assessment of vulnerability to food security of farmers in sisaket ...

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 3, Issue 3, April 2015

ASSESSMENT OF VULNERABILITY TO FOOD SECURITY OF FARMERS IN SISAKET PROVINCE, THAILAND NOPPOL ARUNRAT1, 2 NATHSUDA PUMIJUMNONG1 1

Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand 2 School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, P.R. China Correspondence: Nathsuda Pumijumnong, Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Salaya, Phutthamonthon, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to assess vulnerability to food security of farmers, including analyze causes and factors affecting food production system of farmers in Sisaket province. Both qualitative and quantitative were used for Door-to-Door interview household farmers and key informants. Totally, there were about 608 informants. The study areas are selected under the criteria of: 1) irrigated and non-irrigated farming areas, and 2) municipal and rural areas. Our study found that the level of vulnerability to food security at 3.10; it means that Sisaket province has the medium level. The ascending from lowest stability to highest stability are HHFAV, HHFS, HHFA and HHFU, respectively. A Comparison between municipal and rural area was found to be very little different but a clear distinction between irrigated and non-irrigated areas within irrigated areas have higher food security. Analyzing differences of household food security showed that the first factor was agricultural land tenure providing that the group of households having more land ownership had high level of household food sustainability. The second factor was topography finding that the group of households setting down nears the sources of natural water and factors of production had high level of sustainability of food stability and food utilization. For factors of group gathering in the communities, it was found that the group of households with group gathering in their community had more food accessibility. The practical guidelines for more sustainability consist of irrigated system development, production cost reduction, and conservation of natural resources in their communities. KEYWORDS: Vulnerability, Food Security, Farmers, Sisaket Province, Thailand INTRODUCTION Livelihood adaptation is the key to resilience. Livelihood adaptation means either specialization or diversification of income sources. Livelihood diversification is also an important strategy for coping with risk (Ellis 2000; Ellis and Freeman 2005). Livelihoods 256 www.jiarm.com


strategies are the various activities taken by livelihoods to generate a living. The specific geographical position, the history and culture, the possibilities of cultivation are amongst other determinants influencing livelihood strategies. Over time, livelihood strategies can be dynamic as they respond to specific constraints and opportunities (Thieme, 2005).The access to assets (human, social, natural, physical, political and financial assets) determines people’s livelihood and their chosen strategies. External influences like shocks, exposures, seasonal influences or political changes can have impact on asset accumulation. Households with more assets have greater livelihood options which will likely to reduce their vulnerability (Eldis, 2011). Thailand had been the world’s largest rice exporter for a long time, but lost this title to another country because of many unfavorable mechanisms inside the country. Looking back to the country’s development basing on the lavish usage of natural resources, and agricultural sector particularly rice being focused on quantity but not quality including production process with higher costs. Working as a farmer like backbone of the country has turned to be the poorest group of people in the country. The government top-down policies on agricultural sector such as supporting of the new theory development for smallholder farmers, expanding opportunities for production development, as well as raising up the level of production to link with the market system, economic fundamental structure as the logistics investment, energy saving, and reduce damage from flood and drought, etc., will be very helpful for farmers if these are practical. Nevertheless, in the practical ways, these policies have not been transformed to action plan and assessed the clear successfulness. Furthermore, good policy should promote participation of main stakeholders (farmers) in the policy development processes. Therefore, it is found that Thailand agricultural sector problem especially the problems facing by farmers have not been solved appropriately. Moreover, there are a substantiallack of coordination, delay of the governmental processes, inaccessibility to farmers as the grassroots group, including natural disasters such as the future climate change and climate variability from the current impacts of climate change that might be the important driving factors pressuring farmers and causing delayed rice production, which affect delayed export or higher production cost. Thai people may face risk of food insecurity in the future particularly municipal and rural poor people who are unable to grow rice. With these causes, what can be the driving factors affecting Thai farmers and rice production unable to reach sustainable future and what the solving guidelines should be. This study aims to study coping strategies of household farmers for producing rice in the community level in the future,

257 www.jiarm.com


process of farmers group to the government development, mechanisms to push farmers to continue their rice farming with consideration of natural resources conservation and good environment including gaining quality rice. Our objectives assess vulnerability to food security and analyze factors affecting food production system of farmers in Sisaket province.

METHODOLOGY Data Collection The districts and sub-districts according to the administrative characteristics of municipal and rural areas, and rice cultivation areas of irrigated and non-irrigated were selected. Therefore, this studied samples were categorized into 4types: 1) municipal and nonirrigated areas(Kam Phaeng sub-district, Uthumphon Phisai district); 2) municipal and irrigated areas (Khun Han sub-district, Khun Han district); 3) rural and irrigated areas (Lao Kwang sub-district, Non Khun district); and 4) rural and non-irrigated areas (Kanthararom sub-district, Khukhan district) as shown in Figure 1. In each sample area, data were collected from three groups of key informants: 1) household farmers, 2) community leaders including leaders of groups/associations/cooperatives by the enabling legislation and by voluntary, and 3) governmental agencies.

Data analysis 

Qualitative approach: employing Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)and in-depth interview with community leaders and key informants. Guided questions for group discussion were from the informal talk and Face-to-Face interview with related stakeholders about household food production system.



Quantitative approach: employing structure interview, data from the survey of household level were used to create indicators and weighting score by using elements of main data such as population, social, ways of life, social network, health, food, water, natural disasters, climate change, etc.

258 www.jiarm.com


Figure 1:Study area Proportional stratified random sampling was employed and the sample sizes were calculated following Yamanae’s formula (1973) at the significance level of 95%.Therefore, group one of household farmers would have the sample size of 592 farmers and using structured interview. Group two of eight community leaders, important persons in the communities and leaders of groups/associations/cooperatives by the enabling legislation and by voluntary, two representatives from each sub-district, and using in-depth interviews. Group three of governmental units, two representatives from each sub-district consisting of 2 Mayors of the municipality (Kam Phaeng and Khun Han), 2 Chief Executives of the SAO (Lao Kwang and Kanthararom), 4 Chiefs of the District Agricultural Extension Office (Uthumphon Phisai district, Khun Han district, Non Khun district and Khukhan district), and using in-depth interviews. Overall, there were about 608 informants. Base on the questions relevant to the situation of natural resources, what are the problems and obstructs for management and the future trend, sustainability of food production systems, problems, obstructs and future trend. In addition, brainstorming two times were introduced, the director of agricultural districts, head of communities, head of villages, and head of Tampon administrative were invited. In terms of indicator prioritization (See Table 5), data was collected from a joint meeting between community leaders and the government officials (village headman and district agricultural officer), a meeting in which they reflected problems of the communities and ranked them according to the Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree). To make the evaluation clear and precise, participants were advised that (5) is for the most frequently found problem

259 www.jiarm.com


that needs to be dealt with immediately, and (1) is for an item that is not yet a problem. Frequencies of the data were observed and measured in order to determine factor significance in each study area and as a whole. This calculation was meant to indicate the levels of food security in each of the study areas and the province as a whole. After that, the sum of the significance level scores of each indicator in each sub-district, and divided by numbers of all sub-districts to find the average score of the significance level of each indicator in each study area. Consequently, analysis of levels of vulnerability in this study would be divided into 5 levels as shown in Table 1. Table1:Levels of vulnerability to food security Levels of scores

Levels of vulnerability

1.00 – 1.99

no vulnerability

2.00 – 2.99

low vulnerability

3.00 – 3.99

medium vulnerability

4.00 – 4.99

high vulnerability

5.00

chronic poverty

Levels of food security high

low

RESULTS Background information Number of household members. All household members were separated into 2 types: 1) nuclear family consists of father, mother and offspring with about 1-5 members; and 2) extended family consists of members from many generations living together as a big family of more than 5 members such as grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, uncle, aunt, offspring, etc. as details in Table 2.

Migration Permanent migration would be considered, but not migration for off-season farming and back to their land for their farming season as shown in Table 2. Mostly, migration can be seen as a mean to secure a livelihood as people move somewhere else when they can no longer secure a livelihood in their living area. Besides, seasonal migration can be a mean to secure food security in winter season when there is not sufficient agricultural harvest.

260 www.jiarm.com


Table 2: The percentage of number of household members and migrated Inbound and Outbound migration of household members(persons)

Number of household members(persons) Sub-district

Out bound

%

Not change

%

25

13.97

150

83.80

1.00

4

2.00

194

97.00

1

0.78

1

0.78

127

98.45

0.00

0

0.00

6

4.69

122

95.31

32.57

38.00

45.6

57.0

74.0

108.66

95.31

1–5

%

6 – 10

%

> 10

%

Inbound

%

Kam Phaeng

122

68.16

52

29.05

5

2.79

4

2.23

Khun Han

157

78.50

41

20.50

2

1.00

2

Lao Kwang

99

76.74

30

23.26

0

0.00

Kanthararom

94

73.44

34

26.56

0

Average

38.0

32.91

28.86

28.28

28.5

There were about 5% of all household members in the municipal areas with more than 10 persons, which was different from in the rural areas that without finding of more than 10 persons in a household. This was because when the offspring got married and had their own family, they would separate from their parents to build their own family. Therefore, it was mostly found that household members in the rural areas would be about 1-5 persons. For permanent settlement, there was inbound migration in municipal areas more than rural areas. In terms of household size, Khun Han sub-district tops the list of households with 1 to 5 members at 78.50% while Kam Phaeng sub-district tops the list of households with 6 to 10 members at 29.05%. Kam Phaeng sub-district also tops the list of households with more than 10 members at 2.79%. In terms of migration, Kam Phaeng sub-district has the highest rates for both inbound and outbound migration at 2.23% and 13.97% respectively while Lao Kwang sub-district has the lowest migration rate – 98.45% of the people do not migrate. Household Food Availability (HHFAV) Farming and residential areas. All farming and residential areas of each household was separated into 7 groups consisting of households with farming and residential areas of 1-5 rai, 6-10 rai, 11-15 rai, 16-20 rai, 21-25 rai, 26-30 rai and >30 rai as shown in Table 3. Table3: The percentage of agricultural land tenure Size of areas (%) Subdistrict

1–5 (rai)

%

6 – 10 (rai)

%

11 – 15 (rai)

%

16 – 20(rai)

%

21 – 25 (rai)

%

26 – 30 (rai)

%

> 30(ra i)

%

Kam Phaeng

48

26.82

65

36.31

28

15.64

22

12.29

10

5.59

2

1.12

4

2.23

Khun Han

21

10.50

45

22.50

46

23.00

31

15.50

17

8.50

14

7.00

26

13.00

12

9.30

18

13.95

34

26.36

16

12.40

17

13.18

5

3.88

27

20.93

8

6.25

22

17.19

28

21.88

20

15.63

21

16.41

13

10.16

16

12.50

22.25

13.22

37.50

22.49

34.00

21.72

22.25

13.96

16.25

10.92

8.50

5.54

18.25

12.17

Lao Kwang Kantharar om Average

1 rai = 0.16 ha

261 www.jiarm.com


In Table 3, given the overview of agricultural and residential land tenure in the four study areas in Sisaket province, it is found that, in Kam Phaeng sub-district, each farm household of the largest group which accounts for 36.31% of all the farmers, has 6 – 10 rai of land, while the numbers are 23.00% and 11 – 15 rai of land for Khun Han sub district, 26.36% and 11 – 15 rai of land for Lao Kwang sub-district, and 21.88% and 11 – 15 rai of land for Kanthararom sub-district. Households in rural areas held more land than in the municipal areas as presented in Table 3.Households in rural areas held the land with more than 30 rai which was higher than in municipal areas.

Rice production in the past year (2012/2013) and rice stocks of households for both consumption and cultivation. The sample survey did not focus on quantity of rice per rai, but focused on quantity of rice production and rice stocks of households for consumption and cultivation to analyze household food security. As rice was the main food of all households, this study reported quantity of rice production and rice stocks of all households, both for consuming and cultivating an average by each sub-district and each village to be clearly seen the ratio of both quantities with the unit on kilogram sack as shown in Figure2.

Figure2: Quantity of rice production and rice stocks of households From Figure 2, given the average production capacity in the study areas, Lao Kwang sub-district in Nonkhoon district has the highest average production capacity at 722.24 kilograms per rai, whereas Kam Phaeng sub-district has the lowest average production capacity at 470 kilograms per rai. In terms of rice stock, Lao Kwang sub-district has the largest amount of rice stock at 345.54 kilograms per household whereas Kam Phaeng subdistrict has the smallest amount at 200 kilograms per household. Kanthararom sub-district

262 www.jiarm.com


has the highest rice stock ratio at 52.20% whereas Khun Han sub-district has the lowest rice stock ratio at 39.07%.

Characteristics of rice farming. We concerned about self-farming or employing consisting of: 1) fully self-farming, 2) partial/some parts employing, and 3) fully employing. Partial/some parts employing covered employing labors not more than 2 processes of farming such as tilling, sowing, fertilizing, insecticides praying, harvesting, or tilling and harvesting, sowing and insecticides praying, etc. Meanwhile, fully employing covered all processes of farming, but did not allow others to rent the farm land; the owners did a little bit farming on their own. Employing was also concerned whether there were enough labors and had related essential skills or not. Details of each study area were presented in Figure3.

Figure3:The percentage of characteristics of rice farming of the householdfarmers Agricultural Machinery. Most farmers in the study areas of 68.12% did not have their own agricultural machinery which was not so different among each study area. 19.88% of farmers owned the small agricultural machinery such as wheel plow, farm tractor, pesticide machinery, mower, water pump machine, etc.12% of farmers owned the big agricultural machinery such as big pushcart, six wheel truck, harvester truck, etc. This group of farmer gained the income from partial/some parts employing such as ploughing, harvesting, rice moving and transport as shown in Figure4.In terms of farm machinery, we found that all the farmers in Kam Phaeng sub-district, 75.42% do not have their own machinery, 10.06% have their own light machinery, and 14.53% have their own heavy machinery. Of all the farmers in Khun Han sub-district, 58.50% do not have their own machinery, 20.00% have their own light machinery, and 21.50% have their own heavy machinery. Of all the farmers in Lao Kwang 263 www.jiarm.com


sub-district, 37.98% do not have their own machinery, 42.64% have their own light machinery, and 19.38% have their own heavy machinery. Of all the farmers in Kanthararom sub-district, 41.41% do not have their own machinery, 28.91% have their own light machinery, and 29.69% have their own heavy machinery. Light farm machinery includes light duty harrow, sprayer, lawn mower, and water pump, for example. Heavy farm machinery includes power harrow, truck, and rice harvester, for example. These farmers also make money from selling their labor in the farm. In terms of farm machinery ownership, we found that the farmers in Kam Phaeng sub-district make the highest percentage of farmers who do not have their own machinery at 75.42%, farmers in Lao Kwang sub-district make the highest percentage of farmers who have their own light machinery at 42.64%, and farmers in Kanthararom sub-district make the highest percentage of farmers who have their own heavy machinery at 29.69%as shown in Figure 4.

Figure4: The proportion of agricultural machinery ownership

Total income of the households in the past year (2013) and food expenditures and production cost of the households (Baht/month) 

Household incomes: Main sources of income were from their rice selling and working as a farm employee. For other incomes, there were from vegetables collecting, fishing, lotus cultivation, groceries selling, sewing, including monthly allowance from descendant, remuneration for elders and disabilities, etc. as details of each area shown in Figure 5.



Household expenditures: The expenditures were from buying other kinds of fresh food for self-cooking or instant food except rice that most of the farmers had stored for their household consumption. For production cost, this covered all expenditures of all processes of farming as presented in Figure5.

264 www.jiarm.com


Figure5: The proportion of last year (2013) average household incomes and average food expenditures and production cost From Figure 5, given the incomes of all the farm households in 2013, farm households in Kam Phaeng sub-district have the highest average income of 11,184.12 Baht/month. Farm households in Kanthararom sub-district have the lowest average income of 10,649.17 Baht/month. With regard to food expenditure and production costs in 2013, farm households in Kam Phaeng sub-district have the highest amount of average expenditure at 7,517.01 Baht/month while farm households in Kanthararom sub district have the lowest amount of average expenditure at 5,866.35 Baht/month.

Household assets saving (baht/month) and liabilities and loans 

Household assets saving: The survey found that farmers saved their assets with some savings

institutions

such

as

the

Bank

for

Agriculture

and

Agricultural

Cooperatives(BAAC), Bank of Thailand (BOT), Kasikornthai Bank, Krungthai Bank, Siam Commercial Bank, Government Savings Bank, Saving and Credit Cooperatives, etc. as well as Villages Truth Savings. 

Liabilities and loan sources that farmers involved in were Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), village funds (or in Thai called “Million Fund”), Agricultural Cooperatives, Village Truth Savings, financial institutions of the government, non-formal loan sources, etc. In this study, the poverty levels were divided into 4 levels of: 1) no liability, 2) low liability (≤ 50,000 Baht), 3) medium liability (50,001-100,000Baht), 4) high liability (≥ 100,001 Baht) as details of each area in Table 4.

265 www.jiarm.com


Table 4:The percentage of liabilities and loans and levels of liability No Amount of liabilities and loans (%) liability ≤ 50,000 (Baht) 50,001-100,000 (Baht) ≥ 100,001 (Baht) (%) Kam Phaeng 30.27 43.2 14.65 12.47 Khun Han 17.16 30.6 24.96 27.29 Lao Kwang 21.09 33.71 17.53 27.67 Kanthararom 27.46 31.75 18.9 23.48 1 USD = 32.855 Baht (Exchange rate on January 14, 2015) Sub-district

Reducing factors and production cost. Surveying from 4 study areas could be grouped the methods that farmers mainly employed to reduce production cost consisting of: 1) manuring; 2) farming based on factors of production in their households to reduce costs from employment, agricultural machinery and buying outside factors of production such as chemical fertilizers, pesticides, rice seeds, etc.; 3) applying knowledge about how to do Effective Microorganism (EM), organic farming, off-farm occupations, etc. from the training and learning organized by government and private sectors for their practical farming and households; and 4) preparing food storage for households such as growing vegetables, feeding fish, cocks, ducks for their household food.

Household Food Access (HHFA) Types of food that is naturally grown. It was found that76% of farmers could still find aquatic animals such as fish, crabs, shrimps, clams, frogs, small toads, mice, ant eggs, etc., including vegetables such as morning glory, water mimosa, red lotus stem, etc. However, 24% of farmers could not find food from the nature sources in their local areas. There were shared culture and traditions of helping each other and shared factors of production among farmers such as religious ceremony about rice donation(as called in Thai Ngaan Bun Gong Kwao, Ngaan Bun Prathaay Kwao Pluek,Ngaan Bun Prajumpee or annual merit ceremony, etc.)48% of farmers remained helping each other about the factors of production in terms of exchanging, borrowing rice seeds and gathering for growing rice. Meanwhile, 52% of farmers did their farming separately and employed labors with wages and agricultural machinery paying.

Civil Society Network, Cooperatives, Associations and Societies on Community Food System. Empirical study of the area found that farmers in each community had groups gathering and establishing and gaining support from local governmental units such as Chief 266 www.jiarm.com


of the District Agricultural Extension Office to give and disseminate knowledge to farmers, including Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives(BAAC), Agricultural Cooperatives group and Saving Cooperatives to support loans for agricultural investment such as using the ticket to buy fertilizers. Furthermore, there was also the self-assemble group of farmers comprising of rice selling group, fertilizer mixing group, black cock feeding group, pig feeding group, brown rice producing group, community rice bank, as well as new established group which was popular among many communities which was official pledge cards group because the rice pledging scheme of the former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinnawatra was delayed to refund the money back to farmers which affected farmers lacking of turnover money. Therefore, farmers needed to solve the problem at hand by using the official pledging cards to guarantee their loaning from the mills for their next round of rice farming.

Household Food Utilization (HHFU) Members in the households faced health problems such as malnutrition disease, chronic disease (such as diabetes mellitus, gout and pressure), and the diseases from using agricultural chemicals. 63% of farmers faced congenital chronic disease of diabetes mellitus, gout, pressure, asthma, allergy, thalassemia, and 37% of farmers faced other diseases (such as cancer, thyroid, dermatology, gallstones, heart disease, cataract eyes, osteoarthritis, gallstones, tuberculosis, respiratory disease, kidney diseases, tuberculosis, pneumonia, respiratory disease, pneumonia and gastritis).

Figure 6: The proportion of health problems in the farm households From Figure 6, given health problems in the farm households, it is found that 41.34% of farmers in Kam Phaeng sub-district have health problems such as malnutrition, chronic diseases (diabetes, gout, high blood pressure, etc.), and illness associated with exposure to 267 www.jiarm.com


chemical agents, making the highest number among all study areas. Of the farmers in Kanthararom sub-district, 14.06% are found to have other health problems (such as cancer, thyroid, skin disease, heart disease, cataract, arthritis, kidney disease, tuberculosis, respiratory disease, pneumonia, gastritis, etc.), the highest percentage among all study areas. Moreover, Khun Han is the sub-district where 67.00% of the farmers, the highest percentage among all study areas, do not have any health problems. Food selection, consumption and cooking following the nutrition information: 59% of farmers cooked by themselves for their households with well-cooked every meal. 38% of farmers bought instant food from convenient sources such as peddle cars, fresh markets and convenient stores. 3% of farmers ate uncooked and half-cooked food such as meats with spicy salad, meats with spicy condiment, but ate sometimes (not every meal).From Figure 7, it is found that the highest percentage of farm households that always consume healthy diets is 57.54%, belonging to Kam Phaeng sub-district. The highest percentage of farm households that consume healthy diets from time to time is 48.06%, belonging to Lao Kwang subdistrict.

Figure 7:The proportion of the food choices and cooking based on nutritional knowledge of the farm households Only 19% of farmers relied on factors of production sources inside their community such as for doing organic farming, bio-organic farming, producing seeds, using animal manure, golden apple snails manure and mulberry fertilizer. Meanwhile, the majority of farmers of 81% relied on factors of production source outside their community such as agricultural machinery, seeds, fertilizers, pesticides from stores in the municipal area, which they could buy by using credit card of the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC). Moreover, this included labors employing from outside for ploughing, sowing, transplanting rice seedlings, pesticizing, fertilizing, harvesting, etc. 268 www.jiarm.com


Household Food Stability (HHFS) Most farmers have enough rainfall and irrigation for water supply in their households throughout the year because having water supply widely. However, most water for farming activities were from rainfall of 76%, and 24%had not enough water. For irrigated areas, only 37% of farmers having enough water for farming because of living near irrigation canal, brook or natural water sources. Nevertheless, most farmers of 63% though living in the irrigated areas, having not enough water, need to rely on rainfall. From Figure 8, given the amounts of rain and irrigation water, we found that Khun Han sub-district is the most supplied with 81.00% of the farmers being sufficiently supplied with water for household consumption. Kam Phaeng sub-district is the least supplied with 37.43% of the farmers being sufficiently supplied with water for household consumption.

Figure 8:The proportion of water supply for household consumption Natural resources conservation: There was crop rotation planting of water melon, corn, vegetables, legume and cassava, etc. During the farming season, farmers tilled residues to be the fertilizer enriching the soil, manured and used Effective Microorganisms(EM) for their soil preparation. Meanwhile, after harvesting rice,13% of farmers left their land for feeding cows and buffaloes not for growing other crops.

269 www.jiarm.com


Figure 9:The proportion of natural resources conservation From Figure 9, given the variety of plant choices of the farmers, it is found that 21.50% of farmers in Khun Han sub-district, the highest percentage among all study areas, grow various plant selections (such as water melon, corn, vegetable, nut, yam, etc.). When 25.70% of farmers in Kam Phaeng sub-district, the highest percentage among all study areas, plough up and over, and use natural fertilizers in preparing the soil, 70.54% of farmers in Lao Kwang sub-district, the highest percentage among all study areas, do not grow any other crop after harvesting rice, leaving the land for livestock production. Natural disasters:92% of farmers suffered from drought which the severity was up to each area. 8% of farmers suffered from flood causing by continuous rainfall every day, but not a long time flooding and hardly occurred, so rice got not much damage.

Figure10:The proportion of natural disasters From Figure 10, given natural disasters, Kanthararom sub-district is found to have most the biggest number of floods and droughts (19.53%) when some parts of it also have the biggest number of floods (38.28%). Lao Kwang sub-district has the biggest number of droughts (46.51%) while Kam Phaeng sub-district has the smallest number of floods and droughts. Individuals/organizations/centers to regularly provide related knowledge: In every community, there were both local government and private units to regularly provide knowledge such as the District Agricultural Extension Office provided knowledge about health and food, the Municipality and Sub-district Administrative Organization (SAO) provided knowledge about garbage classification, as well as some private companies provided knowledge and sold agricultural products to farmers. From Figure 11, given the knowledge transfer (from local authorities to the farmers concerning the use of natural fertilizer, pesticide, and new technology, as well as healthy eating and waste sorting), Kam 270 www.jiarm.com


Phaeng sub-district tops the list at 55.87%. Kanthararom sub-district has the smallest amount of knowledge transferred at 64.06% of the farmers purchase products from agriculture firms.

Figure 11:The proportion of the knowledge transfer Application of local wisdom and knowledge base for food production: The local wisdom and knowledge were mainly transmitted from one generation to another on how to do the farming and living in their households such as weaving, mat weaving, butterfly nursery for eating insects in rice fields, knowledge base to notice rice fields for farming development/improving, golden apples nails and leaves for cattle to step on to be fertilizers, group gathering for cooking such as Thai vermicelli eaten with curry (in Thai called “Kanom Jeen”), Thai traditional desserts, etc. From Figure 12, given the use of local wisdom in farming, Kanthararom sub-district tops the list of local wisdom transfer from generation to generation at 34.38% whereas Khun Han sub-district tops the list for the lack of local wisdom transfer at 82.00%.

Figure 12:The proportion of the use of local wisdom in farming

271 www.jiarm.com


The prioritization of indicators 28 community leaders of four districts in the study areas consisting of village headmen, representatives of Sub-district Administrative Organization (SAO), Sub-district Municipality, and District Agricultural Extension Office, assessed the indicators of vulnerability to food security in their communities, and calculated frequencies, average scores as shown in Table 5.

Table 5:Indicator assessment of vulnerability to food security Sub-district Indicators

Descriptions

1.Household Food 1. Farming and residential areas Availability 2. Production cost (HHFAV) 3.Balance of household incomes and expenditures (Baht/month) 4. Balance ofnet incomes and saving with household liabilities 5. Factors of production and production cost reduction Average scores 2. Household Food 1. Types and sorts of food in natural Access (HHFA) sources such as aquatic animals, vegetables consuming in the household 2. Culture and traditions of helping, sharing and having enough factors of production: land, water, labor and seeds, etc. 3. Social network, group gathering, association, and cooperatives about food production system of the communities Average score 3. Household Food 1. Health problems of members in the Utilization householdssuch as malnutrition disease, (HHFU) chronic disease (such as diabetes mellitus, gout and pressure), and the diseases from using agricultural chemicals. 2. Food selection, consumption and cooking following the nutrition information Average score 4. Household 1. Rainfall and irrigation Food stability 2. Natural resources conservation such as (HHFS) soil, water, plants 3. Natural disasters 4. Individuals/organizations/service centers for providing knowledge 5. Local wisdom and community knowledge base for production 6. Thestored food for for household consumption Average score Average score from 4 indicators

Kam Phaeng 5

Khun Han 4

Lao Kwang 5

Kanthararom 5

Scores

4

3

2

4

3.25

3

3

2

4

3.0

3

3

2

4

3.0

4

4

3

4

3.75

3.8

3.4

2.8

4.2

3

3

3

3

3.0

3

2

2

2

2.25

3

3

4

4

3.5

3

2.67

3

3

4

4

3

3

3.5

2

2

3

2

2.25

3 5

3 2

3 3

2.5 5

3.75

3

3

2

3

2.75

2

2

2

3

2.25

3

2

3

3

2.75

4

5

3

4

4.0

2

2

3

4

2.75

3.17

2.67

2.67

3.67

4.75

3.10

272 www.jiarm.com


U: Municipal; R: Rural; I: Irrigated; and NI: Non-Irrigated

Figure 13: Vulnerability of food security in each study area HHFAV found that Kanthararom sub-district is the highest score (4.2), which means that the HHFAV is the highest issue, followed by Kam Phaeng (3.8), Khun Han (3.4) and Lao Kwangsub-districts(2.8), respectively, which reflects the fact that Lao Kwang sub-district used low production cost of agriculture. HHFA of all 3 sub-districts has the same scores (3), except Khun Han sub-district (2.67), which reflects that the natural resources in Khun Han district remains abundant, and local people in the sub-district have the culture of sharing among each other. HHFU found that of all 3 sub-districts has the same scores (3), except Kanthararom sub-district (2.5). It means that at Kanthararom sub-district has access to the use of food better than other areas. Nevertheless, food utilization by households also depends on the facilities for food storage and processing and their knowledge and practices in relation to food preparation. Meanwhile, HHFS found that Kanthararom sub-district is the highest score (3.67), followed by Kam Phaeng (3.17), and Khun Han and Lao Kwang sub-districts have the

273 www.jiarm.com


same score (2.67), respectively. It means that Khun Han and Lao Kwang sub-districts are the best stability (low vulnerability) as shown in Figure 13. Table 6: Comparison of vulnerability of food security between municipal and rural areas, and rice cultivation areas of irrigated and non-irrigated Area Municipal

Rural

Irrigated

Non-irrigated

Overall

Indicator HHFAV

3.60

3.50

3.10

4.00

3.55

HHFA

2.83

3.00

2.83

3.00

2.92

HHFU

3.00

2.75

3.00

2.75

2.88

HHFS

2.92

3.17

2.67

3.42

3.04

3.09

3.10

2.90

3.29

3.10

Average

Figure 14: Comparison between municipal areas (average of Kam Phaeng and Khun Han sub-districts) and rural areas (average of Lao Kwang and Kanthararom sub-districts) In Figure14 and Table 6, the difference between the food security of all 4 pillars between rural and municipal areas were slightly different. We found that the municipalareas (3.09) have higher food security than rural areas (3.10).Some Thai farmer households, particularly in rural areas, could be considered food insecure and uncertain as to the sources of their food supply for the immediate future. This is particularly so at certain times of the year.

274 www.jiarm.com


Figure15: Comparison between irrigated areas (average of Khun Han and Lao Kwang subdistricts) and non-irrigated areas (average of Kam Phaeng and Kanthararom sub-districts) In Figure15 and Table 6, we found that irrigated areas (2.90)have higher food security than non-irrigated areas (3.29), especially HHFAV and HHFS were higher significantly. Nevertheless, most of the farmers in non-irrigated areas are not able to practice double cropping due to inadequate water supply. Thus, their income is only depending on one season and therefore they are more vulnerable to food insecurity compared to those in irrigated areas.

Figure16:Vulnerability of food security in Sisaket province In Sisaket province, food security was at medium (3.10), HHFAV and HHFS were 3.55 and 3.04, respectively. On the other hand, the HHFA and HHFU were 2.92 and 2.88, which means that this province is low vulnerability to HHFA and HHFU. Whilst, HHFAV and HHFS are medium vulnerability as shown in Figure16 and Table 6.

275 www.jiarm.com


Qualitative Analysis A qualitative analysis concerning the sustainability of the current food production system and the livelihood of farm households in Sisaket province has led to the following conclusions.  Household size, most of the farmers still live in extended families, but there is a small difference between families in municipal area and those in rural area. The families in rural area are slightly greater than those in municipal area in size, and have more migration rate, especially during the non-rice growth season.  Land ownership, things are different from the past. Farmers do less farming on their own land while more farmland is being leased to others. This is probably due to the fact that more members of farm households are leaving their fields to seek non-agricultural jobs in city, resulting in the lack of labor in the farm, and the growing inclination to lease or sell land for farming in Sisaket province.  Incomes, most of the farm households earn their livings by growing rice. They grow jasmine rice and RD15 (a variety) for sale, and rice and sticky rice for consumption. They also produce livestock and vegetables, mostly for household consumption, and sell a surplus of the products as well as their labor.  Production costs, rice production in Sisaket province depends largely on the amount of rain, and the farmers can grow rice only once a year. However, they often face natural disasters such as flood and drought – usually more droughts than floods. The production costs include rice seed, machinery, fertilizer, labor, and pesticide.  Household expenditure, spending on rice production comes first, before food, household products, and education. Most of the farmers owe debts to the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives, the Village Fund, and/or agricultural co-operatives, and most farm households (more than 70%)in Sisaket province face an imbalance between their incomes and expenses.  Food stock, the estimation is based on such factors as farmers’ rice stock, their access to natural food sources, and support from outside. Most of the farm households reserve some paddy rice for consumption, and the amount of this reserve depends on a few factors. If the price is high, a smaller amount of rice will be reserved. If the farmers can harvest a lot, they can reserve a lot.  Natural food sources, there is a change that results from rice production – from the use of chemical agents, burning cop residues, and the changing climate.

276 www.jiarm.com


DISCUSSIONAND CONCLUSION The assessment of livelihood vulnerability is complicated because there are many related aspects, dimensions, and factors such as natural resources, economic and social conditions, demography as mentioned in some reports (Adger and Kelly, 2001; Sullivan, 2002). In terms of demography, most of the farm households are nuclear families, each of which consists of up to 5 members. The size of the household sometimes may potentially have a positive effect on the livelihood sustainability of the household. For instance, in most rural communities, large family size can indicate more labor availability to cultivate more farm lands, engage in domestic household chores and sometimes to engage in other wage work outside of the farm such as migration to provide remittances back home (Meagher, 1999; Dillon et al, 2011). However, this study indicated that households with large family size have a higher share of vulnerability and are more prone to be poor in future. Also, it seems to be that the households with higher household composition have more migrant than those with lower household sizes. Migration is an interesting phenomenon in Northeast Thailand since 80% of the respondents indicate to have at least one family member involved in migration. Migration has been a longstanding traditional method to supplement the agricultural existence of inhabitants of Sisaket province. However, it is argued that poor households are more likely to diversify livelihood activities for survival, while rich households tend to diversify for development and wealth accumulation (Carswell, 2000). Mostly, migration can be seen as a mean to secure a livelihood as people move somewhere else when they can no longer secure a livelihood in their living area. Besides, seasonal migration can be a mean to secure food security in winter season when there is not sufficient agricultural harvest. Each household has approximately 6 – 10 rai of land for farming and habitat. In each year, they keep one-third of the harvested rice for household consumption, and if they do not eat them up when the next growing season comes, they will sell it. Our study also has shown that the farmers have more incomes than expenses whereas the data of Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives reveals that they have more debts than savings. Many of them are also able to find food from natural sources, except for Kam Phaeng sub-district where chemical agents have been extensively used in rice production. Most of the farmers choose healthy food, and have some illness. Their common problem is the lack of water during the dry season, and 90% of the farmers state that they face no problem with regard to food security. Similarly with Iliya (1999) and Whitehead (2002) reported that the vulnerability to food security of households in agriculture sector depends on

277 www.jiarm.com


a seasonal occupation and most vulnerable are weather and climatic changes. The kind of occupation that households engage in can be crucial in determining vulnerability because seasonal occupation like farming or other low wage paying jobs can be a threat to livelihood when the households are exposed to a potentially devastating adverse situation such as weather fluctuation resulting in drought or famine, crop failure, debt and so on. Regarding the level of food security in municipal area, this is not significantly different from that in rural area, while in irrigated area is higher than that in non-irrigated area, which are consistent with Carrutherset al (1997); Alwang et al(2001); Rahman and Parvin (2009); Asif (2013). Therefore, the factors influencing long-term household poverty dynamics consisting of 4 factors: 1) assets collecting; 2) fundamental assets holding; 3) changing of the assets return; 4) long-term impacts from unexpected occurrences (shocks). People actively manage risk in many ways; some of them to do with anticipating the eventuality of shocks in advance (ex-ante risk management) and some to do with actions after a shock has occurred (ex-post coping) (Webb, et al, 1992; Carter, 1997; Baulch and Hodditnott, 2000).The factors causing chronic poverty are less assets holding, while the factors causing short-term poverty are mainly from household vulnerability unable to solve and cope with the shocks, followed by topography finding that the groups of households living near natural water sources and factors of production sources have high level of sustainability for stability and utilization. As natural water sources is the crucial factors of farming, the rice fields closing to water sources can get high benefits and have enough water for the whole farming season. Moreover, farmers living near the natural water sources have less production cost than the far away groups who need to pay for production cost to bring water for farming or to dig the farm ponds at the surface or artesian well. Regarding factors of group gathering, the households having group gathering and establishing in their communities have higher sustainability for food accessibility as having more power to negotiate. At present, vulnerability to food security employed 4 indicators: 1) food availability; 2) food accessibility; 3) food utilization; and 4) food stability, there should highlight more and give priority to economical and political factors. In the 1980s, Amartaya Sen, the Indian economist explained that food shortage of people in many countries were not from inadequate food, but from food inaccessibility in terms of politics (Prasertsak, n.d.). The economical and political factors have become more important such as the government's ricepledging project which recently has affected rice production system of Thailand. Even the changing of way of thought and values of farmers’ descendant that farming is not the

278 www.jiarm.com


prestigious work/occupation and so tired, so they are expected by their parents to do other jobs after graduation. Therefore, working as a farmer tends to decrease, which also affects the tendency of land ownership of farmers transferring to others. The research of Elson (1997) on ‘The End of the Peasantry in Southeast Asia’ presented that the intensity of the world’s economic and politic changing, farmers have become more employed labors until the genuine farmer is faded away. As the ways of farmers less related to the resources, the community’s resources have quickly become deterioration as well. This finding agrees with the result of this study and that of Kerdsuk et al(2005), which indicated that in Tung Kula Field, the farmers have very little capability to handle the impact of climate change, and therefore, are at great risk. They also have low food reserve and little access to financial supports from both government and non-government agencies. In addition, Sakonthawat (2012) mentioned that all Thai farm households have debts to deal with and often face natural disasters such as flood and drought, which make them so vulnerable to poverty that they cannot overcome it in the long run. They tend to have more debts and probably have to sell their farmland, and finally give up farming to sell their labor instead. Farmer households that have continued vulnerability to poverty are in the Northeast of Thailand; their household heads have little or only primary education, and are unemployed. They are sensitive to revenue instability. As a result, the mechanisms that can help them effectively manage risks may be a crop insurance scheme for relief from natural disasters, a second-job-promoting project (TDRI, 2006), natural water resources development and irrigation systems (Hussain et al, 2003;Merrey et al, 2005). Base on the SWOT analysis and in-depth interviews with the farmers, we have come up with a strategic plan on natural resources management for sustainability of food production and the development of farmers’ livelihood in Sisaket province. Stated in the plan are the vision ‘Quality Rice and Quality Life’; two missions: 1) to improve the rice production system and raise rice price, and 2) to provide farmers with an integrated body of knowledge in growing rice; four objectives: 1) to improve the rice production system, 2) to encourage farmers to competitively make added value, 3) to bring changes to farmers’ behaviors, and 4) to increase farmers’ capability to handle impacts of climate change; and four strategies: 1) rice production system improvement, 2) natural resources management, 3) the change in farmers’ way of life, and 4) the increase of farmers’ capability to handle impacts of climate change.

279 www.jiarm.com


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was funded by The Thailand Research fund (TRF): Grand nr. RDG5620041. Thanks also go to Ms. Sukanya Sereenonchai for her assistance to improve the use of English in the manuscript. The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments to improve the manuscript. REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Adger, W.N., and Kelly, P.M. (2001). Social vulnerability and resilience, in Adger, W.N., Kelly, P.M., and Ninh, N.H., eds,Living with Environmental Change: Social Vulnerability, Adaptation, and Resilience in Vietnam, Routledge, London. Alwang, J., Siegel, P., and Jorgensen, S.(2001). Vulnerability: A View From Different Disciplines. Social Protection Discussion Paper Series, No.115, Washington, DC: World Bank, Social Protection Unit. Asif, M. (2013). Climatic Change, Irrigation Water Crisis and Food Security in Pakistan.Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 170, 39 pp, 30 ECTS/hp. Baulch, B., and Hoddinott J. (2000). Poverty dynamics and economic mobility in developing countries. Journal of Development Studies, Vol 36, No 6, pp 1-24. Carter, M.R.(1997). Environment, Technology, and the Social Articulation of Risk in West African Agriculture. Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol 45, No 3, pp 557-591. Carruthers, I., Rosegrant M.W., and Seckler, D. (1997). Irrigation and food security in the 21st century. Irrigation and Drainage Systems, Vol 11, pp 83-101. Carswell, G. (2000). Agricultural intensification in Ethiopia and Mali. IDS Working Paper, Brighton: IDS. Dillon, A., Mueller, V., and Salau, S. (2011). Migration Responses to Agricultural Risk in Northern Nigeria. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 93,No 4, pp 1048-1061. Eldis. (2011). http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/dossiers/livelihoods-connect Ellis, F.(2000). Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, F., and Freeman, H.A. (2005). Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction Policies. Routledge, London. Elson, R.E. (1997). The end of the peasantry in Southeast Asia a social and economic history of peasant livelihood, 1800-1990s.Australian National University. Canberra. Hussain, I., Giordano, M., and Hanjra, M. (2003). Agricultural Water and Poverty Linkages: Case Studies on Large and Small Systems. Water and Poverty – a Collection of Case Studies: Experiences from the Field, Asian Development Bank (ADB), Phillipines. Iliya, M. A. (1999). Income Diversification in the Semi-arid Zone of Nigeria: A Study of Gigane, Sokoto, North-west Nigeria. ASC Working Paper, Vol 39, Kano: Centre for Research and Documentation (CRD) and Leiden: African Studies Centre. Kerdsuk, V.,Ruchuwararak, P., and Vichakod, K.(2005). Adaptation of Paddy Farmer in Kula Longhai to Climate Change. Thailand Research Fund (TRF), Bangkok, Thailand. (In Thai) Meagher, K. (1999). If the Drumming Changes, the Dance also Changes: De-Agrarianization and Rural Non-farm Employment in Nigerian Savannah. ASC Working Paper, Vol. 40. Kano: Centre for Research and Documentation (CRD)and Leiden: African Studies Centre. Merrey, D.J., Drechsel, P., Penning de Vries,F.W.T., and Sally,H. (2005). Integrating Livelihoods into Integrated Water Resource Management: Taking the Integration Paradigm to Its Logical Next Step for Developing Countries. Regional Environmental Change, Vol 5, pp 197-204. Prasertsak, V. (n.d.). Food security: Concepts and definitions. http://www.polsci.tu.ac.th/fileupload/36/24.pdf Rahman, M. W., and Parvin, L. (2009). Impact of Irrigation on Food Security in Bangladesh for the Past Three Decades. Journal Water Resource and Protection, Vol 3, pp 216-225. Sakonthawat, A. (2012). Poverty dynamics: A case study of farmer households in rural areas of Northeastern and Central Thailand. Knowledge Network Institute of Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand. (In Thai) Sullivan, C. (2002). Calculating a water poverty index. World Development, Vol 30, pp 1195-1210.

280 www.jiarm.com

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 3, Issue 3, April 2015 22. TDRI (Thailand Development Research Institute). (2006). Risk Assessment and Social Vulnerability: Practical Poverty measurement and Social Vulnerability for Thailand. Ministry of Social Development and Human Security, Bangkok, Thailand. (In Thai) 23. Thieme, S., and Wyss, S. (2005). Migration Patterns and Remittance Transfer in Nepal: A Case Study of Sainik Basti in Western Nepal. International Migration, Vol 43, No 5, pp 59-98. 24. Webb, P., von Braun, J., and Yohannes, Y. (1992). Famine in Ethiopia: Policy Implications of Coping Failure at National and Household Levels. Research ReportNo.92, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C. 25. Whitehead, A. (2002). Tracking Livelihood Change: Theoretical, Methodological and Empirical Perspectives from North-East Ghana. Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol 28, No 3, pp 575-598. 26. Yamanae, T. (1973). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis. Harper & Row, New York.

281 www.jiarm.com