Plantation policy leaves farmers still powerless

By CHULARAT SAENGPASSA 
THE NATION 

 

 

LITTLE BENEFIT SEEN FROM EFFORT TO POOL RESOURCES, JOINT BARGAINING

THE GOVERNMENT has been trying to promote its large-plantation policy since last year with the ambitious goal of bringing farmers out of the “middle-income trap” by 2021. But farmer groups cannot help but wonder whether the policy has really increased their bargaining power. 

 

“When I go to rice mills, I still feel powerless,” the manager of a large rice plantation in Khon Kaen province said on condition of anonymity recently. 

 

Under the large-plantation policy, the government does not push farmers into working on the same plots of land. Rather, a shared management system is promoted that the government believes will help farmers lower their costs and boost their productivity. 

 

Sombat Laksanawilai, a farmer and a large rice plantation manager in Nonthaburi’s Sai Noi district, said it was not easy to bring farmers together and direct them towards the same guidelines or practices.

 

“Members of my group still grow various rice varieties,” he said. “And when it comes to the purchase of production materials, they are prone to stick to shops they are familiar with.” 

 

He also said rice farmers were not free to sell their produce to rice mills or dealers because most of them were indebted to specific middlemen. 

 

Although his group has attracted many rice farmers, Sombat said they had not agreed to sow and harvest at the same time.

 

Sanan Ponsri, manager of several large plantations in Nakhon Pathom’s Buddhamondhol district, said bringing farmers into the same group alone would not deliver any benefits. In his opinion, the government should focus on farmers’ problems and introduce solutions in the form of knowledge, technological tools and marketing support. 

 

For example, he said he believed that orchid and vegetable farmers had few problems. “But if the government is keen to help, it should recommend lotus varieties that will help lotus growers differentiate their produce and claim a better price,” he added. Asked about rice, Sanan said the government had arranged for him to meet with rice-mill representatives twice but he did not really get anything from those meetings. 

 

“It’s like they came to meet me just because the government asked them to,” Sanan said. “I don’t think I have the power to negotiate anything. I felt like I’m walking towards a gas chamber when walking to the meeting room.” 

 

He also said that while rice-mill representatives agreed to offer a better price than the market price at the meetings, they would later use certain criteria  about paddies to lower the prices when actual purchases occurred. 

 

“It is also not practical if the government will match our plantation with a rice mill that is about 50 or 60 kilometres away. We have to think about transportation costs too,” he said. 

 

In his opinion, applications that the government tries to promote will not work in farmers’ real lives. 

 

“To tell the truth, these farmers are old people. They are not familiar with technology,” he said. 

 

Sanan added that he did see some good things about the large-plantation policy. “At least farmers talk more and share their experiences. They learn more about tips to lower their production costs,” he said.

 

 

Pongthep Akratanakul, who heads Kasetsart University’s Centre of Excellence on Agricultural Biotechnology, said he approved of the government’s large-plantation policy. 

 

“At the very least, it should help raise farmers’ incomes and quality of life,” he said.

 

The government should now try to engage the private sector and universities in the implementation of the policy, he added.

 

“The policy will be useful when it’s not just asking rice mills to raise paddy prices a bit. We should focus on better quality and productivity,” he said.

 

Pongthep said universities should actively conduct research to improve the country’s agricultural sector, and that related government agencies should agree to fund useful research.

 

For example, he said, paddy fields in various regions had different soil and weather conditions and researchers could help find and recommend the best rice varieties for each area. 

 

“Look at jasmine rice from the northeastern province of Surin. It can fetch up to Bt300 per kilo,” he said. In the market, each kilo of rice earns the farmer between Bt10 and Bt15 only.

 

Assoc Professor Dr Somporn Isvilanonda, a senior academic at the Knowledge Network Institute of Thailand, said at a recent seminar that the government should take more tangible steps in driving its large-plantation policy so that participating farmers could lower their production costs, boost their yields and get better prices. 

 

“For example, we can encourage rice farmers to go organic. That’s a way to increase their produce value and income,” he said. 

 

The Agriculture Ministry has announced that it will actively drive farmers towards its “Agriculture 4.0” policy over the next four years. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30334160

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-12-18

12 minutes ago, webfact said:

trying to promote its large-plantation policy since last year with the ambitious goal of bringing farmers out of the “middle-income trap” by 2021.

Since when has the major part of all farmers been able to even touch what is called a middle income. Most farmers I am aware of have around 6-30 rai land to farm.
They are happy if they are possible to earn a yearly income that stretches to a general of 5000-7000 Bath per month. Middle-income trap? I call that poverty and poor-income trap.

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Under the large-plantation policy, the government does not push farmers into working on the same plots of land. Rather, a shared management system is promoted that the government believes will help farmers lower their costs and boost their productivity. 

 

Sombat Laksanawilai, a farmer and a large rice plantation manager in Nonthaburi’s Sai Noi district, said it was not easy to bring farmers together and direct them towards the same guidelines or practices.

I am not a farmer nor do I have any agricultural experience, so be gentle...

 

In my native country, small farmers of the past were essentially wiped out as farming grew in scope to take advantage of economies of scale and industrialization. There were attempts to allow farmers to join co-operatives in order to benefit from larger scales, but this policy usually meant that there were simply poor farmers joined together but not any richer. What made the difference and allowed for profitability was the amalgamation of farms and the hollowing out of the single family farm (unless itself industrialized).

 

To the members who live in farming areas or who are farmers themselves;

 

Are single family farms in Thailand still viable? If so, for how much longer?

Can rice farms (or other crops) be easily amalgamated into larger, profitable farms? If yes, is this happening?

Can Thai farms compete with low labor costs in Cambodia/Burma/Laos much longer? If yes, how?

If you were the Minister of agriculture, what would you do?

 

Thanks in advance to the farming members!

2 hours ago, webfact said:

LITTLE BENEFIT SEEN FROM EFFORT TO POOL RESOURCES, JOINT BARGAINING

THE GOVERNMENT has been trying to promote its large-plantation policy since last year with the ambitious goal of bringing farmers out of the “middle-income trap” by 2021. But farmer groups cannot help but wonder whether the policy has really increased their bargaining power. 

 

 

I hate to be a cynic but I'm sure glad the farmers are.

In the village I live in farming has changed a lot over the time I have been here. when I first came only rice was grown, farmers cut by hand and were very poor. Over time there has been a change, people have moved to growing sugar and rubber. It was clear peoples income was rising, houses went from timber to block and Buffalo were replaced by tractors.

 

The rise in income has stopped and is declining, everyone is in debt and many have lost there cars/tractors. The last two years this decline seems to have accelerated. In our village four family's have lost there farms.

 

Anyone who has spent time in Thailand knows Thais find it difficult to accept responsibility for the decisions they take, any problems are caused by some one else. When I talk to farmers they all feel this government is trying to return the country to the days before Thaksin, back to when they had no money and no influence.

 

My wife grows rubber and sugar, she has no dept and it a income I could live on. But if she was paying interest on loans like most of our neighbors, without me she would be living hand to mouth. I think this is the big problem farmers can make money but there debt is crippling them and of course that is not there fault but some one else's.

Edited December 18, 20178 yr by mick220675

4 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

I am not a farmer nor do I have any agricultural experience, so be gentle...

 

In my native country, small farmers of the past were essentially wiped out as farming grew in scope to take advantage of economies of scale and industrialization.

 

Me neither, but I do know a little bit about history.

 

Thailand looked the other way and pretended that (unlike the developed Western world) all those poor farmers could remain happy, simple folk, living in the dirt (at virtually subsistence level) just like "the good old days", in a strictly delineated society of "haves and have nots".

 

It was a policy decision to do that, they didn't use term "subsistence farming" though.

 

They used another term, (you know how they like to make up special titles/descriptions to give the impression of an original idea, or to distract from an actual condition).

 

And now "the chickens are coming home".

 

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 20178 yr by Enoon

6 hours ago, Get Real said:

Since when has the major part of all farmers been able to even touch what is called a middle income. Most farmers I am aware of have around 6-30 rai land to farm.
They are happy if they are possible to earn a yearly income that stretches to a general of 5000-7000 Bath per month. Middle-income trap? I call that poverty and poor-income trap.

 

They are using the phrase "Middle-income trap" in the wrong context.

 

It is a term used to describe a national structural economic deficiency, rather than an individuals income.

 

Middle income trap - Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 20178 yr by Enoon

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Plantation policy leaves farmers still powerless

Mission accomplished.

A broader and more prosperous middle-class made by raising the income of the low-income class only adds to the strain of preserving an autocracy.

It begins to run out of "gifts" to the people to contain their sovereignty.

I'd like to know where 1kg of jasmine rice can be sold for 300 baht.  My Mrs would make a fortune. 

3 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

They are using the phrase "Middle-income trap" in the wrong context.

 

It is a term used to describe a national structural economic deficiency, rather than an individuals income.

 

Middle income trap - Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

Oh, dear! Thanks for yet another clarification. I guess we all know what they meant, right? English, as we all know, is many times used incorrectly in Thailand and by non-native speaker and writers like me.