Food Sovereignty and Food Security: Livelihood Strategies Pursued by Farmers during the Maize Monoculture Boom in Northern Thailand

Sayamol Charoenratana, Cholnapa Anukul and Peter M. Rosset
Additional contact information
Sayamol Charoenratana: Human Security and Equity Research Unit, Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute (CUSRI), Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Cholnapa Anukul: Human Security and Equity Research Unit, Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute (CUSRI), Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Peter M. Rosset: Departamento de Agricultura, Sociedad y Ambiente, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR), San Cristóbal de las Casas 29200, Mexico

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, issue 17, 1-20

Abstract: Northern Thailand is the center of a number of controversies surrounding changing cropping patterns, in particular related to deforestation driven by the expansion of maize monocropping by peasant farmers. Growing demand for maize by the global livestock industry has driven the conversion of land from forest and/or shifting cultivation to chemical-intensive maize, with associated environmental (i.e., forest encroachment and annual burning of fields) and social (i.e., farmer indebtedness) problems. Over the years, some of the same farmers have been exposed to ‘alternative development’ programs and projects, initially motivated by pressure to substitute for illegal crops and more recently by concerns over deforestation and particulate matter air pollution from the burning of crop residues. This scenario is made more heterogeneous by a variety of land tenure situations and greater or lesser degrees of community control over land and forest. Faced with varied situations, peasant families can pursue different livelihood strategies, particularly in reference to the degree to which their production is market oriented. Based on surveys and interviews with farmers in Nan and Chiang Mai provinces, over a range of the aforementioned circumstances, we contrast families who pursue what we define as food security (cash cropping to earn money to buy food), food sovereignty (primarily production for self-provisioning) or mixed (a combination of both) strategies. In terms of indicators such as indebtedness, we find greater benefits from the food sovereignty and mixed strategies, though we also find that these are limited by security of land tenure issues, as well as by the degree to which community management of resources is or is not present.

Keywords: food security; food sovereignty; sustainability; land scarcity; community right; Thailand (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9821/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9821/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9821-:d:627096

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().