Give Thai Farmers The Means To Earn A Decent Living

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Give farmers the means to earn a decent living

By The Nation

Land reform and fair allocation is essential if the govt is serious about tackling the root causes of inequality

The National Reform Committee's (NRC) call for land reform to help address the problems of social inequity should be heeded immediately. The reform, if executed effectively without abuse and corruption, would provide an important stepping stone on the way to social reform.

Resolution of the land issue would help address social improvement in a sustainable manner because it will help millions of farmers stand on their own two feet. By having their own property to earn a living from, the country's farmers will feel more secure. If this does not happen, many will continue to struggle in poverty because they have to rent or lease land from investors, resulting in a chronic debt problem. Land reform will help many Thais become self-sufficient and will improve local communities in line with the long-term vision for political reconciliation.

However, instead of making sustainable plans for the future, the Abhisit government has so far focused on short-term political policies that will only result in more migration to the urban centres. For instance, loan programmes to the informal sector - such as to motorbike taxi-drivers under the "Pracha Wiwat scheme" - will only encourage low-income workers to take menial jobs in the cities because there are no incentives for them to stay in their home provinces.

Unfortunately, past and present governments have not taken the issue of land reform seriously, even though it is vitally important in what is still an agricultural society. All recent governments have squandered money by handing out freebies to gain immediate political benefits.

The idea for land reform has been around for years. But it has never materialised, largely because decision-makers have been reluctant to execute the plan as it stands. In fact, the major landowners are also politicians, or have connections to politicians, and so it is a catch-22 situation.

While the details of land reform will have to be worked out, several proposals have already been made public. For instance, land for farming should be organised in the same fashion as for industrial estates. This would help small farmers manage their resources efficiently and in an environmentally friendly manner.

A recent seminar held by the NRC shows that, currently, Thailand has 320.2 million rai of land. Of this, about 131 million rai is agricultural - but it is owned mostly by only a handful of people. Permsak Makarapirom, an NRC member, said state agencies and a few groups of people, particularly corporations and politicians, own 90 per cent of all land in Thailand. Records of the National Fighting Poverty State Committee show that in 2004 some 889,022 people were landless, while some 811,279 had no title deed.

Fair land tax reform could also contribute additional revenue to the government's coffers. And this money could be used to address social inequity. However, because of the pressure from these politically connected groups, governments have never been successful in reforming land tax to make the big landowners pay progressive tax according to the amount of land they own. As things stand, these powerful groups of people have a better chance of obtaining even more land, while the poor simply get poorer. Every time the government issues new land title deeds, the politically connected are the major beneficiaries. This is despite the fact that the intent of granting land title deeds is to provide land for farmers to enable them to live independently.

One doesn't have to look far for evidence of this injustice. A massive amount of land in Suan Pueng, Ratchaburi province has been turned into tourist resorts only a few years after the authorities provided land ownership documents to small farmers. Thailand has never rectified these problems because of the selfishness of politicians and businessmen. They have refused to accept changes to land ownership and taxation, or done anything for which they would have to take a financial hit. Even worse, some of these people take advantage of the legal process to take land once farmed by local people.

If the Abhisit government is sincere in its plan to reduce social inequity, it must tackle land reform vigorously. Public participation must be encouraged to ensure that reforms are executed according to intent. Otherwise, it is no use to talk about social change and improvement. A community-based society will not be realised if a majority of people cannot aspire to ownership of land and property from which to earn a living.

-- The Nation 2011-02-10

[OzMick]

So how exactly does giving a few rai of land to a farmer help him? He is still (even more so) trapped in a labour intensive activity producing a low value crop, and competing to sell against even poorer farmers in neighbouring countries. At least (and most) he doesn't pay rent.

But then we have " A massive amount of land in Suan Pueng, Ratchaburi province has been turned into tourist resorts only a few years after the authorities provided land ownership documents to small farmers."Is this a sign of injustice, or did the farmers decide to sell their newly acquired land and find more lucrative work in the tourist resorts?

Not only but also "...... land for farming should be organised in the same fashion as for industrial estates." if anyone understands what this means, please enlighten me. If it means large acreage mechanised farming, I'm all for it. But it does nothing for the rural poor.

[Jezz]

As I understand it, many farmers in Isaan do own land - mainly passed down through the generations. My father-in-law inherited land and tried diversifying to include dairy farming some years ago. Then the bubble burst and he ended up owing nearly 500,000 baht to the government who encouraged him to borrow in the first place. He's paid off bits and pieces over the years, and planted 30-odd rai of eucalyptus, hoping the proceeds will clear his dairy cattle debt and provide a bit of income. He, his wife, son and daughter (my wife) spent periods working in such places as Bahrain, Taiwan and Hong Kong earning peanuts to help keep the family together.

Oh to be a Thai farmer in the modern world!

[Thai at Heart]

If you look at the average age of the farming communities in Thailand, there probably won't be any Thai small hold farmers left in 50 years anyway. As much as they write, give farmers a chance to make a living, what they really mean is, give the younger people a reason to stay in the villages coz agribusiness needs the labour.

[jimbeam1]

It is or at least WAS the world over. My dear old granddad was a poor farm labourer, worked many years for peanuts (no pun) until he decided to better himself, moved to the big City and got a job on the railway station. Cleaning the gents toilets. He did manage to save enough money to put down a deposit on a 2bed house. Price of house £60.00.

We need to remember that Thailand is around 60 years behind the developed world. I am sure it will come to them, if they get off of their backsides and fight for their right to a good living. Then watch the cost of living soar.

jb1

[SICHONSTEVE]

So how exactly does giving a few rai of land to a farmer help him? He is still (even more so) trapped in a labour intensive activity producing a low value crop, and competing to sell against even poorer farmers in neighbouring countries. At least (and most) he doesn't pay rent.

But then we have " A massive amount of land in Suan Pueng, Ratchaburi province has been turned into tourist resorts only a few years after the authorities provided land ownership documents to small farmers."Is this a sign of injustice, or did the farmers decide to sell their newly acquired land and find more lucrative work in the tourist resorts?

Not only but also "...... land for farming should be organised in the same fashion as for industrial estates." if anyone understands what this means, please enlighten me. If it means large acreage mechanised farming, I'm all for it. But it does nothing for the rural poor.

I can only guess that they mean that they need to implement some form of restrictions on how they are allowed to utilise this land whilst introducing some well-thought out and reasonable rules and laws to ensure that proper practices are adhered to and that "no abuses of use" take place from the 'giving of the land'. Aspects such as those pertaining to good governance and environmental responsibility (as for industrial estates) must be followed along the lines of the existing laws for such sites. In other words, they won't just say "here's the land, it's yours to do "whatever you want with it". They must provide some fairly strict guidelines on exactly where they sit with this and make sure that they keep to them so that they can earn a good and honest living from this land (which is what is intended after all) and not be allowed to sell it on to some property developer for a pittance so that he can make a fast buck on it, which would ultimately achieve nothing - apart from that is, making the developer happy and richer.

This only my take on it - and who knows, I could be barking up the completely wrong tree!!!

[MJP]

'We're from the government and we're here to help you'.

Such words make me shudder in revulsion. Applies to any country.

[Robby nz]

Cant see any possible way to be fair about something like this.

If you give land to someone who has none, next door to someone who has their own land and has worked that land for possably generations.

Is it fair on the present landowner that his neighbour has been given land for nothing?

While the details of land reform will have to be worked out,

Sure will wont they.

So the article writer hasnt thought it through either.

If he is so smart why hasnt he come with the details of how to make it fair?

[TerryMason]

I enjoyed the 'spirit' of this article enough to show my approval. However, I am not qualified to offer anything of any value at this time. Please forgive. I would add though that it is good to see that 'someone' has written an article that has great value in terms of trying to bring to light one of Thailand's greatest commodities: Thai farmers and village life in this amazing country [to a better level of quality of life].

[slapout]

I have never seen any long term productivity/benefit to the individual who receives anything free nor to society which paid for the freebie which they will have ultimately financed. If past records/history are any indication in the LOS, the only ones who will benefit, will be those who disperse the bounty and those who end up with it, after the recipients have have shown their ineptitude at maintaining or making a living from it.

[Thai at Heart]

As far as I understand there are huge tracts of unregistered land in the country that people are using, but it doesn't belong to anyone. Isn't this so called, sophicle land, which I have heard people talking about? That can be distributed no problem.

As for limiting families to 50 rai, this will never pass in 100 years in Thailand, and all sounds a bit arbitrary. However, making people pay a reasonable land tax is more than reasonable I reckon. You are availing yourself of the assets of the country, and yet you are paying no fee. Doesn't seem right in any way shape or form. If billionaires want to hold enormous tracts either in use or not, why shouldn't they pay something back to the state? A very thorny issue, but it would be a good and simple way of taxing hidden wealth in the country very well.

[Jezz]

I have never seen any long term productivity/benefit to the individual who receives anything free nor to society which paid for the freebie which they will have ultimately financed. If past records/history are any indication in the LOS, the only ones who will benefit, will be those who disperse the bounty and those who end up with it, after the recipients have have shown their ineptitude at maintaining or making a living from it.

I'm not sure 'ineptitude' is a fair description. It may be for some, but I'm sure the majority of land workers try their best to reap as much as possible from their land. Then again, regional conditions, limited growing possibilties etc. will dictate results versus imput. Maybe improved access to updated information about new ideas would be beneficial.

[LeoCooper]

Thank You.

This article goes a long way to gaining understanding for why and how things are.

In Australia almost any one can buy land and this contributing to cost of land.by way of supply and demand.in spite of govt efforts to facilitate home ownership for ordinary peoples.

Many Thanks.

[lannarebirth]

Millions of Thais hold possessory rights to many millions of rai of farmland. The way the land titles are classified severely hampers their ability to alter its use, sell it, borrow money (from non loansharks), or move away from the land which keeps them shackled to a subsistence life. Land Reform is sorely needed to give people the freedom to use the land that is theirs in any way they see fit. Sure, some will sell or borrow and blow the proceeds. Others will upgrade and expand their holdings, send their children to university and acquire financing to mstart non agricultural businesses. Long overdue.

[hyperdimension]

Which politicians own the most land in Thailand?

[slapout]

A typical small rice farmer in many parts of Thailand cannot handle continuous cropping on much more than 30 rai, without major equipment investment. This is due to the exit of the younger generations (labor) out of the villages. To make the machiney investment work, they will need about 300 rai in one or two continuous fields.

Much of the land being farmed now is high gradient land which by Thai law is not to be farmed (45 degree or above), some does not allow for residential houses to be built, but they are there, some cannot be sold (can pass to family), etc. But enforcement has been lax or non existent in many cases.

The type people who propose the give away, etc are probably not farm knowledgeable and due to the limitations noted above, I would expect more small farmers to be rooted out of the proposed system. You add the water availability (when needed) problems at present, soil type, crop/soil compatibility, etc and the present/additional land under cultivation will continue to be taken over by large corporations/farmers.

[TAWP]

As I understand it, many farmers in Isaan do own land - mainly passed down through the generations. My father-in-law inherited land and tried diversifying to include dairy farming some years ago. Then the bubble burst and he ended up owing nearly 500,000 baht to the government who encouraged him to borrow in the first place. He's paid off bits and pieces over the years, and planted 30-odd rai of eucalyptus, hoping the proceeds will clear his dairy cattle debt and provide a bit of income. He, his wife, son and daughter (my wife) spent periods working in such places as Bahrain, Taiwan and Hong Kong earning peanuts to help keep the family together.

Oh to be a Thai farmer in the modern world!

Yes, many farmers are already land-owners. My [possible] FIL [to-be] was a huge land-owner, supposedly left to him by his farmer (could ask, don't remember exact details of the family tree now). Today they only own the land his and his relatives multiple houses are built on, a few rai at most. Hundreds of rai have been sold or 'lost' over the course of 25 years due to gambling by him. And having to pay off literally millions in debt.

Now...how will the suggestions help him? And should the government help him? Is it the governments job to bail out those that doesn't even try?

[scorecard]

Two points:

- Farming Land. Thailand is no different, long-term, that most other countries, where small scale farming just cannot survive if the farmer wants a decent quality of life.

Also in the land 'equation' is that longer-term, because of the rising total poulation of the world, fertile land will have to be managed very carefully to produce enough food for the world. Who will do this planning, not yet known.

- The ultimate bottom line. Thailand, like many countries needs to urgently change the methodologies of education to produce creative students, and also install policies which spread value-added work oportunities right across Thailand / equally across Thailand, so that a lot lot more people have the opportunity to gain a better quality of life through their own productivity.

[Spee]

A typical small rice farmer in many parts of Thailand cannot handle continuous cropping on much more than 30 rai, without major equipment investment. This is due to the exit of the younger generations (labor) out of the villages. To make the machiney investment work, they will need about 300 rai in one or two continuous fields.

This is a reasonable response, IMHO.

My partner has 100 rai in the central part of the country. About 1/4th of that is mango trees and the rest is set up to rice growing. In recent years, farmers would sharecrop the land, but nothing has been grown there in the last few years. Likely causes are drought and financial problems in the regional economy. The mango crop profit depends on the weather and if our trees are producing when others are not. Seasonal prices can vary from about 15 baht per kilo to about 40 baht per kilo. Even then, it's hard to find day laborers to bag the fruit for ripening and pick it when ready.