UNEP Final Report: Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains

Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains

(IRRI Ref. No.: DPPC2010 22) Final Report

Resource efficiency and ecosystems services in rice production pr oduction in Thailand’s central plain: Baseline research.

Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains Executive Summary 1. Introduction The study is a follow-up activity to the UNEP Expert Roundtable on improving resource efficiency in Thai rice production, held at UNEP-ROAP, Bangkok, from 1-2 February 2010. As one outcome of this meeting, IIED has commissioned the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) to conduct a pre-pilot survey to set a baseline and determine whether there is sufficient scope for improvements of resource efficiencies in water and nutrients in rice agriculture in the irrigated Central Plain of Thailand. Postharvest losses magnify resource inefficiencies since they reduce milled rice in the market per liter of water or kilograms of nutrients used in production and they cause the generation of more greenhouse gases (GHGs) per kg of milled rice. Every percent lost in postproduction means one percent inputs wasted. The study therefore also assesses the losses and inefficiencies in rice postproduction. Because the provision of ecosystem services such as flood control must be balanced against negative externalities when determining policies and incentives, the study also aims at providing an inventory of ecosystem services. In order to find where in the system (farm, chain or policy..) there are leverage points to effect and drive change an actor analysis needs to be undertaken. The background papers produced in sub-studies

Executive Summary: Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains, Thailand

Page 3 of 21

west. In the north it gently changes into the hilly terrain in Northern Thailand. The area was the heartland of the Ayutthaya kingdom, and is still the dominant area of Thailand. Central Thailand contains the Thai capital of Bangkok. Central Thailand is the most populated region in the country. Sub-study 2 also uses the Office of Agricultural Economics (OAE) definition for the Central Region which comprises 26 provinces because the statistical data on trade is based on this administrative definition. The following provinces form parts of Central Plain of Thailand: 1. Ang Thong; 2. Phra Nakhon; 3. Si Ayutthaya; 3. Bangkok (Krung Thep Maha Nakhon); 4. Kamphaeng Phet; 5. Lop Buri; 6. Nakhon Nayok; 7. Nakhon Pathom; 8. Nakhon Sawan; 9. Nonthaburi; 10. Pathum Thani; and 11. Phetchabun.

2. Sub Study 1: Resource efficiency in the Central Plain: Desk study The Central Plain of Thailand has a total of 10.4 million ha, which is 20% of the whole kingdom. The Central Plain has a paddy land of 1.67 million ha, which is 16.3% of the paddy land of whole kingdom. An average farm size in Thailand is 3.61 ha, while it is 4.70 ha in the Central Plain. Wet season rice production areas are classified into land suitability zones (S1 – highly suitable, S2 – moderately suitable, S3 – marginally suitable, and S4 – not suitable). The 1.5 M ha of rice grown in the Central Thailand is mostly S1 and S2. In 2008, the harvested rice area in the Central Plain was 1.5 million ha in the wet season and 1 million ha in the dry season. Total rough rice (paddy) production in 2008 was 5.6 million tons in the wet season and 4.5 million tons in the dry season, and average yields were 3.7 t/ha in the wet season and 4.5 t/ha in the dry season. World-wide average rice yields are around 4 t/ha, whereas world-wide irrigated rice yields are about 5 t/ha. The Central Plain produced 1.3 million tons of


Page 4 of 21

Mean pesticide use in the Central Plain of Thailand is 2.08 kg active ingredients (a.i.)/ha, which is 0.5-1.5 kg a.i./ha higher than for irrigated rice in the Philippines, the Mekong and Red River Deltas in Vietnam, west Java (Indonesia), and Tamil Nadu (India), and only some 1.8 kg a.i./ha lower than for irrigated rice in Zhejiang Province (China). Herbicide use in the Central Plain (0.89 kg a.i./ha/crop vs. 0.34 kg a.i./ha/crop in Central Luzon, Philippines) has been increasing because of labour shortage. Pesticides are often overused and this has led to chemical poisoning (human). Farmers in Thailand rely only on pesticides for pest management and use them in a prophylactic manner which predisposes their crop to invading plant hoppers. Recent and devastating outbreaks of Brown Plant Hopper (BPH), which also carry rice viral diseases, are thought to be caused by a variety of factors, mainly breakdown of host-plant resistance and ecological resilience because of overuse of pesticides and by intensification and misuse of N fertilizers. Rice production consumes 13,480 MJ/ha energy for rainfed rice and 20,470 MJ/ha for irrigated rice due to the higher input intensity of fertilizers and fuel. The total energy input used for rice production was lower in Thailand than in India and Pakistan. The energy ratio in irrigated rice in Thailand was 4.0, whereas this ratio in India and Pakistan was 2.5 and 4.2, respectively. Farmers in the irrigated Central Plain use very high seed rates (>180 kg/ha); more than twice the recommendation. In the Central Plain, family labour decreased from 3.20 to 2.77 persons/household from 1998/99 -2006/07, and wages for hired labour are high because of the availability of industrial jobs. Consequently, rice crops are established by direct seeding and land preparation, harvesting, and threshing are fully mechanized. Labour constitutes around 33% of the total cost compared to 50% in countries that are less mechanized.


Page 5 of 21

integrated crop management for irrigated rice and rainfed lowland rice. Thai Ricecheck provides the crop management guidelines for the GAP for integrated rice crop management. In 2006, the Thai Rice Knowledge Bank was developed, which is a ‘one-stop shop’ portal – available on CDROM and internet, for up to date information on rice production technologies and rice varieties in Thailand. A number of new technologies for Natural Resources Management for irrigated rice exist that could potentially increase the resource-use efficiency of rice and reduce the ecological footprint. Specific technologies include improved fertilizer management through site specific nutrient management (SSNM), improved water productivity through Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD), and reduced pesticide use through integrated pest management (IPM) and Ecological Engineering. These technologies are currently not included in the ThaiGAP; therefore, their validation and the benchmarking benc hmarking of potential benefits in the Central Plain should be a priority. Conclusion and Recommendation

Rice production in Central Plain of Thailand benefits from having better irrigation infrastructure than other regions. Farmers in irrigated area grow more than two rice crops per year and use high levels of inputs, especially seed rate, fertilizer, and pesticides. Biotic factors, such as diseases and insect pests, are main constraints to rice production. There is overuse of land (growing more than two crops/year), water and agrochemicals without considering the environment impact, health hazards, and residues in water resources. Water scarcity in dry season is a major constraint for rice production every year; water storage reached to the critical level in the dry season of 2010. In order to save environment and utilize all resources for sustainable rice production, resources efficiency utilization is the most important issues. The Rice Department has compiled a number of general recommendations in three categories: 1.


Page 6 of 21

Table 1: Major issues, proposed measures and their possible impact on resource efficiency in the Central Plain of Thailand. Issue

Proposed measures

Intensive cropping

Plant two crops/year

Impact on resource efficiency • • • •

High seed rate

Use seed rate according to the recommendation / reduce average seed rates

Overuse of fertilizer

Adopt site specific nutrient management

• •

• • • •

• • •

Overuse of pesticide

Overuse of water

Awareness in local pesticide retailer about sustainable use of pesticides; reduce pesticide use Adopt alternate wetting and drying; introduce laser levelling

• •

• • • • •

•

Intensive wet tillage

Adopt dry seeded rice

• • • •

Increase in land use efficiency Reduction in pests, especially BPH Maintained soil quality Risk reduction of water scarcity Reduction in costs Reduction in diseases and insect pests

Improve nutrient use efficiency Reduce fertilizer use and cost Reduction in insect pests and diseases Reduction in environmental pollution and contamination in drinking water and other water resources Reduction in eutrophication Reduction in nutrient leaching and run-off Reduction in nitrous oxide emissions Reduction in input cost Reduction in environmental pollution and contamination in drinking water Improvement in human health Reduction in development of resistance in pests Increase in water use efficiency Reduction in water use Reduction in fuel consumption and energy inputs where water is applied by electric/diesel pump Reduction in greenhouse gas emission, e.g. methane Improvement in soil structure and soil health Reduction in water use Better tolerance to water and heat stress Reduction in production cost

Levers

Government policies

Seed companies; extension services

Fertilizer companies; extension services

Pesticide companies; extension services and farmers’ groups

Research institutes and private companies

Research institutes, private companies, extension staff


Page 7 of 21

production of the Central plains and most of the high quality rice comes from other areas, the postharvest sector of the Central plains also processes and trades a large percentage of rice from other areas in Thailand. Around 90% of the milled rice is transferred to Bangkok, of which 62% is used for domestic use and 28% is exported. Thailand has established 6 rice categories of internationally traded rice, which are used by most exporters to offer their products: 1. Thai Hom Mali, formerly called Jasmine Rice: There are d ifferent photo sensitive Hom Mali varieties and they are mostly grown in Northern Thailand but together with other traditional varieties also in 10% of the central plains. 2. Glutinous Rice: Also called Thai Sticky Rice " or "Thai Sweet Rice". The best glutinous rice is from the northern part of Thailand. Japanese Rice: Produced in the north of Thailand. 3. 4. Thai White Rice: High yielding varieties, non-photosensitive, mostly cultivated in the Central plains. Parboiled Rice is produced by soaking, pressure streaming and drying the paddy before 5. milling. 6. Brown Rice or unpolished rice. Only the husk is removed and the bran b ran layer is left intact. The coating of brown rice contains micronutrients like vitamins and minerals. Brown rice takes a little longer to cook. The texture is slightly sticky with nutty flavor and therefore it is a niche market product. Most of rice varieties grown in the Central plains are not photosensitive, photosensitive varieties only cover 30%. The rice market consists of the paddy market and the milled rice market (See Figure 1). There are four major trading channels for paddy from farmers to millers: 1. Farmers sell directly to the


Page 8 of 21

Roughly 55% of the milled rice from the mills goes into domestic markets either directly (25%), through wholesalers or via brokers (30%). The remaining 45% of the milled rice is exported by licensed exporters who either buy directly from millers (10%) or from brokers (35%). Regardless of the export popularity of Hom Mali rice and other specialty rice, which is mostly grown in the Northern and Northeastern region, most of exported rice is from the Central Plains since Thai white rice and parboiled rice exports are the majority. For a summary of the post production value chain stakeholders see Chapter 0. Inefficiencies of the rice postharvest sector can be classified into two groups: First there are inefficiencies in rice production, processing, handling and storage that have an effect on the

amount and the quality of milled rice represented by losses in dry matter and in quality; and second there are inefficiencies that do not have an effect on the rice products but lead e.g. to high energy use in processing or waste of potential raw materials such as straw and husk, which can be turned into products either for energy or non energy applications. In contrary to other SE-Asian countries harvesting in the central plains is fully mechanized. It can be assumed that losses are low. With 5 person days/ha labor requirement for harvesting incl. collection and transport is very low compared e.g. to North Vietnam with 80 person days/ha. In fully mechanized harvesting systems losses are usually below 3% and it can be assumed that in the Central plains losses in harvesting are not a problem although data are not available. Thailand has a vibrant combine harvester ha rvester manufacturing sector also exporting machines, e.g. to Ca mbodia. In the Central plains 90% of the paddy is mechanical dried using either simple, locally produced fixed bed batch dryers or more complex drying machines like batch-in-bin dryers or continuous flow dryers. In comparison with neighbouring countries dryer usage in the Central Plains is therefore extremely high. By comparison dryer capacity in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam is 30%


Page 9 of 21

state of the art mills in the region. There are probably two reasons, 1. the low paddy quality mentioned earlier and reported inefficient and outdated equipment at the smaller mills (as result of low returns and high competition). Only around 30% of the millers use milling quality assessment tools when purchasing the paddy, though this is still a lot more than in other countries in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) where except moisture meters hardly any test tools are used. Data about inefficiencies in the different types of mills (See Chapter 0) and energy consumption were not found. The transport system includes trucks, trains and ships along the Chao Phraya River. Since most of the rice is traded via the main urban consumption centers and transportation routes are quite long there are many intermediaries involved including local buyers or brokers, local commission agents (subcontractors), cooperatives, farmers groups, local market centers, millers, wholesalers and retailers at the local level. At the regional level, large local market centers and large millers are major intermediaries. The final level, i.e. country level includes brokers, wholesalers and exporters. Losses during transport are supposedly small in the range of 1-2%. Many companies offer fumigation services. Methyl bromide as fumigant for stored product protection is phased out with UNEP sponsoring until 2013. Not much data was found the effectiveness of alternatives. Data on losses on storage cou ld not be found. Various incentive schemes for better product quality and premium markets are being supported, sometimes on a pilot scheme. This includes: 1. 2.

3.

Organic rice production accounting for only 1.1% of the total rice production. Thai Good Agricultural Practice (GAP), currently financed by the government due to lacking market incentives Branding to ensure a premium for good quality milled rice (see rice types above)


Page 10 of 21

Compared to other countries in the Greater Mekong Subregion, especially the ones already or

potentially competing in exports (Vietnam and Cambodia / Myanmar respectively) the Thai postharvest sector is well developed. Harvesting is fully mechanized, drying to 90% indicating that postharvest losses in these operations are low. Only Vietnam has significant mechanization of drying in the Mekong delta (30%) and in some few provinces mechanized harvesting. Detailed loss data was not available. Some new technologies exist that might address some problems in the postharvest chain. Hermetic storage for example could help improving seed quality leading to better milling outputs and reduced losses. Laser leveling of land would lead to better paddy quality and again to higher milling outputs. Several projects looked into identifying new, innovative products from rice and rice byproducts. Around 20 new products were identified, which all would need product development, labeling and the development of markets. To provide additional incentives for better resource efficiencies the government is working on the development of a Thai Postharvest GAP also referred to as Good Management Practice (GMP). Like with organic rice, as sufficient price incentive for GAP/GMP rice would be precondition for successful introduction. Suggestions for additional market driven incentives on the production side include Eco branding and labeling and GMO free rice branding and labeling. Market potential needs to be studied and as with organic rice these would need to be certified throughout the value chain including postharvest. For making clear recommendations for improving postharvest resource efficiency the data base is not sufficient. Recommendations therefore include:


Page 11 of 21

4. Sub-study III: Inventory of ecosystem services Sub study 3 delivers a brief inventory of ecosystem services (ES) offered in the Central Plain of Thailand, and related considerations on associated economic values. The concept of ecosystem services provides an integrative framework for natural resource management and environmentally sustainable agricultural production. The lowland paddy rice ecosystems in the Central Plain offers several ecosystem goods and services, which include functions and values related to regulating, supporting, and cultural services (mostly as public goods, i.e. true ES), and contributions to the economy (mostly through private benefits). We first clarify the terms and concepts on aquatic resource use, values, externalities, benefits, and services. We define (1) resource direct-use value, generating private goods and services, which benefits private, local economic agents, and (2) resource indirect, non-use value, generating public goods and services, which benefits part or whole of society. Such a distinction proves useful to first sort out the different functions and externalities attached to rice ecosystems, developing a conceptual framework for further investigations, and second to identify proper methodologies to assess economic values of ES in the Central Plain of Thailand. Tha iland. In the context of the intensively irrigated rice cropping system of the Central Plain, designed and operated for export and agro-industry sectors, some ES functions have considerable positive effect (regulating), some limited positive effects (support), and some lead to significant negative externalities (Green house gas (GHG) emissions and their contribution to climate change is the main negative externality of paddy rice). Among the range of ecosystem services, regulatory functions seems to be the most important.


Page 12 of 21

pesticides and fertilizers. Tangible application and impact of GAP recommendations remain few at this point in time. The economic values of the different rice ecosystems services and goods have not been assessed in Thailand, although methodologies do exist. No compensation, incentive or payment mechanism related to ecosystem services has been developed so far in Thailand. The following recommendations arose from this inventory of ES: 1. More research is required on the biophysical and ecological processes that are poorly documented at this stage. These include hydrological processes, water and soil chemistry, and water and soil ecology. The outcomes of such background research would be to better define the quantity and quality of ecosystems services provided, and to back up further investigations on their potential economic value. 2. GHG emissions and their concomitant high contribution to climate change is the main negative externality of paddy rice production. Better quantification of the magnitude of this effect in the Central Plain is required. Also, experimental studies are urgently required of possible rice production processes and systems which could mitigate these negative effects (see Sub Study 1). 3. More economic research is required. First, on assessing the value of all identified ecosystems goods and services, and second, on investigating and testing economic instruments that could promote sustainability of such provisions. 4. Research agencies should team up with interested public and private stakeholders in order to redress the observed lack of knowledge and awareness on ecosystem services. Communication and information flow on the benefits of ES has to be directed at the


Page 13 of 21

The rice farmers in the Central plain represent about 25% of all rice farmers in Thailand which

is 578,340 households. On average they are planting 2.5 crops per years; 1 crop per year in wet season and 1.5 in dry season. Average farm size is 4.4 and 4.8 ha per household in wet and dry season, respectively. The farmers are organized in and get support from Rice Community Centers (good quality seeds, technology transfer, training), Cooperatives, loosely in farmers groups and in the Thai Rice Farmers Association for participation in Government decision making. The rice farmers were identified as the key group for improving resource efficiencies of rice production and through their organizations they have high leverage and influence. Traders are engaged in both, paddy and milled rice trade. Millers buy 65% of the paddy production paddy directly from farmers and also through sub-contractors whom they hire for that purpose. Brokers trade 10%, they charge a commission for their services. Farmers’ organizations (cooperatives or farmers groups) handle only around 5% of the total production. Government agencies under the Public Warehouse Organizations (PWO), Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC) and Ministry of Finance (MOF), like the Government Warehouse Organization (GWO) under the Ministry of Commerce buys agricultural produce particularly at intervention price. For details see Sub-study 4. Rice mills are classified according to their capacity, ranging from less than 5 MT per 24 hours

(C3) over 5 to 20 MT per 24 hours (C2) to more than 20 MT per 24 hours (C1). In 2004, the total of 39,943 rice mills was composed of 38,208 small, 527 medium, and 1,163 large rice mills. Regional differences in distribution are notable, the dominant share of small mills is located in the northeast, and relatively many large mills in the Central Plains. Rice millers have a strong interest in improving the quality of paddy and therefore are an important stakeholder also with respect to leverage (price) and influence (bargaining power). The Thai Rice Millers Association therefore is a key stakeholder.


Page 14 of 21

Due to its mandate the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC) is the bank with biggest leverage and influence. Other banks and financial institutions are also expected to support a project on resource use efficiency with the exception of informal credit providers. National research institutions include Kasetsart University and other universities with R&D on

rice. The international AIT has projects on rice and ecosystems. Four institutes support rice reseach, the most important ones being the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) and the Agricultural Research Development Agency (ARDA). All these stakeholders are expected to have positive attitude towards resource efficiency improvements but limited influence and leverage, which can be strengthened when R&D results are considered in policy formulation. Various ministries are involved in formulating policy affecting the postharvest sector, among them the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC), the Ministry of Commerce (MOC), the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MOTC), the Ministry of Foreign affairs (MOFA), the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and the Ministry of Industry (MOI). The Rice Department of the MOAC is tasked to develop policies related to rice. The Rice Policy Committee with the Prime Minister as Chairman is in charge with considering and approving strategy and policy related to rice. International stakeholders with strong interest in improving resource efficiencies are FAO supporting water management programs with the Royal Irrigation Department and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) through the Irrigated Rice Research Consortium (IRRC). The IRRC is already working with the Rice Department on information exchange and international networking for the introduction of good management practices in nutrient-, water- and pest-management and on postharvest. A donor with interest and high leverage is JICA. Consultants like Applied GeoSolutions can provide special expertise in remote


3.

4.

5.

6.

Page 15 of 21

Strategies for Marketing management system & products development aims at rising

farmers’ incomes by at least 10% in 5 years by stimulating market mechanisms to improve market potential and boost production potential. Strategies for Maintaining price stability aims at reducing paddy price intervention cost from 4,400 million baht to 4,000 million bath by reducing the intervention price. Strategies for International marketing development aims at increasing exports from 7.4 million tons or 2,057 million US$ in 2006 to 8.5-9.5 million t or 2.550-2.850 million US$. Strategies for Logistics and services management aims at reducing cost for logistics and services from 19% of gross rice production cost to 15%.

Information about the implementation and impact of these strategies was not available. A number of opportunities for improved resource efficiencies were identified during a Stakeholder workshop conducted in the context of Sub-study 4. They are to a large extend in line with the opportunities identified in Sub-study 1 and Sub-study 2.

6. Summary of Recommendations for improving resource efficiencies ef ficiencies The Sub-studies 1-3 contain a whole range of general recommendations for improving resource efficiencies. Some of them are “business as usual” a repetition of previous interventions. Others are innovative, building on multiple stakeholder partnerships to address complex problems that that are often deeply embedded in the different sections of the value chain. A summary of what the study team sees as the most promising levers in a future UNEP/Thai project is shown below:


Page 16 of 21

Table 2: Potential levers identified to improve resource efficiency in Central Thailand’s rice production.

Lever

Thai GAP (good agricultural practice)

Available technologies/management options • • •

•

•

•

Thai GMP in postharvest

• •

(good management practice)

•

•

•

New Thai rice brands, e.g. - Eco rice

• •

Laser land levelling Dry seeding of rice Use recommended seed rates and good quality seed Site specific nutrient management Water saving technologies (Alternative wetting and drying) Integrated pest management Timing of harvesting Best practice for harvesting Moisture management (avoid delays) Safe storage (e.g. hermetic storage Storage management Certification Management and

Required partnerships

Farmers groups, Contract service providers (land prep), seed companies, fertilizer companies, pesticide companies, extension services, Royal Irrigation Department, R&D,

Effect on efficiency •

•

•

• • •

Public-private partnerships (PPP): Farmers organizations, millers organizations, selected traders wholesalers and retailers, R&D and policy.

PPP, building on Thai GMP and adding

•

•

•

•

resource

Reduction of disease and pests, especially BPH Maintained soil quality at reduced fertilizer use Reduction of nutrient leaching and run off Reduction of water use Reduction in costs Risk reduction of water scarcity

Reduction of postharvest losses Maximized milling yields Minimized mycotoxin contamination

Market incentive for producers and

Resource efficiency and ecosystems services in rice production in Thailand’s central plain: Baseline research

Table of Contents Executive Summary

1. Introduction 2. Sub-study 1: Resource efficiency in the Central Plain: Desk Study 3. Sub-study II: Post harvest efficiency 4. Sub-study III: Inventory of ecosystem services 5. Sub-study IV: Actor analysis and identifications of levers 6. Summary of Recommendations for improving resource efficiencies Table of Contents List of Abbreviations Sub-study 1: Resource efficiency in the Central Plain: Desk Study

1 Background Background informati information on ........................... ........................................ ........................... ............................ ........................... ........................... ............................. ............................. ....................1 ......1 1.1 Land use............................ use.......................................... ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ................ 2 1.2 Rice management recommendations ............................. ............................................ .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ...........................2 .............2 1.2.1 Thai GAP and Thai RiceCheck................................ RiceCheck............................................... .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ....................2 .....2 1.2.2 Thai Rice Knowledge Bank ............................. ............................................ .............................. ............................... ............................... .............................. .............................. ............................. ...........................6 .............6 1.3 Crop productivity .............................. ............................................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ...........................7 .............7 1.4 Soil loss .............................. ............................................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ...........................8 .............8

2. Farmer production techniques.........................................................................................................................9 2.1 Fertilizer use .............................. ............................................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ..................11 ....11 2.2 Pesticide use ............................ ........................................... .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................ ............................. ............................. ............................. .....................12 ......12 2.3 Energy use ............................. ........................................... ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. .......................14 ........14 2.4 Water use ............................ ........................................... .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. .........................16 ...........16 2.5 Labour and capital inputs ............................ ........................................... ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. ................. 18

3. Climate Climate impact........................ impact...................................... ........................... ........................... ............................ ............................ ........................... ............................ .............................. .....................19 ......19 4. Environme Environmental ntal impact...................... impact................................... ........................... ............................ ............................ ........................... ........................... ............................ ...........................21 .............21 5. Health Health impact...................... impact...................... ...........23


7. Response options at PH value chain level level and policy for improved improved resource efficiencies efficiencies ....................... ............ ...............22 ....22 7.1.Suggestions for further research.............................. research............................................. ............................. ............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ..................23 ...23 7.2.Improving postharvest resource efficiency .............................. ............................................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. ................. 23

8.Conclusio 8.Conclusions ns and Recommenda Recommendations tions ........................... ........................................ ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... ........................... ................25 ..25 9.Reference 9.References........... s......................... ............................ ........................... ........................... ............................ ............................ ........................... ............................ ............................. ............................27 ..............27 Sub-study III: Inventory of ecosystem services

Executive Executive Summary..................... Summary.................................. ........................... ............................ ........................... ........................... ............................ ............................ ............................ .......................1 .........1 Table of content content .......................... ........................................ ............................ ............................ ........................... ........................... ............................ ............................ ............................. .......................2 ........2 1 Demarcation Demarcation of Central Central Plain Plain of of Thailand Thailand and and Rice Cultivation ..................... ........... ..................... ...................... ..................... ..................... ................4 .....4 1.1 Demarcation of Central Plain of Thailand .............................. ............................................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .................. ... 4 1.2 Land use map of Thailand........................ Thailand...................................... ............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ....................5 .....5 1.3 Rice cultivation i n Thailand and in Central Plain ............................. ............................................ .............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. .......................6 ........6 1.4 Meteorological data .............................. ............................................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................... .............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. .......................9 ........9 1.5 Ri ce production in Thailand: Main fea tures ............................. ............................................ .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. ............................10 .............10 1.6 Sumamry........................ Sumamry....................................... .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. ................. 10

2 Rice Ecosystems: Functions and Services ....... ..................... .......... ...................... ...................... ...................... ..................... ..................... ...................... ..................11 .......11 2.1 Defining ecosystem services ............................. ............................................ .............................. .............................. ............................... .............................. ............................ ............................. .............................. .......................11 ........11 2.2. Rice agro ecosystems ............................ ........................................... .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. .....................12 ......12 2.3 Regulation functions .............................. ............................................. .............................. .............................. ............................. .............................. ............................... ............................. ............................. ............................. ..................13 ....13 2.3.1 Paddy fi elds affecting local climate ........................................ ....................................................... .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ..................13 ...13 2.3.2 Paddy fi elds interacting with global climate ............................. ............................................ .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................ ............................. ................. 13 2.3.3 Function of conserving water resources ............................... .............................................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .....................15 ......15 2.3.4 Function of prevention of soil erosion .............................. .............................................. ............................... .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. .......................16 ........16 2.3.5 Functions of preservation of biodiversity and habitat for wildlife .............................. .............................................. .............................. ............................ .........................16 ...........16 2.3.6 Function of pest suppression........................... suppression.......................................... .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. ............................19 .............19 2.3.7 Function of flood prevention ............................... .............................................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. .......................19 ........19 2.4 Provision and Contribution to Economy and Development ............................. ............................................ .............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ....................21 ......21 2.4 Support ............................. ............................................ ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................21 .............21 2.4.1 Function of soil nutrient cycling .............................. ............................................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ..................21 ...21 2.4.2 Function of water purification ............................. ............................................. ............................... .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .................... ..... 22

Resource efficiency and ecosystems services in rice production in Thailand’s central plain: Baseline research 7.2.1 Research .............................. ............................................. ............................. ............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. .........................41 ...........41 7.2.2 Implementation ............................ ........................................... .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ................. .. 42

REFERENCES REFERENCES ............................ ......................................... ........................... ............................ ........................... ........................... ............................ ........................... ........................... .....................43 .......43 APPENDIX 1: Rice-Fish and Rice-Duck Ecosystems ..................... ........... ..................... ...................... ...................... ..................... ..................... ................... ........ 45 APPENDIX 2: Insects and Pests found in Rice Farm.......................................................................................49 APPENDIX 3: Rice Varieties in Thailand....................................................................................................... 53 APPENDIX 3: Values of Ecosystem Services................................................................................................. 56 APPENDIX 4: Use of Aquatic Organisms from Rice Fields............................................................................57 Sub-study IV: Actor analysis and identifications of levers

1. Introducti Introduction.......... on........................ ............................ ........................... ........................... ............................ ............................ ........................... .......................... ........................... ............................. ................1 .1 2. The rice value value chain.............................. chain............................................ ............................ ............................ ........................... ........................... ............................ ............................. .......................2 ........2 2.1. Competitive Forces in the Industry.................................... Industry................................................... .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .......................2 ........2 2.2. Value chain structure.................................. structure................................................ ............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .................. ... 3 2.3. Producers ............................. ............................................ .............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................... ............................. ............................. .............................. .........................4 ..........4 2.4. Postharvest processing .............................. ............................................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .................. ... 7 2.5. Marketing and consumption............................. consumption............................................ ............................... ............................... .............................. ............................. ............................ ............................. .............................. .........................8 ..........8 2.6. Inputs and input suppliers ............................. ............................................ .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. .........................10 ...........10 2.7. Support service providers............................. providers............................................ .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................10 .............10 2.8. Research ............................. ............................................ .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. .......................11 ........11 2.9. Policy ............................ ........................................... .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. ................. 12 2.10. Other stakeholders.................... stakeholders................................... .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. ................. 14 2.11. Value chain dynamics: Prices, profits and regulations........................ regulations....................................... ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. ................. 16

3. Policy Policy context context ............................ .......................................... ........................... ........................... ............................ ............................ ........................... ............................ ............................. ..................17 ....17 3.1. Policies regulating rice production ............................. ............................................ ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................17 .............17 3.2. Thai Rice Strategy 2007-2011 ............................. ........................................... ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. ............................. .....................18 ......18

4. Stakeholder assessment and network mapping ...................... ........... ..................... ..................... ...................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .................. ........20 20 5. Opportuniti Opportunities es / levers....................... levers..................................... ............................ ........................... ........................... ............................ ............................. ............................. .........................22 ...........22 6. Recommend Recommendations.... ations.................. ........................... ........................... ............................ ............................ ........................... ........................... ............................ ............................ .......................24 .........24 7. References. References............... ........................... ........................... ............................ ............................ ........................... ........................... ............................ ............................. ............................. .......................24 .........24


List of Abbreviations AB AEN AFM AIT ARDA AWD BAAC BHP CRC CSF DS ES EUR FAO FB GAP CDM GMO GMP GHG GIS GMS GWO GWP IIED IPM IRRC IRRI JICA K KCI KMIT LCC MNRE

Agricultural Bank agronomic N-use efficiency Association of Fertilizer Manufacturers Asian Institute of Technology Agricultural Research Development Agency Alternate wetting and drying Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives Brown plant hopper Community Rice Center Chamnien Saranaga Foundation Dry season Ecosystem services Euro Food and Agriculture Organization Farmers group Good agricultural practices Clean development Mechanism Genetically modified organism Good management practice Greenhouse gas Global information system Greater Mekong Subregion Government Warehouse Organization global warming potential International Institute for Environment and Development Integrated pest management Irrigated Rice Research Consortium International Rice Research Institute Japan International Cooperation Agency K-fertilizer KCI fertilizer King Mongkuth’s Institute of Technology Leaf colour chart Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains Sub-study 1: Resource efficiency in the Central Plain of Thailand: Desk study 1 Background information ........................... ......................................... ............................ ........................... ........................... ............................ ......................... ............. ..2 2 1.1 Land use................................ use............................................. ........................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ .........................2 ...........2 1.2 Rice management recommendations................... recommendations................................ ........................... ............................ ............................ ......................2 ........2 1.2.1 Thai GAP and Thai RiceCheck ........................... ......................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ................ ..2 2 1.2.2 Thai Rice Knowledge Bank............................... Bank............................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ..................6 ....6 1.3 Crop productivity ........................... ......................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ........................... ....................... .................7 .......7 1.4 Soil loss ............................ .......................................... ............................ ........................... ........................... ............................ ............................ ....................... ................8 .......8 2. Farmer production techniques ........................... ......................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ........................... ............... ..9 9 2.1 Fertilizer use............. use ........................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ .......................... .....................11 .........11 2.2 Pesticide use ............................ .......................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................. .......................... ..................12 .......12 2.3 Energy use ............................ ......................................... ........................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ .......................14 .........14 2.4 Water use .......................... ........................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ........................ ............ ..16 16 2.5 Labour Labo ur and capital inputs ........................... ........................................ ........................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ................18 ..18 3. Climate impact ............................ ......................................... ........................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ........................... .......................19 ..........19 4. Environmental impact ........................... ......................................... ............................ ............................ ........................... ........................... ........................ ............. ...21 21 5. Health impact ........................... ......................................... ............................ ........................... ........................... ............................ ............................ ........................ ............ ..23 23 6. Best Management Practices and options to improve resource efficiency...............................23 efficiency...............................23 6.1 Current resource use................................ use.............................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ .................24 ...24 6.2 ThaiGAP and Ricecheck 24

1 Background information Central Plain is separated from North-East Thailand by the Phetchabun mountain range, and also by other mountains from Myanmar to the west. The area is the heartland of the Ayutthaya kingdom. The country’s capital Bangkok is in the Central Plain, and this is the most populated region in the country. The Central Plain is a natural self-contained basin often termed as “the rice bowl of Asia”. The Central Plain regions lie in the lower watershed of the Chao Phraya River and comprise fertile alluvial soils which are seasonally flooded. The region received an average annual rainfall of 1268-1775 mm during 1999-2008, of which about 80% fell in the wet season (WS). Over 90% of farm holdings are cropped principally to rice. Since there is limited land available for grazing ruminants in the region, livestock rely heavily on rice straw.

1.1 Land use

Recent land use in Thailand is summarized in Table 1 (OAE 2009). The Central region has a total of 10.4 million ha, which is 20% of the whole kingdom. The Central region has a paddy land of 1.67 million ha, which is 16.3% of the paddy land of the whole kingdom. An average farm size in the Thailand is 3.61 ha, while it is 4.70 ha in the Central region.

1.2 Rice management recommendations 1.2.1 Thai GAP and Thai RiceCheck Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) have been introduced in Thailand, through government and

Table 1. Land use in Thailand by regions, 2007. Region Total

Forest

Farm holding

Farm size

Residential

Whole kingdom

51,311,502

15,865,260

20,856,529

3.609

588,483

North

16,964,429

8,836,811

4,439,931

3.348

Northeast

16,885,434

2,454,989

9,131,758

Centra Cen trall

10,390 10,390,12 ,120 0

2,843, 2,843,869 869

7,071,519

1,729,591

South

Area (ha) Paddy

Upland field

Fruits and tree crop

Veg. and ornamental plants

10,220,394

4,259,058

4,649,820

149,327

2,224,128

1,368,057

3.397

228,957

5,939,241

4,123, 4,123,137 137

4.700 4.700

123,31 123,312 2

3,161,703

3.567

86,887

No of households

Pasture

Waste

194,537

179,372

352,721

5,778,338

531,367

60,151

38,744

23,530

1,326,019

1,714,363

696,026

44,582

88,871

246,560

2,688,561

1,667, 1,667,671 671

1,169, 1,169,280 280

906,850 906,850

71,340 71,340

32,192 32,192

38,833 38,833

877,31 877,310 0

389,354

7,358

2,515,577

18,464

19,565

43,798

886,448

Table 2: Keycheck systems and their output for the Good Agricultural Practices for integrated rice crop management in Thailand. Keycheck Output 1. Rice variety selection 1. Farmers select the varieties that they can consume and/or sale 2. Use good quality seed 2. No off-type and seed germination > 80% 3. Good land preparation and land leveling 3. No weed, uniform rice growth 4. Weed control 4. No weed or less weed found in field 5. Fertilizer application and soil 5. Rice plants look healthy, green and no pest improvement infection 6. Water management 6. Enough water during growth period, less weed and good quality seed 7. Pest control 7. No symptoms of diseases or insects damage 8. Rouging 8. No off-type rice plants, good seed quality 9. Optimum harvesting time 9. High yield, good seed quality Keycheck 4. Good weed control: Farmers in Central Plain of Thailand lose a great deal of grain yield and grain quality of rice because of competition from weeds. Weeds can be controlled using mechanical, chemical, cultural, and biological control, or integrating these methods. Keycheck 5. Fertilization and soil improvement: Rice growing areas in Thailand can be classified into three kinds of soil. Fertilizer recommendation is different depending on soil texture.  Clay soil: This is the fine and fertile soil with high organic matter. The soil tends to be rich in nutrients particularly K. Only N and P applications are recommended.  Silt soil: This soil tends to have less organic matter than clay and lower percent of organic matter. N, P, and K applications are recommended in this soil.

Table 3. Inorganic fertilizer recommendation for photosensitive and non-photosensitive rice varieties (RRI & FAO 2003). Soil First application Second application Third application N-P-K Rate N-P-K Rate N-P-K Rate composition (kg/ha) composition (kg/ha) composition (kg/ha) (%) (%) (%) Non-photosensitive varieties Clay 16-20-0 190-220 46-0-0 65-95 46-0-0 65-95 Silt and 16-16-8 190-220 46-0-0 65-95 46-0-0 65-95 Sandy 16-12-8 190-220 46-0-0 65-95 46-0-0 65-95 18-12-6 190-220 46-0-0 65-95 46-0-0 65-95 Photosensitive varieties Clay 16-20-0 125-155 46-0-0 45-65 Silt and 16-16-8 125-155 46-0-0 45-65 Sandy 16-12-8 125-155 46-0-0 45-65 18-12-6 125-155 46-0-0 45-65 Keycheck 7. Integrated pest control: Different practices for integrated pest control are shown below.  Cultural practice: Optimum seed rate (95-125 kg/ha for direct seeding), land preparation, planting time management, field checking, management from farmland (including weed control on the banks and good water management to reduce pest problem), and crop rotation.  Resistant rice varieties to pests  Optimum fertilizer application – high rates of N are linked with increases in pests and diseases  Use of pesticides only when necessary

1. Water sources: Water is safe from hazardous substance contamination. 2. Planting area: The land is safe from hazardous substance which can cause contamination to the produce. 3. Application of pesticides: Use according to the recommendations of the Rice Department or the Department of Agriculture, and follow the recommendations on the registered label. 4. Quality management in pre-harvest production: Use qualified seeds, mixture of other varieties grain should not exceed 5%, and in this amount, the red kernels should not be more than 2%. 5. Harvesting and post-harvest practices: The appropriate harvesting time shall be observed 25 to 35 days after flowering or when at least 75% of the kernels have a full yellow colour. The paddy must be dried to reduce moisture within 24 hours after harvest, and this practice shall not introduce any breakage to grain. The moisture of paddy shall not exceed 15% for traded rice and 14% for stored rice. 6. Transportation and storage: Use clean containers for transport and the storage rooms are a re hygienically clean and well ventilated. 7. Record keeping: Farmers need to record all operations.

1.2.2 Thai Rice Knowledge Bank In July 2006, the Thai Rice Knowledge Bank (RKB) version 1 was officially released. The Thai RKB is a ‘one-stop shop’, available on CDROM and through internet (http://www.brrd.in.th/rkb/; (http://www.brrd.in.th/rkb/; Box 1), for accessing up to date information on rice production technologies, modelled after the RKB developed by the International Rice Research institute (www.knowledgebank.irri.org/rice.htm).

Box 1: Opening page of the Thai Rice Knowledge Bank.

were trained in 2 training centers and 2 mobile training units in the use of the Thai RKB. In 2007, version 2 of the Thai RKB was launched with enhanced features, updated information, and new ‘fact sheets’: single pagers on specific technologies (94 were available by March 2008). It now also contains posters, brochures, leaflets, radio scripts, and a farmer training handbook. It has been promoted by community radio stations and local tv networks. ne tworks. A crosslink exists on the opening page of the Thai RKB to the Thai GAP and Ricecheck booklets and brochures. It is not clear to what extent the contents of the Thai RKB, ThaiGAP, and Thai RiceCheck have been synchronized.

1.3 Crop productivity

The trends in area, production, and yield of wet season (major rice)1 and dry season (second rice)2 rice from 2006 to 2009 are summarized in Table 4. Rice husk is produced from paddy milling that constitutes about 23% of the paddy weight (Papong et al. 2009). Assuming this value, the estimated husk production of wet season rice in the Central Plain was 1285 x 103 tons in 2008, while in dry season 2008/09 the estimated husk production was 1031 x 103 tons. Rice organic material (straw) production in 2004 was 6.36 million ton from the Central region, which was 19% of the total rice organic material produced in the whole of Thailand (Department of Agriculture 2005). The data for total rice production (t) and average rice yield (t/ha) in the world, Asia, and Thailand are shown in Figure 1 (IRRI website). Table 4. Area, production, and yield of wet and dry season rice in the Central Plain and the whole of Thailand. Region Wet season Dry season 2006 2007 2008 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

700000

World

Thailand

Asia

) t 600000 0 0 0 ' 500000 (

n o 400000 i t c u d 300000 o r p 200000 e c i R100000

0 4 ) a h / t ( d l e i y e c i R

3 2 1 0 2007

2008

Year

Figure 1. Production and yield of rough rice in the world, Asia, and Thailand during 2007 and 2008.

1.4 Soil loss

The levels of soil erosion in Thailand are classified on the basis of flat area (alluvial plain and hillside slope <35%) and high area (mountain and valley having slope >35%). The areas under

2. Farmer production techniques In Thailand, soils for economic crops are classified into four classes following an FAO framework (Thongpussawan et. al. 2009): S1 – highly suitable, S2 – moderately suitable, S3 – marginally suitable, and S4 – not suitable. The information on farmers’ practices on inputs used was not found separately for the Central Plain; however, the information is available according to the soil suitability (S1 to S4). The area of wet season rice under different land suitability zones is shown in Table 6. Table 6. Wet season rice production (ha) in rainfed and irrigated environments classified according to land suitability zones (S1 – highly suitable, S2 – moderately suitable, S3 – marginally suitable, and S4 – not suitable). Region Area (ha) S1 S2 S3 S4 Rainfed area *Central 878,605 1,267,863 4,817,239 **East 4,387 488,614 371,385 2,583,656 Whole Thailand 191,339 10,260,490 4,506,086 36,592,271 Irrigated area *Central 166,538 757,156 683,025 5,356,989 **East 15,664 171,356 109,588 3,151,434 Whole Thailand 373,592 2,520,927 898,448 47,757,219 *Central region is divided by LDD in 19 provinces. **Central region is divided by OAE in 26 provinces (Central-19 provinces + East-7 provinces). Farmers’ practices on input use for the wet season rice in irrigated and non-irrigated environments (according to soil suitability) are shown in Table 7 (Thongpussawan et al. 2009).

Table 7. Average farmer’s practices on inputs used for major rice (wet season) in irrigated and non-irrigated areas (S1=highly suitable; S2=moderately suitable; S3=marginally suitable; and S4=not suitable). Inputs Irrigated area Non-irrigated area S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 Seed rate (kg/ha) 196 186 206 175 186 161 Machine used (hr/ha) 34.7 72.4 39.4 37.1 25.6 22.3 a Labour (d/person/ha) 1.63 3.63 4.88 2.69 3.44 4.44 Chemical fertilizer(kg/ha) 262 282 318 265 242 221 Compost-pellet (kg/ha) 180 169 26 117 61 41 Compost (kg/ha) 3.81 10.69 9.88 FYM (kg/ha) 21.2 24.5 37.8 234.3 143.5 b Bio-liquid (l/ha) 0.63 0.94 0.31 4.06 c Marl (kg/ha) 15.3 340.4 9.4 47.4 Total pesticide (l/ha+kg/ha) 3.0 + 0.13 3.38 + 1.44 7.25 + 0.50 2.63 + 4.19 1.38 + 0.13 0.88 + 0.50 Herbicide (l/ha + kg/ha) 1.25 + 0.06 1.38 + 0.50 1.31 + 0.06 1.56 + 0.06 0.63 + 0.06 0.75 + 0.25 Fungicide (l/ha + kg/ha) 1.13 + 0.00 0.19 + 0.00 4.13 + 0.00 0.06 + 3.00 0.06 + 0.00 0.06 + 0.00 Others (l/ha + kg/ha) 1.63 + 0.063 1.81 + 0.94 1.81 + 0.44 1.00 + 1.13 0.69 + 0.06 0.06 + 0.25 d Growth regulators (l/ha + 0.88 + 0.00 0.88 + 0.00 0.69 + 0.13 0.75 + 0.13 0.81 + 0.00 0.31 + 0.06 kg/ha) e Gasoline (l/ha) 34.25 24.81 45.38 27.69 22.69 23.06 Average yield (kg/ha) 5,120 4,380 4,220 3,760 2,930 a Labour used for only seeding. b Farmers make themselves by fermenting organic waste such as vegetable, leaf, organic waste, and molasses. c Marl is lime used as soil amendment for acid sulphate soil reclamation. d Local dealers suggest this to farmers (and call it growth regulator), and there is no description on bottle. e For pumping water.

2,430

Table 8. Comparative annual costs (US$) of irrigated rice production in different countries in 1999 (Moya et al. 2004). Item Costs (% of total costs/ha) Central Central Mekong Plain, Luzon, Delta, Thailand Philippines Vietnam Labour 207 (33) 501 (56) 435 (64) Hired 95 415 60 Family 112 86 375 Fertilizer 125 (20) 139 (16) 95 (14) Machine rental and fuel cost 147 (23) 109 (12) 40 (6) Pesticides 91 (14) 47 (5) 44 (6) Seeds 61 (10) 63 (7) 56 (8) Other costs 4 (1) 29 (3) 12 (2) Total costs/ha 636 888 683 Total costs/ton of paddy 59 96 74

2.1 Fertilizer use

In Thailand, the annual chemical fertilizer use increased more than 100 times (Figure 2) between 1961 and 2004 (from 18 thousand tonnes in 1961 to 2 million tonnes in 2004). In spite of this increase in fertilizer use, the yield of rice only doubled in 45 years (Figure 2). Thai farmers have increased fertilizer use at high rates without seeing a corresponding increase in yield, and there are now examples of overuse and inappropriate use of fertilizers in Thai agricultural systems (Tirado et al. 2008). This indicates a higher rate of loss of fertilizers into the environment.

were compared with the agronomic characteristics of the irrigated rice in the Philippines (Table 9). In both seasons, agronomic and recovery efficiencies of N were lower in Thailand, suggesting larger N losses in Thailand than in the Philippines. Table 9. Baseline agronomic characteristics of irrigated rice production (WS = wet season; DS = dry season) on 24 farms at Suphan Buri, Central Thailand (Satawathananont et al. 2004) and 27 farms of Nueva Ecija, Philippines (Gines et al. 2004). Agronomic characteristics Thailand Philippines 1995 WS 1996 DS 1995 WS 1996 DS crop crop crop crop Grain yield (t/ha) 3.46 4.48 3.49 5.67 Fertilizer N use (kg/ha) 93.00 110.60 84.30 123.20 Fertilizer P use (kg/ha) 21.90 23.80 13.20 14.20 Fertilizer K use (kg/ha) 0.00 0.90 14.70 22.20 Agronomic efficiency of N 4.90 11.60 8.40 18.30 (kg/kg) Recovery efficiency of N 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.35 (kg/kg) Table 10. Mean fertilizer N, P, and K use (kg/ha) in dry (DS) and wet (WS) seasons (1994-99) in Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam. Site N P K DS WS DS WS DS WS Central Plain, Thailand 112 99 21 21 1 1 Central Luzon, Philippines 130 88 15 13 22 18 Mekong Delta, Vietnam 90 95 14 14 10 13 Red River Delta, Vietnam 103 94 23 23 35 31

135.5 thousand tonnes of pesticides (herbicide 72.2%, insecticide 18.2%, fungicide 7.6%, and others 2%) were imported in Thailand (raw data from DOA 2010). Herbicide use has increased due to labour shortage and the associated growth in direct seeding. In order to save labour costs, farmers often mix pesticides themselves without considering their synergistic effects (Tirado et al. 2008). Rice is still an important crop for the pesticide market because of its large growing area. Increasing pesticide use has been accompanied by other changes in pest control. This is reflected in the increasing amount of application equipment owned by farmers.

Figure 3. Pesticide (tonnes) imported in Thailand between 1994 and 2005. Most pesticides used in Thailand are imported (cited by Tirado et al. 2008). The total pesticide use in S1 and S2 zones in the irrigated wet season rice crop is shown in Table 7. Moya et al. (2004) summarized pesticide use (at least from 20 farms) in irrigated rice in different countries (Table 11). Farmers in the Central Plain used higher amounts of all types of

factors, mainly breakdown of Host-Plant resistance and ecological resilience by overuse of pesticides, augmented by intensification and misuse of N fertilizers. The BPH, which also carry virus diseases, infested several provinces in Central Thailand in the in season of 2009/10 (http://ricehoppers.net/2010/01/planthoppers-destroyed-30-of-province%e2%80%99s-riceproduction-in-thailand/). Agricultural authorities reported that about 78,400 ha were destroyed which is about 30% of the Phichit province’s area (256,000 ha) of rice production. The Thai government had to revise down the dry season rice production forecast by 16% from 8.3 million tons to 7 millions (http://ricehoppers.net/2010/01/thailand-cuts-second-crop-rice-output(http://ricehoppers.net/2010/01/thailand-cuts-second-crop-rice-outputforecasts-by-16-because-of-bph-and-water-shortage/). The total rice output for the 2009/10 is now expected to be 29 million tons paddy if the BPH and water problems do not persist. This expected output is about 2.4 million tons (or 7.6%) lower than the 31.4 million tons obtained in the 2008/09 crop. This might add pressure on world rice prices.

2.3 Energy use

Agriculture is both a user and producer of energy. All agricultural operations (human labour, animal power, fertilizer, fuels, and electricity) require energy in one form or another (Chamsing et al. 2006). To assess the situation of energy consumption, Chamsing et al. (20 06) collected primary data for energy input resources for crop production in 2000/01 by field survey and personal interviews of farmers. The total energy input and output in irrigated and rainfed rice in Central Plain is shown in Table 12; around 45% of the total energy input for irrigated rice is associated with fertilizer use. The comparative total energy input and output are shown in Table 13. The total energy input used for rice production was lower in Thailand than in India and Pakistan. This was mainly due to higher use of machineries and fuel in India and Pakistan to produce irrigated rice.

Table 12. Energy input and output (Megajoule, MJ = 1 million joules) for irrigated and rainfed rice production in the Central Plain region (Chamsing et al. 2006). Item Energy input (MJ/ha) a Direct energy inputs Human labour Mechanical power source a Indirect energy inputs Energy sequester for mechanical power Seed Chemical fertilizer N P2O5 K2O Herbicide Pesticide Energy for farm operations Total energy input Energy outputs (MJ/ha) Main product By-product Total energy output b

Irrigated rice

Rainfed rice

24.1 4,760.0

24.2 3,739.5

3,062.2

2,096.5

2,637.1

2,283.6

8,232.8 1,101.9 - 191.7 461.0 17,408.6 20,470.8

4,758.0 416.5 50.9 111.0 11,383.7 13,480.2

67,756.8 13,551.4 81,308.2

38,127.7

Energy ratio 4.0 2.8 The direct energy are the energy which are released directly from power sources for crop production while the indirect energy are those which are dissipated during various conversion processes like energy consumed indirectly in manufacturing, storage, distribution and related activities. b The ratio of energy output of the production to input energy. a

2.4 Water use

In 2008, total irrigated area in Thailand (already developed) was 4,594,863 ha, out of which 3,852,034 ha was covered by large and medium scale irrigation projects, and the rest of the area was covered by small scale irrigation projects and electric pumps (Royal Irrigation Department 2009). The area covered under the river basins in Thailand was 51,210,700 ha, and the potential area (irrigated area where soil is suitable for rice production) was 9,647,079 ha. The ratio of irrigated area to potential area for rice production is therefore approximately 48%. There are 15,632 projects for irrigation from before the National Plan to 2009, which can be separated into large scale (92), medium scale (731), small scale (12,673), and electric water pumps (2,136). The area covered by water resources development projects in Central Plain and whole Thailand is shown in Table 15. Table 15: The area covered by water resources development projects in Central Plain and whole Thailand from 2003 to 2008 (RII 2009). Region Area (000 ha) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 Whole Kingdom 3,638 3,645 3,704 3,781 3,798 3,852 Central Thailand 2,118 2,118 2,074 2,090 2,098 2,131 In 2008, a total of 2,344 water resources development projects were initiated in the Central region, which store 31,261.52 million m3 of water and cover irrigable3 area of 2,201,005 ha and the beneficiary4 non-irrigated area of 302,717 ha. The details of four kinds of projects are: 3  Large scale: 50 irrigation projects with water storage capacity of 30,031 million m , and cover irrigated area of 1,948,838 ha.

household consumption, 4% for industries, and rest (17%) must be kept in water resources. In conclusion, total water demand in the whole country is 73,787 million m3/year but the water supply capacity is maximum of 52,500 million m 3/year. The desk study revealed very no to very little data on water use by rice in the Central Plain of Thailand. In a recent newspaper article [Post Today (Thai), 24 June 2010], the Director of the Rice Department of Thailand reported that farmers are using about 7,500-11,250 m³ of water/ha/crop, and that the proportion of water used for rice production is about 70% of the total water utilized by the whole country. Assuming this number is for irrigation in the dry season and adding the mean dry season rainfall of 254-355 mm to these estimates, total water inputted to rice fields in the dry season becomes an estimated 1000-1500 mm. Bouman et al (2006) reported that across Asia, water inputs in rice fields range from as little as 400 mm in heavy clay soils with shallow groundwater tables to more than 2000 mm in coarse-textured (sandy or loamy) soils with deep groundwater tables. Around 1300-1500 mm is a typical value for irrigated rice in Asia. Outflows of water by seepage and percolation account for about 25-50% of all water inputs in heavy soils with shallow water tables and 50-85% in coarse-textured soils with deep water tables of 1.5 m depth or more. The other outflow of water is evapotranspiration, accounting for the balance of water inputted minus seepage and percolation flows. Chumpagern et al. (2008) performed irrigation experiments at Suphanburi Rice Research Center and Pathumthani Rice Research Center during 2001-2003 and 2006-2007, and reported an average evapotranspiration flow of 716 mm, suggesting average seepage and percolation losses of 284784 mm (or 28-48% of the estimated total water inputted in the Central Plain). Many watersaving irrigation technologies exist that reduce seepage and percolation losses from rice fields, such as Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD), Saturated Soil Culture (SSC), and dry seeding. However, it should be realized that, though seepage and percolation are losses at the field level, they are often captured and reused downstream and do not necessarily lead to true water depletion at the irrigation area or basin scales. No measurements of water reuse in the Central

Figure 4. Frequency distribution of water productivity with respect to total water inputs from field experiments in India, the Philippines, China, and Malaysia (Sources: Tuong et al. 2005). Most of the data on the left of the x–axis are from India, with local varieties on light soils and deep groundwater table, while those on the right are from China, with hybrid rice, clay soil, and shallow groundwater table.

2.5 Labour and capital inputs

In Thailand, a socio-economic survey of households in crop year 2006/07 found that number of family member per household decreased in the past 10 years, from 4.75 persons/household in the crop year 1998/99 to 3.95 persons/household in the crop year 2006/07 (www.oae.go.th). In the Central region, the number of family decreased from 4.48 to 4.04 persons/household and labour in family decreased from 3.20 to 2.77 persons/household. The decreasing size of family is influencing the amount of labour available per household.

labour use. The reduced labour use has led to two major developments. Crop establishment in Thailand is by direct seeding instead in stead of the more labour-intensive system of transplanting, and land preparation, harvesting, and threshing are fully mechanized. All Thai farmers under this study used a combine harvester-thresher that can finish 1 ha of rice in 4 h with only four accompanying operators. Farmers in Suphan Buri, Thailand use an average of only 5 persondays/ha to carry out all harvest and postharvest operations versus more than 80 person-days/ha in northern Vietnam (Figure 5). The labour used in rice production consists of both family labour and hired labour. The small amount of labour used in Central Plain (Suphan Buri) is split about equally between family and hired labour.

methane (Ferry 1992). In the early 1980s, it was estimated that lowland rice fields emitted about 10-20% of the then estimated global methane emissions (Kirk 2004). Recent measurements, however, show that many rice fields emit substantially less than those investigated in the early 1980s, and also, methane emissions have actually decreased since the early 1980s because of changes in crop management practices such as a decreased use of organic org anic inputs. However, the uncertainty about methane emissions from rice fields is higher than most other sources in the global methane budget (Van der Gon et al. 2000). Current estimates of annual methane emissions from rice fields are being 5-10% of total global emissions of about 600 Tg (Kirk 2004). The magnitude and pattern of methane emissions from rice fields are mainly determined by water regimes, the level of organic inputs, and to a lesser extent by soil type, weather, tillage, residue management, fertilizer use, and the rice cultivar (Bouman et al. 2006). Organic manure generally enhances methane emissions. Flooding of the soil is a prerequisite for sustained emissions of methane. Mid-season drainage, a common irrigation practice adopted in major rice-growing regions in China and Japan, greatly reduces methane emissions. Few accurate assessments have been made of emissions of nitrous n itrous oxide from rice fields, and the contribution to global emissions has not yet been assessed. In irrigated rice systems with good water control, nitrous oxide emissions are small except when excessively high fertilizer-N rates are applied. In irrigated rice fields, the bulk of nitrous oxide emissions occur during fallow periods and immediately after flooding of the soil at the end of the fallow period. The results of a recent case study in Thailand show that the global warming potential of rice production per kg was 2927 g CO2-eq, followed by 3.2 g SO2-eq of acidification, and 12.9 g NO3-eq of eutrophication (Kasmaprapruet et al. 2009). In this study, 95% of the global warming inputs to the system were associated with the cultivation process and 2% with the harvesting process. In Thailand, methane emission per unit grain from direct wet-seeding rice with continuous flooding was 35-45 g CH4 per kg grain and intermittent soil aerating provided 14-23 g CH4 per kg grain (Saenjan and Saisompan, 2004). To reduce methane emissions from paddy

from flooded rice at Nanjing and Guangzhou, but similar among all three systems at Beijing. When both methane and nitrous oxide emissions were converted into equivalent CO 2 2 emissions and summed, flooded rice had the lowest global warming potential at Nanjing and highest global warming potential at Guangzhou, whereas all three systems had similar global warming potentials at Beijing. Thus, the overall impact of an adoption of water-saving management practices in rice production on global warming is poorly known and needs more study ”. ”.

As yet unpublished experiments at IRRI demonstrated the potential of AWD to reduce the Global Warming Potential of rice. AWD irrigation management decreased CH4 emission by approximately 60-90% during dry seasons and approximately 35-45% through a year. A 1month earlier tillage (rice straw incorporation in corporation with soil) decreased CH4 emission by approximately 60% through a year. AWD managements increased N2O emission compared with a continuously flooding management, but if N fertilizer was applied immediately after irrigation, AWD significantly decreased the global warming potential (GWP) of paddy fields calculated from both CH4 and N2O emissions due to its larger reduction capacity for CH 4 emission.

4. Environmental impact Most of the information presented in this section is taken from Tirado et al. (2008). Changes in water quality associated with rice production may be positive or negative, depending mainly on management practices associated with fertilizer and pesticides use (Bouman et al. 2006). The quality of the water leaving rice fields may be improved as a result of the capacity of the wetland ecosystem to remove nitrogen and phosphorus. On the other hand, nitrogen transfer from flooded rice fields by direct flow of dissolved nitrogen in floodwater through runoff/drainage warrants more attention. High nitrogen pollution of fresh waters has been found in lowland ricegrowing regions where fertilizer rates are excessively high, for example, in Jiangsu Province in

More leaching of nitrate is expected with increased soil aeration (either with growing rice under non flooded conditions, or with the shift to upland crops) than under flooded conditions. Nitrate leaching from flooded rice fields, however, is normally negligible because of rapid r apid denitrification under anaerobic conditions. In the Philippines, for example, nitrate pollution of groundwater under rice-based cropping systems was found to surpass the 10 mg/litre limit for safe drinking water only when highly fertilized vegetables were included in the cropping system (Bouman et al. 2002). In the Indian Punjab, however, an increase in nitrate of almost 2 mg/litre was recorded between 1982 and 1988, with a simultaneous increase in fertilizer N consumption of 56 to 188 kg/ha, most of which would have been used on rice-wheat cropping systems (Bijay-Singh et al. 1991). The relative contribution from rice crops to this increase, however, is not clear. The study on quality of water from natural water resources in Thailand reported that nutrients are leached from soil every year and could be computed in term of fertilizer by regions (Table 17; Limthong 2009). However, the relative contribution of irrigated rice to nutrient leaching is not known. In economic term, the nutrient losses are worth of up to 8,480 million Baht/year (1,300 million Baht of urea, 2,340 million Baht of TSP, and 4,840 million Baht of KCl). Agricultural soils are degraded and need to be improved because of nutrients lost not only by crop removal but also by leaching and run off. The area under different levels of soil leaching and erosion is shown in Table 5 (Limthong 2009). Table 17. Estimated nutrients lost by leaching and run off to natural water resources (Limthong 2009). Region Nutrients lost (ton/year) N P2O5 K2O North 44,300 10,016 168,126 Northeast 13,700 26,885 171,339 Central and East 15,300 73,802 83,317

Lakes and coastal areas polluted with nitrates cause major problems by eutrophication and massive growth of harmful algae. Nutrients from agricultural and domestic waste sources have resulted in eutrophication of major water bodies worldwide. Eutrophication causes loss of productivity due to low dissolved oxygen concentrations in water, but of particular concern is the explosive growth of algae (cyanobacteria) and toxins production. Recent studies in Thai reservoirs have found blooms of toxin-producing algae in the water bodies. In particular, nitrogen and phosphorus are the two major nutrients driving growth of algae in the reservoir. The runoff from Thailand’s four principal rivers ends into the Gulf causing eutrophication: the Chao Phraya is the most polluted of the four rivers, particularly in the river estuary area due to the urban and industrial expansion. The Thachin river is becoming increasingly polluted due to accelerated agricultural and industrial development as well as urban expansion from the Bangkok area. Eutrophication can cause explosive bloom of algae, frequently in the form of red tides. On occasion, paralytic shellfish poisoning after consuming contaminated mussels in the red tide area of Pranburi river estuary have occurred, causing some human deaths. Anoxic conditions due to algal blooms could cause massive fish kills.

5. Health impact Most of the information presented in this section is taken from Tirado et al. (2008). Babies and infants living around agricultural areas and who drink water from wells are the most vulnerable to health risks from nitrates. Additionally, anyone drin king from a contaminated well with high nitrate levels could be vulnerable to the long-term effects of nitrates, such as various types of cancer (Greer et al. 2005). The greatest risk of nitrate poisoning is considered to be the blue baby syndrome which occurs in infants given nitrate-laden water. Blue-baby syndrome occurs when the haemoglobin in the blood losses its capacity to carry oxygen and this can ultimately cause asphyxia and death. Due to intensive fertilizer use and run-off, harmful algal blooms may

6.1 Current resource use

In 2008/9, rice yields in the Central Plain were 3.7 t/ha in the wet season and 4.5 t/ha in the (irrigated) dry season. These yields are lower than the average irrigated yield in tropical Asia of around 5 t/ha and of 5.2 t/ha as reported by Witt et al. (1999) for sites in China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, across DS and WS seasons of 1995-1997 (Bouman et al, 2002). Potential yield levels of current, high-yielding modern varieties are estimated to be around 6 t/ha in the wet season and 8 t/ha in the dry season (IIRI, in prep), so yield gaps are considerable. Labour is scarce and costly (constituting around 33% of all inputs costs) and has driven mechanization, direct seeding, and use of herbicides over manual weeding. The pressure of high labour price is similar in countries like the Philippines and Vietnam. Fertilizer-N use is around 110 kg/ha in the dry season rice and 100 kg/ha in the wet season. Across different sites in Asia (see above), Witt et al. (1999) reported fertilizer-N uses of 118±40 kg/ha. Reported N recoveries and agronomic N-use efficiencies (AEN), however, were very low in the Central Plain, with values of 13 (WS) and 22 (DS) %, and 4.9 (WS) and 11.6 (DS) kg/kg, respectively. For comparison, Ladha et al. (2005) reported recovery rates of 27-50% and AEN values of 18-24 kg grain increase per kg N applied for rice (25-75% quartile over large data set from experimental fields). Dobermann et al. (2004) reported average recoveries in rice of 31% from on-farm assessments and 41% determined in researcher-managed plots in farmers’ fields. Clearly, there is scope for increasing the N use efficiencies in the Central Plain. The main river basin in the Central Plain, the Chao Phraya, is a “closed basin” (IWMI, pers. comm.), meaning that all available water is used or committed with no ‘spare’ capacity’. Rice production receives some 75% of all developed water resources and still water scarcity is a

6.3 Inventory of scope for improving resource efficiency

The Thai Rice Department has identified the following measures to improve resource efficiency: Research and Development measures 1. There is a need to develop new high yielding varieties and varieties resistant to BPH and other insect pests and diseases, high temperature, drou ght etc. 2. There is a need to develop new technologies, such as microorganism products for crop protection or bio-pesticides, and plant growth promoting pro moting rhizobacteria. Technologies are also needed to develop rice production according to climate change, biotype and population dynamics of insects pests, carbon footprint and carbon minimization for rice production system in Thailand, and high nutritive value in rice grain. 3. On farm adaptive research and farmers’ adoption technologies for rice production in each rice environment. Production measures 1. Promotion of integrated crop management or Thai GAP for each rice ecologies and soil groups in order to reduce the production cost and increase net profit. 2. Promote farmers group development and building up the strength network. There are Thai Farmers Association, Community Rice Center (CRC) network, and Presidents of CRC at various levels; national, regional, provincial and sub-district. The knowledge transfer from farmer to farmer will be rapid in this way. 3. There is a need to strengthen the existing extension system for rice in the country. The activities may include regular meetings from research a nd extension specialists, information sharing for building up the rice extension program, and training for extension staff and farmer leaders on how to increase agricultural input efficiency. 4. Thai government has brought a policy for farmers to grow rice only twice a year to year to reduce risks from pests, water scarcity, and high inputs use, especially in the well-irrigated central and

6.4 Novel technologies for improvement of resource use efficiency

A number of new technologies for Natural Resources Management for irrigated rice have been developed by IRRI and its partners p artners elsewhere in Asia. Most of these technologies are documented in IRRI’s Rice Knowledge Bank (www.knowledgebank.irri.org/rice.htm). Application of these technologies would have two medium-term benefits: increased productivity of rice with reduced the ecological footprint. Some of the proposed interventions to improve resource efficiency in the Central Plain of Thailand are listed in Table 18. These technologies are currently not included in the ThaiGAP; therefore, their validation and the benchmarking of potential benefits in the Central Plain should be a priority. Specific technologies include improved fertilizer management through site specific nutrient management (SSNM), improved water productivity through Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD), and reduced pesticide use through integrated pest management (IPM) and Ecological Engineering. Satawathananont et al. (2004), for example, suggested that SSNM with good crop management may be profitable at Suphan Buri and rice yields could exceed 7 t/ha, a level rarely achieved. Attanandana et al. (2007) reported that integrated crop management with SSNM had much lower fertilizer cost (99 US$/ha); only 54% 54 % cost of the farmers’ practice. SSNM not only reduced the fertilizer cost but the pesticides and seed used in the rice production were also decreased by about $90/ha/crop in 4 provinces of Central Plain. The effective use of N fertilizer could reduce the intensity of damage by insects and diseases to rice, and also reduce environmental pollution. Adoption of AWD could reduce on-farm water use, reduce pumping and energy cost, and reduce methane emissions. Together with adapted fertilizer and residue management, AWD could reduce the total Global Globa l Warming Potential from rice production. IPM and ecological engineering could reduce the use of pesticides drastically, which would increase the ecological resilience and reduce environmental pollution and human health hazards.

Table 18. Major issues, proposed interventions and their possible impact on resource efficiency in the Central Plain of Thailand. Issue

Intensive cropping

Proposed interventions Plant two crops/year

Impact on resource efficiency • • • •

High seed rate

Overuse of fertilizer

Use seed rate according to the recommendation / reduce average seed rates Adopt site specific nutrient management

• •

• • • •

• • •

Overuse of pesticide and outbreak of BPH and viruses

Increase ecological resilience by ecological engineering; reduce overuse of pesticides through IPM; targeted deployment of

• •

• •

Levers

Increase in land use efficiency Reduction in pests, especially BPH Maintained soil quality Risk reduction of water scarcity Reduction in costs Reduction in diseases and insect pests

Government policies

Improve nutrient use efficiency Reduce fertilizer use and cost Reduction in insect pests and diseases Reduction in environmental pollution and contamination in drinking water and other water resources Reduction in eutrophication Reduction in nutrient leaching and run-off Reduction in nitrous oxide emissions Reduction in input cost Reduction in environmental pollution and contamination in drinking water Improvement in human health Reduction in development of resistance in pests Reduction in crop loss

Fertilizer companies; extension services

Seed companies; extension services

Pesticide companies; extension services and farmers’ groups

References Attanandana, T., Verapattananirund, P., Kongton, S., Pholwatana, A. and Boonsomphoppan, B. 2007. Site-specific nutrient management for sustainable crop production (rice and sugarcane). Final report submitted to Thailand Research Fund, 230 p. (http://www.ssnm.agr.ku.ac.th/main/Manage/Site-spec (http://www.ssnm.agr.ku.ac.th/main/Manage/Site-specific_rice%20for%20website_e.pdf). ific_rice%20for%20website_e.pdf). Bijay-Singh, Sadana, U.S., and Arora, B.R. 1991. Nitrate pollution of ground water from nitrogen fertilizers and animal wastes in the Punjab, India. Agriculture and Environment 3: 57-67. Bouman, B.A.M., Castañeda, A., and Bhuiyan, S.I. 2002. Nitrate and pesticide contamination of groundwater under rice-based cropping systems: evidence from the Philippines. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 92: 185-199. Bouman, B.A.M., Humphreys, E., Tuong, T.P., and Barker, R. 2006. Rice and water. Advances in Agronomy 92: 187-237. Chamsing, A., Salokhe, V.M., and Singh, G. 2006. Energy consumption analysis for selected crops in different regions of Thailand. Agricultural Agri cultural Engineering International: The CIGR EJournal. Volume VIII: 18 p. Charoensilp, N., Phromnart, P. and Charoentham, P. 1993. An Interregional Research Program on methane emission from rice fields. In Proceeding of Scientific Meeting on Rice and Cereal Crops. 50 p. Chaudhary, V., Gangwar, B. and Pandey, D. 2006. Auditing of energy use and output of different cropping systems in India. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal. Manuscript EE 05 001 Vol. VIII. June, 2006. Chumpagern, P., Jatuporn, S., Ruensuk, N., Inthaleang, W. and Leuchaikam, C. 2008. Water use efficiency for dry season rice production in the central plain. In : Proceeding of Scientific Meeting on Rice and Cereal crops. pp. 16-30. Corton, T.M. and Bajita. J. 1998. Methane emission from irrigated rice in Maligaya. Final

IRRI & FAO (International Rice Research Institute and Food and Agriculture Organization). 2003. Manual for integrated rice crop management and good quality seed producing TCP/THA0167 (T). 43 p. Jatuporn, S. 2008. Fertilizer recommendation based o n soil analysis. Bureau of Rice Research and Development. Phahoyothin Rd., Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900 Thailand. Kasmaprapruet, S., Paengjuntuek, W., Saikhwan, P., and Phungrassami, H. 2009. Life cycle assessment of milled rice production: case study in Thailand. European Journal of Scientific Research 30: 195-203. Khan, M.A., Awan, I.U., and Zafar, J. 2009. Energy requirement and economic analysis of rice production in western part of Pakistan. Soil & Environment 28: 60-67. Kimura, M. 1992. Methane emission from paddy soils in Japan and Thailand. In World Inventory Soil Emission Potentials. Edited by N.H. Batgis and E.M. Bridge, WISE Report 2, ISRIC, Wageningen. p. 73-79. Kirk, G. 2004. The Biochemistry of Submerged Soils. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, West Sussex, UK. 291 pp. Ladha, J.K., Himanshu Pathak, Timothy J. Krupnik, J. Six , Chris van Kessel, 2005. Efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen in cereal production: retropsects and p rospects. Advances in Agronomy 87, 85-156.

Limthong, P. 2009. Soil leaching, erosion, and soil and water conservation. Rice Knowledge on the training course on Soil and Water Conservation in Land Development Zone. Land Development Department. http://e-library.ldd.go.th/Web_KM http://e-library.ldd.go.th/Web_KM/KM_Knowledge_training.html. /KM_Knowledge_training.html. Molle, F., Shah, T., and Barker, R. 2003. The groundswell of pumps: multilevel impacts of a silent revolution. Paper prepared for the ICID-Asia meeting, Taiwan, November 2003, 18 p. Moya, P.F., Dawe, D., Prabale, D., Tiongco, M., Chien, N.V., Devarajan, S., Djatiharti, A., Lai, N.X., Niyomvit, L., Ping, H.X., Redondo, G., and Wardana, P. 2004. The economics of intensively irrigated rice in Asia in Increasing Productivity of Intensive Rice Systems Through Site-Specific Nutrient Management. Edited by A. Dobermann, C. Witt, and D. Dawe. p. 29-

Food Standards, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Published in the Royal Gazette Vol. 125 Section 139 D, dated 18 August B.E. 2551 (2008). Thongpussawan, S., Chaisongkram, P., Sakdayiengyong, S., Phornphrommin, P., and Woraanuwattanakul, K. 2009. Land use zoning for economic crop, paddy major rice. Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, Land Development Department. Technical book number 169/11/52. Tirado, R. 2007. Nitrates in drinking water in the Philippines and Thailand. Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note 11/2007. Tirado, R., Englande, A.J., Promakasikorn, L., and Novotny, V. 2008. Use of agrochemicals in Thailand and its consequences for the environment. en vironment. Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note 03/2008. Tuong, T.P., Bouman, B.A.M., and Mortimer, M. 2005. More rice, less water—Integrated approaches for increasing water productivity in irrigated rice-based systems in Asia. Plant Production Science 8: 229-239. Van der Gon, H.A.C., Van Bodegom, Bod egom, P.M., Houweling, S., Verburg, P., and Van Breemen, N. 2000. Combining upscaling and downscaling of methane emissions from rice fields: methodologies and preliminary results. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 58, 285-301. Wangfang, L., Wei, C., Wangna, G., and Binwu, D. 1996. Methane emission from a Chinese rice field affected by water management. In Breeding of the Inter. p. 339-344. Wassmann, R., Hosen, Y., and Sumfleth, K. 2009. Reducing methane emissions from irrigated rice. Agriculture and Climate Change: An Agenda for Negotiation in Copenhagen. Focus 16, Brief 3, May 2009. Witt, C., Dobermann, A., Abdulrachman, S., Gines, H.C., Wang Guanghuo, Nagarajan, R., Satawatananont, S., Tran Thuc Son, Pham Sy Tan, Le Van Tiem, Simbahan, G.C., Olk, D.C., 1999. Internal nutrient efficiencies of irrigated lowland rice in tropical and subtropical Asia. Field Crops Research 63, 113-138.

Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains Sub-study 2: Post harvest efficiency Compiled by Amara Wiengweera and M. Gummert 1. Introduction ............................................... .................................................... ................................................................................ ............................ 1 2. Description of the postproduction value chain and main actors................................................ 3 2.1. Markets/trade....................................................... Markets/trade ............................................................................................................... ............................................................. ..... 4 2.2. Thai rice................................................................. rice......... .............................................................................................................. ........................................................... ..... 4 2.3. Rice Market Structure........................................................................ ............................... 5 2.4. Value chain structure and governance..................................................... governance.. ................................................... ......................... 7 2.5. Key Postproduction Stakeholders............................................................... ...................... 7 3. Postharvest issues, losses and efficiency gaps ................................................... ..................... 10 3.1. Rice............................................................. Rice...... ............................................................................................................... .................................................................... ............ 10 3.2. Products from rice grains..................................................... ........................................... 16 3.3. Rice by-products........................................ ................................................... .................. 16 4. Effect of production inefficiencies on postproduction ........................................................ ............................................................ .... 17 5. Comparison with other rice producing regions .................................................... ....................................................................... ................... 18 6. Potential other use of rice and by products ................................................ ............................. 20 6.1. Rice............................................................. Rice...... ............................................................................................................... .................................................................... ............ 20 6.2. Bran ................................................... ........................................................ ............................................................................. ..................... 20 6.3. Husk............................... ........................................................ ................................................................................................. ......................................... 20 6.4. Straw......................... ........................................................ ...................................................................................................... .............................................. 21 6.5. Innovative new products........................................................... ...................................... 21 7. Response options at PH value chain level and policy for improved resource efficiencies 22

Thailand: Resource efficiency and ecosystem services, Sub-study 2, Postharvest

Page 2 of 29

The last comprehensive study of the “Marketing and post-harvest systems of paddy/rice in Thailand” was conducted in April 1993 (Chantachaeng, C, 1993), postharvest loss assessments and proper harvesting time looking mainly at the farm level and research stations were conducted in the early eighties (Sittisung et al., 1983-1985; Kitkaundee and Aurairong, 1999; Varinruk, 1999), and since then only few projects have addressed rice postharvest issues. The term Central Plain in this report refers to the 11 provinces determined by the geographic reference outlined in Figure 1 of Sub-study 3. It is a region of Thailand covering the broad alluvial plain of the Chao Phraya River. It is separated from North-East Thailand (Isan) by the Phetchabun mountain range, and another mountain range separates it from Myanmar to the west. In the north it gently changes into the hilly terrain in Northern Thailand. The term Central Thailand in this report refers to the four region system used by the Department of Agricultural Economics for statistical data. Central Thailand in this sense includes 26 provinces as shown in Figure 1. Some statistics on rice culture in Central Thailand are shown in the Figure 2 and compared with those of the whole kingdom. Central Thailand includes about two and a half million hectares of paddy fields producing about ten million metric tons of rough rice annually. This comprise roughly one third of the total production production of Thailand. The average yield is about four metric metric ton per hectare which is more or less the same as that of other Southeast Asian countries. Almost all the varieties are non – glutinous. The rice postharvest system provides a full and comprehensive approach that can be applied to paddy and its derivatives (i.e. husks, bran, and polished rice grain, both broken and whole). Its main concerns should be to: a) improve the capacity in implementing the main rice post-harvest operations so that they become more efficient and ensure a valuable final primary product; b) develop and use processing technology that adds value to secondary and by-products, as well as


Figure 2:

Rice production shared in the Central Thailand compare to the other regions of Thailand.

Page 3 of 29

Figure 3: Post-harvest system

2. Description of the postproduction value chain and main actors The postharvest value chain with paddy and milled rice flows is included in Figure 4 containing the whole value chain, which is explained in more detail in Sub-study 4. This section focuses on the postharvest players for more information about producers, input suppliers and other stakeholders not represented in this diagram refer to Sub-study 4 and the 1 Multi stakeholder workshop report .


Page 4 of 29

2.1. Markets/trade

In 2008 Thailand produced 22.1 million tons milled rice with the Central Thailand contributing 7 million tons. In Central Thailand 10% Hom Mali rice and 90% are other rice and while North Eastern and Northern Thailand mainly produce Hom Mali, glutinous and Fragrant rice. Official export of milled rice was 9 million tons, a reduction of one million ton compared to 2007 (IRRI, 2010, USDA data). Export of paddy is prohibited. The main export markets are Indonesia, Nigeria, Iran, the United States, Singapore and the Philippines. Thailand’s success in international rice trade is founded on high quality, long-grain white rice, which has a substantial price advantage over modern, high yielding varieties. Since exports exceed the production of the Central Plain and most of the high quality rice comes from other areas the postharvest sector of the Central Plain also processes and trades a large percentage of rice from other areas in Thailand. Figure 5 shows physical flow of rice as paddy from farmers to millers, 45% via private brokers, 25% via government agencies and 30% directly from farmers to millers. After milling, 10% of milled rice is traded locally. Milled rice traded locally is usually used for the preparation of cooked rice or porridge. Broken rice is used for the preparation of cakes, noodles, rice papers, rice wrappers, rice crackers, puddings, muffins and other products. The 90% is transferred to Bangkok. Of the rice that is traded in Bangkok, 62% trades for domestic used Figure 5: Physical flows of rice (Modified data


Page 5 of 29

3.

Japanese Rice: It consists of 100% Sasanishiki variety, and is produced in the north of Thailand under strictly controlled conditions to ensure its hygiene, freshness and taste.

4.

Thai White Rice: High yielding varieties which can be grown throughout Thailand. Mostly cultivated in the Central Plain. The grain after cooked is light and fluffy. This is the most consumed rice in the world.

5.

Parboiled Rice is produced by soaking, pressure streaming and drying the paddy before milling. The rice is light yellow or amber color. This process has preserved its natural vitamins and minerals and minimizes grain breakage du ring milling.

6.

Brown Rice or unpolished rice. Only the husk is removed and the bran layer is left intact. The coating of brown rice contains micronutrients like vitamins and minerals. Brown rice takes a little long time to cook. The texture is slightly sticky with nutty flavor and therefore it is a niche market product.

The most commonly rice varieties grown in Central Thailand from 2007-2009 are Supanburi 1, Patum Thani 1 and Chai Nat 1. Most of rice varieties are not photosensitive, except Khao Dawk Mali 105 and some of traditional varieties. These are grown on 12% and 18% of the Central Thailand area respectively (Table 1). Table 1

Rice varieties grown in the Central Thailand with the percentage of the growing area in relation to the total growing area in the Central Thailand (Source: Modified from OAE, 2010).

Rice variety

Photo sensitive

2007

2008

2009

DS

WS

DS

WS

DS

WS

Supanburi 1

36

18

30

17

25

17

Pathum Thani 1

19

14

26

13

25

14


Page 6 of 29

almost ended. The price decreases again in May to even lower levels. This is because the paddy harvested in dry season, which is lower quality compared to wet season paddy, gets into the market. There are four major trading channels chan nels for paddy form farmers to millers. These are: 1. Farmers sell directly to the millers. Some farmers deliver paddy to the mills (30%), in other cases sub-contractors of the millers buy the paddy at the farm site (35%). 2. Local traders or broker collects the paddy from farmers and sell to the millers. The paddy trades via this way about 10% of the total. 3. Paddy trades via Agricultural Cooperatives or farmer group, which is about 5% of the total market. 4. Paddy trades via government agencies such as Market Organization of Farmer (MOF), Public Warehouse Organization (PWO), and Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperative (BAAC). Paddy trades by this way about 20%. Milled rice market

Roughly 55% of the milled rice from the mills goes into domestic markets either directly (25%) through wholesalers or via brokers (30%). The remaining 45% of the milled rice are exported expo rted by licensed exporters who either buy directly from millers (10%) from brokers (35%) (Figure 4). In brief, the structure of the domestic rise market has shifted to a competitive system in every step of marketing. For the paddy market, the government widely promoted the development of marketing center in form of central markets. In these facilities farmers, local traders and millers can precede their marketing activities with more convenience and at lower cost. For the milled


Page 7 of 29

100% 90% 80% Phatumthani head rice

70%

% , e r a h s t r o p x E

Glutinous broken rice 60%

Glutinous head rice Hom Mali broken rice

50%

Hom Mali head rice Parboiled head rice

40%

White broken rice 30%

White head rice

20% 10% 0% 2007

2008

2009

Year

Figure 6:

Proportion of Thai rice produce exported by type of produces (Source: Modified data from Ministry of Commerce, 2009).

2.4. Value chain structure and governance

The following discussion will be based on a schematic diagram of the value chain in Figure 4 and focus on post-production, including harvesting. For a discussion of the production side of the chain see Sub-study 1 and value chain actors in the whole chain see Sub-study 4. The value chain is governed by various government policies issued by different ministries and coordinated by the


Page 8 of 29

Processing (postharvest) and processors organizations

In accordance with rice farming, the rice milling in Thailand is fragmented. Main features of the milling sector are the high competitiveness, moderate profits generated, lacking differentiation, and indicators of existing exit barriers (Agrifood Consulting International, 2005). Structure of the rice milling industry

The structure of the milling sector is comparable to the farming sector in its general attributes. The absolute number of mills is vast and there are only few exceptionally large rice mills. Rice mills are classified according to their capacity, ranging from less than 5 MT per 24 hours (C3) over 5 to 20 MT per 24 hours (C2) to more than 20 MT per 24 hours (C1). The capacity of the latter may even exceed 1,000 MT per day (Agrifood Consulting International [ACI], 2005, as cited in Ekasingh, et al., 2007, p. 40). In 2004, the total of 39,943 rice mills was composed of 38,208 small, 527 medium, medium, and 1,163 large rice mills. Regional differences in distribution are notable. Figure 7 shows that the dominant share of small mills is located in the northeast (where rice smallholding is prevalent), and relatively many large mills in the Central Thailand (where also larger, irrigated rice farms are found).


Page 9 of 29

Small rice mills are typically village rice mills milling for local consumption often in a contract scheme, they are not registered. According to information on 31 December 2007, there are 1,729 registered small and medium mills with capacity of 177,399 tons per day. According to Thailand capacity, it shall take only 160 -170 days to process indicating a significant over-capacity of the Thai milling sector (MOAC, MOC, 2010). Around 800 rice millers are organized in the Thai Rice Millers Association. For details see Substudy 4. Other stakeholders in the postharvest chain are the various processors of products from rice like rice flour mills like the Cho Heng Rice Vermicelli Factory Co.,Ltd. Traders and trade organizations

Traders are engaged in both, paddy and milled rice trade. Millers buy around 30% of the total paddy production directly from farmers and another 35% is bought by the millers through subcontractors whom they hire for that purpose. These are either individuals or firms that represent a particular miller at the farm. Another 10% is handled by brokers, who charge a commission for their services. Other marketing channels for milled rice are provided by farmers’ organizations, either cooperatives or farmers groups, but they handle only around 5% of the total production of which they sell 4% to millers and 1% to the Government agencies. These government agencies are under the PWO, BAAC and MOF and one example is the Government Warehouse Organization (GWO) under the Ministry of Commerce, which buys agricultural produce particularly at intervention price. For details see Sub-study 4. The majority of milled rice from the millers is also traded by brokers (65%), around 10% of the millers sell directly to exporters or have an export license and 25% of the milled rice is sold directly by millers to wholesalers. The brokers sell 35% of their volume to and 30% to


Page 10 of 29

3. Postharvest issues, losses and efficiency gaps Inefficiencies along the rice postproduction chain can be categorized into two groups: First there are inefficiencies in rice production, processing, handling and storage that have an effect on the amount and the quality of milled rice represented by losses in dry matter and in quality (Figure 8) and the second group of inefficiencies that does not have an effect on the rice but leads e.g. to high energy use in processing. In addition there are the rice by products straw and husk, which are often treated as waste but could be turned into products either for energy or non energy applications. Figure 8:

Types of losses in postharvest operations

the

individual

Government to the rice post-harvest system focuses on both preventing food losses and improving the efficiency of the technologies that are used to add value to rice and its byproducts. The aim is to generate more employment and income and, consequently, to improve food security. Rice farmers are willing to invest in post-harvest technologies that are affordable and add quality and commercial value to rice.


Page 11 of 29

Table 2: Overview on harvesting systems, share in the Central Plain and typical labor requirement and losses Thailand Harvesting practice

Other harvesting systems, averages from SE Asia Share in Central Plain, area, %

Labour, person days/ha *

Quantitative losses, % *

Manual cutting and manual threshing

-

40-50 incl. cleaning and bagging

Cutting + handling: 1-5% Threshing: 1-5%

Manual cutting and machine threshing

-

25-30

2-8%

Harvesting with reaper and machine threshing

8.2

5

2-5%

Combine harvesting

91.8

0.2-3

1-2%

Remarks

Delays in harvesting due to labor shortage can cause high losses. When combined with field drying high chance of mycotoxins

Good combine harvester reduces loss and increases yield by 7% (Kubota Thailand)

* Data from IRRI, represents typical data across SE Asia for this type of harvesting system.

Since harvesting is fully mechanized, farmers in Suphan Buri, use an average of only 5 persondays/ha to carry out all harvest and postharvest operations versus more than 80 person-days/ha in northern Vietnam. There is little potential to dramatically improve the system, but some potential for fine tuning exits. Thai combines use steel tracks and are quite heavy which messes up the fields more than combines with rubber tracks. The results are higher labor requirement and input cost in land preparation. Fuel consumption for harvesting 1ha by combine is around 20-30 l diesel/ha.


Page 12 of 29

Table 3: Overview on drying systems Drying practice

Utilization in Central Plain

Typical quantitative losses, % *

Field drying (unthreshed)

10% (Noomhorn, A, 2009)

1-5 (shattering)

Sun drying (threshed paddy) Fixed bed batch dryers Re-circulating dryers Continuous flow dryer Two stage drying

1-5 (spillage, animals) 90% (Noomhorn, A, 2009) More than 40 mills

Remarks

High quality loss, mycotoxins develop, usually followed by sun drying of threshed paddy No energy cost, high qualitative losses, weather risk

1

Inexpensive technology

1

Good quality

1

For large operations

?

Danger of gelatinization, high percentage of brokens if not operated properly, high energy requirement

* Data from IRRI, represents typical data across SE Asia for this type of harvesting system.

The energy requirement for heating the air in rice drying is potentially high. Most dryers in Thailand use rice husk furnaces and thus reduce drying cost and also limit greenhouse gas emissions. The fluidized bed dryers re-cycle the heat from the exhaust air to minimize fuel consumption. In comparison with neighbouring countries dryer usage in the Central Plain is extremely high. Dryer capacity in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam is 30% of the harvest with slowly increasing trend, in the Philippines less than 5%, in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar it is negligible with only few units installed in each country. coun try.


Page 13 of 29

processing activity. Small millers mainly serve farmers and village level consumption while the medium and large millers serve local, regional a nd even export markets. A major problem if the milling industry is the overcapacity already mentioned in Section __. In the light of the rice milling sector being competitive and fragmented, it could be expected that economic returns in this segment are equal to zero. According to Dawe (2008, p. 460), utilizing data of the year 2003, this is confirmed in that returns to management in milling were estimated to be non-existent, even though there are indicators that this was only a temporary condition. However, both Wiboonpongse and Chaovanapoonphol (2001, p. 207), drawing on data of the mid-1990s, and ACI (2005, as cited in Ekasingh et al., 2007, p. 44) maintained that rice milling generated higher (total) returns than other steps in the vertical chain of production. There are several possible explanations for this. It may be that the underlying data is outdated and did not reflect the increasing level of competition at the respective point in time. However, Wiboonpongse and Chaovanapoonphol (2001, p. 207) state that “inefficient millers, usually medium size, gradually closed down their business,” which provides some indication for a high level of competition. A different explanation is that disintegrated sub-markets create quasimonopsonies as described by Baldwin (1974, p. 195), allowing millers to depress the purchasing price of paddy. Given the high number of mills and the improved transportation and communication infrastructure (cf. Nakada, 1996, p. 618), such industry structures are unlikely. Finally, the reported returns may also be due to the overcapacity as rice millers may require a risk premium in order to not withdraw from this competitive sector. The economic returns, including the risk premium, may then be indeed near zero. Nevertheless, more evidence is needed to establish conclusions about the actual profitability of rice milling products. Data about rice mill performance/losses was not found. Table 5 compares the Thai rice mills with typical average data from mills from the region with similar capacity. In the laboratory the


Page 14 of 29

technology employed by most mills is inefficient especially when energy costs rise. Modern technology is only used by large millers and exporters to reduce broken grain, to increase milled rice quality and to produce better packaging. Case studies at selected representative mills should be conducted to confirm this assumption Another problem of at least part of the milling sector was identified during the multi stakeholder workshop as the low quality of milled rice as a result of poor quality paddy caused by too high cropping intensity in the Central Plain, harvesting during adverse weather, the mixing of rice and poor soils. Rice millers buy around 30% of the rice at high moisture content (Noomhorn, A, 2009). Thirty percent of millers use laboratory huskers to evaluate paddy quality. As a rule of thumb milling of paddy to white rice requires 20kWh per ton paddy. Energy consumption data for rice mills in Thailand was n ot found. Parboiling

Several export oriented rice mills produce parboiled rice, mostly Thai Jasmine or Thai Long grain brands for export. Due to an abundant water supply and consistent source of paddy in Thailand, more than 100 parboiled rice mills are spread throughout the central region, the production of premium quality, odorless. Parboiled rice in Thailand is constant year round. For markets, parboiled rice is the only rice produced for export-oriented purposes. Now, Thailand is largest supplier among the major markets such as South Africa, Nigeria and various countries in Asia, Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Parboiling of 1t of paddy requires around 60kWh, thus parboiled paddy requires around 4 times the energy of non-parboiled rice in the rice milling process. Rice husk is usually used for generating the heat in parboiling plants.


Page 15 of 29

The role of farmers' organizations in rice marketing is not outstanding (5% of the total paddy traded). Instead, the private sector has been important in carrying out most marketing activities. Thus the marketing system of paddy-rice in Thailand takes a long route before reaching final purchasers except for the local consumption. At the local level, the market is highly competitive since farmers could choose where and how to sell their produce. Nonetheless it is difficult to prove if the price paid to farmer reflects real value. It is possible that the price is over-discounted for any given moisture level or other grading criterion. This problem is well recognized and partly alleviated by cooperatives, BAAC and others in several of the government's supporting programs. There are reports that returns to millers out-weighed that of other intermediaries. However, inefficient millers, usually medium size, gradually closed down their business. Services in rice marketing systems are inadequate and needs improvement especially drying and warehousing. Packaging is becoming more important since Thailand plans to concentrate on high quality rice for export and changing shopping habits of domestic consumers from unpacked to packed rice. Losses during transport are generally small in the range of 1-2% (Noomhorn, A, 2009). Stored product protection

While information about pesticide overuse in rice production is available (Sub-study 1) not much data was found for the postharvest sector, especially for storage. Several service providers offer fumigation services for storage facilities, warehouses and rice mills using Methyl Bromide (CH3Br) gas, Aluminum Phosphide (PH3) tablets, Cypermethrin or Pyrethroid treatment and Magnesium Phosphide Tablets. While most methyl bromide used in Thailand was used on rice in 1994 it is being currently phased out with a deadline of 2013. More data needs to be gathered on pesticide related problems in postharvest.

Thailand: Resource efficiency and ecosystem services, Sub-study 2, Postharvest •

•

Page 16 of 29

Several Fair trade schemes exist for fragrant rice types mainly from Northeastern Thailand targeting European and US markets. Around 7,500 farming families participated in 2005. Fair trade provides on average 60% higher prices for producers. Some of them require the farmers to adhere to strict standards regarding the use and handling of pesticides, the protection of natural waters, virgin forest and other ecosystems of high ecological value, and the management of erosion and waste (Trans Fair) or include certified organic production. Usually cooperatives participate in the scheme but it only has a marginal share of the total rice production. Marketing or contract farming systems in which farmers get a better price for better quality paddy and better access to extension and inputs which are provided under the contract scheme.

3.2. Products from rice grains Rice is already used for the preparation of cakes, noodles, rice papers, rice wrappers, rice crackers, puddings, muffins and other products.

Asia BioBusiness Pte Ltd (2006) lists 15 other innovative uses of the rice grains, 19 ways to extend the use of rice and its component parts and waste and 8 uses of rice ingredients for healthcare and 5 for cosmetics in an assessment of potential world markets for innovative rice business in Thailand. 3.3. Rice by-products Rice by-products are the bran and husk that are by products in the milling process and the straw


Page 17 of 29

Oil rice bran factories produce bran oil from 600,000 tons bran per year. There would still be potential to expand rice bran oil production since 1.8 million tons of rice bran is left annually for other use. Eatable bran oil produced in Thailand is approximately 40,000 tons/year, while the annual demand of world is about 10 million tons and the price in the world market is also good (normal / liter, / liter grade 50 baht / liter, special grade 80 – 100 baht / liter and can be up to 122 bath/liter). When used for complementary diet high quality rice bran oil can cost from 1,500 up to 18,000 baht/liter. For defatted bran the price some time very high up to 5,000 baht per ton. Rice husk and straw

Thailand produces about 4 million tons of rice husk annually. Husks can be recycled by the mill, or sold to industrial buyers. Traditional uses of rice husk include fuel for rice drying and parboiling and a few rice mills burn husk to generate mechanical or electrical power fro their own use but demand for rice husk is low and most millers burn or dump it (Boonlert, 2005). More recently several projects have installed and are planning combined heat and power generation plants (CHP) using rice husk as fuel and selling electricity into the grid. In addition they can reduce fossil fuel use (Kunimitsu, 2006) and can be used to obtain carbon credits (Tokyo Mitsubishi Securities Co., L. 2002). One example is a the A.T. Bio power plant already in operation in Phi Chit province with 20MW electrical output equal to power consumption of 10,000 homes. These type of plants rely on long term fuel supply agreements with rice millers in the surroundings of the plan. Rice husk ash is a marketable product with two current main uses as insulator in the steel industry and pozzolan in the cement industry (Bronzeoak Ltd, 2003 ). Around 21.68 million t of rice straw is produced in Thailand every year. Some is incorporated in the field and it is commonly used for composting, roofing materials, livestock feeds and a medium


Page 18 of 29

Mechanization of the whole value chain leads to decreased losses, higher yields and better quality. Usage of a combine harvester can increase yield by 7% but when combined with a mechanical transplanter yield increase can b e 28% (Kositpaisal, P. 2008) •

•

•

Pesticide residues in milled rice. Sub-study 1 reports a 3 times increase of pesticide use from 1994 to 2005 to levels much higher amounts than in the Philippines and Vietnam. Milled rice contaminated with pesticide residues would be a serious thread to the export industry, but also to rice marketed locally. Labour shortage in production, if not compensated by appropriate mechanization, can have significant effects on the quality of paddy, e.g. when harvesting is delayed. Certified organic rice and certified Thai GAP rice only have very limited production. Attempts to increase the share of certified rice in order to increase profit margins usually face problems on both sides, as is currently experienced in Lao PDR and Cambodia where projects try to establish organic rice value chains for export. The market access needs to be created to justify investment in training and the certification process but it is difficult to engage with importers of certified rice if they need lots of patience until a certified chain has been established and reliable and significant amounts are available for trade.

Effect of postproduction inefficiencies on production resource efficiencies

Evenly resource inefficiencies of the postharvest sector do have an effect on resource efficiency of production. Every percent loss in postharvest means that one percent of each input in production is wasted.

5. Comparison with other rice producing regions


Page 19 of 29

Table 6: Comparison of the Thai postharvest sector with other rice producing countries PH Operation

Thailand Central Plain

Vietnam, Mekong Delta

Cambodia

Myanmar

Philippines

Harvesting

Fully mechanized, losses probably >5%

Around 30% fully mechanized, threshing mostly mechanized, losses 5-10%

Few combine harvesters but increasing usage, threshing partly mechanized, losses 5-15%

Fully manual, threshing partly mechanized, losses 5-15%

Harvesting mostly manual, threshing mostly mechanized, losses 5-10%

Drying

90% mechanized, large, modern technology

30% mechanized, simple flat bed dryers

Sun drying

Sun drying

Less than 10% mechanical drying

Milling

Highly competitive, overcapacity, low margins

Outdated milling sector, separation of husking and polishing, trend towards bigger mills

3 large rice mills, few small commercial mills, mostly village mills, outdated equipment

Mostly medium size mills

Less competitive, high margins

Quality problems

Trading of high moisture paddy, low quality of paddy

Low head milling and head rice recovery, deterioration in two stage milling, low cooking quality (high yielding varieities)

Poor paddy quality, very low head rice recovery and milling yields, high losses




Page 20 of 29

6. Potential other use of rice and by products The Thai rice industry and the government agencies are well aware of the threads to Thai rice exports and therefore several activities have focussed on identifying means to increase competitiveness by developing new products from rice and it’s by products. A significant percentages of husk and straw that are currently being dumped or field burned could add value to rice production by using raw materials that are already available compared to raw materials that would need to be mined using techniques potentially damaging the environment. This section outlines the potential additional uses of rice and rice by products which don’t have wide spread application yet. This section gives an overview on these other potential uses. In each individual case a life cycle analysis would have to proof the advantage over existing technologies 6.1. Rice

Products from rice grains already consisting in markets aboard are canned rice (dry and wet), precooked rice, pre washed rice (rinse free rice), instant rice, nutrient enriched rice, embryoed rice, pearl rice (brown rice mixed with barley), O-rice (healthy rice), rice noodles, and others. (Asia Biobusiness Pte Ltd., 2006). 6.2. Bran

As discussed above only a small amount of rice bran is used for rice bran oil extraction on an industrial scale. The Rice Department proposes


Page 21 of 29

an option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to sequester carbon in rice-based systems (Haefele (Haefele et al., 2008). •

•

•

Category 3: Application of rice husk SiO2 as the resource of one of the component of oxide ceramics. This is still at the research stage. Category 4: Application of rice husk SiO2 as the resource of Si as starting material for silicone, poly crystalline crystalline silicone and a component of Aluminum alloy. Considering production scale and cost this is currently a theoretical option only. Category 5: Application of rice husk as the resource for SiC and Si3N4 particles. Cost and production scale are major constraints.

Catergory 1 is already realized to some extend. Categories 2 and 3 might have potential and categories 4 and 5 will probably not be competitive due to strong advantages of existing industrialized alternatives. Other potential uses for rice husk ask are as insulator in production of refractory bricks, for lightweight insulating boards, in purified form as ingredient for silicon chips manufacture, water purification, and as oil absorbent (Bronseoak Ltd, 2003). 6.4. Straw Rice straw that is currently burned in the field could be used as energy source. The GHG emissions contribution through open-field burning of rice straw in Thailand 0.18% and the mitigated GHG emissions when generated electricity is used would be 1.81%, when compared to the total country GHG emissions (Gadde et al., 2009). Technologies from using rice husk as fuel could be adapted and life cycle analysis needs to demonstrate the feasibility first considering the straw collection, pre-treatments needs, and seasonality of straw harvest.


Page 22 of 29

Table 7: Summary of opportunities for commercialization of innovative rice products (Source: Asia Biobusiness Pte Ltd, 2006)

Value Addition Potential* #

Market Potential+ #

Potential for returns #

Gamma rice (high level of γ-aminobutyric -aminobutyric acid)

M

M

M

Embryo rice

M

M

M

Organic five-grain rice blend

M

L/M

M

O-Rice

M

L/M

M

M/H

M/H

H

Baby foods

H

M/H

H

Grain and bran

Rice ingredients for Cosmetics

H

H

H

Rice ingredients for cosmeceuticals

H

H

H

Bran

Stabilized rice bran

L/M

M/H

L/M

Rice bran

M

M

L/M

Oryzanol (anti oxidant)

H

M/H

H

Probiotics Probiotic s

H

M/H

H

Phytosterols (reducing cholesterol)

H

M/H

H

Rice bran oil

M

L/M

M/H

L/M

L/M

L/M

Bio-organic fertilizer

L

L/M

L/M

Carbonized rice husks (CRH)

L

L to M

L/M

From

Product

Rice grain

Modified starch

Husk

Tyres


Page 23 of 29

7.1. Suggestions for further research Establish better baseline

Better and more recent information is needed in the following areas and could be collected through a series of rapid assessments at representative postharvest stakeholders: •

Yield losses as affected by the various postharvest operations.

•

Trading of high moisture content paddy, volumes, quality deterioration, other problems.

•

Level of qualitative losses in the individual marketing channels. Depending on where the project will put it’s focus this could be limited to e.g. the export value chain players.

•

Assessment of typical rice mills of the different categories, rice mill performance determination.

•

Assessment of energy use in the postharvest chain and potential for substitution.

•

Assessment of pesticide use in stored product protection.

7.2. Improving postharvest resource efficiency

Without having more detailed data on the postharvest sector and its resource inefficiencies it is difficult to come up with clear recommendations. This section therefore highlights some technologies, best management practices, and market driven incentives that might have potential to address some of the problems. Technology

Thailand has a competitive agricultural machinery industry which also exports harvesters, dryers, milling equipment and laboratory instruments. Research conduced in partnerships between the private sector and the industry is of high standard. It is therefore doubted that machinery and


Page 24 of 29

Table 8: Provision concerning for Good Agricultural Practice to ensure good milling quality for rice are defined as in table below (Source: Rice Department) Postharvest operation

REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS

1 Harvesting time.

Rice shall be harvested at appropriate time resulting in a good milling quality that obtain the whole kernel and head rice according to Thai Agricultural Standard for each rice type. The appropriate harvesting time shall be observed by : • •

2 Harvesting and threshing

•

•

3. Moisture content of paddy and drying practice

•

•

•

4. Transportation, storage and produce collection.

•

25 to 35 days after flowering date; or Rice panicle is at mature stage. At least three quarters of the kernels in the rice panicle have a full yellow color. Harvesting equipments, containers and harvest practices shall not cause any effect on quality and introduce any admixing grain to the produce. If threshing and/or harvesting is applied, equipments shall be properly cleaned and threshing process shall be handled carefully in such a way that it d oes not introduce any admixing grain to the produce. If the machine has been previously used to harvest or thresh other rice variety, it shall be cleaned to get rid of all remaining grains. If produce is not sold as wet paddy, it must be dried to reduce moisture within 24 hours after harvested. Drying practice shall not introduce any breakage to grain in such a way that the result of milling quality test of p addy is lower than the criteria required in Thai Agricultural Standard for each type of rice. The moisture of paddy shall not exceed 15% for traded rice and 14% for stored rice. Equipments, containers and carriages for transportation and storage shall be cleaned and able to prevent quality deterioration of produce and prevent from


Page 25 of 29

conventional rice production. These additional costs have to be at least compensated if farmers and processors are to engage in these schemes. •

•

•

Similar to Thai GAP there are plans at the Rice Department to Good Management Practice (GMP) for postharvest too. As with GAP, open questions remain with regard whether customers would pay a premium for GAP/GAM rice. Resource efficiency criteria could be built into the postharvest GAM criteria, in a way that that participating processing facilities should be optimized in terms of energy use (e.g. drying with rice husk instead of kerosene as fuel). Ecologically branding rice that is produced with minimum impact on the environment and labelling according to market requirements are other options. In Europe for example there is a trend towards introducing a carbon footprint label on many products including food. At some point this might become mandatory and therefore might become essential for all rice exports to Europe. Branding GMO free rice. Organic rice and fair trade rice brands don’t guarantee for the GMO freeness of their products since potential “contamination” of these rice brands with GMO varieties is not monitored in the schemes. For European markets were customers are very critical with respect to GMOs a GMO free brand could be another option.

For the time being it is not clear whether the markets will accept higher priced GAP/GMP or ecologically branded rice. Public private partnerships with national and international partners are needed to evaluate, pilot and establish such schemes.

8. Conclusions and Recommendations

Thailand: Resource efficiency and ecosystem services, Sub-study 2, Postharvest •

•

Page 26 of 29

Problems in the postharvest sector seem to be more market related than caused by lack of technology. Effective interventions interventions therefore should start with the markets. The data base for energy efficiency of the postproduction sector is incomplete and should be added on. Better usage of by products can increase resource use efficiency because the by products can substitute other raw materials, e.g. in energy generation.

Establish better baseline data on the postharvest industry

There are conflicting statements regarding industry performance, postharvest losses and energy use. Some sources say that the Thai rice value chain is highly efficient; others mention low quality and losses. This study was planned as desk study and the political situation and the resulting delays did not allow for field visits for filling data gaps or verifying old data. It is therefore recommended to conduct rapid assessments of representative postharvest stakeholders as a follow-up to establish better baseline data on resource use (especially energy), losses, performance and stakeholder specific issues: Measures to improve paddy quality

A major issue mentioned in the literature and also in the stakeholder workshop is poor quality of paddy resulting in low milling quality. •

•

Apply Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) on pre-harvest management for maximizing yields and paddy quality including seed source and processing, seed rates, soil preparation, fertilizer utilization, water management, pest control, and disposal of waste and residues (Noomhorn, A, 2009). See Sub-study 1 for details. Assess the significance and scope of high moisture paddy trading and delays in the harvesting to drying chain.


Page 27 of 29

Table 9: Summary of proposed measures to increase resource efficiency in postharvest

Issue

Proposed measures

Lack of baseline data

Rapid assessments at representative PH stakeholders

Poor paddy quality, trading of milled rice

Price incentives for producers for better quality, improve on-farm processing, hermetic storage

Ensure market position (Export and domestic)

Develop introduce GAP/GAM postharvest

Impact on resource efficiency

Levers

Better identification of issues and tailoring of interventions

Rice Department, IRRC, AIT linkages

Reduction of postharvest losses Reduction of mycotoxin contamination

Market driven price incentives, millers, traders

Ensured quality, reduce postharvest losses Resource savings in production Resource savings in postproduction

Public private partnership,

New Thai rice Resource savings in production and brands, (GAP, eco postproduction through certification and labelled, GMO free, etc.)

Public private partnerships with importers

and for

•

• •

•

• •

•


Page 28 of 29

Dethneeranaht, P. 1983. An analysis of the post-production loss of rice at the farm level in the central region of Thailand, 1982/83. Agricultural Economic, Kasetsart University, Thailand. Ekasingh, B., Sungkapitux, C., Kitchaicharoen, J., & Suebpongsang, P. (2007). Com-petitive commercial agriculture in the Northeast of Thailand. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from World Bank web page: htt p://siteresources.worldbank.org p://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRICA/ /INTAFRICA/ Resources/257994-1215457178567/CCAA_Thailand.pdf Gadde, B., Menke, C., and Wassmann, R. 2009: Rice straw as a renewable energy source in India, Thailand and the Philippines: Overall potential and limitations for energy contribution and greenhouse gas mitigation. Biomass and Bioenergy 33 (2009), pp 15321546. Haefele, S.M., C. Knoblauch, M. Gummert, Y. Konboon, and S. Koyama. 2008. Black carbon (bio-char) in rice-based systems: characteristics and opportunities, In W. I. Woods, et al., eds. Terra Preta Nova: A Tribute to Wim Sombroek. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrech. IRRI, 2010. IRRI World Rice Statistics (WRS). http://beta.irri.org/solutions/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=250 Kanuengsak-Chiaranaikul. 2009. Thai rice combine harvesting [Online]. Available by Agricultural Engineering Research Institute, Kanuengsak-Chiaranaikul. Department of Agriculture, Thailand http://as.doa.go.th/aeri/files/pht2009/documents_slide/lecture%20slides/kn_thai%20rice%20combine%20harvester.pdf Kitkaundee, K. and Urairong, S. 1999. Effect of delay in drying on rice grain and seed quality. Research report 1996 volume 2 Pathum Thani Rice Research Center, Thailand. p. 774-784. Kitkaundee , K., Anusornpanich, S., Urairong, P., Makathan, N., Ketkomut, Y. and Konhchu, A. 1987. Quality of rice seed harvested at different ages. Research report in 1988. p. 246-253. Kositpaisal, P. 2008. Thailand Agricultural Machinery Development. Power Point. The Siam Kubota Industry Co.,Ltd. Kunimitsu, Y., and T. Ueda. 2006. Macro Economic Impacts of Installing Rice Husk Electricity Power Plants in Thailand Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, Orland, Florida. Ministry of Commerce. 2009. Thai rice strategies, 2009-2011. Naivikul, O. 2007. Rice: Science and Technology. Technology. ISBN 978-974-9934-27-2. Edition 2. Kasetsart University University printing press, Bangkok. 366 p. Nakada, Y. (1996). When does a farmer sell rice: A case study in a village in Yasothon Province, Northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Studies, 33 (4), (4), 609-624. Noomhorm, A. (2009). Postharvest in Thailand, Rice. Powerpoint presented at Postharvest 09, Rice Conference & Exhibition. 15-17 July 2009, AsiaCongress, Queen Sirikit National Center, Bangkok.


Page 29 of 29

Wiboonpongse, A., & Chaovanapoonphol, Y. 2001. Rice marketing system in Thailand. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Agribusiness Manage-ment towards Strengthening Agricultural Development and Trade, Chiang Mai, Thai-land. Wiboonpongse, A., & Sriboonchitta, S. 2004. Regoverning markets: Securing small producer participation in restructured national and regional agri-food systems in Thai-land. Retrieved February 2, 2009, from Faculty of Economics, Chiang Mai University web page: http://fuangfah.econ.cmu.ac.th/files/Thailand_report_final.pdf

Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri food supply chains ‐

Resource efficiency and ecosystem services in rice production in Thailand’s central plain: Baseline Research

UNEP, IIED and AIDEnvironment Project (IRRI coordination)

Executive summary This study delivers a brief inventory of ecosystem services offered in Central Plain of Thailand, and related considerations on economic value. It partakes to a broader baseline study on resource efficiency and ecosystem services in rice production in Thailand’s central plain. The overall purpose of the baseline study is to contribute to a UNEP research and development project targeting the establishment of sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains. The study report first clarifies the terms and concepts on aquatic resource uses, values, externalities, benefits, services, and the like. It defines (1) resource direct-use value, generating private goods and services, which benefits private, local economic agents, and (2) resource indirect, non-use value, generating public goods and services, which benefits part or whole of society. Such distinction proves very useful in order to first sort out the different functions and externalities attached to rice ecosystems, and to develop a conceptual framework for further investigations (p29-30), second to identify proper methodologies to assess economic values of ES in Central Plain of Thailand. Lowland paddy rice ecosystems in central plain of Thailand offer several ecosystem goods and services and include functions and values related to regulation, support, culture (mostly as public goods, i.e. true ES), and contribution to the economy (mostly through private benefits). However, being mostly irrigated, and designed and operated for intensive production towards export and agro-industry sectors, some functions have limited positive effects (support), and some negative externalities are significant (GHG emissions and high contribution to climate change as the main negative externality of paddy rice). Among ecosystem services, regulatory functions seems to be the most important, as paddy rice ecosystems contribute significantly to water resource management and conservation, erosion control, preservation of biodiversity and aquatic habitats, and, more importantly

value. Research should also be carried out in economics, first assessing the value of all identified ecosystems goods and services, second investigating and testing economic instruments towards sustainability of such provision. Research agencies should team up with public and private interested stakeholders in order to redress the observed lack of knowledge and awareness on ecosystem services. Communication and information has to take place, towards the general public, and more specific stakeholders. It is suggested that some pilot projects are set up, based upon existing farmer groups and/or delineated irrigation systems in order to experiment mechanisms potentially leading to sustainable provision of ecosystem services: farmer certification mechanisms, area certification mechanisms, labeling of products. Such pilot projects could ultimately be used to experiment PES mechanisms.

Table of of content content EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 1 TABLE OF CONTENT...................................................................................................................................... CONTENT ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1 DEMARCATION OF CENTRAL PLAIN OF THAILAND AND RICE CULTIVATION ................................................ 4

1.1 DEMARCATION OF CENTRAL PLAIN OF THAILAND .....................................................................................................4 1.2 LAND USE MAP OF THAILAND .............................................................................................................................. 5 1.3 RICE CULTIVATION IN THAILAND AND IN CENTRAL PLAIN ............................................................................................6 1.4 METEOROLOGICAL DATA .................................................................................................................................... 9 1.5 RICE PRODUCTION IN THAILAND: MAIN FEATURES ..................................................................................................10 10 1.6 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

3.3 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 4. ECONOMIC VALUATION ......................................................................................................................... 29

4.1 THE ECONOMIC VALUES OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS..................................................................................................29 29 4.2 ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL VALUATION STUDIES ........................................................................................................32 4.2.1 Function of provision provision of food and food and aquaculture aquaculture ...................................................................................32 32 4.2.2 Regulation functions ...........................................................................................................................32 4.2.3 Culture, recreation ..............................................................................................................................33 4.2.4 Support functions Support functions ................................................................................................................................ 33 4.3 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 5 GAP (GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES) AND IMPACTS ON IMPROVING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ............... 33 5.1 GAP for GAP for rice rice production production.......................................................................................................................... ..........................................................................................................................33 6 POLICY AND STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................................................... 39 7 CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................ 41

7.1 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 41 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 41 7.2.1 Research .............................................................................................................................................. 41 7.2.2 Implementation ................................................................................................................................... 42 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................... REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................... 43 APPENDIX 1: RICE–FISH AND RICE DUCK ECOSYSTEMS ............................................................................... 45 ‐

APPENDIX 2: INSECTS AND PESTS FOUND IN RICE FARM (PHOTOS) ............................................................. 49 APPENDIX 3: RICE VARIETIES IN THAILAND ................................................................................................. 53

1 Demarcation of of central central plain of of Thailand Thailand and rice cultivation 1.1 Demarcation of of Central Central Plain of of Thailand Thailand

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Thailand)

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Phichit Phitsanulok Sukhothai Samut Prakan Samut Sakhon Samut Songkhram Saraburi Sing Buri Suphan Buri Uthai Thani

1.2 Land Use Map of of Thailand Thailand

1.3 Rice cultivation in Thailand and in central plain The following figures (3-4) provide general information on the dynamics of rice cropping in Thailand then in central plain of Thailand (area planted, area harvested, production over time, dry season / wet season coverage) (Source: Office of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Statistical Forecasting Bureau, National Statistical Office). NB: “Major Rice” sometimes refers to as primary rice or wet season rice or rainfed rice; “Second Rice” sometimes refers to as irrigated rice or dry season rice. 1 Rai = 0.16 ha

Figure 3a. Thailand: Major Rice Cultivation (wet season)

Figure 3c. Central Plain of Thailand: Major Rice Cultivation (wet season rice, mostly rainfed)

Figure 3d. Central Plain of Thailand: Second Rice Cultivation (dry season rice, mostly irrigated)

Figure 4a: Major rice cultivation area (Provincial basis) in central plain of Thailand

1.4 Meteorological Data Meteorological information of central plain of Thailand is presented in table 1 and figure 5, e.g. temperature, rainfall, evaporation, humidity. All meteorological data are average data from 19802009. Maximum rainfall is observed between May M ay to Oct. (monsoonal rainy season) s eason) and other months refer to the dry season. Rice cultivation performed during rainy days is called wet season rice, which is highly dependent on rain, except in areas with irrigation facilities.

Table 1: Meteorological Data: Central Plain of Thailand (Average data: 1980-2009) Month

Mean Max o

Temp ( C)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

32.08 33.74 35.47 35.68 34.74 33.64 33.15 32.90 32.61 32.11 31.56 30.99

Mean Min Temp o ( C)

20.37 22.43 24.79 25.11 25.52 25.30 25.00 24.91 24.55 24.19 22.55 20.21

Mean Air o

Temp ( C)

26.15 27.98 30.02 30.27 30.00 29.37 28.97 28.79 28.46 28.04 26.98 25.54

Avg Rain

Avg Rainy

Mean

Mean Evap

Mean RH

mm

Day

Sunshine, hr

mm

%

5.97 13.53 46.18 61.73 164.32 136.18 144.19 164.09 255.78 191.08 40.46 5.22

0.90 1.60 4.11 5.26 13.65 14.56 15.75 17.10 18.95 14.67 4.24 0.91

7.85 8.19 8.09 7.85 6.58 5.22 4.78 4.40 4.83 5.38 7.26 7.83

4.26 5.04 6.09 6.08 5.59 5.00 4.80 4.54 4.21 3.91 4.15 4.28

64.50 65.25 66.45 66.90 71.70 72.85 73.40 74.30 76.75 76.05 69.85 64.95

Figure 5b: Meteorological data: Northeast Thailand

1.5 Rice production in Thailand: main features While China and India produce more than half of all global rice (600Mt overall annually), Thailand contributes (exports) about a third of all rice traded globally (8 Mt of 25Mt on average). Global trading of rice is therefore very limited, as compared to its global production and consumption features; to a large extent, producing countries have been self-consuming their production so far.

2 Rice ecosystems: functions and services 2.1 Defining ecosystem services According to Floresca (2009), ecosystem services are benefits which people obtain from ecosystems. Similarly, Brown (2006) explained that ecosystem goods and services are the flows from an ecosystem which are of relatively immediate benefit to humans and occur naturally. This allows for differentiating between externalities incurred by rice production itself (some positive ones, many negative ones –GHG emissions, water pollution), and ecosystem goods and services offered by the whole rice ecosystem (e.g. flood management, groundwater recharge). Figure 6 proposes to further differentiate these concepts on the basis economic value and use. Waterdependant systems may bear two kinds of value. One is related to direct use (be it extractive or not, located in-stream or off-stream) of the water resource. These include local socioeconomic activities that directly draw economic benefits from the water resource and from related-resources; rice production, rice-fish systems, local navigation, domestic uses, small water-dependant enterprises, and the like, are typical of Central Plain of Thailand. A key trait of such activities is that they benefit private agents (households, farmers, fishermen, local businesses and the like). Also, realization of a benefit by these private agents usually supposes they incur operation costs, input and production factor mobilization.

Private actions may be fully rational, legitimate, legal, and even economically sound (e.g. intensification of rice cropping in farmers’ fields) while those could be detrimental to some ecosystem services, benefiting the society and general public (e.g. biodiversity). The concept of payment for environmental services aims to capture the idea of a (collective) fee attached to benefiting such services, which fee may further serve as compensation or an incentive to direct users to continue, implement or adapt practices conducive to sustained ecosystem services. Owing to such distinctions, methodologies for evaluating use values, the different kinds of ecosystem services differ widely, as seen in section 4. In the following sections (2.2 to 2.5), a number of “functions” performed by rice ecosystems are discussed. Regulation, support and culture functions should be considered ecosystem services as such, since they refer mostly to non-use value. Economic development function mostly refers to use value.

2.2. Rice agro ecosystems Paddy fields comprise an artificial environment that operates in concert with the natural environment. Rather than having an “impact” on the environment, paddy fields become part of a new environment with ecological processes that reflect the influences of both man and nature (Groenfeldt, 2006). The rice agro-ecosystems are typically categorized into five major types: 1. Irrigated rice fields, 2. Rain fed rice fields, 3. Deepwater rice fields, 4. Upland rice fields and 5. Tidal rice fields (Edirisinghe, 2006). Figure 7 proposes another, yet similar, classification, based upon location and water use. Rice production in central plain region of Thailand is predominantly irrigated (dry and wet seasons). Only highland plots and areas with no irrigation facilities are rainfed (e.g. in Isaan / Northeast Thailand).

2.3 Regulation functions 2.3.1 Paddy fields affecting local climate

Due to the effect of evaporation from paddy fields covered in water, paddy fields can have a cooling effect on ambient environment. In this way, paddy fields contribute to the climatic mitigation (1.3 °C on average) of surrounding areas, particularly in summertime (Yoshida, 2001). In South Korea, it is estimated that about 6mm of water in paddy fields evaporates every day. This brings down the air temperature during Korea’s hot summer. The value of the energy which would otherwise be needed for cooling amounts to about 346 million kL of crude oil. The value of this function is about US$ 1,175 million (Dong-Kyun, 2002). In winter, paddy fields may cause an increase in temperature (Wu and Lee, 2004). This function has been recognized in peri-urban areas where paddy and urban land are scattered. The temperature effect is higher where the paddy area is larger and is applicable up to 150 to 200m downwind of paddy areas (Yokohari et al., 1998). No research has been carried out on such regulatory function in central plain of Thailand. The approach used by Dong-Kyun (2002) could be applied. 2.3.2 Paddy fields interacting with global climate

While rice production is affected by climate change and related extreme events. According to ADB, Thailand suffered more than $1.75 billion in economic losses related to floods, storms, and droughts from 1989 to 2002. The main share of that ($1.25 billion) was from crop yield losses. Irrigated rice production is in turn contributing to climate change, and is harmful to the environment (Roger et al., 1998; Tilman et al., 2001; Wenjun et al., 2006). Flooded rice grows under anaerobic conditions, which favor methane formation and release (CH 4 is 21 times more potent than CO 2 as a

UNEP Final Report: Establishing sustainable, resource efficient agri-food supply chains

Recommend Documents