Agricultural zoning plan should benefit Thai farmers

[webfact]

SPECIAL REPORT
Agricultural zoning plan should benefit farmers
Pongphon Sarnsamak
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Experts discussed the pros and cons of the plan announced by the Agriculture and Cooperatives Ministry last year to designate zoning areas for the farming of six economic crops, the aim of the plan being to improve the productivity and incomes of farmers nationwide.

The six economic crops designated under the zoning-area plan are rice, maize, oil palm, cassava, sugar cane and rubber.

According to the ministry, some 12.215 million rai (1.95 million hectares) of land is most suitable for the planting of these crops. If farmers follow its instructions and plant their crops within the designated areas, they will be able to boost their productivity, and hence their incomes, according to experts.

However, in the opinion of senior agricultural expert Kanok Katikan, an adviser to the agriculture and cooperatives minister, the designation of agricultural areas must be based on the environment and the nature of the crops in question.

In fact, zoning for economic crops is not a new mechanism to improve and manage agricultural production in Thailand, he told a seminar on "Is the Zoning for Economic Crops Plan Suitable for Thailand?" held by Kasetsart University's Research and Development Institute.

The country has been implementing zoning for agricultural products since 1977 for crops such as sugar cane, he said, adding that during that period there was no clear policy or management system for handling the amount produced under the designated areas, or the lower-priced output.

"There has been no system or policy continuity to implement agricultural zoning [effectively] during the past 30 [plus] years," he said.

Meanwhile, Land Development Department director-general Apichart Jongsakul told the seminar that the government should carefully consider the supply and demand of agricultural products from the designated areas.

"The government must make sure that farmers can sell their products at a good price when they follow the policy to grow their crops within designated zones," he said. For example, before the government implemented the rice-pledging scheme, the total annual amount of paddy production was 28 million tonnes. After the scheme was introduced, however, the annual amount of unmilled rice began to rise, reaching 34 million tonnes last year, he said.

Moreover, back in 2008, the prices of agricultural products drastically dropped, badly affecting farmers and causing the government of the time to launch a subsidy programme to assist them, Apichart added.

Rice Department deputy director-general Paitoon Urairong said the plan to designate zoning would improve agricultural productivity - especially for paddy - as long as it helped farmers to get a much better picture of real consumer demand for their crops.

"It would be good for farmers to know which type of rice is the most wanted for the market, and which kind of land is most suitable for growing rice," he said.

The Kingdom has about 70 million rai under rice cultivation, but only 17.35 million rai is considered most suitable for planting and growing the key crop, said the official.

As to farmers who raise their crops on inappropriate land, Paitoon said the government should encourage them to change to other crops more suited to their land.

The government should also support them during the transitional period, he said, adding: "The policy should not damage the trading system."


-- The Nation 2014-04-16

[terryp]

all part of agenda 21 ... just like all the US cattle farmers that have been forced out of buiness and the highest ever beef prices...this is all done to benifit a few nothing else

[NongKhaiKid]

Be careful farmers as you have found out already the consequences of government schemes designed especially for you.

[renaissanc]

In principle the ideas are sound. All we need now are politicians who really care about the farmers and will think of their needs and the needs of the country first. While everyone is looking for such a politician, I'll choose the easier task of looking for a dodo.

[Ricardo]

Want your land to be zoned for a more-profitable crop ... no problem, Sir ... for a modest 'administrative-fee'.

This scheme may have some basis or justification in logic, but also appears to have a significant potential for corruption too, perhaps now isn't a good time to introduce it ?

[SOTIRIOS]

.....I would like to see the real figures on:

- The number of rice farmers effectively now out of business....having even lost their land...(Due to the rice scheme)

-The number of farmers now out of business ...or having lost their farms...(Due to the mismanagement of the water levels)

....some Thai people are saying this was intentional...to effect a 'land grab'......(By those with the position and money to do so...)

...anyone who wants to pretend that farming and farmers will simply go back to 'business as usual'...is either deluded or spreading misinformation

[Thai at Heart]

They can't manage prices without quotas.

[Thai at Heart]

.....I would like to see the real figures on:

- The number of rice farmers effectively now out of business....having even lost their land...(Due to the rice scheme)

-The number of farmers now out of business ...or having lost their farms...(Due to the mismanagement of the water levels)

....some Thai people are saying this was intentional...to effect a 'land grab'......(By those with the position and money to do so...)

...anyone who wants to pretend that farming and farmers will simply go back to 'business as usual'...is either deluded or spreading misinformation

Thai farmers have been leasing land for generations.

What were the stats? 75% of all the decent arable land in the hands of this 10% of the population. PTP didn't create that....

[tim armstrong]

What a devious and misguided idea. Mono agriculture in Thailand. Great for agro chemical companies, marketing middlemen, and politicians helping only those farmers who support their Party and their pocket. This is a real divide and conquer approach.

Farmers know better than anyone else what will grow on their plot of land, and are experts at production. They can only keep growing the same crop on the same plot with the help of Monsanto and others. Bad idea.

But also they are not experts at marketing,or politics and need to lift their game and get active. Where has the 'Rice Dept' been all this time ? Didn't know there was one. Can't believe the farmers have not rioted yet about the unpaid rice.

[tomross46]

all part of agenda 21 ... just like all the US cattle farmers that have been forced out of buiness and the highest ever beef prices...this is all done to benifit a few nothing else

The ones that benefit, from any government zoning plan are politicians and their influential backers. If the government cones and telling you I am here to help you, RUN.

[BillyBobThai]

Thailand, a country whose government is made up of people who at best, have a 6th grade education.

[wolfmanjack]

What a devious and misguided idea. Mono agriculture in Thailand. Great for agro chemical companies, marketing middlemen, and politicians helping only those farmers who support their Party and their pocket. This is a real divide and conquer approach.

Farmers know better than anyone else what will grow on their plot of land, and are experts at production. They can only keep growing the same crop on the same plot with the help of Monsanto and others. Bad idea.

But also they are not experts at marketing,or politics and need to lift their game and get active. Where has the 'Rice Dept' been all this time ? Didn't know there was one. Can't believe the farmers have not rioted yet about the unpaid rice.

Where did you get the idea that farmers are experts on what grows best on their land?

Most of the farmers here grow the same crop that their parents grew and their parents before them. Every generation is not experimenting with new crops.

The only times that the farmers change crops is when the royal project convinces a few to try something new. Then if it works the rest copy them.

Take my MIL's village for example. They used to grow rice and bananas. Then the royal project came in and convinced them to grow coffee, macadamia nuts and avocados. Now no one grows rice and there are many building new houses and buying trucks with the wealth created by the high coffee prices over the last several years.

None of these profitable crops were raised by their forefathers and none of them experimented on their own. They just did what the royal projects taught them to do.

[GuestHouse]

How about opening the market to let anyone who wishes buy directly from Thai farmers.

The more customers for their products the higher the prices the farmers can charge for their products.

The problem is, opening the market would undermine the stranglehold a very small number of (Chinese/Thai) families have on the Thai agricultural industry.

[tim armstrong]

What a devious and misguided idea. Mono agriculture in Thailand. Great for agro chemical companies, marketing middlemen, and politicians helping only those farmers who support their Party and their pocket. This is a real divide and conquer approach.

Farmers know better than anyone else what will grow on their plot of land, and are experts at production. They can only keep growing the same crop on the same plot with the help of Monsanto and others. Bad idea.

But also they are not experts at marketing,or politics and need to lift their game and get active. Where has the 'Rice Dept' been all this time ? Didn't know there was one. Can't believe the farmers have not rioted yet about the unpaid rice.

Where did you get the idea that farmers are experts on what grows best on their land?

Most of the farmers here grow the same crop that their parents grew and their parents before them. Every generation is not experimenting with new crops.

The only times that the farmers change crops is when the royal project convinces a few to try something new. Then if it works the rest copy them.

Take my MIL's village for example. They used to grow rice and bananas. Then the royal project came in and convinced them to grow coffee, macadamia nuts and avocados. Now no one grows rice and there are many building new houses and buying trucks with the wealth created by the high coffee prices over the last several years.

None of these profitable crops were raised by their forefathers and none of them experimented on their own. They just did what the royal projects taught them to do.

The royal projects exist in small areas of the country, and were started to stop farmers there growing opium, which they were exceptionally good at. A good idea to stop this practise and long may the projects continue to influence the local economies, even though opium is still grown in parts of the north, and the ideas for diversification didn't come from them. But the royal projects are small scale compared to the vast rice and sugar cane farms of central thailand, which provide the export income.

Like farmers anywhere else in the world, thais cannot simple 'experiment' unless they have a reasonable expectation of making money, as agriculture is a high risk industry, with many variables and constantly rising costs. I think thai farmers do a great job, But I worry that they are being led to believe that simply by producing more their incomes will increase. Farming doesn't work like that.

[seajae]

Maybe I am looking at this a bit simple but why would farmers contiue to struggle to raise crops that are not suited to their land. If a farmer keeps planting rice when he doesnt have the correct water flow/climate it is a bit stupid to continue to do it. Following on family tradition is not the best way to do things if its wrong, until they are pointed in the right direction so that they actually grow something suitable for their land it is just a bit silly really.

[issanaus]

Maybe I am looking at this a bit simple but why would farmers contiue to struggle to raise crops that are not suited to their land. If a farmer keeps planting rice when he doesnt have the correct water flow/climate it is a bit stupid to continue to do it. Following on family tradition is not the best way to do things if its wrong, until they are pointed in the right direction so that they actually grow something suitable for their land it is just a bit silly really.

Some things to think about:

• Who will do the zoneing? Government - so what is there track record with corruption and nepotism
• Interference / intervention in the markets - what is the track record - rice stock pile
• Is there easy entry into the marketing on the new crop? for example if a farmer changes to sugar cane he needs a quota to be able to sell to the mill - small farmers would have to sell to someone with a quota who would then sell to the mill. Therefor it would be like the small farmers who could not pledgee there rice (when they were still getting paid)
• Disease - look what happened with cassava and shrimps when hit by disease - if districts were virtual mono culture disease would be more of a problem - in such cases there would be no work in the district to try and cover financially until the disease problem was addressed.
• Spread of work across the year is possible with mixed cultivation - alternatives is hired labour which is often not available when needed.
• Additional investment in machinery for new crops. Alternative is to hire - cost, cash flow and availability.
• Loss of independence and dignity - many small farmer are older people and the farming is basically self sufficiency with the sale of surplus - many would need to get out of farming.

The massive increase in rice plantings is due to the government interfering in the market - yet again the government want the smallest and poorest to pay for their policies. Mark this down as another betrayal of small farmers by the PTP government.

[crobe]

 

<p>

Maybe I am looking at this a bit simple but why would farmers contiue to struggle to raise crops that are not suited to their land. If a farmer keeps planting rice when he doesnt have the correct water flow/climate it is a bit stupid to continue to do it. Following on family tradition is not the best way to do things if its wrong, until they are pointed in the right direction so that they actually grow something suitable for their land it is just a bit silly really.

Some things to think about:

• Who will do the zoneing? Government - so what is there track record with corruption and nepotism
• Interference / intervention in the markets - what is the track record - rice stock pile
• Is there easy entry into the marketing on the new crop? for example if a farmer changes to sugar cane he needs a quota to be able to sell to the mill - small farmers would have to sell to someone with a quota who would then sell to the mill. Therefor it would be like the small farmers who could not pledgee there rice (when they were still getting paid)
• Disease - look what happened with cassava and shrimps when hit by disease - if districts were virtual mono culture disease would be more of a problem - in such cases there would be no work in the district to try and cover financially until the disease problem was addressed.
• Spread of work across the year is possible with mixed cultivation - alternatives is hired labour which is often not available when needed.
• Additional investment in machinery for new crops. Alternative is to hire - cost, cash flow and availability.
• Loss of independence and dignity - many small farmer are older people and the farming is basically self sufficiency with the sale of surplus - many would need to get out of farming.

The massive increase in rice plantings is due to the government interfering in the market - yet again the government want the smallest and poorest to pay for their policies. Mark this down as another betrayal of small farmers by the PTP government.

 

To answer a few of your questions.

The zoning program has been mooted for a few years with very little progress, partly due to complexity and partly due to administrative difficulties.

The zoning program is intended to create a database of crops in Thailand down to field level and concentrates on the 13 most widely grown crops (Rice, Rubber, Cassava etc. etc.)

There are two uses for this database - for the Ministry of Agriculture and other agencies to be able to forecast and plan the harvests, subsidies, water usage etc. and to try to provide direction to the farmers and co-operatives to change to higher value crops where applicable.

The second use of the database is for the finance ministry to initiate the land registry and taxing scheme - so that all land in the country can be quantified and taxed accordingly.

As no progress was being made the government tasked various agencies to work together - one of these was the space agency GISTDA which provides space based data and information - and who are now acting as a facilitator to get expertise and systems in from abroad where similar schemes have been implemented (such as the European Union etc).

Putting together such a system requires a lot of effort - it is not just the space based data but the applications for the people on the ground, working with the co-operatives and farmers, regional and local governments etc. plus other data such as meteorological, commodity pricing, water management and even climatological effects for the overall system.

It also requires quiet a lot of cost, particularly in a national implementation and training and support and so it is proposed to have some pilot programmes in selected provinces.

A delay has occurred due to the Thailand government wanting to do this "on the cheap" by requiring that it is funded from Overseas Development Aid - i.e. anyone wanting to come and implement the scheme has to also bring funding from their national aid program. This has limited the interested parties as countries like France and Japan have ODA programs that have been used in the past in Thailand, but not all countries have ODA programs or see Thailand as a developing country that needs such aid.

As any ODA program needs a government-to-government contract it is unlikely that any of the pilot programmes will start until there is a functioning government in Thailand to sign the agreement.

[tim armstrong]

Yes agree with most of the above. Its not easy for most farmers to suddenly change crops without a huge cost and subsequently a low income for the next few years, not to mention the variables of soil type, climate, disease, fluctuating markets and politics. There are few large scale crops that can compete with rice and sugar cane in Thailand for the best returns. .. And if Thailand is the first or second largest rice exporter in the world, it should do everything to maintain that position, as the demand for rice will continue to grow.

But long term it would be good to see more mixed land use and cropping, and more of an organic approach. But the yields would then be lower, and the average size of a farm in most areas is just not large enough to support this idea. Shade houses and crops under cover produce more, on less land, but then the costs increase.

There is a story about a vegetable farmer in England who some years ago won a huge amount of money in the football Pools. He was asked what he would do with all his winnings. - In his dry west country accent he said - ' Well ? I reckon I'll just keep on farmin' until the money runs out !'

[Thai at Heart]

What will they zone most of Isaan to grow. Sugar works in some places. But have of the place is completely marginal, with no irrigation and yet they struggle on.

Yields for most commercial crops are horrible.

[Bluespunk]

"The government should also support them during the transitional period, he said, adding: "The policy should not damage the trading system."

That will make a nice change from PT's usual modus operandi.

[issanaus]

If you look at areas in Isaan and look at the degraded land that has resulted from the "green revolution" in combination with issues such as aging populations and climate change it is clear that there need to be significant changes.

Over use of chemicals in farming such as fertiliser rather than natural fertilisation you see a significant drop in carbon content in the soil affecting its ability to hold water and retain fertiliser and minerals, Where the is burn before harvest practises in cane growing not only is the sugar content reduced but the return of biomass to the soils impact on the long term health of the soils.

What is needed is that the knowledge that farmers have about there land and crops is combined with internationally developed farming practices that care for the land. The cart that I push in this regard is SRI method rice production and permaculture. These practices can be adopted without additional invest and have been proven international to increase production, lower financial and environmental cost and use water more efficiently.

[Thai at Heart]

If you look at areas in Isaan and look at the degraded land that has resulted from the "green revolution" in combination with issues such as aging populations and climate change it is clear that there need to be significant changes.

Over use of chemicals in farming such as fertiliser rather than natural fertilisation you see a significant drop in carbon content in the soil affecting its ability to hold water and retain fertiliser and minerals, Where the is burn before harvest practises in cane growing not only is the sugar content reduced but the return of biomass to the soils impact on the long term health of the soils.

What is needed is that the knowledge that farmers have about there land and crops is combined with internationally developed farming practices that care for the land. The cart that I push in this regard is SRI method rice production and permaculture. These practices can be adopted without additional invest and have been proven international to increase production, lower financial and environmental cost and use water more efficiently.

Half the land is saline anyway. Go past Roiet. Little can grow. Its arid, dusty soil. Yet they try.

Realistically, isaan is not a good place for most crops if it is to be done commercially.

[issanaus]

If you look at areas in Isaan and look at the degraded land that has resulted from the "green revolution" in combination with issues such as aging populations and climate change it is clear that there need to be significant changes.

Over use of chemicals in farming such as fertiliser rather than natural fertilisation you see a significant drop in carbon content in the soil affecting its ability to hold water and retain fertiliser and minerals, Where the is burn before harvest practises in cane growing not only is the sugar content reduced but the return of biomass to the soils impact on the long term health of the soils.

What is needed is that the knowledge that farmers have about there land and crops is combined with internationally developed farming practices that care for the land. The cart that I push in this regard is SRI method rice production and permaculture. These practices can be adopted without additional invest and have been proven international to increase production, lower financial and environmental cost and use water more efficiently.

Half the land is saline anyway. Go past Roiet. Little can grow. Its arid, dusty soil. Yet they try.

Realistically, isaan is not a good place for most crops if it is to be done commercially.

Commercial values are not the only consideration that should be considered.

One of the considerations needs to be on the social and cultural impact of any proposed changes.

Consultation, information and education need to be key elements in any proposals.

Land reform need to be considered in the proposal - for example the 50 rai blocks that were granted on condition that they could only be passed down to direct family members need to be reconsidered. Maybe what would work in that situation would be to allow their sale , but to restrict the sale to existing holders of similar titles to avoid speculation and further consolidation of land ownership.

Enhancing the opportunities for the formation of co-operatives in relation to landownership, buying, marketing, , water storage ....

The way that the public administration in Thailand works is nearly always top down. The larger scales the projects the greater the risk of corruption and inefficiencies. Local organisation of a grass root style based on participatory democracy with goals being set local may aid in the successful outcomes.