Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 84, Issue 2, pp 179–189 | Cite as

Drivers of adoption of eucalypt tree farming by smallholders in Thailand

Article

Abstract

Eucalypt (Eucalyptus spp.) tree farming is a source of income for many smallholders in developing and emerging countries and critical to the resource supply of many pulp and paper companies. These companies rely on smallholders adopting tree farming, sometimes by offering a contract. This paper reports a study from four regions of Thailand, where smallholder eucalypt tree farming is important, which investigated what characteristics of smallholders were associated with greater adoption of tree farming. A total of 461 eucalypt tree farmers and 171 non-tree farmers were randomly selected and surveyed in these regions, using a door-to-door household survey. A logit analysis corroborated hypotheses about the drivers of adoption. Qualitative analyses were used to inform interpretation of the quantitative results and shed light on the role of eucalypt tree farming in smallholders’ livelihood. Results demonstrate that those with suitable land available are more likely to adopt eucalypt tree farming than others. In addition, perception of land tenure security matters in the adoption of tree growing, but holding a formal land tenure document does not. Adoption of eucalypt tree farming in Thailand is not part of a land use intensification strategy. Instead, eucalypts are used as an alternative crop for low productivity land, on which eucalypts are the most profitable crop. Eucalypt tree farming also gives smallholders an opportunity to diversify their income. In addition, this alternative land use has the advantage of requiring low labour inputs between planting and harvest. This is particularly advantageous for many tree growers who have off-farm income or rely on hired labour for farming their land.

Keywords

Afforestation Forestry economics Adoption of tree farming Eucalyptus Thailand Smallholders 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted with the approval of the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT). The contributions of all the farmers in Thailand who agreed to be interviewed for this research and of the team of interviewers, without whom none of the fieldwork would have been possible, are acknowledged. This research was made possible by support to the principal author from a scholarship from the Crawford School of Economics and Government and funding for field research from the International Tropical Timber Organization and the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University.

References

  1. Adesina AA, Mbila D, Nkamleu GB, Endamana D (2000) Econometric analysis of the determinants of adoption of alley farming by farmers in the forest zone of southwest Cameroon. Agric Ecosyst Environ 80:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barney K (2004) Re-encountering resistance: plantation activism and smallholder production in Thailand and Sarawak, Malaysia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 45(3):325–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boulay A (2010) Contract tree farming and smallholders: drivers of adoption and livelihood impacts in Thailand. PhD thesis, Australian National University, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  4. Boulay A Adoption of contracts for tree farming by smallholders in Thailand (in preparation)Google Scholar
  5. Byron N (2001) Keys to smallholder forestry in developing countries in the tropics. In: Harrison SR, Herbohn JL (eds) Tropical small-scale forestry: social and economic analysis and policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 211–226Google Scholar
  6. Carney D (1998) Implementing the sustainable rural livelihoods approach. In: Carney D (ed) Sustainable rural livelihoods: what contribution can we make?. Department for International Development, London, pp 3–23Google Scholar
  7. Cossalter C, Pye-Smith C (2003) Fast-Wood Forestry: myths and realities. CIFOR forest perspectives. Center for International Forestry Research, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  8. DFID (1999) Sustainable livelihood guidance sheets. Department for International Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellis F (2000) Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis F, Ade Freeman H (2004) Rural livelihoods and poverty reduction strategies in four African countries. J Dev Stud 40(4):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. FAO (2007) State of the world’s forests. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  12. FAO (2009) The State of agricultural commodity markets: high food prices and the food crisis -experiences and lessons learned. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  13. Feder G, Just R, Zilberman D (1985) Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey. Econ Dev Cult Change 33:255–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jansen HGP, Rodriguez A, Damon A, Pender J, Chenier J, Schipper R (2006) Determinants of income-earning strategies and adoption of conservation practices in hillside communities in rural Honduras. Agric Syst 88:92–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liao TF (1994) Interpreting probability models: logit, probit, and other generalized linear models. Sage University paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, vol 07–101. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  16. Monroe AD (2000) Essentials of political research. Westview Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Niskanen A (1998) Value of external environmental impacts of reforestation in Thailand. Ecol Econ 26(3):287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Otsuka K, Suyanto S, Sonobe T, Tomich TP (2001) Evolution of land tenure institutions and development of agroforestry: evidence from customary land areas of Sumatra. Agric Econ 25:85–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Parker B, Kozel V Understanding poverty and vulnerability in India’s Uttar Pradesh and Bihar: a mixed method approach. In: Conference on experiences of combining qualitative and quantitative methods in poverty appraisal, Toronto, 2004Google Scholar
  20. Poison RA, Spencer DSC (1991) The technology adoption process in subsistence agriculture: the case of cassava in south-western Nigeria. Agric Syst 36(1):65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pousajja R Eucalyptus plantation in Thailand. In: White KB J, Kashio M (ed) Regional expert consultation on eucalyptus, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, 4–8 October 1993. RAP Publication—1995/6Google Scholar
  22. PRD (2008) Major boost to be given to eucalyptus planting in Thailand. The Government Public Relations Department. http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_inside.php?id=3151. Accessed 26 November 2008
  23. Puntasen A, Siriprachai S, Punyasavatsut C (1992) Political economy of eucalyptus: business, bureaucracy and the Thai government. J Contemp Asia 22(2):187–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Salam MA, Noguchi T, Koike M (2000) Understanding why farmers plant trees in the homestead agroforestry in Bangladesh. Agrofor Syst 50:77–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schirmer J, Kanowski P, Race D (2000) Landholders’ reasons for adopting or rejecting plantation forestry on farms in North-East Tasmania. Rural Soc 10(3):361–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scoones I (1998) Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS Working paper no. 72. Institute of Development Studies, BrightonGoogle Scholar
  27. Thacher T, Lee DR, Schelhas JW (1997) Farmer participation in reforestation incentive programs in Costa Rica. Agrofor Syst 35:269–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ubukata F (2001) The expansion of eucalyptus farm forest and its socio-economic background: a case study of two villages in Khon Kaen Province, Northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Stud 39(3):417–436Google Scholar
  29. Vermeulen S, Nawir AA, Mayers J (2008) Rural poverty reduction through business partnerships? Examples of experience from the forestry sector. Environ Dev Sustain 10:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vityakon P (2001) The role of trees in countering land degradation in cultivated fields in northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Stud 39(3):398–416Google Scholar
  31. Wannasai N, Shrestha RP (2008) Role of land tenure security and farm household characteristics on land use change in the Prasae Watershed, Thailand. Land Use Policy 25:214–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. World Bank (2003) Sustaining forests: a world bank strategy. World Bank, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang D, Aboagye Owiredu E (2007) Land tenure, market, and the establishment of forest plantations in Ghana. For Policy Econ 9:602–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang D, Pearse PH (1997) The influence of the form of tenure on reforestation in British Columbia. For Ecol Manag 98:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Inter-American Development BankWashington DCUSA
  2. 2.Crawford School of Economics and GovernmentThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.Fenner School of Environment & SocietyThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations