was established in Vietnam in 2008, called VietGAP, and others have been
established in several other countries within the Association of South East Asian
Nations (ASEAN), but the Thai Q-GAP standard is by far the largest such program
in the region. Different from private GAP standards, public GAP standards are fully
managed by governments, from standards setting to training, inspection and the
issuing of certificates (Sardsud 2007). With certification being free of charge for
farmers, these public GAP standards are seen as an alternative to private GAP
standards such as GlobalGAP, which are costly for farmers to adopt.
Schreinemachers et al. (2012) identified challenges to public GAP standards by
combining data from interviews held with government authorities and a random
sample of farm managers, with an action research approach that focused on a group
of farmers using both public and private GAP standards. Quantitative farm level
data came from the same data set collected in the Mae Sa area described above,
while the qualitative data were collected by colleagues working on the same
research program.
The results showed that the Q-GAP program expanded rapidly, and by 2010,
certificates had been issued to about 212,000 farmers covering a crop area of
225,000 ha. Although this area seems large, it represents only 3.7 % of the country’s
farm households and 1.2 % of the area of arable and permanent cropland. The
certification of this large number of farmers has; however, strained the handling
capacity of the involved government departments, because certificates are only
valid for one year for annual crops and two years for perennial crops. As a result,
only about 10 % of the re-applying farmers are randomly checked in any year.
Using quantitative data for crop production in the Mae Sa watershed area, a
statistical comparison was carried out between farmers who do and do not follow
the Q-GAP guidelines. First, in terms of pesticide handling, the study found that the
majority of farmers in both groups made efforts to reduce the direct risk of pesticide
spraying on their health, but found that the difference between the two groups was
not statistically significant (p> 0.10). Second, the study compared the quantity of
active ingredients used per hectare for eight crops and although Q-GAP farmers
used smaller quantities on average, these differences were not significant (p> 0.10)
for any crop, as shown in Table 4.6 for a selection of six crops. Third, the study
compared the share of particularly hazardous pesticides used (defined as active
ingredients under WHO hazard classes Ia, Ib and II) out of the total quantity of
active ingredients. For one crop (bell peppers), it was found that Q-GAP farmers
were using a lower share of hazardous chemicals, but for two other crops (lettuce
and Chinese cabbages) Q-GAP farmers were using a higher share of hazardous
chemicals.
The study then used the qualitative data to understand the underlying reasons why
Q-GAP certification does not help to reduce pesticide use. The authors identified
three reasons, these being: poor implementation of a farm auditing framework, a lack
of understanding among farmers about the logic of the control points, and a lack of
alternatives given to farmers in terms of managing their pest problems.
These results show that farmers might not reduce their pesticide use levels
voluntarily if there are not enough alternatives available to them in terms of managing
their pests. Because of the rapid changes in land use occurring in mountainous areas,
4 Agricultural Pesticide Use in Mountainous Areas of Thailand and Vietnam. . .
169
established in several other countries within the Association of South East Asian
Nations (ASEAN), but the Thai Q-GAP standard is by far the largest such program
in the region. Different from private GAP standards, public GAP standards are fully
managed by governments, from standards setting to training, inspection and the
issuing of certificates (Sardsud 2007). With certification being free of charge for
farmers, these public GAP standards are seen as an alternative to private GAP
standards such as GlobalGAP, which are costly for farmers to adopt.
Schreinemachers et al. (2012) identified challenges to public GAP standards by
combining data from interviews held with government authorities and a random
sample of farm managers, with an action research approach that focused on a group
of farmers using both public and private GAP standards. Quantitative farm level
data came from the same data set collected in the Mae Sa area described above,
while the qualitative data were collected by colleagues working on the same
research program.
The results showed that the Q-GAP program expanded rapidly, and by 2010,
certificates had been issued to about 212,000 farmers covering a crop area of
225,000 ha. Although this area seems large, it represents only 3.7 % of the country’s
farm households and 1.2 % of the area of arable and permanent cropland. The
certification of this large number of farmers has; however, strained the handling
capacity of the involved government departments, because certificates are only
valid for one year for annual crops and two years for perennial crops. As a result,
only about 10 % of the re-applying farmers are randomly checked in any year.
Using quantitative data for crop production in the Mae Sa watershed area, a
statistical comparison was carried out between farmers who do and do not follow
the Q-GAP guidelines. First, in terms of pesticide handling, the study found that the
majority of farmers in both groups made efforts to reduce the direct risk of pesticide
spraying on their health, but found that the difference between the two groups was
not statistically significant (p> 0.10). Second, the study compared the quantity of
active ingredients used per hectare for eight crops and although Q-GAP farmers
used smaller quantities on average, these differences were not significant (p> 0.10)
for any crop, as shown in Table 4.6 for a selection of six crops. Third, the study
compared the share of particularly hazardous pesticides used (defined as active
ingredients under WHO hazard classes Ia, Ib and II) out of the total quantity of
active ingredients. For one crop (bell peppers), it was found that Q-GAP farmers
were using a lower share of hazardous chemicals, but for two other crops (lettuce
and Chinese cabbages) Q-GAP farmers were using a higher share of hazardous
chemicals.
The study then used the qualitative data to understand the underlying reasons why
Q-GAP certification does not help to reduce pesticide use. The authors identified
three reasons, these being: poor implementation of a farm auditing framework, a lack
of understanding among farmers about the logic of the control points, and a lack of
alternatives given to farmers in terms of managing their pest problems.
These results show that farmers might not reduce their pesticide use levels
voluntarily if there are not enough alternatives available to them in terms of managing
their pests. Because of the rapid changes in land use occurring in mountainous areas,
4 Agricultural Pesticide Use in Mountainous Areas of Thailand and Vietnam. . .
169