Can public GAP standards reduce agricultural pesticide use? The case of fruit and vegetable farming in northern Thailand

Abstract

In response to the chronic overuse and misuse of pesticides in agriculture, governments in Southeast Asia have sought to improve food safety by introducing public standards of good agricultural practices (GAP). Using quantitative farm-level data from an intensive horticultural production system in northern Thailand, we test if fruit and vegetable producers who follow the public GAP standard use fewer and less hazardous pesticides than producers who do not adhere to the standard. The results show that this is not the case. By drawing on qualitative data from expert interviews and an action research project with local litchi (''lychee'') producers we explain the underlying reasons for the absence of significant differences. The qualitative evidence points at poor implementation of farm auditing related to a program expansion that was too rapid, at a lack of understanding among farmers about the logic of the control points in the standard, and at a lack of alternatives given to farmers to manage their pest problems. We argue that by focusing on the testing of farm produce for pesticide residues, the public GAP program is paying too much attention to the consequences rather than the root cause of the pesticide problem; it needs to balance this by making a greater effort to change on-farm practices.

Untitled

“…They also exhibited significantly superior performance to uncertified farms in several pesticide handling items. These findings appear different from Schreinemachers et al"s (2012) study of Thailand"s Q-GAP, which found no statistically significant differences in the annual amount of pesticide use and handling between 45 certified and 245 uncertified farms for nine FFV crops in Northern Thailand.…”

“…Overall, pesticide handling practices of certified farms appear to be performed better than uncertified farms with five of the total 14 items exhibiting a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05 or p < 0.01). Although a direct comparison may not be appropriate, it should be noted that this finding parts ways with the aforementioned Schreinemachers et al (2012) on Q-GAP where no significant differences in pesticide handling were found between certified and uncertified farms for seven items 1 .…”

“…Continued adopters are found to spend significantly less total fertilizer costs than neveradopters and adopt-then-disadopters (at 5% ANOVA), and have significantly less frequencies of pesticides application (at 0.1% ANOVA) except for herbicide application that showed no significant differences. In reference to Schreinemachers et al (2012) and Amekawa (2013b) which show different results from the study, the authors ascribe the observed differences to the generally easier nature of rice production to reduce pesticides as compared with the case of FFV production.…”

“…The following four studies address the problem by examining the level of the quality assurance of Q-GAP certified farms. First, comparing 45 Q-GAP certified and 245 uncertified farms for a total of nine vegetable and fruit crops in a watershed of Chiang Mai Province, Northern Thailand, Schreinemachers et al (2012) found that there are no significant statistical differences between the between farmer groups in terms of the amount of pesticides used, methods of pest control adopted, and pesticide handling. Second, Amekawa (2013b) found that 34 of the 64 Q-GAP certified pomelo growers from two communities of Chaiyaphum province, Northeast Thailand, showed a lack of the understanding of the basic objective of GAP.…”

“…This is largely a response to the rapidly increasing levels of agricultural pesticide use in the region as well as the increasing concerns of foreign and domestic consumers about food safety (Schreinemachers et al, 2012). They have also emerged in the context where private GAP standards led by GlobalGAP dominate the food safety standardization of the global value chain.…”