Organic Farmers' Connectedness with Nature: Exploring Thailand's

WORLDVIEWS

Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 brill.nl/wo

Organic Farmers’ Connectedness with Nature: Exploring Thailand’s Alternative Agriculture Network

Alexander H. Kaufman Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies Mahidol University, 999 Phuttamonthon Road, Salaya, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand [email protected]

Abstract Only recently has research begun to explore how individuals translate their values into actions towards the natural world. As Buddhist scriptures have been associated with environmental stewardship, Thailand’s rural agrarian communities provide a useful site to test farmers’ perceptions of nature. Studies have shown that the Thai alternative agriculture movement has advocated a closer connection to nature through organic extension programs. This paper explores the ways organic rice farmers work with each other and nature to sustain rice farms in rural Northeastern Thailand. In depth interviews with organic farmers shed light on why they form collectives and what holds these groups together. Subsequent analysis revealed the salience of organic fertilizer collectives as a medium of associations between farmers and nature. A final round of structured interviews with seventy-five organic farmers’ examined connectedness with nature through a study of fertilizer practices. Findings suggest that organic farmers perceived bountiful rice and good health as externalities of nurturing the soil. Organic farmers developed a physical association with nature that led to a collective ecological worldview. Although, this study points to the social and spiritual attributes of a close connection with nature, organic farmers also depend on access to capital, technology, and strong local leadership.

Keywords Thai, agriculture, Thai Alternative Agriculture Network, organic fertilizer, Thai Farming, Yasothon province

1. Introduction

The “alternative agriculture movement” has been focused on replacing modern food systems with sustainable agriculture. The movement has embraced a range of environmentally friendly initiatives including biore- gionalism, community food systems, community-supported agriculture

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 155

(CSA), permaculture and shortened food chains. Organic food production1 is a central pillar of the movement and has been fueled by a steady increase in consumer demand (Roitner-Schobesberger et al. 2008). The international Slow Food organization has gained ground through advocacy of protective legislation (terroir) and designations of origin (e.g. Parmesan cheese, Champagne sparkling wine and Welsh lamb) (Shiva 2007). Studies of community-supported agriculture (CSAs) have highlighted projects that offer fresh organic food to nearby residents (Feagan and Henderson 2008; Hinrichs 2003; Morgan et al. 2008). In Tuscany’s tourism sector, locally produced food has served as an agent of cultural and economic development (Sonnino 2007). Such schemes have sought to achieve ecosystem conservation, preservation of regional food systems and the integrity of rural communities. Alternative agro-researchers have developed theories about the advantages of re-embedding food production in community-based networks. Case studies of small-scale food networks have shown the importance of “social relations of cooperation and trust that exist among suppliers, producers, workers, brokers, retailers and consumers” (Jarocz 2000: 279). Larger scale network studies have investigated the power of global commodity chains and international trade conventions to undermine local food initiatives (McMichael 2000; Morgan et al. 2008).

1.1 Theoretical Debate: Food as a Network of Actors

Although, networks are a valuable metaphor for theories about food supply chains, this conceptualization often places nature outside the context of the conflict or experiment. The anthropocentric or dualistic conceptualization of nature in agriculture and food research has become an area of concern for constructivist researchers. To exhibit the agency of mechanical, natural or human agents within the context of the conflict or experiment numerous agro-researchers have adopted Actor Network Theory (ANT), also known as “a sociology of associations” (Latour 1986; 2005). In the study “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fisherman of St. Brieuc Bay, Callon (1986) presents

1) This article employs the term “organic” as defined by the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM): “Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects” (IFOAM 2010).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access 156 A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 an ANT narrative about animals and humans in a living laboratory under the ocean. Callon observed that in St. Brieuc Bay, scientists enlisted fisher- men, researchers and larvae in an experiment to make scallops grow. He explains that in this experiment the participants are all agents with the potential to influence the outcome. Callon’s primary concern is with “‘translation meaning’. . . to express in one’s own language what others say and want, why they act in the way they do and how they associate with each other: it is to establish oneself as a spokesman” (ibid: 223). Along these lines, Murdoch (1997a: 740) argued that it is critical to exhibit the agency of nonhuman entities in agro-food networks, “Natural entities are not to be regarded. . . simply as passive intermediaries; they retain the ability to subvert the associations of the social thereby recasting associations in ‘new ways.’” Franklin (2002) suggested that the built environment (i.e. home gardens, parks and farms) takes on hybrid forms affected by humankind, nature and technology. Nonetheless, attributing agency to nature is problematic and critics rightly question the ability of researchers to translate the voices of non-human actors into an empirical study (Whittle and Spicer 2008). Despite some progress on the methodological front, agro-research has only begun to explore the agency of nature upon human society (Jarocz 2000; Goodman 1996; Murdoch 1997b; Winter 2003a; 2003b). We still know very little about the less tangible benefits of natural forms of agriculture to humankind. Although, alternative agriculturists advocate a closer connection to our food systems, few researchers have critically examined this sub- ject, particularly in developing countries (Feagan 2007; Pretty, 2003). Building on previous studies, I examined the ways Thailand’s alternative agriculture movement has reconnected farmers with nature through a shift to organic agriculture. I aimed to shed light on Thai organic farmers’ shared values, perceptions and actions towards nature.

1.2 Southeast Asian Perceptions of Nature

In the last few decades, environmentalists have called upon the Buddhist religion to justify that environmental stewardship is culturally embedded in Asian societies. Environmentalists commonly cite the example of sacred trees as a symbol of environmental stewardship, while some researchers believe that this practice is based on a fear of tree spirits (Rigg 1997). In fact, many trees are venerated by Buddhists, in particular the Bodhi (ficus reli- giosia), the place where Buddha was said to have attained enlightenment (Kabilsingh 2010). Stories of powerful Buddhist monks acting as custodians

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 157 of the forest has become a part of contemporary Southeast Asian folklore (Rigg 1997). A Buddhist-inspired environmental movement has been particularly vocal in Southeast Asia. Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the region have built upon Schumacher’s (1973) “Buddhist Economics” to support local alternative development initiatives. The Sri Lankan Sarvodaya movement has pioneered community development projects through a Buddhist-inspired concept of self-help (Sivaraksa 1990a; 1990b). However, critics argue that local and foreign academics have reinterpreted the “right livelihood”2 and other Buddhist scriptures to argue the merits of sustainable development. The teachings of the First Precept3: “not to kill,” have been invoked by alternative agriculture NGOs to justify the moral impera- tives of organic agriculture (Falvey 2000; Thongtawee 2006).

1.3 Thai Farmers’ Perceptions of Nature

Thailand offers a useful site to test the assumption that the Buddhist faith is associated with environmental stewardship. Significantly, the majority of the Thai population is employed in agriculture and practice Theravada Buddhism. However, in the North and Northeastern regions of Thailand, Buddhist farmers also practice Brahman rituals. Historically, Thai farmers have paid reverence to Khwan Khao (Rice soul), Mae Phosop (Rice Mother), Mae Thoranee (Earth Mother), and Mae Khongka (River Mother). These deities, and in particular Khwan Khao exhibit the Thai reverence to rice as a “life-giving force” (Sirisai 1990). As written in Falvey (2000: 362), “Animistic references to rice being pregnant, similarly reflect the assumption of the vital spirit of rice; more virtues were once nominally ascribed to rice and Mae Phosop than to the Buddha by northern Thai persons.” Although many of these rituals have disappeared, some were reincorpo- rated into Northeastern Thai Buddhist practice such as the Heed Sipsong4 (Twelve Customs) (Panya 2005). Nonetheless, Buddhist practice remains a

2) Right Livelihood: In order to be able to carry out right resolution to its fullness one must have a right livelihood. For example, Buddhism discourages trading of weapons, trading of human beings, killing animals as a profession, etc. (Kabilsingh 2010). 3) The Five Precepts of the Pali canon: 1) not to kill; 2) not to steal; 3) not to engage in sexual misconduct; 4) not to lie; 5) not to engage in consumption of intoxicants (Payutto 1998). 4) The Heed Sipsong (Twelve Customs) are a part of literary tradition in the Northeastern Region and set down as a chronicle of customary rules. The chronicle specifies the type of activities to be held at specific times of the year. It also clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the sangha and the laity, and the rituals they must perform (Panya, 1996).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access 158 A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 fundamental part of village life and the vernacular of Thai rice farmers is infused with religious terminology. For example, rural Thais more commonly use the word “dhammachart” (nature) that has its roots in Pali- Sanskrit and the Pali Canon, while Bangkok residents tend to employ the more modern term, singwetlom (environment) introduced by the central Thai authorities (Panya and Sirisai 2003). Panya and Sirisai (ibid) found that in Thai rural society “religious values and beliefs” have contributed to the formation of a “collective eco-consciousness.” In similar research on North American Judeo-Christian farmers, Curry (2000; 2006) revealed that Quaker Groups have a tendency to pursue sustainable agriculture methods partly because their religious values shape a “collective worldview” of the environment.

2. Thailand’s Alternative Agriculture Movement

Striving to join the formal economy of the twenty-first century, Thailand’s rice farmers discarded traditional practices and adopted the tools of the Green Revolution (Panya 2003, Rigg 1997, Wyatt 1982). Dramatic increases in agricultural production enabled by this new technology allowed farmers to sell a high proportion of crops outside their localities for cash (Kiatsuphimol 2002). Despite high returns in the early years, agricultural development policies contributed to soil erosion, water pollution, defores- tation and a loss of biodiversity. Naturally occurring foods such as frogs, fish, and vegetables were a casualty of the intensive application of agro- chemicals in Thai rice paddies (Lovelace et al. 1998). A further outcome of the transition to modern agriculture methods was a dependence on outside capital to afford mechanical requisites, such as the kway lhek (iron buffalo, a small tractor). The introduction of harvesting and threshing machines led to the virtual disappearance of long khek (a traditional form of labor exchange). As a result, many North and Northeastern Thai farmers turned over their farms to relatives and sought out employment in the factories of Bangkok (Rigg 1997). In the 1970s, Asian and Western NGOs expanded their networks into Thailand to assist farmers with rising agricultural debts and damaged soil fertility. Foreign and Thai alternative agriculturists collaborated to deliver participatory organic extension programs in the impoverished rural areas of North and Northeastern Thailand (Od-ompanch et al. 2009). Subsequently, local and foreign non-profit organizations were launched to support diverse forms of organic farming through participatory extension

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 159 methods and marketing support (Setboonsarng and Gilman 1999). Agencies under the Thai government and Royal Patronage also extended assistance to sustainable rural-based agricultural initiatives. In Bangkok, proponents and NGOs eventually created the Thai Alternative Agriculture Network (AAN) to support “a national forum of non-government organizations (NGOs), academics, and farmer leaders” (Samerpak 2006: 27). A wide array of actors: farmers, Buddhist monks, environmentalists, non-profit organizations, agronomists, political activists, and His Majesty the King Bhumibol Adulyadej mapped the future course of the movement. The Agri-nature Foundation is a pivotal group within the AAN and aims to disseminate the main tenets of Sufficiency Economy (SE) and New The ory Agriculture (NTA). SE philosophy advocates moderation, self-reliance and reasonable consumption patterns to Thai farmers and the general pop- ulous. NTA is aimed at farmers operating small-scale integrated farms: 30 percent for digging a pond to store 19,000 cubic metres of water for cultivation in the dry season and to raise fish; 30 percent for rice cultivation sufficient for year round home consumption; 30 percent for other crops and fruit; and 10 percent for housing, animal husbandry and other activities (Sathirathai and Piboolsravut 2004: 48). The Agri-nature Foundation specializes in training programs that broadly cover NTA and various methods of building individual self-reliance (i.e. soap, bio-fuel and charcoal making). The Agri-nature Foundation places particular emphasis on the use of effective microorganisms (EM),5 and is known for the motto, “Feed the soil and let the soil feed the plants.” The Foundation has established training centers throughout Thailand and receives ongoing support from the governmental Bank of Agriculture and Cooperatives in the form of training allowances (Agri-nature Foundation 2008). The Santi Asoke religious community is considered one the most prominent Thai alternative agriculture groups, and members live according to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Buddhist Dharma. The majority of Asoke members reside in eight self-contained eco-villages located throughout Thailand. The organizing body of Asoke constructed their community as an alternative to consumerism and the changing face of Thai Buddhism

5) Effective microorganisms (EM) are a liquid fertilizer made from food scraps, microbes and molasses invented by members of the Kyusei Natural Farming Group and brought to Thailand by a Japanese missionary in the 1960s (Agri-nature Foundation 2007; Setboonsarng and Gilman 1999).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access 160 A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178

(Essen 2002). Although, their population has reached over two thousand nationally, Asoke’s fundamentalist interpretation of Buddhism has been rejected by Thailand’s Sangha (Buddhist Governing Body) and a large portion of civil society (Satha-Anand 1990). All of the Asoke eco-villages preach self-sufficiency; and life in the commune is governed by a strict set of rules designed to promote harmony through Buddhist practice. Secondary activities include retail sales of herbal products, vegetarian restaurants and training programs for civil society. To some degree, Asoke represents a return to the community-centered livelihoods of pre-industrial rural Thailand (Rigg 1997). Meals are eaten communally and members work together to carry out infrastructure projects. Asoke farmers practice Masanobu Fukuoka’s (1978) natural approach to agriculture. Farmers make their own organic fertilizers, use natural pest prevention methods, and rely on appropriate technology. From the standpoint of economic self-reliance, the Bangkok based Green Net Cooperative/Earth Net Foundation is a pioneer in the Thai organic movement. Green Net started by assisting small-scale farmers in seeking organic certification and access to the European market. Green Net programs promote self-consumption of agricultural products as a central tenet of their extension policy (Samerpak 2006). Outreach programs concentrate on attracting new “partners” and sustaining organic producer groups in the North and Northeastern provinces of Thailand. Some studies have examined the benefits of becoming production partners with Green Net (Kiatsuphimol 2002; Samerpak 2006). Green Net is particularly relevant to this study as they are active in Kudchum and Mahachanachai District, and to a lesser extent in Patiew District, the key locations in this study.

2.1 Yasothon Province’s Alternative Agriculture Network

Farmers in Yasothon province have a long history of involvement with the aforementioned organizations. The Agri-Nature Foundation and the Santi Asoke Group reported affiliations with the Dharma Garden Temple in Patiew District, Yasothon Province. Interviews with key staff at Green Net reported a high density of organic farmers in Mahachanachai and Kudchum Districts in Yasothon Province. Due to the existence of prior studies, socio- economic conditions, and the number of organic farmers in this geographi- cal area, I decided to focus this research on Yasothon Province. Yasothon is classified as a rural agricultural province and is located 534 kilometers from Bangkok in the Northeastern Region of Thailand (Figure 1). Homali rice is the principal product in this region and the main industrial

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 161

Figure 1. Map of Yasothon province in Northeastern Thailand. Source: National Statistics Office (2011). Statistical Yearbook 2010, Retrieved 1 October, 2011. http://web.nso.go.th/eng/link/solink.htm.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access 162 A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 activity is milling rice. Farmers are forced to grapple with sandy, salinized and rocky soil, unpredictable rainfall patterns, and have minimal access to formal irrigation systems (Boonman and Anpim 2006). Despite these geo- graphical challenges, government directed agro-development programs promote cash crops through low-interest loans and subsidized agro- supplies (Samerpak 2006). Based on academic studies, select groups of farmers have successfully made the transition to organic agriculture. Previous studies that examined organic farming in Northeastern Thailand’s Yasothon province were found to concentrate on economic eval- uations of agriculture methods. Becchetti’s (et al. 2010) university-based research concluded that despite a rise in per capita income, Mahachanachai District’s organic farmers experienced low levels of productivity due to high person-labor hours. Boonman and Anpim’s (2006) study in Yasothon Province suggested that rural farmers would stand to benefit from organic rice production methods, only when used in combination with agro- chemicals. The work of Kiatsuphimol (2002) investigated the advantages of access to Green Net marketing channels in Kudchum District (Yasothon Province). Samerpak (2006) uncovered the positive financial outcomes of participation in organic extension programs with a secondary mention of social benefits. Despite mention of the social contributions of organic agriculture in the aforementioned studies, this aspect received less attention. This research explored the ways farmers work with each other and the natural environment to sustain their organic rice farms. I investigated the socio-ecological benefits of a shift to organic agriculture methods with a focus on how farmers “feed the soil.” My research questions addressed: Why do organic farmers form collectives? What holds organic farmer collectives together? What dimensions of organic farmers’ work connect them to nature? In what ways does the adoption of organic methods affect farmers’ environmental values?

3. Methodology

I selected a mixed methods approach to uncover themes about alternative agriculture. In 2007, I began to gather preliminary information about the Thai Alternative Agriculture Network (AAN) through informal interviews, attendance on training courses and publications provided by associated organizations. From 2008 to 2010, I conducted exploratory fieldwork with organic farmers in Yasothon province in Northeastern Thailand. I selected a “sequential exploratory design” to allow key informants to participate in

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 163 the construction of the study (Cresswell 2003). I divided my data gather ing methods into three interrelated phases: Phase 1) semi-structured interviews with organic extension organizations; Phase 2) unstructured interviews with organic farmers; Phase 3) structured interviews with organic farmers through a game-based method and survey. I restructured interview questions at each subsequent phase to probe emergent theories. I applied a process of coding, categorizing and analysis during all three phases as part of a constructivist grounded theory approach (Charmaz 2006; Mills and Bonner 2006). In Phase 1, I interviewed NGOs about their objectives and spheres of influence to compile an overall picture of their work. I also reviewed secondary data in English and Thai (e.g. organizational leaflets, self-published texts and websites). NGOs in Bangkok provided descriptions of their extension programs and identified locations with a high density of organic farmers in Northeastern Thailand. Based on this information, I selected four organic farming districts (Mahachanachai, Kudchum, Lerngnoktha and Patiew) in Yasothon Province within the closest proximity of each other as my field site. Contrary to information I received, participants in Lerngnoktha were located sporadically throughout the area and at a very low density. Although individual interviews with Lerngnoktha farmer-leaders offered valuable data, due to the logistical challenges of meeting with farmer- members I excluded Lerngnoktha from latter phases of the study. In Phase 2, I conducted preliminary interviews with fifty farmers: indi- vidually, in pairs, and in small groups in two one-week periods. I selected participants through a process of chain referral sampling informed by leadership figures and organic farmers (Semaan et al. 2002). I engaged participants in semi-structured in-depth interviews about community life: organic agriculture methods, meanings of organic agriculture, food provisioning, environment, exchange, trade, consumer roles, self-sufficiency, religious practices, and financial concerns. After thirty interviews, I reached a point of “theoretical saturation”, that is, responses had become repetitive and yielded no useful new information (Glaser 1978). After coding and categorizing these data, I developed more specific questions to probe areas of relevance and emergent theories in a follow-up round of interviews. Six months later, I returned to the same three districts to interview participants with a revised set of interview questions. Based on availability, I interviewed five of the previous participants and twenty new participants. The purpose of conducting multiple interviews with the same participants was to probe deeper into areas of concern. I stayed with two prominent organic farmers for several days: Elder

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access 164 A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178

Wit (pseudonyms) of Kudchum District and Elder At of Mahachanachai District to conduct informal interviews, observe their daily work and obtain additional referrals. I triangulated data collected from interviews through observations of farming activities. After collecting these data, I conducted a second round of coding and categorizing key responses. At this stage of analysis, I surmised that organic fertilizer and the production methods employed were possible factors in the success of the farmer groups in this study. Drawing on Callon’s (1986) work, I sketched a conceptual diagram of the organic rice production to better focus the last phase of inquiry (Figure 2). I divided the rice making process into key tasks, work responsibilities, related machinery, and resources with a focus on fertilizer production. This analytical process exhibited the ways organic fertilizer served as a medium of socio-ecological relations. To further examine the socio-ecological relationships in the Organic Fertilizer Network, I crafted a board game as a data collection method that would be suitable to participants’ educational levels, visually appealing, and interesting (Phase 3). I developed this method because in Phase 2 I learned that participants had difficulty reading due to either poor eyesight or minimal formal education. Participants also told me that government and university-based researchers had produced research of little value because questions were too narrow, unclear, and difficult to answer.

Figure 2. Organic Fertilizer Network

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 165

I revisited Khamkhungaew, Kudchum, and Patiew Districts to interview seventy-five organic farmers in groups of two or three participants using several new methods: a board game, enlarged question cards and a farmer profile. Participants were selected based on location in the three key districts and their affiliation with the NGOs in this study. The game was developed to appeal to “Thais’ sense of fun” similar to Mock’s (2000) “insight game.” To create an incentive for participation, I offered participants a small prize at the end of the game. First, I administered a short background questionnaire on a one-to-one basis to generate a profile of individual farming methods. Next, I showed participants how to play the game. Participants were asked to move player pieces along an illustrated pathway of squares similar to Milton Bradley’s Chutes and Ladders. Curiously, further research revealed that Chutes and Ladders had been modified from the Sixteenth Century Indian game of Moksha Patamu. Both the American and Indian versions were based on a concept of good deeds bringing one towards the finish line and bad deeds pulling one back to the beginning of the game. Participants flipped a coin to move along the pathway from start to finish. “Heads” meant proceed to the next square and “tails” signified a stalled position. On each square, the participant received a picture card that contained a multiple-choice or Likert scale question. The farmers’ choices or preferences were recorded on an answer sheet. The principle bias of the game was that participants who raised a large variety of animals scored highly. However, final scores were only a determinant of the “win- ner” and did not influence results or findings. In the last part of Phase III, I asked each participant to answer further multiple choice and Likert scale questions that were printed on an 8” by 11” inch plastic board for clarity. Participants were asked to mark their responses directly on to the question boards. Semi-structured and closed-ended questions allowed me to generate detailed data about organic farmer groups, fertilizer methods and associated values. I analyzed the multiple-choice, Likert scale items and farmer profile by generating descriptive statistics with SPSS v.14. I examined the frequency distribution of responses. I re-examined qualitative data from Phase 2 with quantitative findings from Phase 3 to interpret the entire analysis (Cresswell 2003).

4. The Farmer Networks

The second phase of research covered three well-established farmer groups in Yasothon Province: Nature Care Club Rice Mill, Pak Reua Rice Mill, and

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access 166 A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 the Dharma Garden Temple. I explored the ways that farmers were linked to each other and the natural environment through organic agriculture. I arrived during the harvest season of December 2007 to find potential participants at the local rice mill conducting administrative duties, storing, drying, packing and weighing rice in preparation for sale. The clustering of participants was invaluable to gaining quick insight into the working activities of organic farmers. In this section I discuss the characteristics of three primary farmer groups in this study. Farmer-leaders articulate the structure of farmer collectives, the history of their development. Farmer-members’ narratives and my observations in Kudchum, Khamkhungaew, and Patiew District show the different ways they sustained their activities as a group.

4.1 Pak Reua Rice Mill

I initiated this study through an interview with a locally based Green Net (GN) extension worker (and rice farmer) at Pak Reua Rice Mill in Don Pung Village, Khamkhungeow District. He explained that Pak Reua Rice Mill has five Green Net representatives, three were born in the village and two came from another province. In 2008 there were 941 members at the rice mill. The highest density of organic farmers lived in Don Pung and Dong Yang Villages (the locations of these interviews). In 2008, there were four trainings with 50 participants, and there was a safe food movement that came into the village in 1995. This was GN’s first project to help support natural agriculture and food cooperatives. The Group started in 1996 when GN came to work with the villagers and con- vinced them to make the shift to organic agriculture. The villagers were sat- isfied to work with GN and became partners. Organic farmers officially joined in 1999 when the Organic Agriculture Certification Thailand (ACT) came to audit and certify individual farmers. In 2001, organic farmers grouped together and earned a certificate from ACT in the name of the rice mill. Despite the early successes of farmer groups in this area, Don Pung suf- fered a significant decrease in members during the course of my research. An interview with the rice mill president revealed that in 2008, there were 30 families in Don Pung certified to produce organic rice. By March 2010 only five families continued to pursue organic rice farming methods. When I queried about the reasons for this decision, he stated that farmers’ were motivated to produce a second crop with commercial fertilizers due to an increase in global rice prices.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 167

4.2 Heaven’s Farmer Group

The Heaven’s Farmers group at Dong Yang village emerged through the efforts of a small group of people. With only 40 members, they owe their success to several factors: Green Net, the Dong Yang Ao Bor Tor (sub-district administrative office) and strong community-based leadership. From interviews, Elder At, a co-founder of Heaven’s Farmers group, appeared to have persuaded many farmers to “go organic.” Mother Bee explained the origins of the Heaven’s Farmers group as:

Heaven’s group started with 21 members in the year 2000 as a sub-group under the Pak Reua Rice Mill. We started activities by exchanging labor to build the fertilizer warehouse on Elder At’s property. And we put in 300 baht per person as a fund to buy the equipment, and material for making organic fertilizer. In 2008, the Ao Bor Tor came to help make a new warehouse and to make us a center for the sub-district. Organic farmers who were members from nearby villages also purchased fertilizer from their cooperative. However, the arduous work of making fertilizer was carried out by contract workers due to the age of members (85% were older than 40). Nevertheless, Heaven’s Farmers were different from other organic farming groups in this area as the majority of members lived within the same village.

4.3 The Nature Care Club

The District of Kudchum has a long history of organic food production and has received more attention by researchers than other groups due to the work of international and domestic NGOs on the creation of a community currency (Samerpak 2006). According to farmers in the area, Kudchum is famous as a center of knowledge and an innovator of organic farming methods. Extension groups in this study point to Kudchum as a principal hub of Yasothon’s organic farming network and an example of the benefits gained from the implementation of sustainable development strategies. In the 1970s, members of this informal group initiated the protection of a communal forest zone and started to cultivate medicinal plants (Od-ompanich et al. 2007). Informants stated that the gradual transition to organic farming began with an herbal medicine promotion program at Talaad Temple, Sokhunpoom Village. The Abbot of Talaad Temple explained the reasons for initiating the program:

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access 168 A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178

From the beginning, I started this herbal society, as I wanted the villagers to take care of themselves when they got sick, with the use of herbs. Everything they consume like plants or vegetables is a kind of medicine. It also has a good and bad effect, if you consume too much it can be a toxin. In 1972, we set up the Herbal Society, and also supported the community to practice organic farming. Personal and family health problems appear to have forewarned farmers around Kudchum to the hazards of conventional agriculture methods. According to interviews, a fear of deteriorating health led many farmers to overcome the challenges of a shift to organic production methods. The Nature Care Club has completed many successful projects since the 1980s: the construction of a full-service industrial capacity rice mill, an herbal medicine store, an organic market and an education program for elementary school students. The development efforts of this group have received ongoing support from Green Net/Earth Net. Elder Mun described the structure of their organization: The Rice Mill has three connections: producer, manager and exporter. Producers provide support through the Learning Center which utilizes the following inputs: knowledge, technology, leadership, local wisdom and investment. Producer members are made up of other smaller rice mills and farmers. Learning Centers are made up of other organizations which farm organically and exchange knowledge. The rice mill has a strategy to expand organic farming, they have meetings with members monthly, and they spread the word. In 2009, the Nature Care Club Rice Mill maintained a membership of over 1000 members, with 250 organic farmers throughout the area. In the early days, the Mill received help from an onsite Green Net officer, but more recently they hired their own liaison.

4.4 The Dharma Garden Temple Group

Dharma Garden Temple in Patiew District, exemplifies the Thai alternative agriculture movement’s hybrid format, serving both as a spiritual center and organic training hub. Elder Wit was one of the first members of the group and describes their origins: Organic farming started at the Dharma Garden Temple in 1972 by Monk Sati, and he expanded this knowledge to the villagers, for these actions he was named the Nature Abbot. I got to know the Nature Abbot intimately since I was very young because he is from a district nearby Patiew. When I got ordained, I ordained with the Abbot, and I got a deep sense of his thoughts.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 169

The temple community encompasses rice lands, fruit trees, vegetable gardens, a mill, a fertilizer center, a learning center, a cooperative store, a restaurant (with free vegan food), a radio station and a seed bank. Santi Asoke, Agri-Nature Foundation and Green Net provided guidance to the temple association at various stages of its development. Temple staff point to the community radio station 91.5 MHz as the cornerstone of their net- working activities. Their social welfare fund has over a thousand registered members, despite this broad base, only 20% have completed the transition to organic agriculture. The Dharma Garden Temple developed an alternative form of organic certification called Khunatham (moral) Rice. According to Elder Wit, the Khunatham certification program is carried out by fellow members who monitor each other to ensure that guidelines are followed properly. The core mandate is that members follow the Five Precepts of Buddhism as a guide to farming and daily life. As part of the certification process, farmers should not “kill living beings” as laid out in the First Precept and avoid the individual sins of Precepts Two to Four. Elder Sit, a farmer-leader at the Nong Yoh Rice Mill, a principal affiliate of the Dharma Garden Temple explained the benefits of Khunatham (moral) farming methods: Khunatham is the thing that one can implement in their daily life and it does not have negative effects on others in the community, the environment, and finally upon visible and invisible matter. Before I joined Khunatham I lived in the village, but now I moved to live in my rice field. From the beginning, we felt alone, and then we realized that we were living in symbiosis with the environment, as we grow plants and trees for air and also animals, we raise the cow, the cow eats our plants, and the cow manure is good for the plants and the soil. When the soil is healthy, it helps to manufacture my products. To sustain Khunatham farming, members generated their own organic fertilizer. As part of the Temple’s extension work, they have formed a sub- group on-site that manufactures fertilizer for the temple rice paddies, for sale to members and collective workers. Both members and non-members labor in the collective; compensation is monetary or used as a credit on fertilizer purchases. The members of the collective freely disseminate fertilizer recipes, and members reported that they sell it at no profit.

5. Organic-Fertilizer: A Medium of Socio-Ecological Relations

To show the bearing of socio-ecological forces upon farmers’ decisions to adopt organic fertilizers, I returned to Khamkungaew, Patiew, and Kudchum

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access 170 A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178

District with the aid of my new research tools (e.g. a farmer-profile, the board game, and question cards). My co-researcher6 and I interviewed seventy-five organic farmers of which the majority were female7 (72%), married (82%), over the age of forty (85%), Buddhist (100%), owned at least a portion of their farm land (80%) and managed farms with an average area of twenty-two rai.8 Of seventy-five participants, 91% engaged in mixed agriculture (a combination of rice, fruit, vegetables, and commodity-crops). In the sections that follow I show the ways organic farmers worked together and with the natural environment to sustain their farms.

5.1 Environmental Values

With the aim to better understand organic farmers’ perceptions of the natural world, I asked participants to define dhammachart (nature) and singwetlom (environment) through both semi-structured and multiple-choice questions. Narrative responses uncovered organic farmers’ broader understanding of nature: The difference between nature and the environment is that nature is something you can touch and it happens on its’ own, the environment is both nature and other things that humans build” (Little Bia). Nature is real, touchable and doesn’t need technology. Nature is for example, the air and the wind, it makes you feel refreshed. In town you need air- conditioning to feel refreshed, and without electricity it is useless (Mother Porn). Although, the statements above reflect a clear differentiation between nature and the environment, in a related multiple choice question understandings varied widely (see Table 1, below). Only 24% of informants chose the selection, “humans are a part of nature” and 37% selected the response I had assigned as the equivalent of the Thai word for environment, “everything around us (trees, soil, houses, cars etc.).” Despite conflicting understandings of the natural world, many participants expressed themselves in a vernacular infused with religious under- tones. As one participant stated, “I use the Buddhist teachings which refer

6) I was assisted with interviews by my Thai wife, Ubol Kaufman (MSc. Environmental Education). 7) Although the majority of participants were female, they were representative of a household. 8) One rai is the equivalent of 1600 square meters.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 171

Table 1. Nature versus Environment Which statement best describes dhammachart? % (N) 1) To not harm each other and reduce world suffering 34.67 26 2) Humans are a part of nature 24.00 18 3) Humans and nature are two different subjects 4.00 3 4) Everything around us (trees, soil, houses, cars etc.) 37.33 28 Total 100.00 75 to helping each other, such as self-reliance and a symbiotic type of living.” The majority of organic farmers in this study justified the use of organic fertilizers with references to the First Precept of the Pali Canon. When asked why they selected organic fertilizers, 56% of participants selected “to support soil life” over responses that reflected the costs and hazards of chemicals fertilizers.

5.2 Organic Fertilizer Practices

Findings show that organic farmers employed a combination of fertilizer methods prior to planting rice: raising animals for manure/home-made fertilizers, cooperative-made fertilizers, propagation of effective microorganisms (EM), and cultivation of green manure (Table 2):

Table 2. Profile of Organic Fertilizer Methods (n = 75) Combination of Fertilizer Methods in Use (N = 75)¹ % (N) Manure/ Homemade Fertilizer 90.7 68 Coop. Manufactured Fertilizer 50.7 38 Green Manure 66.7 50 Effective Microorganisms 100 75 ¹Note that 75 participants reported use of more than one type of fertilizer method.

These methods were applied at different times, based on availability of resources, and soil quality. As participants reported a wide variation in the soil quality of their rice paddies, I found that there was no standard quan- tity of fertilizer, ratio of methods, or recipe for good soil. The amount and type of fertilizers used were based on the “tacit” knowledge of each farmer. Nonetheless, a significant number (91%) of organic farmers applied

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access 172 A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178

Figure 3. Distribution of farmer membership in fertilizer collectives some form of animal manure from domesticated animals or purchased manure to make their own fertilizer, 51% used fertilizer manufactured in a collective. Green manure (i.e. nitrogen fixing plants) was used by 67% of farmers. Effective Microorganisms (EM) were cultivated at home by all of the participants (100%). Participants also reported that they augmented soil fertility with rice straw, leaves and other foliage.

5.3 Organic Fertilizer Collectives

Most participants (65%) reported they joined sub-collectives to access organic fertilizer (Figure 3). When queried about the reasons behind a decision to join a fertilizer collective, participants referred to the Pali-Sanskrit expression kalayanamitta meaning “good friendship; good company; association with the virtuous” (Payutto 1998: 368). In a related query, 68% of participants selected the importance of kalayanamitta over choices related to cost, labor, access to machinery and availability of fertilizer in a collective. However, participants also reported that collectives were an access point to fertilizer ingredients, capital resources, and the manpower neces- sary to acquire and operate technology (e.g. machinery and warehouses). Members of the Dharma Garden Temple collective used the Santi Asoke groups’ fertilizer as a special additive to their final product. Participants also stated that organic substances such as dolomite (limestone) and

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 173 molasses were donated to farmer groups by the Thai Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Despite the benefits of joining a fertilizer collective, only 35% of the participants in this study were members of a fertilizer collective (Figure 3). While half of the participants that did not join a collective responded that travel distance was the primary impediment to joining a collective. However, all of the organic farmers in this study occasionally visited fertilizer collectives to exchange knowledge with their colleagues. Another advantage of collective membership was that localized production of organic fertilizers helped to reduce debt, as reported by 63% of participants. In addition to fertilizer collectives, farmers created social networks around a variety of locations: rice mills, local temples, salas (a shaded public meeting area). Rice mills were an important meeting point, and at the Dharma Garden Temple there was a fertilizer collective in the same com- pound. In the case of Heaven’s Farmers’ Group and the Nature Care Club participants were observed engaging in rice processing and religious activities with predominantly chemi (non-organic) rice farmers. At the Dharma Garden Temple members also convened with chemi farmers to share knowledge, make merit, and socialize over vegetarian meals. At Nong Yoh Rice Mill, the members produced their own fertilizer, but were reportedly linked to the Dharma Garden Temple through similar marketing channels. Despite, a longer history of solidarity, participants revealed that social relations at the Nature Care Club were in decline due to ideological conflicts and a membership base from distant villages. Significant to the findings herein, I attended a meeting of farmers who were in the process of forming their own fertilizer collective in the same vicinity of the Nature Care Club.

6. Discussion

Through the continuous act of nurturing the soil, organic farmers developed a physical relationship with nature that led to a shift in their environmental values. In contrast to conventional farmers, organic rice farmers put forth a cyclical effort throughout the year to “feed the soil.” They raised animals, propagated microorganisms and grew legumes to sustain soil fertility. Participants perceived bountiful rice and good health as outcome of an intimate relationship with the biodiversity on their farms. By virtue of their embeddedness in the land, organic farmers underwent a shift in their relationship with nature (Curry 2000; Pretty 2002). In the words of Elder Nin,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access 174 A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178

“I see nature all over my farm, green, animals, and it brings me peace and happiness.” This newly formed perception of the environment and a mutu- ally-supportive belief system gave way to the development of a “collective eco-consciousness” (Panya and Sirisai 2003). The Five Precepts served as the foundation of participants’ belief systems and guided their actions towards nature. Participants substantiated organic agriculture as a component of the “right livelihood” (Payutto 1999; Sivaraksa, 1999). Through the act of organic farming, participants came to see themselves as part of an extended community of life. The farmers in these communities called upon a new interpretation of the First Precept to justify organic fertilizer methods (Falvey 2000). The worldview of Yasothon’s organic farmers reflects a deep connection to nature and a profound understanding of their place in the natural world (Kabilsingh 2010). The actions of Dharma Garden Temple members reflected a shared moral code that influenced their decisions about agriculture methods, the diversity of crops grown, and their relationships with other people. As participants worked together to sustain their farms, they established “relations of trust” and build strong collectives to serve their needs (Jarocz 2000; Sage 2003). Members of these collectives demonstrated a willingness to share knowledge with fellow farmers and outsiders in a spirit of kalayanamitta (Prayukvong 2005). Despite the importance of kalayanamitta to the organic farmers in this study, they also depended on access to capital, strong leadership, local experts, labor and technical resources. My findings suggest that the fertilizer collectives in this study emerged out of a moral and socio-economic obligation to help each other. The methods employed in this research were constructed from the ground up through several rounds of exploratory interviews. Advice from outside experts ensured questions were culturally suitable and terminology was understandable to participants. However, structured questions that sought after abstract meanings of nature proved challenging for some participants. As I attempted to draw out farmer connections to nature within the context of my Western-oriented constructivist mental model, it proved more reliable to triangulate structured responses with surveys of farming methods, in depth interviews, and observations.

7. Conclusion

Although the farmers in this study justified the use of organic methods with Buddhist doctrine, results also show that the decision to “go organic”

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 175 is the product of social relations of proximity and economic concerns. Chemical-assisted farmers throughout Thailand perform rituals to call upon the rain, appease the rice gods and plead for a bountiful harvest (Falvey 2000; Sirisai 1994). In spite of these customs, the majority of Thai farmers have failed to link Buddhist teachings with a reduction in agro- chemical use. Promises of quick financial returns through the latest in agro- technology have captured the hearts of Thai farmers with aspirations of sending their children to university and acquiring modern amenities. Health is another important concern of the farmers in Yasothon province and more data is needed to ascertain the long-term effects of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides on both consumers and farmers. Furthermore, organic farmers in Yasothon are predominately in their 40’s and 50’s, leaving a bleak future for the alternative agriculture movement. I recommend that future studies of the Northeastern region should look into the obstacles that prevent conventional Thai farmers from adopting organic methods. Findings in these localities point to the advantages of membership in small-scale organic collectives. The results of this research point to the need for capacity-building projects aimed at the creation of small-scale local organic fertilizer collectives. As farmers come together they will learn to tackle their own problems and sustain the momentum of the collective with the help of “good friends.” In spite of these recommendations, this research shows that sustaining organic agriculture depends upon farmers’ predisposition to a collective ecological worldview.

References

Agri-nature Foundation, Center for Natural Agriculture, Mapuang. 2007. Development of Natural Agriculture for the Sufficiency Economy System. Bangkok: The Committee Publishing (in Thai). Baker, C. et al. 2007. Thailand Human Development Report, “Sufficiency Economy” and Human Development in Thailand. Bangkok: United Nations Development Programme. Becchetti, L. et al. 2010. Market Access, Organic Farming and Productivity: The Determinants of Creation Of Economic Value on a Sample of Fair Trade Affiliated Thai Farmers. University of Rome (unpublished). Boonman, C. and Anpim, U. 2006. The Possibility of Hommali Rice Production in Organic Farming Systems as an Alternative Farming Career with Poverty Alleviation Potential for Lower-Northeastern Farmers: A Case Study of Yasothon Province. Bangkok: Thai Research Foundation (in Thai). Callon, M. 1986. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fisherman of St. Brieuc Bay” in John Law (eds) Power Action and Belief A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 196-233.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access 176 A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178

Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage Publications. Cresswell, J. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. Sage Publications, London. Curry, J. 2000. “Community Worldview and Rural Systems: A Study of Five Communities in Iowa.” Annals of American Geography 90.4: 693-712. Curry, J and Groenendyk, K. 2006. “Nature Seen Through the Eyes of Faith: Understandings among Seminarians.” Worldviews: Environment, Culture, Religion 10.3: 326-354. Drinkwater, L. et. al.1995. “Fundamental Differences between Conventional and Organic Tomato Agroecosystems in California.” Ecological Applications 5.4: 1098-1112. Dunlap, R. and Van Liere, K. 1978. “The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’: A proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results.” Journal of Environmental Education 9: 10-19. Essen, Juliana. 2005. “Right Development” in The Santi Asoke Buddhist Reform Movement of Thailand, Maryland: Lexington Books. Falvey, L. 2000. Thai Agriculture: Golden Cradle of Millennia. Bangkok: Kasetsart Press. Feagan, R. 2007. The Place of Food: Mapping Out the Local Food Systems. Progress in Human Geography 31: 23-42. Feagan, R. and Henderson, A. 2008. “Devon Acres CSA: Local Struggles in a Global Food System.” Agriculture and Human Values, 26: 203-217. Franklin, A. 2002. Nature and Social Theory. London: Sage Publications. Fukuoka, M. 1978. One Straw Revolution: The Natural Way of Farming. Pennsylvania: Rodale Press. Glaser, B. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity. University of California San Francisco: Sociology Press. Goodman, D. 1999. “Agro-Food Studies in the ‘Age of Ecology’: Nature, Corporeality, Biopolitics.” Sociologia Ruralis 39.1: 17-38. Goodman, D. 2004. “Rural Europe Redux? Reflections on Alternative Agro-Food Networks and Paradigm Change.” Sociologia Ruralis 44.1: 1-16. Goldsmith, E. 1996. The Way. Devon: Themis Books. Green Net and Earth Net Foundation. 2008. Available at: http://www.greennet.or.th/content/ main%20framesets/g_history.html. Henning, D. 2002. A Manual for Buddhism and Deep Ecology. Bangkok: The World Buddhist University. Hinrichs C. 2003. “The Practice and Politics of Food System Localization.” Journal of Rural Studies 19: 33–45. International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements 2010. Available at: http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/definitions/doa/index.html. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture 2010. Available at: http://www.iita.org/cms/ details/cowpea_project_details.aspx?zoneid = 63&articleid = 269. Jarocz, L. 2000. “Understanding Agri-Food Networks As Social Relations.” Agriculture and Human Values 17: 279-283. Kabilsingh, C. 1990. “Early Buddhist Views on Nature” in A. Badiner (ed) Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Berkeley: Parallax Press. ______2010. Buddhism and Conservation, Thai Tibet Center: Bangkok. Khantipalo, B. 1970. Buddhism Explained: An Introduction to the Teachings of the Lord Buddha. Bangkok: Thai Watana Panich Press. Kiatsuphimol, J. 2002. “A Strategy for Green Net to Promote and Organic Farming Product in Bangkok, Thailand, Master Thesis.” Manila: Asian Institute of Management. Kuhnlein, H., et al. 2006. “Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems For Health: Finding Interventions That Work.” Public Health Nutrition 9: 1013-1019. Latour, B. 1986. “The Powers of Association” in John Law (ed) Power Action and Belief A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 196-233.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178 177

______. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Lovelace, G. et al. 1998. Rapid Rural Appraisal in Northeast Thailand. Khon Khen: KKU-FORD Rural Systems Research Project. McMichael, P. 2000. “The Power Of Food.” Agriculture and Human Values 17: 21-33. Mills, J. and Bonner, A. 2006. “The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5.1. Available at: http:www.ualberta .ca/~ iiqm/backissues/5_1/pdf/mills.pdf. Mock, J. 2000. Thai Views of Wellness, Sabaay, Smoking, and Buddhist Health Promotion PhD Dissertation. University of California, San Francisco. Morgan, K. et al. 2008. Worlds of Food: Place, Power and Provenance in the Food Chain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Murdoch, J. 1997a. “Inhuman/Non-Human/Human: Actor-Network Theory and the Prospects for a Nondualistic and Symmetrical Perspective on Nature and Society.” Environment and Planning D. Society and Space 15: 731-756. ______. 1997b. “Towards a Geography of Heterogeneous Associations.” Progress in Human Geography 21.3: 321-337. ______. 2000. “Networks―A New Paradigm of Rural Development?” Journal of Rural Studies 16: 407-419. Od-ompanich, W. et al. 2007. “Organic Rice Marketing, Organic and Inorganic Rice Production.” www.wiso.boku.ac.at/fileadmin/_/…/2007_Lassmann_DA.pdf (accessed on August 21, 2008). Panya, O. 1995. “Change from Within: Adaptation and Self-Determination in Three Rural Communities of North East Thailand 1900-1992.” Unpublished PhD Thesis, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand. ______. 2003. “‘Community-First’ Agriculture: A Search for Thailand’s Post-Crisis Sustainable Transformation” in Robert Doyle (ed) Strengthening Community Competence for Social Development. Thailand: Asia-Pacific Perspectives, Naresuan University, pp. 219-235. Panya, O. and Sirisai, S. 2003. “Environmental Consciousness in Thailand: Contesting Maps of Eco-Conscious Minds.” Southeast Asian Studies 41: 59-75. Payutto, P.A. 1998. A Dictionary of Buddhist Terms. Bangkok: Mahachulalongkorn University. Prayukvong, W. 2005. “A Buddhist Economic Approach to the Development of Community Enterprises: A Case Study of Southern Thailand.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 29: 1171-1185. Pretty, J. 2003. Agri-Culture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature. London: Earthscan Publications. Rigg, J. 1997. Southeast Asia: The Human Landscape of Modernization and Development. London: Routledge. Roitner-Schobesberger, B. et al. 2008. “Consumer Perceptions of Organic Foods in Bangkok.” Food Policy 33: 112–121. Samerpak, P. 2006. A Strategy for Sustainable Agriculture System by Rak Thammachat Club in Kudchum District, Yasothon Province, Thailand. Master Thesis Manila: Asian Institute of Management. Satha-Anand, S. 1990. “Religious Movements in Contemporary Thailand: Buddhist Struggles for Modern Relevance.” Asian Survey 30.4: 395-408. Sathirathai, S. and Piboolsravut, P. 2004. Sufficiency Economy and a Healthy Community, Presentation: 3rd IUCN World Conservation Congress, Bangkok, November 17, 2004. Available at: www.sufficiencyeconomy.org. Schumacher, F. (1973). Small is Beautiful. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. Semaan, S., Lauby, J. and Liebman, J. 2002. “Street and Network Sampling in Evaluation Studies of HIV Risk-Reduction Interventions.” AIDS Review 4:213-223.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access 178 A.H. Kaufman / Worldviews 16 (2012) 154–178

Setboonsarng, S. and Gilman, J. 1999. “Alternative Agriculture in Thailand and Japan.” Asian Institute of Technology. Available at: www.solutions-site.org/cat11_sol85.htm. Shiva, V. 1991. The Violence of the Green Revolution. Penang: Third World Network. ______. 2007. Manifestos on the Future of Food and Seed. Cambridge: South End Press. Sirisai, S. 1990. “Rice Goddess and Rice Farming in Thailand” U. Kyaw Than and P. Ratanakul (eds) Development, Modernization and Tradition in South East Asia. Salaya: Mahidol University Press, pp 163-177. Sivaraksa, S. 1990. Seeds of Peace. Bangkok: Sathirakoses-Nagapradipa Foundation. ______. 1990b. “True Development” Badiner, A. (ed) Dharma Gaia. Berkeley: Parallax Press, pp 169-177. ______. 1996. Global Healing. Bangkok: Sathirakoses-Nagapradipa Foundation. Sonino, R. 2007. “Embeddedness in Action: Saffron and the Making of the Local in Southern Tuscany.” Agriculture and Human Values 24: 61-74. Tanabe, S. 1994. Ecology and Practical Technology: Peasant Farming Systems in Thailand. Bangkok: White Lotus. Thongtawee, C. 2006. “Attractors in the Paradigm Shift Process Towards Sustainable Agriculture of Farmers.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Nakhon Pathom: Mahidol University. Whittle, A. & Spicer, A. 2008. “Is Actor Network Theory Critique?” Organization Studies 29.4: 611-629. Winter, M. 2003. “Embeddedness, The New Food Economy and Defensive Localism.” Journal of Rural Studies 19: 23-32. ______. 2003. “Geographies of Food: Agro-Food Geographies-Making Reconnections.” Progress in Human Geography 27: 505-513.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 08:36:22AM via free access