Resource integration for multiple benefits: Multifunctionality of integrated farming systems in Northeast Thailand

Resource degradation in rice farming systems in Thailand endangers food security, but the systems may become more sustainable by combining them with aquaculture and livestock farm enterprises by capitalization of their synergies in resource use and re-use, i.e. by adopting integrated farming systems. Most empirical studies that assess this potential have focused on a few specific aspects, but not on the multiple social, economic, and ecological functions of resource integration. This study uses the framework of multifunction agriculture to assess the performance of integrated farming systems in Thailand and compares its performance with that of ‘normal-rice’ or non-integrated farming systems. Surveys were conducted in Khon Kaen province of Northeast Thailand using a combination of quantitative and qualitative survey methods.     

Can public GAP standards reduce agricultural pesticide use? The case of fruit and vegetable farming in northern Thailand

In response to the chronic overuse and misuse of pesticides in agriculture, governments in Southeast Asia have sought to improve food safety by introducing public standards of good agricultural practices (GAP). Using quantitative farm-level data from an intensive horticultural production system in northern Thailand, we test if fruit and vegetable producers who follow the public GAP standard use fewer and less hazardous pesticides than producers who do not adhere to the standard. The results show that this is not the case. By drawing on qualitative data from expert interviews and an action research project with local litchi (“lychee”) producers we explain the underlying reasons for the absence of significant differences. The qualitative evidence points at poor implementation of farm auditing related to a program expansion that was too rapid, at a lack of understanding among farmers about the logic of the control points in the standard, and at a lack of alternatives given to farmers to manage their pest problems. We argue that by focusing on the testing of farm produce for pesticide residues, the public GAP program is paying too much attention to the consequences rather than the root cause of the pesticide problem; it needs to balance this by making a greater effort to change on-farm practices.