Organic Agriculture for Poverty Reduction: A 'Growth Plus...' Approach Applied to the Case of Thailand

Abstract

In this paper we have examined some aspects of OA in certain regions of Thailand. In particular we have looked at the poverty reduction potential of OA from a 'growth plus...' theoretical and strategic perspective for poverty reduction (Khan and Weiss 2006). We have attempted to do this in some detail by considering both income and capabilities aspects of poverty. We have looked at two indicators of capabilities in addition to income. These are health and education. In particular, we have examined whether or not conversion from conventional chemical agriculture to organic agriculture could help alleviate poverty on an individual and household scale over a medium term of 5-10 years in terms of enhancing both income and capabilities. However, it turns out that because of the nature of the conversion process and the beginning stages of growth of organic production in Thailand at present, a great deal of short term poverty alleviation through organic agriculture by itself is not possible. This will exclude those in extreme poverty in the very short run from the potential benefits of organic agriculture. There could be exceptions for agricultural laborers because organic agriculture (OA) production is more labor intensive than conventional production. Our focus was on the North and Northeastern regions because that is where OA production is most prevalent. It is also where OA conversion could aid most in poverty alleviation because they are the regions where the highest percent of the population is impoverished (NSO). Although there may be some benefits for those in urban areas, apart from direct beneficiaries in rural areas, OA would benefit primarily the government because of lessened demands on social resources and the private sector, mainly exporters. With respect to particular functionings and capabilities indicators, it is unclear whether or not conversion to OA can increase educational opportunities in rural Thailand. On one hand farmers are theoretically able to increase their incomes and therefore would be more able to afford the costs associated with sending their children to school. This includes lost labor and direct school fees. However, since OA is more labor intensive farmers may be more likely to pull their children out of school to have them assist with farm work. This could be exacerbated by the often-asserted idea that organic and cash crop markets are less stable than conventional crops because of changing demand for products and rapidly changing consumer preferences. As far as health is concerned, the conversion to OA can mitigate some of the adverse health consequences of chemical agriculture. Many studies have proven the harmful health effects of agricultural chemicals. This is generally borne out by our data and the positive health consequences of OA can be confirmed. Thus, the overall poverty reduction impact of conversion to OA in these areas of Thailand is mixed and distributional consequences vary. This confirms our 'growth plus...' hypothesis. More than just pure growth is needed in OA if problems of both overall poverty and extreme poverty specifically in rural Thailand are to be tackled effectively.