ChATSEA - University of Toronto

THE CHALLENGES OF THE AGRARIAN TRANSITION

IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

ChATSEA

ChATSEA Working Papers

Working Paper no. 5, June 2009

Marketing Strategies and Community Culture: Certified vegetable farming and consumer markets

in Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand by

Brett Wyatt

ISSN 1919‐0581

ISSN 1919‐0581

© June 2009

Published by the Canada Research Chair in Asian Studies – Université de Montréal 3744 Jean‐Brillant, office 420, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3T 1P1

ChATSEA

The Challenges of the Agrarian Transition in Southeast Asia Project (ChATSEA) is spon‐sored under the Major Collaborative Research Initiatives of the Social Sciences and Hu‐manities Research Council of Canada. With its primary focus on Southeast Asia Region, the Project seeks innovative understandings of the agrarian transition understood as the multiple, uneven, and reversible pathways and processes through which agrarian rela‐tions are transformed. Key processes being studied include agricultural intensification and expansion; commodification; peri/urbanization, industrialization, human mobilities, intensification of regulation; ecological change; agrarian social movements; and the re‐making of agrarian wealth and poverty. The Project involves an interdisciplinary team from Canada, Southeast Asia, Europe, and Australia. It is directed by Professor Rodolphe De Koninck, Canada Research Chair in Asian Studies, Université de Montreal, Canada. It runs from 2005 to 2010.

For more information: http://www.caac.umontreal.ca/en/chatsea_intro.html


The ChATSEA Working Paper Series is intended to present empirical findings from origi‐nal research concerning the agrarian transition, with an emphasis on contemporary con‐text. The Series includes work done by faculty and graduate students sponsored by or af‐filiated with ChATSEA, and by other scholars who are not affiliated but whose research concerns similar themes.

Working Papers should speak directly to the question of agrarian transition in Southeast Asia. It may approach the topic through a focus on one or more of the constituent proc‐esses of the agrarian transition, identified as: 1) agricultural intensification and territorial expansion; 2) increasing integration of production into market‐based system of exchange; 3) accelerating processes of urbanization and industrialization; 4) heightened mobility of populations both within and across national borders; 5) intensification of regulation, as new forms of private, state and supra‐state power are developed and formalized to gov‐ern agricultural production and exchange relationship; 6) processes of environmental change that modify the relationship between society and nature to reflect new human im‐pacts and new valuations of resources.

Working Papers are sent out for anonymous review by scholars in the field. The maxi‐mum length for a Working Paper is 8000 words. Please submit papers, or abstracts of planned papers, to the managing editor by email. The managing editor of the series is To Xuan Phuc, PhD. Email address [email protected]. Members of the editorial board are Keith Barney, Philip Kelly, PhD, Tania Li, PhD, To Xuan Phuc, PhD, and Peter Vandergeest, PhD.

http://www.caac.umontreal.ca/en/chatsea_intro.html

mailto:[email protected]


Working Paper no. 1, Dec. 2008

The Retreat of Agricultural Lands in Thailand

Leblond, Jean‐Philippe

Working Paper no. 2, Jan. 2009

Cultivating Alternative Livelihoods Strategies and Gender Identities in Naga City, Philippines

Hill, Kathryn

Working Paper no. 3, Jan. 2009

Of Rice and Spice: Hmong Livelihoods and Diversification in the Northern Viet‐nam Uplands

Tugault‐Lafleur, Claireand Sarah Turner

Working Paper no. 4, Feb. 2009

Ethnic Politics, Migrant Labour and Agrarian Transformation: A Case Study of the Hmong and Shan in a Royal Project in Northern Thailand

Latt, Sai S.W.

Working Paper no. 5, June 2009

Marketing Strategies and Community Culture: Certified vegetable farming and consumer markets in Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand

Wyatt, Brett

MARKETING STRATEGIES AND COMMUNITY CULTURE: CERTIFIED VEGETABLE FARMING AND CONSUMER MARKETS IN CHIANG MAI, NORTHERN THAILAND

Brett Wyatt PhD Candidate in Geography Email: [email protected] Department of Geography Chiang Mai University, Faculty of Social Sciences 239 Huay Kaew Road, Muang District, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 50200

Acknowledgements This paper is a summary of a chapter from my dissertation in progress titled: Local Alternative Agri‐culture and Neoliberal Agenda: Regulations of Organic Vegetable Commodity Networks in Chiang Mai Province, Northern Thailand. I would like to particularly acknowledge and thank my advisor, Dr. C. Witayapak, and my committee members Dr. S. Ganjanapan and Dr. A. Ganjanapan, for their pa‐tient guidance. I also thank Dr. P. Vandergeest for his insights contributing to my research. I am thankful to ChATSEA for helping to fund my fieldwork. I thank J. Puangmanee, agricultural extension officer for the Multiple Cropping Center of Chiang Mai U., and C., Boonrahong, director of the Insti‐tute for Sustainable Agricultural Communities, for providing access to personnel and resources for field investigation. Thanks to C. Prangkio, director of the Geoinformatics at Chiang Mai U., for access to GIS resources. I greatly appreciate the assistance from the district officers of agricultural extension N. Sunyai (Doi Saket), D. Nuanfun (Hang Dong), C. Sapphadit (Mae Rim), P. Chailert (San Sai), W. Kantikina (Sankamphaeng), and N. Nitrad (Saraphi). I thank San Sai district farm leader T. Jompang for her assistance in the field as interpreter and for translating and explaining the Thai documents used in this research. I thank Chiang Mai U. librarian W. Pattanakiatpong for her assistance research‐ing local vegetables. I thank my research assistants, K. Inanoralaksana and S. Chamnichatchawan, for their efforts spent collecting surveys throughout the city of Chiang Mai. I thank Dr. To Xuan Phuc for his attentiveness to the submission process and K. Brown for editing the final document.

Abstract Certified vegetable farmers in Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand use different strategies to gain access to vegetable markets. These markets are constituted by commodity networks bounded by different regu‐latory institutions, farm leaders, assemblers, retailers and consumers. Certified farmers’ strategies are based on factors such as price, reseller and assembler ideology, consumer preference for local vegeta‐bles, and the desire to participate in community culture. This research demonstrates how certified vegetable commodity networks are constituted by analyzing the information provided by 324 survey participants regarding consumer practices, attitudes and perceptions of certified vegetables. This re‐search also draws from an extensive field investigation of certified farming practices and site inspec‐tions of retail locations in Chiang Mai to explain how farmers’ strategies are used to gain access to these networks. This paper identifies the importance of local vegetables to Chiang Mai consumers and how they are used as a marketing strategy by certified farmers.

Keywords Certification, commodity networks, networking strategies, community culture, local vegetables.

mailto:[email protected]

2

Introduction A short venture outside the city of Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand quickly reveals large structural changes in the once rural, agricul‐tural setting. While whisking along the four lane highways connecting the central city to the hinterlands you will pass rice fields checkered with large suburban tract homes and walled off parcels of land awaiting new urban dwellings. Speculators have grabbed up once fertile lands, creating subdivisions marketed to Thailand’s expanding middle class searching for affluence amid the shrinking vestiges of country life. Caught within this transformation are thou‐sands of small land holders, mostly rice grow‐ers and vegetable farmers, attempting to main‐tain their livelihoods through compromise and change. They are described as an emerging ru‐ral class of land owners with multiple occupa‐tions. Chiang Mai’s agrarian setting appears destined to be transformed by processes asso‐ciated with urban growth, the consolidation of land holdings, the marketing networks of ur‐ban consumers and the creation of a class of landless farm workers or farmers with day jobs (Rigg 1997:165‐197).

ChATSEA Working Paper no. 5, June 2009 Marketing Strategies and Community Culture:

Agrarian transitions are not easily trans‐lated into simple conceptual understandings of market systems, though they can be placed into “explanatory niches” explained by the unique conditions in which they occur (Rigg 1997:preface). This research suggests that the slowly emerging markets for certified produce1 offer the opportunity for small farmers to maintain their livelihoods despite the dire fore‐casts made by researchers of conventional, global foods markets (Agrawal 2005, Marsden 1997). The increased cost‐benefit derived from safe vegetables is sufficient for organized farm‐ers to compete in the marketplace. Also, other non‐economic benefits are derived in the form of social and cultural amenities. These markets are small, accounting for less than 1% of the

1 Certified produce is here defined as vegetables grown with regulations ranging from strictly organic to those specifying minimum levels of application.

total vegetable production in Thailand (ITC 2008). However, investigating the process of de‐velopment of the certified vegetable commodity network may assist in the future development of policies enacted for the expansion of the certified vegetable market. Recent studies have indicated that vegetable certifications may be used by retailers to influ‐ence consumer spending by gaining trust and confidence, assuring safety and quality and ap‐pealing to intangible values such as fair trade and environmental responsibility. Social respon‐sibility has been found to be an important factor for consumers (Marsden and Murdoch 2006, Panyakul 2002, Vandergeest 2006). This line of thought can be examined in terms of actor‐network coalitions formed by the marketing of vegetables produced by farmers certified under different sets of pesticide regulations. The coali‐tions are developed through complex, interper‐sonal relationships made between farmers, certi‐fiers, assemblers, retailers and consumer. This study will demonstrate how consumers respond to the different meanings ascribed by certifying logos and how these are used by retailers as marketing devices. These markets are part of the larger picture of the agrarian transition in South‐east Asia. The regulation of pesticide use and the corresponding certification process have become the means by which farm groups gain access to the more lucrative markets for certified vegeta‐bles. Third party agricultural certification informs the consumer of the undesirable and unobserv‐able pesticides that may have been used during the production process.. Pesticide use, the pres‐ence of GMO’s, specific farming practices, the detrimental environmental affects of exhaustive planting methods and social problems caused by unfair labor and management practices are a few of the production processes monitored by agri‐cultural regulations. Consumers generally have varying degrees of concern about these issues. Certification provides consumers with knowl‐edge about particular production processes so they may make informed purchasing decisions. In Chiang Mai, northern Thailand, groups of

Certified vegetable farming and consumer markets in Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand

3

vegetable farmers, locally known as “chou suan”, have found a new market niche by pro‐ducing to different standards for these con‐sumer groups. Certified farmers understand that consumers are willing to pay a premium for vegetables grown under different regula‐tions and have changed their practices to fit different regulatory standards to acquire con‐sumer confidence (Panyakul 2001:29). These standards are made known to consumers through various logos representing the certify‐ing bodies that inspect and regulate farm prac‐tices (Panyakul 1998:22). As noted above, certified vegetable net‐works are constituted by horizontal and verti‐cal linkages of actors constituting interrelated nodes (Figure 1). Thailand has multiple forms of organic regulations and certifying bodies. The Thai government established the National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards (ACFS)2 in 2002 to consolidate all national organic certifications under a single authority. Certified agricultural standards es‐tablished by ACFS are based on Thai regula‐tions: The National Bureau of Agricultural Commod‐ity and Food Standards (ACFS) was established on October 9, 2002 under Section 8 F of the National Administration Act B.E. 2534. The additional con‐tent was under provision of National Administra‐tion Act B.E. 2543 (Fourth Edition). This is to des‐ignate the National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards (ACFS) as a focal organization to control agricultural products, food, and processed agricultural products by certifying and enforcing standards from food producers to consumers, to negotiate with international partners in order to reduce technical barrier to trade (TBT) and to improve and enhance competitiveness of Thai agricultural and food standards (ACFS 2009).

Wyatt, Brett

However, participation in ACFS is volun‐tary. Thailand’s certifying authorities can be classified into two broad groups: those that cer‐tify pesticide free produce and those which cer‐tify pesticide reduced produce. The Ministry of

2 An explanation of acronyms, terms, and agencies is pro‐vided in the glossary.

Agriculture certifies farmer groups under the “Good Agricultural Practices” (GAP) program, while the Ministry of Public Health certifies farm groups under the “Safety Vegetable” label. Nei‐ther ministry has been certified under ACFS. Pesticide free regulations can be divided into two additional categories: practices recognized by governmental authority and practices unoffi‐cially recognized but accepted by consumers. Unofficial certifying bodies such as the Northern Organic Standards Association (NOSA), farmers of Santi Asoke, and farmers associated with the Multiple Cropping Center (MCC), regulate farm‐ing practices accepted by the community and some international importers as pesticide free, “organic” vegetables. They are not officially rec‐ognized by established international organic agencies, ACFS or by any government agencies.3 The only Thai certifying body recognized by the Thai government and international agencies is the Organic Agriculture Certification Thailand (ACT). Currently, only ACT is ACFS certified in Thailand. (Ratanawarasha et al. 2007:18, Panya‐kul 2008a). Centralized certification under ACFS is fraught with difficulties. Application for regis‐tration under ACFS is redundant for anyone al‐ready certified by one of the government minis‐tries. Typically, those certifying under GAP are not seeking qualification for international mar‐kets. Likewise, farmers certifying “unofficially” are producing for local markets. Alternately, large scale farms that have been certified under an international certification scheme are already held to strict standards and therefore the ACFS certification is unnecessary. There is also a prob‐lem with the number of standards proliferated by ACFS. In fiscal year 2004, ACFS designed 22 standards for food and agricultural commodi‐ties. These are divided into 13 agricultural com‐modity standards, five system standards, and four general standards. Though ACFS standards follow Thai GAP, Good Hygienic Practice (GHP) and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP), they allow for the application of haz‐

3 Some farmers belonging to MCC may also be certified under GAP or Safety Vegetable.

PhD Candidate, Geography, Chiang Mai University

4

ardous pesticides and do not qualify for equivalency to any international organic standard.


Thai consumers exhibit a willing‐ness to accept certification by reputa‐tion, a point that will be discussed later. Actor‐network theory may help explain how certifications provide farmers, assemblers and retailers credibility in establishing certified vegetable markets by providing a framework in which to follow the ne‐gotiations and strategies used by the different actors (Marsden 1997, Raynolds 2004, Raikes, Jensen and Ponte 2000). There appear to be gen‐eral strategies used to establish certi‐fied vegetable commodity networks. The strategies employed in each of these cases are dependent on several variables including the scale of production, the regula‐tions adopted, and the associations made for marketing the vegetables (Eaton, Shepherd and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2001). Strategies may be de‐fined as a type of network producing knowl‐edge, subjects, objects, distances, and locations (Law and Hetherington 2002:397). These strategies bring actors together into broad net‐works established by acceptance of different vegetable certifications through which unique vegetable commodity networks emerge (Forsyth 2003:37, Law 1991). Logos are used to inform the consumer of pesticide regulations practiced by the farmers. Certified farmers al‐low retailers to satisfy the needs of customers seeking these attributes by supplying vegeta‐bles grown with regulatory standards. Retail space becomes symbolic through the values ascribed by the certified vegetables sold by farm groups and assemblers and the meanings associated with them (Arntsen 2003:82‐83, Le‐febvre 1999:38‐39, 311). The vegetable commodity network, which may be seen as a series of value adding nodes and processes, may be understood by examin‐ing certification strategies. Certification

schemes become a consumer commodity, so‐cially constructed through the meanings as‐cribed by both society and state. The commoditi‐zation of certification allows farmers to employ production strategies which may gain them ac‐cess into different markets. Some vegetables marketed under a specific regulatory regime be‐come repackaged and labeled under multiple certifications, using different logos suggesting various concepts of social responsibility, pesti‐cide reduction techniques, as well as references to qualities such as freshness, health and safety (Ribot 2003:154). Retailers, “acting at a distance,” shape the market and influence farm techniques by marketing certified produce. Farmers organ‐ize themselves into farm groups to become certi‐fied under a set of regulations to meet the needs of retailers and consumers. These networks are framed by regulations accepted by consumers, retailers, and farmers. The networks are ordered by the scale of the farm groups, the policies of the retailers, the strategies of the farmers and the needs of the consumers. In Northern Thailand the ordering of these networks is not established by governmental policies or global markets, but by tacit arrangements of actors with individual needs (Schon and Rein 1996:88).

Figure 1. Certified Vegetable Commodity Network in Thailand


5

This observation is relevant in Chiang Mai where consumers will be shown to participate in many different market venues, particularly fresh and community markets which are out‐side of the influence of large‐scale, interna‐tional commodity networks. Chiang Mai con‐sumers’ preference for local vegetables, which will be discussed further in this paper, is also descriptive of the unique needs within the cer‐tified vegetable network. Certification holds the network in place though a “set of relations” between certified farmers and health conscious consumers (Latour 2005:303‐311). However, both assemblers and retailers manipulate the meanings behind the certifications by the way they market their representative logos and ex‐tract value from networks (Whatmore and Thorne 1997:290).

Certified and uncertified vegetables There are many organic standards cur‐rently being used in Thailand. Each one has an official certifying body and codified set of regulations. Some of these standards originate in Thailand, but most have some kind of global reach, originating in other nations and compet‐ing for world‐wide acceptance in the global food commodity network. Organic regulations represent highly complex, social‐political dis‐course constituted by agreements, coalitions, and advocacy from farmers, retailers, consum‐ers, worker’s rights groups and environmental factions. Each country endorses a particular standard. As of 2003, there were 364 certifica‐tion bodies in 57 different countries. There are 130 different standards in the European Union alone. In the USA, the standards originate from the United States Department of Agriculture. In England, the Soil Association is most fa‐voured (Rundgren 2003). All of these standards regulate the processes of “organic” chemical‐free farming. They are used to certify growers who can then place a representative label on their product to inform consumers that the regulatory standard was met. According to the FAO, products labelled as ‘organic’ are those certified as having been produced through

clearly defined organic production methods. In other words, organic “is a claim on the produc‐tion process rather than a claim on the product itself” (FAO 2001). The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), IFOAM, was organized in 1972 to help set an international standard. IFOAM is currently ac‐cepted in 108 different countries. The IFOAM standards help to establish equivalency between those practicing IFOAM regulations in different countries. Therefore, the organic production process in one country can be translated to the organic production processes of another. Trans‐lation facilitates the global transfer of agricul‐tural products between producers and consum‐ers. It enables the different agricultural practices of over 750 member organizations to compete in the global organic foods market (IFOAM 2009). The market for certified vegetables has cap‐tured the interest and imagination of the Thai government, retailers, and consumers. One rea‐son for this interest is that health and safety con‐scious Thai customers are willing to pay at least a 50% premium over uncertified prices offered at commercial retail markets. In Chiang Mai, these certified vegetables have different certifications schemes; they are: Pak Plod Pai Jak San Pis, here‐after referred to by its popular name “Safety Vegetable,” GAP represented by the “Q” logo, NOSA, MCC, “Safe Food Good Taste,” and differ‐ent international certifications (Table 9, Annex). The Safety Vegetable classification is the old‐est pesticide regulatory standard in Thailand (Ellis et al. 2006, Panyakul 2001). It is not a pesti‐cide free standard. Safety Vegetable was initi‐ated by the Thai government in 1992. The goals of this program were to improve public safety and reduce the need for imported chemical fer‐tilizers and pesticides (Ellis et al. 2006). This cer‐tification is overseen by the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) and recorded at MOAC Agri‐cultural Extensions offices. The Safety Vegetable standard is highly regulated and monitored. Farmers may use pesticides in regulated quali‐ties and only when the possibility of crop loss or failure is imminent. Farmers are also limited to the application of different pesticides by toxicity and dissipation. The goal of the program is to

Wyatt, Brett PhD Candidate, Geography, Chiang Mai University

6

ensure that a limited, minimum level of pesticide residue reaches the con‐sumer. Safety Vegetable certifi‐cation is being phased out and replaced by GAP. However, there are serious doubts about whether or not Thailand’s GAP stan‐dard can be considered equivalent to international GAP regulatory standards for pesticide reduction and farmer and worker safety (Ellis et al. 2006:36, Panyakul 2001:27). Regardless of international compliance, this research found that the Thai public accepts GAP certification as an identify‐ing marker of vegetables grown with limited or no pesticides. GAP certification is marketed under the “Q logo” and is readily available throughout Thailand (Figure 2). Like Safety Vegetable, GAP regulations allow for the use of pesticides using less vigorous control stan‐dards. GAP certification differs from Safety Vegetable certification in that it can be accom‐plished in three months compared to one year for the former. Currently, many farm groups already certified as Safety Vegetable growers are becoming GAP certified farmers. The proc‐ess is streamlined into a single inspection to determine that the Safety Vegetable regulations are still being observed. GAP certification is being encouraged by the national government which allocated 8 billion baht (approximately US$2.3 million) in 2008 to the MOAC for the promotion of organic farming in Thailand. MOAC has enticed many new farm groups to certify under GAP with both monetary and in‐kind remuneration, and has invested heavily in a national marketing campaign which pro‐motes GAP products.

Figure 2. Official Government Certification logos used by RPF and other certified farm groups and retailers.

Left: GAP “Q Logo,” Center: Discontinued “Organic Thailand,” Right: Safety Vege‐table label with official government logo. Top reads “Pak pload phai jak san pis.”

Royal Project Foundation, (RPF), is the largest producer of GAP and Safety Vegetables in Thailand, RPF uses the “Doi Kham” logo to identify certified vegetables sold directly though retailers. The techniques to grow vege‐

tables using Safety Vegetable regulations were developed by the RPF. Since 2006, RPF has been re‐certifying their farmers under GAP regula‐tion. As of 2007, about one‐half of the RPFʹs farmers were certified GAP. Doi Kham may be sold using the Doi Kham logo, representing Safety Vegetable, or additionally labeled with “Q” logo and, on some products, with legacy labeling such as “Organic Thailand,” (Figure 2) a certification no longer being offered (WHO 2004). “Organic Thailand” was established in 2002 by the Organic Crop Institute of the Minis‐try of Agriculture. This certification has been discontinued and is reportedly no longer effec‐tively monitored for quality (Panyakul 2008b). In Northern Thailand, the Northern Organic Standards Association (NOSA) certifies all of the products marketed through Institute of Sustain‐able Agricultural Cooperatives (ISAC) and its affiliates. NOSA certifies about two hundred Northern Thai farmers under strict, pesticide free guidelines. NOSA regulations were estab‐lished by a coalition of farmers, consumer advo‐cates, and NGO’s seeking to codify agricultural practices suitable for northern Thai farmers. NOSA regulations set safety standards to protect consumer health, and social standards which meet the objectives of supportive international NGO’s such as OXFAM. NOSA’s organic stan‐dard is an example local regulation and accep‐tance. It is also an example of hybridity, as seen by the influence of OXFAM by placing issues of social justice and local welfare into NOSA’s regulation. In 2007 NOSA applied to be an offi‐

ChATSEA Working Paper no. 5, June 2009 Marketing Strategies and Community Culture: Certified vegetable farming and consumer markets in Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand

7

cially recognized, certifying body through ACFS. However the application has been slowed by the insistence of ACFS for forms of documentation not yet established by NOSA, including a change of NOSA’s official name from its previous identification as an “organi‐zation” to its new name as an “association” to comply with ACFS bylaws4. NOSA, and its primary farm group, ISAC, have de‐prioritized ACFS certification until these matters can be resolved. NOSA determined that compliance with the regimented standards of ACFS led it away from its primary goal as a local agency servicing the needs of the community. The Multiple Cropping Center (MCC) was established in 1969 as a joint project between the Ford Foundation and the Thai government to increase rice production in Chiang Mai. MCC has branded its own logo to identify crops grown using “Integrated Pest Manage‐ment” (IPM) and other pesticide reduced/free techniques. The MCC logo represents uncerti‐fied vegetables grown with the assurance of farmers’ adherence to a standard of safety and health set by MCC. MCC “informally certifies” these vegetables through the trust consumers have in the good reputation of MCC and its research staff.

Wyatt, Brett

There are many other certifications and la‐bels used to increase consumer confidence about certain vegetables. Among the formal certifications is the Clean Food Good Taste pro‐gram established in 1999 by MOPH. This certi‐fication was established for the marketing of food products, including vegetables, at retail locations. This certification does not indicate that certain vegetables have been tested for pesticide residues or that farming practices have been deemed “organic. The “Good Food Clean Taste” certification is used by many vegetable retailers to enhance the perceived quality of uncertified vegetables. This certifica‐tion is displayed on a large placard above the vegetables for the consumer to see. Consumers are led to believe that all of the vegetables be‐

4 Prior to 2008, NOSA was known as the Northern Or‐ganic Standards Organization (NOSO).

neath the placard are “safe and clean,” even though the certification only assures the cleanli‐ness of the facility. By far the vast majority of vegetables sold in Chiang Mai are uncertified. Within Thailand, less than 1% (.07%) of all farm land is cultivated under certified regulations (ITC 2008). Most of the non‐certified vegetables in Chiang Mai are distributed at a central wholesale market known as Muang Mai5. Uncertified vegetables are bought by retailers and sold at fresh markets, supermarkets, hypermarkets, restaurants and other retail outlets. Estimating the total uncerti‐fied vegetable consumption in Chiang Mai is outside the boundaries of this research. How‐ever, it is not unreasonable to say that the quan‐tity of certified to uncertified vegetables sold is proportionate to the amount of land under culti‐vation6.

Retail market venues in Chiang Mai There are four different vegetable retail mar‐ket venues in the city of Chiang Mai. These in‐clude hypermarkets, supermarkets, fresh mar‐kets, and certified weekly markets. Specialty “organic” shops were not included in this study. They are few in number, their produce is very limited and the source often unknown to the sales person. Each of the four main retail venues advertises a unique set of messages to their cus‐tomers. They create consumer spaces of cleanli‐ness, healthiness, convenience, quality and safety (Table 10, Annex). The slogans and mis‐sion statements of these retailers send specific messages to their customers. These statements form the outermost “spatial labelling” around the vegetables within the retailer’s space. Spatial labelling creates an understanding between con‐

5 Muang Mai wholesale market is a time established central wholesale market place for fruit and vegetables grown around the city of Chiang Mai. Farmers and assemblers bring produce that will be sold in throughout the city of Chiang Mai and to markets throughout Thailand. 6 For example, information obtained from the MOAC ex‐tension offices around the city of Chiang Mai showed that only 47 out of 8400 registered farmers are certified in San Sai and only 10 out of 11,290 farmers are certified in San Kamphaeng.


8

sumers and retailers that suggests that the commodities within the retailers’ market pos‐sess certain qualities. Spatial labelling may im‐ply certain meanings about the safety, cleanli‐ness, or freshness of the products being sold.. In the community markets, vegetables are sold in bulk or with minimal packaging without la‐bels. In this way, certification becomes known to the consumer by spatial labelling. Vegetables sold in community markets are accepted to be pesticide free by the reputation of the institu‐tion governing the farm groups. In contrast, supermarkets and hypermarkets wrap their vegetables in packages labelled with third‐party certifying logos, adding another layer of customer assurance through the advertisement of technical discourse (Allen et al. 1998:90, Massey 2005:85).


There are four major hypermarket7 chains in the city of Chiang Mai; these are Tesco‐Lotus, Carrefour, Big C, and Macro (a member‐ship store). This investigation looked specifi‐cally at Tesco‐Lotus and Carrefour, these being representative of hypermarkets in general and yet each expressing different and conflicting corporate ideologies. Tesco‐Lotus is widely known throughout Northern Thailand for its competitive tactics against local fresh markets (Nation 2007, Kasem 2008). Tesco‐Lotus has become even more aggressive by locating smaller versions of the Tesco‐Lotus chain adja‐cent to fresh markets in Chiang Mai, named Tesco‐Lotus Express. These locations are small grocery stores selling a selection of fresh pro‐duce. The Tesco‐Lotus Express locations are being developed rapidly, with at least five new stores constructed since the beginning of this research in 2006. In contrast, Carrefour has only one retail outlet in Chiang Mai. Tesco‐

7 According to the United States Department of Agricul‐ture (USDA), a hypermarket is, “The largest supermarket format, typically 150,000 square feet or more of floor space. General merchandise accounts for 40 percent of sales, while food and nonfood grocery products represent 60 percent of sales” USDA. 2007. Economic Research Ser‐vice. In Food Marketing System in the U.S.: Retail Food Glos‐sary.

Lotus and Carrefour demonstrate different pri‐oritizations of environmental and social issues. Tesco‐Lotus is frequently targeted by organiza‐tions such as Greenpeace for its promotion of unhealthy products and is currently on Green‐peace’s (www.greenpeace.org) black list for GMO products. In contrast, Carrefour is rarely criticized by consumer advocacy groups and is even promoted by Greenpeace for its attention to environmental concerns (Table 1). This research demonstrates how these ideologies influence farmers’ access to retail space under different regulatory schemes, resulting in different pro‐duction strategies. These strategies can be ob‐served in the types and varieties of vegetables grown by farmers under different certifications for different retail venues.

GMO Green List GMO Black ListGreen net Tesco‐LotusLemon Farm MakroCarrefourBig C SupercenterTops SupermarketSource : Greenpeace 2005

Table 1. Greenpeace GMO Certification 2005

One problem with comparing the vegetables between two markets is that vegetable availabil‐ity and varieties are impacted by seasonality. In general, both Tesco and Tesco‐Express only offer uncertified and RPF vegetables, and a few vege‐tables not available through RPF produced by larger distributors with Safety Vegetable certifi‐cations outside of Chiang Mai. Carrefour offers a much larger variety of vegetables from GAP and Safety Vegetable distributors, as well as vegeta‐bles grown by farmers in cooperation with MCC. This evidence suggests that Carrefour of‐fers greater access to a wider number of farmers growing pesticide reduced vegetables (Table 2). There are only two supermarket8 chains in Chiang Mai. Tops Market is a national super 8 The USDA defines supermarkets as large scale grocery stores selling “a general line of food products, such as canned and frozen foods; fresh fruits and vegetables; fresh


http://www.greenpeace.org/

9

Wyatt, Brett

market chain with three locations inside Chiang Mai and a forth location in nearby Mae Rim. Rimping Supermarket is a local chain with three locations located inside the city of Chiang Mai. Both markets offer a wide assort‐ment of food products and vegetables. They are set up as western‐style supermarkets with organized aisles lined with shelves holding processed and packaged food products and electronic checkout lanes. Rimping Supermar‐ket presents itself as a premium market place selling to the foreign expatriates and the upper income Thai consumers. Rimping Supermar‐ket advertises itself with a message of quality, cleanliness, and local charm. Likewise, Tops Market sells to expatriates and middle to upper income Thais. Tops Market advertises the con‐cept of “Freshness” to its customers. Both Rimping Supermarket and Tops Mar‐ket sell Doi Kham, Safety Vegetable, GAP, and internationally certified vegetables, such as vegetables certified by Soil Association and Bio‐ecert. Both markets also participate in la‐beling practices discussed earlier where uncer‐tified vegetables are cut, cleaned, and neatly packaged in wrappers with name branding stating that the vegetables are clean, fresh, and safe. These packages do not carry government certified or logos of informally certified farm groups. There are many fresh markets9 located throughout Chiang Mai. This research will use

rt

and prepared meats, fish, and poultry; and nonfood gro‐cery products” (USDA 2007). 9 The USDA defines these as “specialized food stores” (USDA 2007).

the term “fresh mar‐ket” to describe open‐air, non‐air‐conditioned markets, usually placed under one roof where multi‐ple, independent sell‐ers market vegetable and othe commodi‐ties directly to he public. These are of‐

ten referred to as “wet‐markets” in literature de‐scribing Asian open‐market places because they are often “wet” inside. (Wiboonpongse and Sri-boonchitta 2004, Somchai 2006) They are also noted as having “no stringent food safety re‐quirements, not very high quality requirements, no social issues” (Songpol 2005:34). These are as‐sertions situated from the perspective of those located outside of local networks. They come from a neoliberal point of view based on an un‐derstanding of corporate food networks not sub‐ject to local acceptance, local values, and local control.

Carrefour UncertifiedSafetyVegetable

Doi Kham GAP MCC

Tesco‐Lotus UncertifiedSafetyVegetable

Doi Kham

Tops Market UncertifiedSafetyVegetable

Doi Kham GAPInternationalCertifications

RimpingSupermarket

UncertifiedSafetyVegetable

Doi Kham GAPInternationalCertifications

Table 2. Hypermarkets and Supermarkets

Fresh markets abound in Thailand. In a May 2008 press release, the Internal Trade Depart‐ment director‐general Yanyong Phuangrach noted that there are 2,847 wet (sic) market opera‐tors earning between Bt50‐60 billion annually (1.4 to 1.7 billion US dollars at 35 baht/dollar) in Thailand (Methawee 2008). Fresh markets consti‐tute a significant share of the fresh vegetable market in Chiang Mai. Of these, only Nong Hoi and Siriwattana markets offer certified produce. The certified vegetable section at Nong Hoi is operated by two different vendors, one sup‐ported by ISAC and the other by a Safety Vege‐table certified farm group in Saraphi. This mar‐ket stand is not open every day of the week. Siriwattana fresh market has two operators selling RPF, Safety Vegetable and GAP certified vegetables daily. They have been selling certified vegetables for over seven years. The lead opera‐tor, Tanyaporn Jompang, is a farm leader in San Sai. Her farm group is certified Safety Vegetable though the Department of Agricultural Exten‐sion and GAP through MOAC. Her sister sells the same vegetables at an adjacent stall using an


10

independent label. Both operators sell RPF vegetables. These are marketed in Doi Kham packaging and under both retailer’s private labeling (Figure 2). This investigation focused on the Sirriwattana fresh market because of the long standing presence of two certified sellers. . Contrary to the opinion that fresh markets do not have stringent safety requirements, Sirri‐wattana is also unique by being Chiang Mai’s most highly rated fresh market by the Ministry of Public Health. Currently all vegetable sellers operating at the market are listed as “Gold La‐bel” under the “Good Food, Clean Taste” pro‐gram. Of the supermarkets and hypermarkets, only Tops Market can boast of this particular level of certification ISAC has a farmer’s market located inside the center of the city near a Tesco‐Lotus market (Map 1). Vegetables sold at ISAC are currently certified by NOSA. ISAC does not market vegetables from RPF or from any other farm group outside of its farm group. Farmers work‐ing with ISAC may sell their vegetables in other markets but not with any label associated with ISAC or NOSA. ISAC is essentially a closed community. ISAC farmers sell their vegetables in bulk; vegetables are not packaged or labeled. ISAC has several satellite locations outside of colleges, hospitals, and institutions, allowing their farmers to sell directly to the public seven days a week. There are over 350 farmers who belong to ISAC’s farm group. Many ISAC farmers also grow cash crops other than vegetables, including organic rice, soy‐beans, oranges and garlic. The Multiple Cropping Center (MCC) of Chiang Mai University provides a certified community market for its farm group. It is open on Wednesdays and Saturdays, the same as ISAC, and offers pesticide free products. MCC fresh market sells vegetables under a va‐riety of certifications, including vegetables from RPF. None of the vegetables sold at MCC community market carry labels, although vege‐table sold at MCC’s daily retail market, adja‐cent to the community market, are wrapped and marked with the MCC logo. Members of

MCC’s farm group are actively involved with ongoing research and study of Chiang Mai Uni‐versity. Farms are frequented by students and researchers, often several times a month, com‐pared to the annual inspections given by gov‐ernment certification boards. Some of MCC’s farmers are GAP certified, particularly those lo‐cated in the Saraphi district. However, most of MCC’s farmers do not have official government certification. MCC’s broad farmer base allows it to market a wide variety of vegetables. This is in contrast to ISAC, which maintains rigid policies regarding issues of fair trade and biodiversity; refusing to accept certain farming practices, such as the use of nets and certain fertilizers.

Data analysis This research examined the influence of con‐sumer spending and attitudes about certified vegetables, retail markets, and farmer strategies in forming certified vegetable networks. The re‐sults may help to understand the strategies used by certified farmers to find markets for their vegetables. More specifically, this research will demonstrate how certification opens a pathway of communication between farmers seeking to improve their livelihoods and consumers desir‐ing healthy, safe vegetables. Through certifica‐tion, farmers gain access to consumer markets based on trust and safety. This paper incorporates two separate phases of research on the certified farming practices oc‐curing around Chiang Mai. The first phase of research involved inspecting and interviewing over 70 farmers belonging to ISAC, MCC, and private farm groups. The results of this initial research study can help explain the goals of cer‐tified farmers, the types of vegetables they pro‐duce, and their outlook on community life. The second phase of research involved a survey ad‐ministered to Thai customers, in Thai language, from June to July of 2008 at locations represent‐ing the four different marketing venues in the city of Chiang Mai. Hypermarkets were repre‐sented by Tesco‐Lotus and Carrefour, while Tops Market and Rimping Supermarket were


11

targeted as representatives of the “supermar‐ket” category. The “fresh markets” included for the purposes of this study included Siriwattana fresh market and dedicated certified commu‐nity markets by ISAC and the MCC. These market venues are listed on Map 1 in the an‐nex. A total of 324 surveys were completed at these seven markets. The surveys were con‐ducted by native Thai speakers who were also fluent in local Northern Thai (Lanna) language in order to reach the largest number of partici‐pants, and to gain familiarity and trust of local people. The survey was not given to foreigners. The intent of the survey was to assess local Thai understanding of farming and certified practices at the market place. Including non‐Thai consumers would skew the data by intro‐ducing external understanding, of external values and external judgments. The case can be made that foreigners also shape the markets which I am studying. But by excluding for‐eigners I focus my analysis to the way Thai understand organic production processes and therefore look at local understanding as it is influenced by global, external, and transient interests of outside perspectives. Respondents were asked a wide range of questions to identify their gender, preference of vegetables and eating habits, overall trust of farmers and market sand logos, and questions relating to consumer understanding of certified vegetables. Most of the respondents were fe‐male (72%), possibly indicating that they are the primary shoppers for their families. Just over a third of the respondents were under 30, the rest being about equally distributed be‐tween older age groups (Table 3). Overall, the survey results found strong variation between the preference and attitudes of shoppers of dif‐ferent age groups and at different retailers. The English translation of the survey instrument can be found in the annex.

During my field observations farmers re‐peatedly stated that they changed to pesticide free or pesticide reduced practices for reasons of health, environment, and for an overall more salubrious lifestyle. Table 4 is a summary of per‐sonal interviews conducted with 12 ISAC and 14 MCC farmers. These are people with a close, personal connection to their land, with the average farm family living on their land for over 36 years. Nine of the farmers interviewed had lived on the same farm all of their lives, while most of the others moved to the farm after get‐ting married. Only one farm family had lived on their farm for less than 20 years.. Of all of the farmers interviewed, none were less than 40 years old. Farm sizes are small, being on average between 1 and 2 acres. These farms are operated by small families living a comfortable life out‐side the city. Their farms are not limited to vege‐table production and may, include a wide range of other foods grown interspersed with vegeta‐bles. Fish, frogs, chickens, cows, goats, and pigs are some of the most common animals raised for food. There are also several fruit trees and many varieties of non‐commercial plant species (local vegetables) grown for local consumption. Many farmers also reported renting up to 10 rai of land for rice production. Most certified farmers will plant pesticide‐free rice and derive even more food products, such as crabs, fish, insects, frogs and local vegetables, form the rice field. These products are not available if fertilizers and pesti‐cides are part of the production process. Typi‐cally, farmers will sell half of the rice to cover rent and harvest costs, keeping the rest for con‐sumption.

Wyatt, Brett

year. How

These senior farmers can be categorized as “flexible farmers” (Yos 2008), or more specifi‐cally as flexible entrepreneurs. Their cash benefit from farming averages less than 50,000 baht per

ever, most of these farmers have other part‐time occupations, such as small home crafts, food preparation, and other value‐added small industries. They also derive income selling fruits, livestock, poultry, and prepared

Over 18 to 30 Over 30 to 40 Over 40 to 50 Over 5035.2% 23.1% 20.6% 21.2%

Table 3. Age of Respondents


12


c

members

foods. The fact is that these farm‐ers lead very complex, flexible lives. In a 2009 report on farmers associated with ISAC, OXFAM researchers reported that farmer income from the sale of all farm commodities at the community markets throughout Chiang Mai ranged from 50,000 baht a year to over 460,000 baht per year10 Total farm income was made by oor‐dinated activities of the entire cer‐tified farm group of a village. Family members shared responsi‐bilities for growing, harvesting, preparation and marketing. Vil‐lage shared transporta‐tion costs and cooperated in sell‐ing (OXFAM 2008). Through certified farm practice these farmers obtained a lifestyle based on sufficiency and community culture. The agricultural practiced observed by the farmer remedied the deleterious effects of chemical and pesticide use on the land allow‐ing for the collection of and propagation of tra‐ditional foods. Farmers were able to utilize all of the by‐products of their farms for profit and consumption. Certified farm groups work closely together to maintain the integrity of their fields, the overall health and biodiversity of their environments. This is not to say that non‐certified groups do not experience com‐munity culture, only that the practice of or‐ganic agricultural practices increases the op‐portunity to experience many more aspects of community and cultural life.

Category ISAC MCC TotalFarm Size (rai) 4.5 2.4 3.6Tenure (yrs) 37.3 35.2 36.3Age (yrs) 51.1 53.4 52.3Ave Persons in Household 3.9 4.5 4.2Certified (yrs) 6.9 3.8 5.5Annual Vegetable Incomein Baht (2008: 35 baht = US$1)

493,000 440,000 467,000

Help from Au Ba Taw(District)

50% 71% 62%

Help from Au Ba Jaw(Province)

33% 50% 42%

Kanman(Village Headman) 8% 36% 23%

Table 4. Results of farmer interviews conducted in Chiang Mai

The ideals of a “sufficiency economy” have been promoted by King Bhumibol Adulyadej as a practice of self‐sufficiency and self‐reliance, espousing a policy of following ʺthe middle pathʺ of moderation. It is based on Buddhist precepts of moderation. Sufficiency economy is a proposition offered to Thai peo‐

10 At the current rate of 35 baht to US dollar, this amounts to about US$1500 to US$13,100 per year in TOTAL farm income.

ple to counter the negative effects of globaliza‐tion and neoliberal economics. It is a Royal Thai policy to help the people of Thailand to avoid debt caused by overspending while at the same time maintaining local cultures and traditions. At the local level, sufficiency economy directs farmers to grow enough to eat and live, using excess production to obtain what they can not make (Piboolsravut 2004a:28). Nationally, the same policy suggests that this ʺmiddle pathʺ is the key to ʺmodernize in line with the forces of globalizationʺ (Suthawan and Piboolsravut 2004:7) and direct productivity toward ʺhigher levels of economic growth and developmentʺ by ʺpursuing more advanced levels of economic development” (Piboolsravut 2004b:1). Key to sufficiency economy is the goal of scalar levels of sufficiency. The local farmer should produce to meet family needs, with surplus made available for local markets. The idea advances to increas‐ing market scale, with the goal to meet national needs without exploitation and waste. Both MCC and ISAC leaders support the goals of suf‐ficiency economy, with the later striving to pro‐mote the ideals of self‐sufficiency and commu‐nity culture within a landscape of modernization and commoditization. Certified vegetable pro‐duction in Chiang Mai demonstrates the link be‐


13

tween certification with changes in the liveli‐hood strategies of vegetable farmers. Certifica‐tion functions as a point of passage for farmers to enter into non‐conventional, organic and pesticide reduced markets. Certified farming practice contributes to a farmer’s ability to live a life congruent to what has been termed com‐munity culture. The lifestyle of community cul‐ture has elements of sustainable livelihood, suf‐ficiency economy, and traditional Lanna values. It forms the foundation of Northern Thai communities. It is weakened when con‐ventional farming practices, combined with developmental agendas of the state and the subsequent capitalization of the agrarian land‐scape create stress within the village, including the poisoning of paddy water leading to the killing off of fish, frogs and crabs, the out mi‐gration of younger people searching for ‘mod‐ern” lives in the city, and the loss of farm land due to real estate speculation. Community culture was summarized in an interview with Chomchuan Boonrahong, the director of ISAC, as all of the daily practices within the Thai village. It is life in a community of people where life cycle events such as mar‐riages, births, deaths and merit events such as money trees for the temple, Buddhist days and other holidays are celebrated as community events. Community culture, along with health and well being, are the most important consid‐erations stated by farmers during interviews concerning why they adopt certified vegetable growing practices. The ideals of community culture are often seen as a form of local resistance to authority by the government ministries while the objec‐tives of government are seen as counter to those of community culture by its practitioners. Referring to table 4, the farmers of ISAC and MCC do not garner a great deal of support from government agencies. When specifically asked whether they receive help from the Kanman, the village Headman, Au‐Ba‐Taw, the district level government, or Au‐Ba‐Jaw, the provincial level government, most farmers said no. Those who did take advantage of govern‐ment programs generally benefited from free

giveaways of nets and “bio” products used in making fertilizers or natural insect repellants. This was most often the case for MCC farmers. ISAC farmers were specifically told not to take nets or “bio” products because they are detri‐mental to supporting bio‐diversity. ISAC farm‐ers who went to government meetings stated they attend Au‐Ba‐Taw or Au‐Ba‐Jaw events to keep informed about their community. Farmers are aware of the detrimental affects that new business and industry can have on their growing fields. The new projects promoted by the kan‐man are generally not liked by farmers of either organization. Most farmers belonging to MCC or ISAC identify the kanman as someone interested in helping those in positions of power, in the promotion of new business, the construction of new buildings, roads, and housing. These pro‐jects have little benefit to the farmer and may create problems such as traffic congestion, inter‐ruption of water resources, and other limits to agricultural production. The kanman is the di‐rect representative of the Ministry of the Interior and the local activist for national development policies, positoned in this paper as neoliberal values. With so much reported benefit from certified agriculture it would seem that every farmer would want to be certified. Marketplace data explains the apparent discrepancies between the numerous reports of Thailand’s expanding “or‐ganic” market and the actual availability of certi‐fied produce available for consumers. Too much credit is given to the size and growth of the or‐ganic vegetable markets in Thailand. There is very little organic produce available in the mar‐kets as defined by international standards. All government certified vegetables within Thailand allow for the use of pesticides. Certified farmers are allowed to use chemicals with certain restric‐tions, amounts, and periods of application. In‐ternationally certified organic vegetables are grown almost exclusively for export only. There are officially several thousand certified farmers throughout the province of Chiang Mai, including rice farmers, orchard producers, and


14


highland farmers11 associated with RPF. With new government funding, several hundred new farmers are being certified in the Saraphi district just outside of Chiang Mai. However, field investigations conducted in 2007 revealed that many of these farmers were only in a planning stage of production. Some had never been farmers before while others did not have land to farm. Currently, there may be as few as 500 small‐scale vegetable farmers living in the Chiang Mai area actually selling vegetables in Chiang Mai. These farmers are unique in that they have achieved their goals of self‐sufficiency through certified farming. During field interviews these farmers have claimed to live a healthier lifestyle (free of the use of poi‐sonous chemicals), and have greater involve‐ment with other people in their villages through their organized farming groups. This is not to suggest that only certified farming groups contribute to “community culture.”, but that their agricultural practices based on self‐sufficiency, biodiversity, and environmental

p

e

11 This study will use the term ʺhighland farmerʺ to repre‐sent farmers living in the mountain areas of Chiang Mai. These farmers are often referred to as ʺhilltribesʺ, a de‐meaning term misrepresenting their cultural diversity. Though these farmers are mostly Thai nationals, they belong to different ethnic groups.

concern contribute to the overall health and organization of the community. However, it is doubtful that the certified commodity networks would exist without external mone‐tary support from NGO’s, Thai govern‐ment grants, or the er‐sistence of local entre‐preneurs int rested in certified farming prac‐tice. What is seen then is not simply a local community practice, but a composition of

many actors responsible for maintain the net‐work. Community culture is a translation of multiple networks of power meeting in the agrarian landscape of Chiang Mai (Latour 1999:179, Forsyth 2003:87) What was community culture before has been displaced and reconcep‐tualized by its participants into new forms of local practice, The benefactors of these commu‐nities have come together around similar goals, the resulting compromises being the displace‐ments. The same process of translation occurs to their non‐certified neighbors whose livelihoods depend on conventional markets. These enter‐prises do not support issues of biodiversity, en‐vironmental protection or self‐sufficiency. Their goals are for the realization of profit and accu‐mulation. The resulting translations do not pro‐mote community culture.

Farm Leader Market Location Farmers

Jamarat Womsa Contract San Kamphaeng 10

Tanyaporn Jompang Thanin Fresh Market San Sai 20

Kampan FarmContract and MCCCommunity Market

San Sai 20

Duang Duan San Sai Hospital San Sai 7Kasem Farm RPF Market Saraphi 1

Dangdtoy TawanaNong Hoi FreshMarket

Saraphi 2

Nittack NitradDemonstrationMarkets and Contract

Saraphi 45

Table 5. Independent Farm Groups around Chiang Mai

The private sector offers very little opportu‐nity for farmers to participate in the retail mar‐ket. Records at the district offices indicated that there were only six private vegetable farm groups actively marketing their produce in Chiang Mai (Table 5). Many of these farm groups have mixed strategies. For example, farmers in the Kampan Farm group are also as‐sociated with MCC. These farm groups are un‐stable and farmers often break away to sell their vegetables at fractionally higher prices to other


15

vendors. The margins on vegetable sales for assemblers are small. Also, the assembler is re‐sponsible for delivery, maintenance, and re‐moval of unsold product. Failure to meet the contract results in stiff penalty fees and even‐tually the cancellation of the contract. The as‐sembler faces dire consequences if only a few farmers choose to sell‐out for a higher price. Successful assemblers, such as Khun Tanya‐porn, sell directly from fresh market stalls. Even farmers belonging exclusively to com‐munity markets, such as MCC, may turn away from certified farming when revenues fall too low. One such group in Mae Rim disbanded and left farming all together because the cost of transportation to the MCC market in Chiang Mai was too expensive. Consumers interested in health and safety issues complete the commodity network for certified vegetables. A clear pattern of con‐sumer habits was observed after categorizing consumer responses by age and venue (Graph 1). The first pattern shows consumer prefer‐ence for market venue. Younger people fre‐quent supermarkets and hypermarkets. Hypermarkets appear to be particularly attrac‐tive to consumers under 30 years of age. This venue offers many shopping amenities, an air conditioned environment, and the attractive

appeal of Western modernism reinforced by prime‐time television advertisements. The 30 to 40 year old group appears to prefer supermar‐kets and fresh markets. These people are gener‐ally married with families. They are attracted to the convenience of the supermarkets as similar groups are around the world. However, they are also found at the fresh markets where they may purchase a cornucopia of local vegetables. The 40 to 50 year old group tends to prefer the fresh and community markets. The convenience of supermarkets and hypermarkets may not be as appealing to an age group of families with grown children. Lastly, the over 50 year old group tends to frequent the community markets. This group has a clear preference for certified, fresh produce. Their age may make them more alert to the dangers of chemical and pesticide use in uncertified vegetables, as well as more leisure time in their schedules to shop at the lim‐ited hours of community markets. These con‐sumers are also presented with information about the dangers of pesticides and their use by the organizations supporting the marketplace (Table 6). A different pattern emerged when consum‐ers less than 50 years of age were asked specifi‐cally where they purchased vegetables in Chiang Mai (Graph 2). For this group, fresh markets

Graph 1. Age of Respondents at Market Venue


16


were the most frequently shopped venues, fol‐lowed by the community markets. In fact, this survey determined that almost 70% of consum‐ers purchase vegetables at fresh markets (Graph 3). This can be easily explained by re‐ferring back to the vegetable price data. First, supermarkets and hypermarkets are almost always more expensive than the fresh markets, often by a factor of two. This is not the case for sale items, which are not consis‐tent. Second, supermarkets and hypermarkets do not have the same selection of local vegetables as the fresh and community mar‐kets. This evidence shows that the marketplace for all vegetables, in‐cluding certified vegetables, is at the fresh and community markets. Opportunities for farmers de‐crease at the supermarkets and hypermarkets, not only because of consumer preference, but also be‐cause these venues are dominated by commercial resellers who can meet the production scale re‐quired by large retailers. Chiang Mai consumers appear to find these certifications accept‐

able. This research found that Chiang Mai consumers of all ages trust logos. This trust tends to increase with age. When asked about “government logos,” all age groups responded favorably and understood that logos showing the offi‐cial symbol (Figure 2) can be trusted. The Doi Kham logo was generally trusted by those over 30, though many consumers under 30 are not sure what the Doi Kham logo represents at all. Safety Vegetable, the oldest of the certi‐fications, is generally well trusted by all age groups (Table 7). Consumers clearly have little confi‐dence in supermarkets or the farmers (Table 8). When asked if consumers trust the farmer the result for those un‐der 50 was no. When asked about

farmer’s use of pesticides, 70% of the respon‐dents said they believed that farmers used too much. Consumer apprehension about pesticide use was also observed in a 1996 survey in Chiang Mai with similar result (Chakrapand 1996:section 2‐53). Consumers are clearly wor‐ried about the use of pesticides and do not trust supermarkets or farmers to protect

Market Time DaysTesco‐Lotus 9:00am – 10:30pm DailyTesco‐Lotus Express 24 hours DailyCarrefour 9:00am – 9:00pm DailyTops Market 10:00am – 9:00pm DailyRimping Supermarket 10:00am – 9:00pm DailyThanin Fresh Market 6:00am – 8:00pm Daily

MCC 6:00am – 1:00pmWednesdayandSaturday

ISAC 6:00am – 10:00pmWednesdayandSaturday

Table 6. Shopping Hours at Markets in Chiang Mai

Under 30 30 to 39 40 to 49 Over 50 OverallTrust 59.5% 57.1% 64.9% 80.0% 63.0%Not Sure 20.2% 24.3% 26.3% 17.1% 22.4%Not Trust 20.2% 18.6% 8.8% 2.9% 14.6%



Trust Government Logo

Trust Doi Kham

Trust Safety Vegetable

Table 7. Trust in Logo



17

Graph 2. Location of Vegetable Purchases as a Percent of Age Group

Graph 3. Location of Vegetable Purchases by all Respondents

18


their best interests. Certified labeling helps farmers overcome the doubts of consumers about farming practices by providing assur‐ance of oversight for production standards. In‐terestingly, consumers over 50 tended to trust the farmer, but as the research will show, these consumers tend to purchase at community markets and have a more personal relationship with the farmer. Consumers also claim to ac‐cept the increased price of certified vegetables, with only 14% of those surveyed claiming that certified vegetables are too expensive to buy while 60% claim that the price is acceptable. However, evidence shows that consumer pur‐chasing habits do not support their assurance of price acceptability. Almost 70% of all cus‐tomers surveyed buy vegetables at the low priced, fresh markets (Graph 6). Overall, com‐munity markets provide the best venue by al‐lowing farmers to offer lower prices and inter‐act directly with consumers. Given consumer mistrust of farmers and worry about pesticide use, certification allows farmers to market directly to these concerns. However, certification is all but meaningless if farmers can not find a market in which to sell the vege‐tables. Muang Mai market is the central whole‐sale exchange for all locally grown vegetables in and around Chiang Mai. Only uncertified vegetables are available at Muang Mai. Though Muang Mai specializes in uncertified produce, it is also an exchange for many local vegeta‐bles, both commercial grown and gathered vegetables assembled by resellers. Certified

farmers, their assemblers and other distributors of certified produce will not go to Muang Mai unless they have an excess of product to be dumped into the uncertified market. Vegetables from Muang Mai will be bundled into smaller units and sold at fresh markets, supermarkets, hypermarkets and other commercial food outlets throughout Chiang Mai. It may be assumed that the daily prices at Muang Mai constitute the lowest bulk price for vegetables in the city. It may also be assumed that the vegetables at Muang Mai market were assembled from many farmers at the farm gate price, this being the price paid directly to farmers by assemblers.

Over 18 30 to 39 40 to 49 Over 50Trust 39% 32% 43% 60%Not Sure 12% 7% 8% 12%Not Trust 49% 60% 48% 29%

Over 18 30 to 39 40 to 49 Over 50Trust 31% 28% 32% 32%Not Sure 12% 17% 11% 16%Not Trust 58% 55% 57% 52%

Table 8. Trust in Farmer/Market

Trust the Farmer

Trust the Supermarket

Farmers wanting to sell certified vegetables must work outside of the uncertified produce network and find other wholesalers and markets in which to sell. To be profitable, they must sell at a premium above the farm gate price offered to uncertified farmers. The result is a higher value‐added price at the final retail outlet. This research investigated vegetable prices to better understand the variation between wholesale and retail prices of uncertified and certified vegeta‐bles. A study was conducted during a single day to establish the market price of specific vegeta‐bles throughout Chiang Mai. Vegetable prices were obtained from Muang Mai wholesalers, RPF wholesale and retail price, MCC and ISAC retail prices, and fresh, super, and hyper market prices. In many cases, what appear to be certi‐fied vegetables are repackaged, uncertified vege‐tables from Muang Mai. Also, certified vegeta‐bles bought wholesale from RPF are repackaged and labeled with the private, equivalent certifi‐cations of individual resellers. At the time of this investigation only RPF could offer GAP certified wholesale vegetables. Price plays an important role in the decision to grow and market vegetables under a certified, regulatory standard. Graphs 4 to 6 show the prices of kale, carrots, and longbeans at each of the retail market venues examined by this re‐search as well as the wholesale prices at RPF and the uncertified whole price at Muang Mai. In all three cases the wholesale price for uncertified vegetables is far below the certified prices of


19

each venue. This is the lowest price offered by assemblers to retailers. The wholesale price is generally more than double the farm gate price. Upland farmers participating in the RPF commodity network are paid a daily price above the farm gate price generally above the price for uncertified vegetables. RPF collection centers are conveniently located near highland farmer villages, reducing transportation costs for farmers. However, they are not paid a con‐tract price. Instead, RPF pays a floating spot price for vegetables. This price may fluctuate hourly depending on the supply of vegetables brought in by highland farmers. If too many vegetables are brought to RPF collection cen‐ters the price paid may fall below Muang Mai wholesale. At that time many farmers will transport their vegetables to Muang Mai and dump them on the uncertified market. RPF wholesale price, labelled “Doi Kham No Label,” is the price charged by RPF for un‐wrapped, unlabeled, certified vegetables of‐fered to certified retailers. Unwrapped and unlabeled produce is repackaged under a dif‐

ferent name and equivalent certified label. RPF maintains higher prices for certified vegetables by controlling the supply through its pricing policy for highland farmers. Often, Highland farmers will break their contracts with RPF if they can get higher prices at Muang Mai. RPF pays premium prices on a first‐come first served basis. Collection centers will offer lower prices for vegetables when RPF reaches its quota. This minimizes RPF losses when supply far exceeds demand. In extreme cases RPF will dump excess production in land fills to maintain prices. However, most of the time Highland farmers following RPF planting guidelines receive higher compensation for their vegetables. Khun Tanayporn Jompang began non‐certified agriculture 14 years ago as part of dem‐onstration projects with Mae Jo University. She was invited by agricultural professors associated with the University to oversee 10 farmers in a pesticide reduction project. The project was es‐pecially concerned with researching the pesti‐cide reduced practices of RPF. She was asked to select vegetables for local markets and to assist them in helping their farmers increase profits.

Graph 4. Price and Availability of Kale

Note: (S) Safety Vegetable (DK) Doi Kham packaging (Q) GAP, source is RPF wholesale (No) no labeling, source is Muang Mai, (GEN) Carrefour label, not certified.



20

Graph 5. Price and Availability of Carrots


Graph 6. Price and Availability of Longbeans


21

When the project ended, Khun Tanayporn con‐tinued marketing their vegetables and estab‐lished the San Sai farm group. When certifica‐tion through MOAC was offered ten years ago, Khun Tanyaporn directed her farm group to follow Safety Vegetable practices. Today, she has moved on to become certified under GAP. She offers her farmers a fixed contact for their vegetables. The price will not vary no matter how high or low market prices change. Her farmers have agreed not to opt out of the con‐tract and accept the security of a guaranteed income. The few farmers who have broken the contract are rejected from the group and are no longer offered contracts for their vegetables. Of the vegetables examined during this survey, only kale was available from Tanayporn’s farmers. Her farmers received a price well over regular wholesale or community market prices. One reason that Khun Tanyaporn can offer high prices is because she selects vegetables which receive high prices in her market. For example, Khun Tanyaporn selected a variety called kanna hong kong, for its good taste and high market value. As a small‐scale enterprise, Khun Tanayporn is able to increase her premi‐ums by carefully selecting high‐priced varieties for her farmers to grow and thereby benefit from market differentiation. Farmers participating in the MCC or ISAC markets have the advantage of selling directly to the public. Their costs to sell include trans‐portation and a minimum fee for stall space. Community market farmers receive at least double the farm gate price for the vegetables. Those farmers selling directly to a certified re‐tailer, as in the case of those certified as Safety Vegetable, are on a contract price. This price is generally higher than the farm gate price given to RPF farmers and lower than the price re‐ceived by MCC or ISAC farmers selling di‐rectly to community markets. The contract price is set for the year, insulating farmers from price fluctuation. These farmers have an addi‐tional advantage of not incurring transporta‐tion costs or space rental. In each case of this study, MCC and ISAC farmers received prices many times above the

farm gate price for uncertified vegetables. By selling directly to the public, farmers at commu‐nity market receive prices equivalent to the retail price of uncertified vegetables. MCC and ISAC leaders encourage farmers to keep their prices about the same as those at the fresh market to stay competitive. The directors of the commu‐nity markets give farmers space either free of charge or at nominal fees, reducing their over‐head to only transportation costs. Prices at supermarkets and hypermarkets reflect the many additional costs involved with these market venues. Most of the certified vege‐tables available at supermarkets and hypermar‐kets are from RPF. They are offered either in Doi Kham packaging or repackaged by the market or a third‐party reseller. Assemblers are responsible for delivering certified vegetables to supermarkets and hyper‐markets in Chiang Mai. Site inspections were conducted at supermarkets and hypermarkets to determine which assemblers delivered vegeta‐bles to these venues (Table 11, Annex). Super‐markets were found to have far more choices of certified vegetables than hypermarkets. How‐ever, many of the labels identifying vegetables in supermarkets were misleading, taking advan‐tage of consumers trust in labels (Table 8). Of the eleven non‐certificated vegetable labels found in this survey, seven made a claim of being “safe vegetables” or of using organic methods. These are deceptive practices aimed at assuring con‐sumers of product safety. For example, “Cfresh”, a vegetable reseller marketing packaged, uncer‐tified vegetables in Rimping Supermarket, uses the slogan “The quality and safety you can trust”. Uncertified vegetables at Carrefour sold by Ngoc Ngoi actually say “Safe Vegetable” in Thai language. However, neither of these com‐panies displays a government logo on their packaging. The survey shows that a large num‐ber of consumers are unaware of what the dif‐ferent certifications are or mean. This represents an opportunity for unscrupulous vegetable deal‐ers to sell cheap, uncertified vegetables at certi‐fied premiums. Of the twelve certified vegetables identified, only one label represented a certified farm group


22

in Chiang Mai. In fact, very little government certified produce in supermarkets or hyper‐markets, with the exception of RPF products, comes from farm groups near Chiang Mai. The largest independent suppliers to Chiang Mai’s supermarkets and hypermarkets are Pak Doc‐tor, Future Farm and Thai Organic Farm. These companies are located in Prathum Thani, Chiang Rai, and Ratchaburi provinces, respect‐fully. Vegetables labeled “Queen’s Project” are grown by an independent operator working with a royal project in Chiang Dao District, lo‐cated in the northern part of Chiang Mai prov‐ince. Another independent operator, “Q Farm”, is located in nearby Hang Dong district. Rimp‐ing Supermarket goes as far as to import USDA certified leafy salads from Mexico and the United States. These commercial operations do not qualify as small‐scale, vegetable farmers. In fact, they limit the opportunities of local farm‐ers by dominating these retail venues.


The only certified vegetables sold by small farmers around Chiang Mai to large retail ven‐ues come from the Mai Ping farm group organ‐ized by MCC. Only Carrefour carries Mae Ping farm group vegetables. This farm group is co‐ordinated by MCC director Puangmanee Jatu‐rong and draws its membership from MCC participating farmers. Group members may use the MCC logo on their labels along with contact information which identifies the loca‐tion of their farm. The Mae Ping farm group can achieve the scale necessary for commercial retail markets by combining their vegetable production to meet Carrefour’s requirements. The Mae Ping group is particularly interesting because it is an example of certification by reputation. MCC has no authority to grant cer‐tification under any Thai ministry or ACFS. The pubic accepts MCC farmers because they are aware of the high standards of management maintained by MCC researchers and staff.

An investigation of the certified vegetable market in Chiang Mai cannot be complete with‐out an examination of the influence of local vegetables. Northern Thai people have a strong preference for vegetables specific to their region. The influence of local vegetables, typically not found in western style supermarkets and hypermarkets, can be easily overlooked and is generally not part of any research concerning certified vegetables in Thailand. The survey found that 87% of the respondents purchase lo‐cal vegetables at least once a week. The name itself is misleading, as the term “local vegeta‐bles” is used by Thai people to simplify for for‐eigners the hundreds of different plants, fruits, and herbs used in Lanna cooking. Table 12 in the annex provides a list of the most common Lanna vegetables available at Muang Mai wholesale market, fresh markets, and MCC and ISAC community markets. In the past, most local vegetables were harvested from “the fence, the field, or the forest.” Lanna people say that these vegetables were sown by the birds and available for everyone. However, with increasing urbani‐zation, the reduction of rice fields and the pre‐ponderance of walled land parcels, access to lo‐cal vegetables has been severely reduced. Northern Thai people also consume large amounts of Western12 vegetables. The survey found that 73% of respondents purchase West‐ern vegetables at least once a week. Also, sev‐enty percent of respondents purchase cabbage at least once a week (Graph 7). In fact, well over half of the respondents make a trip several times a week for fresh vegetables of all kinds, demon‐strating the strong demand for fresh vegetables and plentiful opportunities for local farmers to sell vegetables. Most of these trips are to fresh and community markets.

12 Western vegetables referred to broccoli, cauliflower, and red radish in the survey. Maybe try “For the purposes of this survey, “western” vegetables include broccoli, cauli‐flower, and red radish”.


23

Wyatt, Brett

Local vegetables are readily available for Northern Thai consumers at fresh and com‐munity markets. Recently, some local vegeta‐bles have been classified as “economic” vege‐tables by the Management Center for Clean Vegetables (MCS), a marketing group estab‐lished at Rajaphat University in Mae Rim, Chiang Mai province. This classification is given to local vegetables grown commercially. The list does not include local vegetables grown commercially produced by RPF. The local vegetables named on the MCS list may be found at TOPS, Rimping, Carrefour and Tesco‐Lotus. The longer list of local vegetables, de‐scribed in the annex, are mostly produced in small gardens, farmers’ rice fields, or gathered from open spaces. These are assembled and brought to Muang Mai for redistribution to fresh markets. The scale of production required by large retailers currently prevents most local vegetables from being offered at these venues. Local vegetables available at MCC and ISAC are gathered from the rice fields or grown in small gardens by member farmers and brought to the market for sale. These vegetables have the additional quality of being considered certi‐

fied. The farmers selling these vegetables prac‐tice pesticide control measures for their other vegetable crops. It is not likely that any pesticide or chemical fertilizer was used to increase the production of local vegetables. The local vegeta‐ble provides a unique opportunity for certified farmers to fulfill the large, local demand of Chiang Mai consumers for these products.

Graph 7. Frequency of Vegetable Purchases

Discussion This research sought to establish a connec‐tion between the adoption of regulatory tech‐niques leading to certified, pesticide free vegeta‐ble farming and the possibility for Northern Thai farmers around the city of Chiang Mai to gain access to the certified produce market. Addi‐tionally, these farmers can gain both economic and social benefits by entering the certified vege‐table market. This research concludes that while it is possible for small farmers to gain access to consumers demanding certified vegetables, the opportunities for participation are limited and available only through close association with community organizations or small enterprises.


24

Other more provocative questions arose while investigating the certifications associated with organic vegetable production around Chiang Mai. What are the meanings of vegeta‐ble certification and the relevance of official certification to constituting a commodity chain? As noted earlier, there are 364 different certifying bodies in 57 different countries. Though IFOAM would like to be the interna‐tional standard, many different perspectives and perceptions of organic exist in the world. Furthermore, these 364 certifying bodies are only the ones that have been identified by The Organic Standard, there are possibly many more small, regional standards exist which are accepted by their respective communities. This question led me deeply into the concept within actor‐network theory of “seeing differ‐ently”(Lowe and Ward 1997:258). I identified several unique certified vegetable networks where production and consumption both occur in Chiang Mai. For purposes of this discussion I will focus on those networks certifying under MOAC, ACT, and NOSA. Each of these certify‐ing bodies has a set of regulatory standards meeting the needs of specific consumer mar‐kets. RFP complies with GAP and markets throughout Thailand. Farmers who choose to certify their farms under ACT regulations (Such as farmers producing baby corn for ex‐port in the Ma Tha district, not covered by this study) comply with IFOAM and specifically grow for export, or for premium supermarkets and hypermarkets. ISAC farmers certify under NOSA specifically for local community mar‐kets. Each of these farm groups has forged a complex commodity network for the produc‐tion, distribution, and sale of organic vegeta‐bles. The consumer groups supporting the sales of certified vegetables have agreed to the standards through the act of consumption. The actor‐network approach provides a way for us to disentangle, issues of scale and power, and observe them in a continuum of regulatory processes. This leads to a series of questions regarding values and judgments. How can Thailand label

vegetables as organic that have been sprayed with pesticides? Why do consumers accept vege‐tables as organic that can not qualify under in‐ternational standards? Have international or‐ganic standards been co‐opted by the neoliberal policies of large‐scale retailers? While this re‐search can not answer all of these questions, it can lend insight into a few. In the case of Thai‐land, its sovereignty gives it the right to deter‐mine laws within its borders. The Thai govern‐ment has legislated limited pesticide use as a type of organic process. Thailand’s GAP makes no claim to be pesticide free. The Thai public appears to accept the levels of residue as healthy and of a quality above vegetables produced con‐ventionally. Further research is needed to inves‐tigate how these standards were developed and the subtleties in marketing pesticide reduced vegetables as “safe and healthy”. Research is also needed to ascertain if the public is involved in the establishment of these standards and the role, if any, of consumer advocacy groups on government policy regarding organic produc‐tion. My continuing research focuses on the dy‐namic relationship between unofficial certifica‐tion and the consumer. This is an area of re‐search examining coalitions of people interested in establishing agricultural networks based on similar ideals and goals. These networks cross over many institutions at differing levels of scale, power, and differing objectives. They bring together the influence of international NGOs, the needs of local farmers, and govern‐ment resources as directed by key individuals acting as local leaders. These are networks emerging from civil society, through the forma‐tion of local governance over specific issues to meet the needs of subgroups otherwise ne‐glected, or unseen, by the government. Further study is needed to determine if these local, and at times quasi‐official, actions are worked into official institutions, policy, and action. To conclude, at this time small farmers seek‐ing to participate in the certified vegetable mar‐ket in Chiang Mai must become part of a larger organization, such as ISAC or MCC, or find a


25

farm leader willing to act as an assembler and sell their vegetables. In the case of the latter, small farmers would become certified under official, government sponsored regulations. Once certified, farmers claim to receive ade‐quate incomes from their farming activities, including many by‐products of the production process. Most of these farmers can be consid‐ered as flexible, in that farm activities are only one part of their livelihood. Farmers also claim to obtain a clean and healthy lifestyle filled with community values and associations.

References ACFS (2009) Background, http://www.acfs.go.th/eng/background.php.

ACT (2003) ACT Organic Agricultural Standards 2003, ACT. www.actorganic.org

Agrawal, A. (2005) Environmentality : technolo‐gies of government and the making of subjects. Durham: Duke University Press.

Allen, J., D.B. Massey, A. Cochrane & J. Charlesworth (1998) Rethinking the Region. London; New York: Routledge.

Arntsen, S. (2003) ʹLandscape and Meaning: The Immaterial Dimension of Environmental Preservationʹ, in G. Backhaus & J. Murungi (eds) Tensional landscapes : the dynamics of boundaries and placements, xxix, 197. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books.

Chai‐Anan, S. (1987) ʹThe Bureaucracyʹ, in X. Somsakdi & Southeast Asian Studies Pro‐gram (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies) (eds) Government and politics of Thailand, xii, 243. Singapore; New York: Oxford University Press.

Chakrapand, W. (1996) ʹA Study for Operation Plan and Investment Priorities to Solve Envi‐ronmental Problems in Chiang Mai Province: Executive Summaryʹ. Chiang Mai: Faculty of Social Sciences, Chiang Mai University.

Chomchuan, B. (2008) ʹInstitute for a Sustain‐able Agriculture Community under the NORTHNET Foundationʹ. Institute for a Sus‐tainable Agricultural Community.

Eaton, C., A. Shepherd & Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2001) ʹContract Farming: partnerships for growthʹ. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Ellis, W., V. Panyakul, D. Vildozo & D.A. Kasterine (2006) ʹStrengthening the Ex‐port Capacity of Thailand’s Organic Agricul‐ture: Final Reportʹ. Geneva, Switzerland: Asia Trust Fund Project and the International Trade Centre (UNCTAD/WTO).

FAO (2001) ʹWorld Markets for Organic Fruit and Vegetables ‐ Opportunities for Developing Countries in the Production and Export of Or‐ganic Horticultural Productsʹ. Rome: Interna‐tional Trade Centre of the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation.

Forsyth, T. (2003) Critical Political Ecology: the politics of environmental science. London; New York: Routledge.

Greenpeace (2005) ʹTrue Food Shopping Guideʹ. GreenPeace Southeast Asia.

IFOAM (2009) ʹAbout IFOAMʹ. www.ifoam.org.

ITC (2008) ʹCountry Profile: Thailandʹ. Interna‐tional Trade Centre.

Jatarong, P. (2007) Local Vegetable and Lanna Food (In Thai). Chiang Mai Nantapun Printing.

JICA. (2002) Capacity Building of Local Authorities in Thailand. Bangkok: Department of Local Administration.

Kasem, S. (2008) ʹFirms back Tesco opponentsʹ, Bangkok Post.

Latour, B. (1999) Pandoraʹs Hope: essays on the re‐ality of science studies. Cambridge, Mass.: Har‐vard University Press.

_______ (2005) ʹOn Recalling ANTʹ, in J. Law & J. Hassard (eds) Actor network theory and after, 256. Oxford England; Malden, MA: Black‐well/Sociological Review.

Law, J. (1991) ʹStrategies of Powerʹ, in J. Law (ed) A Sociology of Monsters: essays on power, technol‐ogy, and domination, 273. London; New York: Routledge.


http://www.acfs.go.th/eng/background.php

http://www.actorganic.org/

http://www.ifoam.org/

26

Law, J. & K. Hetherington (2002) ʹMaterialities, Spatialities, Globalitiesʹ, in M.J. Dear & S. Flusty (eds) The Spaces of Postmodernity : readings in human geography, xviii, 486. Ox‐ford, UK; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publish‐ers.

Lefebvre, H. (1999) The Production of Space. Ox‐ford, OX, UK; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.

Lowe, P. & N. Ward (1997) ʹField Level Bu‐reaucrats and the Making of New Moral Dis‐courses in Agri‐Environmental Controver‐siesʹ, in D. Goodman & M. Watts (eds) Globalising food : agrarian questions and global restructuring, xv, 383. London; New York: Routledge.

Marsden, T. (1997) ʹCreating Space for Foodʹ, in D. Goodman & M. Watts (eds) Globalising food : agrarian questions and global restructuring, xv, 383. London; New York: Routledge.

Marsden, T. & J. Murdoch (2006) Between the local and the global : confronting complexity in the contemporary agri‐food sector. Amsterdam; Oxford: Elsevier JAI.

Massey, D.B. (2005) For space. London; Thou‐sand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Methawee (2008) Local Vendors Form ʹMarket Assembly of Thailandʹ to resist mega‐retailers. Pattaya Daily News.

_______ (2007) ʹPhayao retailers protest Tesco Lotus superstore planʹ, The Nation.

OXFAM (2008) ʹSolutions at the Alternative Markets in Thailand: The way farmers do business in these marketsʹ (In Thai). Chiang Mai: OXFAM.

Panyakul, V.R. (1998) Creating a green market: Experiences from Green Net‐Thailand. Ileia Newsletter.

_______ (2001) ʹOrganic Agriculture in Thai‐landʹ. In a national report prepared for ESCAP Exploring the potential of organic farm‐ing for rural employment and income generation in Asia. Bangkok: Earth Net Foundation.

_______ (2002) ʹThe Role of Agricultural and Rural Development in Thailandʹ, in V. Reun‐glertpanyakul Natinal Study: Thailand. Bang‐kok: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

_______ (2008a) ʹBehind the smile of the Thai or‐ganic sectorʹ, The Organic Standard.

_______ (2008b) Email correspondences regard‐ing agricultural regulations in Thailand. Bang‐kok.

Piboolsravut, P. (2004a) ʹThe Royal Development Study Centres and the Philosophy of Suffi‐ciency Economyʹ. http://www.sufficiencyeconomy.org/en/.

_______ (2004b) ʹAn Introductory Note: Suffi‐ciency Economyʹ. http://www.sufficiencyeconomy.org/en/.

Raikes, P., M.F. Jensen & S. Ponte (2000) ʹGlobal Commodity Chain Analysis and the French Filière Approach: Comparison and Critiqueʹ, Economy and Society, 29: 390‐417.

Ratanawarasha, C., W. Ellis, V. Panyakul & B. Rauschelbach (2007) ʹOrganic Agribusiness: A status quo report for Thailandʹ. Bangkok: The Thai‐German Programme for Enterprise Competitiveness.

Raynolds, L.T. (2004) ʹThe Globalization of Or‐ganic Agro‐Food Networksʹ, World Develop‐ment, 32: 725‐743.

Ribot, J. & N. Lee Peluso (2003) ʹA Theory of Ac‐cessʹ, Rural Sociology, 68: 153‐181.

Rigg, J. (1997) Southeast Asia: The Human Land‐scape of Modernization and Development. Lon‐don; New York: Routledge.

Rundgren, G. (2003) The Organic Certification Directory. The Organic Standard, 28.

Schon, D. & M. Rein (1996) ʹFrame‐critical policy analysis and frame‐reflective policy practiceʹ, Knowledge & Policy, 9: 85‐104.

Somchai, P. (2006) Civil Society and Democratiza‐tion: social movements in northeast Thailand. Co‐penhagen: NIAS.

Songpol, S. (2005) ʹCurrent Development in Ag‐ricultural Sector in Thailandʹ. Paperpresented at the Workshop on Good Agricultural Prac‐tice and Food Safety‐Implementing Eurep‐GAP, Bangkok, Thailand (25‐26 November).

Suthawan, S. & P. Piboolsravut (2004) ʹSuffi‐ciency Economy and a Healthy Communityʹ. Found at

http://www.sufficiencyeconomy.org/en/.


http://www.sufficiencyeconomy.org/en/



27

WHO (2004) ʹApplication of Farm‐to‐Table Offi‐cial and Non Official Food Safety Control in Thailand: Case Study on Fresh Produce Bang‐kokʹ. Second fao/who global forum of food safety regulators.

USDA (2007) ʹEconomic Research Serviceʹ. In Food Marketing System in the U.S.: Retail Food Glossary.

Vandergeest, P. (2006) ʹNatural Markets: Re‐making food and agriculture in Southeast Asiaʹ. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Chi‐cago (7‐11 March).

Wiboonpongse, A. & S. Sriboonchitta (2004) Re‐governing Markets: Securing Small Producer Par‐ticipation in Restructured National and Regional Agri‐food Systems in Thailand. Chiang Mai: In‐stitute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Whatmore, S. & L. Thorne (1997) ʹNourishing Networks: Alternative Geographies of Foodʹ, in D. Goodman & M. Watts (eds) Globalising Food: agrarian questions and global restructur‐ing, xv, 383. London; New York: Routledge.

Yos, S. (2008) Flexible Peasants: Reconceptualizing the Third Worldʹs Rural Types. Chiang Mai: Re‐gional Center for Social Science and Sustain‐able Development.


ANNEX

Glossary ACT is an acronym for the Organic Agriculture Certification Thailand, established in 1995 to provide a pesticide and chemical free certification for Thailand. Today it certifies as IFOAM equivalent (ACT 2003).

Amphoe is the Thai word meaning district; it is a subdivision of a province. District government is also called “Aw ba jaw”(Chai‐Anan 1987).

Doi Kham is the branding used by the Royal Project Foundation.

GAP (Good Agricultural Practices) is an agricultural certification established in 2003 to place limits on pesticide use in agricultural productions. Highland farmers are non‐Thai, ethnic farmers living in villages located in mountain areas. They are usually remote, or at least far removed from cities or transportation corridors.

IFOAM is an acronym for the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement.

ISAC is an acronym for the Institute for Sustainable Agricultural Communities, established in 2001 to train northern Thai farmers in the production of pesticide free vegetables, develop local markets and build consumer awareness (Chomchuan 2008).

Kanman is the Thai word for Headman, the leader of a village and non‐elected member of the TAO (Chai‐Anan 1987).

Lanna is the name of the former kingdom of Chiang Mai and is used interchangeably with Northern Thai culture.

MCC is an acronym for the Multiple Cropping Center, established in 1969 to establish more produc‐tive techniques for farming in Northern Thailand. MCC currently sponsors many farmers using inte‐grated pest management for pesticide free vegetable productions.

MOAC is an acronym for the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

MOPH is an acronym for the Ministry of Public Health Muang Mai wholesale market is a time established central wholesale market place for fruit and vege‐tables grown around the city of Chiang Mai. Farmers and assemblers bring produce that will be sold in throughout the city of Chiang Mai and to markets throughout Thailand.

NOSA is an acronym for The Northern Organic Standards Association, established in 1994 to certify farmers in Northern Thailand along guidelines conforming to unique farming practice and situation in the northern Thailand. Prior to 2008 NOSA was known as the Northern Or‐ganic Standards Organization. OXFAM comes from the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, founded in Britain in 1942.

Rai is a designation of land size used in Thailand. It is 1600 square meters, about .40 acres.

RPF is an acronym for the Royal Project Foundation was established in 1969 to eradicate opium production and assist highland farmers in Northern Thailand. RPF has integrated pes‐ticide reduced practices as part of their mission to improve the lives of highland farmers by establishing new markets

ii

Safety Vegetable is an approximate English translation, popularly used for Pak Pload Jak San Pis, a pesticide reduced regulatory standard Santi Asoke is a Buddhist movement associated with many farming cooperatives. Adherents use no chemical pesticides or fertilizers. Siriwattana fresh market is located inside the city of Chiang Mai and is noted for its compliance with the Good Food – Clean Taste health standards of MOPH.

Tambon is a subdivision of district (Au ba jaw) government.

TAO is an acronym for the English translation of “Aw Ba Taw” to “Tambon Administrative Organiza‐tion”. It is a governmental agency made of elected and appointed officials to oversee revenue and maintenance of the tambon (JICA 2002).

USDA is an acronym for the United States Department of Agriculture

Map 1. The Market Venues

ChATSEA Working Paper no. 5, June 2009 Annex

iii


Organization Certification Name StandardPermit useof pesticide

ACT ACTACFS, IFOAM,InternationalRecognition

NO

InternationalCertifiers

BCS and GmbH (EU), SoilAssociation (UK), IMO(Switzerland and Germany),OMIC (Japan), Skal(Netherlands), USDA (USA)

Variousinternationallyaccepted organicstandards forexport.

NO

DOAEPak Plod Pai Jak San Pis “SafetyVegetable”

Pesticide Reduced,MOPH regulations

YES

MOAC Q Logo GAP YES

MOPH Safe Food Good TasteMOPH public safetystandard for cleanretailing space

YES

NOSA NOSA ACFS, IFOAM NORoyal ProjectFoundation

Pak Pload Pai and Q LogoGAP,MOPH regulations

YES

MCCSafety Vegetable, Q logo, andinformal certification

GAP,MOPH regulations

YES

Table 9. Certifications Available in Northern Thailand

Source: Ellis et al. 2006, Panyakul 2001ACT (Organic Agricultural Certification Thailand), DOAE (Department of Agricultural Extension),MOAC (Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives), NOSA (Northern Organic StandardsAssociation)


iv

Retailer Vegetables Vegetable Slogan Mission Statement Observation

Tesco‐LotusUncertified,Doi Kham,GAP

Healthy

Tesco Core Purpose & Value ‐To createvalue for customers to earn their lifetimeloyalty ‐ Values ‐ No one tries harder forcustomers: * Understand customers betterthan anyone .

Package and sell,Everything has alabel

Carrefour

Uncertified,Safety,Doi Kham,GAP, MCC

Everything youlike is inCarrefour

Freedom: We respect our customers’freedom of choice through the variety of ourstore formats and the diversity of theproducts and brands we sell. We giveconsumers the freedom to buy at pricesconsistent with their purchasing power.ALSO: Responsibility, Sharing, Respect,Integrity, Solidarity, Progress.

Mixed Strategy ofmany logooptions, ProductDifferentiation,package and sell

Tops Market

Uncertified,Safety, GAP,Interna‐tionalOrganic

ʺfresh food freshideas freshthinkingʺ

To be recognized as an innovative andexciting supermarket chain with a widerange of good value, quality food in modernand convenient locations. Selecting the bestfresh vegetables and fruits from all parts ofThailand and exotic produce from foreigncountries.

Convenience,Cleanliness,Package and sell

RimpingSupermarket

Uncertified,Safety, GAP,OtherOrganic

ʺThe Food YouCan Trustʺ andʺThe Market ofChoiceʺ

Organic Aware, Campaign to liftenvironment and social standards, Premiumsupermarket chain, We can assure that westand for our goal to provide great productsat fair prices to meet our customersʹ needs.

High Quality,High Prices,Many labeloptions, packageand sell

ISACOtherOrganic

SustainableAgriculturalCommunities

To build and develop ISACs (in ChiangMai), Be a key player in the sustainablecommunities movement, Become a modelSustainable Community.

Fresh, bulklocally producedvegetables soldby farmers

MCCOtherOrganic

Systems approach to improve agriculturalproduction systems and natural resourcemanagement with emphasis on sustainableagriculture, agricultural resourcemanagement, and agribusiness andmanagement.

ThaninMarket

Uncertified,SafetyVegetable

Clean Food,Good Taste

No specific mission statement, but acquiringthe golden label of the Public HealthMinistry was a specific goal.

Fresh, bulkvegetables soldby retailers

Tanyaporn’sStand

Doi Kham,SafetyVegetable,GAP

Pesticide FreeAnong and her workers communicatedirectly to the customer the ideas ofconsistency, cleanliness, and food safety.

Bulk andpackagedcertifiedvegetables

Table 10.Marketing Venues and Messages

v


Store Label Certificate Source Farmers Motto

Carrefour MCCChang MaiUniversity

Chiang Mai Multiple Farms None

Rimping First Q Farm GAP Hang Dong Single Owner None

RimpingNatural andPremium Food

GAP andOrganicThailand

Bangkok Re‐seller None

Rimping Future Farm GAP, SSS Chiang Rai Single Owner None

Rimping CH VeggiesOrganicThailand

RPF Re‐seller ʺFully Organic Productʺ

Rimping Queen ProjectSafetyVegetable

Chiang Dao Single OwnerʺSupported by PhupingPalace and Mae JoUniversityʺ in Thai

Rimping Earthbound Farm USDAUSA andMexico

None

Tops SrumMit Rung Reang GAP Bangkok None

Tops Pak Doctor GAP Prathum Thani Multiple Farms ʺSafe Vegetableʺ

Tops TOPS GAPPri‐Prai Inc.Bangkok

Re‐seller None

Tops Future Farm GAP, SSS Chiang Rai Single Owner NoneTops Thai Organic Farm GAP, SSS Ratchaburi Single Owner None

TopsSafety Vegetable fromChiang Doa

SafetyVegetable

Queen Project Single Owner None

Carrefour Ngoc Ngoi None Non‐cert ʺSafe VegetableʺCarrefour Pak Sot None Non‐cert None

Carrefour Saraphi None Non‐certʺGrown with organicfertilizerʺ

Rimping SP Farm None Non‐cert ʺFresh and CleanʺRimping ʺPak Sot Prot San Pitʺ None Non‐cert Safety Vegetable in ThaiRimping Ahan Prot Plai None Non‐cert ʺSafety PlantʺRimping Da Wan None Non‐cert ʺFresh VegetableʺRimping Udon Porn Pak Sot None Non‐cert NoneRimping San Sai Noi None Non‐cert None

Rimping Cfresh None Non‐certʺThe quality and safety youcan trustʺ

Tops Rung Aroon None Non‐cert NoneTops Take Me Home None Non‐cert None

Table 11. Vegetable Sellers in Chiang Mai Conventional Markets November 16, 2008


vi

English Name Thai Name Lanna Name RPF MCSSmall

FarmingGardenor Pick

Long Bean Tour phak yow Tour phak yow 1 1 1Bitter Gourd Ma ra jean Ma ra koem 1 1 1Wing Bean Tour pu Tour pu 1 1Chayote squash Ma ro warn Phuk meow 1 1Basella Alba Pak plang Pak plang 1 1Sauropus androgynus Pak Wan Pak wan baan 1 1Passion Fruit Soalvalot Ka toke loke 1 1Purple Egg Plant Ma Kua Muang Ma Kua Muang 1 1Chayote plant Yod ma roi warn Yod phuk meow 1 1From China, grown locally Tang‐o Pak Kee Kuye 1 1Pumpkin Fuk tong Fuk tong 1 1Green Bean Tour keal Tour Keal 1Abelmoschus esculentus Ga Cheab kioa Ma kua muun 1Mormordica charantia Ma Ra Ki Nok Ma hoi ki nok 1Local Spinich Pak home Thai Pak home meang 1Local Morning Glory Pak boong jeen Pak boong jeen 1Luecaena Leucocephek Ga Tin Ga tin 1Sesbania grandiflora Dok kaa Dok kaa 1Acacia Pennata Pak cha om Pak ra 1Colocasia gigantia Dtune Dtune 1Doliches labtab Tour pap Tour pap 1Momordica Cochinchimensis Pak kaew Pak kaew 1Glinus oppositifolius Pak Kee kuang Pak kee kuang 1Raphanus Sativus Pak kee hood Pak kee hood 1Houttuynia Cordata Pak khao tong Pak khao tong 1Coccinia grandis Pak tam lueng Pak cap 1Spilanthes acmella Pak Phet Pak phet 1Polygonum odoratum Pak Pai Pak pai 1Marsilea crenata Pak waen Pak waen 1Centella asiatica Bai bua boke Pak gnoc 1Solanum torvum Ma kua poung Ma kwang goo la 1Oroxylum indicum Linn pha Ma lid mai 1peppermint Sa ra nea Hom duan 1Fern Pak good Pak good 1Gymnema inodorum Pak Chiang da Pak chiang da 1Neptunia oleracea Pak ga chet Pak gnoc poung 1Cassia Siameca Pak kee lek Pak kee lek 1Acanthopanax trifoliatum Pak pam Pak pam 1Telosma minor Pak saleet Pak saleet 1Ceome gynandra Pak seant Pak seant 1Marsdenia glabra Pak saol Pak saol 1Lasia spinosa Pak naam Pak naam 1Oenanthe stolonifera Pak chee lom Pak on au 1

Table 12.Lanna Vegetables

vii

English Name Thai Name Lanna Name RPF MCSSmall

FarmingGardenor Pick

Dregea volubilis Pak huant Pak huant 1Piper sarmentosum Bai cha pu Pak pu ling 1Macropanax dispermus Pak tau sai Pak pia fan 1Solanum stramonifolium Ma kua poo Ma kua poo 1Moringa Oleifena Pak leehoom Pak leehoom 1Moringa Oleifena Fuk ma room Ma kon gom 1Solanum indicum Ma wang Ma kwang kome 1Aspidistra sutepensis Pak ling lao Pak ling lao 1Broussonetia kurzii Salae Salae 1Caesalpinia mimosoides Pak naam pu ya Pak naam pu ya 1Ocimum basilicum Pak ho ra pa Pak ho ra pa 1

Table 12.Lanna Vegetables (continued)

Source: Jatarong 2007


ChATSEA - University of Toronto

Documents

Transcript of ChATSEA - University of Toronto