Thailand's Department of Agricultural Extension and Agrochemical Dependency: Perspectives on Contributing Factors and Mitigation Strategies

Abstract

Purpose: This paper discusses theoretical, policy and practical issues concerning the problem of ‘agrochemical dependency’ in Thailand, including roles that public extension services play in advocacy or mitigation of agrochemical use.Methodology/Approach: Our research aimed to better understand department of agricultural extension (DOAE) institutional and officials’ perceptions of contributing factors to agrochemical dependency as well as strategies for mitigating agrochemical use. We reviewed relevant policies, web materials and technical cooperation agreements. We supplemented theoretical and document analysis with interviews totalling15 DOAE managers or senior officers comparing Bangkok headquarters and Nan Province perspectives. We refer to relevant secondary literatures for explanatory context.Findings: Results showed differences as well as similarities between views of DOAE officials in Bangkok headquarters and those from one province (Nan) about DOAE priorities, responsibilities and perceived reasons why farmers overuse agrochemicals or do not adopt organic agriculture (OA). A national policy encouraged ‘safe use’ of agrochemicals but not (necessarily or effectively) mitigation while the DOAE still (to a much lesser extent) promoted self-sufficiency and OA alternatives. Interviews and documentary evidence revealed DOAE public–private partnerships with corporate advice, technical support, human resources and learning activities that encouraged or normalized agrochemical use and dependency.Practical Implications: Study results should be useful for governments, donors, international agencies and department officials in policy development, program planning, training design, budgeting and delivery.Originality/Value: This study is unique for: better understanding implications of agrochemical dependency and privatization of public extension services; analyzing factors inhibiting OA adoption; and examining contentious policies, partnerships, and training activities.

Key Words:

• Agrochemical Dependency
• Sufficiency Economy
• Sustainable Agriculture
• Organic Agriculture
• Extension Services
• Perceptions
• Policy
• Privatization

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank those DOAE interviewees who graciously and candidly shared their time and views with us. This paper would not have been possible without them. We would also like to thank the Chulalongkorn University School of Agricultural Resources (CUSAR) in Bangkok for providing travel support to conduct our interviews in Nan province. Finally, we would like to thank Dr Pantira Hempattarasuwan and Dr Pimsiri Tiyayon, both Lecturers with CUSAR in Nan Province, who assisted us with field interviews and translation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Some background in this Introduction draws on our international conference paper.

2. Interviewees are numbered here and referred to as he/she but names, gender or specific posts are not identified for privacy protection. There is also no one acceptable sample size or definition of ‘saturation,’ i.e. after which (if clear patterns occur) no new data would significantly alter tentative conclusions. Size depends on objectives and type of qualitative study. But some have suggested from 7 to 12 interviewees are adequate for some studies building on theory (e.g. Francis et al. 2010, 1235; Guest, Bunce, and Johnson 2006). Since our study is partly theoretical, while utilizing policy and other document analysis with secondary literatures, we believe our sample is more than sufficient.

3. The word ‘drug’ is the literal translation of ‘yaa’ in the Thai language, referring to the pesticides or agrochemicals which ostensibly heal or help protect plants from disease.

4. The DOA is separate from the DOAE. Both are departments of the MOAC.

5. Formerly called the Thai Pesticides Association, the TCPA in 2010 had 37 members including major private sector agrochemical companies such as Dupont, Bayer, Monsanto, ChiaTai (CP), Unilife, Procrop, Intercrop, Arista lifescience, Dow Agroscience, and others. The TCPA is affiliated with CropLife Asia and International (See www.tcpa.or.thand discussion below).

6. CropLife Asia refers to itself as ‘advocates for the plant science industry in the Asia-Pacific region.’ Member companies (and main financiers) are: BASF; Bayer CropScience; Dow Agroscience; DuPont; FMC; Monsanto; Sumitomo; and Syngenta (http://www.croplifeasia.org/about-us/member-companies)theworld'sleadingagrochemicalandseedcompanies