EDITORIAL

Young people see farming work as a dead end

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- As crop prices fluctuate and incomes decline, the Asia-Pacific region faces the challenge of keeping the younger generation in the agriculture sector

Although the farming sector is essential in ensuring our food security and helping to keep the environment green, it's becoming less attractive to the younger generation. This is mainly due to the lower income that people can expect to earn from farming, in addition to the hardships of the job.

This challenge needs to be addressed if countries want to maintain their farming sectors and enjoy the independence of being able to provide food for their citizens. In addition, a strong agricultural sector is an effective way to help develop rural areas. The alternative is that rural people will continue to migrate to the cities if they see no future in farming their forebears' land. Governments, however, are doing little to promote the agricultural sector, because they tend to gauge economic success by high industrial growth rates and rapid urban development.

Farmers are not to be blamed for wanting to leave their land in increasing numbers. Many have been adversely affected by the ongoing fluctuations in commodity prices. Apart from the unpredictable forces of nature, human interference has unfortunately played a key part in destabilising commodity prices.

Much of the problem has been caused by the government's policies. Farm prices should have been liberalised so they reflect actual demand in the market. The prices of produce should naturally continue to rise in line with greater demand resulting from population growth. However, governments - Thailand's included - seemingly cannot resist interfering with natural price adjustments through market-distorting policies or quota-control systems, as is evident in the case of sugar. In addition, inconsistent and unpredictable subsidy policies have encouraged some farmers to shift to new commodities, only to find that they are contributing to an oversupply. We've seen this recently in the case of shallots.

Protective policies adopted by other countries also play a part in depressing crop prices. While many countries are moving toward industrial and service liberalisation, they tend to leave the process of agricultural liberalisation behind. This is almost always due to political reasons. Moreover, few farmers are aware of their right to protect unique crop strains. Investors and foreign producers have stolen intellectual-property rights arising from indigenous crop strains. This could be avoided if farmers were better aware of how to protect their rights.

Governments and responsible agencies should be working harder to help farmers prosper by providing both proper infrastructure and knowledge. Only this kind of investment can make farmers feel proud and want to continue working their land.

The majority of farmers in Asia are smallholders, and they need proper assistance so they can thrive on the small amounts of property they have. They should be able to add value to their produce through, for instance, organic farming. The government should cover the larger investments, such as irrigation systems.

If they cannot make the land work for them, small farmers will be tempted to sell their property to big investors, then migrate to cities to find menial jobs, the returns on which cannot provide them with a sustainable livelihood. This is not to mention the fact that, over time, rural migrants to the cities tend to lose their entrepreneurial spirit and are no longer able to take part in the development of their communities.

The farming sector has proved to be a welfare provider for many countries during difficult times. When demand in the US for imported goods declined as a result of the financial crisis in 2008, many Chinese workers were forced back to rural areas after they lost their factory jobs. During our own fiscal crisis in 1997, thousands of Thais were left unemployed when their factories fell on hard times, but they were able to survive that difficult period by going back to their villages to live with their families - who had remained in the agricultural sector.

-- The Nation 2012-06-05

It would be nice if whoever wrote this went up to Isaan and spent a couple of years working on a farm. Faces to the mud - backs to the sky. Wonder how long he'd last?

Edited June 4, 201214 yr by endure

Thailand's industrial revolution. Its no different from what happened in 1800s in Great Britain. Even keeping the farmers uneducated and tied to the soil (and the toil) , and the city folks wanting to keep agricultural product prices low.

In a sci-fi novel some years back they had a race of unintelligent sub-humans to do the menial repetitive work. Of course in a democracy they would still be allowed to vote.

The Op suggests that when anybody realises that subsistence farming is a loser, they should be encouraged to stick with it. Lobotomies perhaps?

Yingluk should have had look at an oz rice farm while she was there. Huge by Thai standards, carried out by very few people, using much less water and returning 3 times the yield. The rest of the rural population moves to (hopefully rural) cities where population concentration allows better delivery of services (schools, hospitals) and employment which will allow them a higher standard of living (perhaps), certainly to be better educated.

Of course, this brings up the major flaw in the reasoning. Thailand is a democracy. And the poor and poorly educated vote, and can be easily manipulated.

The migration from the villages to the cities has been going on for 20 years, but in the last 7 to 10 years it has become a flood.

The demographics of many of the rural areas is quite worrying actually. Of course, if the govts had realised this and got together with the middle men/processors to sort this out 15 years ago, they wouldn't have got to this situation, but then all was good, profits for the companies were wonderful and no one gave two political hoots about the farmers 15 years ago. Having such a massively centralised industrial policy for so long hasn't helped one jot. Go to Rayong, and 50% of the people living there are from Isaan. It is rumoured that there are some extensive industrial development plans for the Isaan area, and I would hazard that a lot of the employees in Rayong would happily move back closer to home probably for a little lower wage.

They have unfortunately shot the golden goose and the situation has and and will cause huge social problems of very dislocated families and in no short time ghost villages out in the countryside filled with grandmas and grandads who can no longer farm the fields and their children working in the cities and factories. Lets hope they can sort it out, or in 15 years time, Thailand's land of plenty in terms of agriculture will have gone.

So everyone is leaving the villages ....... and yet land prices in those same villages are shooting up.

So everyone is leaving the villages ....... and yet land prices in those same villages are shooting up.

That might be the farang BFs purchasing a 'bargain'.

The migration from the villages to the cities has been going on for 20 years, but in the last 7 to 10 years it has become a flood.

The demographics of many of the rural areas is quite worrying actually. Of course, if the govts had realised this and got together with the middle men/processors to sort this out 15 years ago, they wouldn't have got to this situation, but then all was good, profits for the companies were wonderful and no one gave two political hoots about the farmers 15 years ago. Having such a massively centralised industrial policy for so long hasn't helped one jot. Go to Rayong, and 50% of the people living there are from Isaan. It is rumoured that there are some extensive industrial development plans for the Isaan area, and I would hazard that a lot of the employees in Rayong would happily move back closer to home probably for a little lower wage.

They have unfortunately shot the golden goose and the situation has and and will cause huge social problems of very dislocated families and in no short time ghost villages out in the countryside filled with grandmas and grandads who can no longer farm the fields and their children working in the cities and factories. Lets hope they can sort it out, or in 15 years time, Thailand's land of plenty in terms of agriculture will have gone.

You don't get it, do you? That's what an agrarian revolution is all about - removing masses of people who are grubbing on tiny patches of land and needing subsidies to survive, and farming efficiently and economically on broad acres which include the land once used for villages.

The countries that farm this way feed the world. The only "plenty" missing is people.

Social problems will occur, as they do when everywhere when massive change occurs.

I would not want the life of a farmer. Long hours, hard physical work, at the mercy of the elements, often little monetary return for your labours.

I personally think one of the problems is how we value the production of food. The farmer makes a fairly low return on what they produce, the big profits being made up the chain. Something there needs to change, but I don't have an answer.

The loss of land, the move to menial jobs , the lack of a backup in hard times could all be significant problems in the future.

You cant have every country in the world producing widgets. There has to be a limit to how many widgets you can sell and how many countries can compete in the widget producing market.

The move to highly automated farming systems can make some sense economically (usually to the big multi nationals who run them) but it does come at the cost of rural communities and the safety net the land provides.

The migration from the villages to the cities has been going on for 20 years, but in the last 7 to 10 years it has become a flood.

The demographics of many of the rural areas is quite worrying actually. Of course, if the govts had realised this and got together with the middle men/processors to sort this out 15 years ago, they wouldn't have got to this situation, but then all was good, profits for the companies were wonderful and no one gave two political hoots about the farmers 15 years ago. Having such a massively centralised industrial policy for so long hasn't helped one jot. Go to Rayong, and 50% of the people living there are from Isaan. It is rumoured that there are some extensive industrial development plans for the Isaan area, and I would hazard that a lot of the employees in Rayong would happily move back closer to home probably for a little lower wage.

They have unfortunately shot the golden goose and the situation has and and will cause huge social problems of very dislocated families and in no short time ghost villages out in the countryside filled with grandmas and grandads who can no longer farm the fields and their children working in the cities and factories. Lets hope they can sort it out, or in 15 years time, Thailand's land of plenty in terms of agriculture will have gone.

You don't get it, do you? That's what an agrarian revolution is all about - removing masses of people who are grubbing on tiny patches of land and needing subsidies to survive, and farming efficiently and economically on broad acres which include the land once used for villages.

The countries that farm this way feed the world. The only "plenty" missing is people.

Social problems will occur, as they do when everywhere when massive change occurs.

Indeed it has happened the world over, but what is going on here has been extremely fast, and is centred very much on people moving to one region in very short time.

People have migrated to cities since time immemorial, but it is the speed with which it has happened in Thailand that is the issue. Match that together with the fact that there has been little or no effort to attract investment to the upcountry areas, and it is a very dislocated population in Thailand today, and everything is too Bangkok/Eastern Seaboard biased now.

It wasn't that in and of itself it was a bad economic policy, but it comes with social and economic consequences and trying to provide the infrastructure and incentives to encourage more investment closer to the population mass will go some way to spreading the social and economic benefits around the country.

Inevitably, the days of the small hold farmer are numbered, but it isn't as though Thailand is going to instantly re-invent its farming practices to move to commercial farming in very short time. Keeping this system has been the be all and all of policy here for a long time. So now we have the inevitable conflict of the two policies. Farming structures that encourage small hold, weak, poorly paid ageing farmers, and industry else where that apparently has shortages of employees because they have been built way away from the population mass. Every second person I bump into around the Eastern Seaboard is from up country, and admittedly, when those estates were built it probably felt that they were almost up country themselves. I hear that Toyota is building a plant in Isaan currently, and will move a lot of middle managers back to Isaan to manage it. Good business all round.

Something has to give one way or another.

People talk as if there will be no agricultural industry if the poor farmers move to the city to work. As in the West, large corporations will buy up the land and take advantage of economies of scale, perhaps modernizing and increasing yields. Subsistence farming only works in the most underdeveloped nations. They cannot compete with the multinationals. Already, produce from neighboring countries is underpricing local Thai production. The writing is on the wall.

Whether that is a good thing for society is a completely different argument.

Initial signs of farming advances are already in evidence in my area of Isaan, with an increase in the sale of mechanical seeders and harvesters.

I wonder though if Thailand should go down the path Australia has taken, whereby farms have become corporations able to lobby governments especially over environmental concerns. Over allocation of water entitlements has reduced the Murray/Darling river system to no more than a drain in dry years. The Japanese system seems to be the template Thailand should adopt, whereby the small land holder is protected, through subsidies and import control.

A study a few weeks ago indicated that the middle men were raking off close to 50 per cent of the retail price of farm products sold to Thai consumers. Can you blame the younger generation for heading anywhere other than the village to try to make a living.

Until the farmers form coops which can return the middle man profit back to the farmers, or the government ensures price support goes to the farmer and not thru the hands of political supporters (middle men) The productivity of farmers and their numbers will continue to fall.

And soon there will be famine.

The Japanese system seems to be the template Thailand should adopt, whereby the small land holder is protected, through subsidies and import control.

The Japanese farming sector is in terminal decline, and to be quite frank would have largely disappeared/ restructured long ago without trillions of yen from central government. Only a small % of Japan is cultivable, average "farm" sizes are 4.5 acres, 1/10th that of the USA, and few young people are interested. The rice produced is ludicrously over-expensive as a result, and imported rice is highly restricted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/world/asia/29japan.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/LB19Dh01.html

And soon there will be famine.

Where? Why?

Untill when an educated farmers becomes the PM things will not change,you need an experience person to solve the most important Crisis which is food.we can not and we are not eating,electronics nor Gas,Neither are we surviving by Alcoholics,we all eat food to be alive,so for me Food remains the most important in the live of all Humans.

So the MP's and Government must work towards Food productions,this farmers deserved to be the most highly paid because they feed the Nation, they are not making any money. Increase the prices of their food products and see how many will renounce office jobs.

A study a few weeks ago indicated that the middle men were raking off close to 50 per cent of the retail price of farm products sold to Thai consumers. Can you blame the younger generation for heading anywhere other than the village to try to make a living.

Until the farmers form coops which can return the middle man profit back to the farmers, or the government ensures price support goes to the farmer and not thru the hands of political supporters (middle men) The productivity of farmers and their numbers will continue to fall.

There are a few farmers co-ops around, but in all honest, with the historical idea of co-operative farming in neighbouring countries, the mere mention of the word in political circles is enough to get the agricultural ministry to break out in a cold sweat. I had a very good friend working on a silk project in Isaan some years ago for the EU. He set up an informal co-operative, prices of inputs were reduced massively by bulk purchase, yields increased, quality increased, he had a volume big enough to take to people to look at in terms of changing the designs and work together to with the co-op.

The report was presented to the Ag ministry, and aroused absolutely ZERO interest, even when the benefits were jumping off the page. 3 years after he left the project, it had been virtually completely dismantled.

And soon there will be famine.

Where? Why?

no farmers, no food, food does not magically appear at the market, and if you turn it over to corps, you are asking for even bigger trouble, with even possible major health implications with all the GMO and/or chemicals they will dump on the crops and in the animals.

Farming farangs is easier and more rewarding?

These young people were already in Pattaya-Bkk from rural areas 30 years ago, boys and girls from Issan especially, so it's not new is it ????.

sent from my Remmington typewriter, via a photo copy machine and forwarded on. He He.

And soon there will be famine.

Where? Why?

no farmers, no food, food does not magically appear at the market, and if you turn it over to corps, you are asking for even bigger trouble, with even possible major health implications with all the GMO and/or chemicals they will dump on the crops and in the animals.

Industrialized farming may not be as aesthetically pleasing as darling little peasants in authentic dress and pointy hats, living in picturesque poverty, but millions would disagree as they seek better lives in urban areas.

One of the marvelous things about Thailand is that the rural poor have tended to stay on the land in large numbers avoiding Bangkok becoming like Bombay, Kolkata, Mexico City or Caracas with the attendant intractable slum problem.

Of course the farmers make no money and it's a dead end and daily fight for survival...but what if farming were done on the Western model, with large agribusinesses growing all the crops...all these poor uneducated, unskilled folk would move to the few large cities in Thailand...it isn't going to improve life for them or for the city dwellers....better to keep them on the land by improving the income and have the population pay a bit more for its food, as Yingluck is trying to do with her farm support...better still to break the stranglehold in the monopolies that the brokers cartels and millers have on the farmers...the model is France which for 50 years has paid its farmers over the odds to keep farming.

Although the farming sector is essential in ensuring our food security and helping to keep the environment green

farming leads to a greener environment WFT ?? or, maybe they were thinking in a literal sense, where millions of monocultured rai do look green from the sky indeed!

These young people were already in Pattaya-Bkk from rural areas 30 years ago, boys and girls from Issan especially, so it's not new is it ????.

sent from my Remmington typewriter, via a photo copy machine and forwarded on. He He.

How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, After they've seen Paree'? er Bangkok?

It would be nice if whoever wrote this went up to Isaan and spent a couple of years working on a farm. Faces to the mud - backs to the sky. Wonder how long he'd last?

And your point is?

My wife and I have a farm in Yasothon province, 15 rai of rice land, and 20 rai where we are growing bamboo shoots, mangoes, bananas, tomatoes, eggplants, papaya, and other fruits and vegetables. A few years back, whenever we required some help, we could get men and women who were eager to work almost any time. The past two years it has become harder, and often we cannot find even one person who want to work at all. The young people in the village have no interest in farming, they prefer to sit in front of the computer screen playing games mostly. There is a lot of work on construction projects, which apparently offer better pay too. If this continues, Thailand will also face food issues in the not distant future.

Personally, I feel very satisfied after a day of work with the earth. There is not big money in farming, but one can live without being dependent also.

Edited June 5, 201214 yr by metisdead
: Font reset to forum default: Arial 14, black.

One of the marvelous things about Thailand is that the rural poor have tended to stay on the land in large numbers avoiding Bangkok becoming like Bombay, Kolkata, Mexico City or Caracas with the attendant intractable slum problem.

Of course the farmers make no money and it's a dead end and daily fight for survival...but what if farming were done on the Western model, with large agribusinesses growing all the crops...all these poor uneducated, unskilled folk would move to the few large cities in Thailand...it isn't going to improve life for them or for the city dwellers....better to keep them on the land by improving the income and have the population pay a bit more for its food, as Yingluck is trying to do with her farm support...better still to break the stranglehold in the monopolies that the brokers cartels and millers have on the farmers...the model is France which for 50 years has paid its farmers over the odds to keep farming.

One of the marvelous things about Thailand is that the rural poor have tended to stay on the land in large numbers avoiding Bangkok becoming like Bombay, Kolkata, Mexico City or Caracas with the attendant intractable slum problem.

Of course the farmers make no money and it's a dead end and daily fight for survival...but what if farming were done on the Western model, with large agribusinesses growing all the crops...all these poor uneducated, unskilled folk would move to the few large cities in Thailand...it isn't going to improve life for them or for the city dwellers....better to keep them on the land by improving the income and have the population pay a bit more for its food, as Yingluck is trying to do with her farm support...better still to break the stranglehold in the monopolies that the brokers cartels and millers have on the farmers...the model is France which for 50 years has paid its farmers over the odds to keep farming.

Excuse me while I choke on my pain au chocolat!

Not quite sure how "marvellous" it is to prolong rural poverty, but boy it is photogenic. Perhaps we could make do with actors, rather like the Chiang Mai Four Seasons' "rural views" across pretty little paddy fields and jolly little peasants doing their stuff.

These "poor, uneducated, unskilled folk" will remain in that condition (it certainly suits many vested interests) until they do migrate to urban areas, where they can have at least the hope of improved earnings, education for their children and learning new skills. Obviously there is no magic wand transforming lives by such a movement (and there are many serious issues raised), but it is a well-trodden path across the world. Why keep people in back-breaking poverty with little real purpose apart from subsistence?

As to France being the role model for modern rural management, excusez-moi! One quick comment below:

http://www.french-property.com/news/french_life/eu_farming_subsidies/

For a phenomenal waste of money the original CAP in Europe takes some beating, and agribusiness dominates not only the subsidies but also farming in France, despite all the myths and BS of terroir etc Western Europe is fast moving to a 2 tier rural community of agri-business producing crops and in more marginal areas small farmers being paid for "stewardship" ie keeping the countryside pretty and looking like the adverts.

In the area of Isaan I visit nearly all the farmers are in their 50s with very few younger people opting to stay in the village. Most of them do menial jobs in the cities but not all. The village high school is doing a good job with minimal government support and sends quite a lot of graduates to university and they go on to become office workers and are unlikely to ever settle in the village again. Some of the younger people doing menial jobs in the cities can be coaxed back to replace their parents on the land when they become too old to work on the land but the replacement rate will clearly be less than one to one. So many families will sell their land and that is already an ongoing process.

Maintaining the system of small holdings was seen in the 60s as a vital defence against communism and the traditional concept of taxing the countryside (originally through forced corvee labour) had to be reversed to one of subsidy, so that the rural people are now net recipients of tax money. Urban and industrial development was rapid enough to make this possible as the cities were able to take over the tax paying burden from the countryside.

The bureaucracy and politicians still have the cold war mindset but the objective and methodology have shifted. Previously the concept was that small landholders have a stake to protect that makes them reluctant to pool all property and work on a collective farm owned by the state. Now the value of the small holdings is to keep the majority people poor and uneducated as far as possible, so they can be easily manipulated and this appears a prime objective of both sides of the political divide. It is now seen as vital to keep the quality of rural education as poor as possible and maintain a huge gap between quality of state education in the cities and the rural schools. As described above, the small percentage of poor rural people who become educated and move to the cities as full time office workers with salaries and pensions make their permanent homes in the cities and eventually sell their land. This process should be encouraged to allow the Thai economy to move to higher value added production but the Thai bureaucrats and politicians want nothing of that. The educational system is designed to turn out more graduates in useless disciplines like social sciences and the government budget for research and development is pitiful compared to countries like Korea and Taiwan that have successfully moved up the value added ladder.

Denying rural people decent education seems to be the last stand of the privileged classes, including the fat cat populist politicians. The Education Ministry budget is kept relatively low compared to more developed countries, while there is still massive expenditure on defence for a country that has not faced a credible security threat for over 30 years. The Education Ministry is also plagued with countless corruption scandals relating to procurement. Syllabuses and teacher training are out of date by about 50 years. Meanwhile the privileged still get to send their offspring to elite state funded schools in the cities by paying tea money which puts them beyond the reach of ordinary people as well as encouraging corruption by school administrators.

One of the marvelous things about Thailand is that the rural poor have tended to stay on the land in large numbers avoiding Bangkok becoming like Bombay, Kolkata, Mexico City or Caracas with the attendant intractable slum problem.

Of course the farmers make no money and it's a dead end and daily fight for survival...but what if farming were done on the Western model, with large agribusinesses growing all the crops...all these poor uneducated, unskilled folk would move to the few large cities in Thailand...it isn't going to improve life for them or for the city dwellers....better to keep them on the land by improving the income and have the population pay a bit more for its food, as Yingluck is trying to do with her farm support...better still to break the stranglehold in the monopolies that the brokers cartels and millers have on the farmers...the model is France which for 50 years has paid its farmers over the odds to keep farming.

And having half the population with little education and whose survival is dependent on the subsidies you pay is a good way to get re-elected.