When Manop Kaewkoi quit his job and returned to the family homestead in Surin province to grow and start selling organic rice two years ago, his mother was greatly upset because she did not want her son to end up a poor farmer like the rest of the family. She even refused to accept any money from him.
Manop Kaewkoi: ‘I’m just a son of a farmer who wants to do everything to help farmers.’ Nanchanok Wongsamuth
Rumours also spread in the neighbourhood about the young man of 25 who had chosen a low-paying career in agriculture over engineering, in which he had graduated from university. At the same age, another boy from the village had secured a job at General Motors with a good monthly salary.
“So your son is planting rice because he can’t find a place to work?” people would say.
Mr Manop vehemently believes he was right to use his experience and knowledge to generate benefits for his homeland and community rather than helping to make rich entrepreneurs even more wealthy.
He also strongly believes that his decision has had a social impact as proceeds raised from selling rice have been rotated to buy organic rice from farmers at a relatively high price of about 20,000 baht a tonne. Cash payments have encouraged farmers to shift to organic rice and earn enough income to support their offspring’s education.
However, Mr Manop admits his business is just at its humble beginning. He has done almost everything on his own, including viral marketing, social media and online sales, production control, delivery, accounting, customer approaches and booth displays.
Nothing makes him happier than going to sleep after a phone call from a farmer thanking him for providing hope for the organic rice industry. Even his mother has started to understand his motivation.
“I’m not a politician looking to win votes. I’m just the son of a farmer who is willing to do everything to help this occupation,” he says with tears in his eyes.
While Mr Manop’s case provides hope to some youngsters, for most of the 5.9 million farming households all over Thailand, working in the fields is losing its appeal.
With concern about the diminishing agriculture population, a recent study by two economists and a team of researchers from the Asian Institute of Technology shows that government subsidies for small-scale farming are still needed, and people are willing to pay for them.
But amid the controversial rice pledging scheme, which has been widely criticised for its corruption loopholes and hefty losses, what is the rationale for helping small farms? When agricultural economist Damien Jourdain asked this very question last year, the results were unexpected.
“Small-scale agriculture not only provides food but other non-market services, and if we want to maintain those services, we need to support them,” says Mr Jourdain, who is also a researcher from the French Center for International Cooperation in Research for Agricultural Development. “Otherwise, small-scale farmers will just disappear.”
The researchers asked 300 urban and rural people in Nakhon Ratchasima province about their preferences and willingness to pay for non-market products.
This non-market production includes maintaining traditional landscapes, providing employment in rural areas and promoting a rural way of life via a sufficiency economy. Irrigated areas can also play an important role in terms of drought or flood management, and rice fields can produce some functions close to those of natural wetlands.
While most of the interviewees said maintaining food productivity is important, social and environmental aspects are not far behind.
“The average weight given to non-market functions is much higher than what was initially expected by us,” says Mr Jourdain. “Frankly, when I started this study, at the stage of development of Thailand, I thought no one would pay for [services apart from food production] to continue support for agriculture.”
But while his studies showed it makes sense to transfer taxpayers’ money to support small-scale farming, the way to do it is another issue. If farmers are to receive subsidies, they will have to follow certain practices that could be achieved through farmer certification.
“So if you grow rice, people want to have clean water, so you could limit pesticide application,” Mr Jourdain says. “In a way, it’s providing proof that you’re not harming the environment.”
The practice is based on the European model of providing agro-environmental subsidies, which is a break from the past when they used to pile up stocks of grain and wheat.
Like the Thai government’s rice scheme, there is no incentive given to produce high-quality rice, while price intervention distorts market prices.
“Market mechanisms are most able to drive the demand and supply of rice and the competitiveness of Thailand on international markets,” says Mr Jourdain.
Sopon Pornchokchai, president of the Agency for Real Estate Affairs, says the fantasy of promoting farmers to go back to the old way of life of self-sufficient farming is an unbelievable dream, the equivalent to promoting people to die in their homeland with limited resources.
The government should limit the use of land to the agro-industry sector so that productivity can be increased, he says.
“Instead of advocating people own land, the government should advocate people quit farming and buy all the land to plant trees to prevent floods,” says Mr Sopon, adding it is inevitable that pesticides are used in farming despite the harm they may cause.
He says organic farming is geared towards a niche market, serving high-end customers who are health-conscious, and cannot replace conventional markets.