unep final report: establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains

Contact: Director for Program Planning and Communications (DPPC)

Telephone: +63 (2) 580-5600 ext. 2747 or 2513; Fax: +63 (2) 812-7689 or 580-5699

E‐mail address: dppc‐[email protected] Mailing address: DAPO 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines

Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains

(IRRI Ref. No.: DPPC2010 22)

Final Report Resource efficiency and ecosystems services in rice production in

Thailand’s central plain: Baseline research.

September 2010

Sub-study 1: Sukanya Kong-ngoen and Bhagirath Chauhan Sub-study 2: Amara Wiengweera and Martin Gummert

Sub-study 3: S.R. Perret, M.S. Babel, S.D. Rahatwal, and R. Yarnsiri Sub-study 4: Kukiat Soithong and Martin Gummert

Rice Department Resource Persons: Laddawan Kunnoot, Rossakon Keosa-ard, Waree Chaithep, Nopharat Muangprasert and Ladda Viriyangkura

IRRI Resource Persons: Rica Flor, Bas Bouman, Grant Singleton, David Johnson, Apinporn Phuengwattanapanich, Kong Luen Heong, Roland Buresh


Executive Summary

1. Introduction The study is a follow-up activity to the UNEP Expert Roundtable on improving resource efficiency in Thai rice production, held at UNEP-ROAP, Bangkok, from 1-2 February 2010. As one outcome of this meeting, IIED has commissioned the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) to conduct a pre-pilot survey to set a baseline and determine whether there is sufficient scope for improvements of resource efficiencies in water and nutrients in rice agriculture in the irrigated Central Plain of Thailand. Postharvest losses magnify resource inefficiencies since they reduce milled rice in the market per liter of water or kilograms of nutrients used in production and they cause the generation of more greenhouse gases (GHGs) per kg of milled rice. Every percent lost in postproduction means one percent inputs wasted. The study therefore also assesses the losses and inefficiencies in rice postproduction. Because the provision of ecosystem services such as flood control must be balanced against negative externalities when determining policies and incentives, the study also aims at providing an inventory of ecosystem services. In order to find where in the system (farm, chain or policy..) there are leverage points to effect and drive change an actor analysis needs to be undertaken. The background papers produced in sub-studies will provide the basis for further decisions by UNEP and its partners on the next steps for the “Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains” project. A stakeholder workshop for developing a vision for the project is planned for mid October 2010.

The study consists of 4 sub-studies: Sub-study I: Resource efficiency in the central plain: Desk study

Sub-study II: Post harvest efficiency

Sub-study III: Inventory of ecosystem services

Sub-study IV: Actor analysis and identifications of levers

The study was conducted within the framework of the IRRI led Irrigated Rice Research Consortium (IRRC) which has activities in Thailand in collaboration with the Rice Department of the Thai Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC). The Rice Department was sub-contracted to collect, translate and interpret data available in Thailand.

There are three ways to define Thailand regions. One is based on geography, hydrology and geomorphology; a second is based upon socio-economic characteristics; and a third one is based on administration, policy and conventions. In Sub-study 1 and Sub-study 2, the Central Plain of Thailand is defined according to geographic reference. It is a region of Thailand covering the broad alluvial plain of the Chao Phraya River. It is separated from North-East Thailand (Isan) by the Phetchabun mountain range, and another mountain range separates it from Myanmar to the

Executive Summary: Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains, Thailand of 21

west. In the north it gently changes into the hilly terrain in Northern Thailand. The area was the heartland of the Ayutthaya kingdom, and is still the dominant area of Thailand. Central Thailand contains the Thai capital of Bangkok. Central Thailand is the most populated region in the country. Sub-study 2 also uses the Office of Agricultural Economics (OAE) definition for the Central Region which comprises 26 provinces because the statistical data on trade is based on this administrative definition.

The following provinces form parts of Central Plain of Thailand: 1. Ang Thong; 2. Phra Nakhon; 3. Si Ayutthaya; 3. Bangkok (Krung Thep Maha Nakhon); 4. Kamphaeng Phet; 5. Lop Buri; 6. Nakhon Nayok; 7. Nakhon Pathom; 8. Nakhon Sawan; 9. Nonthaburi; 10. Pathum Thani; and 11. Phetchabun.

2. Sub Study 1: Resource efficiency in the Central Plain: Desk study The Central Plain of Thailand has a total of 10.4 million ha, which is 20% of the whole kingdom. The Central Plain has a paddy land of 1.67 million ha, which is 16.3% of the paddy land of whole kingdom. An average farm size in Thailand is 3.61 ha, while it is 4.70 ha in the Central Plain. Wet season rice production areas are classified into land suitability zones (S1 – highly suitable, S2 – moderately suitable, S3 – marginally suitable, and S4 – not suitable). The 1.5 M ha of rice grown in the Central Thailand is mostly S1 and S2.

In 2008, the harvested rice area in the Central Plain was 1.5 million ha in the wet season and 1 million ha in the dry season. Total rough rice (paddy) production in 2008 was 5.6 million tons in the wet season and 4.5 million tons in the dry season, and average yields were 3.7 t/ha in the wet season and 4.5 t/ha in the dry season. World-wide average rice yields are around 4 t/ha, whereas world-wide irrigated rice yields are about 5 t/ha. The Central Plain produced 1.3 million tons of husk in the wet season and 1 million tons in the dry season. Straw production in 2004 was 6.4 million tons, amounting to 19% of the organic material in Thailand.

Nearly all rice in the Central Plain is under irrigation. Central Thailand has some 2.1 million ha covered by irrigation, of which half was cropped by rice in the dry season of 2008. Water scarcity in dry season is a major constraint for rice production every year. Total water inputted to rice fields in the dry season is an estimated 1000-1500 mm, of which 750-1125 mm is by irrigation. For comparison: on average in Asia, rice fields receive 1300-1500 mm total water. Water productivity is estimated to be 0.24-0.36 kg paddy rice per unit total water inputted, which compares well with an average of 0.2-0.4 for Asian rice fields. Farmers are currently recommended to maintain continuously flooded conditions, but the introduction of water-saving technologies can potentially save water, pumping costs, and energy, and increase water productivity.

Fertilizer-N use in the Central Plain is around 110 kg/ha in the dry season (DS) and 100 kg/ha in the wet season (WS), which compares well with an average of 118±40 kg/ha across many irrigated sites in Asia. N recovery and agronomic N-use efficiency, however, are low, with values of 13 (WS) - 22 (DS) %, and 5 (WS) - 12 (DS) kg/kg, respectively. For comparison, recovery rates of 27-50% and N-use efficiencies of 18-24 kg grain increase per kg N applied are common for rice. Clearly, there is scope for increasing the N use efficiencies in the Central Plain and reduce its losses to the environment. Farmers don’t apply K fertilizer, may be because the K rich straw is incorporated in the field after combine harvesting.


Mean pesticide use in the Central Plain of Thailand is 2.08 kg active ingredients (a.i.)/ha, which is 0.5-1.5 kg a.i./ha higher than for irrigated rice in the Philippines, the Mekong and Red River Deltas in Vietnam, west Java (Indonesia), and Tamil Nadu (India), and only some 1.8 kg a.i./ha lower than for irrigated rice in Zhejiang Province (China). Herbicide use in the Central Plain (0.89 kg a.i./ha/crop vs. 0.34 kg a.i./ha/crop in Central Luzon, Philippines) has been increasing because of labour shortage. Pesticides are often overused and this has led to chemical poisoning (human). Farmers in Thailand rely only on pesticides for pest management and use them in a prophylactic manner which predisposes their crop to invading plant hoppers. Recent and devastating outbreaks of Brown Plant Hopper (BPH), which also carry rice viral diseases, are thought to be caused by a variety of factors, mainly breakdown of host-plant resistance and ecological resilience because of overuse of pesticides and by intensification and misuse of N fertilizers.

Rice production consumes 13,480 MJ/ha energy for rainfed rice and 20,470 MJ/ha for irrigated rice due to the higher input intensity of fertilizers and fuel. The total energy input used for rice production was lower in Thailand than in India and Pakistan. The energy ratio in irrigated rice in Thailand was 4.0, whereas this ratio in India and Pakistan was 2.5 and 4.2, respectively.

Farmers in the irrigated Central Plain use very high seed rates (>180 kg/ha); more than twice the recommendation.

In the Central Plain, family labour decreased from 3.20 to 2.77 persons/household from 1998/99 -2006/07, and wages for hired labour are high because of the availability of industrial jobs. Consequently, rice crops are established by direct seeding and land preparation, harvesting, and threshing are fully mechanized. Labour constitutes around 33% of the total cost compared to 50% in countries that are less mechanized.

The information on soil loss is very limited in Thailand. Soil losses in Central Thailand are estimated to be 0-106 ton/ha/year; however, the probability of soil losses in irrigated rice is minimal given the topography of rice areas in central Thailand and field bunds that limit water movement.

The environmental impact of rice production is not well understood. Around 95% of the developed freshwater resources are used for irrigation (mainly for rice). Agrochemicals pollute water sources through irrigation runoff and infiltration. Surface and ground water, the primary source for drinking water, has many problems related to water quality due to contamination. In economic terms, the nutrient losses due to leaching are worth of up to 8,480 million Baht/year. Around 20% of the N fertilizer finds its way to the rivers. Water pollution caused by rice farming also affects fish and the aquatic fauna and causes eutrophication in rivers and lakes.

Studies on greenhouse gas emissions in Thailand show that the global warming potential of rice production per kg was 2927 g CO2-eq, followed by 3.2 g SO2-eq of acidification, and 12.9 g NO3-eq of eutrophication. Global warming inputs were for 95% associated with the cultivation process and for 2% with harvesting. Methane emissions were 98 kg/ha/year in deepwater rice in Prachinburi compared to 153-220 kg/ha/year in China, and 224 kg/ha/year in the Philippines in irrigated rice and 137 kg/ha/year in Indonesia in rainfed rice.

Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) were developed in Thailand in 2008 to significantly promote and encourage the quality and safety development of rice production in order to be accepted for both domestic and international trade. Researchers have formulated the “Thai Ricecheck” for


integrated crop management for irrigated rice and rainfed lowland rice. Thai Ricecheck provides the crop management guidelines for the GAP for integrated rice crop management. In 2006, the Thai Rice Knowledge Bank was developed, which is a ‘one-stop shop’ portal – available on CDROM and internet, for up to date information on rice production technologies and rice varieties in Thailand.

A number of new technologies for Natural Resources Management for irrigated rice exist that could potentially increase the resource-use efficiency of rice and reduce the ecological footprint. Specific technologies include improved fertilizer management through site specific nutrient management (SSNM), improved water productivity through Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD), and reduced pesticide use through integrated pest management (IPM) and Ecological Engineering. These technologies are currently not included in the ThaiGAP; therefore, their validation and the benchmarking of potential benefits in the Central Plain should be a priority.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Rice production in Central Plain of Thailand benefits from having better irrigation infrastructure than other regions. Farmers in irrigated area grow more than two rice crops per year and use high levels of inputs, especially seed rate, fertilizer, and pesticides. Biotic factors, such as diseases and insect pests, are main constraints to rice production. There is overuse of land (growing more than two crops/year), water and agrochemicals without considering the environment impact, health hazards, and residues in water resources. Water scarcity in dry season is a major constraint for rice production every year; water storage reached to the critical level in the dry season of 2010. In order to save environment and utilize all resources for sustainable rice production, resources efficiency utilization is the most important issues.

The Rice Department has compiled a number of general recommendations in three categories: 1. Research and Development measures; 2. Production measures; and 3.) Postproduction and marketing measures. These are contained in the Sub-study 1 and Sub study 2 reports. Table 1 summarizes proposed measures to improve resource use efficiencies.


Table 1: Major issues, proposed measures and their possible impact on resource efficiency in the Central Plain of Thailand.

Issue Proposed measures Impact on resource efficiency Levers

Intensive cropping Plant two crops/year • Increase in land use efficiency • Reduction in pests, especially BPH • Maintained soil quality • Risk reduction of water scarcity

Government policies

High seed rate Use seed rate according to the recommendation / reduce average seed rates

• Reduction in costs • Reduction in diseases and insect pests Seed companies;

extension services

Overuse of fertilizer Adopt site specific nutrient management

• Improve nutrient use efficiency • Reduce fertilizer use and cost • Reduction in insect pests and diseases • Reduction in environmental pollution and contamination

in drinking water and other water resources • Reduction in eutrophication • Reduction in nutrient leaching and run-off • Reduction in nitrous oxide emissions

Fertilizer companies; extension services

Overuse of pesticide Awareness in local pesticide retailer about sustainable use of pesticides; reduce pesticide use

• Reduction in input cost • Reduction in environmental pollution and contamination

in drinking water • Improvement in human health • Reduction in development of resistance in pests

Pesticide companies; extension services and farmers’ groups

Overuse of water Adopt alternate wetting and drying; introduce laser levelling

• Increase in water use efficiency • Reduction in water use • Reduction in fuel consumption and energy inputs where

water is applied by electric/diesel pump • Reduction in greenhouse gas emission, e.g. methane

Research institutes and private companies

Intensive wet tillage Adopt dry seeded rice • Improvement in soil structure and soil health • Reduction in water use • Better tolerance to water and heat stress • Reduction in production cost • Reduction in energy input • Reduction in environmental pollution • Reduction in greenhouse gas emission (CH4 & NO2)

Research institutes, private companies, extension staff

3. Sub-study II: Post harvest efficiency Preliminary note: During conducting the study it became apparent that very little recent data is available about the quantity of postharvest losses and the performance of the postharvest industry of Thailand. Most reports focus on aspects of the value chain structure and commodity flows and are generated and provided by stakeholders related to trade. We have also observed this in other countries of the region and even at IRRI. Over the last two decades postharvest, even more than agricultural research in general, has dropped out of public funded research because it was considered to fall under the mandate of the private sector. Another reason for reduced funding for postharvest R&D was growing frustration of donors caused by the low impact of some component technology focussed postharvest technology projects. The small number of papers, only 4 from Thailand as host country, submitted to the Postharvest 2009 Rice conference and exhibition conducted in Bangkok in 2009 supports this assessment. Consequently there are many data gaps in Sub-study 2.

Thailand’s milled rice production in 2008 was 22.1 million tons with the Central plains contributing 7 million tons. Official export of milled rice was 9 million tons, a reduction of one million ton compared to 2007. Export of unmilled rice (paddy) is prohibited. The main export markets are Indonesia, Nigeria, Iran, the United States, Singapore and the Philippines. Thailand’s success in international rice trade is founded on high quality, long-grain white rice, which has a substantial price advantage over modern, high yielding varieties. Since exports exceed the


production of the Central plains and most of the high quality rice comes from other areas, the postharvest sector of the Central plains also processes and trades a large percentage of rice from other areas in Thailand. Around 90% of the milled rice is transferred to Bangkok, of which 62% is used for domestic use and 28% is exported.

Thailand has established 6 rice categories of internationally traded rice, which are used by most exporters to offer their products:

1. Thai Hom Mali, formerly called Jasmine Rice: There are different photo sensitive Hom Mali varieties and they are mostly grown in Northern Thailand but together with other traditional varieties also in 10% of the central plains.

2. Glutinous Rice: Also called Thai Sticky Rice " or "Thai Sweet Rice". The best glutinous rice is from the northern part of Thailand.

3. Japanese Rice: Produced in the north of Thailand. 4. Thai White Rice: High yielding varieties, non-photosensitive, mostly cultivated in the

Central plains. 5. Parboiled Rice is produced by soaking, pressure streaming and drying the paddy before

milling. 6. Brown Rice or unpolished rice. Only the husk is removed and the bran layer is left intact.

The coating of brown rice contains micronutrients like vitamins and minerals. Brown rice takes a little longer to cook. The texture is slightly sticky with nutty flavor and therefore it is a niche market product.

Most of rice varieties grown in the Central plains are not photosensitive, photosensitive varieties only cover 30%.

The rice market consists of the paddy market and the milled rice market (See Figure 1). There are four major trading channels for paddy from farmers to millers: 1. Farmers sell directly to the millers either personally (30% of traded paddy) or through sub-contractors (35%); 2. Local traders or broker collect the paddy from farmers and sell to the millers (10%); 3. Agricultural cooperatives or farmer groups (5%); and 4. Government agencies (20%).

Figure 1: Flows of Goods and Services in Thai Rice Industry. (Source: Adapted from Ministry of Commerce, 2009; Multi stakeholder workshop)


Roughly 55% of the milled rice from the mills goes into domestic markets either directly (25%), through wholesalers or via brokers (30%). The remaining 45% of the milled rice is exported by licensed exporters who either buy directly from millers (10%) or from brokers (35%).

Regardless of the export popularity of Hom Mali rice and other specialty rice, which is mostly grown in the Northern and Northeastern region, most of exported rice is from the Central Plains since Thai white rice and parboiled rice exports are the majority.

For a summary of the post production value chain stakeholders see Chapter 0.

Inefficiencies of the rice postharvest sector can be classified into two groups: First there are inefficiencies in rice production, processing, handling and storage that have an effect on the amount and the quality of milled rice represented by losses in dry matter and in quality; and second there are inefficiencies that do not have an effect on the rice products but lead e.g. to high energy use in processing or waste of potential raw materials such as straw and husk, which can be turned into products either for energy or non energy applications.

In contrary to other SE-Asian countries harvesting in the central plains is fully mechanized. It can be assumed that losses are low. With 5 person days/ha labor requirement for harvesting incl. collection and transport is very low compared e.g. to North Vietnam with 80 person days/ha. In fully mechanized harvesting systems losses are usually below 3% and it can be assumed that in the Central plains losses in harvesting are not a problem although data are not available. Thailand has a vibrant combine harvester manufacturing sector also exporting machines, e.g. to Cambodia.

In the Central plains 90% of the paddy is mechanical dried using either simple, locally produced fixed bed batch dryers or more complex drying machines like batch-in-bin dryers or continuous flow dryers. In comparison with neighbouring countries dryer usage in the Central Plains is therefore extremely high. By comparison dryer capacity in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam is 30% of the harvest with slowly increasing trend, in the Philippines less than 5%, in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar it is negligible with only few units installed in each country. There are many reports about paddy quality problems and trading of high moisture paddy. This seems to be a problem of delays in the trading system and targeting of drying technology though and not a technology related problem.

Most of the paddy and milled rice in Thailand is stored in bags (50kg-1t), but in the Central plains the majority seems to be stored in bulk (Noomhorn, A, 2009); more than 40 larger mills that use two-stage drying systems definitely store in bulk. Data on losses in storage caused by pests and poor storage handling and management was not found.

In accordance with rice farming, the rice milling sector in Thailand is fragmented. Main features of the milling sector are the high competitiveness, moderate profits generated, lacking differentiation, and indicators of existing exit barriers. As of 2008, the rice milling capacity exceeds actual milled rice production by a factor of three, implying that capacity growth has exceeded output growth substantially over recent years. Consequently, as rivalry for the sourcing of inputs increases, the rice milling sector can be characterized as highly competitive with slow output growth. Compared to the Philippines margins in rice milling were found to be low, caused by the over capacity, high competitiveness and higher rice prices in the Philippines. Around 100 rice mills in the central region produce parboiled rice for export.

There are indications that with an average of 60% milling recoveries and with 48% head rice recoveries, recovery efficiency is low compared to 65-68% and 50-55% respective figures in


state of the art mills in the region. There are probably two reasons, 1. the low paddy quality mentioned earlier and reported inefficient and outdated equipment at the smaller mills (as result of low returns and high competition). Only around 30% of the millers use milling quality assessment tools when purchasing the paddy, though this is still a lot more than in other countries in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) where except moisture meters hardly any test tools are used. Data about inefficiencies in the different types of mills (See Chapter 0) and energy consumption were not found.

The transport system includes trucks, trains and ships along the Chao Phraya River. Since most of the rice is traded via the main urban consumption centers and transportation routes are quite long there are many intermediaries involved including local buyers or brokers, local commission agents (subcontractors), cooperatives, farmers groups, local market centers, millers, wholesalers and retailers at the local level. At the regional level, large local market centers and large millers are major intermediaries. The final level, i.e. country level includes brokers, wholesalers and exporters. Losses during transport are supposedly small in the range of 1-2%.

Many companies offer fumigation services. Methyl bromide as fumigant for stored product protection is phased out with UNEP sponsoring until 2013. Not much data was found the effectiveness of alternatives. Data on losses on storage could not be found.

Various incentive schemes for better product quality and premium markets are being supported, sometimes on a pilot scheme. This includes:

1. Organic rice production accounting for only 1.1% of the total rice production. 2. Thai Good Agricultural Practice (GAP), currently financed by the government due to

lacking market incentives 3. Branding to ensure a premium for good quality milled rice (see rice types above) 4. Fair trade to provide better prices for producers, around 7,500 families participate. 5. Contract farming to ensure good quality paddy for milling.

Products from rice include cakes, noodles, rice papers, rice wrappers, rice crackers, puddings, muffins and other products. Around 8 factories produce rice bran oil from roughly ¼ of the annual rice bran production, the rest is going into the feed industry. Portions of the 4 million tons rice husk is used for energy generation in rice drying and parboiling, and recently also to produce electrical power in large centralized rice husk power plants. Rice straw left in the field after combine harvesting is mostly incorporated in the field; around 48% is subjected to open field burning, which constitutes an environmental problem and a waste of a potential fuel.

Inefficiencies in production do have an effect on postproduction in the following areas: 1. Poor input management (water, nutrients, and seeds), unleveled fields and pest infestation

reduce milling recovery and milling quality. Together with under-investment in technical upgrading due to overcapacity of the milling sector this probably contributes to the reported low milling outputs.

2. Pesticide residues in milled rice from over-use of pesticides. 3. Delays in harvesting –drying results in quantitative and qualitative losses.

Data from Thailand that relates GAP to milling quality and efficiency was not found. Studies conducted in Vietnam showed that head rice yields were 4% higher in laser leveled fields compared to traditionally leveling.

Inefficiencies in postproduction also cause high input use, as pointed out in the introduction every percent lost in postproduction means one percent inputs wasted.


Compared to other countries in the Greater Mekong Subregion, especially the ones already or potentially competing in exports (Vietnam and Cambodia / Myanmar respectively) the Thai postharvest sector is well developed. Harvesting is fully mechanized, drying to 90% indicating that postharvest losses in these operations are low. Only Vietnam has significant mechanization of drying in the Mekong delta (30%) and in some few provinces mechanized harvesting. Detailed loss data was not available.

Some new technologies exist that might address some problems in the postharvest chain. Hermetic storage for example could help improving seed quality leading to better milling outputs and reduced losses. Laser leveling of land would lead to better paddy quality and again to higher milling outputs.

Several projects looked into identifying new, innovative products from rice and rice by-products. Around 20 new products were identified, which all would need product development, labeling and the development of markets.

To provide additional incentives for better resource efficiencies the government is working on the development of a Thai Postharvest GAP also referred to as Good Management Practice (GMP). Like with organic rice, as sufficient price incentive for GAP/GMP rice would be pre-condition for successful introduction.

Suggestions for additional market driven incentives on the production side include Eco branding and labeling and GMO free rice branding and labeling. Market potential needs to be studied and as with organic rice these would need to be certified throughout the value chain including postharvest.

For making clear recommendations for improving postharvest resource efficiency the data base is not sufficient. Recommendations therefore include:

1. Establish better postharvest baseline data on losses and industry performance by conducting rapid assessments of representative key stakeholders of the postharvest sector (see Sub-study 2).

2. Measures to improve the quality of paddy such as the implementation of GAP on the production side (see Sub-study 1).

3. Assessment of significance and scope of high moisture paddy trading and delays in the chain.

Since most problems seem to be related to the marketing system it is recommended to develop and implement market driven incentives for premium rice from Thailand. Depending on market potential this could include:

4. Develop and apply GMP in postharvest management including: Production management for good paddy quality, optimizing methods for harvesting and threshing, drying, packaging, management, transportation, storage and collection.

5. Engage the domestic and international private sector in partnerships to assess and establish potential market channels for Thai rice branded according to market potential. This could include: Thai GAP/GAM rice, Thai Eco-labeled rice, Thai GMO free rice and others.


4. Sub-study III: Inventory of ecosystem services Sub study 3 delivers a brief inventory of ecosystem services (ES) offered in the Central Plain of Thailand, and related considerations on associated economic values. The concept of ecosystem services provides an integrative framework for natural resource management and environmentally sustainable agricultural production. The lowland paddy rice ecosystems in the Central Plain offers several ecosystem goods and services, which include functions and values related to regulating, supporting, and cultural services (mostly as public goods, i.e. true ES), and contributions to the economy (mostly through private benefits).

We first clarify the terms and concepts on aquatic resource use, values, externalities, benefits, and services. We define (1) resource direct-use value, generating private goods and services, which benefits private, local economic agents, and (2) resource indirect, non-use value, generating public goods and services, which benefits part or whole of society. Such a distinction proves useful to first sort out the different functions and externalities attached to rice ecosystems, developing a conceptual framework for further investigations, and second to identify proper methodologies to assess economic values of ES in the Central Plain of Thailand.

In the context of the intensively irrigated rice cropping system of the Central Plain, designed and operated for export and agro-industry sectors, some ES functions have considerable positive effect (regulating), some limited positive effects (support), and some lead to significant negative externalities (Green house gas (GHG) emissions and their contribution to climate change is the main negative externality of paddy rice).

Among the range of ecosystem services, regulatory functions seems to be the most important. Paddy rice ecosystems contribute significantly to water resource management and conservation, erosion control, preservation of biodiversity and aquatic habitats, and, more importantly in the central plains, flood mitigation and prevention. Paddy rice systems also contribute to the economy (local and national), to development, and bear highly significant cultural value. In terms of support functions, paddy fields contribute to nutrient cycling, water purification (denitrification), air purification, and photosynthesis.

The case study in Ayutthaya Province in the central plain reveals that the concept of ecosystem services is widely unknown among all stakeholders in the rice production sector. Further, little relevant research has been conducted, and limited information is available on ecosystem services in the area. Local experts suggest that some ecosystem functions and services are fulfilled by paddy rice fields, with regards to culture, provision of goods, and contribution to the economy. However, intensification of cropping systems and the intensive use of pesticides hinders most possibilities on support and regulation. Local stakeholders, officials, most public and private sector agents, and the general public seem to largely ignore both the concept of ecosystem services, and the implications thereof. More specifically, farmers as primary producers and custodians of such goods are not aware of the role they play, and how they could provide services that benefit the whole society. There are two notable exceptions to this general lack of awareness: the role played by paddy fields in flood mitigation and in wildlife conservation. Also, the Royal Irrigation Department of Thailand’s Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has develop Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) recommendations in order to sustain and enhance ecosystem services, especially those related to environmental conservation, soil quality, sustainable use of


pesticides and fertilizers. Tangible application and impact of GAP recommendations remain few at this point in time. The economic values of the different rice ecosystems services and goods have not been assessed in Thailand, although methodologies do exist. No compensation, incentive or payment mechanism related to ecosystem services has been developed so far in Thailand.

The following recommendations arose from this inventory of ES:

1. More research is required on the biophysical and ecological processes that are poorly documented at this stage. These include hydrological processes, water and soil chemistry, and water and soil ecology. The outcomes of such background research would be to better define the quantity and quality of ecosystems services provided, and to back up further investigations on their potential economic value.

2. GHG emissions and their concomitant high contribution to climate change is the main negative externality of paddy rice production. Better quantification of the magnitude of this effect in the Central Plain is required. Also, experimental studies are urgently required of possible rice production processes and systems which could mitigate these negative effects (see Sub Study 1).

3. More economic research is required. First, on assessing the value of all identified ecosystems goods and services, and second, on investigating and testing economic instruments that could promote sustainability of such provisions.

4. Research agencies should team up with interested public and private stakeholders in order to redress the observed lack of knowledge and awareness on ecosystem services. Communication and information flow on the benefits of ES has to be directed at the general public, rice producers and the other main actors involved in the rice market chain in the Central Plain.

5. Pilot projects are recommended to benchmark the different ESs in the intensive lowland irrigated rice production system on the Central Plain. Participatory involvement of existing farmer groups and/or delineated irrigation systems is proposed. The focus should be on developing and verifying experiment mechanisms that could potentially lead to sustainable provision of ecosystem services in the Central Plain.

6. Possible incentives for farmers and farmer groups to become involved in adopting positive ESs include farmer certification, area certification, leading to the labeling of products that are produced under accredited practices (e.g. GAP). Such pilot projects could ultimately be used to examine different mechanisms for providing farmers with positive reinforcement through payments for ecosystem services (PES).

5. Sub-study IV: Actor analysis and identifications of levers Thai value chain actors consist of producers, millers, different stakeholders involved in trading paddy and milled rice, exporters and input service providers and financial service providers (Figure 1). Not contained in the figure are research institutions and organizations that formulate, approve and implement policy.


The rice farmers in the Central plain represent about 25% of all rice farmers in Thailand which is 578,340 households. On average they are planting 2.5 crops per years; 1 crop per year in wet season and 1.5 in dry season. Average farm size is 4.4 and 4.8 ha per household in wet and dry season, respectively. The farmers are organized in and get support from Rice Community Centers (good quality seeds, technology transfer, training), Cooperatives, loosely in farmers groups and in the Thai Rice Farmers Association for participation in Government decision making. The rice farmers were identified as the key group for improving resource efficiencies of rice production and through their organizations they have high leverage and influence.

Traders are engaged in both, paddy and milled rice trade. Millers buy 65% of the paddy production paddy directly from farmers and also through sub-contractors whom they hire for that purpose. Brokers trade 10%, they charge a commission for their services. Farmers’ organizations (cooperatives or farmers groups) handle only around 5% of the total production. Government agencies under the Public Warehouse Organizations (PWO), Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC) and Ministry of Finance (MOF), like the Government Warehouse Organization (GWO) under the Ministry of Commerce buys agricultural produce particularly at intervention price. For details see Sub-study 4.

Rice mills are classified according to their capacity, ranging from less than 5 MT per 24 hours (C3) over 5 to 20 MT per 24 hours (C2) to more than 20 MT per 24 hours (C1). In 2004, the total of 39,943 rice mills was composed of 38,208 small, 527 medium, and 1,163 large rice mills. Regional differences in distribution are notable, the dominant share of small mills is located in the northeast, and relatively many large mills in the Central Plains. Rice millers have a strong interest in improving the quality of paddy and therefore are an important stakeholder also with respect to leverage (price) and influence (bargaining power). The Thai Rice Millers Association therefore is a key stakeholder.

Milled rice from the millers is traded by brokers (65%), 10% of the millers sell directly to exporters or have an export license and 25% of the milled rice is sold directly by millers to wholesalers. The brokers sell to exporters and to wholesalers who serve the domestic market. From the wholesalers the milled rice reaches the local consumers through many retailers. For details see Sub-study 4.

Most of the exporters are organized in the Thai Rice Exporters Association, which does intensive networking with government organizations but also other interest groups and organised events to promote Thai Rice world wide. For details see Sub-study 4. Since all exporters have to be members of the association it is a very powerful stakeholder and should be included in any project.

Input suppliers have mixed attitudes towards improving resource efficiency. Seed providers are positive since they are interested in providing good quality seeds. On the other hand, fertilizer and pesticide distributors are most likely opposing measures that reduce their sales and short term profits. International fertilizer industry associations can have a longer term perspective promoting appropriate fertilizer use that is sustainable. Machinery distributors and manufacturers would have a positive attitude toward a project that increases the competitiveness of their equipment e.g. by lower fuel consumption. Irrigation water suppliers potentially have an interest in serving more farmers if existing farmers increase water use efficiency.


Due to its mandate the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC) is the bank with biggest leverage and influence. Other banks and financial institutions are also expected to support a project on resource use efficiency with the exception of informal credit providers.

National research institutions include Kasetsart University and other universities with R&D on rice. The international AIT has projects on rice and ecosystems. Four institutes support rice reseach, the most important ones being the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) and the Agricultural Research Development Agency (ARDA). All these stakeholders are expected to have positive attitude towards resource efficiency improvements but limited influence and leverage, which can be strengthened when R&D results are considered in policy formulation.

Various ministries are involved in formulating policy affecting the postharvest sector, among them the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC), the Ministry of Commerce (MOC), the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MOTC), the Ministry of Foreign affairs (MOFA), the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and the Ministry of Industry (MOI). The Rice Department of the MOAC is tasked to develop policies related to rice. The Rice Policy Committee with the Prime Minister as Chairman is in charge with considering and approving strategy and policy related to rice.

International stakeholders with strong interest in improving resource efficiencies are FAO supporting water management programs with the Royal Irrigation Department and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) through the Irrigated Rice Research Consortium (IRRC). The IRRC is already working with the Rice Department on information exchange and international networking for the introduction of good management practices in nutrient-, water- and pest-management and on postharvest. A donor with interest and high leverage is JICA. Consultants like Applied GeoSolutions can provide special expertise in remote sensing, mapping and monitoring of agricultural systems and help in the development of site to regionally specific management strategies for water quality and nutrient loading.

The value chain is highly competitive, especially the milling sector is characterized by overcapacity and partly by resulting under-investment in quality upgrading of the equipment. A study comparing Thailand with the Philippines compared marketing cost by function and gross margins and found very little markup over costs in Thailand compared to the Philippines.

Current rice policy is documented in Thai Rice Strategies that were developed by the Ministry of Commerce in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, other government institutions, and related private sector players. It consists of vision, mission, and 6 groups of strategies for a 5 - year implementation period (2007-2011) as follows:

1. Strategies for Production development: aims at increasing annual paddy production from 31 million tons to 39 million tons through increasing yields by 20% and increasing rice area from 10.4 million ha to 11.2 million ha.

2. Strategies for Promotion and supporting farmers aims at assuring higher incomes and better living conditions for farmers who are proud of being farmers by increasing the knowledge of at least one million farmers, provision of immediate, thorough and accurate technical information and services based on their needs and by strengthening farmers’ associations.


3. Strategies for Marketing management system & products development aims at rising farmers’ incomes by at least 10% in 5 years by stimulating market mechanisms to improve market potential and boost production potential.

4. Strategies for Maintaining price stability aims at reducing paddy price intervention cost from 4,400 million baht to 4,000 million bath by reducing the intervention price.

5. Strategies for International marketing development aims at increasing exports from 7.4 million tons or 2,057 million US$ in 2006 to 8.5-9.5 million t or 2.550-2.850 million US$.

6. Strategies for Logistics and services management aims at reducing cost for logistics and services from 19% of gross rice production cost to 15%.

Information about the implementation and impact of these strategies was not available.

A number of opportunities for improved resource efficiencies were identified during a Stakeholder workshop conducted in the context of Sub-study 4. They are to a large extend in line with the opportunities identified in Sub-study 1 and Sub-study 2.

6. Summary of Recommendations for improving resource efficiencies The Sub-studies 1-3 contain a whole range of general recommendations for improving resource efficiencies. Some of them are “business as usual” a repetition of previous interventions. Others are innovative, building on multiple stakeholder partnerships to address complex problems that that are often deeply embedded in the different sections of the value chain. A summary of what the study team sees as the most promising levers in a future UNEP/Thai project is shown below:


Table 2: Potential levers identified to improve resource efficiency in Central Thailand’s rice production.

Lever Available technologies/management options

Required partnerships Effect on resource efficiency

Thai GAP (good agricultural practice)

• Laser land levelling • Dry seeding of rice • Use recommended seed

rates and good quality seed

• Site specific nutrient management

• Water saving technologies (Alternative wetting and drying)

• Integrated pest management

Farmers groups, Contract service providers (land prep), seed companies, fertilizer companies, pesticide companies, extension services, Royal Irrigation Department, R&D,

• Reduction of disease and pests, especially BPH

• Maintained soil quality at reduced fertilizer use

• Reduction of nutrient leaching and run off

• Reduction of water use • Reduction in costs • Risk reduction of water

scarcity

Thai GMP in postharvest

(good management practice)

• Timing of harvesting • Best practice for

harvesting • Moisture management

(avoid delays) • Safe storage (e.g.

hermetic storage • Storage management

Public-private partnerships (PPP): Farmers organizations, millers organizations, selected traders wholesalers and retailers, R&D and policy.

• Reduction of postharvest losses

• Maximized milling yields

• Minimized mycotoxin contamination

New Thai rice brands, e.g. - Eco rice - GMO free rice …….

• Certification • Management and

technology for traceability

PPP, building on Thai GMP and adding international market stakeholders

• Market incentive for producers and processors to use GAP and GMP

• All above

Markets for new products from rice and rice by-products

• R&D, product development

• Market establishment

Research (Rice Department), PPP

• Value added, higher margins, incentive to use GAP for producing quality raw materials.

CDM (Clean development Mechanism)

• Using husk and straw for energy generation

• Carbon markets • Pooling of producers

PPP (need to check current legislation and programs)

• Savings in greenhouse gas emissions

Resource efficiency and ecosystems services in rice production in Thailand’s central plain: Baseline research

1

Table of Contents Executive Summary

1. Introduction 2. Sub-study 1: Resource efficiency in the Central Plain: Desk Study 3. Sub-study II: Post harvest efficiency 4. Sub-study III: Inventory of ecosystem services 5. Sub-study IV: Actor analysis and identifications of levers 6. Summary of Recommendations for improving resource efficiencies

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations

Sub-study 1: Resource efficiency in the Central Plain: Desk Study

1 Background information ..................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Land use..............................................................................................................................................................................................2 1.2 Rice management recommendations .................................................................................................................................................2

1.2.1 Thai GAP and Thai RiceCheck..............................................................................................................................................2 1.2.2 Thai Rice Knowledge Bank ...................................................................................................................................................6

1.3 Crop productivity ...............................................................................................................................................................................7 1.4 Soil loss ..............................................................................................................................................................................................8

2. Farmer production techniques.........................................................................................................................9 2.1 Fertilizer use .....................................................................................................................................................................................11 2.2 Pesticide use .....................................................................................................................................................................................12 2.3 Energy use ........................................................................................................................................................................................14 2.4 Water use ..........................................................................................................................................................................................16 2.5 Labour and capital inputs .................................................................................................................................................................18

3. Climate impact..............................................................................................................................................19 4. Environmental impact...................................................................................................................................21 5. Health impact................................................................................................................................................23 6. Best Management Practices and options to improve resource efficiency .....................................................23

6.1 Current resource use.........................................................................................................................................................................24 6.2 ThaiGAP and Ricecheck ..................................................................................................................................................................24 6.3 Inventory of scope for improving resource efficiency.....................................................................................................................25 6.4 Novel technologies for improvement of resource use efficiency ....................................................................................................26

References.........................................................................................................................................................28

Sub-study II: Post harvest efficiency

1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1 2. Description of the postproduction value chain and main actors .....................................................................3

2.1. Markets/trade.....................................................................................................................................................................................4 2.2. Thai rice.............................................................................................................................................................................................5 2.3.Rice Market Structure ........................................................................................................................................................................6 2.4.Value chain structure and governance ...............................................................................................................................................7 2.5.Key Postproduction Stakeholders ......................................................................................................................................................8

3.Postharvest issues, losses and efficiency gaps ...............................................................................................10 3.1.Rice...................................................................................................................................................................................................11 3.2.Products from rice grains .................................................................................................................................................................16 3.3.Rice by-products...............................................................................................................................................................................16

4.Effect of production inefficiencies on postproduction...................................................................................18 5.Comparison with other rice producing regions..............................................................................................18 6.Potential other use of rice and by products ....................................................................................................20

6.1.Rice...................................................................................................................................................................................................20 6.2.Bran ..................................................................................................................................................................................................20 6.3.Husk..................................................................................................................................................................................................20 6.4.Straw.................................................................................................................................................................................................21 6.5.Innovative new products ..................................................................................................................................................................21


2

7. Response options at PH value chain level and policy for improved resource efficiencies ...........................22 7.1.Suggestions for further research.......................................................................................................................................................23 7.2.Improving postharvest resource efficiency......................................................................................................................................23

8.Conclusions and Recommendations ..............................................................................................................25 9.References......................................................................................................................................................27


Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................1 Table of content ..................................................................................................................................................2 1 Demarcation of Central Plain of Thailand and Rice Cultivation .....................................................................4

1.1 Demarcation of Central Plain of Thailand .........................................................................................................................................4 1.2 Land use map of Thailand..................................................................................................................................................................5 1.3 Rice cultivation in Thailand and in Central Plain .............................................................................................................................6 1.4 Meteorological data ...........................................................................................................................................................................9 1.5 Rice production in Thailand: Main features ...................................................................................................................................10 1.6 Sumamry...........................................................................................................................................................................................10

2 Rice Ecosystems: Functions and Services ....................................................................................................11 2.1 Defining ecosystem services ............................................................................................................................................................11 2.2. Rice agro ecosystems ......................................................................................................................................................................12 2.3 Regulation functions .......................................................................................................................................................................13

2.3.1 Paddy fields affecting local climate ....................................................................................................................................13 2.3.2 Paddy fields interacting with global climate ......................................................................................................................13 2.3.3 Function of conserving water resources ..............................................................................................................................15 2.3.4 Function of prevention of soil erosion ................................................................................................................................16 2.3.5 Functions of preservation of biodiversity and habitat for wildlife .....................................................................................16 2.3.6 Function of pest suppression................................................................................................................................................19 2.3.7 Function of flood prevention ...............................................................................................................................................19

2.4 Provision and Contribution to Economy and Development ............................................................................................................21 2.4 Support .............................................................................................................................................................................................21

2.4.1 Function of soil nutrient cycling .........................................................................................................................................21 2.4.2 Function of water purification ........................................................................................................................................... 22 2.4.3 Function of air purification ................................................................................................................................................ 22 2.4.4 Function for photosynthesis ............................................................................................................................................... 23

2.5 Culture ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 23 2.5.1 Function of supporting cultural identity ............................................................................................................................ 23 2.5.2 Function of preserving amenities for recreation and relaxation .........................................................................................23 2.6 SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................................................................23

3 Case Study in Central Plain of Thailand: Ayutthaya Province ......................................................................24 3.1 General information ........................................................................................................................................................................24

3.1.1 Meteorological Data (1993-2009)........................................................................................................................................24 3.1.2 Soil characteristics ...............................................................................................................................................................26

3.2 Rice and rice ecosystem services in Ayuttaha .................................................................................................................................26 3.2.1 Rice cultivation ............................................................................................................................................................................27 3.2.2 Ecosystem services........................................................................................................................................................................28 3.3 Summary...........................................................................................................................................................................................29

4. Economic Valuation .....................................................................................................................................29 4.1 The economic values of aquatic ecosystems ...................................................................................................................................29 4.2 Actual and potential valuation studies ............................................................................................................................................32

4.2.1 Function of provision of food and aquaculture....................................................................................................................32 4.2.2 Regulation functions ............................................................................................................................................................32 4.2.3 Culture, recreation................................................................................................................................................................33 4.2.4 Support functions .................................................................................................................................................................33

4.3 Summary...........................................................................................................................................................................................33

5 GAP (Good Agricultural Practices) and impacts on improving ecosystem services .....................................33 5.1 GAP for rice production ..................................................................................................................................................................33

6 Policy and Stakeholders.................................................................................................................................39 7 Conclusion, Recommendations......................................................................................................................41

7.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................................................41 7.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................................... 41


3

7.2.1 Research ..............................................................................................................................................................................41 7.2.2 Implementation ................................................................................................................................................................... 42

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................43 APPENDIX 1: Rice-Fish and Rice-Duck Ecosystems ................................................................................... 45 APPENDIX 2: Insects and Pests found in Rice Farm.......................................................................................49 APPENDIX 3: Rice Varieties in Thailand....................................................................................................... 53 APPENDIX 3: Values of Ecosystem Services................................................................................................. 56 APPENDIX 4: Use of Aquatic Organisms from Rice Fields............................................................................57

Sub-study IV: Actor analysis and identifications of levers

1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1 2. The rice value chain ........................................................................................................................................2

2.1. Competitive Forces in the Industry ...................................................................................................................................................2 2.2. Value chain structure.........................................................................................................................................................................3 2.3. Producers ...........................................................................................................................................................................................4 2.4. Postharvest processing ......................................................................................................................................................................7 2.5. Marketing and consumption..............................................................................................................................................................8 2.6. Inputs and input suppliers ...............................................................................................................................................................10 2.7. Support service providers................................................................................................................................................................10 2.8. Research ..........................................................................................................................................................................................11 2.9. Policy...............................................................................................................................................................................................12 2.10. Other stakeholders.........................................................................................................................................................................14 2.11. Value chain dynamics: Prices, profits and regulations.................................................................................................................16

3. Policy context ...............................................................................................................................................17 3.1. Policies regulating rice production .................................................................................................................................................17 3.2. Thai Rice Strategy 2007-2011 ........................................................................................................................................................18

4. Stakeholder assessment and network mapping .............................................................................................20 5. Opportunities / levers....................................................................................................................................22 6. Recommendations.........................................................................................................................................24 7. References.....................................................................................................................................................24

Stakeholder workshop for resource efficiency and ecosystems services in the rice value chain in Thailand’s central plain

Background ........................................................................................................................................................2 Objectives ...........................................................................................................................................................2 Workshop outputs ...............................................................................................................................................3 The workshop process ........................................................................................................................................3

Workshop languages ................................................................................................................................................................................4 Participation..............................................................................................................................................................................................4

The Workshop ....................................................................................................................................................4 Day 1.........................................................................................................................................................................................................4 Problem analysis.......................................................................................................................................................................................5 Stakeholder analysis .................................................................................................................................................................................8 Day 2, Morning ......................................................................................................................................................................................10 Stakeholder analysis: Network mapping................................................................................................................................................10 Influence, leverage and attitude analysis ...............................................................................................................................................12 Integration...............................................................................................................................................................................................13 Day 2, Afternoon....................................................................................................................................................................................18

Next Steps.........................................................................................................................................................19 Learning-oriented monitoring...........................................................................................................................19 Appendix...........................................................................................................................................................21

Appendix 1. Problem trees from all the groups .....................................................................................................................................21 Appendix 2. Network maps drawn by each of the groups.....................................................................................................................23 Appendix 3. Parking lot (from day 1) ....................................................................................................................................................24 Appendix 4. Composite maps showing details of interactions between stakeholders. ........................................................................25 Appendix 5. List of workshop participants and their contact details ....................................................................................................28


4

List of Abbreviations AB Agricultural Bank AEN agronomic N-use efficiency AFM Association of Fertilizer Manufacturers AIT Asian Institute of Technology ARDA Agricultural Research Development Agency AWD Alternate wetting and drying BAAC Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives BHP Brown plant hopper CRC Community Rice Center CSF Chamnien Saranaga Foundation DS Dry season ES Ecosystem services EUR Euro FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FB Farmers group GAP Good agricultural practices CDM Clean development Mechanism GMO Genetically modified organism GMP Good management practice GHG Greenhouse gas GIS Global information system GMS Greater Mekong Subregion GWO Government Warehouse Organization GWP global warming potential IIED International Institute for Environment and Development IPM Integrated pest management IRRC Irrigated Rice Research Consortium IRRI International Rice Research Institute JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency K K-fertilizer KCI KCI fertilizer KMIT King Mongkuth’s Institute of Technology LCC Leaf colour chart MNRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment MOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives MOC Ministry of Commerce MOF Ministry of Finance MOFA Ministry of Foreign affairs MOI Ministry of Industry MOTC Ministry of Transport and Communications MT Metric tons N Nitrogen fertilizer NSTDA National Science and Technology Development Agency OAW Office of Agricultural Economics P Phosphate fertilizer PH Postharvest PPP Public-private partnerships PWO Public warehouse organization PES Payments for Ecosystem Services RKB Rice Knowledge Bank RSC Rice Seed Center R&D Research and Development SSC Saturated Soil Culture SSNM Site specific nutrient management TFA Thai Rice Farmers Association THB Thai Baht TSP Triple Super Phosphate Fertilizer TV Television UNEP United Nations Environment Program WS Wet season

1


Sub-study 1: Resource efficiency in the Central Plain of Thailand: Desk study 1 Background information .............................................................................................................2

1.1 Land use..............................................................................................................................2 1.2 Rice management recommendations..................................................................................2

1.2.1 Thai GAP and Thai RiceCheck.....................................................................................2 1.2.2 Thai Rice Knowledge Bank...........................................................................................6

1.3 Crop productivity .................................................................................................................7 1.4 Soil loss ...............................................................................................................................8

2. Farmer production techniques ..................................................................................................9 2.1 Fertilizer use......................................................................................................................11 2.2 Pesticide use .....................................................................................................................12 2.3 Energy use ........................................................................................................................14 2.4 Water use ..........................................................................................................................16 2.5 Labour and capital inputs ..................................................................................................18

3. Climate impact ........................................................................................................................19 4. Environmental impact .............................................................................................................21 5. Health impact ..........................................................................................................................23 6. Best Management Practices and options to improve resource efficiency...............................23

6.1 Current resource use.........................................................................................................24 6.2 ThaiGAP and Ricecheck ...................................................................................................24 6.3 Inventory of scope for improving resource efficiency ........................................................25 6.4 Novel technologies for improvement of resource use efficiency .......................................26

References..................................................................................................................................28

2

1 Background information Central Plain is separated from North-East Thailand by the Phetchabun mountain range, and also by other mountains from Myanmar to the west. The area is the heartland of the Ayutthaya kingdom. The country’s capital Bangkok is in the Central Plain, and this is the most populated region in the country. The Central Plain is a natural self-contained basin often termed as “the rice bowl of Asia”. The Central Plain regions lie in the lower watershed of the Chao Phraya River and comprise fertile alluvial soils which are seasonally flooded. The region received an average annual rainfall of 1268-1775 mm during 1999-2008, of which about 80% fell in the wet season (WS). Over 90% of farm holdings are cropped principally to rice. Since there is limited land available for grazing ruminants in the region, livestock rely heavily on rice straw.

1.1 Land use

Recent land use in Thailand is summarized in Table 1 (OAE 2009). The Central region has a total of 10.4 million ha, which is 20% of the whole kingdom. The Central region has a paddy land of 1.67 million ha, which is 16.3% of the paddy land of the whole kingdom. An average farm size in the Thailand is 3.61 ha, while it is 4.70 ha in the Central region.

1.2 Rice management recommendations

1.2.1 Thai GAP and Thai RiceCheck Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) have been introduced in Thailand, through government and other organizations initiatives, to improve rice yield and seed quality. Researchers have formulated the “Thai Ricecheck” for integrated crop management for irrigated rice and rainfed lowland rice. Thai Ricecheck provides crop management guidelines for the GAP for integrated rice crop management. The nine keychecks and their expected outputs are shown in Table 2 (IRRI & FAO 2003). Keycheck 1. Rice variety selection: Thai farmers grow rice in two seasons (wet and dry).

Wet season rice: Most rice varieties in this group are photosensitive and native. These varieties flower and mature at a specific time of the year.

Dry season rice: These rice varieties are the non-photosensitive rice varieties. Flowering and maturity depends on the age of rice varieties and so can be grown in different seasons.

Keycheck 2. Good quality seeds: Rice seeds should have a high rate of seed germination (>80%), no contamination by weed seeds and off-types. The recommendation for good quality rice seed is to select viable seed and discard others by soaking seed in a solution of sodium chloride or solution of ammonium sulphate. The unfilled seed will be removed, and the viable seed rinsed with clean water. Remaining seeds are ready to be germinated and grown in the paddy. The recommendation of rice seed rate for direct seeding (wet as well as dry) is 95-125 kg/ha, while for transplanted rice is 30-45 kg/ha. Keycheck 3. Land preparation and land levelling: The results of this activity are the reduction of weeds and good plant establishment. Good land preparation provides uniform crop establishment.

3

Table 1. Land use in Thailand by regions, 2007.

Area (ha) Region Total Forest Farm

holding Farm size

Residential Paddy Upland field

Fruits and tree crop

Veg. and ornamental

plants

Pasture Waste No of households

Whole kingdom 51,311,502 15,865,260 20,856,529 3.609 588,483 10,220,394 4,259,058 4,649,820 194,537 179,372 352,721 5,778,338 North 16,964,429 8,836,811 4,439,931 3.348 149,327 2,224,128 1,368,057 531,367 60,151 38,744 23,530 1,326,019 Northeast 16,885,434 2,454,989 9,131,758 3.397 228,957 5,939,241 1,714,363 696,026 44,582 88,871 246,560 2,688,561 Central 10,390,120 2,843,869 4,123,137 4.700 123,312 1,667,671 1,169,280 906,850 71,340 32,192 38,833 877,310 South 7,071,519 1,729,591 3,161,703 3.567 86,887 389,354 7,358 2,515,577 18,464 19,565 43,798 886,448

4

Table 2: Keycheck systems and their output for the Good Agricultural Practices for integrated rice crop management in Thailand. Keycheck Output 1. Rice variety selection 1. Farmers select the varieties that they can

consume and/or sale 2. Use good quality seed 2. No off-type and seed germination > 80% 3. Good land preparation and land leveling 3. No weed, uniform rice growth 4. Weed control 4. No weed or less weed found in field 5. Fertilizer application and soil improvement

5. Rice plants look healthy, green and no pest infection

6. Water management 6. Enough water during growth period, less weed and good quality seed

7. Pest control 7. No symptoms of diseases or insects damage 8. Rouging 8. No off-type rice plants, good seed quality 9. Optimum harvesting time 9. High yield, good seed quality Keycheck 4. Good weed control: Farmers in Central Plain of Thailand lose a great deal of grain yield and grain quality of rice because of competition from weeds. Weeds can be controlled using mechanical, chemical, cultural, and biological control, or integrating these methods. Keycheck 5. Fertilization and soil improvement: Rice growing areas in Thailand can be classified into three kinds of soil. Fertilizer recommendation is different depending on soil texture.

Clay soil: This is the fine and fertile soil with high organic matter. The soil tends to be rich in nutrients particularly K. Only N and P applications are recommended.

Silt soil: This soil tends to have less organic matter than clay and lower percent of organic matter. N, P, and K applications are recommended in this soil.

Sandy soil: This soil tends to have low organic matter or nutrient status and requires more fertilization. Application of N, P, and K fertilizers are not enough and this soil needs application of organic materials for soil improvement.

Organic fertilizer should be applied and incorporated into soil 2-3 weeks before land preparation. Green manure, including legumes such as sesbania, should be grown for 55 days before incorporation into soil during land preparation. Chemical fertilizer recommendation depends on the kind of soil texture and rice plant types (Table 3). From Keycheck 5, MOAC developed software programmes for fertilizer recommendation and soil improvement, and distributed it to users in Local Administrative Organizations at sub-district levels. Researchers have already distributed >13,000 leaf colour charts (LCC) to farmers in the Central Plain during the last few years after the results from experiments showed that use of LCC could reduce the amount of N fertilizer by 14 to 48%. LCC is being rapidly adopted by farmers (Jatuporn 2008). Keycheck 6. Water management: Apply optimum water levels at different growth stages:

Seedling stage: Seeds are sown after puddling. Give 3-5 cm of water when seedlings reach 7-10 cm, and gradually increase the water level.

Tillering stage: Optimum water level should be 5-10 cm. Panicle initiation: Optimum water level should be 10-20 cm. Flowering stage: Keep water level at 10-20 cm depth until 2 weeks before harvesting.

5

Table 3. Inorganic fertilizer recommendation for photosensitive and non-photosensitive rice varieties (RRI & FAO 2003).

First application Second application Third application Soil N-P-K

composition (%)

Rate (kg/ha)

N-P-K composition

(%)

Rate (kg/ha)

N-P-K composition

(%)

Rate (kg/ha)

Non-photosensitive varieties Clay 16-20-0 190-220 46-0-0 65-95 46-0-0 65-95

16-16-8 190-220 46-0-0 65-95 46-0-0 65-95 16-12-8 190-220 46-0-0 65-95 46-0-0 65-95

Silt and Sandy

18-12-6 190-220 46-0-0 65-95 46-0-0 65-95 Photosensitive varieties Clay 16-20-0 125-155 46-0-0 45-65 - -

16-16-8 125-155 46-0-0 45-65 - - 16-12-8 125-155 46-0-0 45-65 - -

Silt and Sandy

18-12-6 125-155 46-0-0 45-65 - - Keycheck 7. Integrated pest control: Different practices for integrated pest control are shown below.

Cultural practice: Optimum seed rate (95-125 kg/ha for direct seeding), land preparation, planting time management, field checking, management from farmland (including weed control on the banks and good water management to reduce pest problem), and crop rotation.

Resistant rice varieties to pests Optimum fertilizer application – high rates of N are linked with increases in pests and

diseases Use of pesticides only when necessary Protection by mechanical methods Integrated Pest Management which promotes beneficial insects

Keycheck 8. Rouging: Rouging of off-type rice plants should be done 3-4 times during the rice crop at the differing growth stages:

Seedling stage: Off-type plants can be identified from different leaf colours, plant height and disease or insect symptom.

Tillering stage: Different plant height and stem colour are observed in off-type plants. Flowering: Diverse flowering time compared with rice varieties, panicles, plant height

and different canopy are observed in off-type plants. Panicle filling stage: Observe seed colour, awn, including seed shape and panicle type. Before harvesting: Check plant type again before harvest.

Keycheck 9. Crop harvest at optimum time. The recommended optimum time for harvesting is 28-30 days after flowering. A national committee consisting of 19 members (composed of different stakeholders) developed standards for GAP for rice to significantly promote and encourage the quality and safety of rice production in order for rice to be accepted for both domestic and international trade (TAS 2008). This standard should be used as a guideline to farmers in their rice cultivation and postharvest practices and also applied as criteria to certify the production process at farm level for food safety of the consumers and promoting rice exportation. Provisions concerning important requirements for GAP for rice are shown below.

6

1. Water sources: Water is safe from hazardous substance contamination. 2. Planting area: The land is safe from hazardous substance which can cause contamination to the produce. 3. Application of pesticides: Use according to the recommendations of the Rice Department or the Department of Agriculture, and follow the recommendations on the registered label. 4. Quality management in pre-harvest production: Use qualified seeds, mixture of other varieties grain should not exceed 5%, and in this amount, the red kernels should not be more than 2%. 5. Harvesting and post-harvest practices: The appropriate harvesting time shall be observed 25 to 35 days after flowering or when at least 75% of the kernels have a full yellow colour. The paddy must be dried to reduce moisture within 24 hours after harvest, and this practice shall not introduce any breakage to grain. The moisture of paddy shall not exceed 15% for traded rice and 14% for stored rice. 6. Transportation and storage: Use clean containers for transport and the storage rooms are hygienically clean and well ventilated. 7. Record keeping: Farmers need to record all operations.

1.2.2 Thai Rice Knowledge Bank In July 2006, the Thai Rice Knowledge Bank (RKB) version 1 was officially released. The Thai RKB is a ‘one-stop shop’, available on CDROM and through internet (http://www.brrd.in.th/rkb/; Box 1), for accessing up to date information on rice production technologies, modelled after the RKB developed by the International Rice Research institute (www.knowledgebank.irri.org/rice.htm). Box 1: Opening page of the Thai Rice Knowledge Bank.

It is hosted by the Rice Department and co-developed by Khon Kaen University and Chamnien Saranaga Foundation (CSF). In 2006, a total of 1,239 extension officers throughout Thailand

Cultivars Pests & control

Seed production

Farm mechanizations Organic rice production GAP and handbooks

Cultivation practices& fertilizer applications

Weeds & control

Post harvest technology

Cropping systems Making food products

7

were trained in 2 training centers and 2 mobile training units in the use of the Thai RKB. In 2007, version 2 of the Thai RKB was launched with enhanced features, updated information, and new ‘fact sheets’: single pagers on specific technologies (94 were available by March 2008). It now also contains posters, brochures, leaflets, radio scripts, and a farmer training handbook. It has been promoted by community radio stations and local tv networks. A crosslink exists on the opening page of the Thai RKB to the Thai GAP and Ricecheck booklets and brochures. It is not clear to what extent the contents of the Thai RKB, ThaiGAP, and Thai RiceCheck have been synchronized.

1.3 Crop productivity

The trends in area, production, and yield of wet season (major rice)1 and dry season (second rice)2 rice from 2006 to 2009 are summarized in Table 4. Rice husk is produced from paddy milling that constitutes about 23% of the paddy weight (Papong et al. 2009). Assuming this value, the estimated husk production of wet season rice in the Central Plain was 1285 x 103 tons in 2008, while in dry season 2008/09 the estimated husk production was 1031 x 103 tons. Rice organic material (straw) production in 2004 was 6.36 million ton from the Central region, which was 19% of the total rice organic material produced in the whole of Thailand (Department of Agriculture 2005). The data for total rice production (t) and average rice yield (t/ha) in the world, Asia, and Thailand are shown in Figure 1 (IRRI website). Table 4. Area, production, and yield of wet and dry season rice in the Central Plain and the whole of Thailand.

Wet season Dry season Region 2006 2007 2008 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Planted area (000 ha) Whole Kingdom 9,207 9,182 9,188 1,612 2,048 1,984 Central Plain 1,591 1,570 1,571 878 1,076 989

Harvested area (000 ha) Whole Kingdom 8,560 8,623 8,702 1,605 2,046 1,982 Central Plain 1,441 1,489 1,516 877 1,076 988

Production (000 tons) Whole Kingdom 22,840 23,308 23,235 6,802 8,791 8,415 Central Plain 5,291 5,515 5,586 3,910 4,876 4,482

Yield (kg/ha) Whole Kingdom 2,669 2,706 2,669 4,238 4,294 4,244 Central Plain 3,669 3,700 3,681 4,463 4,531 4,538

1 Major rice refers to the rice grown between May and October. 2 Second rice refers to the rice grown in dry season between November and April.

8

Ric

e pr

oduc

tion

('000

t)

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

Year2007 2008

Ric

e yi

eld

(t/ha

)

0

1

2

3

4

World Asia Thailand

Figure 1. Production and yield of rough rice in the world, Asia, and Thailand during 2007 and 2008.

1.4 Soil loss

The levels of soil erosion in Thailand are classified on the basis of flat area (alluvial plain and hillside slope <35%) and high area (mountain and valley having slope >35%). The areas under different levels of soil leaching and erosion are shown in Table 5 (Limthong 2009). The flat areas under Class 1 and 2 are of most relevance to rice. Soil losses in Central Thailand are estimated to be 0-106 ton/ha/year; however, the probability of soil losses in irrigated rice is minimal. Table 5. Area of land under different levels of soil leaching and erosion.

Class Area (ha) % of total area Flat area Class 1: least leaching and erosion 27,167,110 52.95 Class 2: little leaching and erosion 6,860,482 13.37 Class 3: medium leaching and erosion 1,567,630 3.06 Class 4: severe leaching and erosion 110,870 0.22 Class 5: most severe leaching and erosion 365,266 0.71

Total 36,071,358 70.30 High area Class 1: least erosion 6,678,300 13.02 Class 2: little erosion 4,140,853 8.07 Class 3: medium erosion 2,286,478 4.46 Class 4: severe erosion 428,621 0.84 Class 5: most severe erosion 1,704,617 3.32

Total 15,238,869 29.70 Whole area in Thailand 51,310,226 100.00

9

2. Farmer production techniques In Thailand, soils for economic crops are classified into four classes following an FAO framework (Thongpussawan et. al. 2009): S1 – highly suitable, S2 – moderately suitable, S3 – marginally suitable, and S4 – not suitable. The information on farmers’ practices on inputs used was not found separately for the Central Plain; however, the information is available according to the soil suitability (S1 to S4). The area of wet season rice under different land suitability zones is shown in Table 6. Table 6. Wet season rice production (ha) in rainfed and irrigated environments classified according to land suitability zones (S1 – highly suitable, S2 – moderately suitable, S3 – marginally suitable, and S4 – not suitable).

Area (ha) Region S1 S2 S3 S4

Rainfed area *Central - 878,605 1,267,863 4,817,239 **East 4,387 488,614 371,385 2,583,656 Whole Thailand 191,339 10,260,490 4,506,086 36,592,271 Irrigated area *Central 166,538 757,156 683,025 5,356,989 **East 15,664 171,356 109,588 3,151,434 Whole Thailand 373,592 2,520,927 898,448 47,757,219 *Central region is divided by LDD in 19 provinces. **Central region is divided by OAE in 26 provinces (Central-19 provinces + East-7 provinces). Farmers’ practices on input use for the wet season rice in irrigated and non-irrigated environments (according to soil suitability) are shown in Table 7 (Thongpussawan et al. 2009). The 2008 figures (Table 4) suggest that about 1.5 M ha of rice grown in the Central Thailand is mostly in the moderate to highly suitable zones (S1 and S2) (Table 6). The comparative data on input use in irrigated rice in the Central Plain and other countries will be discussed separately for different inputs. The data from Table 7 shows that farmers use 30 to 50% higher seed rate than the recommendation given under Ricecheck (95 to 125 kg/ha). Also, Moya et al. (2004) summarized comparative annual costs incurred on irrigated rice production in different countries (Table 8). Among the different costs of production, labour (hired and family) constituted the biggest share of total costs in the irrigated Central Plain as well as in the irrigated areas of Central Luzon, the Philippines and the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. In Central Luzon and the Mekong Delta, only 5-6% of total costs of production are outlaid on pesticides, whereas farmers in the Central Plain spend around 14% of their total cost of production on pesticides.

10

Table 7. Average farmer’s practices on inputs used for major rice (wet season) in irrigated and non-irrigated areas (S1=highly suitable; S2=moderately suitable; S3=marginally suitable; and S4=not suitable).

Irrigated area Non-irrigated area Inputs S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3

Seed rate (kg/ha) 196 186 206 175 186 161 Machine used (hr/ha) 34.7 72.4 39.4 37.1 25.6 22.3 aLabour (d/person/ha) 1.63 3.63 4.88 2.69 3.44 4.44 Chemical fertilizer(kg/ha) 262 282 318 265 242 221 Compost-pellet (kg/ha) 180 169 26 117 61 41 Compost (kg/ha) - 3.81 - - 10.69 9.88 FYM (kg/ha) - 21.2 24.5 37.8 234.3 143.5 bBio-liquid (l/ha) - 0.63 0.94 0.31 - 4.06 cMarl (kg/ha) 15.3 - 340.4 - 9.4 47.4 Total pesticide (l/ha+kg/ha) 3.0 + 0.13 3.38 + 1.44 7.25 + 0.50 2.63 + 4.19 1.38 + 0.13 0.88 + 0.50

Herbicide (l/ha + kg/ha) 1.25 + 0.06 1.38 + 0.50 1.31 + 0.06 1.56 + 0.06 0.63 + 0.06 0.75 + 0.25 Fungicide (l/ha + kg/ha) 1.13 + 0.00 0.19 + 0.00 4.13 + 0.00 0.06 + 3.00 0.06 + 0.00 0.06 + 0.00 Others (l/ha + kg/ha) 1.63 + 0.063 1.81 + 0.94 1.81 + 0.44 1.00 + 1.13 0.69 + 0.06 0.06 + 0.25

dGrowth regulators (l/ha + kg/ha)

0.88 + 0.00 0.88 + 0.00 0.69 + 0.13 0.75 + 0.13 0.81 + 0.00 0.31 + 0.06

eGasoline (l/ha) 34.25 24.81 45.38 27.69 22.69 23.06 Average yield (kg/ha)

5,120

4,380

4,220

3,760

2,930

2,430

aLabour used for only seeding. bFarmers make themselves by fermenting organic waste such as vegetable, leaf, organic waste, and molasses. cMarl is lime used as soil amendment for acid sulphate soil reclamation. dLocal dealers suggest this to farmers (and call it growth regulator), and there is no description on bottle. eFor pumping water.

11

Table 8. Comparative annual costs (US$) of irrigated rice production in different countries in 1999 (Moya et al. 2004).

Costs (% of total costs/ha) Item Central

Plain, Thailand

Central Luzon,

Philippines

Mekong Delta,

Vietnam Labour 207 (33) 501 (56) 435 (64)

Hired 95 415 60 Family 112 86 375

Fertilizer 125 (20) 139 (16) 95 (14) Machine rental and fuel cost 147 (23) 109 (12) 40 (6) Pesticides 91 (14) 47 (5) 44 (6) Seeds 61 (10) 63 (7) 56 (8) Other costs 4 (1) 29 (3) 12 (2) Total costs/ha 636 888 683 Total costs/ton of paddy 59 96 74

2.1 Fertilizer use

In Thailand, the annual chemical fertilizer use increased more than 100 times (Figure 2) between 1961 and 2004 (from 18 thousand tonnes in 1961 to 2 million tonnes in 2004). In spite of this increase in fertilizer use, the yield of rice only doubled in 45 years (Figure 2). Thai farmers have increased fertilizer use at high rates without seeing a corresponding increase in yield, and there are now examples of overuse and inappropriate use of fertilizers in Thai agricultural systems (Tirado et al. 2008). This indicates a higher rate of loss of fertilizers into the environment.

Figure 2. Fertilizer consumption (left axis) and rice and maize yield (right axis) in Thailand from 1961 to 2005 (cited by Tirado et al. 2008). Total fertilizer used by farmers’ in different soil suitability zones are reported in Table 7. Satawathananont et al. (2004) summarized baseline agronomic characteristics of irrigated rice production on 24 farms at Suphan Buri, Central Thailand. In our analysis, these characteristics

12

were compared with the agronomic characteristics of the irrigated rice in the Philippines (Table 9). In both seasons, agronomic and recovery efficiencies of N were lower in Thailand, suggesting larger N losses in Thailand than in the Philippines. Table 9. Baseline agronomic characteristics of irrigated rice production (WS = wet season; DS = dry season) on 24 farms at Suphan Buri, Central Thailand (Satawathananont et al. 2004) and 27 farms of Nueva Ecija, Philippines (Gines et al. 2004).

Thailand Philippines Agronomic characteristics 1995 WS

crop 1996 DS

crop 1995 WS

crop 1996 DS

crop Grain yield (t/ha) 3.46 4.48 3.49 5.67 Fertilizer N use (kg/ha) 93.00 110.60 84.30 123.20 Fertilizer P use (kg/ha) 21.90 23.80 13.20 14.20 Fertilizer K use (kg/ha) 0.00 0.90 14.70 22.20 Agronomic efficiency of N (kg/kg)

4.90 11.60 8.40 18.30

Recovery efficiency of N (kg/kg)

0.13 0.22 0.22 0.35

Table 10. Mean fertilizer N, P, and K use (kg/ha) in dry (DS) and wet (WS) seasons (1994-99) in Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam.

N P K Site DS WS DS WS DS WS

Central Plain, Thailand 112 99 21 21 1 1 Central Luzon, Philippines 130 88 15 13 22 18 Mekong Delta, Vietnam 90 95 14 14 10 13 Red River Delta, Vietnam 103 94 23 23 35 31 Moya et al. (2004) reported mean fertilizer use in irrigated rice in three countries (Table 10). The sampled farms were at least 20. Fertilizer use in Thailand was very similar between the studies (Table 9 and 10) of Moya et al. (2004) and Satawathananont et al. (2004). Farmers in Thailand essentially apply no K fertilizer. K may be less necessary at this site because nearly all straw (rich in K) is left on the ground after harvest by combines. Farmers also differ in their frequency and timing of fertilizer application. In the Central Plain, the average numbers of fertilizer applications were 2.6 in dry season and 2.4 in wet season (Moya et al. 2004). While in the Central Luzon (Philippines) and Mekong Delta (Vietnam), the average numbers of fertilizer applications were 2.5 and 3.0 in dry season, and 1.9 and 3.0 in the wet season, respectively (Moya et al. 2004).

2.2 Pesticide use

Scientists of the Thailand Rice Department advised that region-wide data on pesticide use is not being collected in Thailand. Our estimations of trends in pesticide use are made on the basis of the quantity of pesticides imported. The total amount of imported pesticides in Thailand has dramatically increased year by year. Most agricultural pesticides used in the country are imported, and the quantities have increased three times from 1994 to 2005, reaching more than 80 thousand tonnes in 2004 (Figure 3). Initially, importation of pesticides was mostly in the form of finished products. Currently, they are imported in different forms: active ingredients, additive chemicals and separated packaging (Office of Industrial Economics 2002). In 2009, a total of

13

135.5 thousand tonnes of pesticides (herbicide 72.2%, insecticide 18.2%, fungicide 7.6%, and others 2%) were imported in Thailand (raw data from DOA 2010). Herbicide use has increased due to labour shortage and the associated growth in direct seeding. In order to save labour costs, farmers often mix pesticides themselves without considering their synergistic effects (Tirado et al. 2008). Rice is still an important crop for the pesticide market because of its large growing area. Increasing pesticide use has been accompanied by other changes in pest control. This is reflected in the increasing amount of application equipment owned by farmers.

Figure 3. Pesticide (tonnes) imported in Thailand between 1994 and 2005. Most pesticides used in Thailand are imported (cited by Tirado et al. 2008). The total pesticide use in S1 and S2 zones in the irrigated wet season rice crop is shown in Table 7. Moya et al. (2004) summarized pesticide use (at least from 20 farms) in irrigated rice in different countries (Table 11). Farmers in the Central Plain used higher amounts of all types of pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and others, which include primarily fungicides and molluscicides) than farmers in the Philippines and Vietnam. The differences in pesticide use between wet and dry seasons were generally small. Table 11. Pesticide use in irrigated rice in different countries from 1994 to 1999. The numbers of farms were at least 20.

Insecticide Herbicide Others Total Site (kg active ingredient/ha/crop)

Central Plain, Thailand 0.97 0.89 0.25 2.10 Central Luzon, Philippines 0.18 0.34 0.18 0.70 Mekong Delta, Vietnam 0.51 0.49 0.10 1.10 Red River Delta, Vietnam 0.61 0.65 0.34 1.60 Farmers in Thailand rely only on pesticides for pest management and use them in a prophylactic manner which predisposes their crop to invading plant hoppers and other pests; some farmers apply pesticides in cocktail mixtures of a variety of products including abamectin, cypermethrin, chloropyrifos, BPMC (http://ricehoppers.net/2010/03/20/farmers-suffered-heavy-financial-losses-from-bph-attacks/). Most farmers depend on the advice and recommendations of the pesticide retail shopkeepers and end up using insecticides that have high visual kill effects, that are less expensive, and that are extremely toxic to natural control agents. The prophylactic sprays reduce the ecosystem resilience and make rice crops vulnerable to rapid increases in hopper populations, leading to hopper burn of the rice crop. In 2009 and 2010, the renewed outbreaks of brown plant hopper (BPH) are thought to be caused by a variety of

14

factors, mainly breakdown of Host-Plant resistance and ecological resilience by overuse of pesticides, augmented by intensification and misuse of N fertilizers. The BPH, which also carry virus diseases, infested several provinces in Central Thailand in the in season of 2009/10 (http://ricehoppers.net/2010/01/planthoppers-destroyed-30-of-province%e2%80%99s-rice-production-in-thailand/). Agricultural authorities reported that about 78,400 ha were destroyed which is about 30% of the Phichit province’s area (256,000 ha) of rice production. The Thai government had to revise down the dry season rice production forecast by 16% from 8.3 million tons to 7 millions (http://ricehoppers.net/2010/01/thailand-cuts-second-crop-rice-output-forecasts-by-16-because-of-bph-and-water-shortage/). The total rice output for the 2009/10 is now expected to be 29 million tons paddy if the BPH and water problems do not persist. This expected output is about 2.4 million tons (or 7.6%) lower than the 31.4 million tons obtained in the 2008/09 crop. This might add pressure on world rice prices.

2.3 Energy use

Agriculture is both a user and producer of energy. All agricultural operations (human labour, animal power, fertilizer, fuels, and electricity) require energy in one form or another (Chamsing et al. 2006). To assess the situation of energy consumption, Chamsing et al. (2006) collected primary data for energy input resources for crop production in 2000/01 by field survey and personal interviews of farmers. The total energy input and output in irrigated and rainfed rice in Central Plain is shown in Table 12; around 45% of the total energy input for irrigated rice is associated with fertilizer use. The comparative total energy input and output are shown in Table 13. The total energy input used for rice production was lower in Thailand than in India and Pakistan. This was mainly due to higher use of machineries and fuel in India and Pakistan to produce irrigated rice. We calculated input energy for the fertilizer and pesticide use shown in Table 10 and 11. The quantity of inputs and equivalent energy (MJ) used for the conversion were: 1 kg N = 60.6 MJ, 1 kg P = 11.1 MJ, 1 kg K = 6.7 MJ, 1 kg chemical = 120 MJ, and 1 kg rice = 14.7 MJ (Chaudhary et al. 2006). The input energy for fertilizer and pesticide use in different countries are shown in Table 14. The comparative data suggest that the energy inputs for N and P fertilizers were more in Thailand than in Vietnam. Compared to the Philippines and Vietnam, Thailand had also greater energy inputs for insecticide and herbicides (Table 14). According to the Ricecheck, the Thai farmers in the central irrigated region should use 1400-1840 MJ/ha of energy input on seed, but the current use in S1 and S2 zones is 2810 MJ/ha; 35-50% higher than recommended.

15

Table 12. Energy input and output (Megajoule, MJ = 1 million joules) for irrigated and rainfed rice production in the Central Plain region (Chamsing et al. 2006).

Item Irrigated rice Rainfed rice Energy input (MJ/ha) aDirect energy inputs

Human labour 24.1 24.2 Mechanical power source 4,760.0 3,739.5

aIndirect energy inputs Energy sequester for mechanical power

3,062.2 2,096.5

Seed 2,637.1 2,283.6 Chemical fertilizer

N 8,232.8 4,758.0 P2O5 1,101.9 416.5 K2O - 50.9

Herbicide 191.7 111.0 Pesticide 461.0 -

Energy for farm operations 17,408.6 11,383.7 Total energy input 20,470.8 13,480.2

Energy outputs (MJ/ha)

Main product 67,756.8 - By-product 13,551.4 -

Total energy output 81,308.2 38,127.7

bEnergy ratio 4.0 2.8 aThe direct energy are the energy which are released directly from power sources for crop production while the indirect energy are those which are dissipated during various conversion processes like energy consumed indirectly in manufacturing, storage, distribution and related activities. bThe ratio of energy output of the production to input energy. Table 13. Total energy input and output (MJ/ha) for irrigated rice production in different countries (Chamsing et al. 2006; Chaudhary et al. 2006; Khan et al. 2009). Item Thailand Pakistan India Total energy input (MJ/ha) 20471 40183 28421 Total energy output 81308 167334 71957 Energy ratio 4.0 4.2 2.5 Table 14. Energy input (MJ) in irrigated rice in different countries from 1994 to 1999 (data from Moya et al. 2004 and Chaudhary et al. 2006 were used to calculate energy input). Item Central Plain,

Thailand Central Luzon, Philippines

Mekong Delta, Vietnam

Red River Delta, Vietnam

Energy input (MJ)/ha/crop Fertilizer

N 6393 6605 5606 5969 P 233 155 155 255 K 7 134 77 221

Total 6633 6895 5838 6446 Pesticide

Insecticide 116 22 61 73 Herbicide 107 41 59 78 Others 30 22 12 41

Total 252 84 132 192

16

2.4 Water use

In 2008, total irrigated area in Thailand (already developed) was 4,594,863 ha, out of which 3,852,034 ha was covered by large and medium scale irrigation projects, and the rest of the area was covered by small scale irrigation projects and electric pumps (Royal Irrigation Department 2009). The area covered under the river basins in Thailand was 51,210,700 ha, and the potential area (irrigated area where soil is suitable for rice production) was 9,647,079 ha. The ratio of irrigated area to potential area for rice production is therefore approximately 48%. There are 15,632 projects for irrigation from before the National Plan to 2009, which can be separated into large scale (92), medium scale (731), small scale (12,673), and electric water pumps (2,136). The area covered by water resources development projects in Central Plain and whole Thailand is shown in Table 15. Table 15: The area covered by water resources development projects in Central Plain and whole Thailand from 2003 to 2008 (RII 2009).

Area (000 ha) Region 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009

Whole Kingdom 3,638 3,645 3,704 3,781 3,798 3,852 Central Thailand 2,118 2,118 2,074 2,090 2,098 2,131

In 2008, a total of 2,344 water resources development projects were initiated in the Central region, which store 31,261.52 million m3 of water and cover irrigable3 area of 2,201,005 ha and the beneficiary4 non-irrigated area of 302,717 ha. The details of four kinds of projects are:

Large scale: 50 irrigation projects with water storage capacity of 30,031 million m3, and cover irrigated area of 1,948,838 ha.

Medium scale: 133 irrigation projects with water storage capacity of 910.20 million m3, and cover irrigated area of 182,395 ha.

Small scale: 2,005 irrigation projects with water storage capacity of 320.32 million m3, and cover irrigated area of 21,596 ha and beneficial area of 302,477 ha.

Water electric pump: 156 projects which cover the irrigated area of 48,176 ha and beneficial area of 240 ha.

In 1998, the numbers of pumps in Thailand were 3 million, 56% of which were found in the Central region (Molle et al. 2003); however, the information was not found on the use of pumps by individual farmer vs standard irrigation. Rivers in the Central region include Chao Phraya, Tha Chin, Maenam Noi, Lop Buri, Pasak River, Mae Klong, Petchburi, Pranburi, and Nakhon Nayok. In Thailand, water scarcity in the dry season is a major constraint for rice production every year; water storage in the dams reached a critical low level in the dry season of 2010 (information in Thai language; http://www.thairice.org/news/news872010/somkiat.ppt). The information on the website indicates that 75% of water demand is for agriculture, mostly for paddy, 4% for 3 Irrigable areas mean the areas under the services of large and medium-scale irrigation projects of the Royal Irrigation Department, where there are the systems to provide water for agriculture, consumption, industry, tourism, etc. and to control flood as well as water quality. 4 Beneficiary areas mean the areas that cannot get direct services from large and medium-scale irrigation projects but farmers use electric water pumps or other methods to get water from irrigation canal and utilize it in their farms.

17

household consumption, 4% for industries, and rest (17%) must be kept in water resources. In conclusion, total water demand in the whole country is 73,787 million m3/year but the water supply capacity is maximum of 52,500 million m3/year. The desk study revealed very no to very little data on water use by rice in the Central Plain of Thailand. In a recent newspaper article [Post Today (Thai), 24 June 2010], the Director of the Rice Department of Thailand reported that farmers are using about 7,500-11,250 m³ of water/ha/crop, and that the proportion of water used for rice production is about 70% of the total water utilized by the whole country. Assuming this number is for irrigation in the dry season and adding the mean dry season rainfall of 254-355 mm to these estimates, total water inputted to rice fields in the dry season becomes an estimated 1000-1500 mm. Bouman et al (2006) reported that across Asia, water inputs in rice fields range from as little as 400 mm in heavy clay soils with shallow groundwater tables to more than 2000 mm in coarse-textured (sandy or loamy) soils with deep groundwater tables. Around 1300-1500 mm is a typical value for irrigated rice in Asia. Outflows of water by seepage and percolation account for about 25-50% of all water inputs in heavy soils with shallow water tables and 50-85% in coarse-textured soils with deep water tables of 1.5 m depth or more. The other outflow of water is evapotranspiration, accounting for the balance of water inputted minus seepage and percolation flows. Chumpagern et al. (2008) performed irrigation experiments at Suphanburi Rice Research Center and Pathumthani Rice Research Center during 2001-2003 and 2006-2007, and reported an average evapotranspiration flow of 716 mm, suggesting average seepage and percolation losses of 284-784 mm (or 28-48% of the estimated total water inputted in the Central Plain). Many water-saving irrigation technologies exist that reduce seepage and percolation losses from rice fields, such as Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD), Saturated Soil Culture (SSC), and dry seeding. However, it should be realized that, though seepage and percolation are losses at the field level, they are often captured and reused downstream and do not necessarily lead to true water depletion at the irrigation area or basin scales. No measurements of water reuse in the Central Plain have been found during this desk-study, but data from a large scale surface irrigation system in the Philippines revealed that water reuse by pumping and check dams was 7% and 22% of the applied surface water (Hafeez et al. 2007). Chumpagern et al. (2008) reported for their field experiments a Water Use Efficiency from flooded rice of 0.52-0.55 kg paddy rice per unit evapotranspired water. With the estimated 284-784 mm seepage and percolation losses, this translates into a total Water Productivity of 0.24-0.36 kg paddy rice per unit total water inputted. In Asia, the field-level WP varies widely but most commonly ranges between 0.2 and 0.4 (Figure 4), suggesting that the Central Plain performs ‘on average’. The water-saving irrigation technologies mentioned above can increase WP of rice considerably. Studies in lowland rice areas in China and the Philippines showed that AWD reduces water inputs by around 15-30% (compared with continuously flooded conditions) and improves water productivity, without a significant impact on yield (Bouman et al. 2006). The report by Chumpagern et al. (2008) also reports on water savings and increases in WP through AWD and SSC, but since it is not clear to what water flows (evapotranspiration, or irrigation water input) these values refer, we don’t repeat them here (we had access to an English Abstract only).

18

Figure 4. Frequency distribution of water productivity with respect to total water inputs from field experiments in India, the Philippines, China, and Malaysia (Sources: Tuong et al. 2005). Most of the data on the left of the x–axis are from India, with local varieties on light soils and deep groundwater table, while those on the right are from China, with hybrid rice, clay soil, and shallow groundwater table.

2.5 Labour and capital inputs

In Thailand, a socio-economic survey of households in crop year 2006/07 found that number of family member per household decreased in the past 10 years, from 4.75 persons/household in the crop year 1998/99 to 3.95 persons/household in the crop year 2006/07 (www.oae.go.th). In the Central region, the number of family decreased from 4.48 to 4.04 persons/household and labour in family decreased from 3.20 to 2.77 persons/household. The decreasing size of family is influencing the amount of labour available per household. Table 16. Socioeconomic characteristics of sample farms in 1999.

Farm size (ha) Site No. of farms Mean Minimum Maximum

Mean age of farmer

Mean education

(yr)

Mean family size

Central Plain, Thailand

23 4.00 0.96 7.96 49 4.6 5

Central Luzon, Philippines

26 2.18 0.50 6.28 54 7.6 6

Mekong Delta, Vietnam

20 0.97 0.26 2.20 49 7.4 6

Moya et al. (2004) summarized some basic socioeconomic characteristics of the sample farms under intensively irrigated rice in different countries (Table 16). The average level of education of the farmers in Central Plain was around 5 years of school, which was lower than the education levels of farmers from Vietnam (7.4 years) and the Philippines (7.6 years). In the irrigated Central Plain, only 0.9 person-days/ha are used for hand weeding, while in Mekong Delta, Vietnam, this value is 8.3 person-days/ha (Moya et al. 2004). Labour distribution and labour use in different irrigated rice countries are shown in Figure 5 (Moya et al. 2004). Wages in Thailand are relatively high for Southeast Asia, as a result, these farmers use the least amount of labour, about 14 person-days/ha/crop (Figure 5). Wages are high because of the widespread availability of jobs in the industrial and service sectors in nearby Bangkok and its surrounding. High wage rates have provided incentives for farmers to reduce

19

labour use. The reduced labour use has led to two major developments. Crop establishment in Thailand is by direct seeding instead of the more labour-intensive system of transplanting, and land preparation, harvesting, and threshing are fully mechanized. All Thai farmers under this study used a combine harvester-thresher that can finish 1 ha of rice in 4 h with only four accompanying operators. Farmers in Suphan Buri, Thailand use an average of only 5 person-days/ha to carry out all harvest and postharvest operations versus more than 80 person-days/ha in northern Vietnam (Figure 5). The labour used in rice production consists of both family labour and hired labour. The small amount of labour used in Central Plain (Suphan Buri) is split about equally between family and hired labour.

Figure 5. Labour distribution by activities (upper) and labour use by source (lower) in irrigated rice countries (Moya et al. 2004). The data is from 1994-99, and numbers of farms were at least 20 at each site (PR = PhilRice, Philippines; SB = Suphan Buri, Thailand; CL = Cuu Long, Mekong Delta, Vietnam; SU = Sukamandi, Indonesia; AD = Aduthurai, India; HA = Hanoi, Vietnam; JI = Jinhua, China). Moya et al. (2004) summarized comparative annual costs incurred on irrigated rice production in different countries (Table 8). Among the different costs of production, labour (hired and family) constituted the biggest share of total costs in the irrigated Central Plain as well as in the irrigated areas of Central Luzon and Mekong Delta. Labour costs in intermediate levels of labour use countries (e.g., Philippines, southern Vietnam) account for a little bit more than half of total costs, whereas, in Thailand, where mechanization is quite advanced, labour constitutes 33% of total costs. Machine rental in Thailand accounts for nearly one-quarter of total costs. It must be acknowledged that the cost estimates in Table 8 do not reflect which countries have a comparative advantage for producing rice.

3. Climate impact In rice, the use of fertilizers increases environmental pollution and generates emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly methane. The flooding of fields cuts off oxygen supply, and then anaerobic microorganisms ferment the organic matter in the soil, leading to the production of

20

methane (Ferry 1992). In the early 1980s, it was estimated that lowland rice fields emitted about 10-20% of the then estimated global methane emissions (Kirk 2004). Recent measurements, however, show that many rice fields emit substantially less than those investigated in the early 1980s, and also, methane emissions have actually decreased since the early 1980s because of changes in crop management practices such as a decreased use of organic inputs. However, the uncertainty about methane emissions from rice fields is higher than most other sources in the global methane budget (Van der Gon et al. 2000). Current estimates of annual methane emissions from rice fields are being 5-10% of total global emissions of about 600 Tg (Kirk 2004). The magnitude and pattern of methane emissions from rice fields are mainly determined by water regimes, the level of organic inputs, and to a lesser extent by soil type, weather, tillage, residue management, fertilizer use, and the rice cultivar (Bouman et al. 2006). Organic manure generally enhances methane emissions. Flooding of the soil is a prerequisite for sustained emissions of methane. Mid-season drainage, a common irrigation practice adopted in major rice-growing regions in China and Japan, greatly reduces methane emissions. Few accurate assessments have been made of emissions of nitrous oxide from rice fields, and the contribution to global emissions has not yet been assessed. In irrigated rice systems with good water control, nitrous oxide emissions are small except when excessively high fertilizer-N rates are applied. In irrigated rice fields, the bulk of nitrous oxide emissions occur during fallow periods and immediately after flooding of the soil at the end of the fallow period. The results of a recent case study in Thailand show that the global warming potential of rice production per kg was 2927 g CO2-eq, followed by 3.2 g SO2-eq of acidification, and 12.9 g NO3-eq of eutrophication (Kasmaprapruet et al. 2009). In this study, 95% of the global warming inputs to the system were associated with the cultivation process and 2% with the harvesting process. In Thailand, methane emission per unit grain from direct wet-seeding rice with continuous flooding was 35-45 g CH4 per kg grain and intermittent soil aerating provided 14-23 g CH4 per kg grain (Saenjan and Saisompan, 2004). To reduce methane emissions from paddy fields, the options include using enhanced rice production technology such as minimizing the use of green manure and substituting pre-fermented compost from farm residues, adding nitrate or sulphate containing nitrogen fertilizer to suppress methane gas production, or change rice cultivation practices (described in Kasmaprapruet et al. 2009). In irrigated paddy rice field, methane emission was 153-220 kg/ha/year in China, and 224 kg/ha/year in the Philippines. Methane emission from rainfed paddy field was 137 kg/ha/year in Indonesia and in deep water paddy field, the methane emission was 98 kg/ha/year in Prachinburi, Thailand (Corton and Bajita 1998; Kimara 1992; Wangfang et al. 1996). It should be acknowledged that much of this methane emission would also occur from natural wetlands (natural state of many lowland rice areas). The use of organic fertilizer in paddy field such as farmyard manure, rice straw and green manure would be the source of methane emission. Ploughing will disturb surface soil and results in more methane emission (Charoensilp et al. 1993). Bouman et al (2006) summarized the expectations of water management to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from rice: “In general, fewer methane emissions are expected under aerobic than under flooded conditions, but higher nitrous oxide emissions are expected. Midseason drainage and intermittent irrigation can reduce methane emission by over 40% (Wassmann et al. 2009). However, the relative emissions of greenhouse gases vary with environment and management practices. The variability in greenhouse gas emissions from conventional flooded rice fields and from two water-saving systems, unsaturated soil covered by plastic film and unsaturated soil covered by straw mulch, at three sites in China were illustrated by Dittert et al. (2002). Methane emissions were highest from flooded rice at all three sites. Nitrous oxide emissions were lowest

21

from flooded rice at Nanjing and Guangzhou, but similar among all three systems at Beijing. When both methane and nitrous oxide emissions were converted into equivalent CO2 emissions and summed, flooded rice had the lowest global warming potential at Nanjing and highest global warming potential at Guangzhou, whereas all three systems had similar global warming potentials at Beijing. Thus, the overall impact of an adoption of water-saving management practices in rice production on global warming is poorly known and needs more study”. As yet unpublished experiments at IRRI demonstrated the potential of AWD to reduce the Global Warming Potential of rice. AWD irrigation management decreased CH4 emission by approximately 60-90% during dry seasons and approximately 35-45% through a year. A 1-month earlier tillage (rice straw incorporation with soil) decreased CH4 emission by approximately 60% through a year. AWD managements increased N2O emission compared with a continuously flooding management, but if N fertilizer was applied immediately after irrigation, AWD significantly decreased the global warming potential (GWP) of paddy fields calculated from both CH4 and N2O emissions due to its larger reduction capacity for CH4 emission.

4. Environmental impact Most of the information presented in this section is taken from Tirado et al. (2008). Changes in water quality associated with rice production may be positive or negative, depending mainly on management practices associated with fertilizer and pesticides use (Bouman et al. 2006). The quality of the water leaving rice fields may be improved as a result of the capacity of the wetland ecosystem to remove nitrogen and phosphorus. On the other hand, nitrogen transfer from flooded rice fields by direct flow of dissolved nitrogen in floodwater through runoff/drainage warrants more attention. High nitrogen pollution of fresh waters has been found in lowland rice-growing regions where fertilizer rates are excessively high, for example, in Jiangsu Province in China (Bouman et al. 2006). Around 95% of freshwater in Thailand is withdrawn to irrigate more than 5 million ha of irrigated agriculture. Due to the high use of agrochemicals in Thailand in recent years, there is a high potential for pollution of water sources through irrigation runoff, return flows and infiltration. Surface and groundwater are the primary water sources for tap and drinking water for the Thai people. In rural areas, which accounts for nearly 70% of the population, there are many problems related to water quality due to microbiological and chemical contaminations from both surface and groundwater sources. Surface water: The Pollution Control Department monitors the water quality in the major rivers and lakes in Thailand. The major causes of water pollution in the country are related to fecal coliform bacteria, high solids, organic matter and nutrients (phosphates, ammonia and nitrates) (Simachaya 2002). More than 40% of Thailand’s surface waters are in “poor” or “very poor” quality (Tirado et al. 2008). No surface water was categorized as “very good” quality (extra clean water which is suitable for aquatic animals and human consumption after normal treatment). Groundwater: Groundwater in Thailand is a source of drinking water within households and supplements surface water for agriculture and livestock uses. It is estimated that 75% of domestic water is obtained from groundwater sources. Increasing demand for water has led to a growing unsustainable reliance on groundwater. Moreover, groundwater pollution is occurring from a number of sources.

22

More leaching of nitrate is expected with increased soil aeration (either with growing rice under non flooded conditions, or with the shift to upland crops) than under flooded conditions. Nitrate leaching from flooded rice fields, however, is normally negligible because of rapid denitrification under anaerobic conditions. In the Philippines, for example, nitrate pollution of groundwater under rice-based cropping systems was found to surpass the 10 mg/litre limit for safe drinking water only when highly fertilized vegetables were included in the cropping system (Bouman et al. 2002). In the Indian Punjab, however, an increase in nitrate of almost 2 mg/litre was recorded between 1982 and 1988, with a simultaneous increase in fertilizer N consumption of 56 to 188 kg/ha, most of which would have been used on rice-wheat cropping systems (Bijay-Singh et al. 1991). The relative contribution from rice crops to this increase, however, is not clear. The study on quality of water from natural water resources in Thailand reported that nutrients are leached from soil every year and could be computed in term of fertilizer by regions (Table 17; Limthong 2009). However, the relative contribution of irrigated rice to nutrient leaching is not known. In economic term, the nutrient losses are worth of up to 8,480 million Baht/year (1,300 million Baht of urea, 2,340 million Baht of TSP, and 4,840 million Baht of KCl). Agricultural soils are degraded and need to be improved because of nutrients lost not only by crop removal but also by leaching and run off. The area under different levels of soil leaching and erosion is shown in Table 5 (Limthong 2009). Table 17. Estimated nutrients lost by leaching and run off to natural water resources (Limthong 2009).

Nutrients lost (ton/year) Region N P2O5 K2O

North 44,300 10,016 168,126 Northeast 13,700 26,885 171,339 Central and East 15,300 73,802 83,317 South 62,000 15,815 201,407 Total 135,300 126,518 624,188 Agriculture contributes directly to nitrate pollution in water resources through fertilizer runoff. Often, too much N fertilizer is applied to crop soils, and the excess that is not used by the plants runs-off polluting groundwater, rivers, and finally coastal areas. Drinking water polluted with nitrates poses health risks, especially to children. Approximately, 95% of surface water withdrawn in Thailand is used by the agricultural sector, particularly for paddy rice, which is the major crop in the country. Water pollution resulting from discharges from paddy fields is becoming more serious, particularly in river basins where rice is the main economic crop. Discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus and pesticides are the main pollutants from paddy rice farming affecting water quality. Water pollution caused by rice farming also affects the natural populations of fish and other aquatic fauna. In Pranburi Irrigation Project area (Prachuab Khiri Khan province) the density of fish and benthic faunas in 2005 was less than half in the section downstream of the paddy irrigation area compared to that in the upstream section (away from the influence of rice farming). A study in a pilot rice paddy field located at the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT campus, Pathumthani) showed that 20% of the nitrogen applied as fertilizers to paddy fields found its way into the river basin through surface runoff and percolation. A recent survey done by Greenpeace found examples of water pollution with nitrates in intensive farming areas in the Central Plain (Kanchanaburi and Suphanburi) (Tirado 2007). In Suphanburi, two of the five wells sampled in farms had nitrates levels higher than the safety limit established by the WHO.

23

Lakes and coastal areas polluted with nitrates cause major problems by eutrophication and massive growth of harmful algae. Nutrients from agricultural and domestic waste sources have resulted in eutrophication of major water bodies worldwide. Eutrophication causes loss of productivity due to low dissolved oxygen concentrations in water, but of particular concern is the explosive growth of algae (cyanobacteria) and toxins production. Recent studies in Thai reservoirs have found blooms of toxin-producing algae in the water bodies. In particular, nitrogen and phosphorus are the two major nutrients driving growth of algae in the reservoir. The runoff from Thailand’s four principal rivers ends into the Gulf causing eutrophication: the Chao Phraya is the most polluted of the four rivers, particularly in the river estuary area due to the urban and industrial expansion. The Thachin river is becoming increasingly polluted due to accelerated agricultural and industrial development as well as urban expansion from the Bangkok area. Eutrophication can cause explosive bloom of algae, frequently in the form of red tides. On occasion, paralytic shellfish poisoning after consuming contaminated mussels in the red tide area of Pranburi river estuary have occurred, causing some human deaths. Anoxic conditions due to algal blooms could cause massive fish kills.

5. Health impact Most of the information presented in this section is taken from Tirado et al. (2008). Babies and infants living around agricultural areas and who drink water from wells are the most vulnerable to health risks from nitrates. Additionally, anyone drinking from a contaminated well with high nitrate levels could be vulnerable to the long-term effects of nitrates, such as various types of cancer (Greer et al. 2005). The greatest risk of nitrate poisoning is considered to be the blue baby syndrome which occurs in infants given nitrate-laden water. Blue-baby syndrome occurs when the haemoglobin in the blood losses its capacity to carry oxygen and this can ultimately cause asphyxia and death. Due to intensive fertilizer use and run-off, harmful algal blooms may occur which can lead to the proliferation of algal species that produce toxins. When the algae are ingested by shellfish this can result in neurological, amnesic, paralytic, and/or diarrheic shellfish poisoning in human consumers. Over the past decade, pressure to sustain high rice yields has led to heavy usage of pesticides. In 2003, 131 thousand tonnes of pesticides were used in Thailand and 2,406 cases of pesticide poisoning were reported. Several factors contribute to the direct health risks associated with pesticides, including the mixing pesticides as “toxic cocktails”, increasing pesticide dosages over recommended limits, preference for strong and fast acting pesticides, improper disposal of empty containers, using inappropriate pesticides, and lack of education on handling the pesticides.

6. Best Management Practices and options to improve resource efficiency In the following section we summarize current resource use in the Central plain, and list opportunities to increase resource use efficiencies through Thai GAP (1), as identified by the Thai Rice Department (2), and as identified from international comparisons (3).

24

6.1 Current resource use

In 2008/9, rice yields in the Central Plain were 3.7 t/ha in the wet season and 4.5 t/ha in the (irrigated) dry season. These yields are lower than the average irrigated yield in tropical Asia of around 5 t/ha and of 5.2 t/ha as reported by Witt et al. (1999) for sites in China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, across DS and WS seasons of 1995-1997 (Bouman et al, 2002). Potential yield levels of current, high-yielding modern varieties are estimated to be around 6 t/ha in the wet season and 8 t/ha in the dry season (IIRI, in prep), so yield gaps are considerable. Labour is scarce and costly (constituting around 33% of all inputs costs) and has driven mechanization, direct seeding, and use of herbicides over manual weeding. The pressure of high labour price is similar in countries like the Philippines and Vietnam. Fertilizer-N use is around 110 kg/ha in the dry season rice and 100 kg/ha in the wet season. Across different sites in Asia (see above), Witt et al. (1999) reported fertilizer-N uses of 118±40 kg/ha. Reported N recoveries and agronomic N-use efficiencies (AEN), however, were very low in the Central Plain, with values of 13 (WS) and 22 (DS) %, and 4.9 (WS) and 11.6 (DS) kg/kg, respectively. For comparison, Ladha et al. (2005) reported recovery rates of 27-50% and AEN values of 18-24 kg grain increase per kg N applied for rice (25-75% quartile over large data set from experimental fields). Dobermann et al. (2004) reported average recoveries in rice of 31% from on-farm assessments and 41% determined in researcher-managed plots in farmers’ fields. Clearly, there is scope for increasing the N use efficiencies in the Central Plain. The main river basin in the Central Plain, the Chao Phraya, is a “closed basin” (IWMI, pers. comm.), meaning that all available water is used or committed with no ‘spare’ capacity’. Rice production receives some 75% of all developed water resources and still water scarcity is a main constraint in the dry season. Despite lack of concrete data, continuous flooding of rice seems to be the dominant and recommended system, and water use indicators suggest ‘an average’ performance of the Central Plain. Mean pesticide use in the Central Plain of Thailand is 2.08 kg active ingredients (a.i.)/ha, which is lower than for irrigated rice in Zhejiang Province, China (3.80 kg a.i./ha), but higher than for irrigated rice in the Philippines (0.65-1.4 kg a.i./ha), the Red River delta, Vietnam (1.75 kg a.i./ha), west Java, Indonesia (1.56 kg a.i./ha), the Mekong delta, Vietnam (1.06 kg a.i./ha), and Tamil Nadu, India (0.44 kg a.i./ha) (Bouman et al. 2002). Recent and devastating outbreaks of Brown Plant Hopper (BPH), which also carry rice viral diseases, are thought to be caused by a variety of factors, mainly breakdown of host-plant resistance and ecological resilience because of overuse of pesticides and by intensification and misuse of N fertilizers.

6.2 ThaiGAP and Ricecheck

There is limited information on the impact of ThaiGAP and Ricecheck systems on improving resource efficiency in the irrigated rice production in Thailand. In the ‘preface’ of the Ricecheck manual, it was mentioned that farmers who used Thai Ricecheck increased their rice yield by 26% and reduced cost investment by 16%; however, no other details are given in the manual. The current Ricecheck system does not include the latest water saving, nutrient management, and pest (weeds, insects, and diseases) management technologies.

25

6.3 Inventory of scope for improving resource efficiency

The Thai Rice Department has identified the following measures to improve resource efficiency: Research and Development measures 1. There is a need to develop new high yielding varieties and varieties resistant to BPH and other insect pests and diseases, high temperature, drought etc. 2. There is a need to develop new technologies, such as microorganism products for crop protection or bio-pesticides, and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Technologies are also needed to develop rice production according to climate change, biotype and population dynamics of insects pests, carbon footprint and carbon minimization for rice production system in Thailand, and high nutritive value in rice grain. 3. On farm adaptive research and farmers’ adoption technologies for rice production in each rice environment. Production measures 1. Promotion of integrated crop management or Thai GAP for each rice ecologies and soil groups in order to reduce the production cost and increase net profit. 2. Promote farmers group development and building up the strength network. There are Thai Farmers Association, Community Rice Center (CRC) network, and Presidents of CRC at various levels; national, regional, provincial and sub-district. The knowledge transfer from farmer to farmer will be rapid in this way. 3. There is a need to strengthen the existing extension system for rice in the country. The activities may include regular meetings from research and extension specialists, information sharing for building up the rice extension program, and training for extension staff and farmer leaders on how to increase agricultural input efficiency. 4. Thai government has brought a policy for farmers to grow rice only twice a year to reduce risks from pests, water scarcity, and high inputs use, especially in the well-irrigated central and lower North regions. Farmers’ practice of cultivating five crops per two years increases the risk of BPH, depletes soil quality, and lowers productivity per unit area. Incentive for farmers: The government would compensate the farmers who participate in the plan by subsidizing the cost of high-quality seeds, green manure and encourage them to plant other crops such as green beans, sweet corn, and maize as well as helping them with market access. Farmers who do not participate could lose the right to participate in the government's rice income insurance program. 5. Farmers usually follow recommendations from agrochemical local dealers; therefore, workshops with major agrochemical companies should be organized to increase the awareness local dealers about correct pesticide recommendation. 6. Warning on agrochemical issues, especially on pesticide and fertilizer application, through farmers group, demonstration plots, field day etc. 7. There is a need to promote Qualified Rice Seed Enterprises in Thailand. The Rice Department has a policy to invite seed enterprises to register for the seed trader database and send the third party inspector to inspect the seed production process and give certification to those enterprises. This could help the current problem of a shortfall in qualified seed. There is also a need to promote seed production at a community level. The Rice Department promotes Community Rice Centers (CRC) to produce qualify seed for farmers in communities. 8. Give financial help (medium and long term) at low interests to farmers who want to use agricultural machineries for rice production activities to substitute labour shortage. 9. Government provide crop insurance to farmers in high risk areas, such as drought and flood prone areas. 10. Transfer knowledge to farmers by using mass media; radio, TV, newspaper, etc.

26

6.4 Novel technologies for improvement of resource use efficiency

A number of new technologies for Natural Resources Management for irrigated rice have been developed by IRRI and its partners elsewhere in Asia. Most of these technologies are documented in IRRI’s Rice Knowledge Bank (www.knowledgebank.irri.org/rice.htm). Application of these technologies would have two medium-term benefits: increased productivity of rice with reduced the ecological footprint. Some of the proposed interventions to improve resource efficiency in the Central Plain of Thailand are listed in Table 18. These technologies are currently not included in the ThaiGAP; therefore, their validation and the benchmarking of potential benefits in the Central Plain should be a priority. Specific technologies include improved fertilizer management through site specific nutrient management (SSNM), improved water productivity through Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD), and reduced pesticide use through integrated pest management (IPM) and Ecological Engineering. Satawathananont et al. (2004), for example, suggested that SSNM with good crop management may be profitable at Suphan Buri and rice yields could exceed 7 t/ha, a level rarely achieved. Attanandana et al. (2007) reported that integrated crop management with SSNM had much lower fertilizer cost (99 US$/ha); only 54% cost of the farmers’ practice. SSNM not only reduced the fertilizer cost but the pesticides and seed used in the rice production were also decreased by about $90/ha/crop in 4 provinces of Central Plain. The effective use of N fertilizer could reduce the intensity of damage by insects and diseases to rice, and also reduce environmental pollution. Adoption of AWD could reduce on-farm water use, reduce pumping and energy cost, and reduce methane emissions. Together with adapted fertilizer and residue management, AWD could reduce the total Global Warming Potential from rice production. IPM and ecological engineering could reduce the use of pesticides drastically, which would increase the ecological resilience and reduce environmental pollution and human health hazards.

27

Table 18. Major issues, proposed interventions and their possible impact on resource efficiency in the Central Plain of Thailand. Issue Proposed

interventions Impact on resource efficiency Levers

Intensive cropping

Plant two crops/year • Increase in land use efficiency • Reduction in pests, especially BPH • Maintained soil quality • Risk reduction of water scarcity

Government policies

High seed rate Use seed rate according to the recommendation / reduce average seed rates

• Reduction in costs • Reduction in diseases and insect pests

Seed companies; extension services

Overuse of fertilizer

Adopt site specific nutrient management

• Improve nutrient use efficiency • Reduce fertilizer use and cost • Reduction in insect pests and diseases • Reduction in environmental pollution and

contamination in drinking water and other water resources

• Reduction in eutrophication • Reduction in nutrient leaching and run-off • Reduction in nitrous oxide emissions

Fertilizer companies; extension services

Overuse of pesticide and outbreak of BPH and viruses

Increase ecological resilience by ecological engineering; reduce overuse of pesticides through IPM; targeted deployment of resistance genes; awareness in local pesticide retailer about sustainable use of pesticides

• Reduction in input cost • Reduction in environmental pollution and

contamination in drinking water • Improvement in human health • Reduction in development of resistance in

pests • Reduction in crop loss

Pesticide companies; extension services and farmers’ groups

Overuse of water

Adopt alternate wetting and drying; introduce laser levelling

• Increase in water use efficiency • Reduction in water use • Reduction in fuel consumption and energy

inputs where water is applied by electric/diesel pump

• Reduction in greenhouse gas emission, e.g. methane

Research institutes and private companies

Intensive wet tillage

Adopt dry seeded rice • Improvement in soil structure and soil health

• Reduction in water use • Better tolerance to water and heat stress • Reduction in production cost • Reduction in energy input • Reduction in environmental pollution • Reduction in greenhouse gas emission

(CH4 & N2O)

Research institutes, private companies, extension staff

28

References Attanandana, T., Verapattananirund, P., Kongton, S., Pholwatana, A. and Boonsomphoppan, B.

2007. Site-specific nutrient management for sustainable crop production (rice and sugarcane). Final report submitted to Thailand Research Fund, 230 p. (http://www.ssnm.agr.ku.ac.th/main/Manage/Site-specific_rice%20for%20website_e.pdf).

Bijay-Singh, Sadana, U.S., and Arora, B.R. 1991. Nitrate pollution of ground water from nitrogen fertilizers and animal wastes in the Punjab, India. Agriculture and Environment 3: 57-67.

Bouman, B.A.M., Castañeda, A., and Bhuiyan, S.I. 2002. Nitrate and pesticide contamination of groundwater under rice-based cropping systems: evidence from the Philippines. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 92: 185-199.

Bouman, B.A.M., Humphreys, E., Tuong, T.P., and Barker, R. 2006. Rice and water. Advances in Agronomy 92: 187-237.

Chamsing, A., Salokhe, V.M., and Singh, G. 2006. Energy consumption analysis for selected crops in different regions of Thailand. Agricultural Engineering International: The CIGR EJournal. Volume VIII: 18 p.

Charoensilp, N., Phromnart, P. and Charoentham, P. 1993. An Interregional Research Program on methane emission from rice fields. In Proceeding of Scientific Meeting on Rice and Cereal Crops. 50 p.

Chaudhary, V., Gangwar, B. and Pandey, D. 2006. Auditing of energy use and output of different cropping systems in India. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal. Manuscript EE 05 001 Vol. VIII. June, 2006.

Chumpagern, P., Jatuporn, S., Ruensuk, N., Inthaleang, W. and Leuchaikam, C. 2008. Water use efficiency for dry season rice production in the central plain. In: Proceeding of Scientific Meeting on Rice and Cereal crops. pp. 16-30.

Corton, T.M. and Bajita. J. 1998. Methane emission from irrigated rice in Maligaya. Final Workshop and Annual Meeting Interregional Research Program on Methane Emission from Rice Fields (GLO/91/G31), IRRI-UNDP Final Workshop, Beijing and Hangzhou, 10-13 August 1998.

Department of Agriculture. 2005. Organic materials and farmyard manure in agriculture land. Soil Science Researcher Group, Agricultural Production Sciences Research and Development Office. Technical number 19/2003. 216 p.

Dittert, K., Lin Shan, Kreye, C., Zheng, X.H., Xu, Y.C., Lu, X.J., Shen, Q.R., Fan, X.L., and Sattelmacher, B. 2002. Saving water with Ground Cover Rice Production Systems (GCRPS) at the price of increased greenhouse gas emissions? In “Water-wise rice production” (B.A.M. Bouman, H. Hengsdijk, B. Hardy, P.S. Bindraban, T.P. Tuong, and J.K. Ladha, Eds.), pp. 197-206. International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines.

Dobermann, A., Witt, C., and Dawe, D. (2004). ‘‘Increasing Productivity of Intensive Rice Systems through Site�Specific Nutrient Management.’’. Science Publishers, Inc., International Rice Research Institute, Enfield, NH (USA) and Los Banos (Philippines).

Ferry, J.G. 1992. Biochemistry of methanogenesis. Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 27: 473-503.

Greer, F.R. and Shannon, M, Committee on Nutrition, and Committee on Environmental Health. 2005. Infant methemoglobinemia: the role of dietry nitrate in food and water. Pediatrics 116: 784-786.

Hafeez, M.M., Bouman, B.A.M., Van de Giesen, N., Mushtaq S., and Vlek, P., 2008. Water Re-Use and Cost-Benefit of Pumping at Different Spatial Levels in a Rice Irrigation System in UPRIIS, Philippines. Journal of Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 33, 115-126.

29

IRRI & FAO (International Rice Research Institute and Food and Agriculture Organization). 2003. Manual for integrated rice crop management and good quality seed producing TCP/THA0167 (T). 43 p.

Jatuporn, S. 2008. Fertilizer recommendation based on soil analysis. Bureau of Rice Research and Development. Phahoyothin Rd., Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900 Thailand.

Kasmaprapruet, S., Paengjuntuek, W., Saikhwan, P., and Phungrassami, H. 2009. Life cycle assessment of milled rice production: case study in Thailand. European Journal of Scientific Research 30: 195-203.

Khan, M.A., Awan, I.U., and Zafar, J. 2009. Energy requirement and economic analysis of rice production in western part of Pakistan. Soil & Environment 28: 60-67.

Kimura, M. 1992. Methane emission from paddy soils in Japan and Thailand. In World Inventory Soil Emission Potentials. Edited by N.H. Batgis and E.M. Bridge, WISE Report 2, ISRIC, Wageningen. p. 73-79.

Kirk, G. 2004. The Biochemistry of Submerged Soils. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, West Sussex, UK. 291 pp.

Ladha, J.K., Himanshu Pathak, Timothy J. Krupnik, J. Six, Chris van Kessel, 2005. Efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen in cereal production: retropsects and prospects. Advances in Agronomy 87, 85-156.

Limthong, P. 2009. Soil leaching, erosion, and soil and water conservation. Rice Knowledge on the training course on Soil and Water Conservation in Land Development Zone. Land Development Department. http://e-library.ldd.go.th/Web_KM/KM_Knowledge_training.html.

Molle, F., Shah, T., and Barker, R. 2003. The groundswell of pumps: multilevel impacts of a silent revolution. Paper prepared for the ICID-Asia meeting, Taiwan, November 2003, 18 p.

Moya, P.F., Dawe, D., Prabale, D., Tiongco, M., Chien, N.V., Devarajan, S., Djatiharti, A., Lai, N.X., Niyomvit, L., Ping, H.X., Redondo, G., and Wardana, P. 2004. The economics of intensively irrigated rice in Asia in Increasing Productivity of Intensive Rice Systems Through Site-Specific Nutrient Management. Edited by A. Dobermann, C. Witt, and D. Dawe. p. 29-58.

Office of Agricultural Economics. 2009. Agricultural Statistics of Thailand 2008. Center for Agricultural Information, ISBN 0857-6610. http://www.go.th.

Office of Industrial Economics. 2002. Executive Summary for Director Master Plan for Chemical Industry Development. September 2000.

Papong, S., Yuvaniyama, C., Lohsomboon, P., and Malakul, P. 2009. Overview of biomass utilization in Thailand. Available at : http://www.aist- iss.jp/old/lca/ci/activity/project/biomass/report/041028_paper/thailand_paper.pdf. Accessed on 24 June 2010.

Royal Irrigation Department. 2009. Database of Irrigation Project in 2009. Planning Division, Samsen Rd., Bangkok, Thailand.

Saenjan, P. and Saisompan, C. 2004. Economic return of rice production from methane mitigated rice yields. Journal of Agriculture 20: 259-271.

Satawathananont, S., Chatuporn, S., Niyomvit, Kongchum, M., Sookthongsa, J., and Dobermann, A. 2004. Site-specific nutrient management in irrigated rice systems of Central Thailand in Increasing Productivity of Intensive Rice Systems Through Site-Specific Nutrient Management. Edited by A. Dobermann, C. Witt, and D. Dawe. p. 125-143.

Simachaya, W. 2002. Water quality monitoring and modeling application in Thailand. Paper prepared for the Third World Water Forum Session “Water Quality Monitoring and Modeling- The present Situation and Partnership in the Future”. October 16-17, 2002 at the United Nation University Center in Tokyo, Japan.

Thai Agricultural Standard (TAS). 2008. Good Agricultural Practices for Rice. Unofficial translation of document TAS 4401-2008. National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and

30

Food Standards, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Published in the Royal Gazette Vol. 125 Section 139 D, dated 18 August B.E. 2551 (2008).

Thongpussawan, S., Chaisongkram, P., Sakdayiengyong, S., Phornphrommin, P., and Woraanuwattanakul, K. 2009. Land use zoning for economic crop, paddy major rice. Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, Land Development Department. Technical book number 169/11/52.

Tirado, R. 2007. Nitrates in drinking water in the Philippines and Thailand. Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note 11/2007.

Tirado, R., Englande, A.J., Promakasikorn, L., and Novotny, V. 2008. Use of agrochemicals in Thailand and its consequences for the environment. Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note 03/2008.

Tuong, T.P., Bouman, B.A.M., and Mortimer, M. 2005. More rice, less water—Integrated approaches for increasing water productivity in irrigated rice-based systems in Asia. Plant Production Science 8: 229-239.

Van der Gon, H.A.C., Van Bodegom, P.M., Houweling, S., Verburg, P., and Van Breemen, N. 2000. Combining upscaling and downscaling of methane emissions from rice fields: methodologies and preliminary results. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 58, 285-301.

Wangfang, L., Wei, C., Wangna, G., and Binwu, D. 1996. Methane emission from a Chinese rice field affected by water management. In Breeding of the Inter. p. 339-344.

Wassmann, R., Hosen, Y., and Sumfleth, K. 2009. Reducing methane emissions from irrigated rice. Agriculture and Climate Change: An Agenda for Negotiation in Copenhagen. Focus 16, Brief 3, May 2009.

Witt, C., Dobermann, A., Abdulrachman, S., Gines, H.C., Wang Guanghuo, Nagarajan, R., Satawatananont, S., Tran Thuc Son, Pham Sy Tan, Le Van Tiem, Simbahan, G.C., Olk, D.C., 1999. Internal nutrient efficiencies of irrigated lowland rice in tropical and subtropical Asia. Field Crops Research 63, 113-138.

Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains Sub-study 2: Post harvest efficiency

Compiled by Amara Wiengweera and M. Gummert

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 2. Description of the postproduction value chain and main actors................................................ 3

2.1. Markets/trade.................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Thai rice............................................................................................................................ 4 2.3. Rice Market Structure....................................................................................................... 5 2.4. Value chain structure and governance.............................................................................. 7 2.5. Key Postproduction Stakeholders..................................................................................... 7

3. Postharvest issues, losses and efficiency gaps ........................................................................ 10 3.1. Rice................................................................................................................................. 10 3.2. Products from rice grains................................................................................................ 16 3.3. Rice by-products............................................................................................................. 16

4. Effect of production inefficiencies on postproduction ............................................................ 17 5. Comparison with other rice producing regions ....................................................................... 18 6. Potential other use of rice and by products ............................................................................. 20

6.1. Rice................................................................................................................................. 20 6.2. Bran ................................................................................................................................ 20 6.3. Husk................................................................................................................................ 20 6.4. Straw............................................................................................................................... 21 6.5. Innovative new products................................................................................................. 21

7. Response options at PH value chain level and policy for improved resource efficiencies ..... 22 7.1. Suggestions for further research..................................................................................... 23 7.2. Improving postharvest resource efficiency .................................................................... 23

8. Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................ 25 9. References ............................................................................................................................... 27

1. Introduction This study was conducted within the context of the scoping study Resource efficiency and ecosystems services in rice production in Thailand’s Central Plain: Baseline research. The study is a follow-up activity to the UNEP Expert roundtable on improving resource efficiency in Thai rice production, held at UNEP-ROAP, Bangkok, on 1-2 February 2010. As an outcome of the UNEP meeting, it was suggested to conduct a pre-pilot desk survey to set a baseline and determine whether there is sufficient scope for improvements of resource efficiencies in water and nutrients in rice agriculture in the Central Plain of Thailand. Postharvest losses magnify resource inefficiencies since they reduce milled rice in the market per liter of water or kilograms of nutrients used in production and they cause the generation of more greenhouse gases (GHGs) per kg of milled rice. Every percent lost in postproduction means one percent inputs wasted. This Sub-study therefore also assesses the losses and inefficiencies in rice postproduction. As one of four background papers produced in this study it will provide the basis for further decisions by UNEP and its partners on the next steps for the “Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains” project.

Thailand: Resource efficiency and ecosystem services, Sub-study 2, Postharvest Page 2 of 29

The last comprehensive study of the “Marketing and post-harvest systems of paddy/rice in Thailand” was conducted in April 1993 (Chantachaeng, C, 1993), postharvest loss assessments and proper harvesting time looking mainly at the farm level and research stations were conducted in the early eighties (Sittisung et al., 1983-1985; Kitkaundee and Aurairong, 1999; Varinruk, 1999), and since then only few projects have addressed rice postharvest issues.

The term Central Plain in this report refers to the 11 provinces determined by the geographic reference outlined in Figure 1 of Sub-study 3. It is a region of Thailand covering the broad alluvial plain of the Chao Phraya River. It is separated from North-East Thailand (Isan) by the Phetchabun mountain range, and another mountain range separates it from Myanmar to the west. In the north it gently changes into the hilly terrain in Northern Thailand. The term Central Thailand in this report refers to the four region system used by the Department of Agricultural Economics for statistical data. Central Thailand in this sense includes 26 provinces as shown in Figure 1.

Some statistics on rice culture in Central Thailand are shown in the Figure 2 and compared with those of the whole kingdom. Central Thailand includes about two and a half million hectares of paddy fields producing about ten million metric tons of rough rice annually. This comprise roughly one third of the total production of Thailand. The average yield is about four metric ton per hectare which is more or less the same as that of other Southeast Asian countries. Almost all the varieties are non – glutinous.

The rice postharvest system provides a full and comprehensive approach that can be applied to paddy and its derivatives (i.e. husks, bran, and polished rice grain, both broken and whole). Its main concerns should be to: a) improve the capacity in implementing the main rice post-harvest operations so that they become more efficient and ensure a valuable final primary product; b) develop and use processing technology that adds value to secondary and by-products, as well as to primary ones; c) consolidate development of the rice post-harvest agro-industry, not only technically but also commercially, economically, politically, socially and environmentally (Figure 3). The rice post-harvest system also includes ways of processing and using rice by-products which generate extra income and improve the well-being and food security of communities.

Figure 1: Central Thailand comprising of twenty-six provinces.


Figure 2: Rice production shared in the Central

Thailand compare to the other regions of Thailand.

Figure 3: Post-harvest system

2. Description of the postproduction value chain and main actors The postharvest value chain with paddy and milled rice flows is included in Figure 4 containing the whole value chain, which is explained in more detail in Sub-study 4.

This section focuses on the postharvest players for more information about producers, input suppliers and other stakeholders not represented in this diagram refer to Sub-study 4 and the Multi stakeholder workshop report1.

Figure 4: Flows of Goods and Services in Thai Rice Industry. (Source: Adapted from Ministry of Commerce, 2009; Multi stakeholder workshop)

1 Workshop report: Stakeholder workshop for resource efficiency and ecosystems services in the rice value chain in Thailand’s Central Plain. Rama Gardens Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand, 17-18 June 2010.


2.1. Markets/trade

In 2008 Thailand produced 22.1 million tons milled rice with the Central Thailand contributing 7 million tons. In Central Thailand 10% Hom Mali rice and 90% are other rice and while North Eastern and Northern Thailand mainly produce Hom Mali, glutinous and Fragrant rice. Official export of milled rice was 9 million tons, a reduction of one million ton compared to 2007 (IRRI, 2010, USDA data). Export of paddy is prohibited. The main export markets are Indonesia, Nigeria, Iran, the United States, Singapore and the Philippines. Thailand’s success in international rice trade is founded on high quality, long-grain white rice, which has a substantial price advantage over modern, high yielding varieties. Since exports exceed the production of the Central Plain and most of the high quality rice comes from other areas the postharvest sector of the Central Plain also processes and trades a large percentage of rice from other areas in Thailand.

Figure 5 shows physical flow of rice as paddy from farmers to millers, 45% via private brokers, 25% via government agencies and 30% directly from farmers to millers. After milling, 10% of milled rice is traded locally. Milled rice traded locally is usually used for the preparation of cooked rice or porridge. Broken rice is used for the preparation of cakes, noodles, rice papers, rice wrappers, rice crackers, puddings, muffins and other products. The 90% is transferred to Bangkok. Of the rice that is traded in Bangkok, 62% trades for domestic used and the rest of 28% is traded to exporters for international markets.

Figure 5: Physical flows of rice (Modified data

from Ministry of Commerce, 2009.)

Figure 4 and Figure 5 have slightly different numbers for milled rice traded internationally and locally despite the data coming from the same source.

2.2. Thai rice

Thai milled rice traded locally and internationally falls under 6 categories:

1. Thai Hom Mali, formerly called Jasmine Rice 2: Also called Fragrant rice, Scented rice, Aromatic rice. Hom Mali rice is a high fiber grain containing Vitamins B1, B2, Niacin, Carbohydrates, Protein, Iron, Calcium and Phosphorous. It has famous reputation in appearance, texture and aroma. There are different Hom Mali varieties and they are mostly grown in Northern Thailand.

2. Glutinous Rice: Also called Thai Sticky Rice " or "Thai Sweet Rice". It has a medium to long kernel, which silky smooth appearance of pure white color with soft and sticky texture. The best glutinous rice is from the northern part of Thailand.

2 Hom Mali is a registered trademark for Thailand’s fragrant Rice, formerly known as Jasmine rice. It is mainly defined by grain dimensions (long grain), amylose content (12-19%) and moisture content (<14%). Major varieties are Klong Luang 1, Supanburi, Dock Mali 105, Pisanulok 1, and Patumthani.


3. Japanese Rice: It consists of 100% Sasanishiki variety, and is produced in the north of Thailand under strictly controlled conditions to ensure its hygiene, freshness and taste.

4. Thai White Rice: High yielding varieties which can be grown throughout Thailand. Mostly cultivated in the Central Plain. The grain after cooked is light and fluffy. This is the most consumed rice in the world.

5. Parboiled Rice is produced by soaking, pressure streaming and drying the paddy before milling. The rice is light yellow or amber color. This process has preserved its natural vitamins and minerals and minimizes grain breakage during milling.

6. Brown Rice or unpolished rice. Only the husk is removed and the bran layer is left intact. The coating of brown rice contains micronutrients like vitamins and minerals. Brown rice takes a little long time to cook. The texture is slightly sticky with nutty flavor and therefore it is a niche market product.

The most commonly rice varieties grown in Central Thailand from 2007-2009 are Supanburi 1, Patum Thani 1 and Chai Nat 1. Most of rice varieties are not photosensitive, except Khao Dawk Mali 105 and some of traditional varieties. These are grown on 12% and 18% of the Central Thailand area respectively (Table 1). Table 1 Rice varieties grown in the Central Thailand with the percentage of the growing area in relation

to the total growing area in the Central Thailand (Source: Modified from OAE, 2010).

2007 2008 2009 Rice variety Photo sensitive DS WS DS WS DS WS

Supanburi 1 36 18 30 17 25 17 Pathum Thani 1 19 14 26 13 25 14 Chai Nat 1,2 14 10 11 10 12 10 Supanbori 60,90 4 4 4 3 5 3 Pitsanulok 1,2 1 - 4 - 7 - Hawm supanburi 1 - 1 - - - RD varieties (anonym) 25 24 25 25 26 26 Khao Dawk Mali 105 - 12 - 12 - 12 Traditional varieties - 18 - 18 - 18

2.3. Rice Market Structure

In general, the rice market system consists of the paddy market and the milled rice market. In the paddy market middlemen such as local collectors/ traders, rice millers and various regional central market entrepreneurs exist at various levels and are considered to have important roles in trading the paddy from the farm to the mills. The milled rice market consists of middlemen such as brokers, wholesales in Bangkok, retailers and exporters.

Paddy market

In general, paddy trade starts from November and lasts to October of the next year. However, the peak of trading is during December to March. Consequently, the price of paddy is falling during November to January and increasing in February, when the harvesting time of wet season crop


almost ended. The price decreases again in May to even lower levels. This is because the paddy harvested in dry season, which is lower quality compared to wet season paddy, gets into the market.

There are four major trading channels for paddy form farmers to millers. These are:

1. Farmers sell directly to the millers. Some farmers deliver paddy to the mills (30%), in other cases sub-contractors of the millers buy the paddy at the farm site (35%).

2. Local traders or broker collects the paddy from farmers and sell to the millers. The paddy trades via this way about 10% of the total.

3. Paddy trades via Agricultural Cooperatives or farmer group, which is about 5% of the total market.

4. Paddy trades via government agencies such as Market Organization of Farmer (MOF), Public Warehouse Organization (PWO), and Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperative (BAAC). Paddy trades by this way about 20%.

Milled rice market

Roughly 55% of the milled rice from the mills goes into domestic markets either directly (25%) through wholesalers or via brokers (30%). The remaining 45% of the milled rice are exported by licensed exporters who either buy directly from millers (10%) from brokers (35%) (Figure 4).

In brief, the structure of the domestic rise market has shifted to a competitive system in every step of marketing. For the paddy market, the government widely promoted the development of marketing center in form of central markets. In these facilities farmers, local traders and millers can precede their marketing activities with more convenience and at lower cost. For the milled rice market, brokers still play the important role in providing service for millers and their customers, and ensure the quality of rice products. Furthermore development of small bag packaging of milled rice is become popular for consumer in the city. Therefore, the development of standardize and hygienic milled rice in small packaging become an alternative for bulk milled rice retailing.

Composition of milled rice exports

Regardless of the popularity of Hom Mali rice and other specialty rice, which is mostly grown in the Northern and Northeastern region, most of rice exported is from the Central Thailand since Thai white rice and parboiled rice exports are the majority (Figure 6).


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009

Year

Expo

rt s

hare

, %

Phatumthani head riceGlutinous broken riceGlutinous head riceHom Mali broken riceHom Mali head riceParboiled head riceWhite broken riceWhite head rice

Figure 6: Proportion of Thai rice produce exported by type of produces (Source: Modified data from

Ministry of Commerce, 2009).

2.4. Value chain structure and governance

The following discussion will be based on a schematic diagram of the value chain in Figure 4 and focus on post-production, including harvesting. For a discussion of the production side of the chain see Sub-study 1 and value chain actors in the whole chain see Sub-study 4. The value chain is governed by various government policies issued by different ministries and coordinated by the National Rice Policy Committee. For details see the corresponding sections of Sub-study 4.

2.5. Key Postproduction Stakeholders

A more detailed description of the stakeholders of the rice value chain of the Central Plain is included in Sub-study 4.

Producers and producers organizations

Rice farmers: The rice farmers in the Central Plain represent about 25% of all rice farmers in Thailand which is 578,340 households (OAE, 2010). On average they are planting 2.5 crops per year; i.e. 1 crop per year in wet season and 1.5 in dry season. Average farm size is 4.4 and 4.8 ha per household in wet and dry season, respectively.

Rice farmers are organized in and supported by several organizations including Rice Community Centers (good quality seeds, technology transfer, training), Cooperatives as autonomous associations, Market organizations for farmers to assist in marketing and the Thai Rice Farmers Association to assist farmers participate in Government decision making (See Sub-Study 4 for details).


Processing (postharvest) and processors organizations

In accordance with rice farming, the rice milling in Thailand is fragmented. Main features of the milling sector are the high competitiveness, moderate profits generated, lacking differentiation, and indicators of existing exit barriers (Agrifood Consulting International, 2005).

Structure of the rice milling industry

The structure of the milling sector is comparable to the farming sector in its general attributes. The absolute number of mills is vast and there are only few exceptionally large rice mills. Rice mills are classified according to their capacity, ranging from less than 5 MT per 24 hours (C3) over 5 to 20 MT per 24 hours (C2) to more than 20 MT per 24 hours (C1). The capacity of the latter may even exceed 1,000 MT per day (Agrifood Consulting International [ACI], 2005, as cited in Ekasingh, et al., 2007, p. 40). In 2004, the total of 39,943 rice mills was composed of 38,208 small, 527 medium, and 1,163 large rice mills. Regional differences in distribution are notable. Figure 7 shows that the dominant share of small mills is located in the northeast (where rice smallholding is prevalent), and relatively many large mills in the Central Thailand (where also larger, irrigated rice farms are found).

Figure 7 Number of rice mill by region and category, 2004.

Overcapacity of the industry

One should assume that growth of the rice milling sector is directly related to the development of farm output, meaning that the increase of output over time in paddy production would lead to similar output growth in milling capacity. However, available data suggests different conditions in Thailand. As of 2008, the rice milling capacity exceeds actual milled rice production by a factor of three, implying that capacity growth has exceeded output growth substantially over recent years. Consequently, as rivalry for the sourcing of inputs increases, the rice milling sector can be characterized as highly competitive with slow output growth.


Small rice mills are typically village rice mills milling for local consumption often in a contract scheme, they are not registered. According to information on 31 December 2007, there are 1,729 registered small and medium mills with capacity of 177,399 tons per day. According to Thailand capacity, it shall take only 160 -170 days to process indicating a significant over-capacity of the Thai milling sector (MOAC, MOC, 2010).

Around 800 rice millers are organized in the Thai Rice Millers Association. For details see Sub-study 4.

Other stakeholders in the postharvest chain are the various processors of products from rice like rice flour mills like the Cho Heng Rice Vermicelli Factory Co.,Ltd.

Traders and trade organizations

Traders are engaged in both, paddy and milled rice trade. Millers buy around 30% of the total paddy production directly from farmers and another 35% is bought by the millers through sub-contractors whom they hire for that purpose. These are either individuals or firms that represent a particular miller at the farm. Another 10% is handled by brokers, who charge a commission for their services. Other marketing channels for milled rice are provided by farmers’ organizations, either cooperatives or farmers groups, but they handle only around 5% of the total production of which they sell 4% to millers and 1% to the Government agencies. These government agencies are under the PWO, BAAC and MOF and one example is the Government Warehouse Organization (GWO) under the Ministry of Commerce, which buys agricultural produce particularly at intervention price. For details see Sub-study 4.

The majority of milled rice from the millers is also traded by brokers (65%), around 10% of the millers sell directly to exporters or have an export license and 25% of the milled rice is sold directly by millers to wholesalers. The brokers sell 35% of their volume to exporters and 30% to wholesalers who serve the domestic market. From the wholesalers 55% of the milled rice reaches the local consumers through many retailers. For details see Sub-study 4.

Most of the exporters are organized in the Thai Rice Exporters Association, which does intenstive networking with government organizations but also other interest groups and organised events to promote Thai Rice world wide. For details see Sub-study 4.

Policy

Various ministries are involved in formulating policy affecting the postharvest sector, among them the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC), the Ministry of Commerce (MOC), the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MOTC), the Ministry of Foreign affairs (MOFA), the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and the Ministry of Industry (MOI). The Rice Department of the MOAC is tasked to develop policies related to rice. The Rice Policy Committee with the Prime Minister as Chairman is in charge with considering and approving strategy and policy related to rice. For details see Sub-study 4.

(For details see Sub-study 4: Actor analysis and identifications of levers.)


3. Postharvest issues, losses and efficiency gaps Inefficiencies along the rice postproduction chain can be categorized into two groups: First there are inefficiencies in rice production, processing, handling and storage that have an effect on the amount and the quality of milled rice represented by losses in dry matter and in quality (Figure 8) and the second group of inefficiencies that does not have an effect on the rice but leads e.g. to high energy use in processing. In addition there are the rice by-products straw and husk, which are often treated as waste but could be turned into products either for energy or non energy applications.

Figure 8: Types of losses in the individual postharvest operations

Government to the rice post-harvest system focuses on both preventing food losses and improving the efficiency of the technologies that are used to add value to rice and its byproducts. The aim is to generate more employment and income and, consequently, to improve food security. Rice farmers are willing to invest in post-harvest technologies that are affordable and add quality and commercial value to rice.

3.1. Rice

Harvesting

Harvesting involves cutting the crop, collecting it from the field, threshing and cleaning. This can be done manually, partly mechanized using stationary threshers and/or reapers of fully mechanized by using combines. In manual systems farmers often practice field drying which means that they leave the cut crop in the field for several days to reduce the moisture content and to loosen the grain in the panicle for easier manual threshing. Field drying should be avoided because it leads to high shattering loss and infestation with fungi which can cause mycotoxin contamination. While manual systems are still being used in Northern and North-eastern Thailand harvesting is fully mechanized in the Central Plain with 91.8% of the total harvest harvested by combine and reaper 8.2% by reaper, manually collected and then threshed using axial flow threshers (Source: Rice Department). Consequently a flourishing combine manufacturing industry has developed with 5 manufacturers having an annual production capacity of 800-1,000 units (Kanuengsak-Chiaranaikul. 2009).


Table 2: Overview on harvesting systems, share in the Central Plain and typical labor requirement and losses

Thailand Other harvesting systems, averages from SE Asia Harvesting practice Share in

Central Plain, area, %

Labour, person

days/ha *

Quantitative losses, % *

Remarks

Manual cutting and manual threshing -

40-50 incl. cleaning and

bagging

Cutting + handling:

1-5% Threshing:

1-5% Manual cutting and machine threshing - 25-30 2-8%

Delays in harvesting due to labor shortage can cause high losses.

When combined with field drying high chance of mycotoxins

Harvesting with reaper and machine threshing 8.2 5 2-5%

Combine harvesting 91.8 0.2-3 1-2% Good combine harvester reduces loss and increases yield by 7%

(Kubota Thailand) * Data from IRRI, represents typical data across SE Asia for this type of harvesting system.

Since harvesting is fully mechanized, farmers in Suphan Buri, use an average of only 5 person-days/ha to carry out all harvest and postharvest operations versus more than 80 person-days/ha in northern Vietnam. There is little potential to dramatically improve the system, but some potential for fine tuning exits. Thai combines use steel tracks and are quite heavy which messes up the fields more than combines with rubber tracks. The results are higher labor requirement and input cost in land preparation. Fuel consumption for harvesting 1ha by combine is around 20-30 l diesel/ha.

Drying

Options for drying are sun drying by spreading the paddy on a pavement, canvas or net. For commercial sun drying tractors and front end loaders are used for mixing and collection. In the Central Plain 90% of the paddy is mechanical dried using either simple, locally produced fixed bed batch dryers or more complex drying machines like batch-in-bin dryers or continuous flow dryers (Noomhorn, A, 2009). As the only country in Southeast Asia more than 40 millers in Thailand have adopted a two stage drying system with rapid first stage drying (flash drying) using fluidized bed dryers from initial moisture content to 18% and final drying to 14% or lower in in-store dryers (Srzednicki, G and Driscoll, RH, 2008).


Table 3: Overview on drying systems

Drying practice Utilization in Central Plain

Typical quantitative losses, % *

Remarks

Field drying (unthreshed)

1-5 (shattering) High quality loss, mycotoxins develop, usually followed by sun drying of threshed paddy

Sun drying (threshed paddy)

10% (Noomhorn, A,

2009) 1-5 (spillage, animals) No energy cost, high qualitative losses,

weather risk Fixed bed batch dryers 1 Inexpensive technology Re-circulating dryers 1 Good quality Continuous flow dryer

90% (Noomhorn, A,

2009) 1 For large operations

Two stage drying More than 40 mills

? Danger of gelatinization, high percentage of brokens if not operated properly, high energy requirement

* Data from IRRI, represents typical data across SE Asia for this type of harvesting system.

The energy requirement for heating the air in rice drying is potentially high. Most dryers in Thailand use rice husk furnaces and thus reduce drying cost and also limit greenhouse gas emissions. The fluidized bed dryers re-cycle the heat from the exhaust air to minimize fuel consumption.

In comparison with neighbouring countries dryer usage in the Central Plain is extremely high. Dryer capacity in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam is 30% of the harvest with slowly increasing trend, in the Philippines less than 5%, in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar it is negligible with only few units installed in each country.

Storage

Most of the paddy and milled rice in Thailand is stored in bags (50kg-1t), but in the Central Plain the majority seems to be stored in bulk (Noomhorn, A, 2009), larger mills using two stage drying definitely store in bulk. Table 4: Overview on storage systems in the Central Plain

Storage system Use in Central Plain

Typical quantitative losses, %

Remarks

On farm storage No data found No data found Losses depend highly on storage technology and management and can range from a few to 20% or more.

Storage in sacks No data found No data found Storage in bulk Majority No data found More than 40 rice mills that use two stage

drying with 2 stage drying as second stage

Poor storage is one of the major causes of qualitative losses ranging from increase in moisture content, discoloration, damage caused by pests, mycotoxin contamination to loss of germination in seeds. We did not find any data about the situation in the field.

Milling

The rice industry is deeply established in Thailand and thus facilities are expected to be above those serving other agricultural marketing systems, with rice mills performing the main


processing activity. Small millers mainly serve farmers and village level consumption while the medium and large millers serve local, regional and even export markets.

A major problem if the milling industry is the overcapacity already mentioned in Section __. In the light of the rice milling sector being competitive and fragmented, it could be expected that economic returns in this segment are equal to zero. According to Dawe (2008, p. 460), utilizing data of the year 2003, this is confirmed in that returns to management in milling were estimated to be non-existent, even though there are indicators that this was only a temporary condition. However, both Wiboonpongse and Chaovanapoonphol (2001, p. 207), drawing on data of the mid-1990s, and ACI (2005, as cited in Ekasingh et al., 2007, p. 44) maintained that rice milling generated higher (total) returns than other steps in the vertical chain of production. There are several possible explanations for this. It may be that the underlying data is outdated and did not reflect the increasing level of competition at the respective point in time. However, Wiboonpongse and Chaovanapoonphol (2001, p. 207) state that “inefficient millers, usually medium size, gradually closed down their business,” which provides some indication for a high level of competition. A different explanation is that disintegrated sub-markets create quasimonopsonies as described by Baldwin (1974, p. 195), allowing millers to depress the purchasing price of paddy. Given the high number of mills and the improved transportation and communication infrastructure (cf. Nakada, 1996, p. 618), such industry structures are unlikely. Finally, the reported returns may also be due to the overcapacity as rice millers may require a risk premium in order to not withdraw from this competitive sector. The economic returns, including the risk premium, may then be indeed near zero. Nevertheless, more evidence is needed to establish conclusions about the actual profitability of rice milling products.

Data about rice mill performance/losses was not found. Table 5 compares the Thai rice mills with typical average data from mills from the region with similar capacity. In the laboratory the milling recovery (white rice) can be 70-72% depending on the milling degree. It depends mainly on the type of rice mill equipment used, operators skills and to a lesser extend on the quality of the paddy. The head rice recovery, on the other hand, is also heavily influenced paddy quality, variety and the rice mill. Table 5: Overview on number of types of rice mills in the Central Plain and average milling recovery and

head rice recovery data from SW Asian countries.

Thailand Typical milling recoveries, averages from SE Asia Type of rice mill

Capacity, t/24 hours

No. in Central Plain

Rice mill category equivalent according to

IRRI classification*

Typical average milling

recovery, %

Typical head rice recovery,

%

C1 >20 503 Large commercial mill 65-68 50-55 C2 5-20 213 Small commercial mill 55-65 C3 <5 1544 Village rice mill 50-55 <30 Recovery in Thailand, no data on type of mill. (Noomhorn, 2009) 60 48 * Data from IRRI, represents typical data across SE Asia for this type of milling system.

It can be assumed that most of the large commercial mills and some of the small commercial mills that produce for export have optimized their mills and minimize losses in quality. However, in 1997 there were 43,275 mills scattered all over the country including Bangkok. The number declined over time from 46,125 in 1989 (OAE, 1994, 1999), probably as a response to the problems with over capacity and low margins mentioned above. Millers indicated that existing


technology employed by most mills is inefficient especially when energy costs rise. Modern technology is only used by large millers and exporters to reduce broken grain, to increase milled rice quality and to produce better packaging. Case studies at selected representative mills should be conducted to confirm this assumption

Another problem of at least part of the milling sector was identified during the multi stakeholder workshop as the low quality of milled rice as a result of poor quality paddy caused by too high cropping intensity in the Central Plain, harvesting during adverse weather, the mixing of rice and poor soils. Rice millers buy around 30% of the rice at high moisture content (Noomhorn, A, 2009). Thirty percent of millers use laboratory huskers to evaluate paddy quality.

As a rule of thumb milling of paddy to white rice requires 20kWh per ton paddy. Energy consumption data for rice mills in Thailand was not found.

Parboiling

Several export oriented rice mills produce parboiled rice, mostly Thai Jasmine or Thai Long grain brands for export. Due to an abundant water supply and consistent source of paddy in Thailand, more than 100 parboiled rice mills are spread throughout the central region, the production of premium quality, odorless. Parboiled rice in Thailand is constant year round. For markets, parboiled rice is the only rice produced for export-oriented purposes. Now, Thailand is largest supplier among the major markets such as South Africa, Nigeria and various countries in Asia, Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East.

Parboiling of 1t of paddy requires around 60kWh, thus parboiled paddy requires around 4 times the energy of non-parboiled rice in the rice milling process. Rice husk is usually used for generating the heat in parboiling plants.

Transport, Handling and Marketing

There are many types of rice transportation from rice mills to warehouses of domestic traders and exporters. For domestic distribution, rice is transported from the mills to various regions by trucks and for export it is transported from rice mills to warehouses by trucks, trains and ships along the Chao Phraya River.

There are various intermediaries involved in the rice marketing system, which have been expanded through the uncoordinated initiatives of private individuals. Since rice producing areas are concentrated and situated at some distance from the main urban consumption centers, the rice marketing system takes a long route to reach consumers. At the local level, intermediaries include local buyers or brokers, local commission agents (subcontractors), cooperatives, farmers groups, local market centers, millers, wholesalers and retailers. At the regional level, large local market centers and large millers are major intermediaries. The final level, i.e. country level includes commission agents (brokers), wholesalers and exporters

Grading and standardization have been well established. However, there is a need to categorize rice by groups of rice varieties. At present, paddy is basically graded in 2 aspects i.e. by variety and by percentage of broken grain. By variety, in many production areas, paddy is carefully separated by a number of varieties. By percentage of broken grain, it is highly associated with moisture level; in some cases late harvesting also


The role of farmers' organizations in rice marketing is not outstanding (5% of the total paddy traded). Instead, the private sector has been important in carrying out most marketing activities. Thus the marketing system of paddy-rice in Thailand takes a long route before reaching final purchasers except for the local consumption. At the local level, the market is highly competitive since farmers could choose where and how to sell their produce. Nonetheless it is difficult to prove if the price paid to farmer reflects real value. It is possible that the price is over-discounted for any given moisture level or other grading criterion. This problem is well recognized and partly alleviated by cooperatives, BAAC and others in several of the government's supporting programs. There are reports that returns to millers out-weighed that of other intermediaries. However, inefficient millers, usually medium size, gradually closed down their business. Services in rice marketing systems are inadequate and needs improvement especially drying and warehousing. Packaging is becoming more important since Thailand plans to concentrate on high quality rice for export and changing shopping habits of domestic consumers from unpacked to packed rice.

Losses during transport are generally small in the range of 1-2% (Noomhorn, A, 2009).

Stored product protection

While information about pesticide overuse in rice production is available (Sub-study 1) not much data was found for the postharvest sector, especially for storage. Several service providers offer fumigation services for storage facilities, warehouses and rice mills using Methyl Bromide (CH3Br) gas, Aluminum Phosphide (PH3) tablets, Cypermethrin or Pyrethroid treatment and Magnesium Phosphide Tablets. While most methyl bromide used in Thailand was used on rice in 1994 it is being currently phased out with a deadline of 2013.

More data needs to be gathered on pesticide related problems in postharvest.

Incentives to product better quality and increase resource efficiencies

An export oriented production automatically provides and incentive to produce good quality driven by the need to fulfil the quality standards of the buyers, especially if high priced speciality rice is exported as it is the case in Thailand. However, to reduce resource inefficiencies in postharvest additional market driven incentives are needed.

• Organic rice production accounts for 80% of total area of organic food production in Thailand but only of 1.1% of the total rice production is. Now it is become gaining more interest from demand side both for domestic and export. Export markets are EU, Switzerland, USA and Asia.

• Thai Good Agricultural Practice (Thai GAP) is introduced to Thailand to improve rice yield and seed quality in production. Research on economic efficiency of GAP certified rice is been ongoing. The certification cost is currently covered by the Government but ultimately will have to be built into the rice price at all steps of the value chain. There is therefore limited information on the feasibility of GAP. The success will depend on the availability of market incentives that pay for the additional cost.

• Branding to ensure a premium for a certain quality of milled rice, e.g. high price fragrant rice. The most obvious example is Thai Hom Mali rice which was established to counter attempts of other countries to also market Jasmine rice competing with the former Thai Jasmine brand.


• Several Fair trade schemes exist for fragrant rice types mainly from Northeastern Thailand targeting European and US markets. Around 7,500 farming families participated in 2005. Fair trade provides on average 60% higher prices for producers. Some of them require the farmers to adhere to strict standards regarding the use and handling of pesticides, the protection of natural waters, virgin forest and other ecosystems of high ecological value, and the management of erosion and waste (Trans Fair) or include certified organic production. Usually cooperatives participate in the scheme but it only has a marginal share of the total rice production.

• Marketing or contract farming systems in which farmers get a better price for better quality paddy and better access to extension and inputs which are provided under the contract scheme.

3.2. Products from rice grains

Rice is already used for the preparation of cakes, noodles, rice papers, rice wrappers, rice crackers, puddings, muffins and other products.

Asia BioBusiness Pte Ltd (2006) lists 15 other innovative uses of the rice grains, 19 ways to extend the use of rice and its component parts and waste and 8 uses of rice ingredients for healthcare and 5 for cosmetics in an assessment of potential world markets for innovative rice business in Thailand.

3.3. Rice by-products

Rice by-products are the bran and husk that are by products in the milling process and the straw which is left in the field after harvesting/threshing. The rice fractions in an ideal milling process consist of 20% husk, 8-9% bran, 1-2% germ and 70% white rice components (whole grain and various fractions of brokens.

Rice bran

Around 2-2.4 million t of rice bran is produced in Thailand or 0.6-0.8 million t from rice grown in the Central Plain (Thai Rice Department, 2008). Rice bran is very valuable since it is rich in micro nutrients, it is conventionally used for the production of rice bran oil and livestock feeds. Rice bran contains 8-10% rice bran oil and around 80% defatted bran with 17% protein content, which is a valuable animal feed. It is also exported to Japan for organic fertilizer production.

A constraint in rice bran oil production is that it has to be brought to the processing factory within 24 hours after milling. However, with the process of soaking in 65 ํc for 6 hours can be kept for 3 days before subjected to extraction process.

The rice bran is supplied from the rice mills to the factories via brokers, who also deal with the defatted bran. The price of defatted bran is determined by acid valued, for example in cold season the acid vale is about 15 – acid value, while, in rainy season is about 2.5 - acid value. The lower of the acid value is the better the price of rice bran. Furthermore, quality of oil bran is also dependent on rice variety, storage method, and transportation.

There are many rice oil bran extract companies with the main 8 factories having capacities of 100 tons of bran per day (2), 100-200 tons of bran per day (4) and 800t/day tons of bran per day (2).


Oil rice bran factories produce bran oil from 600,000 tons bran per year. There would still be potential to expand rice bran oil production since 1.8 million tons of rice bran is left annually for other use.

Eatable bran oil produced in Thailand is approximately 40,000 tons/year, while the annual demand of world is about 10 million tons and the price in the world market is also good (normal grade 50 baht/liter, special grade 80 – 100 baht/liter and can be up to 122 bath/liter). When used for complementary diet high quality rice bran oil can cost from 1,500 up to 18,000 baht/liter. For defatted bran the price some time very high up to 5,000 baht per ton.

Rice husk and straw

Thailand produces about 4 million tons of rice husk annually. Husks can be recycled by the mill, or sold to industrial buyers. Traditional uses of rice husk include fuel for rice drying and parboiling and a few rice mills burn husk to generate mechanical or electrical power fro their own use but demand for rice husk is low and most millers burn or dump it (Boonlert, 2005). More recently several projects have installed and are planning combined heat and power generation plants (CHP) using rice husk as fuel and selling electricity into the grid. In addition they can reduce fossil fuel use (Kunimitsu, 2006) and can be used to obtain carbon credits (Tokyo Mitsubishi Securities Co., L. 2002). One example is a the A.T. Bio power plant already in operation in Phi Chit province with 20MW electrical output equal to power consumption of 10,000 homes. These type of plants rely on long term fuel supply agreements with rice millers in the surroundings of the plan. Rice husk ash is a marketable product with two current main uses as insulator in the steel industry and pozzolan in the cement industry (Bronzeoak Ltd, 2003).

Around 21.68 million t of rice straw is produced in Thailand every year. Some is incorporated in the field and it is commonly used for composting, roofing materials, livestock feeds and a medium for growing straw mushroom. About 48% of it is subjected to open field burning (Gadde et al., 2009).

4. Effect of production inefficiencies on postproduction Inefficiencies in production can have an effect on the postproduction sector in various ways. A quantification of the influence is difficult since there are too many data gaps to do a detailed analysis.

• Milled rice quality: The literature and the participants of the multi stakeholder workshop indicated that poor paddy quality is a major problem for millers, which hinders them from producing better quality milled rice. Besides harvesting at the wrong time, delays in drying and problems in storage the following production problems contribute to the poor quality.

o Poor water management o Poor nutrient management, leading to problems in grain filling that cause increased

chalkiness and consequently higher breakage during milling. o Poorly levelled fields that lead to uneven maturing, many unfilled grains and unripe. o Poor seed quality and/or plant establishment. o Pest infestation and infestation (insects, fungi) potentially leading to mycotoxin

contamination and low milling yields.


Mechanization of the whole value chain leads to decreased losses, higher yields and better quality. Usage of a combine harvester can increase yield by 7% but when combined with a mechanical transplanter yield increase can be 28% (Kositpaisal, P. 2008)

• Pesticide residues in milled rice. Sub-study 1 reports a 3 times increase of pesticide use from 1994 to 2005 to levels much higher amounts than in the Philippines and Vietnam. Milled rice contaminated with pesticide residues would be a serious thread to the export industry, but also to rice marketed locally.

• Labour shortage in production, if not compensated by appropriate mechanization, can have significant effects on the quality of paddy, e.g. when harvesting is delayed.

• Certified organic rice and certified Thai GAP rice only have very limited production. Attempts to increase the share of certified rice in order to increase profit margins usually face problems on both sides, as is currently experienced in Lao PDR and Cambodia where projects try to establish organic rice value chains for export. The market access needs to be created to justify investment in training and the certification process but it is difficult to engage with importers of certified rice if they need lots of patience until a certified chain has been established and reliable and significant amounts are available for trade.

Effect of postproduction inefficiencies on production resource efficiencies

Evenly resource inefficiencies of the postharvest sector do have an effect on resource efficiency of production. Every percent loss in postharvest means that one percent of each input in production is wasted.

5. Comparison with other rice producing regions Compared to its neighboring countries rice the rice postproduction sector is very well developed, almost fully mechanized and although recent data is not available it can be assumed that postharvest losses in the industry are relatively low. The scope of this study could not provide for an analysis of the economic situation, rice prices, trading margins etc. Table 6 therefore tries a qualitative assessment of the comparative advantage of the Central Plain.


Table 6: Comparison of the Thai postharvest sector with other rice producing countries

PH Operation

Thailand Central Plain

Vietnam, Mekong Delta

Cambodia Myanmar Philippines

Harvesting Fully mechanized, losses probably >5%

Around 30% fully mechanized, threshing mostly mechanized, losses 5-10%

Few combine harvesters but increasing usage, threshing partly mechanized, losses 5-15%

Fully manual, threshing partly mechanized, losses 5-15%

Harvesting mostly manual, threshing mostly mechanized, losses 5-10%

Drying 90% mechanized, large, modern technology

30% mechanized, simple flat bed dryers

Sun drying Sun drying Less than 10% mechanical drying

Milling Highly competitive, overcapacity, low margins

Outdated milling sector, separation of husking and polishing, trend towards bigger mills

3 large rice mills, few small commercial mills, mostly village mills, outdated equipment

Mostly medium size mills

Less competitive, high margins

Quality problems

Trading of high moisture paddy, low quality of paddy

Low head milling and head rice recovery, deterioration in two stage milling, low cooking quality (high yielding varieities)

Poor paddy quality, very low head rice recovery and milling yields, high losses



Rice Price World market oriented

World market oriented

World market oriented

Regulated, artificially low

Regulated, high

Export Competitive sector with many private exporters, mainly high quality rice, branded in 5 categories

Few state owned food companies, low quality rice, high yielding varieties

Only 3 formal exporters with focus on quality markets in Europe and US, informal export to Thailand and Vietnam

Government regulated, export permission often given to individuals close to government

No export, major importer

The decline in exports of Thai rice indicates that the Thai rice industry is facing increasing competition at all stages of the production and value chain. The above table indicates that the Thai postharvest sector currently still has the competitive edge but countries like Vietnam and Cambodia are moving quickly. Improved production practices in other countries mean that international markets will have access to improved quality and higher quantities, potentially leading to lower prices. Bulk export of rice does not maximize value for Thailand. Thailand must therefore move quickly to maintain its comparative advantage and adopt and utilize innovative production systems and technologies to improve yields, quality and reduce cost. It should also seek to maximize value from the commodity by accessing new markets for premium rice, creating new products and utilizing previously unused waste components. Innovation, powered by a targeted research and development effort in combination with effective global marketing strategies, is the only way for Thailand to ensure value is created, from its strategically vital rice sector.


6. Potential other use of rice and by products The Thai rice industry and the government agencies are well aware of the threads to Thai rice exports and therefore several activities have focussed on identifying means to increase competitiveness by developing new products from rice and it’s by products. A significant percentages of husk and straw that are currently being dumped or field burned could add value to rice production by using raw materials that are already available compared to raw materials that would need to be mined using techniques potentially damaging the environment. This section outlines the potential additional uses of rice and rice by products which don’t have wide spread application yet. This section gives an overview on these other potential uses. In each individual case a life cycle analysis would have to proof the advantage over existing technologies

6.1. Rice

Products from rice grains already consisting in markets aboard are canned rice (dry and wet), pre-cooked rice, pre washed rice (rinse free rice), instant rice, nutrient enriched rice, embryoed rice, pearl rice (brown rice mixed with barley), O-rice (healthy rice), rice noodles, and others. (Asia Biobusiness Pte Ltd., 2006).

6.2. Bran

As discussed above only a small amount of rice bran is used for rice bran oil extraction on an industrial scale. The Rice Department proposes to establish small scale bran oil extraction factories at community level as part of a long term development. The Government sector should set up the plan and support the rice bran oil value chain as outlined in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Flow diagram for proposed rice bran oil value chain (Source: Rice Department).

6.3. Husk

Potential rice husk usage can fall under 5 categories (Wada, S. et al., 2003): • Category 1: Application of rice husk as the resource of energy (see Section 3.3) and charcoal as fuel.

Technologies for utilization of husk as charcoal exist but have not been commercialized due to availability of cheap charcoal produced from mangrove.

• Category 2: Application of rice husk as the resource of SiO2, activated carbon and carbonized Rice Husk. Technologies for SiO2 production from rice husk are at the laboratory research stage. There are very limited uses for activated carbon from rice husk. Carbonized rice husk (CRH) and offers new ways to make sustainable use of rice residues can improve poor soils but may have little effect on fertile soils, and that such amendments appear to be relatively stable in various soils and rice environments. It therefore provides


an option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to sequester carbon in rice-based systems (Haefele et al., 2008).

• Category 3: Application of rice husk SiO2 as the resource of one of the component of oxide ceramics. This is still at the research stage.

• Category 4: Application of rice husk SiO2 as the resource of Si as starting material for silicone, poly crystalline silicone and a component of Aluminum alloy. Considering production scale and cost this is currently a theoretical option only.

• Category 5: Application of rice husk as the resource for SiC and Si3N4 particles. Cost and production scale are major constraints.

Catergory 1 is already realized to some extend. Categories 2 and 3 might have potential and categories 4 and 5 will probably not be competitive due to strong advantages of existing industrialized alternatives.

Other potential uses for rice husk ask are as insulator in production of refractory bricks, for lightweight insulating boards, in purified form as ingredient for silicon chips manufacture, water purification, and as oil absorbent (Bronseoak Ltd, 2003).

6.4. Straw

Rice straw that is currently burned in the field could be used as energy source. The GHG emissions contribution through open-field burning of rice straw in Thailand 0.18% and the mitigated GHG emissions when generated electricity is used would be 1.81%, when compared to the total country GHG emissions (Gadde et al., 2009). Technologies from using rice husk as fuel could be adapted and life cycle analysis needs to demonstrate the feasibility first considering the straw collection, pre-treatments needs, and seasonality of straw harvest.

6.5. Innovative new products

Other innovative uses as identified by Asia Biobusiness Pte Ltd (2006) are summarized in Table 7.


Table 7: Summary of opportunities for commercialization of innovative rice products (Source: Asia Biobusiness Pte Ltd, 2006)

From Product Value Addition Potential* #

Market Potential+ #

Potential for returns #

Gamma rice (high level of γ-aminobutyric acid) M M M

Embryo rice M M M

Organic five-grain rice blend M L / M M

O-Rice M L / M M

Modified starch M / H M / H H

Rice grain

Baby foods H M / H H

Rice ingredients for Cosmetics H H H Grain and bran Rice ingredients for cosmeceuticals H H H

Stabilized rice bran L / M M / H L / M

Rice bran M M L / M

Oryzanol (anti oxidant) H M / H H

Probiotics H M / H H

Phytosterols (reducing cholesterol) H M / H H

Bran

Rice bran oil M L / M M / H

Tyres L / M L / M L / M

Bio-organic fertilizer L L / M L / M

Husk

Carbonized rice husks (CRH) L L to M L / M

Biodegradable fast food meal box L M M

Rice bran oil M L / M M / H

Husk and straw

Paper production L L / M L *Relative to base ingredient + Integration of factors e.g. competing products / size of products / time scale to gain value # L = low; M = medium; H = high

7. Response options at PH value chain level and policy for improved resource efficiencies

Given the limited time and budget for the study and the political problems in Thailand which further reduced the time available for in-country activities the data base is very limited and many information gaps exist. It is therefore difficult to come up with clearcut recommendations regarding resource efficiency improvements in the postharvest sector. The team recommends as a direct follow-up of the study to fill the data gaps and establish baseline data for further, more detailed recommendations. This section also outlines potential new technologies that could address some problems if their significance was confirmed by rapid appraisals and market driven incentives that are being discussed and need to be further assessed with respect to their feasibility.


7.1. Suggestions for further research

Establish better baseline

Better and more recent information is needed in the following areas and could be collected through a series of rapid assessments at representative postharvest stakeholders:

• Yield losses as affected by the various postharvest operations. • Trading of high moisture content paddy, volumes, quality deterioration, other problems. • Level of qualitative losses in the individual marketing channels. Depending on where the project will put

it’s focus this could be limited to e.g. the export value chain players. • Assessment of typical rice mills of the different categories, rice mill performance determination. • Assessment of energy use in the postharvest chain and potential for substitution. • Assessment of pesticide use in stored product protection.

7.2. Improving postharvest resource efficiency

Without having more detailed data on the postharvest sector and its resource inefficiencies it is difficult to come up with clear recommendations. This section therefore highlights some technologies, best management practices, and market driven incentives that might have potential to address some of the problems.

Technology

Thailand has a competitive agricultural machinery industry which also exports harvesters, dryers, milling equipment and laboratory instruments. Research conduced in partnerships between the private sector and the industry is of high standard. It is therefore doubted that machinery and postharvest equipment from abroad would solve any of the inefficiency problems. Some new emerging technologies, which have not been piloted in Thailand yet with most processors like the hermetic storage systems could potentially address some problems e.g. seed quality or safe storage at farm level. These would need a project for participatory technology evaluation after identifying the target users.

Management practices

Currently the Thai Government pays a lot of attention to Good Agricultural Practice, which has been introduced to Thailand to improve rice yield and seed quality. So far Thai GAP was developed for production and is being implemented for production in irrigated and rice crop management (see Sub Study 1). So far only few farmers were certified and one problem is to created t price incentive for GAP certified rice. There are discussions to develop and introduce a postharvest GAP or Good Management Practice (GMP) for the postharvest sector. Table 8 shows the guidelines for Harvesting and Postharvest GMP.


Table 8: Provision concerning for Good Agricultural Practice to ensure good milling quality for rice are defined as in table below (Source: Rice Department)

Postharvest operation REQUIREMENTS 1 Harvesting time. Rice shall be harvested at appropriate time resulting in a good milling quality that

obtain the whole kernel and head rice according to Thai Agricultural Standard for each rice type. The appropriate harvesting time shall be observed by :

• 25 to 35 days after flowering date; or • Rice panicle is at mature stage. At least three quarters of the kernels in the rice

panicle have a full yellow color. 2 Harvesting and threshing

• Harvesting equipments, containers and harvest practices shall not cause any effect on quality and introduce any admixing grain to the produce.

• If threshing and/or harvesting is applied, equipments shall be properly cleaned and threshing process shall be handled carefully in such a way that it does not introduce any admixing grain to the produce. If the machine has been previously used to harvest or thresh other rice variety, it shall be cleaned to get rid of all remaining grains.

3. Moisture content of paddy and drying practice

• If produce is not sold as wet paddy, it must be dried to reduce moisture within 24 hours after harvested.

• Drying practice shall not introduce any breakage to grain in such a way that the result of milling quality test of paddy is lower than the criteria required in Thai Agricultural Standard for each type of rice.

• The moisture of paddy shall not exceed 15% for traded rice and 14% for stored rice.

4. Transportation, storage and produce collection.

• Equipments, containers and carriages for transportation and storage shall be cleaned and able to prevent quality deterioration of produce and prevent from contamination of substances that may be harmful to consumers, and also from inducing of admixing grain.

• Grain collecting and storage room shall be managed in such a way that the condition is hygienically clean and well ventilated. They are able to prevent contaminations and inducing of admixing grain.

• Practices in grain storage and collecting rooms shall not cause any damage and inducing of admixing grain.

• If more than one variety of rice is handled or stored, management in storage shall be in such a way that admixture of grain between different varieties is prevented.

Research on economic efficiency of Organic and GAP certified rice has been ongoing. There is therefore limited information on the feasibility of GAP/GMP. The success will depend on market incentives that pay for the additional cost for certification throughout the chain from the farmer to export.

Noomhorm, A. (2009) suggests to develop Rice Supply Chain Management (SCM) including traceability using technologies like bar-code or RFID, which could be a tool for the implementation of GAP.

Additional market driven incentives

Implementing GAP, organic rice production and any other schemes add cost to production and processing because of the need for assuring traceability, certification and governance of the systems. Labour requirement of organic agriculture is also significantly higher than in


conventional rice production. These additional costs have to be at least compensated if farmers and processors are to engage in these schemes.

• Similar to Thai GAP there are plans at the Rice Department to Good Management Practice (GMP) for postharvest too. As with GAP, open questions remain with regard whether customers would pay a premium for GAP/GAM rice. Resource efficiency criteria could be built into the postharvest GAM criteria, in a way that that participating processing facilities should be optimized in terms of energy use (e.g. drying with rice husk instead of kerosene as fuel).

• Ecologically branding rice that is produced with minimum impact on the environment and labelling according to market requirements are other options. In Europe for example there is a trend towards introducing a carbon footprint label on many products including food. At some point this might become mandatory and therefore might become essential for all rice exports to Europe.

• Branding GMO free rice. Organic rice and fair trade rice brands don’t guarantee for the GMO freeness of their products since potential “contamination” of these rice brands with GMO varieties is not monitored in the schemes. For European markets were customers are very critical with respect to GMOs a GMO free brand could be another option.

For the time being it is not clear whether the markets will accept higher priced GAP/GMP or ecologically branded rice. Public private partnerships with national and international partners are needed to evaluate, pilot and establish such schemes.

8. Conclusions and Recommendations The decline in exports indicates that the Thai rice industry is facing increasing competition at all stages of the production and value chain. Improved production practices in other countries mean that markets will have access to improved quality and higher quantities, potentially leading to lower prices. Thailand must therefore move quickly to maintain its comparative advantage and adopt and utilize innovative production systems and technologies to improve yields, quality and reduce cost. It should also seek to maximize value from the commodity by creating new products and utilizing previously unused waste components. Bulk export of rice does not maximize value for Thailand. Innovation, powered by a targeted research and development effort in combination with effective global marketing strategies, is the only way for Thailand to ensure value is created, from its strategically vital rice sector.

The data base on the postharvest sector in Thailand is very limited and often outdated. Recent studies on postharvest losses, performance and input use of the industry is not available. This is a result of public sector disinvestment in postharvest R&D over the last two decades and is also true for other countries in the region. An exception is the use of rice husk for energy generation where Thailand is leading with several plants already installed and studies conducted on economic feasibility, carbon trading participation, environmental profile and macro economic impact.

However, some conclusions can be drawn from the existing data:

• The high level of mechanization of postharvest operations in the Central Plain (harvesting fully mechanized, 90% of paddy production mechanically dried) indicates that postharvest losses might not be a major issue and are probably much lower than in neighboring countries.


• Problems in the postharvest sector seem to be more market related than caused by lack of technology. Effective interventions therefore should start with the markets.

• The data base for energy efficiency of the postproduction sector is incomplete and should be added on. Better usage of by products can increase resource use efficiency because the by products can substitute other raw materials, e.g. in energy generation.

Establish better baseline data on the postharvest industry

There are conflicting statements regarding industry performance, postharvest losses and energy use. Some sources say that the Thai rice value chain is highly efficient; others mention low quality and losses. This study was planned as desk study and the political situation and the resulting delays did not allow for field visits for filling data gaps or verifying old data. It is therefore recommended to conduct rapid assessments of representative postharvest stakeholders as a follow-up to establish better baseline data on resource use (especially energy), losses, performance and stakeholder specific issues:

Measures to improve paddy quality

A major issue mentioned in the literature and also in the stakeholder workshop is poor quality of paddy resulting in low milling quality.

• Apply Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) on pre-harvest management for maximizing yields and paddy quality including seed source and processing, seed rates, soil preparation, fertilizer utilization, water management, pest control, and disposal of waste and residues (Noomhorn, A, 2009). See Sub-study 1 for details.

• Assess the significance and scope of high moisture paddy trading and delays in the harvesting to drying chain.

Marketing management

Based on the current data base it appears that interventions focussing on the markets and market driven incentives provide the best levers for improving resource efficiency. This includes:

• Develop and apply Good Management Practice (GMP) in postharvest management including the following: Management for good paddy quality, optimizing methods for harvesting and threshing, drying, packaging, management, transportation, storage and collection.

• Engage the domestic and international private sector in partnerships to assess and establish potential market channels for Thai rice branded according to market potential including: Thai GAP/GAM rice, Eco labeled rice, GMO free rice and others.

• Services in rice marketing systems are inadequate and needs improvement especially drying and warehousing. Packaging is becoming more important since Thailand plans to concentrate on high quality rice for export and changing shopping habits of domestic consumers from unpacked to packed rice.

Proposed measures to improve resource efficiency in the postharvest sector are summarized in Table 9.


Table 9: Summary of proposed measures to increase resource efficiency in postharvest

Issue Proposed measures Impact on resource efficiency Levers

Lack of baseline data

Rapid assessments at representative PH stakeholders

• Better identification of issues and tailoring of interventions

Rice Department, IRRC, AIT linkages

Poor paddy quality, trading of milled rice

Price incentives for producers for better quality, improve on-farm processing, hermetic storage

• Reduction of postharvest losses • Reduction of mycotoxin

contamination

Market driven price incentives, millers, traders

Develop and introduce GAP/GAM for postharvest

• Ensured quality, reduce postharvest losses

• Resource savings in production • Resource savings in postproduction

Public private partnership,

Ensure market position (Export and domestic)

New Thai rice brands, (GAP, eco labelled, GMO free, etc.)

• Resource savings in production and postproduction through certification and

Public private partnerships with importers

9. References Asia BioBusiness Pte Ltd., 2006: Potential World Markets for Innovative Rice Businesses in Thailand. Final Report. Prepared for the National Innovation Agency, Thailand. Singapore 6th March, 2006.

Agrifood Consulting International. 2005. The North East Thailand rice value chain study. Bangkok: National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand and World Bank.

Baldwin, W. L. (1974). The Thai rice trade as a vertical market network: Structure, per-formance, and policy implications. Economic Development & Cultural Change, 22(2), 179-197.

Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives. 2008. Annual report: Fiscal year 2007 (1 April 2007 – 31 March 2008). Bangkok: Author.

Boonlert, B. 2005: A feasibility study of electric and steam power plant using biomass rice husk for reducing the energy cost of company AA. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on the utilization of rice huks and rice husk silica. Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, September 19, 2005.

Bronzeoak Ltd, 2003: Rice husk ash market study. DTI New and Renewable Energy Programme, UK.

Chandoevwit, W. 2004. Labor market issues in Thailand. TDRI Quarterly Review, 19(2), 10-15.

Chantachaeng, C, 1993. Marketing and post-harvest systems of paddy/rice in Thailand. Final Report prepared for The German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ)

Chinsuwan, W., Mongpraneet S. and Panya, N. 1997. Baseline information for Hom Ma Li rice production in Tong Kula Rong Hai. p. 381-387.

Chittra, B. 1989. Study on milling quality of paddy with various level of moisture content. Factculty of Agriculture and Industry, Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University.

Chulalongkorn University, 2005: Proceedings of the first workshop on the utilization of rice huks and rice husk silica. Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, September 19, 2005.

Dawe, D. C., Moya, P. F., Casiwan, C. B., & Cabling, J. M. 2008. Rice marketing systems in the Philippines and Thailand: Do large numbers of competitive traders ensure good performance? Food Policy, 33(5), 455-463.


Dethneeranaht, P. 1983. An analysis of the post-production loss of rice at the farm level in the central region of Thailand, 1982/83. Agricultural Economic, Kasetsart University, Thailand.

Ekasingh, B., Sungkapitux, C., Kitchaicharoen, J., & Suebpongsang, P. (2007). Com-petitive commercial agriculture in the Northeast of Thailand. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from World Bank web page: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRICA/ Resources/257994-1215457178567/CCAA_Thailand.pdf

Gadde, B., Menke, C., and Wassmann, R. 2009: Rice straw as a renewable energy source in India, Thailand and the Philippines: Overall potential and limitations for energy contribution and greenhouse gas mitigation. Biomass and Bioenergy 33 (2009), pp 1532-1546.

Haefele, S.M., C. Knoblauch, M. Gummert, Y. Konboon, and S. Koyama. 2008. Black carbon (bio-char) in rice-based systems: characteristics and opportunities, In W. I. Woods, et al., eds. Terra Preta Nova: A Tribute to Wim Sombroek. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrech.

IRRI, 2010. IRRI World Rice Statistics (WRS). http://beta.irri.org/solutions/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=250

Kanuengsak-Chiaranaikul. 2009. Thai rice combine harvesting [Online]. Available by Agricultural Engineering Research Institute, Department of Agriculture, Thailand http://as.doa.go.th/aeri/files/pht2009/documents_slide/lecture%20slides/kn_thai%20rice%20combine%20harvester.pdf

Kitkaundee, K. and Urairong, S. 1999. Effect of delay in drying on rice grain and seed quality. Research report 1996 volume 2 Pathum Thani Rice Research Center, Thailand. p. 774-784.

Kitkaundee , K., Anusornpanich, S., Urairong, P., Makathan, N., Ketkomut, Y. and Konhchu, A. 1987. Quality of rice seed harvested at different ages. Research report in 1988. p. 246-253.

Kositpaisal, P. 2008. Thailand Agricultural Machinery Development. Power Point. The Siam Kubota Industry Co.,Ltd.

Kunimitsu, Y., and T. Ueda. 2006. Macro Economic Impacts of Installing Rice Husk Electricity Power Plants in Thailand Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, Orland, Florida.

Ministry of Commerce. 2009. Thai rice strategies, 2009-2011.

Naivikul, O. 2007. Rice: Science and Technology. ISBN 978-974-9934-27-2. Edition 2. Kasetsart University printing press, Bangkok. 366 p.

Nakada, Y. (1996). When does a farmer sell rice: A case study in a village in Yasothon Province, Northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Studies, 33(4), 609-624.

Noomhorm, A. (2009). Postharvest in Thailand, Rice. Powerpoint presented at Postharvest 09, Rice Conference & Exhibition. 15-17 July 2009, AsiaCongress, Queen Sirikit National Center, Bangkok.

Office of Agricultural Economics. 2005. Agricultural economic indicators of Thai-land 2004. Retrieved January 28, 2009, from Office of Agricultural Economics web page: http://www.oae.go.th/indicator/index2.htm

Office of Agricultural Economics. 2010. (Online) http://www.oae.go.th/oae_report/stat_agri/main.php?lang=en

Prasertsuk, A., Makatan, N., Kaveeta, L., Aepanit, N., Kongchu, A. and Sritad, V. 2001. Developmental variation on floral and seed in rice cultiva. Proceedings of the 2001 annual report on rices and temperate cereals. p.55.

Poapongsakorn, N. (with Anuchitworawong, C., & Mathrsuraruk, C.). (2006). The de-cline and recovery of Thai agriculture: Causes, responses, prospects and challenges. In Rapid growth of selected Asian economies: Republic of Korea, Thailand and Viet Nam (Publication No. 2006/06, Vol. 1, part II). Bangkok: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Sittisung, P., Kitkaundee K. and Aurairong, P. 1983. Study on losses of rice during harvest and postharvest. Research report 1983. Pathum Thani Rice Research Center, Thailand.

Sittisung, P., Kitkaundee K. and Aurairong, P. 1985. Seed detraction during storage in storehouse of experiment station. Research report 1985. Rice Research Institute, Department of Agriculture.

Srzednicki, G., and R. Driscoll. 2008. Implementation of a two-stage drying system for Grain in Asia, In G. Robertson and J. Lupien, eds. Using Food Science and Technology to Improve Nutrition and Promote National Development. International Union of Food Science & Technology.

Thai Rice Department, 2008: Focus group discussion on the value chain of rice bran arranged by Rice produce development Bur can. Held at the Rice Department with participants from National rice mill association, Rice bran oil comprise, SME, Rice bran oil supplementary diet, Food scientists, Agricultural Bank and Agricultural scientists of rice department, May 2008.

Tokyo Mitsubishi Securities Co., L. 2002. Practical Steps in Obtaining Carbon Credits through a Thai Biomass Electricity Generation Project. Tokyo Mitsubishi Securities Co., Ltd.

Varinruk, B., Maungprasert, N., Hanviriyapan, P. and Sittiwong, N. 2000. Resaerch and development of organic rice production in the North. Proceedings of 2000 annual conference on rice and temperate cereals in northern part of Thailand. p. 112-129.

WADA Shigetaka, Weerasak Mosungnoen, and Khemchai Hemachandra (2003): Survey on the research on the utilization of rice husk and rice husk silica. In Proceedings of the first workshop on the utilization of rice huks and rice husk silica. Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, September 19, 2005.


Wiboonpongse, A., & Chaovanapoonphol, Y. 2001. Rice marketing system in Thailand. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Agribusiness Manage-ment towards Strengthening Agricultural Development and Trade, Chiang Mai, Thai-land.

Wiboonpongse, A., & Sriboonchitta, S. 2004. Regoverning markets: Securing small producer participation in restructured national and regional agri-food systems in Thai-land. Retrieved February 2, 2009, from Faculty of Economics, Chiang Mai University web page: http://fuangfah.econ.cmu.ac.th/files/Thailand_report_final.pdf

0

Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri‐food supply chains

Resource efficiency and ecosystem services in rice production in Thailand’s central plain: Baseline Research

UNEP, IIED and AIDEnvironment Project (IRRI coordination)


Research done by the Asian Institute of Technology and CIRAD (UMR G‐Eau)

Authors: S.R. Perret, M.S. Babel, S.D. Rahatwal, R. Yarnsiri

1

Executive summary This study delivers a brief inventory of ecosystem services offered in Central Plain of Thailand, and related considerations on economic value. It partakes to a broader baseline study on resource efficiency and ecosystem services in rice production in Thailand’s central plain. The overall purpose of the baseline study is to contribute to a UNEP research and development project targeting the establishment of sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains.

The study report first clarifies the terms and concepts on aquatic resource uses, values, externalities, benefits, services, and the like. It defines (1) resource direct-use value, generating private goods and services, which benefits private, local economic agents, and (2) resource indirect, non-use value, generating public goods and services, which benefits part or whole of society. Such distinction proves very useful in order to first sort out the different functions and externalities attached to rice ecosystems, and to develop a conceptual framework for further investigations (p29-30), second to identify proper methodologies to assess economic values of ES in Central Plain of Thailand.

Lowland paddy rice ecosystems in central plain of Thailand offer several ecosystem goods and services and include functions and values related to regulation, support, culture (mostly as public goods, i.e. true ES), and contribution to the economy (mostly through private benefits).

However, being mostly irrigated, and designed and operated for intensive production towards export and agro-industry sectors, some functions have limited positive effects (support), and some negative externalities are significant (GHG emissions and high contribution to climate change as the main negative externality of paddy rice). Among ecosystem services, regulatory functions seems to be the most important, as paddy rice ecosystems contribute significantly to water resource management and conservation, erosion control, preservation of biodiversity and aquatic habitats, and, more importantly in central plains, flood mitigation and prevention. Paddy rice systems also contribute to the economy (local and national), to development, and bear very significant cultural value all over South East Asia. In terms of support functions, paddy fields contribute to nutrient cycling, water purification (denitrification), air purification, and photosynthesis.

The case study in Ayutthaya Province in central plain reveals that the concept of ecosystem services is widely unknown among all stakeholders in the rice production sector. Further, few research have been carried out, and limited information is actually available on ecosystem services in the area. Discussions with local experts show that some ecosystem functions and services are fulfilled by paddy rice fields, with regards to culture, provision of goods, and contribution to the economy. However, intensification of cropping systems and the intensive use of pesticides hinders most possibilities on support and regulation. Local stakeholders, officials, most public and private sector agents, and the general public seem to largely ignore both the concept of ecosystem services, and the implications thereof. More specifically, farmers as primary producers and custodians of such goods are not aware of the role they play and that benefits the whole society. There are two notable exceptions to this general lack of awareness: the role played by paddy fields in flood mitigation and in wildlife conservation. Also, the Royal Irrigation Department of Thailand’s Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has develop Good Agricultural Practices recommendations in order to sustain and enhance ecosystem services, especially those related to environmental conservation, soil quality, sustainable use of pesticides and fertilizers. Concrete application and impact of GAP recommendations remain few at this point in time. The economic values of the different rice ecosystems services and goods have not been assessed in Thailand, while methodologies do exist. No compensation, incentive or payment mechanism related to ecosystem services has been developed so far in Thailand.

In view of such results, two sets of recommendations may be made, one for further research, the other towards role-players for implementation. More research should be carried out on certain biophysical and ecological processes that are poorly documented at this stage, i.e. hydrology, water and soil chemistry, ecology. The outcomes of such background research would be to better define the quantity and quality of ecosystems services provided, to back up further investigations on their economic

2

value. Research should also be carried out in economics, first assessing the value of all identified ecosystems goods and services, second investigating and testing economic instruments towards sustainability of such provision. Research agencies should team up with public and private interested stakeholders in order to redress the observed lack of knowledge and awareness on ecosystem services. Communication and information has to take place, towards the general public, and more specific stakeholders. It is suggested that some pilot projects are set up, based upon existing farmer groups and/or delineated irrigation systems in order to experiment mechanisms potentially leading to sustainable provision of ecosystem services: farmer certification mechanisms, area certification mechanisms, labeling of products. Such pilot projects could ultimately be used to experiment PES mechanisms.

Table of content

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 1

TABLE OF CONTENT ...................................................................................................................................... 2

1 DEMARCATION OF CENTRAL PLAIN OF THAILAND AND RICE CULTIVATION ................................................ 4

1.1 DEMARCATION OF CENTRAL PLAIN OF THAILAND ..................................................................................................... 4 1.2 LAND USE MAP OF THAILAND .............................................................................................................................. 5 1.3 RICE CULTIVATION IN THAILAND AND IN CENTRAL PLAIN ............................................................................................ 6 1.4 METEOROLOGICAL DATA .................................................................................................................................... 9 1.5 RICE PRODUCTION IN THAILAND: MAIN FEATURES .................................................................................................. 10 1.6 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

2 RICE ECOSYSTEMS: FUNCTIONS AND SERVICES ........................................................................................ 11

2.1 DEFINING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES .......................................................................................................................... 11 2.2. RICE AGRO‐ECOSYSTEMS .................................................................................................................................. 12 2.3 REGULATION FUNCTIONS................................................................................................................................... 13

2.3.1 Paddy fields affecting local climate .................................................................................................... 13 2.3.2 Paddy fields interacting with global climate ....................................................................................... 13 2.3.3 Function of conserving water resources ............................................................................................. 15 2.3.4 Function of prevention of soil erosion ................................................................................................. 16 2.3.5 Functions of preservation of biodiversity and habitat for wildlife ...................................................... 16 2.3.6 Function of pest suppression ............................................................................................................... 19 2.3.7 Function of flood prevention ............................................................................................................... 19

2.4 PROVISION AND CONTRIBUTION TO ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 21 2.4 SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................................... 21

2.4.1 Function of soil nutrient cycling .......................................................................................................... 21 2.4.2 Function of water purification ............................................................................................................. 22 2.4.3 Function of air purification .................................................................................................................. 22 2.4.4 Function for photosynthesis ................................................................................................................ 23

2.5 CULTURE ....................................................................................................................................................... 23 2.5.1 Function of supporting cultural identity .............................................................................................. 23 2.5.2 Function of preserving amenities for recreation and relaxation ......................................................... 23

2.6 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 23

3 CASE STUDY IN CENTRAL PLAIN OF THAILAND: AYUTTHAYA PROVINCE .................................................... 24

3.1 GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................... 24 3.1.1 Meteorological Data (1993‐2009) ...................................................................................................... 24 3.1.2 Soil characteristics .............................................................................................................................. 26

3.2 RICE AND RICE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN AYUTTHAYA ............................................................................................... 26 3.2.1 Rice cultivation .................................................................................................................................... 27 3.2.2 Ecosystem services .............................................................................................................................. 28

3

3.3 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 29

4. ECONOMIC VALUATION ......................................................................................................................... 29

4.1 THE ECONOMIC VALUES OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS .................................................................................................. 29 4.2 ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL VALUATION STUDIES ........................................................................................................ 32

4.2.1 Function of provision of food and aquaculture ................................................................................... 32 4.2.2 Regulation functions ........................................................................................................................... 32 4.2.3 Culture, recreation .............................................................................................................................. 33 4.2.4 Support functions ................................................................................................................................ 33

4.3 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 33

5 GAP (GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES) AND IMPACTS ON IMPROVING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ............... 33

5.1 GAP for rice production .......................................................................................................................... 33

6 POLICY AND STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................................................... 39

7 CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 41

7.1 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 41 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 41

7.2.1 Research .............................................................................................................................................. 41 7.2.2 Implementation ................................................................................................................................... 42

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 43

APPENDIX 1: RICE–FISH AND RICE‐DUCK ECOSYSTEMS ............................................................................... 45

APPENDIX 2: INSECTS AND PESTS FOUND IN RICE FARM (PHOTOS) ............................................................. 49

APPENDIX 3: RICE VARIETIES IN THAILAND ................................................................................................. 53

APPENDIX 3: VALUES OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES .......................................................................................... 56

APPENDIX 4: USE OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS FROM RICE FIELDS .................................................................. 57

4

1 Demarcation of central plain of Thailand and rice cultivation

1.1 Demarcation of Central Plain of Thailand

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Thailand)

Figure 1: Demarcation of the Central Plain of Thailand

There are three ways to define Thailand regions. One is based on geography, hydrology and geomorphology; a second is based upon socio-economic characteristics; and a third one is based on administration, policy and conventions. In this study, the Central Plain of Thailand is defined according to geographic reference.

Central Plain is a region of Thailand covering the broad alluvial plain of the Chao Phraya River. It is separated from North-East Thailand (Isan) by the Phetchabun mountain range, and another mountain range separates it from Myanmar to the west. In the north it gently changes into the hilly terrain in Northern Thailand. The area was the heartland of the Ayutthaya kingdom, and is still the dominant area of Thailand. Central Thailand contains the Thai capital of Bangkok. Central Thailand is the most populated region in the country.

The following provinces form parts of central plain of Thailand

1. Ang Thong 2. Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya 3. Bangkok (Krung Thep Maha Nakhon) 4. Kamphaeng Phet 5. Lop Buri 6. Nakhon Nayok 7. Nakhon Pathom 8. Nakhon Sawan 9. Nonthaburi 10. Pathum Thani 11. Phetchabun

5

12. Phichit 13. Phitsanulok 14. Sukhothai 15. Samut Prakan 16. Samut Sakhon 17. Samut Songkhram 18. Saraburi 19. Sing Buri 20. Suphan Buri 21. Uthai Thani

1.2 Land Use Map of Thailand

Figure 2: Land use map of Thailand

From land use map of Thailand (figure 2), it can be noted that maximum amount of rice cultivation area is in central plain and northeast of Thailand. The main Chao Phraya river basin and many other sub basins are found in central plain of Thailand; hence the maximum area is under rice cultivation and many other agricultural purposes. The main city (Capital city) Bangkok is also located in central plain of Thailand, which captures large number of tourists and industrial sites.

Source: www.ldd.go.th Land Development Department, Thailand

6

1.3 Rice cultivation in Thailand and in central plain

The following figures (3-4) provide general information on the dynamics of rice cropping in Thailand then in central plain of Thailand (area planted, area harvested, production over time, dry season / wet season coverage) (Source: Office of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Statistical Forecasting Bureau, National Statistical Office).

NB: “Major Rice” sometimes refers to as primary rice or wet season rice or rainfed rice; “Second Rice” sometimes refers to as irrigated rice or dry season rice. 1 Rai = 0.16 ha

Figure 3a. Thailand: Major Rice Cultivation (wet season)

Figure 3b. Thailand: Second Rice Cultivation (dry season)

7

Figure 3c. Central Plain of Thailand: Major Rice Cultivation (wet season rice, mostly rainfed)

Figure 3d. Central Plain of Thailand: Second Rice Cultivation (dry season rice, mostly irrigated)

8

Figure 4a: Major rice cultivation area (Provincial basis) in central plain of Thailand

Figure 4b: Second rice cultivation area (Provincial basis) in central plain of Thailand

9

1.4 Meteorological Data

Meteorological information of central plain of Thailand is presented in table 1 and figure 5, e.g. temperature, rainfall, evaporation, humidity. All meteorological data are average data from 1980-2009. Maximum rainfall is observed between May to Oct. (monsoonal rainy season) and other months refer to the dry season. Rice cultivation performed during rainy days is called wet season rice, which is highly dependent on rain, except in areas with irrigation facilities.

Table 1: Meteorological Data: Central Plain of Thailand (Average data: 1980-2009)

Month Mean Max

Mean Min Mean Air Avg Rain Avg Rainy Mean Mean Evap Mean RH

Temp (oC) Temp (oC) Temp (oC) mm Day Sunshine, hr mm %

Jan 32.08 20.37 26.15 5.97 0.90 7.85 4.26 64.50 Feb 33.74 22.43 27.98 13.53 1.60 8.19 5.04 65.25 Mar 35.47 24.79 30.02 46.18 4.11 8.09 6.09 66.45 Apr 35.68 25.11 30.27 61.73 5.26 7.85 6.08 66.90 May 34.74 25.52 30.00 164.32 13.65 6.58 5.59 71.70 Jun 33.64 25.30 29.37 136.18 14.56 5.22 5.00 72.85 Jul 33.15 25.00 28.97 144.19 15.75 4.78 4.80 73.40 Aug 32.90 24.91 28.79 164.09 17.10 4.40 4.54 74.30 Sep 32.61 24.55 28.46 255.78 18.95 4.83 4.21 76.75 Oct 32.11 24.19 28.04 191.08 14.67 5.38 3.91 76.05 Nov 31.56 22.55 26.98 40.46 4.24 7.26 4.15 69.85 Dec 30.99 20.21 25.54 5.22 0.91 7.83 4.28 64.95

(Source: Thai Meteorological Department, 2010)

Figure 5 provides a comparison of climatic profiles between Central Plain region and Northeast (Isan) region of Thailand.

Figure 5a: Meteorological Data: Central Plain of Thailand

10

Figure 5b: Meteorological data: Northeast Thailand

1.5 Rice production in Thailand: main features

While China and India produce more than half of all global rice (600Mt overall annually), Thailand contributes (exports) about a third of all rice traded globally (8 Mt of 25Mt on average). Global trading of rice is therefore very limited, as compared to its global production and consumption features; to a large extent, producing countries have been self-consuming their production so far. However, increasing demand from Africa, declining home consumption in exporting transition countries, and GATT agreements tend to alter that situation towards intensification of global rice trading. Rice, as the typical Asian staple food crop, is characterized by price volatility, monsoon-dependency and erratic yields, and a large diversity of production systems. Thailand is only the fifth world largest rice producers (27Mt), but has long been the largest exporter with almost 8Mt exported in 2009. Thailand mostly exports white rice, mainly produced in central plain region (5.4Mt in 2009; by Government and private exporters) and Hom Mali Jasmine Fragrant rice (2.4Mt in 2009; only by private exporters). Shrinking rice farmers’ population, due to rural outmigration and aging, is an immediate threat to Thailand rice industry.

Over the last 30 years, Thai rice production and export has remained fairly stable. Cropping area increased by only 10%. Production is still fraught with low land productivity (2.9t/ha as compared to a global average of about 4.2 t/ha). Typical rice plots are usually small (less than one ha per family) and cropped by poor, small-scale peasant farmers. Yet, production systems and cropping practices vary significantly. Some irrigation systems along main rivers in the central plain of the country show intensive production, mechanization, high use of pesticides and fertilizers while North-Eastern areas are much poorer, with more traditional, manual, cropping systems (some being only based upon wet season / rainfed rice).

1.6 Summary

The central plain region of Thailand, as the lower part of Chao Phraya river basin, forms a geographic and hydrological entity that features relatively flat landscapes, bi-seasonal climate with monsoonal high precipitations, and flooded paddy rice cropping as the largely predominant cropping system. Central plain is the “rice bowl” of Thailand. White rice and co-products are the main productions. One of the region’s peculiar traits is that it includes deeply agrarian and rural countryside settings (north and upstream) and highly developed urban, residential and industrialized environment (Bangkok city area) (south and downstream).

11

2 Rice ecosystems: functions and services

2.1 Defining ecosystem services According to Floresca (2009), ecosystem services are benefits which people obtain from ecosystems. Similarly, Brown (2006) explained that ecosystem goods and services are the flows from an ecosystem which are of relatively immediate benefit to humans and occur naturally.

This allows for differentiating between externalities incurred by rice production itself (some positive ones, many negative ones –GHG emissions, water pollution), and ecosystem goods and services offered by the whole rice ecosystem (e.g. flood management, groundwater recharge).

Figure 6 proposes to further differentiate these concepts on the basis economic value and use. Water-dependant systems may bear two kinds of value.

One is related to direct use (be it extractive or not, located in-stream or off-stream) of the water resource. These include local socioeconomic activities that directly draw economic benefits from the water resource and from related-resources; rice production, rice-fish systems, local navigation, domestic uses, small water-dependant enterprises, and the like, are typical of Central Plain of Thailand. A key trait of such activities is that they benefit private agents (households, farmers, fishermen, local businesses and the like). Also, realization of a benefit by these private agents usually supposes they incur operation costs, input and production factor mobilization.

Figure 6. Differentiating between use value and non-use value in water systems

(adapted from Griffin, 2008)

The other type of value does not refer to any specific use, but rather to the existence and natural, biophysical functioning of the resource, in its regional, geological, climatic, geomorphological contexts. For instance, in Central Plain of Thailand, rice ecosystems are commonly praised for contributing to flood mitigation, ornithological biodiversity conservation, and groundwater recharge. Such services are public goods, in the sense that they do not benefit any specific agent, but rather a large part of society, which collectively benefits from, with no specific action or intervention. However, it must be kept in mind that, without the activities carried out by all local stakeholders involved in socioeconomic use, there would be no or limited ecosystem services. Also, strategic thinking, and policy development and implementation on environmental services are complex and difficult since decisions and management practices in the private sphere impact upon societal benefits.

12

Private actions may be fully rational, legitimate, legal, and even economically sound (e.g. intensification of rice cropping in farmers’ fields) while those could be detrimental to some ecosystem services, benefiting the society and general public (e.g. biodiversity).

The concept of payment for environmental services aims to capture the idea of a (collective) fee attached to benefiting such services, which fee may further serve as compensation or an incentive to direct users to continue, implement or adapt practices conducive to sustained ecosystem services.

Owing to such distinctions, methodologies for evaluating use values, the different kinds of ecosystem services differ widely, as seen in section 4. In the following sections (2.2 to 2.5), a number of “functions” performed by rice ecosystems are discussed. Regulation, support and culture functions should be considered ecosystem services as such, since they refer mostly to non-use value. Economic development function mostly refers to use value.

2.2. Rice agroecosystems

Paddy fields comprise an artificial environment that operates in concert with the natural environment. Rather than having an “impact” on the environment, paddy fields become part of a new environment with ecological processes that reflect the influences of both man and nature (Groenfeldt, 2006). The rice agro-ecosystems are typically categorized into five major types: 1. Irrigated rice fields, 2. Rain fed rice fields, 3. Deepwater rice fields, 4. Upland rice fields and 5. Tidal rice fields (Edirisinghe, 2006). Figure 7 proposes another, yet similar, classification, based upon location and water use. Rice production in central plain region of Thailand is predominantly irrigated (dry and wet seasons). Only highland plots and areas with no irrigation facilities are rainfed (e.g. in Isaan / Northeast Thailand).

Figure 7: Rice Ecosystems (Greenland 1997, adapted from IRRI 1993)

13

2.3 Regulation functions

2.3.1 Paddy fields affecting local climate

Due to the effect of evaporation from paddy fields covered in water, paddy fields can have a cooling effect on ambient environment. In this way, paddy fields contribute to the climatic mitigation (1.3 °C on average) of surrounding areas, particularly in summertime (Yoshida, 2001). In South Korea, it is estimated that about 6mm of water in paddy fields evaporates every day. This brings down the air temperature during Korea’s hot summer. The value of the energy which would otherwise be needed for cooling amounts to about 346 million kL of crude oil. The value of this function is about US$ 1,175 million (Dong-Kyun, 2002). In winter, paddy fields may cause an increase in temperature (Wu and Lee, 2004). This function has been recognized in peri-urban areas where paddy and urban land are scattered. The temperature effect is higher where the paddy area is larger and is applicable up to 150 to 200m downwind of paddy areas (Yokohari et al., 1998). No research has been carried out on such regulatory function in central plain of Thailand. The approach used by Dong-Kyun (2002) could be applied.

2.3.2 Paddy fields interacting with global climate

While rice production is affected by climate change and related extreme events. According to ADB, Thailand suffered more than $1.75 billion in economic losses related to floods, storms, and droughts from 1989 to 2002. The main share of that ($1.25 billion) was from crop yield losses.

Irrigated rice production is in turn contributing to climate change, and is harmful to the environment (Roger et al., 1998; Tilman et al., 2001; Wenjun et al., 2006). Flooded rice grows under anaerobic conditions, which favor methane formation and release (CH4 is 21 times more potent than CO2 as a GHG). About 120g of CH4 is released in the atmosphere for each kg of rice produced. Overall, world’s rice cropping under flooded conditions contributes 60 million tons CH4 per year (or 13% of all anthropogenic CH4 emissions). In 2005, Thailand's methane emissions equaled 91.6 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, 51% of which were due to rice cultivation - a statistic that is drawing international attention to the climate effects of rice paddies (Corinne Kisner, 2008).

Alternative cropping practices, including alternate wetting and drying conditions, sparing water use, well-drained, non-puddled soils, may significantly reduce CH4 emission. However, such conditions may result in increased nitrous oxide emission if N fertilization is ill-managed or in excess. N2O is 300 time more potent than CO2 as a GHG. All in all, research show that about 60 to 90% of global warming impact of rice relates to production at field level.

Thailand’s climate change action plan (Office of Environmental Policy and Planning, 2000) includes specific measures in order to reduce GHG emissions from rice fields: low-methane rice cultivars, direct seeding, soil aeration in conjunction with water management, organic matter and fertilizer management, methane production inhibitors. All measures are captured within the concept of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) as promoted by the Royal Irrigation Department of Thailand’s Ministry of Agriculture. Yet, the large diversity of cropping systems and water management practices, and prevailing socioeconomic constraints faced by farmers hampers concrete implementation of GAP. Unlike other crops which environmental focus is set on reducing carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions from deforestation, mechanization, and chemical fertilizer use, rice production’s greatest impact is through methane. In the context of flooded ecosystems, organic fertilizers may not help in the way they can with other cereals because methane is emitted through the anaerobic fermentation of organic matter in flooded rice plots.

Table 2 features possible measures for mitigating greenhouse emission from agricultural ecosystems, their apparent effects on reducing emission of individual gases where adopted (mitigative effect), and an estimate scientific confidence that the proposed practice can reduce overall net emission at the size of adoption. It highlights that, among other more efficient measures, rice management and water

14

management show uncertainty in effects, with weak agreement and confidence on their capacity to mitigate GHGs emissions.

Table 2. An evaluation of possible measures for mitigating Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emissions

Mitigative effects Net

mitigation (confidence)

Measure Examples CO2 CH4 N2O Agreement Evidence

Cropland management Agronomy + +/- *** **

Nutrient management + + *** **

Tillage/residue management + +/- ** **

Water management +/- + * *

Rice management +/- + +/- ** **

Agro-forestry + +/- *** *

Set-aside, Land use change + + + *** ***

Notes:

+ denotes reduces emissions or enhanced removal (positive mitigative effect);

- denotes increased emissions or suppressed removal (negative mitigative effect);

+/-denotes uncertain or variable response

A qualitative estimate of the confidence in describing the proposed practice as a measure for reducing net emission

of greenhouse gases, express as CO2-eq

Agreement refers to the relative degree of consensus in the literature (the more asterisks, the higher the agreement);

Evidence refers to the relative amount of data in support of the proposed effect (the more asterisks, the more evidence).

(Source: adapted from Smith et al., 2007a., IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change, 2007)

The most prominent options for mitigation of GHG emission in rice cultivation are:

Cropland management

Using an appropriate amount of nitrogen fertilizer by avoiding applications in excess of immediate plant requirements, by applying it at the right time, and by placing it more precisely in the soil. Reducing the reliance on fertilizers by adopting cropping systems such as use of rotations with legume crops has a high mitigation potential.

No burning of crop residues in the field.

Reducing tillage: No-till agriculture can increase carbon in the soil, but in industrial farming settings this may be offset by increasing reliance on herbicides and machinery. However, for organic systems some preliminary study results showed that reduced tillage without the use of herbicides has positive benefits for carbon sequestration in the soil.

Improved water and rice cropping patterns

In the off-rice season, methane emissions can be reduced by improved water management, especially by keeping the soil as dry as possible and avoiding water logging.

15

Table 3: Data methane emission from paddy field in Thailand Location Range of CH4 Season total Experimental References

flux Treatment

mg/m2/hr g/m2

Ayutthaya 3.3‐7.9 13.0‐20.0 CU,OM,WM Siriratpiraya, 1990

Bang Khen 4.3‐21.7 16.0‐55.0 SE Minami, 1994;Yagi et al., 1994b

ChaiNat 1.6 4.0 Minami, 1994,Yagi et al., 1994b

Chaing Mai 3.7‐5.5 9.0‐13.0 MF,OM Jermsawatdipong et al.,1994

Chaing Mai 9.0‐9.5 20.0‐21.0 CU Siriratpiriya et al 1995

Khlong Luang 3.8 8.0 Minami, 1994;Yagi et al., 1994b

Khon Kaen 23.0 76.0 Minami, 1994;Yagi et al., 1994b

Nakompathom 9.4‐12.0 25.0‐32.0 SE Tomprayoon et al., 1991

Pathumthani 1.9 ‐ 4.6 5.0 ‐ 11.0 MF Jermsawatdipong et al., 1994

Phitsanulok 6.6 ‐ 7.2 17.0 ‐ 18.0 SE Katoh et al, 1995

Phrae 16.6 ‐ 22.2 51.0‐69.0 SE Minami, 1994; Yagi et al., 1994b

Ratchaburi 3.2‐42.5 9.0‐117.0 MF,OM Jermsawatdipong et al., 1994

San Pa Tong 10.4 ‐ 16.1 25.0‐40.0 SE Minami, 1994; Yagi et al., 1994b

Surin 15.0 ‐ 24.5 41.0 ‐ 66.0 MF,OM Jermsawatdipong et al., 1994

Surin 13.3 41.0 Jermsawatdipong et al., 1994

Suphan Buri 19.5 ‐ 32.2 51.0 ‐ 75.0 SE Minami, 1994; Yagi et al., 1994b

(Source: adapted from Minami, 1995)

Experimental treatment: CU – cultivars, MF – fertilizers, OM – organic matter, SE – seasons (early and late rice, or dry and rainy seasons), SO – soil types, WM – water management

2.3.3 Function of conserving water resources

Water drawn from rivers to irrigate paddy fields penetrates into the soil. The water that does not evaporate eventually drains away and returns to the rivers. Some of this water contributes to the stabilization of flow regimes, while some of the rest penetrates deep into the ground and becomes part of the groundwater resources. The soil of paddy fields and similar areas also absorbs rainwater at times when they are not being irrigated. This reusable water in the soil and subsoil is evaluated as the function of conserving the water resources of fields used for paddy and crop fields (Yoshida, 2001).

Rice production contributes to water management. Paddy fields are under water during the rice crop, and have the function of contributing to the underground water. Dong-Kyun (2002) estimated that, in South Korea, 55% of the water stored by paddy fields goes to rivers, while the other 45% is stored as underground water, accounting for 5,420 million cubic-meters annually. The value of this function is about US$ 1,224 million each year.

In Japan, groundwater recharge, which was estimated based on saturated hydraulic conductivity and growing period with standing irrigation water in the paddy, was 2,421.7 m3 ha-1 cropping-1 (Yoshida, 2001). Groundwater recharge this is an important hydrologic feature of rice irrigation. In Kumamoto area of Japan, 85% of all groundwater recharge is accounted for from paddy fields (Ichikawa, 2002; Chen, 2005). In Taiwan, it is estimated that 21-23% of paddy irrigation water in the highland areas infiltrate into the groundwater, while 4-8 % of upland irrigation water is accounted for groundwater recharge (Liu et al., 200; Chen, 2005). The magnitude of recharge depends on soil texture, soil structure, thickness of the layer, soil and water temperature, ponding depth, groundwater level and topographic features (Liu et al, 2004; Chen, 2005). No research has been performed on such

16

regulatory function in central plain of Thailand per se. However, many local studies on basin hydrology and irrigation systems do exist and could be exploited.

2.3.4 Function of prevention of soil erosion

In the process of crop cultivation, levees are repaired and organic materials are added to the soil. This leads to an increase in the bulk density of soil, while the ground surface is gradually smoothed and flattened. Both these effects reduce loss of soil by water and wind erosion. However, if cultivated fields are abandoned and left fallow, soil is likely to be eroded. Soil erosion can be prevented by paddy rice cultivation (Yoshida, 2001). Paddy fields also contribute to soil conservation. Annual soil losses in South Korea amount to about 1.17 million metric tons. A significant amount of cultivated soil is protected by the fact that it is used for paddy rice. The value of paddy fields in reducing soil erosion is estimated at US$ 713 million (Dong-Kyun, 2002). No research has been carried out on such regulatory function of rice ecosystem in central plain of Thailand per se. However, many local studies on basin hydrology (rainfall and runoff) do exist and could be exploited.

2.3.5 Functions of preservation of biodiversity and habitat for wildlife

An important aspect of preserving biodiversity is to conserve the native species and indigenous varieties of each region and ecosystems. Substituting imported products for domestic ones may destroy native flora (Dong-Kyun, 2002). Flooded rice ecosystems whenever established, are located in wetlands, water-rich or even aquatic environments. Also, owing to dependency upon irrigation infrastructures, paddy plots are fairly perennial, not being dismantled or subject to land use shifts frequently. So they usually and quite naturally host aquatic fauna and flora. Rich biodiversity has become associated with rice fields. It is an ecosystem that sustains not only the people whose staple diet is rice but also a diverse assemblage of plants and animals that have made rice fields this niche. The rice fields offer shelter, food, breeding and nesting grounds to the various kinds of animals, birds, and insects. The flooded rice fields are an ideal habitat for a variety of aquatic invertebrate communities comprising neuston, zooplankton, nekton, periphyton and benthos. Aquatic vertebrates such as freshwater fish and amphibians colonize the fields during the aquatic phase for breeding, and these in turn attract numerous species of predatory birds. Rice plant growth stages vegetative and reproductive growth stages attracts variety phytophagous insects and promote growth weeds. The arthropod community found in rice abundantly. Proper weeds growth in the rice field and the surrounding bunds add another advantage to this ecosystem (Edirisinghe and Bambaradeniya, 2006). In Fukuoka prefecture of Japan, 30% of animal rare species live in the paddy environment. These habitats have importance for ecosystem health and biodiversity both locally and for the global ecosystem through migratory birds (e.g., cranes) and insects (Chen, 2005).

Paddy rice farming contributes indirectly to the production of forests and wildlife habitats. Rice straw and rice husk, the byproducts of the rice harvest, serve as a source of organic fertilizer and as a feedstuff for livestock, especially cattle. This not only helps prevent woods and forests from being overexploited, but also contributes to the protection of wildlife habitats (Dong-Kyun, 2002).

The biological function of the paddy landscape lies in the wetland habitat it provides to animal and plant forms. These habitats have importance for ecosystem health and biodiversity both locally and for the global ecosystem through migratory birds (e.g. cranes) and insects (Groenfeldt, 2006).

The following animal and insects commonly live in rice fields in Central Plain of Thailand: spotted munia (Lochura punctulata), ricefield crab (Esanthelphusa spp.), roof rat, ship rat (Rattus rattus), ricefield rat (Rattus argentiventer), great bandicoot (Bandicota indica), lesser bandicoot (Bandicota savilei), golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata).

Also, extremely rare and endangered fish species are also found in deeper river systems: Himantura chaopraya (Giant freshwater stingray) and Himantura signifer (edged-freshwater white stingray) (both from Dasyatidae family).

Many different birds species are found in central plain of Thailand, which actually forms the largest wetland bird sanctuary of the country (an Important Bird Area –IBA- as shown in figure 8) while

17

remaining officially largely unprotected. The IBA comprises the Lower Central Plain of the Chao Phraya River, which extends inland from the Gulf of Thailand and encompasses the environs of Bangkok. The Lower Central Plain was formerly a vast area of natural and semi-natural swamps, well-watered throughout the year by four major rivers: the Chao Phraya, Bang Pakong, Pasak and Mae Klong. However, the area was the focus of massive irrigation system developments in the early 20th Century, and current land-use is dominated by intensive rice cultivation, with only small remnant patches of wetland habitats and extensive agriculture. Due to high human population density and levels of use, it is unrealistic for anything but a small fraction of the area to be placed under strict conservation management. However, the Lower Central Plain was designated as a single IBA because conservation actions aimed at controlling hunting and promoting compatible forms of land-use are required across the whole area. Sites within the IBA currently afforded some protection include Wat Phai Lom (11 ha), Wat Tan En (16 ha), Bung Chawak (320 ha) and Wat Ratsattha Krayaram (7 ha) Non-hunting Areas.

Several globally threatened species occur in the Lower Central Plain and the area regularly supports well in excess of 20,000 waterbirds. A number of globally threatened species regularly occur at the site, some of them in significant numbers. The site regularly supports Aythya baeri and Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca. Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis is an occasional non-breeding visitor, while Baikal Teal Anas formosa and Greater Adjutant Leptoptilos dubius are vagrants. In addition, there are historical records of the globally vulnerable Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus.

In recent years, the site has supported over 1% of the Asian biogeographic population of Grey-headed Lapwing Vanellus cinereus, Intermediate Egret Mesophoyx intermedia and the globally near-threatened Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala. Other globally near-threatened species to occur at the site in significant numbers are Asian Golden Weaver Ploceus hypoxanthus and Black-headed Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus, while Oriental Darter Anhinga melanogaster and Band-bellied Crake Porzana paykullii have also been recorded, although not in significant numbers.

Table 4. Rare and endangered birds of the central plain region

Species Notes †Greater Adjutant Leptoptilos dubius

Formerly widespread in Thailand, the species is now on the verge of national extinction, and occurs at the IBA only as a vagrant. Singles have been recorded at three different localities, in mid‐June 1995, January 1986 and November 2002; the latter was among a flock of 16 Black‐headed Ibises at Wat Kusarot, Ayutthaya.

†Baer's Pochard Aythya baeri

The species is a rare winter visitor to the site. Two birds were seen at Rangsit marsh in January 1991 and two were seen at Kasetsart University (undated).

†Baikal Teal Anas formosa

The species is a vagrant to the site. There is a single record of two females and two males among 12,000 Garganey (Anas querquedula) at Kasetsart University in January 1992.

Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga

At least 8 to 10 individuals winter annually at the site, the most important known wintering population of the species in Thailand. Birds wintering at the site also use the Inner Gulf of Thailand (IBA TH032).

†Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca

The species is an annual winter visitor in very low numbers. Birds wintering at the site also use the Inner Gulf of Thailand (IBA TH032).

Spot‐billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis

The species was formerly more numerous but is currently an occasional non‐breeding visitor.

Manchurian Reed Warbler Acrocephalus tangorum

The species was recorded at Rangsit marsh in march 2001. The species is a winter visitor as passage migrant perhaps.

Grey‐headed Lapwing Vanellus cinereus

The maximum count of the species at the site is 368 birds between Sena and Band Sai districts, Ayutthaya province, in January 2003.

Intermediate Egret Mesophoyx intermedia

A count of 1,000 birds was made in Maharaj district, Ayutthaya province, in January 1999.

Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala

A count of 200 to 250 birds was made in December 1995.

Notes: † = not confirmed to regularly occur in significant numbers.

18

FiguFigure 8: Map of Important Bird Areas for Conservation in Thailand

(Source: Bird Conservation Society of Thailand (2010))

19

2.3.6 Function of pest suppression

Table 5 features the main diseases occurring in rice cropping systems.

Table 5: Rice diseases according to region and cropping system Rainfed Area Irrigation Area

Rice Blast N, NE Dirty Panicle Disease C, W, N, NE, S

Bacterial Leaf Blight N, NE, C Sheath Blight C, N, S

Bacterial Leaf Streak NE, C, S Brown Spot C, W, N, NE, S

Root Knot Nematodes N, NE Sheath Rot C

Sheath Rot C Ragged Stunt Disease C

Sheath Blight C, N, S Orange Leaf Diseases C

Dirty Panicle Disease C, W, N, NE, S Red Strip Diseases C

Bakanae N, W, NE Leaf Scald C

C ‐ Central Bakanae N, W, NE

N ‐ North Yellow Orange Leaf C

NE ‐ North East Yellow Dwarf Diseases C

W ‐ West Grassy Stunt Disease C

S ‐ South Gall Dwarf Disease C

Akiochi C

Narrow Brown Spot C, W, N, NE, S

Source: Rice Knowledge Bank, Thailand, available at: http://www.brrd.in.th/rkb/

Being mostly irrigated, with 2 cropping seasons par year, rice in central plain area is most exposed and sensitive to various diseases. No research has been performed as yet on pest suppression or mitigation by rice ecosystems in central plain.

2.3.7 Function of flood prevention

Paddy fields surrounded by ridges temporarily store water at times of heavy rain, and discharge it gradually into downstream rivers and surrounding areas. In this way, they prevent or mitigate the damage which might otherwise be caused by floods. This role played by agricultural land is called the water retention function (Yoshida, 2001). In central plain of Thailand, paddy rice fields are used for that purpose in many occasions and play a major role in preventing flooding of urban areas downstream (Ayuttaya, Bangkok).

In Korea’s monsoon climate, more that 60% of the year’s precipitation falls during the three summer months (June, July and August). This is also the rice-growing season. Hence, many dams are required to manage surface water. However, flood damage occurs every year, as the result of sudden downpours. Paddy fields help control flooding because they contain water over the wet season and release it over the dry season. They are estimated to store a total of 2,733 million m3 of water, valued at US$ 1,208 million (Dong-Kyun, 2002). It was estimated that 20% of flooded water in the lower Mekong River Basin during 1999 and 2000 was temporally stored in paddy fields that were later used in the further downstream paddy fields (Masumoto et al, 2004; Chen, 2005). Floating-rice farming in the delta has played important roles. It can be summarized as having low input and low yield but sustainable farming. Cultivated floating-rice area decreased from 228,000 ha in 1987 to 114,000 ha in 1997 (CTI et al., 1999). Floating rice can grow flexibly according to irregular increases in water level.

Problems of flooding in Chao Phraya Delta often occur in October and November. Paddy field cultivating with high yield variety can’t receive too much water during flood. However floating rice

20

area has great possibility to receive surplus water which contributes to flood mitigation at regional level. At Chao Phraya delta floating rice area can be estimated at 2280 million m3 assuming area 114000 ha water depth 2 m. The volume would be almost same as the storage in the remaining paddy fields in the water management wet season, assuming water depth 0.2 m. If we could convey surplus water to the floating-rice area to decrease the peak flood discharge with a depth of 25 cm (5 cm day–1 for 5 days), also act as a buffer function. Water released from the floating-rice area can be used in downstream areas and it contributes to decreasing the salinity concentration at the beginning of the water management dry season.

Table 6. Rice systems and flood mitigation: management methods and impacts

(Source: Rice is Life: Scientific perspective for 21st century, 2004)

Paddy farming has an ability to filter sediment in landscape and contribute to flood mitigation. Agus, F. et al., 2004; flood mitigation by paddy farming it can be assessed by the following guideline: (TPS – FC). AZ + PC + IC

TPS: Total Soil Pores (%)

FC: Water Content at Field Capacity (%)

AZ: Depth of Water Absorption Zone (not applicable as paddy field is saturated during most of planting seasons)

PC: Surface Ponding Capacity, PCpaddy filed = Dike Height – Normal Water Level

IC: Interception Capacity, base on vegetation, IC paddy filed= 0.003

Flood mitigation Water Retention Capacity, WRC

Watershed or field area capacity to absorb water and hold rain

Water hold in soil pores and as well stored by paddy fields

21

While contribution to flood mitigation, and even to flood control and damage avoidance, by paddy fields is probably very significant in central plain area, no quantitative economic valuation of such service has been performed as yet on a large scale basis.

2.4 Provision and contribution to economy and development

Rice farming also maintains the economic viability of rural communities, through the revenue from rice. As a result, rural people are more likely to remain on their farms, thereby avoiding excessive concentrations of the population in urban areas (Dong-Kyun, 2002).

In Sri Lanka, agriculture provides employment to 30% of country population and it helps to keep control of migration to cities for employment. Therefore, Sri Lanka Government keeps investing on irrigation sector not only for food security but also for balanced territorial development (INWEPF, 2007).

Another opportunity offered by irrigated rice landscapes is eco-tourism. In Bali, rural hotels located in the midst of paddy lands use this as a feature to attract tourists, and arrange farm visits for the guests (Groenfeldt, 2006). In industrialized countries, such as Japan and Republic of Korea, urban dwellers are willing to travel to paddy fields for sightseeing and recreation. In Bali, paddy fields are light spots of local ecotourism (Chen, 2005).

Local rice systems may also be hotspots of social capital and decentralized governance. Traditionally, small-scale paddy-based irrigation systems were built and managed by the farmers themselves. Today, participatory management of local irrigation systems is an important trend as a way of improving management and reducing operating costs. A multi-functional aspect of this approach is the strengthening of social capital that participatory irrigation management stimulates. The skills and experience that farmers gain through the cooperative management of their irrigation system can be applied to other entrepreneurial endeavors and thereby contribute to broad-based rural development. Multifunctional water user associations: Water user associations – whether traditional (e.g., Balinese subaks, noth Thailand), or newly established through government programs (as in Vietnam and the Philippines) serve functions of local governance, and can themselves serve multiple functions. While traditional self-management and local governance do exist in Northern Thailand, rice schemes in central plain are much larger and de-facto under Royal Irrigation Department management, with little actual active participation in collective decision-making processes by farmers.

While rice systems support many livelihoods, directly and indirectly (multiplier effects), no research has been performed as yet on the economic and socioeconomic contribution of rice ecosystems in central plain.

2.4 Support

2.4.1 Function of soil nutrient cycling

Nutrient cycling estimated base on the rice straw yield and its nutrient content consisted of 16.9 kg N ha-1, 12.0 kg P2O5 ha-1 and 55.8 kg K2O ha-1 (Floresca, 2009). Sandy soils, which have low water holding capacity and less plant nutrients, are mostly found in Northeastern Thailand. Clay soils, which have high water holding capacity and high plant nutrients, are mostly found in the Central Thailand and are more suitable for rice plantation.

Figure 9 features N inputs and outputs in paddy rice fields according to experiments in Japan (Feng et al., 2003). Only 60% of N inputs are actually taken up by rice. However, results differ significantly between studies, according to fertilizer types, application method and scheduling, soil pH, meteorological conditions and the like.

22

Figure 9. Nitrogen balancing in paddy fields

Experimentations in Japan showed that inputs to phosphorus balance in paddy fields include chemical fertilizer (about 90% of P input), rainfall (1%) and irrigation water (9%). Outputs include drainage water (14% of P output), and rice uptake (86%). The soil compartment absorbs and retains 56% of P fertilizer and creates the difference in P input-output balance (Feng et al., 2003).

From these results, it must be highlighted that under intensification practices (high fertilization) drainage water and runoff contain large amounts of N and P, leading to potential eutrophication and pollution, unless recycling takes place. Experiments demonstrate the benefits of recycling drainage water in further reuse as irrigation water, for water saving, nutrient saving, and pollution control purposes (Feng et al., 2003).

No research has been performed as yet on nutrient cycling and recycling in rice ecosystems in central plain, on a large scale basis.

2.4.2 Function of water purification

As long as chemical fertilization remains reasonable, paddy fields behave as artificial wetlands as their capacity to remove nitrogen and phosphorus. Ponding condition of paddy fields causes an increase in denitrification (Yamaoka et al., 2003; Chen, 2005), which process refers to the microorganism-led reduction of nitrates (fertilizing yet polluting) into gaseous N2 through various stages and components. The total amount of contaminated water which is purified in paddy fields each year is estimated at 704 million mt. This value from rice production of purifying polluted water is about US$ 1,651 million in South Korea (Dong-Kyun, 2002).

Seasonal organic nitrogen loss by denitrification may be calculated with the following equation (Tabushi et al., 1993):

D = (0.000011 * T2 + 0.005) * N

D is the amount of denitrification in kg.ha-1

T is the average seasonal water temperature (degree Celsius, between 10-40)

N is total N concentration in paddy water in mg.l-1

2.4.3 Function of air purification

Vegetation growing on cultivated farmland purifies air by absorbing gases which are air pollutants, such as SO2 and NO2. The volume of these gases absorbed by crop may be calculated and given a monetary value (Yoshida, 2001). Owing to photosynthesis, rice production helps clean the atmosphere by absorbing 14 million mt of CO2, and emitting 10 million tons of O2 annually. According to Dong-

Fertilizer

Soil

Irrigation

N2 Fixation

Rainfall

Rice Uptake

Runoff

Denitrification

23

Kyun (2002, research in South Korea), the value of rice crops in purifying air is about US$ 1,613 million.

2.4.4 Function for photosynthesis

Both rice crop itself and aquatic micro-organisms (algae, aquatic weeds) living in the paddy field do photosynthesize. Shading by rice field can limit photosynthetic activity of algae in the rice fields. High and low temperature depresses phytoplankton productivity and photosynthesis. High temperature is favorable for blue green algae and low temperature for eukaryotic.

2.5 Culture

2.5.1 Function of supporting cultural identity

Throughout the rice producing regions of Southeast Asia, the integration of paddy cultivation and local cultures has been evolving for thousands of years. Religious rituals and cultural identity are tied to the rice cycle (Groenfeldt, 2006). Paddy cultivation is a living heritage which refers to tradition and reaffirms that heritage in the present. The significant components of that heritage may include the visual landscape, the architecture of rural buildings, the irregular bunds marking the borders of the paddy fields, the irrigation channels themselves, and the fields themselves with paddy growing, or the empty fields between crops. Culture heritage also has less visible and invisible components: particular varieties of rice which have cultural meaning, as well as nutritional and culinary significance, the knowledge of the consumer that the rice has been cultivated in a particular way, and in a particular place that has meaning (and may be reflected very directly in the price of that variety), even the consumers’ knowledge that by purchasing this particular rice, they are supporting farmers who are maintaining agricultural traditions (Groenfeldt, 2006).

2.5.2 Function of preserving amenities for recreation and relaxation

Lowland paddy fields and upland fields not only constitute a beautiful rural landscape, but also create unique natural, cultural, and social environments. Many of those living in urban areas like to visit the countryside, seeking the landscape and natural amenities that cannot be found in cities, as well as for leisure and relaxation (Yoshida, 2001; Dong-Kyun, 2002).

Rice ecosystems also bear landscape value. Many people, both urban and rural, enjoy the scenery of paddy fields (and other forms of agriculture) and may be willing to pay for this experience. The visual benefits of the landscape are easy to experience (by driving or in the compact urban setting of Japan, even by walking) into the countryside (Groenfeldt, 2006).

Aesthetic values can overlie the values of cultural heritage, landscape, and even religion. As artists and art critics can attest, there is an aesthetic aspect to viewing not only art, but the world at large. The human appreciation of the spacious, tranquil verdant landscape is an expression of aesthetic values. So too is the appreciation of the particular flavor or aroma, or appearance of a particular rice variety, or rice preparation made from that variety. The pleasure that an urban-dwelling Japanese businessman experiences upon viewing a traditional farmhouse derives from a combination of cultural and aesthetic values. The appreciation that underlies a consumer’s willingness to pay a high price for a particular variety of rice may derive partly from an appreciation of the aesthetics of the cultivation process – knowing that it was produced on a small farm without using pesticides and in harmony with nature, etc (Groenfeldt, 2006).

2.6 Summary

Rice ecosystems offer a number of ecosystem services and amenities. However, being mostly irrigated, and designed and operated for intensive production towards export and agro-industry sectors, some functions have limited positive effects (support), and some negative externalities are significant (GHG emissions and high contribution to climate change as the main negative externality of paddy rice). Among ecosystem services, regulation functions seems to be the most important, as paddy rice ecosystems contribute significantly to water resource management and conservation,

24

erosion control, preservation of biodiversity and aquatic habitats, and, more importantly in central plains, flood mitigation and prevention. Paddy rice systems also contribute to the economy (local and national), to development, and bear very significant cultural value all over South East Asia. In terms of support functions, paddy fields contribute to nutrient cycling, water purification (denitrification), air purification, and photosynthesis.

3 Case Study in Central Plain of Thailand: Ayutthaya Province

3.1 General Information Ayutthaya, Thailand’s former capital city, is located in the flat river plain of the Chao Phraya river valley in Central Plain of Thailand. Ayutthaya Province is subdivided into 16 districts, 209 sub-districts and 1,328 villages. Its administrative boundaries are adjoining Ang Thong and Lopburi provinces in the North, Nakhonpathom, Nonthaburi and Pathumthani provinces in the South, Saraburi Province in the East, and Suphanburi province in the West.

Total rice crop area covers 1,596,875 rai, and irrigated area is 1,364,710 rai. There are 4 main rivers namely Chao Phraya, Pasak, Noi and Lopburi rivers flow through Ayutthaya but two rivers significantly influence rice plantation in Ayutthaya as follows:

1. Chao Phraya River

Chao Phraya Dam which is located in Chainat province is the main dam for storing and releasing water into main canals. There are 2 main canals under Chao Phraya Dam which are beneficial for agricultural use specifically rice plantation in Ayutthaya as follows: Chainat-Ayutthaya Canal, Chainat-Pasak Canal

2. Pasak River

Pasak Jolasit Dam which is located in between Lopburi and Saraburi provice is the main dam for storing and releasing water for agricultural use in three provinces consisting of Lopburi, Saraburi and Ayutthaya.

3.1.1 Meteorological Data (19932009)

Table 6 and figure 11 recap average meteorological data in Ayutthaya Province. Figure 10 features land use types.

Table 6: Meteorological Data, Ayutthaya Province

Month Mean Max Mean Min Avg Rain Avg Rainy Mean Sunshine Mean Mean RH Mean Air

Temp,oC Temp,oC mm Day hr Evap mm % Temp,oC

Jan 33.10 19.70 5.70 0.65 7.70 4.60 62.00 26.30

Feb 34.50 21.80 6.90 1.29 7.90 5.10 64.00 28.00

Mar 35.60 23.80 38.10 4.41 7.30 5.60 67.00 29.50

Apr 36.20 24.80 71.70 6.82 7.90 5.80 69.00 30.40

May 34.70 24.80 137.70 13.41 6.50 5.10 73.00 29.60

Jun 34.00 24.50 124.80 13.71 5.60 4.70 73.00 29.10

Jul 33.60 24.40 122.30 14.29 4.50 4.70 73.00 28.90

Aug 33.10 24.30 169.80 15.41 4.30 4.30 74.00 28.60

Sep 32.60 24.00 252.10 17.63 4.60 3.90 77.00 28.20

Oct 32.70 23.60 107.20 12.00 6.30 3.90 74.00 28.10

Nov 32.20 21.80 35.10 3.41 7.70 4.50 69.00 26.90

Dec 31.80 19.90 9.90 0.88 7.90 4.90 63.00 25.70

25

Fig

ure

10:

Land

U

se

Map

of

A

yutth

aya,

So

urce

: La

nd

Dev

elop

men

t D

epar

tmen

t, ld

dth

26

Figure 11. Meteorological Data, Ayutthaya Province

3.1.2 Soil characteristics

The following tables summarize the physical and chemical characteristics of soils in Ayutthaya Province.

Table 7a and 7b. Soil characteristics in Ayutthaya Province (Pak Hai district and Tha Ruea district)

3.2 Rice and rice ecosystem services in Ayutthaya As per Land Development Department, 85 per cent area is under agricultural and remaining is residential and building area. Most of the agricultural area is under paddy fields (80 %).

27

3.2.1 Rice cultivation

Most of the rice in Ayutthaya is grown in lowland areas paddy fields (ponding: 5-20cm). Deepwater rice (“floating rice”) (50-100cm ponding) can be found in some limited areas. Rice is cultivated during wet season and dry season. Rice cropping calendar is different in each area depending on water availability and rice plantation practice. Cropping calendar can be divided into two main groups depending on rice plantation practice as follows:

Wet-season rice June: land preparation including tillage practices July: sowing rice seed October: generating ear of rice December or January: cultivating rice

Dry-season rice (taking around 105-110 days to get yield)

January or February: land preparation including tillage and sowing rice seed March or April: generating ear of rice April or May: cultivating rice

Rice growing in Ayutthaya follows different in each district, number of times rice cultivation in each district is defined as follows:

It is different in each area depending on characteristics of specific area in Ayutthaya.

- 1 time per 1 year: wet-season rice

Three districts namely Pak Hai, Bang Sai and Sena are under this practice. These three districts are located outside of irrigated area and farmers in these three districts can only plant wet-season rice (drought).

- 2 times per 1 year: wet-season rice and dry-season rice

Ten districts namely Bang Ban, Pranakornsri Ayutthaya, Ban Phraek, Maharat, Bang Pahan, Nakorn Laung, Ta Rau, Phachi, Uthai and Wang Noi are under this practice.

- 2 times per 1 year: only irrigated rice (second rice) (or 5 times in 2 years)

Three districts namely Lat Bua Luang, Bang Sai and Bang Pa In are under this practice. These three districts are located inside of irrigated area so farmers can access water throughout the year. As a result, farmers grow only irrigated rice practices because they can get higher yields within shorter time. Some farmers increase land crop density and plant rice up to 5 times over 2 years under irrigation.

Rice varieties planted during dry season and wet season are different, and listed as follows:

Dry season rice varieties: Suphanburi 1, Suphanburi 3, RD 31, Phitsanulok 2

Wet season rice varieties: Ayutthaya 1, Prachinburi 1, Prachinburi 2, Laung Patiew, Khao Dawk Mali 105

A majority of farmers choose rice varieties by themselves by considering following factors: high yield, strong stem, fine seed, insect and disease resistance. Few farmers, specifically among the new generation of farmers, prefer to follow government recommendation through various departments such as Ayutthaya Rice Research Center and Ayutthaya Provincial Agricultural Extension Office. Availability of seeds is often an issue though. Choice of rice varieties depends on season (temperature and daylight time), area characteristics and seasonal rainfall patterns.

28

3.2.2 Ecosystem services

Regulation

Paddy rice systems in Ayutthaya area are intensive and use much pesticides and herbicides. In Ayutthaya rice fields, weeds such as barnyard grass, morning glory, sprangletop and wrinkle duce-beak are normally found. Farmers use pesticides for controlling weeds after 10-15 days of growing rice. After that, it depends on the numbers of weed found in rice field. Also farmers do control weeds not only for space and nutrient competition with rice, but also because weeds tend to offer a shield for rodents against their natural predators (owls and hawks).

Pests and insects are quite systematically eliminated from rice fields as some are seriously detrimental to yields. Brown plant hopper destroys rice by sucking nutrients from the rice stem above water level. This causes rice having yellow leaf which syndrome is called “hopper burn”. In addition, brown plant hopper is a virus-carrier causing rice having shorter stem, slow-growing leaf and indented leaf which is called “rice ragged stunt”.

Rodents are widely spread and common in rice fields of Ayutthaya province. They eat rice grains and sometimes stem and leave. Various kinds of rats found include great bandicoot, lesser bandicoot, ricefield rat, lesser ricefield rat, fawn-colored mouse and ryukyu mouse. Most farmers in Ayutthaya use raticides to get rid of them. Also, weed control indirectly supports rodent control (as seen above).

The golden apple snail destroys rice specifically during seedling stage and early rice by eating rice stem under water level then up to leaf above water level.

Natural predators can potentially contribute to pest control in paddy fields. Insect predators comprise dragonfly, tortoise beetle, ant lion and earwig. Other predators include spiders, birds and snakes. Predators can be the part of biological control measures. However, in Ayutthaya, above-mentioned predators are found in small numbers in rice fields because of the intensive use of pesticides and chemicals. This depletes the potential preys (pests) and also creates unhealthy environment for their survival.

Provision

Paddy areas accommodate a number of side productions. Small-size fruit trees such as papaya or banana are commonly planted along the ridges and dikes of the rice fields. Fruits crops are mostly used by farmers for self-consumption. Rice remains the major crop, and main livelihood. Some weeds are edible (e.g. morning glory) but most farmers in Ayutthaya do not collect them. All weeds (edible or not) are eliminated with chemical herbicides. Contribution to economy

Paddy rice cropping entails many operation, most labor-intensive (land preparation, transplanting or broadcasting, harvesting, spraying). Most farmers hire non-family laborers. This creates employment for the poorest, landless people in local communities. Payment is usually based on working hours.

Support

Officials report issues about nutrient balance to rice cultivation. In Ayutthaya area, farmers usually take only a month after harvesting before doing next dry-season rice plantation. This is considered a too-short time for the soil to recover, causing soil problem such as nutrient loss in long term.

Most farmers in Ayutthaya use only chemical fertilizer as they target high yield without considering the negative effect to land and the environment. However, some farmers, especially new generation who are educated, informed and trained tend to combine chemical fertilization with organic matter application. They understand the negative effect of exclusive and intensive use of chemical fertilizer, and the local benefits of organic fertilizers. However, the issue of methane emission from organic matter decomposition remains.

29

Culture

Rice farmers believe that there is “goddess of grain” who is protecting and helping farmers to get plentiful yield. Farmers gather and arrange ceremony in rice fields to worship the goddess and offer different foods and fruits especially sour fruits such as star gooseberry, tamarind and betel. However compared to the past, the number of farmers participating has decreased.

Interestingly, there are some indirect benefits from such gatherings as in some occasions government officials from local divisions also join the ceremonies. Government officials and farmers have then a chance to interact face to face and enhance communication.

3.3 Summary The case study in Ayutthaya Province reveals that the concept of ecosystem services is widely unknown among the stakeholders in the rice production sector. Further, few research have been carried out, and few information are actually available on ecosystem services in the area. Discussions with local experts show that some ecosystem functions and services are fulfilled by paddy rice fields, with regards to culture, provision of goods, and contribution to the economy. However, intensification of cropping systems and the general use of pesticides hinders most possibilities on support and regulation.

4. Economic valuation

4.1 The economic values of aquatic ecosystems

As discussed in section 2, rice ecosystems might be private goods; there are usually property rights over main parts of them (e.g. rice growers owning land). Conversely, ecosystems services do not belong to anybody; they are public goods, not divided nor shared by people. Ecosystem outcomes (services) are shared and benefit different individual and collective agents in society, beyond the agricultural and rural sectors (INWEPF, 2007). In general, ecosystems fulfill multifunctional roles beyond agriculture in rural areas. These multifunctional roles are often considered as by products from an agricultural viewpoint. Yet, farmers and their families are often both the custodians and the suppliers of those multiple functions. Moreover, these functions have the characteristics of a public good, i.e. they may be accessed and used by anyone without excluding who does not pay. Most of the time, the beneficiaries of these functions pay little attention to the farmers who provide them (Yoshida, 2001).

Ecosystems services, as multifunctional roles of ecosystems, are fraught with market failures, i.e. they do not depend on, nor obey to market mechanism or efficient resource allocation. Market failures occur when markets do not reflect the full social costs or benefits of a good. Market failures related to ecosystems include the facts that (i) many ecosystems provide services that are public goods; (ii) many ecosystem services are affected by externalities (costs or benefits borne by an external agent); and (iii) property rights related to ecosystems and their services are often not clearly defined (King and Mazzotta, 2000).

As a result, these services and functions may not be supplied as and when they are needed. Policy intervention is therefore required in order to maintain these multifunctional roles. However, as these functions are not traded in any market, they do not have a market price, while they might bear a high value from user’s viewpoint. It is therefore necessary to evaluate the values and benefits of the multifunctional roles of agriculture and rural areas in monetary terms, to present these monetary benefits as one of the important reasons for maintaining such functions (Yoshida, 2001), and possibly to investigate mechanisms allowing for a transfer of benefits into compensation or incentives towards those who offer and sustain the services.

Figure 12 clarifies use and non-use values attached to water resources. Use values refer here to activities that directly require and utilize water (as an input or a medium to the production of a

30

marketable good or service). Non-use values refer to activities that do not extract or utilize water as such but rather the aquatic ecosystem as a whole.

In other words, direct use value is the benefit obtained from actual use (e.g. rice grain from paddy fields) whereas indirect, non-use use value is the benefit obtained from an ecosystem function (e.g. flood mitigation by paddy fields). Non-use also comprise bequest value (potential future use and patrimony) and existence value (e.g. culture, aesthetics) (Brown et al., 2006).

Figure 12. Different values attached to wetland ecosystems

Figure 12 provides examples of such values in the case of wetland ecosystems. It shows that environmental economists tend to group the benefits attached to ecosystem functions and services as indirect, non-use values, while ecosystem services are also attached to use values and non-use values in other schools of thought, as seen earlier (e.g. culture, support, regulation). It is suggested here that concepts and definitions provided in figure 12 serve as a shared, accepted conceptual framework in further studies on rice ecosystems in Central Plain.

The ecosystem services of lowland rice agro-ecosystems need to be assessed to enhance productivity, food safety, environmental protection, protection and sustainability. The assessment of the ecosystem services should be in the context of change in sources and levels of inputs, outputs and environmental burdens brought about by variations in season and cultural practices (Floresca, 2009).

Regarding ecosystem values, some functions and services may refer to a market mechanism (use value), whereby a price do exist (e.g. fish being caught then sold at local market, rice production); many other ecosystem services, mostly non-use type, are not traded in markets (e.g. enjoying wildlife sight, or a view over beautiful landscapes, cultural value). Thus, people benefiting such services do not pay for them. Additionally, because people are not familiar with purchasing such goods, their willingness to pay may not be defined. However, this does not mean that ecosystems or their services have no value, or cannot be valued in monetary terms (King and Mazzotta, 2000).

31

Figure 13. Valuation methods as per utilization-status of water resources (traded good, intermediate good, public or private final good)

As exemplified in figure 13, water is an intermediate good when it is the input or medium generating another product (e.g. crops, fish, pottery, navigation, recreation, hydropower); it is a final good when the resource itself is the good or service to be valued (e.g. drinking water, aesthetic value, waste dilution). Such final good may be a private good (e.g. drinking water) or a public good.

Economic valuation methods are based upon the categories established here above. Different methods of economic valuation for non-use values have been used and recommended by various authors. King and Mazzotta (2000), and Yoshida (2001) suggested different methods for valuating multifunctional roles of ecosystem services, i.e. the replacement cost method, the travel cost method (TCM), the hedonic pricing method, and contingent valuation method (CVM). From a different viewpoint, Heal et al. (2005) recommended four main categories of economic valuation methods for ecosystem goods and services. The four main categories of methods comprise revealed preference methods (including the travel cost, hedonic pricing and averting behavior methods), stated preference methods (including contingent valuation and attribute-based methods), production function method and replacement cost method. For further details on evaluation methodologies, readers may refer to Agudelo, 2001; Young, 2005; Briscoe, 2005; Griffin, 2006.

In the frame of this sub-study III focus on “inventory of ecosystem services” offered by rice ecosystems, a brief outlook of possible valuation methodologies is provided, with regards to ecosystem services in central plain of Thailand. Very few studies have been done so far in that area of research.

32

4.2 Actual and potential valuation studies

4.2.1 Function of provision of food and aquaculture

Rice production is the primary function of paddy cultivation, and the primary user of irrigation water. Thailand produces rice for itself and for much of the world as about 30% of rice traded globally comes from Thailand. However, central plain produces mostly lower quality rice, which is mostly used for domestic and agro-industrial purposes. The economic value of paddy fields is not always limited to rice production, or to off-season dry land crops, but is also due to the raising of fish and ducks. Fish living in the paddies eat rice pests (algae and insects), while producing nutrients for the rice, and protein (or cash) for the farm family. Ducks have a similar function and produce enough meat to compensate for any fish that they might eat as well (Groenfeldt, 2006).

Food products have market prices, so value may be inferred from it. Residual imputation method is use, based upon an analysis of the market prices of all inputs and outputs (except water, which market price is unknown). The value of the final product less the value of all inputs except water (residue) forms the contribution of water, hence its value. One remaining and biggest difficulty in applying the RI method is that the amount of water used as per unit of final product must be known, which is not an easy task in paddy ecosystems. Sometimes, the most relevant base unit for valuation may not be water but land, depending on which one is the scarcest resource.

4.2.2 Regulation functions

Habitat for wildlife and biodiversity

Contingent valuation methods should be used to assess the stated value people ascribe to the existence of a given species, or whole ecosystem. The concepts of willingness to pay (WTP, for protecting the ecosystem or the species) is exploited in surveys. Often, indirect payment scenarios (such as conservation tax) yield more realistic results than hypothetical direct WTP options.

Function of preserving amenities for recreation and relaxation

The recreational value of a given ecosystem may be equaled to the cost of traveling to this site incurred by people who wish to visit. Travel cost method reckons all costs incurred by travelling, leaving expenditures, accommodation, access fee if any, etc., and related to visiting the site and enjoying its recreational amenities.

Function of flood prevention

Economic evaluation of flood prevention may be based on damage avoidance approach: the value of the service equals the cost of fixing the damages caused by floods. Another option is alternative cost approach: the value of the service equals the cost of constructing an alternative infrastructure (e.g. flood control dam or dyke) which would play the same regulatory role. Basic financial approach based upon depreciation and discounting principles, maintenance and replacement costs, is to be followed here (Yoshida, 2001).

Function of conserving water resources

An opportunity cost approach may apply here. Any quantity of water saved for any other use may be valued based upon the highest price or value of most valuable use (highest opportunity). On that vein, Yoshida (2001) assessed the value of the function of groundwater conservation in irrigation systems as the difference in price between irrigation and domestic uses of that groundwater.

Function of prevention of soil erosion

Economic valuation of soil conservation may be based on the volume of soil conserved, i.e. the difference between the volume of soil lost from cultivated farmland (or good practice) and the volume of soil lost from abandoned farmland (or bad practice) during a given period. Monetary value then refers to the cost of constructing a sedimentation dam that would filter and retain a similar volume of sediments, over a similar timeframe (Yoshida, 2001). Such approach refers to substitute cost

33

method. Alternatively, analysis of land transactions may be performed, comparing the market prices of preserved land vs. degraded land .

Function of climatic mitigation

The effect of a drop in temperature in the areas surrounding paddy fields during a given period is given a monetary value, based on the saving of air conditioning costs during the same period (alternative cost approach) (Yoshida, 2001).

4.2.3 Culture, recreation

Cultural value

Contingent valuation methods should be used to assess the stated value people ascribe to a given cultural good or service referring to cultural value. The concepts of willingness to pay (WTP, for benefiting the service) and willingness to accept compensation (WTA, for losing the service) are exploited in surveys targeting samples including people with and without cultural attraction and interest in a given resource.

Function of preserving amenities for recreation and relaxation

The recreational value of a given ecosystem may be equaled to the cost of traveling to this site incurred by people who wish to visit. Travel cost method reckons all costs incurred by travelling, leaving expenditures, accommodation, access fee if any, etc., and related to visiting the site and enjoying its recreational amenities.

4.2.4 Support functions

Function of air purification

The volume of air pollutant gases absorbed by agricultural fields is calculated, and given a monetary value based on the replacement cost of flue gas desulfurization and denitrification (alternative cost approach). Basic financial approach based upon depreciation and discounting principles, maintenance and replacement costs of desulfurization and denitrification equipment is to be followed here (Yoshida, 2001). Similar approach may be used regarding water purification, photosynthesis, nutrient cycling and the like.

Section 4.2 only provides examples of methods, and the most commonly used ones. Many other combinations and alternative methodologies may also be used, depending on context and research limitations (time, budget).

4.3 Summary

Methodologies to assess the economic value of ecosystem services are readily available. They have not been mobilized in Thailand so far for evaluation of rice ecosystem services.

5 GAP (Good Agricultural Practices) and impacts on improving ecosystem services

5.1 GAP for rice production

The increase in rice production in Thailand over recent years was largely due to the expansion of cultivated areas, while land productivity remained relatively stable and low (as compared to Vietnam for instance, as the other main rice exporter). Therefore, increasing land productivity is one of the main objectives of the sector.

For that aim, Thailand has adopted the Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) framework and has developed its own Thai-GAP, promoted by the Royal Irrigation Department of Thailand’s Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. The establishment of standards is important to significantly promote and encourage the quality and safety development of rice production in order to be accepted for both

34

domestic and international trade sectors. This entails standards in production and post-production which consider both local and global effects of rice production.

National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standard has established standard Good Agricultural Practices for cropping. This standard serves as a guideline to farmers in their rice cultivation and postharvest practices, and also applies as criteria to certify production process at farm level for safety and promoting rice exportation.

Thailand’s climate change action plan (Office of Environmental Policy and Planning, 2000) includes specific measures in order to reduce GHG emissions from rice fields: low-methane rice cultivars, direct seeding, soil aeration in conjunction with water management, organic matter and fertilizer management, methane production inhibitors. Yet, the large diversity of cropping systems and water management practices, and prevailing socioeconomic constraints faced by farmers hampers concrete implementation of GAP.

As seen in figure 14 here below, different hydrological tools can be used to develop Good Agricultural Practices. Those hydrological tools are listed as (Satya Priya and Shibasaki, R. (2001)): (i) CREAMS and GLEAMS; (ii) AGNPS; (iii) ANSWERS; (iv) SWRRB; (v) DSSAT and (vi) EPIC. CREAMS and GLEAMS are field scale continuous models. They do not possess a robust crop growth model (Ramanarayam 1994; Satya Priya and Shibasaki, R. (2001)). SWRRB and EPIC are almost synonymous, except for the fact that SWRRB is a basin scale simulation model. EPIC (Williams and Sharpley, 1989) has improved residue-handling capabilities over SWRRB, and better nutrient cycling.

To further narrow down the yield gaps, several programs have also been set up in Thailand rice sector over past two decades, i.e. Rice Varietal Improvement Programme, Seed Production and Seed Exchange Programme, Production Technology Improvement Programme, Rainfed Rice Improvement Programme, Upland Rice Production Improvement Programme, Land Consolidation, Dike and Ditch Construction Programme and Irrigation Pumps for Rice Cultivation Programme.

35

G

rain Seed

Go

od qu

ality se

eds c

ertified

from

Seed

agen

cy, or G

ov. D

epartm

ent

Soil

Sampling

M

illing

Land

Prep

aration T

illage

practices mechaniz

ation

W

ater M

anagem

ent

Efficien

t water us

e

E

rosio

n Us

e irrigatio

n metho

d

H

ydrolog

y W

ater qu

ality sa

mpling

Nu

trien

t Managem

ent S

oil ch

aracteristic

Storage Recom

men

ded f

ertilize

r rate

Pe

st Managem

ent Prope

r use of

pesticid

es

Use o

f dryer D

rying

Conven

tional drying

Harvesting

H

arvesting

time, (accordin

g season) M

achine

ry us

e

Tools

use f

or

Managem

ent

practices

EPIC

AGNP

S

ANSW

ERS

SWAT

DSSA

T

SWRR

B

CREA

MS

GLEA

MS

Figu

re 1

4: G

AP

fram

ewor

k an

d M

anag

emen

t too

ls

36

Table 8. Identification of GAP for rice and practices follows for the rice cultivation at Central Plain of Thailand (Base on Ayutthaya case study) and relevant ecosystem services. Practices

Water Sources

Water quality testing

About 70% of farmers use water for rice farming from surface water sources like small canal and swamp.

About 30% of farmers use water for rice farming from irrigation water source. Farmers have to pay money for government based on the farming area.

Only few farmers, new generation farmers (and educated) send water samples to the Irrigation Office to check water quality (water contaminant). While, a majority of farmers don’t send the water sample to check contamination; even government is doing free for them

Field, Soil sampling to check hazardous contamination (before cultivation)

It is the same as water quality testing

Pesticide use

Insecticide

Herbicides

1. Do farmer use application rate as per labeled on bottle?

2. Do farmer use any protection while application pesticide (mask, clothes)?

3. Pesticide application done at morning or evening?

4. Do they keep pesticides at proper place (store room)?

Yes, most of farmers follow the application rate as per labeled on bottle

Yes, most of farmers hire the labour to spray chemical pesticide in their farms. Regarding the labour who is spraying chemical pesticide, they wear proper mask and clothes as they know how to protect themselves when they use chemical pesticide.

Most of farmers prefer to spray chemical pesticide in the morning as there is no high wind speed that affect to nearby environment including people who stay in this area and also it is not hot in the morning for farmers who spray chemical pesticide.

They keep pesticides in the proper place. Most of them keep pesticides in store room which is separated from the place to sleep or cook food.

Seed use

1. Do farmer use qualified seed from any agency or government seed department?

2. Do farmer use seed produced from his own farm?

A majority of farmers choose rice variety to plant in farm by themselves by considering following factors; high yield, strong stem, fine seed, insect and disease resistance. While some (few number) of farmers specifically educated farmers prefer to follow Government recommendation through various departments such as Ayutthaya Rice Research Center and Ayutthaya Provincial Agricultural Extension Office.

A majority of farmers buy seed from agricultural shops in local market. While, only few of farmer produce own seed.

Rice planting

Variety:

Rice species planted during dry season in Ayutthaya are shown below:

Suphanburi 1

Suphanburi 3

RD 31

Phitsanulok 2

37

Cropping calendar:

Rice species planted during dry season in Ayutthaya are shown below:

Ayutthaya 1

Prachinburi 1

Prachinburi 2

Laung Patiew

Khao Dawk Mali 105

Wet‐season rice

June: land preparation including tillage

July: sowing rice seed

October: generating ear of rice

December or January: cultivating rice

Dry‐season rice (taking around 105‐110 days to get yield)

January or February: land preparation including

tillage and sowing rice seed

March or April: generating ear of rice

April or May: cultivating rice

Seed rate

1. 5 to 7 kg per rai for transplanting.

2. 10 to 20 kg per rai for wet seeded.

3. 10 to 20 kg per rai for dry seeded.

5‐7 kg. per rai

20 kg. per rai

20‐25 kg. per rai

Fertilizer application

1. Do farmer use organic fertilizer?

2. Do farmer use fertilizer application based on soil sampling?

3. Do they follow following application rate?

Soil Application Fertilizer

rate, kg/rai

Clay 20‐25 16‐20‐0/

18‐22‐0/

20‐20‐0

Urea

Yes, some of farmers who understand the benefit of organic fertilizer. However, they still use chemical fertilizer along with organic fertilizer because in short term chemical fertilizer can provide all necessary nutrients rice need while organic fertilizer cannot cover all kinds and amount of nutrients required for rice plantation. Yes

Wet season rice

• 16‐20‐0 ( 20‐25 kg/rai)

Dry season rice

• 16‐20‐0 (25‐30 kg/rai)

Wet season rice

• Urea (10‐15 kg/rai)

Dry season rice

• Urea (20‐25 kg/rai)

38

5‐10 Top

dressing application

Or

10‐20 Top Sulphate

dressing application or ammonium

sulphate

Do farmer water management practices?

Keeping water depth in the field?

Farmers excavate small canal (water flow channel) in their rice fields so as to have enough water for rice. Also, they have good system of water drainage to let water in and out of their rice fields.

Seedling stage

- 5‐10 cm. ( the water level is half of seedling stem )

Tillering stage

- 10‐15 cm.

Flowering stage

- 10‐15 cm.

Around one to two weeks before harvesting

- 0 cm. (the water is released out of rice field)

Harvesting

Do farmer do harvesting 25 to 35 days after flowering?

Is there harvesting period different for dry and wet season and what it is?

Do farmer use combine harvester?

Around 30 days

It is not different for dry and wet season.

Yes.

What kind of storage use to store rice?

Is it safety from insects or any contamination?

Generally, most of farmers do not have rice storage as there are middle men going to their farms directly to buy rice after harvesting. However, some of farmers keep small amount of unmilled rice for themselves in proper places which are far from contamination.

39

6 Policy and Stakeholders In general, multifunctional roles are formed by the external economies of agriculture. They have the characteristics of public goods. However, the general public that benefits from these multifunctional roles does not place a proper value on them. If these functions are not traded in the market, policy intervention may be required in order to maintain them (Dong-Kyun, 2002). It cannot be claimed that rice paddy farming is always friendly to the environment. On the contrary, the agricultural chemicals used can adversely affect the environment. However, these negative effects can be reduced by following Low Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA). Examples are organic farming, integrated pest management and integrated nutrition management systems. Some indirect benefits, such as flood control and water resource management, are not directly linked with rice production itself. Those outputs can be maintained if paddy fields are preserved, regardless of whether rice is being grown.

The first step in designing policies to support the multiple functions of agriculture is to establish the policy intent to do so. This step implies a policy debate not only within the government, but within the larger civil society, as to the desirable role of agriculture within that society (Groenfeldt, 2006).

The multifunctionality concept serves as a guide to agricultural policies that are in the long-term interest of society. Basically the concept offers a broader context, besides economic profitability or crop productivity, for selecting among agricultural options. When the logic is followed, the result is likely to be a more eco-oriented agriculture that has long-term sustainability, and supports the social and cultural values of society (Groenfeldt, 2006). Once the policy decision is taken to promote multiple functions of agriculture, what practical measures can accomplish this? Conventional market mechanisms are not adequate. In order to support the multifunctional services of agriculture, either the markets need to change, or governments must intervene. Interventions are needed at four basic levels (Groenfeldt, 2006):

1. Support to Individual Farmers: Incentives can be directed to farmers to pursue certain types of production regimes that will enhance multifunctional objectives. In Japan and Korea, farmers receive direct payments to maintain paddy terraces in mountainous areas, where flood control is of particular concern.

2. Support to Rural Communities: Regional plans promoting multifunctional agriculture blend participatory process of community involvement with outcomes that create rural amenities as well as jobs.

3. Support to Rural Area: Conventional rural development has emphasized a range of infrastructure (roads, markets, communications, storage facilities, etc.) and services (water supply, schools, medical clinics) aimed at agricultural growth and stable populations. The education system is perhaps the most critical component of the rural amenities. Providing local students the knowledge and skills needed for multifunctional agriculture requires more practical curricula and perhaps novel teaching methods.

4. Support to the Agriculture Sector: Conventional mono-functional agriculture is supported by a vast research and extension network that would need to be reformed to meet the needs of ecologically-oriented agriculture. Decentralized, location-specific, farmer-led research would become relatively more important for multifunctional approaches.

Rice cultivation is not related to only farmers but also other stakeholders from different groups. Those different groups are from various agencies, such as government, private sector, NGOs etc. Stakeholders from mentioned groups or agencies are contributing their work direct or indirect to the rice ecosystem through GAP. List of stakeholders who involves in rice ecosystem is mentioned as below.

Table 9 lists the different stakeholders concerned with ecosystem services and related issues in central plain of Thailand.

40

Table 9. Stakeholders related to GAP, ecosystem services and related issues in central plain of Thailand Sr. No. Stakeholders Function or contribution to improve rice ecosystem

1 Producers

i. Farmers Follow the agricultural practices recommended

by Government or GAP

ii. Labour Follow the agricultural practices recommended

by Government or GAP

iii. Land Owner (may be farmer or business man)

if he or she is farmer then do same as (i) but if he or she is business man then, he or she should give land in cheaper rate to the farmers who follow GAP for the cultivation

Government should give some incentives (e.g. lower down tax) and support to land owner (e.g. free organic fertilizers).

iv. Farmers' Group Hub of knowledge/sharing ideas

understanding the cultivation practices in terms of externalities to the environment specifically adjacent area

v. Learning Center Basic knowledge (e.g. literacy), e‐Learning center

2 Government Agencies

i. Local Administration Cooperation between local government and farmers

ii. Cooperatives Support (e.g. loans, buying rice etc.)

iii. Provincial Rice Research Center Providing knowledge (e.g. technology)

iv. Royal Irrigation Department improvement in rice varieties

Regional Irrigation Office Water management (e.g. regulation)

Water User Group

v. Land Development Department Soil suitability, recommendation on fertilizer use and organic fertilizers

vi. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Environmental policies and research

3 NGO and Institutes

i. I‐NGOs Research

IRRI Support (e.g. New technologies, rice varieties)

UNEP Coordination among different level stakeholders

Green Peace

ii. Local NGOs

iii. Institutes and Universities

4 Private sectors/agencies

i. Buyer Group Buying rice based on cultivation practices (e.g. organice rice getting higher price than non organic rice)

ii. Chemical Agencies Training to the farmers for how to use chemicals properly

41

7 Conclusion, recommendations

7.1 Conclusions This short study includes only partial results, and therefore demands follow-up research for confirmation and proper documentation and evidence (see recommendations section). However, a number of conclusions may be drawn.

Lowland paddy rice ecosystems in central plain of Thailand offer many ecosystem goods and services and include functions and values related to regulation, support, culture, and contribution to the economy. However, being mostly irrigated, and designed and operated for intensive production towards export and agro-industry sectors, some functions have limited positive effects (support), and some negative externalities are significant (GHG emissions and high contribution to climate change as the main negative externality of paddy rice). Among ecosystem services, regulation functions seems to be the most important, as paddy rice ecosystems contribute significantly to water resource management and conservation, erosion control, preservation of biodiversity and aquatic habitats, and, more importantly in central plains, flood mitigation and prevention. Paddy rice systems also contribute to the economy (local and national), to development, and bear very significant cultural value all over South East Asia. In terms of support functions, paddy fields contribute to nutrient cycling, water purification (denitrification), air purification, photosynthesis.

The case study in Ayutthaya Province reveals that the concept of ecosystem services is widely unknown among all stakeholders in the rice production sector. Further, few research have been carried out, and few information are actually available on ecosystem services in the area. Discussions with local experts show that some ecosystem functions and services are fulfilled by paddy rice fields, with regards to culture, provision of goods, and contribution to the economy. However, intensification of cropping systems and the intensive use of pesticides hinders most possibilities on support and regulation. Local stakeholders, officials, most public and private sector agents, and the general public seem to largely ignore both the concept of ecosystem services, and the implications thereof. More specifically, farmers as primary producers and custodians of such goods are not aware of the role they play and that benefits the whole society. There are two notable exceptions to this general lack of awareness: the role played by paddy fields in flood mitigation and in wildlife conservation. Both are generally known. Also, the Royal Irrigation Department of Thailand’s Ministry of Agriculture has develop GAP recommendations in order to sustain and enhance ecosystem services, especially those related to environmental conservation, soil quality, sustainable use of pesticides and the like. Concrete application and impact of GAP recommendations remain few at this point in time.

Furthermore, the economic values of the different rice ecosystems services and goods have not been assessed in Thailand, while methodologies do exist. No compensation, incentive or payment mechanism related to ecosystem services has been developed so far in Thailand. As said, the only measure in place is actually a set of recommendations based on Good Agricultural Practices.

7.2 Recommendations

In view of such results, two sets of recommendations may be suggested, one for further research, the other towards role-players for implementation.

7.2.1 Research

More research should be carried out, investigating in deeper details the different ecosystem services, goods and amenities offered by paddy rice ecosystems in Central Plain. This specifically concerns certain biophysical and ecological processes that are poorly documented at this stage:

- hydrology (e.g. groundwater recharge, flood protection, erosion control),

- water and soil chemistry (nutrient balance and cycling, water filtration and purification),

- ecology (effects of pesticides on fauna and flora, biodiversity indicators).

42

The outcomes of such background research would be to better define the quantity and quality of ecosystems services provided, to back up further investigations on their economic value (see below).

Research should also be carried out in economics, first assessing the value of all identified ecosystems goods and services, second investigating and testing economic instruments towards sustainability of such provision, based upon previous economic evaluation (e.g. payment for ecosystem services, incentives).

7.2.2 Implementation

Research agencies should team up with public and private interested stakeholders in order to redress the observed lack of knowledge and awareness on ecosystem services in central plain of Thailand, then to implement some specific activities.

First, communication and information has to take place, towards the general public, and more specific stakeholders in rice ecosystems and rice supply chain. Second, it is suggested that some pilot projects are set up, based upon existing farmer groups and/or delineated irrigation systems in order to experiment mechanisms potentially leading to sustainable provision of ecosystem services: farmer certification mechanisms, area certification mechanisms (geographic indications of quality), labeling of products (e.g organic, sustainable pesticide use, sustainable chemical use, GAP-based). Such pilot projects could ultimately be used to experiment PES mechanisms.

43

References Agus, F., Wahyunto, Tala’ohu S. and Watung R. (2004), Environmental Consequences of Land Use changes in Indonesia, ISCO 2004 - 13th International Soil Conservation Organisation Conference – Brisbane, July 2004.

Bird Conservation Society of Thailand Bulletin 18(7): 13-14 (July 2001).

Bird Conservation Society of Thailand. (2010). Important Bird Areas in Thailand. http://www.bcst.or.th/back_up_2009/project/IBA/iba_map.htm (accessed on July 8, 2010).)

BirdLife International (1998) Proceedings of the Thailand IBA workshop, Bangkok, November 1998. Unpublished report.

BirdLife International (2001) Threatened birds of Asia: the Bird Life International Red Data Book. Cambridge, UK: Bird Life International.

Brown, T.C., Bergstrom, J.C. and Loomis, J.B. (2006). Ecosystem goods and services: Definition, valuation and provision. RMRS-RWU-4851 Discussion Paper.

Chen, Z., (2005). Multiple roles of Agriculture Water Management Systems: Implications for Irrigation System Management and Integrated Water Resources Management in Rural Watersheds. Sub-session C , Reconciling Agriculture Water Services, Management and Protection of Rural and Coastal Ecosystem in Rural Watersheds Second South East Asia Water Forum, August-September 2005, Bali, Indonesia.

Kisner C. (2008). Climate change in Thailand : Impacts and adaptation strategies.

CTI Engineering Co. Ltd. And INA Corporation 1999, The study on integrated plan for mitigation Chao Phraya River Basin Final Main Report, RID, JICA.

Dixon, J.A. and Sherman, P.B. (1990). Economics of protected areas: a new look at benefits and costs. Island Press, Washington, USA.

Dong-Kyun, S. (2002). Social and economic evaluation of the multifunctional roles of paddy farming. Rural Development Administration, Korea.

Edirisinghe, J.P.; Bambaradeniya, (2006). Rice Fields:An ecosystem rich in Biodiversity. Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka 34: pp. 57 -59

Feng, Y.W. et al (2003), Nutrient Balance in a Paddy Field With Recycling Irrigation System, Diffuse Pollution Conference, Dublin 2003, Poster Paper, pp. 14-38.

Floresca, J.P., et al. (2009). Assessment of Ecosystem Services of Lowland Rice Agroecosystems in Echague, Isabela, Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 12(1):pp. 25-41.

Groenfeldt, D. (2006). Multifunctionality of Agricultural Water: Looking Beyond Food Production and Ecosystem Services. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 55(1): pp. 73-83.

Halwart, M. (2006). Biodiversity and nutrition in rice-based aquatic ecosystems. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 19 (2006). pp. 747–751

Hazrat Ali M et al (2004). Influences of various of water depth on rice growth in rice-fish culture under wetland ecosystem. The Journal of Geo-Environment Vol. 4, 2004, pp. 23-30.

Heal, G.M., et al. (2005). Valuing ecosystem services: toward better environmental decision-making. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

INWEPF. ( 2007). Sustainability of Paddy Fields and Ecosystems towards Society. The Fourth Steering Meeting and Symposium. Ministry of Agricultural Development and Agrarian Services, Sri Lanka.

44

IPCC, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007; Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change.

Jessica, B. et al (2008). Cool Farming: Climate impacts of agriculture and mitigation potential, available at: www.greenpeace.org

King, D.M. and Mazzotta, M.J. (2000). Ecosystem Valuation. US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, USA. http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org (accessed on June 25, 2010).

Lopez, A. and Mundkur, T. (1997) The Asian Waterfowl Census 1994-1997: results of the coordinated water bird census and an overview of the status of wetlands in Asia. Kuala Lumpur: Wetlands International.

Office of Environmental Policy and Planning (1999) Directory of internationally important wetlands in Thailand. Bangkok: Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment. (In Thai.)

Pearce, D. and Morgan, D. (1994). The economic value of biodiversity. Earthscan Publications, London, UK.

Rice Department, Thailand available at, http://www.ricethailand.go.th/gap.htm (accessed at 26th Jun, 2010)

Satya Priya and Shibasaki, R. (2001). National spatial crop yield simulation using GIS-based crop production model, Ecological Modelling, Vol 136, Issue 2-3, jan 2001, pp. 113-129.

Toriyama, T., Heong, K. L. and Hardy, B. (2004). Rice Life: scientific perspective for 21st century, Session 11: Enhancing the multifunctionality of floating rice farming in Chao Phraya delta of Thailand, pp. 340 -343.

Teo S. S. (2001). Evaluation of different duck varieties for the control of the golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata) in transplanted and direct seeded rice. Journal of Crop Production 20 (2001) pp. 599-604.

Teo S. S. (2006). Evaluation of different species of fish for biological control of golden apple snail Pomacea canaliculata (Lamarck) in rice. Journal of Crop Production 25 (2006) pp. 1004-1012.

Thai Agricultural Standard, TAS 4401-2008, Good Agricultural Practices for Rice, National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards, Ministry of Agriculture Cooperatives, ICS 67.060.20 ISBN 978-974-403-560-8.

Weimin M. (2009). Recent developments in paddy–field fish culture in China: A holistic approach for livelihood improvement in rural areas, Success Stories in Asian Aquaculture, available at http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-147117-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

Xia, L. and Guangcan, Z. (2002). Ecosystem Services and Assessment of Water Protection Forests. The twelth ISCO Conference. Department of Soil and Water Conservation, Shandong Agricultural University, Beijing, China.

Yoshida, K. (2001). An economic evaluation of the multifunctional roles of agriculture and rural areas in Japan. Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Tokyo, Japan.

Zhang Qi-chun and Wang Guang-huo (2005), Studies on nutrient uptake of rice and characteristics of soil microorganisms in a long-term fertilization experiments for irrigated rice, Journal of Zhejiang University Science ISSN 1009-3095, 2005 6B(2):pp.147-154.

Personal Communications:

Dr. Patchanee Chaiyawat, Agricultural Scientist, Ayutthaya Rice Research Center, Tel. 035-241-680 (Email-ID: [email protected]).

45

Appendix 1: Rice–fish and riceduck ecosystems

Combined and purposive production of rice and fish, or rice and duck in paddy fields may lead to increased provision of ecosystem services, as indicated by literature, as reported here after.

Figure A1.1: Areas with rice fish culture reported, (Halwart M. and Gupta M., 2004)

Figure A1.2: Rice – fish culture and rice ecosystem

46

Integrated rice-fish farming is believed to have been practiced for more than 200 years in Thailand, particularly in the Northeast where it was dependent upon capturing wild fish for stocking the rice fields. It was later promoted by the Department of Fisheries (DOF) and expanded into the Central Plains. However, during the 1970s, Thailand, like the rest of Asia, introduced the HYVs of rice and with it the increased use of chemical pesticides. This resulted in the near collapse of rice-fish farming in the Central Plains as farmers either separated their rice and fish operations or stopped growing fish altogether. Fedoruk and Leelapatra (1992) attributed the recovery to more discriminate use of HYV; the emergence of pesticides that when properly applied are not toxic to fish; the growing perception of the economic benefits of rice-fish farming, and its promotion in special projects assisting disadvantaged farmers, among other factors. The increasing frequency of directly broadcasting rice seeds and using machines for field preparation are signs of the growing labor shortage. The shortage may favor the development of more easily managed pond culture rather than the more laborious rice-fish system. On the other hand, adoption of rice-fish systems in the Northeast Region may be biased towards those who are better off and have access to labor and other resources (Halwart M. and Gupta M., 2004).

Table A1.1: Rice yield with fish and without fish in Thailand (fish e.g. Trichogaster sp. (Snakeskin gourami) and Clarias batrachus)

Rice Yield (kg∙ha‐1) Reference

System/Location/Year With fish W/out fish More (Less)

ns, Dom Noi, wet 1985 1890 1790 100 Thongpan et al. 1992

ns, Khoo Khad, wet 1985 1630 1510 120

ns, Amnart Charoen 1987 2537 2014 523

ns, Kheuang Nai 1987 2574 2372 202

ns, Det Udom 1987 2651 2427 224

Policy to follow rice fish culture, since IPM is now an accepted approach to pest control this is a logical entry point for raising fish in rice fields. However, suitable curricula for the Farmer Field Schools still need to be developed.

Figure A1.3: Rice fish farming, farm layout

(Halwart M. and Gupta M., 2004)

47

Previous studies related rice fish ecosystem:

Rice-Fish Culture: In the rice fish culture cultivation practice additional nutrients are supplied by fish in the form of faces excretion and decomposition of dead fish. Nutrients supply to crops when they swims, released fixed nutrients. Recycling of nutrients is when fish graze on photosynthesis. But this culture may affect phosphors cycle.

Hazrat Ali M. et al (2005), study was undertaken at the experimental farm of Philippine Rice Research Institute, Maligaya, Science City of Muñoz Nueva Ecija, Philippines to determine the effect of various level of water depth on rice growth under rice-fish culture in wetland rice ecosystems. The treatment with rice-fish at 16-20 cm water depth produced significantly the tallest plants whereas the treatments with rice-fish at 5 -10 cm and 11-15 cm water depth and the control produced the shorter plants. The leaf area was increased progressively with plant age reaching its maximum value at 72 days after transplanting (DAT) and beyond 72 DAT leaf area declined because of leaf senescence. The values of LAI (Leaf area index) were maximum at 72 DAT for all the treatments except the treatment of rice + fish with 21-25 cm water depth and the control. The values of DM (Dry matter) were statistically similar among the treatments throughout the growing period but at harvest, consistently higher dry matter production was observed for the treatment of rice + fish with 11-15 cm water depth. This was lower in the treatment of rice + fish with 16-20 cm and the control. Plant population at 17 DAT differed significantly among the treatments possibly due to uneven distribution of seedlings at planting and also damaged by Golden nails. Maximum tiller production was observed at 45 DAT for all the treatments and the highest number of productive tillers per hill as well as in unit area was obtained from the treatment with water depth of 16-20 cm followed by 21-25 cm. Rice plants were found lodged which was observed more importantly when they were grown beyond 15 cm of water depth

Teo S. S., (2006) has defined the concept of rice–fish farming was employed to evaluate five species of fish for biological control of golden apple snail in rice. Aquaria trials were initially used to observe the predation potential of the individual fish species, followed by replicated field trials. In the aquaria studies all the fish species preyed upon the hatchlings of the golden apple snail, but at the field level only common carp and African catfish consumed snails significantly more than the other species. Common carp, which attained a recovery rate of 90%, was the only fish species suitable for biological control of snail in rice. African catfish was not adaptable to the rice field conditions; the fish suffered a low recovery rate of 17% even when the plots were covered with nets to protect the fish from natural predators. The density of common carp recommended for biological control of snail in rice was 2041 fish/ha. However, it was essential to set up a pond refuge to improve survival rate and to enhance fish production. The study revealed that under direct seeding planting method, the increase in plant density restricted the foraging activities of the fish. Consequently, the number of snail sampled in direct seeded plots was significantly greater than in transplanted plots. Throughout the studies, the fish neither caused a significant increase in rice yields nor a reduction in stem borer, case worm and stink bug infestations. Common carp was however, an effective predator of the golden apple snail in rice.

Rice-Fish culture in China, Weimin M. (2009): Rice field-fish culture, also popularly referred to as rice cum fish culture, is a traditional integrated fish-rice production system. The earliest practices can be traced back to more than 2,000 years ago. China is the largest producer of fish and rice in the world. Rice-fish culture has achieved significant development in China in the past three decades, in spite of the major socioeconomic changes that have occurred during this period. There are some 1.55 million ha of rice-fish culture in China now, which produces approximately 1.16 million tons of fish products (2007), in addition to about 11 million tons of high quality rice. Fish production from rice–fish culture has increased by 13-fold during the last two decades in China. Rice-fish culture is now one of the most important aquaculture systems in

48

China. While making significant contribution to rural livelihood and food security, development of rice-fish culture is an important approach for environment friendly holistic rural development, and epitomizes an ecosystems approach to aquaculture. Rice-fish culture in China utilizes a range of production systems and practices, but all contribute to eco-environmental benefits and sustainable development. Many factors have contributed to these developments, but equally and still, there are challenges that need to be addressed for up-scaling these production systems and practices. It is estimated that the area under rice cultivation in Asia approximates 140.3 million ha, accounting for 89.4% of the world total. The potential for development of rice-fish culture is very high in the region. The successful experiences and lessons of rice-fish culture development drawn from China can be a good reference for sustainable rice-fish culture development in the region as well as other parts of the world, thereby contributing further to food security and poverty alleviation.

Rice–duck ecosystems:

Teo S. S. (2001) investigated the potential of ducks for the control of the golden apple snail in irrigated rice. The varieties of duck recommended for the biological control of snail in decreasing preference were William Siam > Taiwan > Mallard> Peking> Muscovy. Cherry Valley, a variety with a bigger body size was not suitable for snail control because of its poor adaptation to rice field conditions. A density of 5-10 ducks ha-1 in continuous grazing for a period of 1-2 months significantly reduced the pest density from 5 snails m-2 to less than 1 snail m-2. This density of ducks was recommended for biological control of snails in rice. Timely release of ducks was crucial as they damaged young rice seedlings. In transplanted rice, it was appropriate to release the ducks when the seedlings were 4 weeks old. For direct seeded rice, a longer waiting period of 6 weeks was necessary. Numerically, ducks preyed on more snails in transplanted than in direct seeded rice, but the difference was not statistically significant. The increase in plant density under direct seeding probably reduced the browsing efficiency of the ducks. This difference would be expected to diminish under prolonged grazing. It is suggested that ducks were an effective biological control agent against the golden apple snail.

49

Appendix 2: Insects and pests found in rice farm (photos) Rice thrips (Stenchaetohrips biformis) Rice whorl maggot (Hydrellia spp.)

Stink bug (Tetroda denticulifera) Rice armyworm (Spodoptera mauritia)

Rice stems borers, SB Yellow stem borer (Scirpophaga) Dark-headed stem borer (Chilo polychrysus)

Pink stem borer (Sessamia inferens) Striped stem borer (Chilo suppressalis)

50

Brown planthopper, BPH (Nilaparvata lugens) Rice gall midge, RGM (Orseolia oryzae)

Green rice leafhopper (Nephotettix virescens)

Rice black bug Malayan black bug Rice leaffolder, LF (Scotinophara coarctata) (Cnaphalocrocis medinalis)

Rice caseworm (Nymphula depunctalis Guenee) Rice hispa (Dicladispa armigera)

Scarab Beetle (Alissonotum cribratellum) Rice bug, stink bug (Leptocorisa acuta)

51

Insects and pests in stored rice

Angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella) Rice weevil (Sitophilus oryzae)

Lesser grain borer (Rhyzopertha dominica) Red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum)

Siamese grain beetle (Lophocateres pusillus)

52

Animal and insects

1. Spoted munia (Lochura punctulata) 2. Ricefield crab (Esanthelphusa spp.) 3. Roof rat, ship rat (Rattus rattus) 4. Ricefield rat (Rattus argentiventer) 5. Great bandicoot (Bandicota indica) 6. Lesser bandicoot (Bandicota savilei) 7. Golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata)

53

Appendix 3: Rice varieties in Thailand

Rice varieties recommended by Bureau of Rice Research and Development for rice farmers in Thailand

Since 1999, Rice Research Institute has continued improving rice varieties in order to increase rice yield and have good quality of rice seed which can resist disease and pest as well as can easily adjust to different environments. Rice Research Institute makes a recommendation of rice varieties which are from both local rice species and from breeding rice varieties for farmers to plant in their farms. The recommendation of rice varieties can be divided into 3 categories based on ecosystem characteristics in each area consisting of irrigated rice farming, rainfed rice farming and floating rice farming. The rice varieties in each category is shown below (Bureau of Rice Research and Development, 2010).

1) Rice varieties recommended for irrigated rice farming area

Rice Varieties Type Period Yield

(kg/rai) Region

RD 7 Rice 125 days 672 All regions which are in irrigated areas or where there is good water management practice

RD 10 Sticky Rice 130 days 660 North and Northeast in irrigated rice farming area

RD 23 Rice 125 days 800 All regions which are in irrigated areas or where there is good water management practice

Suphanburi 60 Rice 120‐122 days 700 Central, West and East in irrigated areas

Suphanburi 90 Rice 120 days 600 Central specifically the area where there is the spread of brown plant hopper, ragged stunt disease, yellow orange leaf disease and rice blast disease

Chainat 1 Rice 121‐130 days (if planted in dry season) 119 days (if planted in rainy season)

740 Central and lower part of North specifically the area where there is the spread of brown plant hopper, ragged stunt disease and rice blast disease

Phrae 1 Sticky Rice 130 days 685 Northeast and upper part of North specifically the area where there is the spread of brown plant hopper, ragged stunt disease and rice blast disease in the area where RD 10 rice species is planted

Suphanburi 1 Rice 120 days 806 Central in irrigated rice farming area. This rice species should be planted along with Suphanburi 90 rice species

54

for solving the problem of brown plant hopper spread

Suphanburi 2 Rice 115 days 700 Central, East and West in irrigated rice farming area

Khao Jow Hawm Khlong Luang 1

Rice 118 days (if planted in dry season rice) 125 days (if planted in wet season rice)

591 (in dry season rice) 650 (in wet season rice)

Central in irrigated rice farming area

Khao Jow Hawm Suphanburi

Rice 120 days 582 (in dry season rice) 673 (in dry season rice)

Suphanburi, Angthong, Kanchanaburi and nearby provinces

Pathumthani 1 Rice 104‐126 days 650‐774 Central in irrigated rice farming area

Sakonnakhon Rice 128 days 467 Northeast in highland area or irrigated rice farming area

Surin 1 Rice 138 days 620 Northeast in rainfed rice farming area as well as irrigated rice farming area

2) Rice varieties recommended for rainfed rice farming area

Rice Varieties Type Date of harvesting Yield

(kg/rai) Region

Khao Dawk Mali 105 Rice 20 Nov 363 All regions but Northeast is the significant source in terms of both quality and quantity

RD 6 Sticky Rice 21 Nov 666

North and Northeast

Niaw Ubon 1 Sticky Rice 20 Nov 660 Northeast (specifically in the area which has water level in the paddy field not over 80 cm)

Niaw Ubon 2 Sticky Rice 15 Nov 463 Northeast (specifically in highland area)

Leuang Pratew 123 Rice 19 Dec 414 Central in lowland rice system

Nam Sa‐gui 19 Rice 4 Nov 499 Northeast in lowland rice system

Phitsanulok 60‐1 Rice 10 Dec 550 Upper part of Central in rainfed rice farming area which has water level in the paddy field not over 75 cm specifically the area where there is the spread of rice gall midge

55

Chumphae 60 Rice 13 Feb 467 Northeast in rainfed lowland area

Phitsanulok 1 Rice 25 Nov 579 Central and Lower part of North in

rainfed rice farming area

RD 15 Rice 10 Nov 560 Northeast specifically in dry area

Khao Tah Haeng 17 Rice 20 Dec 473 Central in lowland rice system

RD 27 Rice 10 Dec 600 Central in lowland rice system Pathumthani 60 Rice 25 Nov 517 Central in lowland rice system

3) Rice varieties recommended for floating rice farming area

Pin Gaew 56 Rice 20 Dec 362 Central in floating rice system

Leb Meu Nahng 111 Rice 19 Dec 328 Central in floating rice system

Hantra 60 Rice 25 Dec 425 Central in lowland area which has

water level in the paddy field not over 100 cm

Plai Ngahm Prachinburi

Rice 25 Dec 380 Central and Lower part of North in lowland area which has water level in the paddy field over 100 cm

Prachinburi 1 Rice 25 Nov 450 Central, East and lower part of North in lowland area which has water level in the paddy field not over 100 cm

Prachinburi 2 Rice 18‐25 Dec 846 (if planted in the paddy field with 25 cm of water level) 590 (if planted in the paddy field with 100 cm of water level)

Central and East in lowland area which has water level in the paddy field not over 100 cm

56

Appendix 3: Values of ecosystem services (Source: Yoshida, 2001)

57

Appendix 4: Use of aquatic organisms from rice fields Indicative list of uses of various aquatic organisms from rice fields (Halwart, M. 2006)

The cultivation of most rice crops in irrigated, rainfed and deepwater systems offers a suitable environment for fish and other aquatic organisms. Wild and gathered foods, from the aquatic habitat, provide important diversity, nutrition and food security as food resources from ricefield environments supply essential nutrients that are not adequately found in the diet.

Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains Sub study 4: Actor analysis and identifications of levers

Compiled by Kukiat Soitong and M. Gummert

1. Introduction........................................................................................................... 1 2. The rice value chain ............................................................................................. 2

2.1. Competitive Forces in the Industry .............................................................................2 2.2. Value chain structure ...................................................................................................3 2.3. Producers .....................................................................................................................4 2.4. Postharvest processing.................................................................................................7 2.5. Marketing and consumption ........................................................................................8 2.6. Inputs and input suppliers..........................................................................................10 2.7. Support service providers ..........................................................................................10 2.8. Research ....................................................................................................................11 2.9. Policy.........................................................................................................................12 2.10. Other stakeholders .....................................................................................................14 2.11. Value chain dynamics: Prices, profits and regulations..............................................16

3. Policy context ..................................................................................................... 17 3.1. Policies regulating rice production............................................................................17 3.2. Thai Rice Strategy 2007-2011...................................................................................18

4. Stakeholder assessment and network mapping ................................................. 20 5. Opportunities / levers.......................................................................................... 22 6. Recommendations.............................................................................................. 24 7. References ......................................................................................................... 24

1. Introduction This study was conducted within the context of the scoping study Resource efficiency and ecosystems services in rice production in Thailand’s central plain: Baseline research. The study is a follow-up activity to the UNEP Expert roundtable on improving resource efficiency in Thai rice production, held at UNEP-ROAP, Bangkok, on 1-2 February 2010. As an outcome of the UNEP meeting, it was suggested to conduct a pre-pilot desk survey to set a baseline and determine whether there is sufficient scope for improvements of resource efficiencies in water and nutrients in rice agriculture in the Central Plains of Thailand. In addition, this survey should also assess losses and inefficiencies in rice postproduction, compile an inventory of ecosystem services in the Central plain rice production and analyze actors and their relationships from production to export. This report is one of background papers produced in this study will provide the basis for further decisions by UNEP and its partners on the next steps for the “Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains” project.

A multi stakeholder workshop was conducted at Rama Gardens Hotel in Bangkok from 17-18 June 2010 to consult with key representatives from the Thai rice value chain stakeholders and

Thailand: Resource efficiency and ecosystem services, Sub study 4, Actor Analysis Page 2 of 25

M.Gummert SS4_Value chain actors, September 14, final.doc

collect input for this report. The workshop is documented in the Workshop report “Stakeholder workshop for resource efficiency and ecosystems services in the rice value chain in Thailand’s central plain”.

2. The rice value chain Several authors describe the rice value chain or parts of it. The schematic diagram in Figure 1, which was derived from data from the Ministry of Commerce and supplemented by information gathered during the multi stakeholder workshop, will be used for this and the other sub studies.

Figure 1: Flows of Goods and Services in Thai Rice Industry (Source: Adapted from Ministry of

Commerce, 2009; Multi stakeholder workshop)

2.1. Competitive Forces in the Industry

Another approach is to define the Thai rice industry as ranging from rice farmers to rice millers (Figure 2). New entrants, therefore, are those businesses or individuals entering these sub-segments. Suppliers comprise the farm inputs markets, covering land, labour, capital in terms of equipment, fertilizer, chemicals, fuels, and water, and the respective financing. Buyers shall represent all entities which purchase rice from rice mills. Substitutes, defined as



products which fulfil the same purpose as the industry’s product, shall be broadly defined as agricultural food commodities.

Figure 2 The Competitive Forces in the Thai Rice Industry. Source: OAE , 2005

2.2. Value chain structure

The rice value chain in this report includes production input suppliers, farmers as producers, the postharvest industry consisting of processors (millers, rice processors), the whole marketing and trade network for both, domestic consumption and export.

The Chain of Production

The generic production of milled rice takes place in the stages of rice farming and rice milling. Sub-steps within rice farming comprise land preparation, seeding, and weed control, which are followed by harvesting and post-harvest processes including threshing, drying, and cleaning of the harvested paddy and final delivery to the rice mill. Major sub-steps in rice milling include the cleaning of the paddy rice, husking polishing, separating and mixing, and packing. In addition to these basic stages of production, input sourcing and milled rice marketing are to be included as essential processes at the supply and demand side, respectively.

Rice farming inputs include suitable and ideally irrigated farmland, labour that does not necessarily need to be educated, fixed capital such as (motor) ploughs and harvesters, and circulating capital such as seeds, fertilizers, chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, fungicides), fuels, and water.

Rice marketing comprises the delivery of milled rice to inter-mediate buyers and final consumers of rice, whereby consumers generally include the domestic and the export market.



Land is primarily in possession of the farmers themselves, labour is most frequently part of the household or temporarily hired workforce, whereby the latter often takes the form of teams specializing in one certain task, for example harvesting.

Basic machinery, which comprises small tractors and engines, is typically owned by every household and sourced domestically, while more advanced technologies such as combined harvesters are additionally sourced from developed countries such as Japan and Germany (Poapongsakorn, 2006, p. 35).

Seeds are used from former harvests, or may originate from public institutions, cooperatives, private firms or other farms. Chemical fertilizers stem from the world market, while organic fertilizer may be produced domestically. Lastly, water is taken from canals or is provided by rainfall.

Financing of inputs and machinery is, to larger farms, provided by commercial banks, and, to small farms, by the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), agricultural cooperatives, and non-formal community financial institutions such as savings groups. The BAAC serves with more than 4.3 million farm house-holds the largest part of farmers in Thailand, followed by agricultural cooperatives (BAAC, 2008, p. 175).

When selling their paddy rice, farmers have several channels to choose from. These channels constitute the purchase by agricultural cooperatives (5% of total volume), rice millers’ subcontractors (10%), government purchases (20%), direct sales to the rice mills (30%), and the sale through brokers (35%). Public and private wholesale markets for paddy rice, referred to as central markets, constitute facilitating institutions for paddy marketing and are typically accessed by farmers on the supply side and subcontractors, brokers, and millers on the demand side. Paddy marketing in Thailand takes solely place in the domestic market. At the milling level, marketable output extends beyond milled rice.

Milled rice is mainly marketed through three channels. Regarding white rice, the largest share (65%) is sold through brokers, while mills also sell directly to wholesalers (25%) and exporters (10%). Of the rice sold to brokers, 46% are sold to wholesalers and 54% to exporters. However, there are also cases in which mills directly export their rice, sell to retailers (Wiboonpongse & Sri-boonchitta, 2004, pp. 31-32), or even market directly to the consumer (Nakada, 1996, p. pp. 611-616). Wholesalers distribute their rice through retailers, but also to industrial buyers. In summary, the domestic market absorbs approximately 55% of produced rice, the remainder being exported.

The Thai rice industry flow of goods can be illustrated as in Figure 1. The illustration implicitly assumes that the rice industry is merely concerned with paddy rice as intermediate and milled rice as final product. This, as a result, excludes by-products such as rice bran and further processed products such as rice flour or rice vermicelli from the industry definition. For simplification, consumers, industrial rice buyers, and export markets have been treated as final steps in the chain since subsequent steps are either repetitive or depart from the industry product.

2.3. Producers

Producers in this section include the rice farmers, farmers associations and in a wider sense also the landless labourers and the land owners. Table 1 gives an overview and also rates



Table 1: Overview on main producers, producers groups and producers organizations (Source: Stakeholder workshop and literature)

Assessment from Multi-stakeholder workshop Actor Description / Interest / Function Stake 1 Leverage 2 Influence 3 Attitude 4

Individual farmers Production for own consumption and to generate income Maximize return, minimize cost

+ 3 2 3

Key farmers including community leaders

Profit, high price of production, low cost of input/producer + 2 2 2

Land owners Generate profit from land leasing fees 1 3 2

Cooperatives Low interest rate/Paddy price negotiation, credit and loans, membership services, input supply

+ 2 3 3

Farmer group (FG), includes: community rice center

Profit, high price of production, low cost of input/producer group to negotiate price, farmer-to-farmer communication, leadership

2 3 2

Thai Farmers Association (TFA), Representation of farmers interests + 3 2 2 Labourers Production, generate income + 3 2 3 Rating, for details see Chapter 4: Stakeholder assessment and network mapping, and Table 14Table 1

1 Stake in improving resource efficiency: - negative; 0 neutral; + positive. 2 Potential leverage to improve resource efficiency: 1=no potential; 2 = mid-low; 3= high potential 3 Influence, based power: 1 = low or none; 2 = medium; 3 = high 4 Attitude towards a project improving resource efficiencies: 1 = potentially adverse; 2 = neutral; 3 = positive. # Not identified in Multi-stakeholder workshop but mentioned in literature.

Rice farmers: The rice farmers in the Central plain represent about 25% of all rice farmers in Thailand which is 578,340 households (OAE, 2010). On average they are planting 2.5 crops per years; i.e. 1 crop per year in wet season and 1.5 in dry season. Average farm size is 4.4 and 4.8 ha per household in wet and dry season, respectively (Table 2). The average farm size of the rice farmers in the central plain in both wet and dry season are generally larger than those in the other regions. Table 2: Average farm size of rice farmers in the central plain compares with farm size of rice farmers in

the North, Northeast and the South.

Farm size (ha) in various region Season Central plain North Northeast South Over country

Wet season 4.4 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.5 Dry season 4.8 4.6 2.4 2.3 4.1

Source: OAE, 2010.

The small farm size is unsuitable for owning large machinery to replace human labour and inappropriate for commercial production. In addition, farmers don’t have knowledge of appropriate production technology and the rate of postharvest loss is supposedly high1. Moreover, production process is changed from utilizing family labour to hiring labour force that increases production cost from 3,581 Baht/year in 2002-2003 to 6,002 Baht for wet season crops and 4,298 Baht for dry season crops (MOAC, MOC, 2010).

Farmer’s development as not been seriously conducted so as to acquire knowledge and capacity in the production and management, as the majorities are small farm holders which do

1 The last systematic loss assessment of farming practices was conducted 1983, limited in scope and conducted at the research stations. It did not include postharvest losses.



not strongly unite, while existing farmer’s institutions presently have several goals, not focusing at the clear production development. This is one obstacle to transfer knowledge and technology (MOAC, MOC, 2010).

Cooperatives are autonomous associations of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural need and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise.

Farmers can also be organized in less formal Farmers Groups (FG).

Rice Community Center is a farmer organization that aims to produce good quality rice seeds under recommendation and regulation of Rice Department. Functions of the center are:

• Production and distribution of good quality rice seed for the members nearby Quality Seed certification.

• Technology transfer by setting up agricultural /farmer school.

• Develop the center to become a center of rice production, marketing and farmer’ social.

The Thai Rice Farmers Association (TFA) was established in September 2000, to provide farmers an opportunity to participate in the Government decision making process related to rice. It also provides information to its members on the systematic and cost-effective rice farming, marketing trends and potential markets for Thai rice, rice varieties that suit market demands, and ways to improve the soil condition in rice fields and reduce the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. The Association headquarter is located in the province of Supanburi, one of the major rice-growing areas of the country. The Association currently has about 1,000 members coming from 34 provinces.

Other important stakeholders on the producers’ side are the landowners and landless labourers who work in custom services. Detailed data on these groups could not be obtained.

Land is a crucial element for any agricultural industry. Internationally, Thailand’s land conditions are encouraging. Land abundance has for a long time constituted a main part of Thailand’s comparative advantage in rice production (Poapongsakorn, 2006, p. 19).

The general conditions in the labour market for the rice industry are worrying. Whereas industry profitability is not threatened by organised workers (as labour is sourced temporarily or from the farming household and due to the generally low unionization in Thailand [Chandoevwit, 2004, p. 14]), the rice industry experiences persistent labour shortages

In a second step, the reduced profitability of rice farmers adversely affects rice millers. Lower profits of rice growing essentially discourage rice production if alternative, more profitable income sources exist. The already worrying overcapacity in rice milling (see Sub-study 2) is thus threatened by further aggravation through input contraction. Hence, the labour market is among the most problematic factors in the rice industry in particular and the agricultural sector in Thailand in general. Current reactions are persistent income source diversification by farmers (Poapongsakorn, 2006, p. 24) and an estimated number of immigrant workers (especially in agriculture) exceeding 1.5 million in 2004, of which two-thirds are illegal workers (Chandoevwit, 2004, p. 15).



2.4. Postharvest processing

Postharvest processing includes processing of paddy to milled rice and its by-products bran and husk (primary processing) and processing of milled rice and it’s by products into other products (secondary processing). Major stakeholders are listed in Table 3. Table 3: Overview on main actors involved in processing of rice (Source: Stakeholder workshop and

literature) Assessment from Multi-stakeholder workshop Actor Description / Interest / Function Stake 1 Leverage 2 Influence 3 Attitude 4

Rice millers Profit / buy products, require quality + 2 3 3

Rice flour processors Profit - 3 - Thai Rice Millers Association # Represent millers’ interest 2 3 ? International Miller Association 3 3 - Rating, for details see Chapter 4: Stakeholder assessment and network mapping, and Table 14Table 1


Rice millers: The rice processing is largely for primary products from grain to milled rice through small and medium rice mills (C2 and C3 types, See Sub-study 2) in local community whith shortage of effective machinery, resulting in higher costs with low quality. Huge mills (C1) are located in city spending soaring environment-friendly costs and also lack of efficiency improvement. While 44% of the C1 mills are located in the Central Plains including Bangkok there are with 37% still a significant number of medium C2 mills but with 4 % only few C3 mills. Detailed data about the different mill types could not be found.

Thai Rice Millers Association is an association of rice millers of over 800 members, president is Chanchai Rakthananon. Functions of the association are to:

• Promote production of rice and milled rice in term of quantity and quality that adequate and satisfy consumers.

• Compile statistic data of rice production, trade and export, and cooperation with related government sector in production and marketing of rice information.

• Assist the members to overcome various objections and coordinate among the members to exchange knowledge and information.

Rice flower and other product processors: The processing of rice products is not diversified. The majority are still primary products with low value addition such as flour, noodles, snacks, etc. figuring as 7% of exporting rice, equal to 2% of all exporting food. In spite of multiple rice products R&D, the application are seldom made in commercial aspect. The rice product business mainly conducts in a small scale for local uses scattering over every province. The production may affect environment, since it is lack of modern technology and most of the machine have been used for a long period without proper maintenance. In addition, the products are under hygiene standards. The consumer, therefore, are not confident with the products. (Extracted from (MOAC, MOC, 2010).

Some of these processors are rather big, one example is the Cho Heng Rice Vermicelli Factory Co.,Ltd. Established in circa of 1930's, Cho Heng Rice Vermicelli Factory Company Limited started out with production of rice vermicelli. The first factory was situated in



Pathumwan district, Bangkok. After twenty years of operation in Pathumwan, the factory and company were moved to Pasricharoen district, Thonburi, to allow for growth in production. In the year 1972 the company again outgrew its facilities and moved the entire operation to its present site in Sampran, Nakhon Pathom. At that time, the company also began production of white rice flour and white glutinous rice flour. At present, the production plant of the company operates on 70 rai (11.2 ha) of land, employing approximately 1,400 staff and workers in the production of rice derivatives, namely, rice flour, glutinous rice flour, rice starch, waxy rice starch, modified rice starch, rice vermicelli, etc.

2.5. Marketing and consumption

Many actors from both, public and private sectors, are engaged in marketing paddy and milled rice as shown in Table 4. Table 4: Overview on main actors involved in marketing and consumption of rice (Source: Stakeholder

workshop and literature) Assessment from Multi-stakeholder workshop

Actor Description / Interest / Function Stake 1 Leverage 2 Influence 3 Attitude 4

Marketing organization for farmers Market farmers products, joint purchasing of inputs + 2 2 2

Government Warehouse Storage 2 2 2 Middlemen Profit from trade 1 3 - Transporters Profit / transport - - 1 2 Trader Profit + 3 3 3 Supermarkets in Thailand - 2 - Retailers Rice supply + 2 2 2 Consumers Local consumers + 3 3 2 Exporters Profit / rice standard system + 2 3 3 Thai Rice Wholesalers Association # - - - Thai Rice Exporters Association # - - - International Trader Profit + 2 3 3 Importing countries Food security (e.g. Philippines) - 1 - International Supermarkets 3 - - International consumers, Includes: Rice importing countries 3 - -

Rating, for details see Chapter 4: Stakeholder assessment and network mapping, and Table 14Table 1


Sub-contractors are hired by particular millers and perform the function of a broker. They are competing with local brokers. Sub-contractors will represent rice mill at the farm and bargain to buy the paddy. Around 30% of the paddy is traded this way.

Brokers handle around 10% of the paddy and 65% of the milled rice. They are either individuals or firms of middleman in paddy and milled rice trade linking farmers with millers and millers with wholesalers and exporters. They charge a commission for their service. Brokers also play an important role in information transfer among the customers about price, rout and grain quality. Brokers provide a very useful rice trade connection by providing convenience and reducing cost for millers, wholesalers and exporters.



Market Organization for Farmers is a state marketing enterprise that provides market center for farmers to trade their produces, production input and household goods directly by themselves.

Government Warehouse Organization (GWO) is a government enterprise under the Ministry of Commerce. The main function this organization is to buy agricultural produces from farmers particularly in the case of intervention price, and agricultural equipment for farmers. They handle around 22% of the paddy and by 20% directly from farmers and around 2% from farmer organizations.

Wholesalers sell large quantities of milled rice to retailers. Milled rice wholesalers are normally based in Bangkok or the province nearby. They buy milled rice directly from millers or via brokers and sell to the retailers. The business of rice wholesale is categorized into 3 scales by considering amount of rice trading per month. Small scale trades trade less than 500 kg/month, medium ones 500-1000 kg/month and large ones more than 1 / month. Wholesalers handle around 55% of the milled rice. Wholesalers are organized in the Thai Rice Wholesalers Association. Retailers are the last sellers before going to a final consumer with small quantity compare to wholesale. They handle 55% of the milled rice that goes to the domestic market. Nowadays, there are 2 types of retailers; a retailer that the store located in the corner on the street or in local market, and the other is located in supermarket. In the supermarket, milled rice sold in plastic bag of 2-5 kg. The rice contained in 2-5 kg plastic bag become very satisfies to customer.

Exporters are traders that distribute Thai rice to the world market. They collect rice from brokers or directly from millers. Exporters are independent in running export business accepts have to be members of the Thai Rice Exporters Association. However, size and experiences of export business cause limitation of new exporters. For details on 183 registered rice exporters, however the majority of the rice is exported by only 10-20 big exporters. For this reason, the millers cannot have negotiation power and marketing mechanism doesn’t entirely works.

A key stakeholder is the Thai Rice Exporters Association, which was founded in 1919, has currently 191 members and works closely with the Ministry of Commerce, the Board of Trade of Thailand and The Thai Chamber of Commerce and with other related associations like The Thai Farmers Association, The Thai Rice Millers Association and The Thai Rice Wholesalers Association. It supports the “Thailand Hom Mali Rice Contest” which is held annually to promote the cultivation and the quality of fragrant rice, and the “Thailand Rice Convention”, a biannual world class rice conference sponsored by Department of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce where Thai rice exporters and buyers all over the globe meet and discuss the industry. President: Ms. Korbsook Iamsuri. http://www.thairiceexporters.or.th/default_eng.htm

Thai Chamber of Commerce http://www.thaiechamber.com//

Local consumers: The rate of rice consumption in the past 5 years (2003-2007) slightly increased by 1.02% per year. The internal consumption is yearly 15.0-15.5 million tons of paddy or 50-55% of aggregated rice production. About 1.1-1.3 million tons of paddy is served for breeder seeds whereas animal food and processing factories consume 3.0-3.8 million tons of paddy.



Logistics: Thailand has fundamental infrastructure, i.e., central rice markets, rice mills, wholesalers and exporters scattering all over every region to support cultivation and postharvest activities throughout the country. In addition, there are silos, central storehouse, inventory in spreading areas. The rice transportation is predominantly by road so it limits to one-way hauling and conveyance, spending high time and more cost while there is no other effective transportation development means.

2.6. Inputs and input suppliers

Input suppliers (Table 5) provide seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, fuel, agricultural equipment etc. to the producers and the postharvest stakeholders. Table 5: Overview on main input suppliers and supplier interest groups (Source: Stakeholder workshop

and literature) Assessment from Multi-stakeholder workshop

Actor Interest / Function Stake 1 Leverage 2 Influence 3 Attitude 4 Private seed suppliers Profit / selling seeds - 2 2

Rice Seed Center (RSC) Inspect seed quality, third party certification + 3 3 2

Irrigation water suppliers # Provide water for irrigation 3 3 - Fertilizer dealer Input supply - - 2 - Association of Fertilizer Manufacturers (AFM) - - - -

Agro-chemical dealers Profit from sales 1 2 1 Multinational chemical manufacturers

Pricing, policy, standardization, input supply - - 2 -

Fuel dealers / providers Profit / selling inputs - 1 1 2 Machinery distributor Support 1 2 3 Machinery manufacturer # Rating, for details see Chapter 4: Stakeholder assessment and network mapping, and Table 14Table 1


Seed is provided by private seed suppliers and also by Rice seed centers (RSC).

There are a huge number of input suppliers in Thailand. www.bangkokcompanies.com for example lists 77 agricultural machinery manufacturers and distributors for Bangkok, similar numbers can be found for fertilizer and pesticide dealers. Compared to it’s neighbouring countries Thailand has a vibrant agricultural machinery manufacturing industry (e.g. 5 local combine harvester manufacturers plus a Kubota combine manufacturing plant). At higher price the quality of Thai machinery is better than Vietnamese or Chinese equipment.

2.7. Support service providers

The role of capital varies to a great extent, depending on whether fixed or circulating capital is considered. Despite the fact that mechanisation of production has increased throughout recent decades fixed capital represents only a minor share of current input costs, accounting for approximately 1% to 2% of total input costs. Major providers of financing services and contract service are listed in Table 6.



Table 6: Overview on main financial service and other support providers (Source: Stakeholder workshop and literature)

Assessment from Multi-stakeholder workshop Actor Description / Interest / Function Stake 1 Leverage 2 Influence 3 Attitude 4 Agricultural Bank, AB Profit / credit - 3 - Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives, BAAC

Profit / provide funds, Credit provision, support to cooperatives + 3 3 3

Other banks or financial institutions Profit / provide funds - - 3 -

Informal credit providers Profit / Loans - 1 3 1 Futures market organization - - 3 Machinery contractors Support - 2 - Rating, for details see Chapter 4: Stakeholder assessment and network mapping, and Table 14Table 1


Farmers generally can choose among several sources to finance their operations. Among the available opportunities, the BAAC represents the most central institution. In terms of loan volume provided to the crop sub-sector, the BAAC accounted for THB 131 billion (EUR 2.68 billion; 44.8% of which were directed to rice production) in 2007 (BAAC, 2008, p. 183) and commercial banks for THB 31 billion in 2007

2.8. Research

Research on rice related issues is conducted by various research institutions (Table 7) including local universities like Kasetsart University, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology and other universities in the provinces. Table 7: Overview on main research actors (Source: Stakeholder workshop and literature)

Assessment from Multi-stakeholder workshop Actor Mandate Stake 1 Leverage 2 Influence 3 Attitude 4 Contact

Kasetsart University Other universities

Research, Training + 2 1 2

Asian Institute of Technology, AIT #

Research, Training + 1 1 3 http://www.ait.ac.th/

The National Science and Technology Development Agency, NSTDA #

Supports research in science and technology and their application in the Thai economy.

? ? ? http://www.biotec.or.th/biotechnology-th/

Agricultural Research Development Agency, ARDA

Public Organization, promote and support research on agriculture

? ? ? http://www.arda.or.th/index.htm

Thai Rice Foundation #

Supporting rice educational activities, cultural preservation, research, advocacy.

1 1 3 http://www.thairice.org/


1 Stake in improving resource efficiency: - negative; 0 neutral; + positive. 2 Potential leverage to improve resource efficiency: 1=no potential; 2 = mid-low; 3= high potential 3 Influence, based power: 1 = low or none; 2 = medium; 3 = high



4 Attitude towards a project improving resource efficiencies: 1 = potentially adverse; 2 = neutral; 3 = positive. # Not identified in Multi-stakeholder workshop but mentioned in literature.

The Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) promotes technological change and sustainable development in the Asian-Pacific region through higher education, research and outreach. Established in Bangkok in 1959, AIT has become a leading regional postgraduate institution and is actively working with public and private sector partners throughout the region and with some of the top universities in the world. Various faculties have R&D activities on rice.

Research is coordinated and funded through several national agencies among them the National Science and Technology Development Agency NSTDA and the Agricultural Research Development Agency. The Thai Rice Foundation under royal patronage, supporting rice educational activities, cultural preservation, research, and advocacy movements.

2.9. Policy

Many institutions are mandated to formulate policy related to rice; the major ones are listed in Table 8. Table 8: Overview on main actors involved in formulating policy (Source: Stakeholder workshop and

literature) Assessment from Multi-stakeholder workshop Actor Mandate Relevant departments

Stake 1 Leverage 2 Influence 3 Attitude 4 Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC)

Policy making

Department of Agricultural Economics Rice Department Buero of Rice Research and DevelopmentPlant Protection Office Department of Agriculture Department of Agricultural Extension Land Reform Department Royal Irrigation Department The National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards; (ACFS) Laboratory Center for Food and Agricultural Products Co., Ltd.; (LCFA)

+

3 - 3 3 3 - -

3 3 3 2

2 1 3

2 3 2 1

3 - 3

Ministry of Commerce (MOC)

Standardization, price fixing

Department of Foreign Trade Department of Internal Trade Department of Export Promotion Department of Trade Negotiation Office of Trade Policy Department of Intellectual Property Department of Business Development Public Warehouse Organization

3 3 3

Ministry of Foreign affairs (MOFA)

International relations

- 3 -

Ministry of Transport and Communications (MOTC)

Thai trade policy

0 - 3 -

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Department of Water Resources http://www.dwr.go.th/index_main.php - 2 -

Continued on next page…



Assessment from Multi-stakeholder workshop Actor Mandate Relevant departments Stake 1 Leverage 2 Influence 3 Attitude 4

Ministry of Industry (MOI)

Department of Industrial Works Department of Industrial Promotion The Board of Investment of Thailand; BOI The Office of Industrial Economics Office of SMEs Promotion Thailand Productivity Institute National Food Institute Institute for Small And Medium Enterprises Development SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THAILAND

Ministry of Finance

The Customs Department Fiscal Policy Office Bank of Agriculture And Agricultural Cooperatives; BAAC Export-Import Bank of Thailand; EXIM Thailand Small and Medium Enterprise Development Bank of Thailand; SME Bank

Nat. Rice Policy Committee. NRPC

Policy making

+ 3 3 3

National Research Council, NRC

Policy making for research

+ 3 3 2

Extension officers

Technology transfer

+ 3 2 3

Local Government, LG

Administration, Funding, Technology transfer Policy

Regional Administration Office RAO (A, F) Provincial administration office PAO (A, F) Local administration Office LAO (P) Local Extension Office LEO (T)

- 3 3 2



The National Rice Policy Committee with the prime minister as chairman comprises of ministers and exclusive administrators of related ministries and sectors. The function of this committee is mainly considering and approving strategy and project policy related to rice production, marketing and trading. The example of this is Thai’s Rice Master Strategies which is approved by the prime minister. According to Thai’s Rice Master Strategies, the policies related to postproduction of rice are counted in the strategies on rice marketing system management and products development. They are divided in to 3 main categories.

For paddy

• Post harvest management by set up standard certification for threshing machine in order to minimize loss.

• Systemization of paddy storage practices to maintain grain quality, particularly, for delay selling when rice price is getting too low.



• Organize paddy trade by specify paddy standard and set up accurate balance regulation system for fairly trade.

• Organize and develop central market for fairly paddy trade and conform to paddy standard.

For milled rice

• Systemize quality and quality of rice mills, particularly; the number of mills should be consistent with quality of paddy production.

• Promote rice mill to develop production system and innovate standardized milling technology.

• Promote assembly setting of traders and related associations to minimize competition and collision among themselves.

• Promote equipment procuring for rice mills to improve milling quality to reach customer satisfaction.

• Support setting up standardized silo in the rice growing area.

For rice products

• Promote rice processing development for diversified products and value added.

• Support rice production for raw material quality as processing entrepreneurs require.

Local governments through provincial and regional administration offices, local administration offices and local extension offices are in charge with implementing policies, funding of programs and technology transfer.

2.10. Other stakeholders

There are a lot of other stakeholders that are not an integral part of the Thai rice value chain but currently have roles or potentially could play a role in improving resource efficiencies (Table 9).



Table 9: Overview on main international stakeholders supporting resource use efficiency (Source: Stakeholder workshop and literature)

Assessment from Multi-stakeholder workshop Actor Description / Interest /

Function Stake 1 Leverage 2 Influence 3 Attitude 4

International Rice Research Institute, IRRI

Research, Technology transfer, GAP + 1 1 3

Food and Agriculture organization, FAO Donor + 2 2 2 Japan International Cooperation Agency, JICA Donor 3 3

United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP Donor + 2 1 3

Applied GeoSolutions, LLC # Consultant + 1 1 3 Logistics provider - 2 2 2 International competitor (company) - 3 3 1

Rice producing countries (RPC) Competitor, source for imports 2 1 2

Green Peace NGO - - - Public media 3 3 -

Kao Kam Foundation Promote black / sticky rice 3 3 3

Public relations agencies 3 3 3 Rating, for details see Chapter 4: Stakeholder assessment and network mapping, and Table 14Table 1


The International Rice Research Institute has a long history of collaboration with Thailand on rice research. Currently it is partnering with the Rice Department through the Irrigated Rice Research Consortium (IRRC) for the improvement of natural resource management. It includes working groups working on nutrient, water, pest and weed management and on postharvest.

Although FAO in Bangkok does not have a rice program it still collaborates in Thailand with the Royal Irrigation Department and other partners in the areas of water management.

JICA, UNEP and other donors are funding projects in related areas.

Applied GeoSolutions has built or access to several GIS databases for Thailand, as well as a suite of remote sensing data (Japanese SAR) collected explicitly for mapping and monitoring rice in Thailand Central Plain, which could be useful for projects improving resource efficiencies as follows:

1. Use of remote sensing for mapping and monitoring agricultural systems and management practices. We have a strong focus on mapping of rice paddies (extent, plant/harvest dates, water management, and crop growth).

2. Application of geospatial biogeochemical modeling tools for GHG emission inventories, water use, air quality, water quality (Nitrate leaching) and crop productivity.

3. Development of site to regionally specific management strategies for mitigation of GHG emissions, water quality impacts and nutrient loading. This includes evaluating various best management strategies impact on climate mitigation, ecosystem services and crop productivity.



2.11. Value chain dynamics: Prices, profits and regulations

Production process is changed from utilizing family labor to hiring labor force that increases production cost from 3,581 Baht/year in 2002-2003 to 6,002 Baht for wet season crops and 4,298 Baht for dry season crops.

According to the study of Logistics Excellence Center by King Mongkut’s University of Technology, Thonburi, the logistics cost of rice is 61,047 million baht equal to 19% of total rice products (about 315,139 million baht) in the year 2004-05. It is divided into weight loss 6%, transportation 5%, management 5% and inventory and storage 4%. Logistics cost in Thailand is higher than Japan 6%, due to weight loss and inventory. As a result, Thai farmers shall mostly take on the transportation cost and the millers shall be mainly responsible for the inventory and losses.

Another study conduced by Dawe, D. et al., (2003) compared marketing cost by function and gross margins and found very little markup over costs in Thailand compared to the Philippines (Table 10). Table 10: Marketing costs by function, 2003,

Nueva Ecija to Manila (Philippines) and Suphan Buri to Bangkok (Thailand); units are in US$ per ton of dry paddy (Source: Dawe, D. et al., 2003).

Source of data: surveys conducted by the authors. Price data were converted from local currency to US$ at exchange rates of 55 Philippine pesos to the dollar and 40 Thai baht to the dollar.

Table 11: Breakdown of marketing margins and costs by marketing agent, 2003, Nueva Ecija to Manila, Philippines (Phil) and Suphan Buri to Bangkok, Thailand (Thai). (Source: Dawe, D. et al., 2003)

Source of data: surveys conducted by the authors. Price data were converted from local currency to US$ at exchange rates of 55 Philippine pesos to the dollar and 40 Thai baht to the dollar.

The differential marketing costs explain just one-fourth of the differential gross margin. Most of the larger net margin in the Philippine case occurs at the milling stage, as can be seen from an examination of the costs and margins disaggregated by agent in Table 11. In Thailand over-capacity in rice milling seem to result in low margins in milling.

Domestic rice prices in early harvest season is low caused by irregular distribution. Moreover, rice price is altered by world market together with products and stocks of buyers and competitors.

Exports of rice: Thailand is on the first rank of the world in rice export computed as 28-30% of total global rice market. The exporting value is 80,000-100,000 million baht per year due to



milled rice export of 7.3-7.5 million tons per year (11-11.36 million tons of rice grain) which consists of good quality rice 55%, medium 11%, low 4%, parboiled rice 25%, glutinous rice 4% and brown rice 1%. The exporting average rate increases 1.74 % per year in the past 5 years while the global trading increases 3.79% per year.

Export of products from rice: Rice exporting products still have low quality and small volume since the majority are primary products. The export value is annually 5,000-6,000 million baht, about 7-8% of entire rice exporting amount. Furthermore, the growth rate of export is stumpy while the high valued and advanced technology products are tiny making Thai rice product market limited and blocked in terms of high tariff rates.

3. Policy context Supporting policy is required for systematic rice improvement strategy in short, medium and long term periods for sustainably strengthening the production system, markets, internal and international trade. This section first lists existing policies related to rice either supportive or hindering, the second gives on overview on the Thai Rice Strategies that were developed by the Ministry of Commerce in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, other government institutions, and related private sector players and consist of vision, mission, 6 main strategies for a 5 - year implementation period (2007-2011).

3.1. Policies regulating rice production

Weak marketing mechanism - The government intervention rice market to balance rice demand and supply has been used as a tool of political voting by setting mortgage price higher than market price. Consequently, farmers cultivated without considering in quality and appropriate areas which lead to long term problems. Therefore, government mortgage burden is continuously higher. The mortgage amount is 5.295 million tons in 2004-05, 5.291 million tons in 2005-06 (2.383 million tons in 2003-04). The government has to bear the mortgage costs, rice stock and release.

Many institutions are engaged in rice policy, requiring multi stakeholder coordination (Table 12). The overall coordination lies with the National Rice Policy Committee which is lead by the Rice Department. Table 12: Examples for organizations involved in rice related policy

Policy name Institution

Crop diversification DOAE, DOA, LD, MOI

Infrastructure development MOAC, RID, DOAE, DOA, LD, LDD

Productivity DOAE, DOA, CPD, BAAC, MOF

Market: Confidential policy MOAC, DOAE, DOA, CPD

Information System MOC, OAE

Table 13 lists some key policies for product regulation and for organizational regulation.



Table 13: Overview on policies regulating rice production

Product regulation Organization regulation No. Policy No. Policy 2534 Land Readjustment Act 2489 Public warehouse act 2432 Land reform for Agriculture Act 2535 BAAC act 2526 Land development act 2535 MOF Act 2546 GI Act 2549 Rice Department Act 2517 Farmer aid fund act 2542 Farmer development and recover

fund act

3.2. Thai Rice Strategy 2007-2011

Vision: To be a leader in rice production and enable farmers’ income sustainability and create consumer confidence.

Mission: 1. Support production system management and support to farmers

2. Support market system management and production development

3. Stimulate rice exports through pro-active policy

4. Reduce cost and time in rice distribution system

Objectives:

1. To clearly identify scope and direction of production development, marketing as well as rice distribution.

2. To uplift farmers’ livelihood by ensuring farmers’ career and income stability.

3. To develop trading system, rice distribution and rice products in domestic and global markets as a basis of sustainable national economic growth.

Main Strategies: Six groups of strategies were identified to improve the rice value chain from a basis in 2007 to 2011 as follows:

• Group of strategies for Production development: aims at increasing annual paddy production from 31 million tons to 39 million tons through increasing yields by 20% and increasing rice area from 10.4 million ha to 11.2 million ha. Strategies include positioning Thai rice as non-GMO rice, zoning for domestic and export production, development of fundamental production infrastructure, conservation and better utilization of genetic resources, strengthening research, improving seeds, establishment of rice community centers, GAP, rice inspection and certification, rice for niche



markets, information systems for farmers and better coordination with local administration.

• Group of strategies for Promotion and supporting farmers aims at assuring higher incomes and better living conditions for farmers who are proud of being farmers by increasing the knowledge of at least one million farmers, provision of immediate, thorough and accurate technical information and services based on their needs and by strengthening farmers’ associations. Strategies include: Develop solutions for farmers’ debt problem, create “smart framers” and convert farmers into professionals, support young farmers, support to farmers’ seed production, establishment of farmers service centers and rice information center, support to farmers groups, farmer’s welfare systems, supplementary jobs, and others.

• Group of strategies for Marketing management system & products development aims at rising farmers’ incomes by at least 10% in 5 years by stimulating market mechanisms to improve market potential and boost production potential. It also aims at increasing rice trade in the Agricultural futures exchange to approximately 20% of the rice exports. Strategies include: Paddy: Certification for equipment, better storage, organized central market system, provision of postharvest facilities and Fair trade certification. Milled rice: Adjusting rice milling capacity to production, encourage contract farming, transparent electronic trading, rice guarantee system through agricultural futures exchange, provision of tools and equipment to mills, encourage bulk handling (silos). Rice products: Encourage value adding through diversified products and support to increasing raw material quality.

• Group of strategies for Maintaining price stability aims at reducing paddy price intervention cost from 4,400 million baht to 4,000 million bath by reducing the intervention price. Strategies include: Foster access to markets, promote better understanding of markets among farmers, abolish market interventions, create additional market driven interventions, improve access to credit and equipment for farmers and promote better quality.

• Group of strategies for International marketing development aims at increasing exports from 7.4 million tons or 2,057 million US$ in 2006 to 8.5-9.5 million t or 2.550-2.850 million US$. Strategies include: Introduce exporter registration, create regional collaboration with neighboring countries, improve image of Thai rice and improve positioning in markets, encourage government to government exports, government trade missions, standardization and certification, and develop an export information system.

• Group of strategies for Logistics and services management aims at reducing cost for logistics and services from 19% of gross rice production cost to 15%. Strategies include: Increase capability in logistics and services management, establish regional service centers, improve regulations for storage facilities, storage facility improvements, reduce redundant processes in export, and improve transportation infrastructure and networks.



4. Stakeholder assessment and network mapping A stakeholder assessment and network mapping was done by the participants of the Stakeholder workshop, 17-18 June, Rama Gardens Hotel, Bangkok. This chapter will provide a summary, for details refer to the workshop report. When interpreting the results one need to keep in mind that the assessment was done by representatives a limited number of stakeholders with many government representatives and fewer from the private sector. Farmers were also underrepresented. The results are incorporated in the Table 1 to Table 9 in the columns Stake, Leverage, Influence and Attitude. Ratings are 1 to 3 and mean the following: Table 14: Framework for stakeholder assessments

Category Question asked 1 2 3 -

Stake Initial question: Does the stakeholder feel positive, neutral or negative towards improving the efficiency of the value chain?

Negative Neutral Positive No opinion or no data

Leverage What potential does the stakeholder have to provide leverage to improve resource efficiency (Number of actors, business volume..)?

No potential

Mid to low

High potential

No opinion or no data

Influence How much influence does the actor have in the network? Based on multi facetted power including capacity, legitimacy, financial resources, knowledge, etc

Low or none

Medium High No opinion or no data

Attitude What is the actor’s most likely attitude towards improving resource efficiencies.

Potentially adverse

Neutral Positive No opinion or no data

For improving resource efficiencies the assessment can be summarized as follows:

Figure 3 shows one of the network maps generated during the Stakeholder workshop

Figure 3: Consolidated network map of the actors in the Thai rice value chain (for details see Stakeholder

workshop report)



Some lessons can be drawn from the maps.

1. The bigger the node the more participants had mentioned the actor. It is clear the participants were most aware about farmers as important actors, followed by other rice supply chain actors like farmers’ organizations, millers, and exporters. These are followed by ministries (MOAC, MOC), national research institutions, international traders and Government warehouses. The MOAC node would actually be bigger since several departments and offices of the MOAC are listed independently. There was an over proportional percentage of participants from the MOAC which explains this detail.

2. The most connected stakeholders are in the center of the map, least connected in the periphery. It appears that Thai farmers are in contact with and get information from many sources (See also Composite map showing only knowledge flows in Appendix 3 of the workshop report).

3. The thickness of the connecting arrows represents the number of connections between two actors. Farmers are for example strongly linked to farmers groups, cooperatives, millers, traders etc, but less to research institutions.

Farmers and farmer organizations like cooperatives, farmer groups and the Thai Farmers Association have positive attitudes towards improving resource efficiencies. Farmers have high potential for leverage because of their sheer numbers and because they are the actors in the field. Potentially conservative attitudes or risk avoidance behavior opposing change can be addressed by providing information and training. Farmers’ interest groups (cooperatives and farmers groups) have more influence than individual farmers.

Landless laborers also have high leverage due to their numbers and action in the field and a positive attitude towards improving resource efficiencies. They are usually not organized so their influence is limited.

Since projects can only reach a limited number of farmers any initiative should focus on the farmer organizations.

The Thai Rice millers and their organization are also an important stakeholder with high influence and potentially positive attitude towards improving resource efficiencies. They have an interest in better quality paddy, leverage is medium and could be through providing a price incentive for quality. Other processors like flower mills are probably too detached from production since they buy milled rice that they might not be much interested in resource efficiency improvements in production.

The trade sector is more neutral with some exceptions. Most traders and exporters as well as importing countries appreciate premium quality and would appreciate market opportunities for these. They are also interested in the continued competitiveness of the Thai rice industry. Ultimately consumers, nationally and internationally have the highest leverage since they make the market, domestic consumers have high influence through their purchasing behavior but might not (yet) have a positive attitude towards improving resource efficiencies. International consumers potentially have positive attitudes but the workshop participants did not feel in a position to make a statement on this or their influence.

Input suppliers, depending on their type of input, have neutral to negative attitudes towards resource efficiency improvements. Agro-chemical manufacturers and dealers (pesticides and



fertilizer) are expected to object to efforts in using less of their products, except they can be convinced that for sustaining the market this is necessary. Machinery manufacturers and distributors most likely are more positive if this resource efficiency improvements (e.g. better fuel consumption) lead to better market potential for equipment. Most influence and leverage have seed producers because of their close contact to farmers, often they are farmers themselves.

Financial service providers, except informal credit providers, should have positive attitudes, have big influence through their approval of credits. If their credit schemes are linked with resource efficiency criteria they can have large leverage. The most important ones, due to their agricultural mandates, are BAAC followed by AB.

National research is seen as having positive attitude but little influence and leverage. Influence and leverage are increased when research results are often translated into policy recommendations. Kasetsart University was mentioned by the participants and “other Universities”. There several other universities like King Mongkuth’s Institute of Technology (KMIT) that work on rice related topics like drying usually in close collaboration with the private sector. It is worth doing an assessment of those too. AIT was rated as having a positive attitude, resource efficiency topics are being researched there, but also with little influence and leverage since it is a mainly academic institution. Bodies supporting and funding science were mentioned but not rated (NSTDA, ARDA).

Most important government bodies for improving resource efficiencies are MOAC, MOC and the local government all with positive attitudes and high leverage and influence (through policy) but other ministries also have roles (MOFA, MOTC, MNRE, MOI, MOF). A key role has the National Rice Policy Committee, highly influential with the prime minister as chair and

Other stakeholders with positive attitudes but low or medium influence and leverage are international institutions like IRRI, FAO, UNEP and donors like JICA. FAO has more influence than IRRI because of a bigger country program. For some reason JICA was rated as having high influence and leverage, probably through restricted funding.

Specialized international Consultants like Applied Geosystems have very positive attitudes but now leverage or influence.

5. Opportunities / levers The participants of the Stakeholder workshop have also identified problems and opportunities and prioritized them according to what they felt has biggest potential to improve resource efficiency.



Table 15: Overview of opportunities identified during the Stakeholder workshop

Issue Opportunity / proposed measure

Impact on resource efficiency Levers Priority 1

Low response to inputs

Varietal improvement • Better utilization of resources Breeding 1

Low seed quality

Private sector involvement, quality registration and certification

• Increase in input efficiencies • Higher yield • Reduction of PH losses

Public private partnership (PPP), seed centers in CP

11

Cropping intensity too high

Reduce to rice 2 crops/year; training and demos Alternative for other third crop

• Reduction of eutrophication, nutrient leaching

• Maintained soil quality • Risk reduction of water

scarcity

Policy, PPP Water release based on 2 crops Support inputs for 2 crops.

7

Poor soil quality Excess use of fertilizer Excess use of pesticides Poor water management

Research on water, fertilizer, pesticide use with environmental impact and carbon footprint. Water allocation plan, Organic agriculture

• Reduction in fertilizer use, nutrient leaching and run-off

• Reduction in water use • Reduction in pesticide use

and pesticide poisonings • Reduction in pest and

diseases

GAP, PPP (extension, farmers representations, traders, exporters, supermarkets) Research institutions and policy (Rice Department) Incentives for soil improvements Water fees

29

Lack of knowledge, low educational level of farmers, lack of access to knowledge and conservative attitudes

Increase knowledge access; participatory learning systems, free education for farmers; change perception of farmers; open environment for farmers, empowering farmers, knowledge and information community centers

• Awareness about environmental aspects of rice production

• Implementation of resource efficient practices

Ministries, government and research institutions Farmers leaders / organizations

21

Poor paddy quality

Better mechanized harvesting Price incentives for quality

• Less losses in postharvest = less inputs used to produce the same amount at market

GMP 2

Unstable world market prices and low bargaining power

Thai rice quality development and standardization

• Improving resource use efficiency through inclusion of ecological criteria in certification

Certification, branding, and labelling PPP

7

1 Number of votes from participants, 5 votes each.

The participants flagged up the following gaps:

• Little is known about the attitudes of consumers, are they willing to pay a premium for certain certification such as GAP/GMP, and eco labelling?



• Ecosystem services and ecosystem resilience are a new concept and little has been done. How can the government, farmers and consumers be made more aware of ecosystems services?

• While farmers need more information on the negative effects of inefficient resources use many farmers are aware of the environmental issues but want high production and reduce risk. Cultural reasons and conservativeness also prevents them from changing existing practices.

• Very few farmers do organic rice production. High cost, higher labor requirement and low returns prevent more farmers from participating. Market incentives need to be stronger. The same is true for GAP, which is currently subsidized by the Government. Currently markets don’t pay for a GAP label but in order to establish GAP sustainably this needs to be the case. Where is the business case for GAP rice and eco rice?

• Awareness for rice production and promotion for farmers needs to be increased to ensure that rice farming has a future with the young generation. Rice production should be included in the curriculum of schools.

• More partnerships are needed to address complex issues, the Government should work more with organizations representing farmers and not so much with individual farmers.

6. Recommendations There is a large number of actors in the Thai rice value chain in type but also in numbers. Farmers interests are represented by cooperatives, farmers groups and the farmers association, which provide good platforms to reach a large number of producers. The milling sector is very competitive with significant over-capacity. Millers’ interests are strongly supported by the Thai Rice Millers Organization. The trading sectors of both, paddy and milled rice, are fragmented with different players providing a variety of marketing channels and, it is also highly competitive. Compared to other countries in the GMS Thailand has many exporters, who also have a powerful interest representation.

Problems with overuse of resources (water, fertilizer and pesticides) are significant in the Central Plains. Problems in the postharvest chain are not so much of technical nature but related to the market problems and the lack of incentives for resource efficient production (see also Sub-study 2).

Multi stakeholder partnerships including farmers representing organizations, the public sector, local millers and traders and importers can help improving market channels and provide additional market driven incentives which, when implemented throughout the value chain, will encourage producers to optimize resource use and processors to minimize losses. Examples are: Certification and labelling of Thai rice using GAP, GMP, eco labels and others and developing corresponding export markets.

7. References Dawe, D.C. et al., Rice marketing systems in the Philippines and Thailand: Do large numbers of competitive traders ensure good performance?..., Food Policy (2008), doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.02.001

Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Ministry of Commerce (MOAC, MOC, 2010): Rice strategies, Year 2007-2011. Translated by Foreign and Special Projects Group, Bureau of Rice Policy and Strategy, Rice Department, 2 April 2010



OAE, Office of Agricultural Economics. 2010. (Online) http://www.oae.go.th/oae_report/stat_agri/main.php?lang=en

Other references are included in the reference list of Sub-study 2

Workshop Report

Rama Gardens Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand

17-18 June 2010

Rica Joy Flor, Martin Gummert and Bhagirath Chauhan

Conducted as part of the scoping study: Resource efficiency and ecosystems services in rice production in Thailand’s central plain: Baseline

research

Stakeholder workshop for resource efficiency and ecosystems services in the rice value chain in Thailand’s central plain

Multi-stakeholder Workshop: Resource efficiency in the value chain… Thailand, 17-18 June 2010

1

Table of contents

Background .............................................................................................................2

Objectives................................................................................................................2

Workshop outputs....................................................................................................3

The workshop process ............................................................................................3

Workshop languages ...........................................................................................4

Participation .........................................................................................................4

The Workshop .........................................................................................................4

Day 1....................................................................................................................4

Problem analysis ..............................................................................................5

Stakeholder analysis ........................................................................................8

Day 2, Morning...................................................................................................10

Stakeholder analysis: Network mapping.........................................................10

Influence, leverage and attitude analysis........................................................12

Integration ......................................................................................................13

Day 2, Afternoon ................................................................................................18

Next Steps.............................................................................................................19

Learning-oriented monitoring.................................................................................19

Appendix................................................................................................................21

Appendix 1. Problem trees from all the groups...............................................21

Appendix 2. Network maps drawn by each of the groups...............................23

Appendix 3. Parking lot (from day 1) ..............................................................24

Appendix 4. Composite maps showing details of interactions between stakeholders. ..................................................................................................25

Appendix 5. List of workshop participants and their contact details................28


2

Background

There is growing recognition that unsustainable production and consumption, and inefficient use of resources is a challenge that must be tackled along with many environmental and social issues. Many governments have started to develop actions to address the causes and impacts of this challenge. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and other organizations have started working with stakeholders in Thailand to meet this challenge.

The workshop is conducted within the context of the scoping study Resource efficiency and ecosystems services in rice production in Thailand’s central plain: Baseline research. The study is a follow-up activity to the UNEP Expert roundtable on improving resource efficiency in Thai rice production, held at UNEP-ROAP, Bangkok, on 1-2 February 2010.

As an outcome of the UNEP meeting, it was suggested to conduct a pre-pilot desk survey to set a baseline and determine whether there is sufficient scope for improvements of resource efficiencies in water and nutrients in rice agriculture in the Central Plains of Thailand. In addition, this survey should also assess losses and inefficiencies in rice postproduction, compile an inventory of ecosystem services in the Central plain rice production and analyze actors and their relationships from production to export. Several background papers produced in this study will provide the basis for further decisions by UNEP and its partners on the next steps for the “Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains” project.

This multi-stakeholder workshop aims at collecting input from key stakeholders of the rice value chain of the central plains in Thailand to complement the data collected in the desk studies.

Objectives

• Identify key problems and opportunities for improved resource efficiency in the rice value chain in the central plains of Thailand

• Describe stakeholders and patterns of interaction in the value chain

• Identify levers for improving resource efficiencies


3

Workshop outputs

� List of key problems in resource efficiency and sustainability as well as the causes identified by participants

� Identified opportunities to improve resource efficiency in the Thai rice value chain

� Network maps showing the actors and patterns of interaction between them

� Documentation of the plenary discussion

The workshop process

The workshop was a participatory process conducted following the guide as shown in figure 1. In this process, groups brainstorm through questions provided by the facilitating team from IRRI, Rica Joy Flor, Martin Gummert and Bhagirath Chauhan. There are two main blocks of analysis: 1) problem analysis, in which groups examine the causes of the problem of inefficiency in the rice value chain and 2) stakeholder analysis, where groups consider the actors in the entire value chain, the interactions between them and their level of influence, attitudes and potential leverage in improving resource efficiency.

Figure 1. The workshop roadmap

Introduction to the Project and the Workshop

Next Steps


4

Workshop languages

Thai was the working language for most of the participants. Where facilitation was made in English, a translator was at hand to provide a Thai translation. Group outputs and discussions were documented in English.

Participation

Thirty stakeholders joined the workshop. The participants from government institutes were from rice research, irrigation, internal trade, extension, and rice seed and product development. Farmer and private sector representatives from rice milling, trade and export associations, as well as fertilizer companies also participated. (See Appendix 5: List of workshop participants and their contact details.)

The Workshop

Day 1

The workshop was opened by Dr. Prasert Gosalvitra, Director General of the Rice

Department of the Thai Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC). The

representative from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Dr.

James Lomax, provided a background that set the scene for the scoping studies as

preparation for the planned project on resource efficiency in Thailand. Mr. Martin

Gummert from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) introduced the

workshop objectives and process. Participants were then grouped according to

sectors, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Group composition

Producers group Input providers group Postharvest group Research group

Mr. Chaiyaporn Prompan

Mr. Sinsamut Pankate Mr. Thanadech Manathanya Mrs. Prarthana Suksiri

Mr. Punthip Pherchao Mr. Somyot Kwanpipat Mr. Supoj Vongjirattikan Mrs. Nittaya Ruensook

Mr. Prasit Boonchuey Mr. Natthapat Wongsupaluk

Mr. Ektichai Boonmueang Ms. Chuanchom Deeratsamee

Mr. Kukiat Soitong Mr. Samrith Chomchalad Mr. Wanchai Khanthaweeramongkul

Dr. Laddawan Kunnoot

Mr. Satesh Dhondu Rahatwal

Ms. Julmanee Pituncharurnlap

Ms. Vilaiwan Nakhoncopta Ms. Sukanya Kong-ngoen

Mr. Rungrote Yarnsiri Dr. Amara Wiengweera Dr. Sylvain Perret

Ms. Rossakon Keosa-ard Dr. James Lomax


5

Problem analysis

In the first activity, participants got to know each others’ name, institutional affiliation and connection to the Thai rice value chain. Key stakeholders were asked prior to the workshop to talk about resource efficiency in their context. There were two participants from each of the four groups who shared their thoughts.

Research group:

• Farmers use 30kg/Rai seed, recommendation is 15kg/Rai

• Uptake of research results is slow

• Limited number of extension staff

• Lack of simplified messages for farmers

� Rice Department staff should be more effective

Postharvest group:

• Low quality of rice from central plains (variety related)

• Farmers need to reduce inputs

• Farmers need to learn more about rice production and improve it

• Intensified systems in Central Plains => poor soil quality

• Farmers use too much water

• Climate change leads to harvest during rain => low milling quality

• Climate change, stress during production leads to chalky grains

• Climate change leads to need for heat tolerant variety

• Pesticide sales is “good business” (Spray 5 times instead of 2 times)

• 3 crops per year lead to high losses (what is the point to produce a third crop if most is lost?)

� Farmer income guarantee instead of the current price guarantee

� 2 Crops / season, crop rotation

� Export of parboiled rice has potential (to Africa)

Producers Group

• Pollution of water in rice fields (when he was a kid he could drink it)

• Unsuitable fertilizer recommendations

• Labor shortage

� strengthen cooperatives

� Plant 2 crops / year instead of 3 crops / year to reduce inputs, pests and losses

� Zoning


6

Input providers group

• Modern varieties led to a fast increase of fertilizer use in the last 10 years => increased import of fertilizers

• Fertilizer overuse 50kg/Rei

• Production cost high because high pesticide use, fertilizer is not the major cost item

• 30cm of water instead of 5 cm when irrigating

� only grow 2 crops per year

After the presentations and discussion, the groups worked on constructing a problem tree to identify the main causes why the Thai rice value chain is resource inefficient and unsustainable (see Figure 2). They ask ‘why’ this problem is happening, and by asking this several times, they break down the main problem into smaller units. At the last level of causes are smaller units of the problem which can be intervention points that stakeholders can work towards to change the situation. Participants were guided to think through the main problem by letting them list the inputs used in rice production and postproduction (Table 2). For more details on the groups’ problem trees, see Appendix 1.

Table 2. List of inputs used in the rice value chain

Seeds Knowledge Finance

Fertilizer Equipment Labor

Soil / land Technology

Water Infrastructure

Fuel / energy Transport

Pesticides


7

Figure 2. Sample problem tree from the Input providers group (left), and the group discussing and creating their problem tree (right).

The four different groups have identified different key problems along the rice

value chain, which reflects their different perceptions of the problems and can be

summarized as follows: Producers group: Lack of knowledge on rice production

Postharvest group: a.) Poor quality milled rice which can’t compete in the world market

b.) Low paddy price for farmers

Input providers group: High cost of production

Research group: Low yield and low production

Once participants had ‘broken down’ the problem, they are at a level of problems which can be turned into opportunities for action. Groups discussed what opportunities or actions need to be done, who should do it and where this action needs to take place (Figure 3). In small group discussions, representatives from each group presented their outputs to each of the other groups. Their final outputs are presented under section Day 2 along with the prioritization of opportunities.

Figure 3. A representative from the Input providers group explaining their output to the Postharvest group (left), and their list of opportunities (right).


8

Stakeholder analysis

In the last activity of the day, groups sat down and discussed the key actors in the Thai rice value chain. They also describe the main function and interest of each actor. In the last column of their handout, they also indicate the stake each actor has in improving resource efficiency (positive, neutral, or negative). The consolidated list of actors from all groups is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. List of key actors in the Thai rice value chain, with their interest/function and stake in improving resource efficiency.

Actor Full/ Official Name, key description Interest/ Function

Stake in improving resource efficiency

Farmer Production +

Key_Farmers Includes: Community Leaders Profit, high price of production, low cost of input/producer

+

Cooperative Low interest rate/Paddy price negotiation, credit and loans, membership services, input supply

+

Land_owner

FG Farmer group, includes: community rice center

Profit, high price of production, low cost of input/producer group to negotiate price, farmer-to-farmer communication, leadership

Market_org marketing organization for farmers +

Miller_Assoc_Intl International Miller Association

Miller Profit / buy products, require quality +

Rice_Flour_Processors

Govt_warehouse Government Warehouse Storage

Middlemen

Trader Profit +

Supermarkets_Thai

Retailer Rice supply +

Transporter Profit / transport 0

Consumer +

Exporter Profit / rice standard system +

Trader_Intl International Trader Profit +

Importing_countries

Supermarkets_Intl

Consumer_Intl International consumers, Includes: Rice importing countries

Laborer Production +

Govt_Agency Government Policy making

Ministry Policy making

MOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thai agricultural policy

Policy making +

MOC Ministry of Commerce Standardization, price fixing

MOTC Thai trade policy Policy 0


9



MOFA Ministry of foreign affairs

NRPC National Rice Policy Committee Policy making +

DAEcon Department of Agricultural Economics Research

LRD Land Reform Department

BRRD Bureau of Rice Research and Research +

Development

DOAE Department of Agricultural Extension Technology transfer (too much admin load) -

RD Rice Department +

LDD Land Development Department

Green manure seeds, organic, land suitability zoning, fertilizer recommendation +

PPO Plant Protection Office

LG Local government Administration

RAO Regional administration office Local administration, Support and give funding?

PAO Provincial administration office Local administration, Support and give funding?

LAO Local administration Office Policy making

LEO Local Extension Office Technology transfer +

LDD_BP Land development department Bio-products

NRC National Research Council Policy making for research

Thai_research University, AIT Influence policy

University (Several) Education +

RRC Rice Research Centers, Includes: Research institutes

Inspect seed quality, certification, knowledge creation +

RID Royal Irrigation Department Water allocation, release, +/-

infrastructure management

Envt_Policy Environment Policy (standards) Standard/certification

AB Agricultural Bank Profit / credit

BASC Bank Profit / provide funds -

Financial_institute Bank Profit / provide funds -

BOAC Bank of Agriculture and Cooperative Credit provision, support to cooperatives +

Informal_Credit Profit / Loans -

Input_supplier Provides resource for profit -

Futures_Mkt_Org Futures market organization

RSC Rice Seed Center Inspect seed quality, third party certification +

AFM Association of Fertilizer Manufacturers -

Fertilizer_dealers Input supply -

Chemical_dealers_Intl Multinational chemical manufacturers Pricing, policy, standardization, input supply -

Chemical_dealers Dealer: non-fertilizer inputs Input supply -

Fuel_providers Profit / selling inputs 0

Seed_suppliers_Pvt Private seed suppliers Profit / selling seeds

Machinery_provider Support


10



Machinery_service Machinery contractors Support

International_research IRRI, CIRAD Support

IRRI International Rice Research Institute Research

FAO Food and Agriculture organization Donor

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency Donor

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme Donor

Extensionist Extension officers Technology transfer +

Competitor_Intl -

Logistics_provider 0

RPC Rice producing countries

GreenPeace Green Peace NGO

Public_media Public media

KK_Foundation Kao Kam Foundation

PR

The day ended with a go around for which the participants were asked what to briefly state what was most important for them during the day. Some participants felt that at this point the opportunities identified were very much “business as usual” and new ideas were not flagged up. These comments were captured on a

“parking lot” (Appendix 3) for consideration in the discussions of Day 2.

Day 2, Morning

Stakeholder analysis: Network mapping

The day started with a recap of the previous day and an activity to introduce networks. The theme of the day was “to think outside the box”; this theme was to help participants brainstorm some more about stakeholders and opportunities. From their outputs of the previous day and explanation about visualizing networks, groups worked on mapping stakeholders in the Thai rice value chain. Groups had to decide what the main function of each stakeholder is so that they could characterize what category each stakeholder belongs. They were tasked to write each stakeholder, depending on category in different colored post-its.

Table 4. Categories of actors and their color labels in network mapping.

Color Stakeholder category

Green Rice production flow

Yellow Policy

Blue Support service/input provider

Pink Research stakeholder

Orange Donor


11

The actors in the network maps are connected based on the following interactions: 1) blue arrows for knowledge flow, 2) red arrows for input flow, 3) black arrows for policy and regulations, 4) green arrows for transfer of the rice as a product, and 5) broken arrows for financial flow. Shown in figure 4 is the postharvest group at work and their network map. Pictures of each group’s network map are in appendix 2.

Figure 4. Postharvest group discussing their network map (left) and their output (right).

A consolidated map of all the stakeholders identified by all the groups in the workshop is shown in figure 5. The color of the nodes shows the category of stakeholder that each actor belongs (policy, support service, research, rice supply or donor). The colors of the arrows show the interaction between two stakeholders as knowledge flow (blue), input provision (red), policy (black), rice supply (green) and financial flow (lavender). Thicker gray lines show multiple relationships between actors. The size of the nodes shows centrality of the actor or that many other actors are connected to it. More detailed maps are provided in Appendix 4.


12

Figure 5. Consolidated map of the actors in the Thai rice value chain.

Influence, leverage and attitude analysis

Groups went further into the stakeholder analysis by thinking through the level of influence of each actor, the potential leverage it has to improve resource efficiency in the value chain and its attitude towards improving resource efficiency. The shape of the nodes in Figure 5 shows the leverage that the actor has. Actors in triangle nodes are identified to be those that have high potential leverage to improve resource efficiency. Actors in square and circle nodes have mid to low and zero potential, respectively. For lack of time and because participants found it hard to define some actors’ leverage, they did not mark these actors (in nodes that are

circle-in-a-box shape).

Groups defined each actor’s level of influence in terms of high, medium or low (it was clarified that this power could be based on capacity, legitimacy, financial resources, knowledge etc.). Figure 6 shows the same consolidated map of actors, but the shapes of the nodes are based on the actors’ level of influence. Actors in rounded square nodes are seen to have high influence in the chain. Actors in circular nodes are those where groups did not define their level of influence.


13

Figure 6. Composite network map showing influence and attitude of actors.

Groups also defined the attitude of stakeholders towards improving resource efficiency. The result of their analyses is shown in figure 6. Actors in green nodes in the map are those seen to be positive, while those in red nodes are negative towards resource efficiency. Actors in brown nodes are those whose attitudes were not defined by the groups.

Integration

At the end of the workshop, participants integrated the insights that they gained from the stakeholder analysis and worked again on the opportunities they identified on Day 1. After adding and finalizing opportunities, groups also thought through possible risks if such actions would be done. Finally, each participant was then given 5 stickers for the weighting exercise. They individually evaluated all the opportunities from the four groups and put a sticker on the opportunity they think meets these criteria: 1) high potential for impact (where more can be done with less efforts and resources), and 2) high potential for making the Thai rice supply chain sustainable and resource efficient. Participants were told they may put more than one sticker on an opportunity that they think should be prioritized more. The final outputs are shown in Table 4. The Priority column show the number of

stickers the opportunity got, higher numbers represent higher priority.


14

Table 4. Identified opportunities from all groups with number of stickers showing prioritization, who should be doing them, where, and possible risks.

Problem What needs to be done (Opportunities)

Priority Who should do it (Actors)

Where Risks

Researchers Group

Seed center capacity not enough

Encourage private sector involvement. Registration through quality seed standard / certification

10 Rice Research Center, Seed center, AS Inspectors

Centers in CP

Seed produced are sold as grain, at low price. Farmers don’t believe in what government tells them

Training + demonstration with farmers to make the case for 2 crops (environmentally + financially)

Policy must exist / Orientation

Collaboration between public agencies + farmers (Private sector?) (NGO?) (Research?) Cooperatives Companies (International)

Show cases?

Case studies?

Supply chain partnerships

3 crops/year too much

Water release based on 2 crop system

R.I.D

Poor knowledge on soil management

Green manure: Free seeds To start (Sesbania)

3 Land Development Department (Private sector)

Thai GAP Dissemination (adaptive application) + benchmark

6 Extension/ +cooperative + farmer group + exporter + Traders with importing countries + local + international Super markets

A supply chain pilot project

Research on water + fertilizer + pesticide + etc -> environmental impact . Carbon footprint

2 Rice Department (research) + RRC +RSC (public + private Partnership)

Changes in government policy


15

Problem Opportunity Priority Actor Where Risks

Producers Group

1. Low education level

Increase the opportunity for farmers to access agricultural knowledge

1 All government institutions, local level especially those working with villages

Village/school

Building participatory learning system in communities

5 Min. of educ; Min of agriculture

Village/school

Support/provide free education for farmers especially in agricultural field

1 Min of agriculture, ministry of culture, gov’t

Government

Change perception about farmers because they think it is not a good job

1 Government, head of farmers, head of village

Government+ village

Creating an open environment for farmers

Government, head of farmers, head of village

Village

Government officials need to take continuous action and integrate

2.Taking the wrong practices from past generations

Convince farmers to adopt innovations

Government, head of farmers, head of village

Village

Empowering communities


Village

3. Difficulty in access to knowledge and information

Produce local channel related to rice (radio or TV)


Village

Establish knowledge/ information community center

2 Local administration, cooperative, farmer organization

Village

Leaders of each organization may take action for a while then do nothing (follow-up)

Public and private partnership

4 Participatory stakeholders

Everyone needs to know well and understand __?___


16

Problem Opportunity Priority Actors Where Risks


1. Deteriorated Soil

Water available all the time

Water allocation plan, water fee

3 Government policy, irrigation, LGA or local gov’t authority

Irrigation project, LGA, water user group

Can be done only if they cooperate

Requirement for additional income (debt)

Alternative crop for 3rd

crop (soil improvement)

1

Support inputs for soil improvement ex.) stimulators/green manure crop

2

LDD, BAAC, other financial institution

Community Farmers do not pay attention (not interested)

2. Don’t want to increase cost in soil improvement

Incentive measures (ex. loan interest rates, source of capital) for farmers who practice soil improvement

3 RD, DOAE, Cooperative, private sector, LDD or land dev’t dept,

Irrigation project, community

Can be done by government but need financial support

3. Farmers have no knowledge

Manage and transfer knowledge to farmers

Irrigation department

Community Can be done

Good seed mgt. �insufficient good seed

Promote to farmers to produce their own seed

1 Community Farmer will join

Farmers belief and unchanging behavior

Inefficient water management for rice production

LGA or local gov’t authority

Irrigation project, community

4. Excess fertilizer and chemical since farmer lacks knowledge

Improve knowledge management and development for local community

5 RD, DOAE, LGA University

Can be done (if they cooperate)

5. Farmers get used to their culture and society for a long time

Organize learning process to change behavior with farmers’ participation

3 LGA, RD, DOAE, LDD, University

Central sector, community

Farmer learning through groups (informal)


17

Problem Opportunity Priority Actors Where Risks

Postharvest group

Too much rice intensification

Diversification/occupation after harvesting

2 D of Agric. Extension, D of Agric, Local gov’t

Community Change of policy (after government change)

Too much chemical use

Promote organic practice and knowledge

10 Community

Purity of seed

Rice Department, Certification Body, Exporter, land Development Department, Ministry of commerce, Royal Irrigation Department

Management

Unfavorable climate

Variety and cultivation improvement

1 Rice Department

RRC & Community

Shortage of budget and personnel (for research and knowledge transfer)

Government-Private Partnership

2 Harvesting machinery

GAP and Organic

Farmer, quality market, miller, exporter

Farmer field, miller, domestic and world markets

No collaboration between government and private

Low bargaining power of farmers

Farmer groups 4 Farmer, Miller, entrepreneur

Farmers are reluctant or unconfident for new practices

Fluctuation of rice price in world market

Reduce input cost 7 International competitor (influence prices)

Thai rice quality development

3

Rice exporting standard

Farmer, Miller, Rice Dept., d of Agric Ext.


18

Day 2, Afternoon

As part of the synthesis, the opportunities with most number of stickers (highly weighted or prioritized) were presented during the plenary discussion. The issues raised during the final plenary discussion are the following:

• Not discussed: Environment (Ecosystem resilience), Actions of some actors (farmers, millers)

• Need to clarify links/impacts of organic rice, gap, sustainable production

• Examine / discuss: Attitude of consumers

• How can stakeholders (government institutions) be more aware of ecosystem and environmental issues

• Conflict: Farmers are aware of environmental issues but want high production (need to be educated about benefits of ecosystem services)

• Very few farmers do organic production. High cost, low returns, need incentives.

• Farmers to be educated on negative effects of pesticide use, not only the benefits of not using them.

• Government institutions & private sector should work more with farmer associations than try to reach individual farmers.

• We discussed Thai Gap or Organic production. Should we also discuss other incentives like Labeling (e.g. Resource Efficient rice; Key: where is the incentive / business case, eco rice?

• Many millers use husk as energy resource � Potential carbon credit points � Incentive: Can sell to other millers or energy producers � In France there are plans that all Products should have carbon footprints labeled on the packaging.

• Rice production should be included in curriculum from primary school level.

• Some discussion about the correct amount of organic fertilizer. - Farmers can do anything as long as the price for paddy is OK

• Subsidies: Fertilizer subsidies – how does this influence production. Also applies for other inputs (free water). GAP targets efficient use of inputs.

• More/stronger linkages between collaborators, how to make it stronger?

• Start with a small group 2 see whether it works (rice exporters association), vs. start big and move to small (government).

• Suggestion for next phase: Need more input from public sector, private sector can contribute but can not lead.


19

Next Steps

The workshop report once completed will be circulated to all participants. This will feed into the scoping studies. UNEP will organize a stakeholder workshop in September.

Learning-oriented monitoring

Two workshop activities were built in to learn from participants about the workshop process. At the end of day 1, a go-around activity was done where participants voiced out what was significant to them from the whole day’s activities. At the end of day 2, a final workshop evaluation was also done. This documented what participants liked from the workshop and what they think can be improved.

Notes from the “go-around” exercise

Postharvest group

Priority to farmers was given during discussions

Rice quality was discussed

Cooperation of the participants in groups

IRRI support

Chance to improve Thai rice and make what we think today come true

Information gained from the discussions (new knowledge)

Chance to know many people involved in the value chain

Share from different sectors and learn new things

Different organizations came and he enjoyed the brainstorming


Bring out ideas from different groups on resource efficiency � leads to improving farmers income and rice quality

What was learned can be shared to others

Learned about many problems and that many sectors can come together to do something

Different organizations are represented in this discussion� results should be a feedback to policy

Learned a lot

Producers Group

Impressed with the workshop, enjoyed the activities and the coffee

Different people but they can actually get together to improve Thai Rice

It is not easy to bring different sectors together, but here, they feel free to share their ideas

Next time, bring more farmers into the activity

Learned a lot about different problems in rice; in a participatory approach


20

Notes, cont’d Research Group

Not often that they have workshops like this where private and public sector meet

Know about problems and the methodology of problem trees to understand more clearly

Easy methodology

Meet with other companies (private sector) and plan collaborative work later on

Know others better

Discussed a lot but so much complexity in the rice sector that we have touched only a little; there is so much we have to think about: environment, others?

Rice production in Thailand is important to many nations (Asia, Africa etc.); It is important that when we map stakeholders we don’t think only of “seed to mill” but to look at the supply chain in it’s global entirety (there are many international players as well: funding, international input suppliers, etc.)

Suggestions:

Invite other stakeholders: more farmers, pollution control representatives, ministry of health, etc.

Think outside the box for stakeholder analysis

Think of other key questions regarding the rice value chain

Workshop evaluation:

What I liked about the workshop?

• Good progress (workshop)

• This workshop is the starter for the collaboration between the government and the farmers and I would like to see the impact for the farmers.

• Our participation of all participants was good.

What could be improved?

• Too short time

• More stakeholders should be there such as consumers association, exporter association..

• More representatives of farmers groups.


21

Appendix

Appendix 1. Problem trees from all the groups

Research group Farmers Nation

Private sector

(upstream /

downstream)

Low Yield, Low

production

Low soil fertility (acid

soils)

Too much fertilizer

leading to pest

outbreaks (insects)

High density seeding

(too high rate, less

panicles)

Too much weedsWater shortage, dry

season

Problem with in in

field fertilizer &

management (too

much, too little)

Poor quality of seeds

(weed

contamination)

Poor land

preparation

Contamination by

harvesting machine

Irrigation system "not

enough"

Poor knowledge on

farmers side

Seed center capacity

not enough to supply

farmers

Farmers want to do

land preparation in 1

week

Machine from

harvesters not

cleaned

3crops / year need

too much water

Input providers groupToo much water used

Fear of insufficient water in

cultivationPoor water management

Don't know about crop water

requirement for rice

Staff have poor water

management knowledge

Inefficient transfer of

knowledge process

Too much fertilizer and

pesticide use and wrong

usage

Thought that higher pesticide

use and high fertilize use

result s in higher yield

Cultural, societal values

High cost of productionHigh seed rates Lack of knowledge

No knowledge about the

effect of intensificationKeep their own seeds

High rate of seed utilization

(30-40kg/rai)

No confidence on quality and

fear of rice pests

Buy from other providers that

don't meet the standardsInsufficient rice seeds

The rice quality does not meet

standards

Farmers don't try to change,

(pusiness as usual)

Wrong belief of higher

productivity

Deteriorated soil Non-stop rice cultivationMany varieties / seeds

available

Water distribution

plan, calendar

Want to grow many times per

yearWater fee

Water available at all timesShift to alternative

crops

Price incentive, attractiv price

No soil improvments Rented land Knowledge transfer

Don't want to add more costProduction resources

support

InconvenienceSoil improvements

substances

Debt

Incentive measure,

e.g. s?? Interest rate

Cooperate, integrate

with BAAE


22

Low

paddy

price

frequency

of

crop/year

harvesting

time mixing rice poor soil

Farmer's

bargaining

power is

low

rice price

in world

market

Intensifica

tion is too

high

unfavorabl

e climate Purity of seed

Too much

chemical

use

Reduce

input

costs

Management

Harvesting

machine

Sufficient

economy

alternate

crop/occu

pation

after

harvest

Check

weather

report

Variety

and

cultivation

improvem

ent

Promote

organic

practice

and

knowledge

Thai rice

quality

developm

ent

Postharvest GroupPoor milled rice quality (can't

compete in world market)

The Thai

rice value

chain is

resource

inefficient

Lack of

knowledge

to plant rice

level of

education

Following

tradition

knowledge

access

problem

High

education

(shift to

other

work)

Low

education

level

Farmers

always

follow

traditional

practice

Difficulty in

mass

media

transfer

Poverty

Closed

society

Producers Group


23

Appendix 2. Network maps drawn by each of the groups.


24

Appendix 3. Parking lot (from day 1)

Problems Opportunities Stakeholders

Multi facetted Need to consider effect on

Micro level (farm), National, International,

Other functions than just generating (national and global food security)

Market driven interventions: Don’t end at the rice mill

Not much mention of the environment in problem analysis

- Thai Gap? Global rice value chain

- Labeling / certification Global stakeholders

Public private partnerships to promote resource efficiency in rice chain (Thai)

Theme for Day 2: Think “Outside the box”


25

Appendix 4. Composite maps showing details of interactions between stakeholders.

A. Composite map showing only knowledge flows (connections in blue arrows*)

*Thick gray arrows are double-headed

B. Composite map showing only input supply flows (connections in red arrows*)


26

C. Composite map showing only policy and governance relationships (black arrows*)

D. Composite map showing only rice supply flows (green arrows*)


27

E. Composite map showing only financial interactions (lavender arrows*)


28

Appendix 5. List of workshop participants and their contact details.

Name Organization Contact address Telephone Fax e-mail address

Mr. Sinsamut Pankate

Suphanburi Province Agricultural Extension Office

081 9959725, 035 55455

n/a

Mr. Chaiyaporn Prompan

Farmer, Suphanburi Province

35/1 Tambol Bang Yai, Amphoe Bangplama, Suphanburi 72100

081 1782813 n/a

Mr. Punthip Pherchao

Manager, Pathumthani Cooperative Promotion Office

081 9152575 02 9015915 [email protected]

Mr. Thanadech Manathanya

The Rice Exporter Association

Bangsue Chia Meng Rice Mill Co., Ltd. 102 Soi Rimthangrodfaibangsue, Bangsue, BKK 10800

081 3397533 [email protected]

Mr. Supoj Vongjirattikan

Thai Rice Trade Association

081 8038648 02 6229970

Mr. Ektichai Boonmueang

Thai Rice Mills Association

81-81/1 Yotha Road, Talad Noi, Samphanthawong, Bangkok


Mr. Wanchai Khanthaweeramongkul

Nonthaburi Rice Mill

29/3 Moo 1, Tambol Klong kwang, Amphoe Sainoi, Nonthaburi

081 844 1309 02 597 1093 n/a


29


Mr. Somyot Kwanpipat Chia Tai Co., Ltd. 299-301 Songsawad Rd., Samphantawong, Bangkok 10100

089 1396184 02 2371540 [email protected]

Ms. Vilaiwan Nakhoncopta

Department of Internal Trade

44/100 Nonthaburi 1 Rd., Tambol Bangkrasor, Amphoe Muang, Nonthaburi 1100


Mr. Prasit Boonchuey President, Thai Farmer Association

081 848 6991 02 597 1476 n/a

Mr. Natthapat Wongsupaluk

Royal Irrigation Department

087 7174210, 02 2414524

02 2414794

Mrs. Prarthana Suksiri Chainat Rice Seed Center, RD

081 3844389, 056 431372


Mrs. Nittaya Ruensook Pathumthani Rice Research Center, RD

Amphoe Thanyaburi, Pathumthani

02 5771300

Ms. Chuanchom Deeratsamee

Chainat Rice Research Center,

Amphoe Muang, Chainat 17000

081 346 2884 056 411733 [email protected]

Dr. Laddawan Kunnoot

Director, Bureau of Rice Product Development, Rice Department

50 Phaholyothin Rd., Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900

02 5615210, 081 9889006

[email protected]


30


Mr. Samrith Chomchalad

Seed Technologist, Bureau of Rice Seed, Rice Department


02 5613960, 086 3066131

n/a

Ms. Julmanee Pituncharurnlap

Bureau of Rice Production Extension, Rice Department


089 6868185 02 9406115 [email protected]

Mr. Kukiat Soitong

Bureau of Rice Production Extension, Rice Department


081 8277420 02 940-6116 [email protected]

Ms. Sukanya Kong-ngoen

Bureau of Rice Research and Development, Rice Department


02 5797515, 085 3859054


Dr. Amara Wiengweera

Bureau of Rice Product Development, Rice Department


02 5614970, 0810772147

[email protected]

Ms. Rossakon Keosa-ard

Bureau of Rice Policy and Strategy, Rice Department


02 5613624, 089 0713040

[email protected]

Dr. Tawee Kupkanchanakul

Bureau of Rice Research and Development, Rice Department



Dr. Sylvain Perret

Water Engineering & Management, Natural Resource Management

Asian Institute of Technology (AIT)

082 444 0831 [email protected]


31


Mr. Satesh Dhondu Rahatwal

AIT

089 7980619

[email protected]

Mr. Rungrote Yarnsiri AIT [email protected]

Dr. James Lomax UNEP [email protected]

Mr. Martin Gummert IRRI DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines

[email protected]

Ms. Rica Joy Flor IRRI DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines

[email protected]

Dr. Bhagirat Chauhan IRRI DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines

[email protected]

unep final report: establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains

Documents