Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate College 2010 Towards sustainable agriculture in the developing world: Theoretical perspectives and empirical insights Yuichiro Amekawa Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at:http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of theSociology Commons Recommended Citation Amekawa, Yuichiro, "Towards sustainable agriculture in the developing world: Theoretical perspectives and empirical insights" (2010). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 11294. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/11294 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please [email protected]. Towards sustainable agriculture in the developing world: Theoretical perspectives and empirical insights by Yuichiro Amekawa A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Co-majors: Rural Sociology; Sustainable Agriculture Program of Study Committee: Robert E. Mazur, Co-major Professor Mike Duffy, Co-major Professor Jan Flora Gail Nonnecke Teresa Downing-Matibag Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2010 Copyright © Yuichiro Amekawa, 2010. All rights reserved. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.1.1 Sustainable Agriculture: Applying Agroecological Principles 2 1.2 Sustainable Agriculture in Broader Contexts 4 1.2.1 The Developing Country Context 4 1.2.2 The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Export Sector Context 7 1.3 Organization of the Dissertation 10 References CHAPTER 2. DELINEATING THE MULTIFUNCTIONAL ROLE OF AGROECOLOGY: TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS OF SMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 15 2.1 Introduction 16 2.2 Sustainable Agriculture in Different Contexts 18 2.3 Agricultural Multifunctionality: The Key Concepts towards Sustainable Livelihoods 25 2.4 Multifunctional Factors of Agroecological Practices 31 2.4.1 Food Security 31 2.4.2 Financial Stability and Spread of Marketing Risks 33 2.4.3 Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources (PGR) 34 2.4.4 Sustenance of Women’s Roles in Agrobiodiversity Preservation 36 2.4.5 Peasant Resistance against Agricultural Liberalization 37 2.4.6 Coping with Economic Crisis 39 2.4.7 Reproduction of Local Culture 42 2.4.8 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 43 2.5 Implications for Policy and Practice 44 References CHAPTER 3. REFLECTIONS ON THE GROWING INFLUENCE OF GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES (GAP) IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH 56 3.1 Introduction 57 3.2 The Rise of EurepGAP 61 3.2.1 The WTO-SPS Agreement 61 3.2.2 Institutional Origin and Evolution of EurepGAP 65 3.2.3 Content of EurepGAP Protocol 68 3.3 The Potential Effects of EurepGAP Implementation in the Global South 72 3.3.1 Entry Barriers 73 3.3.2 Economic and Ecological Risks 74 3.4 Ethical Implications of Private SPS Measures 79 3.5 Exploring the Potential of Alternative GAP Approaches 87 3.6 Conclusions 91 References iii CHAPTER 4. RETHINKING SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE IN THAILAND: A GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE 104 4.1 Introduction 105 4.1.1 Bach-Hansen’s Perspectives 107 4.2 Conceptual Underpinnings: Sustainable Governance 111 4.3 Contexts and Methods 116 4.4 Findings 120 4.4.1 The Case of MOAC: Sustainable Agriculture under Good Agricultural Practices 120 4.4.2 The Case of BAAC: Promotion of Organic Agricultural Practices under Farmers’ Debt Repayment Suspension Program 125 4.4.3 The Case of SAO: Industrial Organic Agriculture as Part of Democratic Local Governance 130 4.5 Discussion and Conclusions 134 References CHAPTER 5. Q-GAP: EXPLORING THE SOCIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE PUBLIC APPROACH TO GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES IN THAILAND 144 5.1 Introduction 145 5.2 Theoretical Perspectives of Agri-food Standards 149 5.2.1 Political Economy Perspectives 149 5.2.2 Moral Economy Perspectives 154 5.3 Research Contexts 161 5.3.1 National Contexts 161 5.3.2 Local Contexts 163 5.4 Methodology 170 5.4.1 Extended Case Method 170 5.4.2 Research Methods 172 5.5 Analysis 174 5.5.1 Intervention 174 5.5.2 Process 176 5.5.3 Structuration 187 5.5.4 Reconstruction 194 5.6 Conclusions 198 References CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS 212 6.1 Introduction 212 6.2 Summaries 212 6.3 Analytical Synthesis 222 6.4 Closing Remarks 232 References APPENDIX: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CHAPTER 5 234 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is the product of a decade of intellectual exploration and field experiences since my master’s study on organic faming in Thailand. Along the way I have received innumerous support for my projects. First and foremost, I would like to express my deep gratitude for my major advisor, Dr. Robert E. Mazur. He has been an inspiring source of the ‘sustainable livelihood approach’ for me to investigate various agrarian issues in developing societies. He has also become my invaluable model for how to live as a professional academic engaging actively and earnestly in real life issues. Special thanks go to my committee for assisting me in developing my dissertation project throughout various stages of my Ph.D. study. As an agricultural economist, Dr. Mike Duffy taught me how I can be more rigorous in dealing with the data I obtain from the field. Dr. Jan Flora, as a rural sociologist whose interests overlapped with mine, offered me various theoretical perspectives and insights that were useful to develop my dissertation project. The horticultural expert, Dr. Gail Nonnecke, helped me to build the agronomic basis for my study on agroecology and fruit production. Dr. Teresa Downing-Matibag, though seemingly farthest from me in the area of specialization, has provided me with invaluable suggestions for the qualitative aspects of my work. Her guidance to Michael Burawoy’s extended case method is particularly appreciated. In addition to my committee, a number of people assisted me in proceeding with my Ph.D. study. As the then Henry A. Wallace Endowed Chair for Sustainable Agriculture, Dr. Lorna Michael Butler played the key role for me to enter the Graduate Program in Sustainable v Agriculture (GPSA), smoothly settle in the new environment, and conduct preliminary research in Thailand in August 2007. I will never forget my indebtedness to her. I am also very thankful to my friendly colleagues in the Sociology Department and GPSA for sharing the graduate apprenticeship. I am especially grateful to Haroon Sseguya, Ignacio Carranza, and Sheila Onzere, for their cooperation and patience in co-authoring two papers for journals. I will continue to remember the day with delight and pride when I heard the acceptance of our first paper by Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. I am indebted for the incredible amount of hospitality and generous support that I received during my field research in Northeast Thailand. In particular, I would like to thank Mana Suwonkutlo and Itthiphon Samatha. Mana, Itthiphon, and their families helped me to safely settle in Kaset Sombun District and Ban Thaen District, Chaiyaphum Province, respectively, and supported my fieldwork with kind friendship and encouragement. I am also grateful to Samian Naraphon and Bunmi Namuang for generously permitting me to do research in their local areas and constantly supervising the progress of my research. Moreover, I would like to sincerely thank many government officers in the Ministry of Agriculture who kindly guided me how to gain access to the areas for fieldwork and a number of farmers who generously shared time with me for interview. There are a number of Thai people who have helped me to get used to the language, culture, and livelihoods of Northeast Thailand even since before I entered the Ph.D. programs of Iowa State University. I would like to especially thank Dr. Apichai Puntasen in Ubon Rajathanee University and Dr. Buapun Promphakping in Khon Kaen University, as well as local farmers including Phayong Prithayan, Supon Swonnachot, Jarangsi Makhisukkhasati, Kammun Sutthithak, Phaijit Wanmontri, Nuk Saothong, and Buasong Saothong. vi Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Miyuki Amekawa. I could not have completed this Ph.D. project without her dedicated support. I am heartily grateful for her constant encouragement and understanding of my schooling, research, and writing, as well as for the joy of life I shared with her and two children, Torajiro and Lala, born during my Ph.D. period. 1 CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW 1.1 Introduction The concept of ‘sustainable agriculture’ has evolved since the early 1980s in response to an array of ecological and equity problems posed by the adoption of modern industrial agriculture. From the inception, the concept has been inseparably tied to the critique of conventional agricultural paradigm. Broadly, the critique focuses on equity and environmental dimensions. The most commonly cited critique with regard to the equity dimension is the fact that the adopted technologies are not scale neutral but favors resource rich farmers at the expense of poor farmers who could be displaced without adequate safety nets (Altieri 2002; Ray et al. 2003). Another critique is related to the labor saving characteristics of Green Revolution innovations. An increased intensification of capital through the introduction of high-input agricultural technology (such as heavy machinery, irrigation, high-yielding varieties, and agrochemicals) liberates affluent farmers from a hired labor force while forcing the displaced landless cohorts into urban slums and shanty towns (Tadaro 1996). In addition, sustainable agriculture supporters are critical of the conventional agricultural extension strategies. The adopted ‘transfer-of-technology’ (TOT) model, which promotes a top-down transmission of agricultural knowledge from extension officers to farmers, bolsters conventional agriculture by converting component research into easily transmittable production recommendations (Chambers 1989), while bypassing small-scale farmers’ own needs and insights (Matteson 1996) and ignoring holistic ecological approaches. Further, sustainability proponents ‘cry out’ 2 against indiscriminate use and ineffective regulation of pesticides, particularly in the developing countries where many pesticides banned in industrialized countries are still being used. Poor farmers and farm workers are the most affected victims of pesticide intoxication due to their low educational backgrounds and the lack of protection measures (Murray 1994; Wright 2005). On the ecological dimension, the concept of sustainable agriculture reflects a critical view of monocultural production, because intensive monocropping in pursuit of economies of scale is prone to a significant biodiversity loss. Intensive monocropping is also susceptible to various unintended ecological outcomes such as pest outbreaks that arise from reduced environmental opportunities for natural enemies and transformation of pest genetics to resist frequently used pesticides. Crop failures due to such ecological chaos may lead to a severe economic loss and serious debt problems for less affluent farmers (Murray 1994; Wright 2005). Moreover, the concept highlights the ecological unsustainability that a heavy application of Green Revolution technologies may bring on. The use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, improved seeds generated through plant breeding and genetic engineering, and associated irrigation systems may result in high costs and environmental externalities, such as soil erosion, salinization, chemical pollution, and loss of native crop genetic diversity and reduction in overall biodiversity (Altieri and Nicholls 2005). 1.1.1 Sustainable Agriculture: Applying Agroecological Principles The concept of sustainable agriculture aims to address these drawbacks of conventional agriculture by employing the systems approach (Ikerd 1992). While definitions of sustainability vary widely, agroecologists examine and assess sustainability primarily at the 3 farm and watershed levels. In principle, agricultural sustainability requires synergistic effects of agroecological practices to achieve the compatibility among the desired dimensions of the agricultural sustainability tripod: economic, social, and environmental (Herdt and Steriner 1995; vanLoon, Patil, and Hugar 2005). The economic dimension of sustainability utilizes agroecosystem diversity to achieve minimum reliance on external inputs, and crop-livestock integration to offset the limits in economies of scale with economies of scope and yield stability, which result in increased productivity, food security, diet diversity, and income stability (Altieri 1999; Gliessman 1990), thereby serving livelihood and equity goals of resource-poor farmers. These practices also enhance social sustainability. The consequent reduction in pesticide use is related to improved worker safety for producers and food safety for consumers (Bradley 1994). In addition, these cultural approaches are more knowledge and labor intensive, requiring understanding of ecological processes, problems, and methods within given location-specific contexts. In sustainable agriculture dissemination, therefore, in-situ conservation, farmer participation, and farmer-to-farmer extension are encouraged, thereby producing various synergistic effects of farmer empowerment (Matterson 1996). With regard to environmental sustainability, problems of pest resistance and outbreaks resulting from large-scale monocultural production are reduced by smaller-scale multiple cropping, crop rotations (Magdoff 1989; Stinner and Blair 1990), use of cover crops (Liebman 1989), mulching (Vambe 1997), and so forth. Soil health is maintained through organic accumulation and nutrient recycling based on incorporation of manure and legumes. These cultural practices will lead to desirable environmental benefits, such as increased