Articles & Commentaries > ISEAS Perspective > 2022

Articles & Commentaries > ISEAS Perspective > 2022

* Prapimphan Chiengkul is Visiting Research Fellow with the Climate Change in Southeast Asia Programme at the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, Assistant Professor at Faculty of Political Science at Thammasat University in Thailand, and Honorary Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at the University of Warwick in the UK.

It is widely recognised that current agricultural production models are not ecologically sustainable (see Chiengkul 2017, 11; Clapp et al. 2022; FAO 2021c, 7-23; Nicholls and Altieri 1997). Current agricultural practices are pushing the sustainability limits of land and water resources, and they are also becoming less productive due to climate change (FAO 2021c, 7-23; GCF 2021, 1). For these reasons, many scholars and international organisations have called for transitions to climate-resilient agrifood systems, which can be defined as “the capacity over time of agrifood systems, in the face of any disruption, to sustainably ensure availability of and access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food for all, and sustain the livelihoods of agrifood systems’ actors” (FAO 2021b, 9).

Public discussions of these challenges often focus on the roles of governments, the private sector and high-tech innovations in promoting climate-smart or climate-resilient agriculture. Scholars have warned, however, that some “climate-smart” technological solutions might reinforce current industrial agrifood models that are responsible for environmental unsustainability and vulnerability to disruptions in the first place. These include techniques and technologies that promote dependency on agrochemicals and a small variety of patented plant seeds, as well as increased usage of fossil-fuel powered machineries in farmlands (Clapp and Ruder 2020, 57-58; Newell and Taylor 2017). Genetically modified seeds, for example, have sometimes been promoted as a solution to global food security. However, such gene-editing technology has widely raised ecological sustainability and socio-economic concerns (see Chiengkul 2017, 11-16; Clapp and Ruder 2020, 57-58; Newell and Taylor 2017, 122).

Farmers and other actors in sustainable agriculture networks are essential to the promotion of climate-resilient agriculture in Southeast Asia. For decades, these actors have been experimenting and practising sustainable farming techniques that improve climate resilience. Through trial and error, they have also developed many forms of market channels for sustainable agrifood products that aim to offer fair returns to farmers. For these reasons, their experiences can significantly enrich academic and public discussions on climate-resilient agriculture in Southeast Asia.

Sustainable farming practices have been labelled under different names, such as agroecology and organic farming. General principles include the promotion of biodiversity in farmlands and sustainable land management, and common techniques include the use of intercropping, crop-livestock integration, a variety of traditional/local seeds, and organic inputs instead of agrochemicals (Clapp et al. 2022, 6; FAO 2021a; GCF 2021, 15-16; IPCC 2019, 23-24; Mbow et al. 2019, 499-501). Agroecology, in particular, is committed to the production of diverse agrifood products based on the understanding of ecological interactions between plants, insects and other organisms, which help to increase climate resilience (Altieri and Nicholls 2020; Clapp and Moseley 2020, 1410). Biodiverse agroecosystems improve soil fertility and naturally control for pests and weeds, and studies have found that agroecological practices can increase yields of staple food crops such as maize (Altieri and Nicholls 2020, 890-891). Moreover, local traditional knowledge are often important building-blocks for farmers in developing sustainable and climate-resilient agriculture (FAO et al. 2018, 102). Integrated rice-fish systems, for example, are used by farmers in Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Laos and Thailand. Inspired by traditional knowledge, these production systems have reportedly increased rice yields and reduced agrochemical usage in paddy fields, since fishes help to control weeds and pests (Frei and Becker 2005, 139). Producing both rice and fish also helps farmers earn extra income and source protein from fish. However, more research is needed on minimising methane emissions from paddy fields (FAO 2001, 2022; Frei and Becker 2005). 

Scholars and international development organisations have also recognised that traditional crop varieties can potentially increase climate resilience, household food security and farm incomes (FAO et al. 2018, 98-99). Over generations, traditional crop varieties have adapted to suit local conditions, and they tend to have greater resilience to droughts and other climate stresses. They require less water, no chemical pesticides and fertilisers, and are often found to be high in nutrients (Altieri and Nicholls 2020, 884; FAO et al. 2018, 102). There are sustainable farming groups in Southeast Asian countries that have been saving, exchanging and developing traditional seeds, which has helped to promote agrobiodiversity and climate resilience for decades. In the Philippines, for example, the Farmer-Scientist Partnership Development (MASIPAG) has been helping farmers transition to organic farming as well as promote traditional rice varieties (Heckelman et al. 2022, 13, 15). Further examples of sustainable agricultural production practices from Thailand and Vietnam are discussed in Box 1 and Box 2 below.

For sustainable agriculture movements in Southeast Asia to survive and expand, it is important that strong support networks and market channels that provide premium or fair prices to sustainable farmers are developed. In Thailand, successful sustainable farming groups have received support from NGOs, academics, consumer groups, the media, government agencies, green social entrepreneurs and international buyers in organic and Fairtrade movements. These actors provide financial support (such as pre-payment for products), technical advice, skills training, and also help with the development of local, national and international market channels for sustainable agrifood products (Chiengkul 2017, 87-104, 111-112). Similarly, studies from the Philippines suggest that small-scale organic farmers require adequate training, access to production inputs, and secure markets for their products (Heckelman et al. 2022; Salazar 2013). Civil society networks such as MASIPAG in the Philippines have also helped to empower sustainable farmers and connect them with NGOs, scientists and church-based organisations who share similar visions (Heckelman et al. 2022, 6).

To encourage farmers to keep practising or making transitions to sustainable agriculture, it is also crucial that they are able to voice their concerns regarding production problems, pricing and fair returns. Many sustainable rice farmers in Thailand have formed cooperatives or social enterprises to increase their bargaining power and share profits. Some groups have also invested in rice mills to process their own paddy, which allows them to capture the value-added from vertical integration. They usually sell their rice through domestic and international organic and Fairtrade markets in large quantities. However, in many provinces such as Chiang Mai, Surin and Yasothon, local green markets and community-supported agriculture (where consumers subscribe to receive a box of produce on a regular basis) also serve as important market channels for seasonal agrifood products. These local market channels have created more jobs in the community and substantially helped to increase and diversify sources of farm incomes (Chiengkul 2017, 97-104). There are also many examples of socially-conscious agribusinesses in Southeast Asia that have helped to find markets for sustainable agrifood products, whilst respecting farmers as partners. In Indonesia, for example, Javara Indigenous has utilised local wisdom and modern business management techniques to develop and market a diverse range of organic agrifood products. Javara also includes farmers in the price setting decision-making process (Mahita et al. 2015).

In sum, this article has suggested that climate-resilient agriculture should be based on sustainable agriculture and that it is important to address socio-economic concerns facing small- and medium-scale farmers. This includes creating support networks and developing multiple market channels for sustainable agrifood products where prices are fair to both consumers and farmers. Not only will this help to promote poverty reduction and social justice, it will also help to expand sustainable agricultural production and retain labour in the agricultural sector in the long run. More specific policy recommendations are discussed below.

Overall, this article has highlighted how actors in sustainable agriculture movements in Southeast Asia, such as farmers, consumer groups and NGOs, play important roles in promoting climate-resilient agriculture. It is important to explore different paths to climate-resilient agriculture to avoid technological “lock-ins” where reliance on a few technologies serve to encourage monopoly concentrations in agrifood systems and suppress alternatives that might be more promising (Clapp and Ruder 2020, 59). Moreover, as Clapp et al. (2022, 3-4) has argued, the ability of individuals and groups to have a say in the governance of their agrifood systems should be recognised as an important dimension in food security.

Altieri, Miguel A., and Clara I. Nicholls. 2020. “Agroecology and the reconstruction of a post-COVID-19 agriculture.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 47 (5): 881-898. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1782891.

Chiengkul, Prapimphan. 2017. The Political Economy of the Agri-Food System in Thailand: Hegemony, Counter-Hegemony, and Co-Optation of Oppositions. Oxon and New York: Routledge.

Clapp, Jennifer, and William G. Moseley. 2020. “This food crisis is different: COVID-19 and the fragility of the neoliberal food security order.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 47 (7): 1393-1417. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1823838.

Clapp, Jennifer, William G. Moseley, Barbara Burlingame, and Paola Termine. 2022. “Viewpoint: The case for a six-dimensional food security framework.” Food Policy 106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102164.

Clapp, Jennifer, and Sarah-Louise Ruder. 2020. “Precision Technologies for Agriculture: Digital Farming, Gene-Edited Crops, and the Politics of Sustainability.” Global Environmental Politics 20 (3): 49-69. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00566.

FAO. 2001. Integrated agriculture-aquaculture: A primer. https://www.fao.org/3/Y1187E/y1187e00.htm.

—. 2021a. COVID-19 building back greener and more resilient: Contributions of agroecology to a “new normal” in Asia and the Pacific. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), (Bangkok). https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb3114en.

—. 2021b. In Brief to The State of Food and Agriculture 2021. Making agrifood systems more resilient to shocks and stresses. FAO, (Rome).

—. 2021c. The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture – Systems at breaking point. Synthetic report 2021. FAO (Rome: FAO). https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CB7654EN/.

—. 2022. “Case study C1.14 Local innovation and indigenous knowledge to diversify production and build resilience in Laos People’s Democratic Republic.” Climate Smart Agriculture Sourcebook: Enhancing capacities for a country-owned transition towards CSA. Accessed 19 August. https://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/enabling-frameworks/module-c1-capacity-development/c1-case-studies/case-study-c114-local-innovation-and-indigenous-knowledge-to-diversify-production-and-build-resilience-in-laos-peoples-democratic-republic/en/.

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. 11 September 2018. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018. Building climate resilience for food security and nutrition. FAO, (Rome). https://www.wfp.org/publications/2018-state-food-security-and-nutrition-world-sofi-report.

Frei, Michael, and Klaus Becker. 2005. “Integrated rice-fish culture: Coupled production saves resources.” Natural Resources Forum 29: 135-143.

GCF. 10 September 2021. Sectoral Guide Consultation Version 1: Agriculture and food security. Green Climate Fund. https://www.greenclimate.fund/document/sectoral-guide-agriculture-and-food-security.

Heckelman, Amber, M. Jahi Chappell, and Hannah Wittman. 2022. “A polycentric food sovereignty approach to climate resilience in the Philippines.” Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 10 (1): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2020.00033.

Huynh, Chuong Van, Tung Gia Pham, Tan Quang Nguyen, Linh Hoang Khanh Nguyen, Phuong Thi Tran, Quy Ngoc Phuong Le, and Mai Thi Hong Nguyen. 2020. “Understanding Indigenous Farming Systems in Response to Climate Change: An Investigation into Soil Erosion in the Mountainous Regions of Central Vietnam.” Applied Sciences 10 (15). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10155091.

IPCC. 2019. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/.

Mahita, D. R., D. N. Rifa, and H. Taruli. 2015. “Sustainable Agribusiness for Indonesia’s Farmers’ Economic Well-Being: Case Study of Javara Indonesia.” 15th Indonesian Scholars International Convention, King’s College London, 3-4 October.

Mbow, C., C. Rosenzweig, L.G. Barioni, T.G. Benton, M. Herrero, M. Krishnapillai, E. Liwenga, P. Pradhan, M.G. Rivera-Ferre, T. Sapkota, F.N. Tubiello, and Y. Xu. 2019. Chapter 5 Food Security in Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. IPCC (IPCC). https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/.

Newell, Peter, and Olivia Taylor. 2017. “Contested landscapes: the global political economy of climate-smart agriculture.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (1): 108-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1324426.

Nicholls, Clara Ines, and Miguel A. Altieri. 1997. “Conventional agricultural development models and the persistence of the pesticide treadmill in Laitn America.” International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 4 (2): 93-111.

Salazar, Robert C. 2013. “Going Organic in the Philippines: Social and Institutional Features.” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38 (2): 199-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013.833155.

Sen, Le Thi Hoa, and Jennifer Bond. 2016. “Agricultural adaptation to flood in lowland rice production areas of Central Vietnam: understanding the ‘regenerated rice’ ratoon system.” Climate and Development 9 (3): 274-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2016.1149440.

Son, Ho Ngoc, Aaron Kingsbury, and Ha Thi Hoa. 2020. “Indigenous knowledge and the enhancement of community resilience to climate change in the Northern Mountainous Region of Vietnam.” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 45 (4): 499-522. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2020.1829777.

UNCTAD. 2020. Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Sustainable Commercialisation in the Coffee Value Chain. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), (Geneva). https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditctabinf2020d2_en.pdf.

[1] Second rice crop grown from rice stubble that is left behind after harvesting the first crop (see more explanation in Sen and Bond 2016, 275).