Portal. 2019. Animal Husbandry: Goat Production. Retrieved
from
http://www.agritech.tnau.ac.in/animal_husbandry/ani_goat_reproduction.html
Tun T. 2000. Greening the Dry Zone of Myanmar. Myanmar Forestry Journal.
Yee MS, Nawata E, 2015. Land Use and Farming Systems in Dry Zone, Myanmar:
A Case Study in Kani, Sagauing Region. Tropical Agriculture and Development
58(4).
27