Agro-giant CP has finally admitted to "being part" of deforestation in the mountainous North and has promised to stop buying corn grown in forest areas. So the forest should soon regain its health and the conglomerate will be off the hook, right? Not so fast.
Silence and denial used to be the standard position of the powerful agro-giant which dominates the country's food supply chain, confident of its strong ties with state authorities at all levels. Not anymore. The shift in its strategy is understandable, however.
CP has been facing increasing public dissatisfaction with its unchecked market control and its hand in environmental destruction, both domestically and internationally. Its growing animal feed industry has been linked to deforestation due to the rapid expansion of corn plantations in the mountainous North. Its use of "trash fish" from trawlers has been connected to overfishing and accusations of using slave labour has also landed the global food conglomerate in hot water. Supermarket chains in the US and Europe have threatened to boycott its chicken and seafood products.
"We made mistakes in the past by buying raw ingredients from middlemen without giving heed to traceability. We must not deny responsibility and must set up a system for traceability."
After using market mechanisms to stem the expansion of forest clearing for corn plantations, CP announced late last year that it would immediately stop buying corn from protected forests. The agro-giant is also working with a group of communities in Nan province by giving them financial incentives to grow other cash crops, such as coffee, which uses less land than corn so the forest can regenerate.
CP has certainly made the right move to rescue its image and rebuild consumer trust. But is it enough to make up for past environmental damage?
For the agro-giant, the question may seem unfair. After all, CP is not the only animal feed company benefitting from corn plantations which aggravate deforestation and toxic haze. Yet, it is the only company which has tried to redress the problem while others could not care less.
But CP is undeniably the dominant player, pointed out Sarinee Achavanuntakul of Sal Forest, a social enterprise for sustainable business. Its research on food supply chains has exposed the links between agro businesses and deforestation as well as overfishing.
"The company doesn't only buy corn from farmers, it also sells seeds, farm chemicals and is involved in almost every step of the corn plantation business," she said.
It is clear that civic groups want to see a lot more from CP. After all, sustainability is not only about doing business under environmental limits and traceability. It is also about transparency, inclusiveness and social justice.
For starters, the traceability system in CP's food supply chain should not be a strictly internal matter but subject to external consultation and independent auditing to ensure credibility, said Jacque-chai Chomthongdi from Oxfam Thailand.
There must also be indicators to prove any improvement in the livelihoods of poor farmers as corn plantation areas decline.
Research has shown that farmers on the hills have the weakest bargaining power vis-a-vis the middlemen and animal feed industry. Their poverty is worsened from being wronged by many state policies. Any solution in the name of sustainability must therefore have their input. Any policy which punishes the weakest party is unjust and unacceptable, Ms Sarinee said.
But that is exactly what happened following CP's decision to stop buying from farmers in forest areas, charged land rights activist Prayong Doklamyai.
In a panic, highland farmers rushed to sell their corn as the middlemen pressured down prices further to make more profits. While a very small number of farmers receive assistance from the agro-giant in its pilot projects, he said the majority end up suffering more as the underground corn market expands.
"The company suddenly left the farmers adrift after making billions of baht from them over several decades. Is this just?" he asked.
"CP must go beyond rescuing its image through a corporate social responsibility project," he demanded. "The company must review the negative impacts its policies have had."
While Mr Prayong wants CP to give a grace period to farmers in forest areas over its purchasing policy, other environmental damage from corn plantations such as soil erosion and contaminated rain-catchment forests due to toxic farm chemicals remain unaddressed.
Despite their differences, they agree that CP alone cannot stop environmentally destructive farming. Other agro companies must be on board. The Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives must also stop giving loans to farmers to expand plantations in forest areas. More importantly, the government must provide land security for people living in forests.
If not, there will be little chance of them getting out of the poverty trap which will only aggravate deforestation.
For small farmers to survive in the age of modern farming amid unpredictable price fluctuations, they need to develop expert knowledge about the produce and improve management and marketing skills to connect with international markets. But that is difficult when farmers don't have land security, said Mr Suphachai.
Blame it on the draconian forest law that criminalises people who live and farm in forests, said the land rights activist. Blame it on inequitable land ownership which enables one single family to own 600,000 rai of land while millions of farmers are left landless. Blame it on the stereotypes perpetuated by forest authorities and the education system that point the finger at poor farmers as being forest destroyers.
Such legal discrimination and stereotyping of the poor must end first, he said.
What happened in Nan sums up the root problem clearly. In the 80's and the 90's, the still isolated province was covered with forests. There were over 300 community forests which were protected and used by locals based on communal rules. Then forest authorities turned the areas into national parks and started to evict locals. For over a decade, they fought back by pushing for community forest laws. The Senate dumped it in 2002 and forest eviction escalated. Disillusioned, villagers saw no reason to protect the forests anymore. Then all hell broke loose.
But there are numerous villages that insist on saying "no" to corn plantations. Many have opted for mixed farming to ensure food security and preserve rain-catchment forests. Yet, their "best practice" of co-existing with forests has been ignored. Worse, they face an intensifying threat of eviction again with the military's "return the forest" campaign.
As long as hopelessness prevails, desperate farmers will go for the crops of the moment promoted by big business to survive. Today it is corn. Who knows what is next.
"If you aim for forest security, you must give land security to people first," said Sawang Premprasit, a community leader from Nan. "If not, any efforts are bound to fail."
Sanitsuda Ekachai is former editorial pages editor, Bangkok Post.