Adoption and Income Effects of Public GAP Standards: Evidence from the Horticultural Sector in Thailand

Abstract

To reduce potential food hazards and increase the image of Thai horticultural products abroad, the Thai government introduced public standards of Good Agricultural Practices (Q-GAP). What makes orchid and mango producers in Thailand adopt Q-GAP standards and how do these affect their income and export shares? Primary data from 400 certified and non-certified orchid and mango producers was collected from main exporting provinces in Thailand. The binary probit model estimations show that it is the orchid and mango producers with higher education, and more physical and social capital who tend to comply with Q-GAP standards. Results from the Propensity Score Matching approach reveal that adoption of public GAP standards results in positive income effects for mango producers, but not for orchid producers. This can be explained by the fact that certified mango producers can sell their products to high-value retail chains which offer higher prices for their products, while certified and non-certified orchid producers cooperate with traders from the same value chain.

Good agricultural practices, farm performance, and input usage by smallholders: Empirical evidence from Nepal

“…Our finding is consistent with Takahiro, Tuan, and Beebout (), who found that net farm income of GAP farmers was higher than that of farmers practicing farming without GAP. Our finding is also consistent with Krause et al (), who found that adoption of public GAP standards resulted in higher income for mango farmers in Thailand.…”

“…Small‐scale farmers in developing countries may benefit more from the adoption of GAP because it could give access to better and bigger markets, both domestically and internationally (Handschuch et al, ). For instance, Krause, Lippe, and Grote () in their study found that mango farmers who adopted public GAP (Q‐GAP) in Thailand earned significantly higher income than their counterparts. In Malaysia, Islam, Arshad, Radam, and Alias () found that tomato‐exporting farmers, under the Malaysian farm certification scheme for GAP (SLAM), almost doubled their productivity and income compared with nonpracticing SLAM farmers.…”

“…In sum, the above literature reveals that adoption of GAP may have an impact on the price premiums and crop yields produced with GAP techniques, as opposed to crops produced with traditional techniques (IRRI, ; Islam et al, ; Krause et al, ). Moreover, the adoption of GAP could reduce input costs as it encourages farmers to use optimal inputs (e.g., pesticides, herbicides, and potable water) .…”

Factors influencing smallholder orange farmers for compliance with GobalGAP standards

“…Hence, they could establish the facilities needed to meet GlobalGAP requirements. According to Krause et al (2016) , farm income is one of the motivation factors that increase farmers’ compliance with sustainability standards and good agricultural practices. Farmers with a high yield showed a tendency to consider awareness and information barriers more important than farmers with lower production.…”

Exploring farmers' adoption of VietGAP from systemic perspective: implication for developing agri-food systems

“…Research into farmers' adoption of public and private GAP programmes has been undertaken in both Vietnam (Loan et al , 2016; Vu Thi et al , 2016) and other developing countries (Krause et al , 2016; Srisopaporn et al , 2015). However, the vast majority of the literature (Lippe and Grote, 2016; Krause et al , 2016; Loan et al , 2016; Vu Thi et al , 2016; Laosutsan et al , 2019) tends to explain farmers' adoption of GAP based on the either some or all of the four following factors:the characteristics of farmers such as age, education level and experience (Kersting and Wollni, 2012; Lippe and Grote, 2016; Krause et al , 2016);the characteristics of farms and households such as farm size, the availability of labour and access to off-farm income (Muriithi et al , 2011; Annor et al , 2016; Loan et al , 2016; Jin and Zhou, 2011);the characteristics of the technology (GAP) such as the complexity of new farming practices, the need for additional labour to implement the new farming practices, the cost of new inputs to meet certification standards and certification costs (Vu Thi et al , 2016; Srisopaporn et al , 2015; Lippe and Grote, 2016); andthe level of support given to farmers under GAP programmes such as technical training, price support or input subsidies (Lippe and Grote, 2016; Kersting and Wollni, 2012; Muriithi et al , 2011). …”