IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Research article
erd

An Analysis on the Policy of Promoting Rubber Trees
Cultivation for Replacing Garlic and Longan Growing:
A Case Study of Chiang Mai, Thailand
JUKKAPHONG POUNG-NGAMCHUEN*
Faculty of Agricultural Production, Maejo University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Email: jukkaphong@mju.ac.th

NAKARAT RUNGKAWAT
Faculty of Agricultural Production, Maejo University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

PANITPIM SITTISAK
Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Received 14 December 2011

Accepted 2 April 2012(*: Corresponding Author)

Abstract The   acceptance   of   farmers’   participation   in   promoting   rubber   trees   cultivation  for replacing garlic and longan growing has been studied. Interview schedule, in-depth
interview and focus group discussion techniques were used to obtain required data fromeighty participants, sixty-two non-participants of rubber cultivating project and three
representatives from the Office of Rubber Replanting Aid Fund. The collected data wereanalyzed by descriptive statistics. It was found that more than one-third (38%) of farmers
decided to participate in the project and the rest (71.98%) did not want to participate
because the cultivation area was under drought. In 2003, there were 1,127 farmers in
Chiang Mai participating in the project with a total cultivation area of 6,770 acres. Thirty
participants (37.50%) changed longan orchard to rubber cultivation, 218 acres in area.
This was equivalent to 422 farmers and 3,074 acres of cultivation area comparing to thetotal number of participants and rubber cultivation area in Chiang Mai. During 2003-2004,
Chiang Mai had a total longan cultivation area of 94,925 acres. However, this project
could help reduce longan cultivation area by only 3.23%. Meanwhile, few participantschanged garlic cultivation area to rubber cultivation area. It indicated that only longan
orchard area could be reduced but garlic cultivation area could not. Besides, someparticipants changed other crop growing areas to rubber cultivation area. These would
have effects on long-term food security of Thailand. Moreover, during 2011-2012,
participants begin to earn income from rubber latex. This might motivate some nonparticipants to take part in the project due to high prices of rubber latex. However, theyshould place importance on the appropriateness and cares of rubber cultivation areas. As awhole, the policy was not successful as it should be.
Keywords policy, rubber trees cultivation, longan orchard, Chiang Mai

INTRODUCTION
The launching of Chino-Thai free trade caused import of agricultural products from China,
especially garlic. This has lowered the prices of Thai garlic. At the same time, there was anoversupply of longan yields. Thus, Thai government prepared a guideline for reducing garlic andlongan growing areas. That is, rubber trees cultivation has been promoted since 2003. At the initialstage it took about 3 years (2004-2006), supported and promoted by the Office of Rubber
Replanting Aid Fund (ORRAF). In fact, most of the farmers who got involved in the project had
never done rubber cultivation before (Sriprasit, 2008). The supporting fund for project promotion
was worth 1,397 million baht (Noonsong, 2003). For the second period, the rubber trees growing
promotion was conducted in 7 northern provinces, namely: Chiang Mai, Chiangrai, Lamphun,Ⓒ ISERD

144

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Phayao, Lampang, Tak and Mae Hong Son. This was particularly done in the areas where garlicyield was lower than 390 kg per acre. It was expected that 5,139.79 acres of land would be replacedwith rubber trees cultivation with the supporting budget of 16,950,000 baht (the Or Por Thor News,
2009).
The previous policy of promoting rubber trees cultivation for replacing garlic and longan
growing in Chiang Mai faced a lot of problems. This was because of top-down approach of
government. Therefore, it is essential to explore problems in farmer’s adoption of this policy aswell as their needs. The purpose of this study was to explore how to promote farmers to changegarlic and longan growing to rubber trees cultivation in Chiang Mai, Thailand.
METHODOLOGY
Purposive sampling was used from the population of 925 farmers in 17 districts of Chiang Mai,
who were participants in rubber cultivating project. The sample group consisted of 10% of farmers
in Phrao, Fang, Chaiprakarn and Hod districts which were leading garlic and longan growing areasof Chiang Mai. The sample group was divided into 2 sub-groups: 1) 80 farmers participating in the
project and 2) 62 farmers who did not participate (they still grew garlic and longan but some ofthem did rotation cropping such as rice and garlic in a year). They were chosen by simple random
sampling. In addition, there were 3 representatives of the ORRAF, Chiang Mai.
A set of scheduled interviews were used for data collection. Besides, in-depth interview andfocus group discussion techniques were used. Data analyses were done by descriptive statistics.
RESULTS
General information of participants and non-participants of rubber cultivating project
Most of the farmers were male. Percentage of male among participants was 81.25% and that for
non-participants was 85.48%. Average ages of both groups were close. They had 4 family members
on average. The proportion of fourth year elementary school was 37.50% and 51.61%, respectively.
They have worked in agricultural sector. The participants had 2 years of experience in agriculture.
Less than one-half of participants(40.00%) were dependent on rain for farming. However, morethan one-half of non-participants (58.06%) used public water sources for farming. It was also foundthat the ratio of full time farmers among non-participants was higher than that for the participants(56.45 and 46.25% respectively). Both groups were similar in agriculture career and supplementary
job career (Table 1). This implied that agriculture production alone could not generate enoughincome for daily expenses, even though some of them changed to grow rubber trees.
In addition, most of the participants (85.00%) had their own land (9.68 acres on average).
Very few of them (1.25%) encroached reserve forest for farming. However, less than one-half of
non-participants (45.16%) had their own land and an income from the agricultural sector was
higher than that of those who attended the project (281,854.84 and 172,045.45 baht per year). Thismight be because many farmers still wanted to grow garlic and longan. Most of the farmers of bothgroups were members of the Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperative (BAAC). Besides,
they got a short-term loan for farming from the bank. However, sums of their loans for nonparticipants were higher than those of e participants (179,137.93 and 62,727.27 baht, respectively).
The interest of the loan was 7.50 baht per year (Table 1). This meant that income earned from theagricultural sector of non-participants was higher than that of participants due to high cost of theinvestment.
Farmer adoption to participate in the project
Most of farmers received project news through the Office of Sub-District Agriculture and Office ofDistrict Agriculture (81.25%) and had no knowledge about rubber trees before (80%).

Ⓒ ISERD

145

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Table 1 General information of participants and non-participants of rubber cultivating
project
Participants(n=80)
F%

Non-participants(n=62)%
F

Male
Female

65
15

81.25
18.75

53
9

85.48
14.52

40 years and below
41-50 years
51-60 years
More than 60 years

9
29
23
19

11.25
36.25
28.75
23.75

2
21
32
7

3.23
33.87
51.61
11.29

General information
Sex
Age

52.41
Educational attainment
Fourth year elementary school
Sixth year elementary school
Lower secondary school
Upper secondary school
Higher certificate and higher
No. of family members
1-3 peoples
4-6 peoples
More than 6 peoples

52.95

30
9
13
17
11

37.50
11.25
16.25
21.25
13.75

32
14
7
7
2

51.61
22.59
11.29
11.29
3.22

21
55
4

26.25
68.75
5.00

19
40
3

30.65
64.51
4.84

4.25
Agricultural experience
20 years and below
21-30 years
More than 30 years

27
21
32

3.90
33.75
26.25
40.00

25
18
19

27.44
Water used for agriculture
Rain
Public canal
Irrigation and others
Main and supplementary job career
Full-time farmer
Agriculture and trading
Agriculture and hired worker
OthersLand holding for farming
Own
RentalOwn and rental
Others
Source of income
Agricultural sector
Non-agricultural sector
Agricultural and non-agricultural sector
Annual income from agricultural sector in average
External capital source (n=51, n=47) *The BAAC
Village Fund
Agricultural Cooperatives

146

25.37

32
23
25

40.00
28.75
31.25

0
36
26

0.00
58.06
41.94

37
13
17
13

46.25
16.25
21.25
16.25

35
14
0
13

56.45
22.58
0.00
20.97

68
1
4
7

85.00
1.25
5.00
8.75

28
12
21
1

45.16
19.35
33.87
1.62

37
46.25
3
3.75
40
50.00
172,045.45

34
54.84
0
0.00
28
45.16
281,854.84

43
5
3

40
1
6

*Only farmers who have got an external capital source for rubber tree cultivationⒸ ISERD

40.33
29.02
30.65

84.31
9.80
5.89

85.11
2.12
12.77

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

More than a half (68.75%) decided to participate in the project due to the governmental
promotion (not more than 5.93 acres). But 31.25% of them were farmers having potential in thecapital for investment. More than one-third of them (37.50%) grew rubber trees in the areas
ichused longan orchards (about 213.49 acres). This was equivalent to 422 farmers and 3,074 acresof cultivation area comparing to the total number of participants and rubber cultivation area in
Chiang Mai, respectively. During 2003-2004, Chiang Mai had a total longan cultivation area of
94,925 acres (Longan Information Center, 2010). However, this project could help reduce longan
cultivation area only to 3.23%. Surprisingly, only one farmer (1.25%) grew rubber trees in the
areawhichused to garlic growing. It indicated that Longan orchard area could only be reduced intoa small number but not for garlic cultivation area.
About one-half of farmers (51.25%) were not sure about the return obtained from rubber
cultivation. However, some of them (20.00%) expected to earn a monthly income from rubber
cultivation for about 1,000 baht. They believed that the project was a good one. Less than one-halfof them (41.24%) stated that it was because there was staff of the ORRAF that often gave them
advice about rubber trees growing. About one-fourth of them (23.75%) thought that their livelihood
would be better due to an increase of income. Only 10% of the farmers stated that the project took
long time to give yields and it was costly for care-taking.
The  project  implementation  in  accordance  with  the  government’s  policy
The project implementation in 2003 lacked readiness in various aspects such as a number ofconcerned personnel, budgets and that farmers did not have knowledge and understanding aboutrubber trees cultivation. At the initial stage, farmers must register to be enrolled in the project at the
Office of District Agriculture. They had to grow rubber trees alone without assistance of c or any
suggestion. This was due to limited budgets allocated to concerned agencies. In 2004, however,
government had allocated the budgets through ORRAF, aimed to provide knowledge andunderstanding about rubber trees cultivation for farmers. It takes 7 years and 6 months for rubber
trees to give yields. Nowadays, ORRAF is still responsible for providing knowledge andunderstanding about rubber trees cultivation.
The ORRAF revealed that the project was not so successful because of the following factors:
1. The project implementation was based on political objectives. Thus, at the initial stage of the
project there was no concerned agency for project monitoring. Moreover, farmers in northern
Thailand did not have experience in rubber trees cultivation before.
2. Farmers did not adequately take care of rubber trees which they had grown i.e. grass mowing,fertilizer application, prevention of insects and diseases.
3. Budgets allocated by government were small
Based on the farmers, the following was concluded:
1. The prepared rubber seedlings were inadequate.
2. Lack of knowledge, extension, and monitoring caused farmers to misunderstand rubber trees
cultivation, e.g. distance between rubber trees; growing rubber seedling with longan and weeds.
These had an effect on growth performance of rubber trees.
3. There were no concerned agencies for giving farmers advice when they had problems. Thus,
farmers had to do trial-and-error by themselves.
Needs of the farmers who did not participate in the project
More than one-half of non-participants (64.90%) used to receive policy news through television.
Nevertheless, they did not attend the project because they did rotation cropping. They were
cultivating rice from July to December and garlic from January to April, and so that the cultivation
land areas were inappropriate for growing rubber trees. Some of them (14.52%) stated that longan
and garlic were giving yields even though their prices were quite low. So, they needed thegovernment to assist them in terms of price of longan and garlic, reduction of production costs andagricultural products imported from neighboring countries, especially from China.
From the focus group discussions with farmers, the following were revealed:Ⓒ ISERD

147

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

1. Inappropriateness of the cultivation areas - Most of the cultivation areas were rice paddy fields
which were inherited from parents and limited. Some farmers sold their lands to capitalists andcould not expand their cultivation areas because they were close to reserved forest.
2. Worthiness - Longan growers did not want to cut their longan trees since they were giving yields
once a year. Longan trees were worthy since longan growers only had to work hard at harvestingseason. On the other hand, it took a long time for rubber trees to give yields.
3. Agricultural experience - Farmers were confident in their long time longan and garlic growing
experiences, and believed that they were better at growing longan and garlic than rubber trees. Yet,some farmers showed interest in growing rubber trees and they were waiting to see the success ofrubber trees growing of others.
4. Assistance of the government
4.1 Farmers wanted the government to assure their income and yields. This was because they were
not able to grow other crops since they had long experience in longan and garlic growing. If thegovernment could do it, it might motivate the new generation to grow rubber trees. Surely, sellingthe cultivation lands to capitalists would be decreased.
4.2 Farmers wanted the government to provide them with production factors e.g. fertilizer,
pesticide, insecticide, etc. This could be done through the village fund management by thecommunity.
4.3 The government should reduce import quota of Chinese garlic. This was because its price islower than that of Thai garlic. Although there are garlic and red onion grower cooperatives inThailand,Thai garlic could not compete against garlic from China.
DISCUSSION
It is essential that the policy determination for local development be relevant to the needs of thecommunity. Also, it must place importance on environmental conditions. This must be supported
by various social sectors as well as local people. Besides, collaboration and coordination among
concerned parties based on the participatory process are required in order to achieve the goals(Mingchai and Yotsuk, 1998). As the rubber trees cultivation replacing garlic and longan growing
is the political policy, it lacked the readiness in planning, personnel, and budgets. There were a lotof problems at the initial stage. Moreover, farmers did not have experience in rubber tree growing.
More than 200 farmers failed to join the project. This was a wasteland in providing budgets forrubber seedling. After the government had allocated the budgets to ORRAF in 2004, someconcerned agencies assisted and provided knowledge to the farmers more than ever. However, theproject was not so successful on promoting the reduction of longan and garlic growing areas. Thiswas because few farmers that joined the project changed to grow rubber trees (213.49 acres, 442
farmers). In fact, Chiang Mai has longan growing areas of 92,738.45 acres (Longan Information
Center, 2010). However, this project could decrease longan growing area at a very low level. At thesame time, garlic growing areas could not be decreased at all. Some farmers used the areas usuallyfor growing other crops to grow rubber trees. This might have a long-term effect on food securityof the country and the world.
Based on the policy, SWOT analysis revealed that the policy is supported by the government
focusing on agricultural  development  and  villagers’  livelihood. There were some concerned parties
assisting the project such as Office of District Agriculture; Office of Provincial agriculture, andORRAF. On the other hand, the project was under urgent polic, and sothe government sometimes
made modifications which might have an effect on the project management and discontinuation ofcare-taking. Moreover, farmers did not have enough knowledge about rubber trees cultivation.
Besides, lack of holistic operation and no complete coordination among concerned agencies werethe  policy’s  weaknesses.  Farmers might be interested in joining in the project due to a high demandof rubber in the world and an income might satisfy them. But, it is difficult to expand rubber
growing areas since there is a limitation on land holding and reserved forest encroachment. Also,
the limitation on external loan sources and high interest rates  are  the  policy’s  threats.

Ⓒ ISERD

148

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

CONCLUSION
The project was under a policy of promoting rubber trees cultivation for replacing garlic andlongan growing. This aimed to avoid the competition of yields against the neighboring countries
due to China-Thai Free Trade Agreement and to increase the income of farmers for better
livelihood. Since it is an urgent policy, there were problems to be resolved in terms ofthe : 1)
structural deficiency - this policy needs coordination among concerned parties such as the Ministryof Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives, the Ministry of Commerce, and other agricultural
institutes, which was not found in this project; 2) the deficiency on risk management - risk factors
include natural calamities, diseases, insects, etc. Indeed, the government did not promote yieldassurance management as well as rubber market; 3) development of agricultural sector for the
reduction of unfair treatment - Goals of the project did not focus on unfair treatment such as
income and yield assurance systems and the diffusion of information about said systems; and 4)
stakeholder participation - the policy still lacked collaboration among production sector, market
sector and concerned agencies in terms of agricultural planning and development for the reductionof environmental impacts.
As a whole, the initial stage of the project was not so successful. However, there is a hightendency that farmers of the two groups will join the project and expand rubber growing areas in
the future. The farmers who did not join the project were waiting for the project outcomes
performed by their neighbors. The rubber trees will give first yield during 2011-2012. They might
become interested in growing rubber trees if they find that it is worthwhile to grow them. Thus, theproject might be successful in a long-term if there is further investigation and evaluation in the near
future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researchers are grateful to the National Research Office for granting fund of this research.
Many thanks go to all concerned farmers and staff of the Office of Rubber Replanting Aid Fund forspending their valued time.
REFERENCES
Longan Information Center. 2010. Statistics on longan growing in Chiangmai, 2000-2009. http://www.
ardanews.arda.or.th/longan.
Mingchai, J. and Yotsuk, P. 2008. Organic farming: The local public policy for agricultural survival in thenorth of Thailand. Conference on Local Political Science and People Politics Leading to Sustainable
Development.10-11 November, 2008. School of Administrative Studies, Maejo University. Thailand.
Noonsong, A. 2003. CP and the failure in rubber seedling provision. http://www.thaingo.org/writer/view.php?id=142.
Prachatham Office. 2008. Northern Garlic begins to face problems due to the rubber growing promotion of
the government. http://www.newspnn.net.
Sriprasit, S. 2008. Failure of Rubber Tree Cultivation in Northeastern Thailand.
The Office of Agricultural Extension and Development, Region 6, Chiangmai. 2010. Information andstatistics of cash crop production in northern Thailand. Information and Strategy Group, Department ofAgricultural Extension, Ministry of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives. Thailand.
The Or Por Thor News 2009. The establishment of northern rubber center to cope with the Chinese market.
1-15 February, Volume, 2009. 22.

Ⓒ ISERD

149