water management, soil conservation, fruit trees, aquaculture and extension
services, are far from being exhaustive, and so should be seen as mere examples.
Innovations in agroforestry, integrated pest and nutrient management, and croplivestock systems, can be important for mountainous areas, but are not extensively
dealt with here.
1.2 Study Areas in Thailand and Vietnam
The research in this book focuses on mountainous areas in Thailand and Vietnam,
representing two contrasting cases at different levels of development and market
access, and with different institutional settings. Thailand has a multi-party democracy and strong market institutions, whereas Vietnam in contrast has a single party
system and has only recently allowed private enterprise to become established in
parts of its economy. Population growth has slowed in both countries over recent
years, but in Vietnam the growth rate of 1.2 % per year is still double that of
Thailand, as can be seen from Table 1.1. As Vietnam’s economic development has
been much more recent, so the poverty rate is higher than in Thailand, but more
recently has declined considerably. These general statistics are; however, not
representative of the situation in mountainous areas. For instance, Minot et al.
(2003) estimated that population growth in Son La province was 2.2 % in 2,000 and
reported an 81 % poverty rate in rural areas of the province. Zeller et al. in Chap. 12,
also confirm that upland households have a much higher rate of chronic poverty
than lowland households.
Much of the research presented in this book is based on field data collection
carried out over four sites, these being the Mae Sa watershed and the karstic area
around Bor Krai village in northern Thailand, and the Chieng Khoi and Muong Lum
sub-catchment areas in north-western Vietnam, as shown in Fig. 1.1. The general
statistics for these sites are shown in Table 1.2.
Bor Krai village (located in Pang Ma Pa district, Mae Hong Son province) is
situated in a relatively remote limestone area in Thailand, where farmers grow
maize and squash as cash crops and upland rice for home consumption, though their
cash income is mainly derived from pig husbandry. In terms of land ownership,
none of the farmers has land titles, as the village is located in a forest conservation
area. The farmers practice swidden agriculture, but fallow cycles have reduced
from 4 to 5 years during the 1990s, to 2–3 years at present. Pest problems,
particularly weeds, have intensified recently, and so farmers have started to use
herbicides. In 2008, a large agro-industrial company, Charoen Pokphand or ‘CP’,
introduced maize contract farming to the village, under which it provides hybrid
maize seeds, fertilizers and pesticides to the farmers, who then have to sell their
products to the company at a guaranteed price. In spite of the greater reliance on
external inputs, the villagers say they prefer the new system because it gives them
higher yields, saves labor and allows them to earn a higher income. Since introduction of the hybrid maize, some farmers have reduced their fallow periods to 1 or
2 years only.
8
P. Schreinemachers et al.
services, are far from being exhaustive, and so should be seen as mere examples.
Innovations in agroforestry, integrated pest and nutrient management, and croplivestock systems, can be important for mountainous areas, but are not extensively
dealt with here.
1.2 Study Areas in Thailand and Vietnam
The research in this book focuses on mountainous areas in Thailand and Vietnam,
representing two contrasting cases at different levels of development and market
access, and with different institutional settings. Thailand has a multi-party democracy and strong market institutions, whereas Vietnam in contrast has a single party
system and has only recently allowed private enterprise to become established in
parts of its economy. Population growth has slowed in both countries over recent
years, but in Vietnam the growth rate of 1.2 % per year is still double that of
Thailand, as can be seen from Table 1.1. As Vietnam’s economic development has
been much more recent, so the poverty rate is higher than in Thailand, but more
recently has declined considerably. These general statistics are; however, not
representative of the situation in mountainous areas. For instance, Minot et al.
(2003) estimated that population growth in Son La province was 2.2 % in 2,000 and
reported an 81 % poverty rate in rural areas of the province. Zeller et al. in Chap. 12,
also confirm that upland households have a much higher rate of chronic poverty
than lowland households.
Much of the research presented in this book is based on field data collection
carried out over four sites, these being the Mae Sa watershed and the karstic area
around Bor Krai village in northern Thailand, and the Chieng Khoi and Muong Lum
sub-catchment areas in north-western Vietnam, as shown in Fig. 1.1. The general
statistics for these sites are shown in Table 1.2.
Bor Krai village (located in Pang Ma Pa district, Mae Hong Son province) is
situated in a relatively remote limestone area in Thailand, where farmers grow
maize and squash as cash crops and upland rice for home consumption, though their
cash income is mainly derived from pig husbandry. In terms of land ownership,
none of the farmers has land titles, as the village is located in a forest conservation
area. The farmers practice swidden agriculture, but fallow cycles have reduced
from 4 to 5 years during the 1990s, to 2–3 years at present. Pest problems,
particularly weeds, have intensified recently, and so farmers have started to use
herbicides. In 2008, a large agro-industrial company, Charoen Pokphand or ‘CP’,
introduced maize contract farming to the village, under which it provides hybrid
maize seeds, fertilizers and pesticides to the farmers, who then have to sell their
products to the company at a guaranteed price. In spite of the greater reliance on
external inputs, the villagers say they prefer the new system because it gives them
higher yields, saves labor and allows them to earn a higher income. Since introduction of the hybrid maize, some farmers have reduced their fallow periods to 1 or
2 years only.
8
P. Schreinemachers et al.