food security in thai.pdf

7/28/2019 FOOD SECURITY IN THAI.pdf

1/60

Report submitted to UNDP Thailand/January 2009

FOOD SECURITY IN THAI SOCIETY*

Sajin Prachason**

1. CONCEPT OF FOOD SECURITY1.1 Food security in the global context

1.2 Food Security in the Thai context

2. THAILANDS FOOD SECURITY IN THE PAST DECADE2.1 Availability

1) Food production and use

2) Increasing role of imported food

3) Food crops and energy crops

2.2 Access

1) Access to nutritious and balanced diets

2) Food access among vulnerable groups:

- The rural poor

- The urban poor

3) Role of markets and hyper markets

4) Governments policy to ensure food access

2.3 Utilization

1) Food hazards

2) Bird flu outbreaks3) Food safety campaigns and linkages to agricultural policy

4) Organic agriculture movements

2.4 Stability

1) Deterioration of natural resources

2) Changing characteristics of food producers

3) Social movements:

- Community right

- Sustainable agriculture

4) Anti-GMO campaigns

3. CHALLENGES AND POLICY OPTIONS IN THE NEXT DECADE3.1 Availability

1) Balancing food security and energy security

2) Minimizing the impacts of climate change

3) Research and Development in Appropriate Technology

3.2 Access

1) Developing information or database on food security

2) Promoting food access for the poor

1


2/60


- The urban poor

- The rural poor

3.3 Utilization

1) Promoting organic food and agriculture

2) Dealing with imported food hazards3.4 Sustainability

1) Recognizing the role of communities in resource management

2) Developing sustainable food supply chain

*This report is submitted to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Thailand as one ofthe six background papers for the drafting of Thailand Human Development Report 2009. For the fullHuman Development Report, Human Security, Today and Tomorrow, please go tohttp://www.undp.or.th/resources/documents/20100510_2009_Thailand_Human_Development_Repor

t.pdf

**She is working at the Sustainable Agriculture Foundation (Thailand).

2
http://www.undp.or.th/resources/documents/20100510_2009_Thailand_Human_Development_Report.pdfhttp://www.undp.or.th/resources/documents/20100510_2009_Thailand_Human_Development_Report.pdfhttp://www.undp.or.th/resources/documents/20100510_2009_Thailand_Human_Development_Report.pdfhttp://www.undp.or.th/resources/documents/20100510_2009_Thailand_Human_Development_Report.pdf


3/60


1. CONCEPT OF FOOD SECURITY

1.1 Food security in the global context

Food security concept dated back to 1970s when the world faced oil price and food crisis1.

The definition has evolved through time, reflecting the dynamics of peoples understanding on the

complexity of the role of food in human society. The concept of food security first appeared in

1974 when the World Food Conference defined food security as a supply-sided problem of a nation or

region2. In 1980s, the emergence of food entitlement concept, which regarded food as basic right,

reshaped the meaning of food security. Food security was no longer only about availability but also

accessibility and stability, and the focus of the analysis and policy advocacy has shifted to household

and individual level3. More recently, community factors were given more emphasis because the

economic, environmental and social contexts can determine the state of food security of individuals

and households. This conceptualization enables the integration of important non-food issues such as

social justice, self-reliance and community development, into the analysis of food security4

.

By 1999, there were as many as 200 definitions and 450 indicators of food security5; but the

most well-known and widely-adopted definition came from The World Food Summit (WFS) in 1996.

Endorsed by over 180 countries, food security was defined as a situation ...when all people, at all

times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet

their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life". Aiming at global

changes, the WFS set a target to halve numbers of the hungry and the mulnutritious by 2015.

Although it is unlikely to meet this target by the deadline, the WFS focus on food security hastriggered more interests from policy makers to ensure food security by promoting livelihood of people

at all levels6.

1 The City of Toronto, n.d., Chapter 1: Definitions of Food Security, p 20.

2 Food and Agriculture Organization, 2006, Food Security, Policy Brief, June, Issue 2.



5 Hoddinott, 1999, cited in The City of Toronto. n.d. Chapter 1: Definitions of Food Security, p.20.

6 Food and Agriculture Organization, n.d., Food Security and Livelihoods, Thematic Brief, FAO Livelihood Support Programme.

3
http://www.toronto.ca/health/children/pdf/fsbp_ch_1.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/health/children/pdf/fsbp_ch_1.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/health/children/pdf/fsbp_ch_1.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/health/children/pdf/fsbp_ch_1.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/health/children/pdf/fsbp_ch_1.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/health/children/pdf/fsbp_ch_1.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/health/children/pdf/fsbp_ch_1.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/health/children/pdf/fsbp_ch_1.pdf


4/60


Box 1: Four Dimensions of Food Security

Dimensions of food security, which are linked together and sometimes overlapping, can be

split into four components: availability, access, utilization and stability.

Food availability: The availability of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate quality,

supplied through domestic production or imports (including food aid).

Food access: Access by individuals to adequate resources (entitlements) for acquiring

appropriate foods for a nutritious diet. Entitlements are defined as the set of all commodity bundles

over which a person can establish command given the legal, political, economic and social

arrangements of the community in which they live (including traditional rights such as access to

common resources).

Utilization: Utilization of food through adequate diet, clean water, sanitation and health

care to reach a state of nutritional well-being where all physiological needs are met. This brings out

the importance of non-food inputs in food security.

Stability: To be food secure, a population, household or individual must have access to

adequate food at all times. They should not risk losing access to food as a consequence of sudden

shocks (e.g. an economic or climatic crisis) or cyclical events (e.g. seasonal food insecurity). The

concept of stability can therefore refer to both the availability and access dimensions of food security.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization, 2006, Food Security, Policy Brief, June, Issue 2.

Food insecurity occurs when people lack secure access to sufficient amounts of safe andnutritious food for normal growth and development and an active and healthy life. Many factors

contribute to food insecurity: unavailability of food, insufficient purchasing power, inappropriate

distribution, and inadequate use of food at household level. Food insecurity can be chronic, seasonal

or transitory, and can lead to poor nutrition situation7. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

has developed policy priorities called a two-track approach to address food insecurity in two

mutually reinforcing situations under emergencies. The approach comprises of long term policies on

sustainable agriculture and rural development; and short term policies targeting vulnerable groups,

calling into attention risks and the management of risks8.

7 Food and Agriculture Organization, 2000, Grossary, Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems.

8 Food and Agriculture Organization, 2006, Food Security, Policy Brief, June, Issue 2, p.3.

4


5/60


Table 1 : FAOs Policy Priorities for Food Security

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization, 2006, Food Security, Policy Brief, June, Issue 2.

1.2 Food security in the Thai context

In the early 2008, food security entered a policy discussion in the wake of sudden surge of

rice prices that followed soaring oil prices. The term food security by itself is quite new although

the word has earlier appeared in some policy literatures. For example, the Department of Health and

the World Health Organization (WHO)s jointly-supported proposal of the National Strategic Plan on

Food Security in 2002 aiming to establish the national food safety master plan under the Public

Health Act 1992, used the term food security to refer to availability, accessibility, sufficiency and

stability dimensions; and regarded it as important to the countrys economic and cultural security9.

9 Drafting Committee of the Strategic Plan, 2002, Executive summary, Strategic Plan Proposal on Food Security, under the

Establishment of Food Safety Master Plan for Domestic Consumer in Thailand under the Public Health Act, 1992, Supported by

the Health Department and the World Health Organization, Bangkok.

5


6/60


Traditionally, Thailand hardly experiences food shortages because most of the countrys

consumption demand can be met through domestic production, with small import supplements. The

agricultural sector has played an important role in supplying food, driving economic growth, and

generating employment. During the agricultural boom years in the 1970s, large areas of

uncultivated land were turned into farmlands. All National Economic and Social Development Plans

have continuously aimed at raising productivity to meet domestic consumption and export markets 10.

Despite a shift towards industrialization in the 1980s that brought about biased policies against the

agricultural sector, the country still occupies a prominent global position in many primary agricultural

commodities and food items11 such as rubber, canned pineapple, cassava, sugar, chicken, shrimp

and canned tuna.

Most of the debates on food security then focused on nutrition and safety issues. This was

due to the dominance of public health policy makers and practitioners in the debates. In 1972, the

National Food and Nutrition Plan was launched by the Ministry of Public Health and adopted for the

first time in the 4th National Economic and Social Development Plan (1977-1981). In 1992, the

National Food Commission was established, headed by high-ranking public health officials. The

committee later approved the National Food Safety System and tasked the National Food Safety

Committee to implement food safety policies in normal and crisis circumstances12, in line with a

strategy set out by the WHO13. The latest institutional development was the enactment of the

National Food Commission Act in 2008. The Act mandates the establishment of a national committee

responsible for overseeing food issues including food security.

Significant dynamics in food security concept took place after the 1997 economic crisis. The

agricultural sector was outstanding for serving as a social safety net for unemployed people, thus

lessening the economic and social impacts. According to a survey on Northeastern households

whose members were laid-off during the crisis, about 40% of the returnees joined the agricultural

10 Office of National Economic and Social Development Board, 2004,An Assessment on Capacity and Living Quality

Development of Farmers in Sustainable Agriculture, Office of National Economic and Social Development Board Bangkok.

11 Ammar Siamwalla, 1996, Thai Agriculture: From Engine of Growth to Sunset Status, TDRI Quaterly Review, Volume 11,

No.4.

12 Ministry of Public Health, 1999, Proposals: National Food Safety Program, Nonthaburi.

13 Strategy 1: Countries should develop their food safety policy integration with policies addressing food security, quality and

nutrition, and consistent with international requirements for participation in international trade. (see World Health

Organization, 2004, 10-Points: Regional Strategy for Food Safety in the South-East Asia Region,

http://www.searo.who.int/EN/Section314_4300.htm).

6
http://www.searo.who.int/EN/Section314_4300.htmhttp://www.searo.who.int/EN/Section314_4300.htm


7/60


sector, while many more received economic support from families, whose earnings relied on two

main sources: general wage labor and agriculture14.

Another important context is a shift in trade negotiations from multilateral negotiations at the

World Trade Organization (WTO) to bilateral negotiations (known as Free Trade Agreements: FTAs).

This has immense impacts on food and agricultural policies. Increasing non-tariff trade barriers and

intensified global trade competition highlights the need to reexamine and restructure the agricultural

sector and the countrys food export policy. An interface between food and agricultural production

policies is reflected in the adoption of trade objectives by the public health sector. In 1999, the

National Food Safety Program clearly stated that, besides more effectiveness in domestic

consumer protection, the National Food Safety Program can be the best bargaining tool in

international food trade15.

14 Pitaksit Chayapute, et al., 1999, A Study on Economic and Social Conditions of Ultra Poor Households and Households with

Unemployed Members as a Result of Economic Crisis in the Northeastern Region, In Narong Petprasert (ed.), Thai Poor

People in the Crisis, pp. 269, 273-275.

15 Ministry of Public Health, 1999, Proposals: National Food Safety Program, Nonthaburi, p. 6

7


8/60


Box 2: Food Security by the MSDHSs Human Security Indicators

In 2004, the newly-established Ministry of Social Development and Human Security tasked a

commission team to develop human security indicators in 11 dimensions, including food security

based on UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)s human security framework. The team

identified 3 main indices and 7 indicators as follows.

Index 2.1: Thai people have sufficient food to eat.

Indicator 2.1.1: Having completed meals (by self-production, purchasing, acquiring from the

nature or given by other people)

Indicator 2.1.2: No malnutrition

Index 2.2: Thai people consume safe food.

Indicator 2.2.1: Consuming cooked meat.

Indicator 2.2.1: Consuming food safe from chemical contamination.

Index 2.3: Thai people do not over-consume food.

Indicator 2.3.1:Not having risks on food and exercise.

Indicator 2.3.1:Not believing and overconsumption of supplementary diet.

Indicator 2.3.1:Not led to believe in frequent consumption of under-nutritious food.

Unfortunately, the food security dimension was dropped later on for lack of data16.

Source: Ministry of Development and Human Security, 2004, Thai Human Security StandardGuideline.

2. THAILANDS FOOD SECURITY IN THE PAST DECADE

2.1 Availability

By and large, Thailand remains a strong agricultural exporting country despite the reduction

of the agriculture share in the Gross Domestic Products (GDP) to about 10%. In the past few years,

the role of imported food in the diet basket of Thai people has increased as a result of trade

liberalization. Another important and recent consideration is how to achieve a balance between foodsupply and energy supply.

1) Food production and use

Thailands food production has increased continuously with crops occupying the largest

share of the production. The production of rice, a staple diet of Thai population, has also expanded.

From 1997 to 2008, production of rice paddy has risen from almost 23 million tons to over 32 million

16 Ministry of Development and Human Security, 2006, Thailand and Human Security: Positions and the Next Step, Report of

the National Conference, 8-9 May, p. 14.

8
http://www.m-society.go.th/document/edoc/edoc_823.pdfhttp://www.m-society.go.th/document/edoc/edoc_823.pdf


9/60


tons, and yield per hectare has increased from just above 2 tons to almost 3.3 tons (see Table 2).

Half of the Thai rice supply goes to domestic market while the remainder is exported to various

countries, making Thailand the number one rice exporter.

Table 2: Paddy: Planted Area, Harvested Area, Production, and Yield

Year

Planted Area

(1000 ha)

Harvested Area

(1000 ha)

Production

(1000 metric tons)

Yield

(kg/ha)

1997 10,004.64 9,794.75 22,772.76 2,325

1998 10,157.64 9,625.68 23,907.76 2,484

1999 10,365.34 9,774.09 23,581.64 2,413

2000 10,078.57 9,745.09 24,947.54 2,560

2001 10,833.35 10,193.90 28,487.41 2,795

2002 10,388.17 9,514.14 27,051.95 2,843

2003 10,479.26 9,513.30 29,336.70 3,084

2004 10,900.25 9,865.32 29,299.04 2,970

2005 10,623.31 9,997.23 29,387.01 2,940

2006 10,621.34 9,970.42 29,792.05 2,988

2007 10,699.61 10,133.85 30,014.00 2,962

2008 10,550.14 9,992.28 32,772.20 3,280

Source: Office of Agriculture Economics, The Data of Thailand,ASEAN Food Security InformationSystem

Besides rice, many other agricultural and food products are also in excess supply (Table 3).

In 2007, Thailands exports of rice, food crops, cassava, sugar, fruits, vegetables, vegetable oil, milk

products, oil seeds and spices were estimated at almost 359 million baht. Unfortunately, the large

export volume is not correlated with productivity. A concrete example is rice, of which productivity in

2007 was extremely low comparing with many countries in Asia and even lower than some of the

poor neighbouring countries (see Table 5). From 1998-2007, paddy rice yields hardly increased. In

1998 and 2007, Thailands yields were only 65% of the worlds average. To rectify this situation,

the government launched a structural adjustment strategy program for the agricultural sector in

2005, aiming to enhance the competitiveness of Thai agricultural products in international markets.

The program divided agricultural commodities into 3 main groups: 1) rice, chicken, shrimp and

rubber are classified as exporting cash crops; 2) fuel crops (e.g. palm oil and tapioca) are regarded

as having business potentiality; and 3) fruits, garlic, onion and coffee are under the need

restructuring category. The program then outlined different policy approaches and strategies for

the three groups.

9


10/60


Table 3: Production, Domestic Consumption and Export of Selected Food and AgriculturalProducts (million tons)

Food Production Domestic Consumption

Rice 30.93 16.94

Sugar 7 2

Pineapple 2.25 0.3

Longan 0.50 0.05

Durian 0.74 0.35

Aquacultured Shrimp 0.5 0.075

Source: Thailands Food Security Strategies in Focus, Prachatai, 2008.

Table 4: Value of Selected Agricultural Exports, 2006-2007 (unit: 1,000 baht)

Items2007*

Rice exports 119,215,430

Food crops 18,660,006

Cassava products 48,640,194

Sugar and products 48,796,711

Fruits and products 48,067,448

Other food products 30,078,533

Vegetables and products 21,846,913

Vegetable oils 12,662,974

Milk products 9,164,185

Oil seeds 1,114,615

Spices 721,166

Total 358,968,175

*Excluded re-exportSource: Office of Agricultural Economics, 2008.

Table 5: Paddy Rice Yield in Selected Countries in Asia, 1998-2007 (tons/ha.)

Year* WorldCambo-

dia China**Indo-nesia Laos

Malay-sia

Myan-mar

Philip-pines

Thai-land Vietnam

1998 3.82 1.79 6.35 4.20 2.71 2.88 3.13 2.70 2.47 3.96

1999 3.89 1.94 6.33 4.25 2.93 2.94 3.24 2.95 2.42 4.10

2000 3.88 2.12 6.26 4.40 3.06 3.06 3.38 3.07 2.61 4.24

2001 3.94 2.07 6.15 4.39 3.13 3.11 3.42 3.19 2.62 4.292002 3.85 1.92 6.19 4.47 3.27 3.24 3.42 3.28 2.61 4.59

10
http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/1193http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/1193


11/60


Year* WorldCambo-

dia China**Indo-nesia Laos

Malay-sia

Myan-mar

Philip-pines

Thai-land Vietnam

2003 3.94 2.10 6.06 4.54 3.14 3.36 3.55 3.37 2.65 4.64

2004 4.03 1.98 6.31 4.54 3.28 3.33 3.78 3.51 2.86 4.86

2005 4.08 2.48 6.25 4.57 3.49 3.31 3.62 3.59 2.96 4.88

2006 4.12 2.49 6.25 4.62 3.35 3.34 3.76 3.68 2.91 4.892007 4.15 2.36 6.35 4.69 3.50 3.38 3.98 3.76 2.69 4.87

*Calendar year when the harvest takes place.

**Includes Taiwan.

Source: FAO, n.d., cited in International Rice Research Institute, 2009, IRRI World Rice Statistics.

2) Increasing role of imported food

Thailands international trade has expanded rapidly after 2003. This is partly due to the

governments policy to expand external demands through FTAs. By 2008, Thailand has already

concluded FTAs with China, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Bahrain, India with more agreements

under negotiation.

An impact assessment of the Thai-Chinese FTA that went into effect in late 2003, showed a

steep increase in vegetables imported from China between 2001 and 2006, from 241 million baht to

2,563 million baht or a 961% increase. For fruits, import jumped from 1,010 million baht in 2001 to

3,530 million baht in 2006, a 249% increase. A large part of the import was carrots, fresh turnip,apples, pears, quinces and grapes (Figures 1 and 2)17. Although it is true that the increase in

imported fruits and vegetables from China took place even before the FTA as a result of Chinas entry

into the WTO, the FTA played a role in accelerating this trend. These figures converged with FAO

data that showed the Thai peoples consumption trend of selected fruits and vegetables (See Figure

3). Figure 1 shows an upward trend for apple, grape, broccoli and carrot, largely imported from

abroad, but a significant drop for onions and other vegetables18.

17 Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart University et al, 2008, Impacts of Thailand-China Free Trade Agreement (Under ASEAN-

China Framework) and Adjustment in Fruit and Vegetable Agribusiness System, Final Report No. 1, Report submitted to the

Office ofKnowledge Management and Development, p. 30-31.

18 Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart University et al, 2008, Impacts of Thailand-China Free Trade Agreement (Under ASEAN-

China Framework) and Adjustment inFruit and Vegetable Agribusiness System, Final Report No. 1, Report submitted to the

Office ofKnowledge Management and Development, p. 31.

11
http://www.okmd.or.th/http://www.okmd.or.th/http://www.okmd.or.th/http://www.okmd.or.th/


12/60


Figure 1: Import of Vegetables from China, 2001-2006

2544-2549

0

100,000,000

200,000,000

300,000,000

400,000,000

500,000,000

600,000,000

700,000,000

2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 2549

()

()

Value (Baht)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Fresh carrot and turnip

Mushroom (Agaricus)

Fresh or chilled garlic

Fresh or chilled onion (new)

Other dry mushroom

Fresh or chilled cauliflower and broccoli

Ear mushroom

Source: Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart University et al, 2008, Impacts of Thailand-China Free TradeAgreement (Under ASEAN-China Framework) and Adjustment inFruit and Vegetable AgribusinessSystem, Final Report No. 1, Report submitted to the Office ofKnowledge Management and Development,p. 31.

Figure 2: Import of Fruits from China, 2001-2006

2544-2549

0

200,000,000

400,000,000

600,000,000

800,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,200,000,000

1,400,000,000

1,600,000,000

1,800,000,000

2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 2549

()

1 2 3 4 5

Value baht

AppleGrapeMandarin

Fresh pears and quinceFresh or chilled nuts

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

12
http://www.okmd.or.th/http://www.okmd.or.th/


13/60


Source: Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart University et. al, 2008, Impacts of Thailand-China Free TradeAgreement (Under ASEAN-China Framework) and Adjustment inFruit and Vegetable AgribusinessSystem, Final Report No. 1, Report submitted to the Office ofKnowledge Management andDevelopment, p. 32.

Figure 3: Fruit and Vegetable Consumption in Thailand by Type, 1997-2005 (unit:

gram/person/day)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

APPLE

1.36

1.40

1.44

1.48

1.52

1.56

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

BROCCOLI

0.0

0.2

0.40.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

CARROT

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

GRAPE

9.2

9.6

10.0

10.4

10.8

11.2

11.6

12.0

12.4

12.8

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

ONION

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

OTHER_VET

97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 0597 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008, cited in Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart Universityet. al, 2008, Impacts of Thailand-China Free Trade Agreement (Under ASEAN-China Framework) and

Adjustment inFruit and Vegetable Agribusiness System, Final Report No. 1, Report submitted to the


13
http://www.okmd.or.th/http://www.okmd.or.th/http://www.okmd.or.th/http://www.okmd.or.th/http://www.okmd.or.th/http://www.okmd.or.th/


14/60


3) Food crops and energy crops

A surge in oil prices in the 2000s has prompted the Thai government to find quick and less

expensive alternatives to fossil fuel. At the same time, continuous falling prices of farm produces

discouraged many farmers from investing in their farms. Differences in net returns between 2003

and 2007 reflected the boom and bust of food and energy crops. Rice and longan had declining net

return per rai (1 rai is approximately 0.16 hectare) while fuel crops like corns, rubber, sugarcane,

cassava and palm oil drew substantial increase in net return (Table 6). A projection of Thai agro-fuel

demand expected more than 100% increase in 2007 over the previous year, thanks to the

introduction of E20, and the implementation of B2 requirement19. This rapid demand together with

the governments promotion has attracted many rice farmers to the fuel crop program.

Table 6: Cash crops rate of return per rai, 2003 and 2007

Net return (Baht/ rai)Crops

2003 2007

Seasonal rice 623 346

Non-seasonal rice 1,472 978

Corn 755 1,411

Longan 340 - 1,045

Rubber 4,776 9,499

Sugarcane 248 1,130

Tapioca 292 1,305

Palm oil 4,964 4,070

Source: Office of Agricultural Economics, cited in Detcharut Sukkamnoed, 2008, Food and EnergyCrisis: Road to the Balance.

In southern provinces, where most of the palm oil plantations are located, the forecast ofrapidly rising demand for palm oil used in biodiesel industry in the wake of the soaring oil prices has

led to further encroachment of palm oil plantation into empty rice fields and wetland. The

19 Thai Oil Palm Pilot Crop Ready For Harvest; May Replace Tangerine Crops Wiped Out By Viruses, Biofuels Digest, 19 May

2008.

14
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/05/19/thai-oil-palm-pilot-crop-ready-for-harvest-may-replace-tangerine-crops-wiped-out-by-viruses/http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/05/19/thai-oil-palm-pilot-crop-ready-for-harvest-may-replace-tangerine-crops-wiped-out-by-viruses/http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/05/19/thai-oil-palm-pilot-crop-ready-for-harvest-may-replace-tangerine-crops-wiped-out-by-viruses/http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/05/19/thai-oil-palm-pilot-crop-ready-for-harvest-may-replace-tangerine-crops-wiped-out-by-viruses/


15/60


government is also supporting farmers in 14 Southern provinces to transform 4.38 million rai of

existing rubber plantation into palm oil plantation20.

In northeastern provinces, some farmers began to grow cassava in their rice fields during

post harvest. They were introduced to a new variety of cassava, which supposed to give yields in

only 6 month period, but later found that such claim was exaggerated. Unlike the South,

northeastern farmers are not familiar with palm oil cultivation as it was recently introduced to the

area. Despite the lack of evidence supporting successful cultivation of palm oil in a dry area like the

Northeast, many farmers decided to give it a try because they were enticed by the prospect of high

rate of return, and frustrated with low rate of return fetched by food crops plus repeatedly failed

harvests. Unfortunately, most of the palm oil investment does not yield positive outcome21.

Photo: Harvested Tapioca in a Rice Field

(Source: Prachatham)

Two subcommittees were set up to promote the production of ethanol and biodiesel andseveral billion Baht was allocated to subsidize the production. The Ministry of Agriculture and

Cooperatives five-year plan (2008-2011) targets to expand palm oil cultivated land to 6 million rai

and to raise the productivity of sugarcane and cassava production22. The popularity of fuel crops has

led to expanded private investments. For instance, the Mae Sot Clean Energy, a joint venture

between the Phadaeng Industry and Thai Oil and Petrogreen, is constructing a sugarcane ethanol

facility in the Mae Sot district of Tak23.

20 Sayamol Kaiyoorawong, From Commercial Forest Plantation Policy to Fuel Crop Policy: Food Security in the Southern

Region, Paper Presented at the Public Conference on Fuel Crop and Rubber Policies: Opportunities and Risks of Farmers, 17-

19 October 2008, p. 19.

21 Northeastern Farmers Growing Tapioca in Rice Fields Were Not Convinced in Yields, Prachatham, 26 May 2008,

22 Government Pours 25 Billion Baht Loan for Fuel Crop Plantation, Naew Nar, 19 May 2008.

23 Thai Oil Palm Pilot Crop Ready For Harvest; May Replace Tangerine Crops Wiped Out By Viruses, Biofuels Digest, 19 May

2008.

15
http://www.newspnn.com/V2008/detail.php?code=n1_26052008_01http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/05/19/thai-oil-palm-pilot-crop-ready-for-harvest-may-replace-tangerine-crops-wiped-out-by-viruses/http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/05/19/thai-oil-palm-pilot-crop-ready-for-harvest-may-replace-tangerine-crops-wiped-out-by-viruses/http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/05/19/thai-oil-palm-pilot-crop-ready-for-harvest-may-replace-tangerine-crops-wiped-out-by-viruses/http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/05/19/thai-oil-palm-pilot-crop-ready-for-harvest-may-replace-tangerine-crops-wiped-out-by-viruses/http://www.newspnn.com/V2008/detail.php?code=n1_26052008_01


16/60


Box 3: Rice Crisis in 2008

Around the world, there were concerns over the shift from food crop to fuel crop to take

advantage of increasing demand for alternative energy. In Thailand, the food-energy security

dilemma was not publicly debated until rice prices started to rise in late 2007. Within 3 months in

early 2008, the price of 100% white rice surged from 1,340 baht to 2,740 baht per 100 kilograms in

domestic market and from $466 per ton to $894 per ton in international market at FOB price. (Table

7).

Table 7 : Changes in prices of Thai rice, February-April 2008

2008 100% white rice 100%

(bath per 100 kg.)

100% white rice 100%

(at FOB price; US dollars per ton)

13 February 2008 1,340 466

12 March 2008 1,650 604

23 April 2008 2,740 894

Source Thai Rice Miller Association and Thai Rice Exporters Association, cited in Vitoon Panyakul,2008, Rice Supply Chain: Opportunities in the Crisis, or Crisis in opportunities, Powerpointpresentation at a conference on Food Crisis, Thai Economy Crisis: Expensive Rice, FarmersGained Benefits?, Thai Consumer Foundation, 28 April 2008.

A number of factors were responsible for this unprecedented phenomenon. They are crop

failure in major rice exporting countries, declining global rick stock, and panic in the market.

Increased corn cultivation in the US and other countries for ethanol industries was at the expense of

wheat production, leading to dual price rises of wheat and rice as a substitution to wheat24. Such

situation adversely affected poor people in many countries. Riots broke out in some countries. In

April 2008, the Thai cabinet decided to tackle the food and energy crisis. Several subcommittees

were set up. There were proposals to establish a zoning system for food crop and fuel crop. No

concrete action was taken due to political instability and the sharp drop of oil and rice prices in late

2008.

2.3 Access

Food access is a very important issue as food sufficiency does not guarantee adequate food

access for every one. In Thailand, although food is available in abundance, some level of food

inaccessibility and malnutrition still persists in some population segments including infants and young

children in rural areas, the urban poor, and landless farmers. Food access at individual or household

level is not only a function of purchasing power. It also involves several economic and social factors.

24 Understanding the Global Rice Crisis, Business Week, Economics and Policy, April 28, 2008.

16


17/60


Food accessibility has become more complicated as Thais have become more dependent on the

markets, and large food distributors are becoming influential actors in the food system.

1) Access to nutritious and balanced diets

Since 1980s, incidence of malnutrition fell dramatically thanks to poverty alleviation programs

aimed at reducing protein-energy malnutrition, vitamin A deficiency and iodine deficiency. The

programs included nutrition surveillance, supplementary feeding among young children, nutrition

education, primary health care and production of nutritious food25. Mild and moderate underweight

in children under five years old was brought down sharply from 48% in 1982 to 9% in 1998, while

severe underweight fell from 2% in 1982 to an insignificant level. The government later shifted to

tackle a broader issues to improve the overall nutrition and living quality of the people, such as the

production of diversified foods for home consumption, fortification of instant noodle by adding

vitamin A, iron and iodine, mandatory nutrition labeling of food products, and monitoring,surveillance and feeding program for children under five and primary school children26.

In 2003, a food and nutrition survey conducted by the Ministry of Public Health revealed that

people aged 15-59 years old had adequate energy based on the Dietary Reference Intake for Thais

(DRI) with daily energy consumption ranged approximately 1,300-1,500 kilocalories. The highest and

lowest energy ratio was found in the Northeast and the Central respectively. Average protein intake

was 54 grams, which reached 99% of the reference level. One-third of this protein was animal

protein.

27

. In 2000, an average Thai consumed over 30 kilograms of fish and seafood products.Consumption of chicken, pork and beef rose by 2.97%, 2% and 1.53% respectively28.

Table 8: Energy and protein from one-day food consumption compared with DRI ofpeople aged 15-29 years old by region

Total Central North Northeast SouthEnergy anddiet intake % of the

DietaryReference

% of theDietary

Reference

% of theDietary

Reference

% of theDietary

Reference

% of theDietary

Reference

Energy

(kilocalorie)

75.7 68.9 76.0 80.7 77.6

Protein 99.2 95.3 97.3 102.2 101.9

Source: Extracted from Ministry of Public Health, 2003,A Survey on Food and Nutrition of Thailand,the 5th Assessment, p. 158.

25 Food and Agriculture Organization, 2000, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2000, p. 23.

26 Food and Agriculture Organization, 2000, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2000, p. 23-24.

27 Ministry of Public Health, 2003,A Survey on Food and Nutrition of Thailand, the 5th Assessment, p. 147.

28 Cited in Somying Piumsombun, 2003, The Impact of International Fish Trade on Food Security in Thailand, Report of the

Expert Consultation on International Fish Trade And Food Security, FAO Fisheries Report, No. 708, Rome.

17


18/60


Table 9: Thailands per capita consumption (kilograms) of animal protein, 1980-2000

Year Pork Beef Chicken Fish and Seafood

1995 6.83 2.12 10.00 32.40

1996 7.05 2.12 10.90 31.70

1997 8.45 2.13 11.50 25.58

1998 8.04 2.11 10.78 29.05

1999 7.06 2.07 11.25 31.48

2000 7.32 2.05 10.70 32.74

Average annual increase (%) 1.53 -0.39 2.00 2.97

Source: Office Of Agricultural Economics and Department of Fisheries, cited in Somying

Piumsombun, 2003, The Impact Of International Fish Trade On Food Security In Thailand, ReportOf The Expert Consultation On International Fish Trade And Food Security, FAO Fisheries Report, No.708, Rome.

Nevertheless, malnutrition persisted among children under five years old. Pregnant and

breast-feeding women still had iodine-deficiency anemia and vitamin B1-deficiency. Interestingly, the

nature of the problem began to change as over-nutrition and overweight also became prevalent in all

ages, especially among female adults aged 30-59 years old in urban areas. Obesity is linked to many

non-communicable diseases; for instance, diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol, which

are the main causes of death of Thai population, especially among aged population in urban areas

29

.Overweight problem also affected the children. Some had higher blood pressure than adults (See

Figure 4). In Nakhon Pathom and Bangkok, obesity in children was found to be associated with high-

income families or mothers who were overweight during pregnancy 30.

29 Ministry of Public Health, 2003,A Survey on Food and Nutrition of Thailand, the 5th Assessment, pp. 313-316.

30 Uruwan Yamorisut and et. al., 2006, Factors Associated with Dual Form of Malnutrition in School Children in Nakhon

Pathom and Bangkok, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 89 (7), July.

18


19/60


Figure 4: Obesity and high blood pressure in students grade 1-6

Underweight 2%

High bloodpressure Normal 5%

Weight

Source: Mahidol University, 2004, cited in Institute for Population and Social Research MahidolUniversity and Thai Health Promotion Foundation, Thai Health 2005, p.25.

2) Food access among vulnerable groupsDespite improving nutrition, not a small part of the population still have limited food

accessibility. This is shown by the substantial share of food items in household income. Table 10

shows that over half of Thai people spent 21-60% of their income on food. About 35% of the

population spent 60% or more of their income on food. The means that as food prices rises or

income drops, this group will be exposed to food insecurity. The most vulnerable group those

who spent 80% or more of their income on food was largely located in the rural areas in all

regions. Despite their proximity to the agricultural production base, rural residents face higher risk of

food insecurity than urban residents.

Table 10: Households food expenditure in total income per annum

TotalNumber of households(%)

Food share in

total income (%)

Total Urban Rural

Less than 21 11.7 11.4 11.7

21-40 26.9 26.9 26.9

19


20/60


TotalNumber of households(%)

Food share in

total income (%)

Total Urban Rural

41-60 26.0 29.0 25.1

61-80 19.1 21.3 18.4

More than 80 16.4 11.3 17.9

Source: Extracted from Ministry of Public Health, 2003,A Survey on Food and Nutrition of Thailand,the 5th Assessment, p. 60.

Box 4: Thailands Development of Food Insecurity

and Vulnerability Mapping Systems (FIVIMS)*

The Thai government, supported by the FAOs Asia

FIVIMS project, developed the National Food Insecurity

and Vulnerability Mapping System (FIVIMS) as part of its

commitment to the World Food Summit in 1996. The

system was launched in 1997. It was later integrated in

the regular national budget program in 2003, under the

coordination of the Office of Agricultural Economics31. The

map identifies vulnerable population in different parts of

the country. The Thai FIVIMS classifies 76 provinces into 3

clusters based on food security and nutrition. Each cluster

is divided into sub-groups (class) of provinces.

The first cluster, classified as the most vulnerable, is located in the Northeastern and the

Northern regions. Population are characterized by high rate of low birth weight, underweight in

children under 5 years old, and prevalence of iodine deficiency, in addition to other vulnerability

factors such as low per capita income, high rate of inactive members and land ownership problems.

This cluster is illustrated in red and pink colors.

Provinces in the second cluster are in the Central, the East, the West and the South of the

country. These provinces have more favorable environments for food security and nutrition with

higher per capita income. But there are some vulnerability factors. This cluster is illustrated in

yellow and ample green.

The last cluster is the least vulnerable group, consisting of the remaining provinces in the

31 Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, n.d., FIVIMS in Thailand

20
http://www.fivims.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=45http://www.fivims.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=45


21/60


Central, the East, the West and the South of the country. Under this cluster, the population have

higher-than-national average income. There are also some negative factors in terms of food security.

The cluster is illustrated in dark and light green.

Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, 2005, The Results of the Thailand Analysis,*For elaboration on indicators, see Nutrition Division, 2006, Area-Based Data,http://nutrition.anamai.moph.go.th/temp/main/content.php?group=4

(1) The Rural PoorPoverty has decreased over the past decade, with an exception of a brief period following the

1997 economic crisis. In 2007, the number of the poor was estimated at 5.4 million or 8.5% of the

population. A large part of the poor lived in the rural area and are involved in agricultural sector,

either as farmer or agricultural worker. Northeastern and Northern regions have the highest

numbers of poor population. The characteristics of poor households are small land tenure, low

education, large family, and large number of dependants32.

In 2000, 55% of the poor or almost 5 million people were farmers. Together with farm

workers, approximately 70% of the countrys poor was in the agricultural sector. Farmers and farm

workers are poor as they face many difficulties, many of which are structural, such as low bargaining

power, low farm prices, high input cost, crop failure, lack of financial credits.

Poverty among farmers is a stark contrast to the facts that Thailand is the top rice exporting

country. This is because domestic paddy prices are determined by the global market.33 Aside from

qualitative factors such as moisture content, farm gate prices are based on the prices taken by rice

millers and exporters. Farmers are price takers at the end of the reversed supply chain. The more

farmers invest in agricultural chemicals to boost the production, the more they expose themselves to

financial risks.

Poverty and food security are not related in a straightforward manner because farmers are

food producers, who have the ability to feed themselves despite financial constraints. This does not

include landless farmers who are more exposed to food insecurity than farmers who work on their

land.

32

Office of National Economic and Social Development Board, 2002, The Poor: New Opportunities for Self-Reliance.33The Agricultural Futures Trading Commission, 2007, Structure of Domestic Rice Market

21
http://www.asiafivims.net/thailand/fivims/analysis.htmhttp://nutrition.anamai.moph.go.th/temp/main/content.php?group=4http://nutrition.anamai.moph.go.th/temp/main/content.php?group=4http://www.asiafivims.net/thailand/fivims/analysis.htm


22/60


Land is an important factor. According to NESDB, poverty was prevalent among farmers

owning less than 5 rai of land34. Land is one of the most fundamental capitals needed to generate

food and income. In times of crisis, land-owning farmers can cope with external shocks better than

landless farmers35. In 1999, there were 543,942 landless farming households that worked on rented

farm land. 969,355 households worked on their own land and rented land. These figures implied

that over 1.5 million households could be vulnerable to food insecurity36.

Better economic status does not always guarantee better food security situation. A study of

poverty among farming households revealed that poor farm households had higher food security ratio

than those with higher income. This is because the former had higher capacity to produce and

acquire food from their own farms. The figures below showed that farmers earning less than 15,000

baht per year had 26% food security while those earning more 15,000 and 20,000 baht per year had

23% and 14% food security respectively.

In another study, the author investigated food security situation among households of

different economic status in Nan province in the North and found that despite poverty, the poorest in

the village could gain access to food via natural resources and social network. For example, the poor

might work on other peoples land in exchange for rice or obtain rice from their relatives, neighbors

or social institutions, e.g. temple. Old people had good social status. They were often offered

particular types of food such as fruits, vegetables, seasoning, and meat by other members in the

communities. Interestingly, those of moderate economic status had larger variety of food than thevillage rich, primarily because the former had both the capacity to buy food from the market and the

capacity to acquire food that was not available in the market from the nature.37.

Table 11: Poor farming households income sources and food security ratio, 2006(baht/person)

Annual incomeequal or less than

15,000 baht/person

Annual incomemore than 15,000

baht/ person/ year


baht

Total income 12,835 22,243 55,001

34 Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, 2007, Poverty Assessment Report, Chapter 3, p. 12.

35 See the case of garlic farmers in Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart University et. al, 2008, Impacts of Thailand-China Free

Trade Agreement (Under ASEAN-China Framework) and Adjustment inFruit and Vegetable Agribusiness System, Final Report

No. 1, Report submitted to the Office ofKnowledge Management and Development, p. 57.

36 Prapart Pintobtang, 2007, Proposals on Social Welfare Development for Farming Communities, Research project on Social

Safety Net: Fundamental to Equity, Final report submitted to the National Economic and Social Advisory Council, part 2, p. 14

37 Piyanrt Imdee, 2004, Food security of rural community : a case study of Pa-Kha Village, Suak Sub-District, Muangnan

District, Nan Province, Master Thesis, Thammasart University.

22


23/60


Annual incomeequal or less than

15,000 baht/person


baht/ person/ year


baht

(100 %) (100 %) (100 %)

Farm income 5,144

(40 %)

7,486

(34 %)

19,916

(36 %)Non-farm income 6,252

(49 %)13,009(58 %)

33,516(61 %)

Consumption of farmproducts

1,439(11 %)

1,748(8 %)

1,569(3 %)

Food security rate (%)* 26 23 14

Source: Graduate School of Kasertkart University, 2006,A Study on Poverty in Farming Households,A report submitted to the Office of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives* Food security is the households food consumption acquired from its own farm, measured byutilization rate of farm consumption. The higher the utilization rate, the higher the food security ofthe household.

The utilization rateof farm consumption =

Value of farm products used for households consumption x 100Value of farm products used for households consumptionplus food expenditure

There are different approaches to promote food security among farm households. The

governments traditional approach is to raise farmers monetary income by improving market access

and increasing productivity through chemical inputs, new seeds and technology. Since 1970s, an

alternative to chemical-based mono-cropping has been pursued by the sustainable agriculture

movement. Today, such movement has grown in strength and several variations of sustainable

agriculture including organic agriculture, integrated agriculture, forestry agriculture, have been

advocated and experimented in several parts of the country.

In 2004, the Office of National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) conducted

a study in 12 provinces and discovered that 79% of farmers under the study felt that they had low or

moderate food sufficiency while practicing conventional chemical-based agriculture; only 9% said

they had high level of food sufficiency. After shifting to sustainable agriculture, the percentage of

farmers feeling that they have high food sufficiency jumped to 62%. Moreover, 66% of farmers

felt they had better quality and variety of food, compared with only 10% under the chemical-based

agriculture (Table 12). On average, household food expenses decreased by 30%.38

Table 12: Food security before and after shifting to sustainable agriculture

Before shifting to sustainableagriculture

After shifting to sustainableagriculture

Numbersof farmers

(%)Level

Food sufficiency Food qualityand variety


High 9.2 10 62.3 66.2

38Office of National Economic and Social Development Board,2004,An Assessment on Capacity and Living Quality

Development of Farmers in Sustainable Agriculture, pp. 55-57.

23


24/60


Before shifting to sustainableagriculture

After shifting to sustainableagriculture

Numbersof farmers

(%)Level



Moderate 41.5 43.8 27.7 25.4

Low 37.7 34.6 1.5 -

Notindicated

11.5 11.5 8.5 8.5

Totalfarmers

100 100 100 100

Source: Office of National Economic and Social Development Board,2004,An Assessment onCapacity and Living Quality Development of Farmers in Sustainable Agriculture, p 57.

The New Theory proposed by H.M. The King is also based on the principle of self-reliance

specially among the farm sector. According to the theory, food security can be achieved at

household level through diversifying crops, building water storage, expanding farming activities tocover aquaculture and husbandry. In practical terms, land use is divided into 30:30:30:10 for the

purposes of digging up small ponds, growing rice, cultivating field crops or orchards, and housing.

The theory received immense interests from the government and the public.

Box 5: Free trade and food security for garlic farmers

In 2003, Thailand and China agreed to implement the free trade agreement on fruits and

vegetables. When the agreement went into effect, import and export tariffs of the two countries

would be brought down to zero. Immediately, garlic farmers became victims of an influx of cheaper

and bigger garlic from China, the worlds number one garlic producer. Many farmers were not aware

of the FTA and were in shock.

In the North where most of garlic production is based, many farmers continue to grow garlic

after years of price fluctuation and the FTA because garlic is the main source of households income.

Garlic cultivation is also regarded by most farmers as the way of life that they have been practicing

for generations. The low price and lack of demand severely affects income security of garlic farmers

especially poor ones. As a result of decreasing garlic prices, a garlic farmer in Chiang Mai province

had to sell parts of her wooden house to raise enough money for her childs tuition. Although some

argued that the FTA was not the main reason for the plummeting garlic prices, garlic farmers insisted

that they noticed worsening market situations compared with pre-FTA period. In any case, a study

concluded that the FTA was a turning point in the production, marketing, and consumption of garlic

and several other agricultural produces. This is because it would have profound and long-term

repercussion on the Thai agriculture, much more than any of the governments agricultural policies. 39

39 See Food and Agriculture Organization, 2008, cited in Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart University et. al, 2008, Impacts of

Thailand-China Free Trade Agreement (Under ASEAN-China Framework) and Adjustment inFruit and Vegetable Agribusiness

System, Final Report No. 1, Report submitted to the Office ofKnowledge Management and Development, p. 31 and 109.

24


25/60


(2) The urban poorA large part of the urban poor are people living in slum communities and informal workers.

Despite their obvious vulnerability, their food-related situation is rarely documented. This may be

due to the fact that food is secondary to their other problems such as housing, basic infrastructures

and working conditions.

According to the Community Organizations Development Institute, in 2003 there were

approximately 5,500 low-income urban communities with 8.25 million people living in poor conditions

and often insecure housing.40 In Bangkok alone, it was estimated to have 1,200 slum communities in

200441.

A survey on food situation of poor households in urban areas reported that in 2003 only

44% of the urban poor thought they had secured food access while the rest expressed some level of

concerns (see Table 13). Among the latter, 14% and 3% could be classified as having moderate andsevere hunger respectively. Moreover, many people had an average intake of only 1,200 calories per

day, compared with 2,000 calories/day for women aged 20-59 years recommended by the Ministry of

Public Health.

The study pinpointed two major factors accountable for food insecurity, namely lack of

disposable income at the end of the month and lack of time for cooking. Further investigation

concluded that employment was not sufficient to ensure food security for the urban poor.

Regardless of the numbers of employed members of the household, they are unlikely to have fulltime jobs and regular income. This makes them worried about insufficient food. According to a

survey of low-wage urban communities by NSO in 2006, over half of urban poor households had low

level of income of less than 1,501 baht per week or 6,004 baht per month42. When the food prices

or other costs of living rise, women in the family are likely to be affected the most as they would cut

their meals or eat less to save food for their children and the other family members43.

40Somsook Boonyabancha, 2005, Scaling Up Slums And Squatter Settlements Upgrading In Thailand Leading To Community-

Driven Integrated Social Development At City-Wide Level, Paper Presented at the Arusha Conference on New Frontiers of

Social Policy, 12-15 December 2005, p. 4.

41In the Frame. Siam Turakij, 1 June 2005.

42 National Statistical Office of Thailand , 2006,Summary of the Population and Social Survey on Low-Income Urban

Communities 2006,

43 See Noppawan Piaseu and Pamela Mitchell, 2004, Household Food Insecurity Among Urban Poor in Thailand, Journal of

Nursing Scholarship, Volume 36, Issue 2.

25
http://news.utcc.ac.th/content/view/349/13/http://news.utcc.ac.th/content/view/349/13/


26/60


Table 13: Distribution of households by food security status

Description Numbers of households Percentage (%)

Food security situation

Food secure 88 44.2

Food insecure with no hunger 78 39.2

Food insecurity with moderate hunger 27 13.6

Food insecure with severe hunger 6 3.0

Description of food eaten in the household

Always enough 64 32.2

Enough but not always 115 57.8

Sometimes not enough 10 5.0

Often not enough 10 5.0

Reasons for not having enough food

Affordability 96 71.1

Time 55 43

Quality of food 15 11.1

Health problems 13 9.6

Too difficult to get food 12 8.9

On a diet 9 6.7

Availability 2 1.5

No working stove available 1 0.7

Others 4 2.0

Source: Noppawan Piaseu and Pamela Mitchell, 2004, Household Food Insecurity among Urban Poorin Thailand, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, Volume 36, Issue 2

3) Role of markets and hypermarkets

Ways and means to access food have changed during the past decade. People in the rural

areas become more dependent on the market and less dependent on food acquired from the nature.

From 1996 to 2000, the number of so-called mobile markets (Talad-nut, similar to weekend market)

and other temporary markets increased from 995 to over 3,125. In line with the governments policy

to promote tourism industry to earn hard currencies after 1997, the number of food shops and

restaurants also rose quickly. But only a small number of markets and food establishments achieved

the health standard set by the Health Department44.

44 Nutrition Plan Formulation Subcommittee, National Nutrition Committee, 2001, the 9thNational Food and Nutrition

Plan(2002-2006), Document for the Conference on the National Food Commission Act 2008 and Food Management System of

Thailand, Bangkok, 19 March 2008, pp. 16-17.

26


27/60


Box 6: Eating behaviors induced by changing lifestyles

Urbanization and globalization changes the eating behaviors of Thai people. In urban areas,

changes are faster because people have less time to cook, so they shift to ready-to-eat meals. A

business survey by a consultant company found that Thai people were among leading Asian

consumers of ready-to-eat meals. 43% and 44% frequently and occasionally ate out or bought

ready-to-eat meal through food shops, restaurants and food stores45. Another survey also found that

Thai people ate out about 13 meals a week. Bangkokians were champion, while people in the

Northeastern had the highest rate of home-cook meals46.

40% of Thai people had less than 3 meals a day. People in rural area and in the agricultural

sector were more likely to complete 3 meals a day. As income rose, meal consumption tended to be

delayed to late at night47.

Another aspect of the changes is found in urban areas; hypermarkets or large discount stores

have largely replaced small grocery stores and supermarkets in shopping malls. A consumer survey

in Bangkok showed that between 1999 and 2001, consumers reduced their average visits to

supermarkets from 4.1 trips to 2.2 trips per month but increased their visits to hypermarkets from 1.9

trips to 2.1 trips per month, citing convenience, proximity, familiarity and friendly environment as

most important reasons for this shift. Wet markets continued to be the place where consumers buy

fresh food. But the visits dropped from 17 trips per month to 12 trips per month.48

Hypermarkets have become powerful in influencing consumers choices as they are able to

select and control suppliers, and determine the environment where people buy their food. For

instance, a study on fruits and vegetables revealed that supermarkets and hypermarkets through

promotions, special events, shelving positions, and educational campaigns49. Some hypermarkets

have expanded into food export business. In 2007, 8,000 million baht of Tesco Lotuss revenue was

from food-exporting business, 20% of which were fruits and vegetables50

45 Thai PR, 2008, Thai Consumers: the Worlds Biggest Fans of Ready-to-Eat Meals, 9 February,

46 Doctors Revealed Thais Eating Out 13 Meals a Week Made Them Fat!, Manager, 30 January 2008.

47 Sawangdee, Yothin, et al., Summary of Economic Forecast Centers National Survey, in National Health Foundation , 2006,

Food and Water: Essential Factor for Thai Peoples Sustainable Happiness, Bangkok, pp. 337, 339.

48 Hypermarkets in Thailand Gain Ground, Bangkok Post, 29 May 2001.

49 Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart University et. al, 2008, Impacts of Thailand-China Free Trade Agreement (Under ASEAN-

China Framework) and Adjustment inFruit and Vegetable Agribusiness System, Final Report No. 1, Report submitted to the


50 Agriculture Export, a Complementary Role of Tesco Lotus, Matichon, 21 February 2008.

27
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Hypermarkets-in-Thailand-gain-groundhttp://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Hypermarkets-in-Thailand-gain-groundhttp://www.okmd.or.th/http://www.matichon.co.th/prachachat/prachachat_detail.php?s_tag=02mar03210251&day=2008-02-21&sectionid=0207http://www.matichon.co.th/prachachat/prachachat_detail.php?s_tag=02mar03210251&day=2008-02-21&sectionid=0207http://www.okmd.or.th/http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Hypermarkets-in-Thailand-gain-groundhttp://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Hypermarkets-in-Thailand-gain-ground


28/60


Box 7: Hypermarkets: New Comers in Thailands Food System

Prior to the 1997 economic crisis, modern retail food was dominated by supermarkets located

in department stores and convenient stores. The first few hypermarkets were established in late

1980s and early 1990s by Thai investors, in joint venture with foreign investors, namely Makro and

Lotus by the CP Group, Big C and Carrefour by the Central Group. In 1996, hypermarkets started to

take a lions share in the modern retail sector51. The 1997 crisis paved a way for foreign takeover of

these businesses. Within 10 years, foreign-owned hypermarkets especially the 4 giants- Tesco

Lotus, Big C, Carrefour and Makro- have expanded rapidly and drove traditional retailers out of

business. In 2001 alone, according to the Ministry of Commerce, more than 900 local retail operators

ceased operation because they could not compete with hypermarkets52. In 2002, a survey

conducted by Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) concluded that within 1 kilometer of a

hypermarket, there was a 15% net decrease of traditional retail outlets53. The four giant retailers

expanded their outlets from 31 in 1996 to 196 in 2006 (Table 14). Total sale value of these retailers

except Makro reached over 140,000 million baht in 200454. But traditional wet markets continue to

dominate the fresh food sector.

As a result of head-on competition among different types of modern retailers, many

supermarkets and hypermarkets have introduced small-scaled supermarkets 55, e.g. Lotus Express of

Tesco Lotus, Big C Compact of Big C, City Market by Tops. In addition, 7-Eleven convenient stores

have developed a specialization in ready-to-eat and frozen food products while expanding into other

consumer products, e.g. magazines and books. A proliferation of small-scaled shops with long

opening hours does not leave much room for traditional grocery stores; they have to join the

franchises.

51 Ruangrai Tokrisna, n.d., Thailand Changing Retail Food Sector: Consequences for Consumers, Producers, and Trade, 2005-

2006 Individual Economy Profiles, Pacific Economic Cooperation Council, p. 4.

52Sukanya Jitpleecheep, 2004, Enter the giants, Mid-Year Economic Review, Bangkok Post.

53 Ruangrai Tokrisna, n.d., Thailand Changing Retail Food Sector: Consequences for Consumers, Producers, and Trade, 2005-

2006 Individual Economy Profiles, Pacific Economic Cooperation Council, p. 10. .

54 Cited in Siriporn Yodkamonsart and Visate Suchinpram, 2008, Empowering Small Retailers towards Equity in Income

Distribution, Document for the Conference on Empowering People Sector for Equity in Income Distribution, pp. 13-14.

55 Sukanya Jitpleecheep, 2004, Enter the giants, Mid-Year Economic Review, Bangkok Post.

28


29/60


Table 14: Numbers of major discount stores

Discount Stores 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Tesco 5 14 24 n.a. 60 91

Big C 11 20 23 n.a. 40 53

Carrefour 2 6 11 n.a. 20 23

Macro 13 16 19 n.a. n.a. 29

Total 31 56 77 n.a. > 120 196

Source: Cited in Siriporn Yodkamolsart and Wiset SuchinPrum, 2008, Countervailing Power of SmallRetailers to Promote Income Equality, In Faculty of Economics, Chiang Mai University, The study onCountervailing Power to Promote Income Equality, Final report submitted to the National Economicand Social Advisory Council, p. 18.

4) Governments measures to ensure food access

In the past, Thailands poverty reduction strategy was primarily based on income-generation

and provision of social welfare, particularly education. Food welfare projects were usually under

other social welfare or health programs. These programs were designed for specific groups such as

school lunch and milk programs for young children and cash transfer program for elderly people.

Under normal situations, the government applied domestic price control on certain products

to ensure fair trade and consumers access to basic and necessary commodities such as cooking gas,

students uniforms and medicines, the list of which is determined annually by the Central Committee

on Goods and Services under the supervision of the Ministry of Commerce56. When consumer price

index rose, the so-called Blue Flag Discount Project would be launched to offer food and consumer

products at 20-40% lower than market prices on a temporary basis57. Between October 2004 and

September 2005, the project operated in 168 related discounted corners, 32 mobile units and 553

participating restaurants and supermarkets throughout the country58. It was estimated that the

project would reduce the peoples cost of living by 50,000 million baht in 200859.

56 Duenden Nikomborirak and Saowaluk Chevasittiyanon, 2008, Price Control Policy during Food Crisis, Prachachart Turakij,

29 May.

57 Business withdrew from Blue Flag Project. Matichon, p. 19.

58 Internal Trade Department, 2004, Consumer Product Price Control Measures.

59 Blue Flag Help Saving 50 Billion Baht, Post Today, 22 March 2008.

29
http://www.posttoday.com/breakingnews.php?id=228186http://www.posttoday.com/breakingnews.php?id=228186


30/60


The oil and rice crises in early 2008 posed a challenge to the government as to how to deal

with the problem of large-scaled food inaccessibility. Even though Thailand was the largest rice

exporting country, its population was facing the prospect of hunger as soaring global prices of rice

droved up domestic prices60. As inflation rose, consumers could afford to buy less amount of rice.

Both price control and blue flag projects faced limitations in mitigating impacts on the poor. Minister

of Finance proposed a coupon project for low-wage earners, old people and other marginalized

groups by giving out money through top-up card, which could be used to buy necessary items in

selected shops61. The ministrys proposal received both praises and criticisms. Proponents of the

coupon argued that the measure would subsidize low-wage earners, without distorting the market.

Opponents foresaw complications in identifying and reaching target beneficiaries and were concerned

about its political implications; it could be used as an effective vote garner for the governments

parties62. This proposal was eventually replaced by other economic assistance programs such as

waiver of electricity bill and free public transportation. There was only one program related to food

the delay of the plan to hike the price of LPG commonly used for cooking.

2.4 Utilization

Food utilization refers to the quantity and quality of food used for enhancing the peoples

well-being. Thailands primary concern is related to food hazards due to chemical contamination or

diseases. In recent years, misuse of food and overweight have become important issues. At

present food utilization is a popular subject; it often draws lively and interesting public debates.

1) Food hazard

Food hazards can occur at any stage of food supply chain: from agricultural inputs, food

production, processing, distribution, catering and storing, to domestic handling and preparation.

Food hazards is caused by contamination of chemicals, heavy metals, germs and disease. Food

inspections during the past decade revealed a disturbing trend. For example, in 1997, The Ministry

of Public Healths inspection of over 20,000 restaurants and food shops in municipal areas found that

the outlets, utensils, and mishandling of food were causing contamination and food poisoning63.

Another investigation in 2005 by the Health Department reported contamination in 44% of ready-to-

eat food from food stalls and supermarkets in 15 provinces. During 2007-2008, several findings by

the Ministry of Public Health confirmed chronic contamination of Coliforms, E.Coli and TPC as a result

60 David Dawe, Have Recent Price Increases in International Cereal Prices Been Transmitted to Domestic Economy: The

Experience in Seven Large Asian Countries, ESA Working Paper No.08-03, Food and Agriculture Organization, pp.6-7.

61 Finance Ministry Moves on the Poors Coupon Project, Post Today, 13 July 2008.

62 Government Recalls Consumers Confidence- Exempted Oil Tax, Free Buses and Trains, Matichon, 15 July 2008.

63 Nutrition Plan Formulation Subcommittee, the National Nutrition Committee, 1998, the 8thNational Food and Nutrition

Plan(1997-2001), Document for the Conference on the National Food Commission Act 2008 and Food Management System of

Thailand, Bangkok, 19 March 2008.

30


31/60


of food handlers unhygienic conduct.64 Due to a large number of mobile food hawkers and

vendors, food safety monitoring becomes more difficult.65

The heavy use of chemicals in food production also contributes to this problem. For fruits

and vegetables, pesticide use per area reaches the maximum limit66. From 1994 to 1999, the

Ministry of Public Healths surveillance discovered chemical contamination in regular and chemical

free vegetables sold in the markets. In some cases, the contamination was well beyond the safety

standard. Between 2000 and 2001, a random inspection by the Ministry of Agriculture and

Cooperatives also detected pesticide residues in 42% of the vegetables and beans. 11% including

Chinese kale and asparagus bean contained residues in the amount that exceeded the Maximum

Residue Limits (MRL) - the level of maximum chemical contamination acceptable in food. In recent

years, although there was a drop in the import of chemical fertilizers, but import of herbicide has

risen from 73,000 tons in 2003 to almost 102,000 tons in 2006 (see Table 15).

Table 15: Volume and Value of Chemical Fertilizer and Herbicide in Thailand, 2003-2006

Import ofchemical fertilizer

Use of chemicalfertilizer

Import ofherbicide Use of herbicide

YearVolume(million ton)

Value(billionbaht)

Volume(kg/rai)

Value(baht/

rai)

Volume(thousand ton)

Value(billionbaht)

Value(millionbaht)

Averagevalue

(baht/rai)

2003 4.72 26.40 36.0 200 73.03 10.04 0.55 76.07

2004 3.88 33.24 29.0 252 99.84 10.37 0.76 78.63

2005 3.59 35.95 27.2 272 78.65 10.57 0.60 80.20

2006 3.68 35.38 27.9 268 101.79 13.02 0.77 98.76Source: National Committee of Organic Agriculture Development, 2008, Strategic Plan andImplementation Plan on Organic Agriculture Development (2008-2011).

Box 8: Examples of food hazards in processed food in 2008

Case 1: Contaminated noodles

In 2008, newspapers reported that rice noodles were contaminated with heavy metal. A

research team that studied the noodle industry during 2006-2008 disclosed that used motor oil wasused to make noodle soft, and less sticky so that it is easy to cut. Used motor oil is poisonous

64 Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Public Health, 2008, Comments to the Drafted Policy Proposals for the 1st Health

Assembly, Letter submitted to the president of the National Health Assembly Organizing Commission. 21 October.

65 Ministry of Public Health, 2005, Executive Summary,Assessment Project of Food Safety Strategies in the First Phase

(2004), Nonthaburi.

66 Faculty of Economics, Chulalongkorn University, 2006, Organic Agriculture and Sustainable Trading Economy, Public Policy

Project for Food Safety and Sustainable Trading Economy, Bangkok, p. 58.

31


32/60


because it contains Alfatoxin, which induces high-blood pressure, heart disease and cancer. In

addition, a variety of chemicals were used by factories to avoid inspection by the authority.67.

Case 2: Contaminated imported milk power

It is more complicated to ensure food security among imported products. Several inspections

conducted during 1996-2003 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives found residue

contamination in several import items including oranges, grapes, apples, lynches and lettuce68. In

2008, melamine contamination in Chinese-imported milk power became the talk of the town. The

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered inspection of products on shelves with milk power

ingredients and found contamination in many products including babys milk power, toffees and

crackers.

2) Bird Flu outbreaks

Domestic poultry consumption expanded at 3.1% per annum since 1970s, compared with the

3.4% global growth rate. By 1999, Thai people consumed more chicken than the global average.69.

Frozen chicken becomes one of the largest export items. It is characterized by high consolidation

and vertical integration, dominated by a few giant companies.

Between 2003 and 2005, Thai consumers had to avoid poultry and egg at the reported bird

flu outbreaks. The disease was first reported at a chicken farm in Nakhon Sawan province in the

Central Region before spreading to other areas. In mid-January 2004, the epidemic extended to 32

provinces and seriously jeopardized both domestic and export markets.Over 63 million of poultry mostly chicken were slaughtered during 3 outbreaks in 2003-2005

(Table 16). The total number of chicken culled accounted for at least 25% of total poultry raised in

the country. The Thai government was criticized for initially suppressing information about bird flu

epidemic. To restore consumers confidence, the government started a campaign Eating Thai

Chicken is 100% Safe, including a televised program showing prime minister and ministers eating

cooked chicken. The industry distributed free chicken, organized chicken eating competition, etc.70

By late 2004, a national bird flu committee was set up to develop a comprehensive plan to prevent

and manage future risks. Thailand was not alone; the bird flu epidemic also affected several other

countries. Regional and international collaboration was among important preventive and

management strategies.

67 Thailand Research Fund Warned of Several Chemical Contamination in Noodles, Thai Post, 29 August 2008.

68 Department of Agriculture, Research between 1996 and 2005, pp 2-3. ,

69McKinsey Global Institute, 2002, Chicken Processing, Thailand: Prosperity through Productivity, pp.137-138.

.

70 Chanida Chanyapate and Isabelle Delforge, 2004, Politics of Bird Flu in Thailand, Focus on Trade, E-News Letter, No. 98,

April. < http://focusweb.org/number-98-april-2004.html?Itemid=106, 2 December 2008>

32
http://focusweb.org/number-98-april-2004.html?Itemid=106http://focusweb.org/number-98-april-2004.html?Itemid=106


33/60


Table 16: Bird flu outbreaks in Thailand, 2003-2005

Infected

people

Round of

outbreak

Period Reported

epidemic

areas

Death tolls of poultry due

to diseases or slaughtered

Sick Dead

First The late 2003to May 2004

190 in 42provinces

60,000,000 12 8

Second July 2004- April2005

1,542 in 51provinces

3,000,000 5 4

Third July 2005-December 2005

40 in 5provinces

400,000 5 2

Source: Department of Livestock Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative; andDepartment of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, cited in Institute for Population and SocialResearch, 2006, Facing the Challenge of Bird Flu, Thai Health.

An important measure is the introduction of industrial closed-door system (known as

evaporative cooling system - EVAP) to protect animals from bird flu infection. This system was

meant to replace the traditional open-aired system, e.g. raising poultry in the backyard commonly

practiced by rural people. Most of 40,000 small and medium-sized poultry farms throughout the

country were open-aired farms. The closed-farm policy was advocated by the government and some

large chicken-raising companies. The government introduced a number of carrot and stick measures

to advocate this transformation, for instance, requiring chicken raisers to register all chicken and to

upgrade their farms; only those that adopt new chicken-raising would be entitled to compensation in

times of epidemic.71 Some raised doubt whether the closed farm system is an effective measure

against bird flu as chicken in a closed farm system are not immune to the diseases72

.

3) Food safety campaigns and linkage to agricultural policy

Compared with other dimensions of food security, food safety is the most popular topic that

has been publicly discussed in details and at great length. This is due to the effort of those in the

public health sector. In 1999, the FDA under the Ministry of Public Health launched the National

Food Safety Program, with an aim to improve coordination among many government agencies

through the newly set up National Food Safety Committee. The program and the committee were

under a supervision of the National Food Commission set up in 1992. The committee was tasked to

oversee food safety under normal circumstance and during emergencies. A taskforce and a working

71 Isabelle Delforge, 2004, The Flu That Made Agribusiness Stronger,

72 See Isabelle Delforge, 2004, The Flu That Made Agribusiness Stronger,

33
http://focusweb.org/content/view/363/28/http://focusweb.org/content/view/363/28/http://focusweb.org/content/view/363/28/http://focusweb.org/content/view/363/28/


34/60


group were established.73 The Ministry of Public Healths food safety concerns were however limited

to food processing, food distribution and food handling. It was not until the 2000s that the linkages

between farm production and food safety were recognized at the policy level.

Linkages between food and agriculture were fostered by new developments in both the

health and agriculture sectors. In the public health sector, the movement for national health

system reform has shifted from the previously narrow focus of illness treatment to a broader

perspective of disease prevention, risk elimination, and health promotion. A mechanism for

Participatory Healthy Public Policy (PHPP) called Health Assembly was established. 22 policy issues

were addressed at the first health assembly in 200174. The assembly was held annually in

subsequent years. Realizing the linkages between health, food and agriculture, the Health Assembly

launched the Agriculture and Food for Health workshop in 2003; it became the thematic focus of

the assembly in the following year.

Box 9: Policy Advocacy on Agriculture and Food for Health

The theme of the 4th National Health Assembly Agriculture and Food for Health: Threats

from Chemicals was a culmination of several local health assemblies. The slogan of the assembly

was Safe Agriculture, Safe Food, Good Life. The assembly endorsed a number of policy proposals

which were forwarded to and approved by the cabinet a remarkable progress in participatory public

policy. These proposals included 1) to promote agricultural system that is friendly to health and

environment; 2) to develop integrated food safety strategies; 3) to establish control measures onadvertisements and direct sales of agricultural chemicals; and 4) to support local and civil society

organizations that are working toward a food safety system.

Source: Charuk Chaiyaruk et al.(eds), Health Assembly: New Mechanism for Participatory HealthyPublic Policy Development, Nonthaburi.

The agricultural sectors move toward food safety was driven by increasing competition in the

global market especially consumers health concerns, which resulted in a number of rejections of Thai

agricultural export products especially frozen shrimp and chicken.75

In 2004, the governmentlaunched the Food Safety Year with an aim to improve the reputation of Thai products in the global

market. In 2006, a strategic paper formulated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

73 Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Public Health, 1999, National Food Safety Program, Document for the

Conference on the National Food Commission Act 2008 and Food Management System of Thailand, Bangkok, 19 March 2008,

pp. 25-28

74 National Health Commission Office of Thailand, 2008, Health Assembly: New Mechanism for Participatory Healthy Public

Policy Development, pp. 7-10.

75 National Committee of Organic Agriculture Development, 2008, Strategic Plan and Implementation Plan on Organic

Agriculture Development (2008-2011), p. 6.

34


35/60


proposed three major transformations in agricultural production: from resource base to knowledge

base, from low-valued commodities to higher-valued commodities, from quality monitoring at delivery

stage to monitoring throughout the food chain (known as From Farm to Table policy) 76. The paper

outlined steps to prepare Thailand to become the Kitchen of the Worl

food security in thai.pdf

Documents