Baseline and Monitoring Survey Report: Bangkok, Thailand

Transcription

1 INCO: International Scientific Cooperation Projects (998-22) Contract number: ICA4-CT-22-2 Baseline and Monitoring Survey Report: Bangkok, Thailand By Ruangvit Yoonpundh Wanwisa Saelee Varunthat Dulyapurk Chumpon Srithong Tanason Rakdontee Keywords: Baseline, monitoring survey, peri-urban aquatic food production systems, Southeast Asia, Bangkok, Thailand Project homepage:

2 TITLE : PRODUCTION IN AQUATIC PERI-URBAN SYSTEMS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA COORDINATOR University of Stirling Institute of Aquaculture FK9 4LA Stirling Scotland DR. David Little E-M : d.c.little@stir.ac.uk TEL : FAX : CONTRACTORS Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University Department of Veterinary Microbiology Bulowsvej 7 87 Frederiksberg C Denmark National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology Yersin Street 4 Hanoi Vietnam University of Durham Department of Geography South Road DH 3LE Durham England Research Institute for Aquaculture No. Binh Bang Tu Son, Bac Ninh Vietnam University of Agriculture and Forestry Faculty of Fisheries Thu Duc Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam Royal University of Agriculture Faculty of Fisheries Chamcar Daung, Dangkor District PO Box 2696 Phnom Penh Kingdom of Cambodia Kasetsart University Department of Aquaculture, Faculty of Fisheries Bangkhen, Chatujak 9 Bangkok Thailand DR. Anders Dalsgaard E-M : ad@kvl.dk TEL : FAX : PROF. Phung Dac Cam E-M : cam@ftp.vn TEL : FAX : DR. Jonathan Rigg E-M : J.D.Rigg@durham.ac.uk TEL : FAX : DR. Pham Anh Tuan E-M : patuan@fpt.vn TEL : FAX : DR. Le Thanh Hung E-M : lthungts@hcm.vnn.vn TEL : FAX : MR. Chhouk Borin E-M : @mobitel.com.kh TEL : FAX : DR. Ruangvit Yoonpundh E-M : ffisrvy@ku.ac.th TEL : FAX :

3 Table of Contents Table of contents 3 List of tables 5 List of figures 6 List of plates 7 List of appendices 8 Acronyms and Abbreviations 9 Preface Chapter I: Introduction. Background 3.2 Objectives 4 Chapter II: Survey design and methodology 2. Description in chronological order of methodology use for the 5 PAPUSSA project research process 2.2 Criteria of choosing households and associated communities Workshop for the fmulation of questionnaires and initial database 6 training and formulation 2.4 Translation of questionnaires, piloting questionnaires, feedback 6 and finalized questionnaires 2.5 First BL and Mon Survey Questionnaire data procession 2.6. Questionnaires data checking and data entry by encoding Questionnaires data cleaning Data analysis Report writing 8 Chapter III: Results and discussions 3. Household information Village no.6, Lumsai sub-district, Lumlukka district, 2 Pathumthani provinc 3..2 Village no.7, Nongpraongai sub-district, Sainoi district, 2 Nonthaburi province 3..3 Village no.7, Suanprikthai sub-district, Muang district, 2 Pathumthani province 3.2 Result of household information from baseline and monitoring 22 survey during (Apr 24-Jan 25) 3.2. Number of household surveyed, people covered through 22 household survey, and proportion depending on AFPS Gender of AFPS household Average age of household members 25 3

4 3.2.4 Education and ethnicity/ religion Thai education system and the organizational structure Education of aquatic food production system of household members The ethnicity of aquatic food production system household members surveyed The religion of aquatic food production system of households surveyed Migration status of AFPS HH member Housing and infrastructure issues Household construction Household assets Land ownership Household accessibility Domestic water supply for general HH use Source of electricity Economic status of household surveyed Gross income activities Credit Household food consumption Household health status HH report of health problems Treatment of health problems 3.2. Future trends of AFPS in the next 5 years Perception of future change of AFPS Future threats for AFPS HH 3.3 Production Systems Type of production systems including wastewater/non waste 47 water fish and aquatic plants Production holding facilities and water source Production land use status Land area and the ownership status of AFPS household by production systems Production land acquisition Production land title status Production of AFPS activities and the marketing system Annual production of AFPS systems Gross income and yield of AFPS production systems Marketing systems Labour of AFPS systems of household surveyed Number of working days per month by production systems Number of hired in labourers by production systems Comparison of average household labour Feed and input of AFPS production systems Seasonality of fish and aquatic plant inputs by production systems Type of fish feed by season 3.4 Institutional Issues and Policy Household members involvement in organizations 66 4

5 3.4.2 Household surveyed involvement with government training 64 and access to information on AFPS Government policies affecting AFPS household surveyed 65 Chapter IV: Conclusions: Main Findings of the Report 68 References 69 Appendices Appendix : Map of the Chao Phraya Delta, including the study area 7 in peri- urban Bangkok city. Appendix 2: Case Study: Household Information of Teemu Jaewae a water mimosa grower in Suan Prik Thai village peri-urban Bangkok. 5

6 List of Tables Table 3. Number of household surveys and average household size by village 22 Table3.2 Gender of household head by production system and village 24 Table 3.3 Gender of AFPS (Aquatic Food Production System) HH members by village 25 Table3.4 Average age of AFPS HH members 26 Table 3.5 Level of education for all aquatic food production systems 28 of household members Table 3.6 Religion of AFPS HH members surveyed 3 Table 3.7 Reason of migration of HH head 32 Table 3.8 Annual migrations of AFPS HH members during the monitoring 32 surveys Table 3.9 Land ownership of AFPS HHs 35 Table 3. Land ownership of AFPS HHs surveyed by ownership or rental 35 of the land Table 3. Domestic water supply of HHs surveyed by the village 36 Table3.2 Household gross income involved in AFPS - HHs surveyed by season and 38 production system Table 3.3 Credit of AFPS HHs 39 Table 3.4 Health problems by production systems and in different survey period 43 Table 3.5 Treatment of health problems in the AFPS for HH members 44 with a health problem Table 3.6 Future of AFPS activities in the next 5 years 45 Table 3.7 Perception of threat to AFPS in the future 46 Table 3.8 Production experience of AFPS HHs 48 Table 3.9 Production Holding Facilities and water sources 48 Table 3.2 Annual production levels of AFPS systems 52 Table 3.2 Annual income of AFPS occupations by production systems 53 Table 3.22 Average price of AFPS production products by season 54 Table 3.23 Average number of labourers hired in AFPS activities 57 Table 3.24 Outside labour cost (24) 59 Table 3.25 Input of AFPS production system by season 6 Table 3.26 HHs involvement in organization by production systems 62 Table 3.27 Types of the government support needed by AFPS farmers 64 6

7 List of Figures Figure Map of Peri Urban Bangkok with provinces and selected districts; 2 Lumlukka, Klongluang and Bangbuathong Districts Figure 2. PAPUSSA project research process during 3 years period 5 Figure 2.2 Surveying time for baseline and monitoring survey in Bangkok 7 Figure 3. Map of the area production systems at Nonthaburi and 9 Pathumthani Province Figure 3.2 Number of households surveyed, people covered through household 22 survey, and proportion depending on aquatic food production system Figure 3.3 Number of AFPS and non AFPS households surveyed classified by 23 production systems Figure 3.4 The gender of HH members by production 24 systems and village Figure 3.5 Average age of AFPS HH members by gender and village 25 Figure 3.6 Education comparisons between student (age below 5Yrs) and 27 AFPS HH members Figure 3.7 Education levels of HH members who are involved in AFPS 29 activities within working age (above 5 yrs) Figure 3.8 Migration status of AFPS HH members surveyed by production system 3 Figure 3.9 AFPS HH assets by village 34 Figure 3. Electricity sources for HHs surveyed by village 37 Figure3. Credit sources of AFPS HHs who were taking credit 4 Figure 3.2 Health problems of AFPS HH members by gender 42 Figure 3.3 Number of Households surveyed 47 Figure 3.4 Production land area and ownership status of AFPS HH surveyed 49 Figure 3.5 Comparisons of land status between fish and AFPS systems 5 Figure 3.6 Land acquisition method of HHs surveyed by village 5 Figure 3.7 Land title status of HHs surveyed 5 Figure 3.8 Yield of AFPS production by production systems 53 Figure 3.9 Marketing sites of AFPS production systems 55 Figure 3.2 Types of Buyer for AFPS production systems 56 Figure 3.2 Average total working days/ per month by production activity 56 Figure 3.22 Comparison between HH labour and outside labour by production 58 systems Figure 3.23 Types of feed input for fish culture 6 Figure3.24 Institutional membership of HH members by village 63 Figure 3.25 Number of HH member involved in government training 63 at Nongpraobgai village 7

8 List of Plates Plate 3. The activities of Lamsai villagers most are mostly Hybrid catfish 2 farming or catfish seed production Plate 3.2 Nongpraongai village is the main production area of morning 2 glory for central Thailand Plate 3.3 Suanprikthai villagers who live and work 2 along the river Plate 3.4 Housing of HHs surveyed by village 33 Plate 3.5 Community Stand pipe providing tap water to villagers 37 Plate 3.6 Present day AFPS HH food consumption e for Peri-urban 4 villagers Plate 3.7 Irrigation canals in Thailand are used for several purposes 49 Plate 3.8 Types of fish feed for AFPS HHs by production systems 6 Lists of Appendices Appendix : Map of the Chao Phraya Delta, including the study area 57 in peri-urban Bangkok city. Appendix 2: Case Study: Household Information of Teemu Jaewae a water mimosa grower in Suan Prik Thai village peri-urban Bangkok. 7 8

9 Acronyms and Abbreviations AIT AFPS HH s KU klong KVL NIHE PAPUSSA PAFPS PCA PU PUAFPS RIA RUA SOS UAF UD UOS Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok Aquatic Food Production System Households Kasetsart University, Bangkok Thai name for canal Kgl. Veterinær-og Landbohøjskole, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark National Institute of Health and Epidemiology, Hanoi Production in Aquatic Peri-Urban Systems in outheast Asia Peri-urban aquatic food production systems participatory community assessment peri-urban peri-urban aquatic food production system Research Institute for Aquaculture No., Hanoi Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh State of the System University of Agriculture and Forestry, Ho Chi Minh City University of Durham, UK University of Stirling, UK 9

10 Preface Production in Aquatic Peri-Urban Systems in Southeast Asia (PAPUSSA) is a three and a half years project (January 23 - June 26) funded by the European Commission. It has been jointly conducted by Kasetsart University (KU) - Bangkok, Thailand, the Research Institute for Aquaculture No. (RIA-) Hanoi, Vietnam, the Royal University of Agriculture (RUA) - Phnom Penh, Cambodia, the University of Agriculture and Forestry (UAF) Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, with support and facilitation from the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) Bangkok, Thailand, in coordination with project partners from The University of Stirling - UK, the University of Durham - UK, the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University (KVL) - Denmark and The National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology (NIHE) Hanoi, Vietnam. Marketing and Institutional Surveys were conducted from May to September 23, and Participatory Community Appraisals (PCAs) from October to November 23. Survey respondents consisted of 67 villagers for the PCA s in 4 communities, 665 persons for the market survey (5 wholesalers, 365 retailers and 25 consumers). Stakeholder-specific and semi-structured questionnaires were used. Data from surveys was processed, analysed and presented in a State-of-the System (SoS) Workshop which was organized by KU and AIT in December 23. This workshop was attended by 6 farmers, 4 marketing actors, 6 local officers and 7 policy-makers (SOS report Bangkok). In December 23, all of the project partners met for a Progress and Planning meeting in Hanoi, with the aim of the meeting to review all the work that had been completed in the first year and then prepare a work plan for 24. In January 24, based on the findings from the first years work, the 4 Asian city partners made criteria to choose indicative communities, and then households within to be the participants for the Baseline and Monitoring survey. For Bangkok, the criteria used for selecting communities were the locations of the main sources of aquatic production (both fish and aquatic plants) in Bangkok and surrounding areas. The peri- urban communities selected to be in the Bangkok survey sites were: () Village no.6, Lumsai Sub-district, Lumlukka district, Pathumthani province. (2) Village no.7, Nongprongai sub-district, Sainoi district, Nonthaburi province. (3) Village no.7, Suanprikthai sub-district, Muang district, Pathumthani province. In February 24, AIT was the host of a 5 day workshop in which the formulation of questionnaires and initial Access database training and formulation was carried out. This process was carried out jointly between all 4 city partners with the aim of producing 2 standardized survey questionnaires a Baseline and a Monitoring Survey questionnaire. These questionnaires could then be used in each of the 4 cities in order to produce comparable information and thus datasets for analysis. The questionnaires were then translated into national languages and then piloted in the field in order to rectify any

11 problems or shortcomings in their design. The finalized questionnaires were produced in May-24. The initial Baseline survey was conducted in Thailand from May to June 24 by Kasetsart University. The KU team consisted of 3 staff; each staff member spent at least 3 minutes for each baseline questionnaire interview. The Monitoring surveys, 2, 3 were conducted from June 24 to January 25 as shown in the methodology chapter. The final monitoring survey was finished by January 25 with data entry, data cleaning, and data analysis carried out from January through to December 25. A further 5 day training workshop for Access database analysis was held in Siem Reap, Cambodia in July 25, where further guidelines, worked examples and the format for the report writing were discussed. The findings from this analysis were written up in the form of this report. Figure Map of Peri Urban Bangkok with provinces and selected districts; Lumlukka, Klongluang and Bangbuathong Districts THE MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS REPORT ARE SUMMARISED FROM PAGE 64. THERE IS ALSO A SHORT CASE STUDY OF ONE OF THE HOUSEHOLDS INTERVIEWED IN APPENDIX 2 ON PAGE 69.

12 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION. Background Urbanization in Thailand is occurring most rapidly, with Bangkok and central Thailand attracting more and more of the still predominantly rural population. Thailand has a population of 62,376,784 million (Department of Provincial Administration, 25). The population density of people living in urban and peri-urban areas is quite dramatically higher than compared to outside Bangkok and municipal Bangkok. The population of Bangkok in year 24 (Department of Provincial Administration, 25) was recorded as being registered at around 5 million people with a further 5 million more living in the six surrounding provinces consisting of; () Chachoengsao (2) Nakornpathom, (3) Nonthaburi, (4) Pathumthani, (5) Samutprakarn, (6) Samutsakorn. However it is estimated that at least one million people, possibly many more, who migrated to work in and around Bangkok are living there without any official registration documents. This very rapid growth of Bangkok has many impacts on the neighbouring provinces, at diverse levels; population density, economic activities, industrialization, transportation, use of natural resources; land, water etc. As a consequence, Bangkok agriculture in periurban areas such as aquaculture of fish and shrimp, orchards and land vegetables has rapidly changed in recent years due to contrasting features regarding population, land use & water control, which will entail different interpretations of the land system evolutions (Ku and Orstrom 996) Peri urban agriculture plays an important role supplying food to the capital city and its growing population. In these surveys, we aimed to discover and uncover at a household level the workings and livelihoods of people involved in aquatic production systems in Bangkok including other activities related to wetlands. Experience from the first year of the project showed that the peri-urban aquatic plant systems were located in particularly suitable areas where we identified opportunities and advantages for the producers including: (a) easy access to consumer markets; (b) availability of, packaging, storage and transportation in order to maintain the quality and freshness of the produce; (c) potential agricultural jobs and incomes; as well as constraints such as increased competition for land, water, energy and labour. In regards to development and urbanization increasing over the last decades in Bangkok and surrounding provinces, land use changed from agricultural land to residential or industrial areas. These baseline and monitoring surveys were conducted from May 24- January 25 with the aim of monitoring the production and livelihood systems in periurban Bangkok as we selected 2 households who were involved either directly or indirectly in aquatic food production systems (AFPS) to be those indicative of the changes in aquatic systems in peri-urban Bangkok. 2

13 The 22 chosen households consisted of () 52 Households from Village no.6, Lumsai Sub-district, Lumlukka district, Pathumthani province. The main occupation of this community is monoculture of hybrid catfish; (2) Households from Village no.7, Nongprongai sub-district, Sainoi district, Nonthaburi province. Occupations in this community include rice field, vegetable production and fish culture; (3) 5 Households from Village no.7, Suanprikthai sub-district, Muang district, Pathumthani province. Most of the villagers are growing water mimosa in the canal and the remaining practicing integrated fish culture..2 Objectives The general objective of the project survey was to provide a detailed, holistic situation analysis of peri-urban aquatic food production in Bangkok area at a household level. The specific objectives for Bangkok were: (a) (b) (c) (d) To seasonally monitor the production and livelihood systems of households in peri-urban areas of Bangkok. To better understand the different aspects of the livelihoods of these 2 AFPS households in relation to production systems of peri-urban Bangkok; To study seasonal variations in these livelihoods over an annual period of AFPS communities in Bangkok; and Data analysis and report back to the stakeholders to improve and make available this knowledge base within a wider policy framework. 3

14 CHAPTER II SURVEY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 2. Description in chronological order of methodology used for the PAPUSSA Project Research process In the first year of the PAPUSSA project (23) in Bangkok, we did a preliminary study and learned about Bangkok peri-urban aquatic systems by starting to collect secondary data, and conducting a marketing and institutional analyses, while also conducting Participatory Community Appraisals (PCA s) at 4 AFPS communities. In December 23, we also invited people from the 4 main stakeholder groups included farmers from the 4 communities, local officers, marketing and the policy makers to come for a State of the System (SOS) meeting at Kasetsart University in order to validate and add to the data and information we had already collected before a decision was made on which communities would be selected for our survey. Phase WP : Situation appraisal 2 WP 2: Public health and hygiene WP 3: Systems: production and livelihoods WP 4: Social policy and Institution issues WP 8: Dissemin ation and feedback 3 WP 5: Public health and hygiene WP 6: Systems: production and livelihoods WP 7: Social policy and Institution issues Outline of 3 years project activities (23-25) Note: WP stands for working package Figure 2. PAPUSSA project research process during 3 years period 4

15 2.2 Criteria of choosing households and associated communities In December, 23, the Project Progress and Planning meeting for preparation on the project activities in 24) took place in Hanoi and it was agreed that 2 households (HHs) involved in AFPS activities would be selected in each city. However, the criteria for choosing HHs and associated communities were left to the discretion of each city team. In January 24, based on the findings from the first years work, the 4 Asian city partners made criteria and then chose indicative communities, and then households within, to be the participants for the Baseline and Monitoring survey. For Kasetsart University the criteria for selecting communities came from the main locations of sources of aquatic production (both fish and aquatic plants) in Bangkok and surrounding areas. The peri-urban communities and households selected to be our survey sites were: () 52 HHs from Village no.6, Lumsai Sub-district, Lumlukka district, Pathumthani province. (2) HHs from Village no.7, Nongprongai sub-district, Sainoi district, Nonthaburi province. (3) 5 HHs from Village no.7, Suanprikthai sub-district, Muang district, Pathumthani province. The purpose of these baseline and monitoring surveys was to collect information concerning those people and households who are currently involved in some form of Peri -urban AFPS so that the findings can be used to better inform people and policy makers of the importance of growing fish and aquatic plants within larger cities to many urban dwellers, and also on the main problems and constraints they are facing. 2.3 Workshop for the formulation of questionnaires and initial database training and formulation In February 24 AIT was the host of a 5 day workshop in which the formulation of questionnaires and initial Access database training and formulation was carried out. This process was done jointly by all 4 city partners with the aim of producing 2 standardized survey questionnaires a Baseline and a Monitoring Survey questionnaire. 2.4 Translation of questionnaires, piloting questionnaires, feedback and finalized questionnaires After the draft questionnaires were finished (Appendix and 2) and in coordination with working with all other city partners under the technical support from Stirling and Durham Universities, they were distributed to the each city team and subsequently translated into 5

16 national languages in order to improve the understanding on the questionnaires. In Thailand, piloting questionnaires respectively were conducted with families of workers who live inside Kasetsart campus and then the feedback sent back to clarify with the team. The finalized questionnaires were produced in May-24. Surveying time for baseline and monitoring surveys in Bangkok (Jan-Mar) (Apr-Sep) (Oct-Dec) Figure 2.2 Surveying time (showing number of HHs) for baseline and monitoring surveys in Bangkok 2.5 First BL and Mon Survey Baseline+Monitoring Monitoring 2 Monitoring 3 Regarding our time consuming preparation for producing both the baseline and monitoring questionnaires, the baseline and the first monitoring survey were undertaken at the same time between April June 24 as shown in Table 2.. The second monitoring survey was conducted between July and August 24, which coincided with the end of the hot season and most of the rainy season in Thailand, and the third monitoring was carried out between Dec 24 and Jan 25 which is the best time to represent the cooler temperature period in Thailand. 6

17 Questionnaire data processing 2.5. Questionnaires data checking and data entry by encoding The questionnaires data checking and data entry was done after finishing the survey by the PI of the project. This was completed by May 25. All of the questionnaires were entered in a database using the MS Access software for which a template was created previously. Three staff of KU team assisted to enter all of the data from the questionnaires into database format Questionnaire data cleaning To ensure the data was properly entered and ready for database analysis, we carried out a data check and cleaning after the staff entered every questionnaire and clarified with them some errors from data entry. This process was done in close collaboration with Stirling and Durham Universities. 2.6 Data analysis The project staff attended a 5 days training workshop on Access database analysis in Siem Reap, Cambodia in July 25 and then started data consolidation. This was then sent to the coordinator to be combined with other partners. Data consolidation was finished by July 25 so that one database was produced containing the complete data sets for all for Papussa cities. Data was analyzed statistically by one-way and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using MS Access and Excel. Differences were considered significant at an alpha.5. Means were given with ± standard error (S.E.). Data analysis was carried out from Sep Dec Report writing The findings from this analysis were written up in the form of this report from Dec 25 to May 26. 7

18 CHAPTER III RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3. Household Information The peri- urban communities in and surrounding Bangkok were selected to be our survey sites as described briefly below (for more information on each community see the PCA reports from Figure 3. Map of the areas of production systems in Nonthaburi and Pathumthani Province 8

19 3.. Village no.6, Lumsai sub-district, Lumlukka district, Pathumthani province. The main occupation of this community is monoculture of hybrid catfish and producing seed of hybrid catfish. Lumsai sub-district is located 55 km distance from central Bangkok. This sub-district consists of 4 villages.the name Lumsai comes from the history of the area, that used to be covered by large extents of swamps (called lum in Thai) and spirit trees (called Sai trees) along the swamp, thus the name lumsai (literally, the swamps of the spirit trees). The total population of Lumsai sub-district is 3,458 individuals of relatively equal genders (,663 males and,795 females) (data from ). Plate 3. The income earning activities of most Lumsai villagers are mostly Hybrid catfish farming or catfish seed production 3..2 Village no.7, Nongpraongai sub-district, Sainoi district, Nonthaburi province. Aquatic food production system (AFPS) occupations in this community include farming morning glory and fish culture using the orchard s irrigation channels. Nongpraongai sub-district is located 4 km distance from Bangkok. The administration office of Nongprongai sub-district covers 7,7 rai (27,427 hectares) and includes 2 villages. Generally, Nongprongai sub-district is characterized by low lands, suitable for diverse agriculture activities such as rice culture, vegetable plantation and orchards. The total population of Nongproongai sub-district is 5,892 individuals of relatively equal genders (2,876 males and 3,6 females) (data from ) Plate 3.2 Nongpraongai village is the main production area of morning glory for central Thailand 9

20 3..3 Village no.7, Suanprikthai sub-district, Muang district, Pathumthani province. Most of the villagers are growing water mimosa in the canal and the rest practice integrated fish culture. Suanprikthai sub-district is located 2 km distance from Bangkok. The administration office of sub-district Suanprikthai is under the Muang district of Pathumthani province and there are 8 villages and the total population of Suanprikthai sub-district is 5,795 individuals (data from ). Plate 3.3 This picture presents Suanprikthai villagers who live and work along the river as well as their production system and typical Housing. 2

21 3.2 Results of household information from baseline and monitoring survey during (Apr 24-Jan 25) 3.2. Number of household surveyed, people covered through the household survey, and proportion depending on aquatic food production systems HHs Information HHs People HH members covered AFPS Non-AFPS through HH survey Nongpraongai Suanprikthai Lumsai Total Figure 3.2 Number of households surveyed, people covered through household survey, and proportion depending on aquatic food production system The total of household (HH) surveys in Bangkok was 22 HHs and the number of household members covered by the surveys were 87 individuals as shown in Figure 3.2 During the project meeting, it was agreed that at least 2 HHs had to be surveyed in each partner city considering the strength of the survey and its conclusions as well as the limited time available. Table 3. Number of household surveyed and average household size by village Village Nongpraongai (n=) Suanprikthai (n=5) Main Production Systems Morning Glory -non ww Fish Polyculture- non ww and Water Mimosa Farming AFPS 56 5% 47 94% No of HH Surveyed Non AFPS 54 49% 3 6% Average HH size (persons) Average ± S.D. Max Min 4.5 ± ±.8 9 Lumsai Hybrid Catfish Farming and ±.6 9 (n=52) Catfish Seed Production 62% 38% Total (n=22) % 36% Note: n=hh survey, AFPS= Aquatic food production systems, ww=wastewater 2

22 Table 3. shows the main activities in each village and that the size of the HH survey in each village was different according to the size of the village, prevalent production systems and site conditions. Some communities didn t have enough AFPS HHs to survey, so we also made additional survey in non AFPS HHs to reach the number of 2 HHs, as agreed during the earlier project meeting. However the data collected from these 77 non AFPS HHs were not used in the data analysis of this report. It is hoped that this additional information will allow us in the future to compare the social problems or identify conflicts between AFPS and non-afps HHs. HHs involved in AFPS activity often hire several workers or involve relatives who come to study in Bangkok. These persons are included in the household size presented above. If we look at the relatively similar average household size of all AFPS, we have 4 persons per household, which actually range from to 9 people per household. The minimum HH size of one person can be often described as a case where the HH member was separated to a new house in the same area for farming, or that a house is built for the worker in the farm area Fish polyculture in non-wastewater Fish seed in non wastewater Hired labour on a non-wastewater fish farm Hybrid catfish farm Rice farming Shrimp Cutflower Hired in morning glory farm Land vegetable Mimosa Morning glory - non wastewater Not involved in any AFPS Rice farming Fish polyculture in non-wastewater Hired labour on a non-wastewater fish farm Hybrid catfish farm Mimosa Rice farming Lumsai Village Nongpaongai Village Suanprixthai Village Figure 3.3 Number of AFPS and non AFPS households surveyed classified by production systems 22

23 3.2.2 Gender of AFPS household heads Table3.2 Gender of household head by production system and village Village Nongpraongai (n=) Suanprikthai (n=5) Lumsai (n=52) Main Production Systems Morning Glory -non ww Fish Poly culture- non ww and Water Mimosa Farming Hybrid Catfish Farm and Seed Production Note: n=hh survey, ww=wastewater Gender of HH head Total Male Female (n=22) % % % % 2 24.% 9.2% % 5 % 52 % In Thailand, the man is commonly seen as the HH head. The woman can become a HH head if her husband dies, if she is divorced, is the oldest in the house or has a higher income to support the family (especially for richer families). The data shows that Nongprangai, Suanprikthai and Lumsai villages have similar percentage of female HH heads at 2.8, 24. and 9.2%. This percentage is still low compared to male HH head. However, the overall gender balance of HH members surveyed were in equal proportion (Figure 3.4) % 5% Male Female % Fish polyculture in non-wastewater Fish seed in non wastewater Hired labour on a non-wastewater fish farm Hybrid catfish farm Rice farming Shrimp Cutflower Hired in morning glory farm Land vegetable Mimosa Morning glory - non wastewater Not involved in any AFPS Rice farming Fish polyculture in non-wastewater Hired labour on a non-wastewater fish farm Hybrid catfish farm Mimosa Rice farming Lumsai Village Nongpaongai Village Suanprixthai Village Figure 3.4 This figure illustrates the gender of HH members by production systems and Village 23

24 Table 3.3 Gender of AFPS HH members by village Village Production Systems Nongpraongai (n=56) Morning Glory -non ww Suanprikthai (n=2) Water Mimosa Farming Suanprikthai (n=27) Fish Poly culture- non ww Lumsai (n=32) Hybrid Catfish -non ww Note: n=hh surveyed Gender of AFPS HH member Male Female % 53% % 5% % 47% % 49% Total 286 % 96 % 98 2 % The gender proportion of family members related to AFPS system in the 3 communities, shows that generally there is a little higher percentage of men than women working in the these activities (Table 3.3) except for morning glory producers in Nongpraongai where women are more predominant Average age of household members % Ave Age of AFPS HH member 8% 6% 4% 2% % NPG Male NPG Female SPT Water mimosa Male SPT Water mimosa Female SPT Polyculture fish Male SPT Polyculture fish Female LUM Male LUM Female Note: n=hh surveyed, NPG=Nongpraongai village, SPT= Suanprikthai village and LUM=Lumsai village Figure 3.5 Average of age of AFPS HH member by gender and village Figure 3.5 show the average age of the household members who are involved in AFPS in each activity by gender and village. Regarding the age of those working in AFPS activities we found that men are significantly more involved in fish and fish polyculture farms than women and mostly in their middle age. The average age of household 24

25 members who are involved in aquatic plant culture is also middle age. Generally as stated above women were found to be more involved with vegetable farming than men. The reasons why women are more involved in aquatic plant farming could be firstly that it is not a hard job for women and secondly the hours involved fit in well with women other household and family duties eg it is not a 9-5 full time occupation. For example aquatic plant work involves harvesting plants, packaging and selling them which is suitable for women. Suanprikthai village where water mimosa is grown extensively in the local canal is mainly the work of the local Muslim women in the village who do not like to work too much outside the house and the culture of the local Muslim community (see Table 3.4). Table3.4 Average age of AFPS HH members Ave Age of HH member NPG Morning glory (n=286) Male (n=35) 43% 6 2.7% 8 3.% 23 4.% % 8 3.% 5 2.6%.9% 4 7%.2% % 35 Total 23.2% Female (n=5) 57% 4 2.4% 24 4.% % 35 6.% 2 3.6% 2 2.% 2 2.% 4 7% 2.3%.2% % SPT Water mimosa (n= 96) Male (n=48) 5%.7% 4.7% 8.4%.9% 5.9% 4.7% 3.5% 3.5% % % % Female (n=48) 5% 9.5% 5.9%.9% 5.9% 8.4% 4.7% 4.7%.2%.2% % % SPT Polyculture fish (n=2) Male (n=52) 53% 4.7% 3.5% 4 2.4% 4.7%.7% 2 2.%.2% 4.7% % % % Female (n=46) 47% 8.4% 3.5% 2 2.% 3.5%.9% 8.4% %.2% % % % LUM hybrid catfish (n=2) Male (n=52) 5% 9.5% 8.4% 9.5% 8.4%.9% 3.5% 4.7% % % % % Female (n=5) 49% 5.9% 7.2% 6.% 7.2% 2 2.% 4.7% 3.5% 5.7%.2% % 5 8.6% Total (n=582) % % % 9 8.7% 7.4% % 62.7% % % 5.9% 2.3% 582 % Note: n= no of HH member, NPG=Nongpraongai village, SPT= Suanprikthai village and LUM=Lumsai village Education and ethnicity/ religion ) Thai education system and the organizational structure Thailand has had a formal comprehensive education plan since 932. It began with a four-year elementary education plus an eight-year secondary plan for those who qualified 25

26 and wanted to continue. The system of education was revised in 936 to include five levels: kindergarten, primary, secondary, pre-university and higher education. The year 95 saw the addition of special and adult education. In 96, compulsory education was extended to 7 years. The office of the National Education Commission formulated the Seventh National Educational Development Plan ( ) which was approved by the Cabinet. The objectives of the plan are to improve the quality of life for all citizens through improved educational opportunities. The National Educational Scheme is a long-term plan used as the principal guide for the management of education. Because of the stepped-up development of technology, laced with economic and political plans, the government accepted the challenge of training its young people for the change in as short a time as possible. School programs had to be modified to include specialized skills needed by industry, such as computer science, environmental engineering and medicine. The plan has been revised periodically to keep up with the rapid change in technology. In 977, Thailand's educational system was changed from a structure to a Free public education is compulsory for all children from ages 6-5, providing 9 years of compulsory education. Pre-school for the children ages 3-5, primary for ages 6-, lower secondary for ages 2-4 and upper secondary for the ages of 5-7, is available. Higher education is generally provided in a 4-year program for the bachelor degree (Ministry of Education Thailand, 25). Education Comparisons between Studens age below 5 yrs and AFPS HH members LUM Hybrid Catfish SPT Fish Polyculture 3 67 SPT Water Mimosa NPG Morning Glory non ww Children below 5 Yrs Education of AFPS member with in working age Note:NPG=Nongpraongai village, SPT= Suanprikthai village and LUM=Lumsai village Figure 3.6 Education comparisons between students (age below 5Yrs) and AFPS HH Members 26

27 According to the Thai education law free public education is compulsory for all children from ages 6-5 so in this analysis we did not include HH members who are below 5 yrs in the results. Figure 3.6 above shows the comparisons between number of children (age below 5 yrs) and number of AFPS HH members who have received an education. The data shows a total of 273 (47%) out off AFPS HH members (582 persons) are children who need to study under the government requirement and therefore these children dont help to do the family work mainly because they spend most of their time in school. To compare the number of the children in each production system we found a very low number of children in a group of fish polyculture at Suanprikthai village compared to other villages which are possible that those farmers didn t plan to set up there yet. 2) Education of aquatic food production system of household members The HH members who were born before 92 may not have a formal education as they were still not required to have any formal education at that time. Most of the people who were born in between the years of ages yrs old were required by law to take 4 yrs of primary school which is why the data in Table 3.5 shows a very high percentage of HH members who have education at primary school as 57.%, Non education as 8.4%, Secondary school 2.6% and higher education as 3.9% respectively. Table 3.5 Level of education for all aquatic food production system of household Village Nongpraongai (n=2) Suanprikthai (n=7) Suanprikthai (n=83) Lumsai (n=7) Total n=hh member Production Systems Morning Glory -non ww Water Mimosa Farming Fish Poly culture- non ww Hybrid Catfish -non ww Non education % 8.7% 5.%.2% % Primary School 34 29% % 4 8.9% 5.8% % Secondary School 33 7.% 7 3.7% 8 3.9% % % Higher Education 9.9% 7.5% 9 4.% % % Total % 7 5.4% 83 8% 7 23.% 462 % Higher education is a good indicator for comparing differences in the people who are involved in different AFPS production systems particularly between fish farmers and aquatic plant growers. The data shows that the highest percentage of higher education is in Lumsai village as 6.3% and the following are Suanprikthai village (Fish) 4.%, Nongpraongai village (Aquatic plant).9% and Suanprikthai village (Plants).5%. 27

28 In general the level of education of HH members in aquatic plants producing is lower than the fish producers HH members (Figure 3.7). But both fish and aquatic plants have higher percentage of education level at primary school. They are several reason that fish farmers have higher education such as fish culture having higher incomes so, they can send they children to get higher education and this occupation is still better off than others AFPS occupations then most of the graduated people also interesting to be engaged with fish culture with fish culture generally requiring more technical knowledge than aquatic plant farming. Nongpaongai Village Morning Glory Total = 2 People Suanprixthai Village Water Mimosa Total = 27 People 6% (7) 87% (97) 7% (8) % (3) 78% (2) % (3) Lumsai Village Hybrid Catfish Total = 67 People Suanprixthai Village Fish Polyculture Total = 34 People % () 53% (35) 3% (2) 5% () 6% (2) 7% (24) 2% (7) 3% () None Education Primary School Secondary School Higher Education Figure 3.7 Education levels of HH members who are involved in AFPS activities within working age (above 5 yrs) 3) The ethnicity of aquatic food production system household members surveyed The Thai ethnicity of the Thai population was the social, linguistic and political dominance of the Central Thai, who were descendants of the subjects of pre-modern kingdoms of the Chao Phraya floodplain. The Central Thai (Thai ethnicity) were defined as those who considered central Thailand their birthplace or the Central Thai (Standard Thai) dialect their first language. With the advent of increased migration, modern communication, and education, however, it was becoming increasingly difficult to use language to determine place of origin. Regarding the Thai law concerning Thai ethnicity by the birthplace and all of the HH survey and the HH members were born in Thailand so % of HHs surveyed were Thai ethnicity even though they were descendants of Chinese, Cambodians etc. Thai ethnicity 28

29 constitutes the majority of the Thai population but the estimates of ethnicity composition of minority sector of the Thai population in 987 were that the Chinese constituted about percent of population, Malay about 3 percent and long term residents (as opposed to refugees) Khmer less that percent. The remaining minority groups ranged in number from a few hundred to more than,. Of these, the largest group was the Karen, estimated at about 25, in the 98s. Some of the minority groups spoke languages of the Tai family but differed in several ways from the core Thai ( 4) Religion of aquatic food production system households members surveyed More than 95% of Thai are Buddhist and the remaining 5% are other religions such as Muslim, Christian, Jewish and so on but in Table 3.6 presenting the percentage religion of AFPS HH members by production systems and villages especially at Suanprikthai village the data shows (Table 3.6) that religion is related to the production systems as 8% are Muslim working in water mimosa farming along the canal and the other 22% of Muslim villagers are involved in fish poly-culture production. The reason is fish culture fed with canteen waste which always contains mixed pork meat in it, some Muslims who are very strict don t like to touch pork meat. In Lumsai village we found 6% of those HH members surveyed were Christian and according to the background of this area the Catholic Church used to be the land owner of the whole of Lumsai village and then they rented the land out and donated the land to the villagers but the villagers have to send their children to study at the Catholic school (owned by the church) and thus some families adopted Christianity. Table 3.6 Religion of AFPS HH surveyed Village Production Systems Nongpraongai (n=56) Morning Glory -non ww Suanprikthai (n=2) Water Mimosa Farming Suanprikthai Fish Poly culture- non (n=27) ww Lumsai (n=32) Hybrid Catfish -non ww n=number of HH surveyed Religion of AFPS HH Ethnicity Buddhism Islam Christianity Thai n=56 n= n= % % Thai n=4 n n= % 2% 8% Thai n=2 n=6 n= % 78% 22% Thai n=3 n= n=2 % 94% 6% Total n=56 % n= % n=7 % n=32 % Migration status of aquatic food production systems of household members Migration (movement in and out of the house) of HH members can change all the time in peri-urban areas because of urbanization and the dynamic nature of change in Bangkok city. Many plots of agricultural lands had been converted to industrial factories or housing estate projects. In Figure 3.6 it shows there is a significantly higher percentage of native HH heads than non native HH head ie those that migrated into their present houses. The main reason of 29

30 HH head migration is marriage & family reunion (67%), work opportunity (46%) and child opportunity for education (4%) respectively (Table 3.7). Suanprikthai village had more non native HH heads for both Fish polyculture and aquatic plants cultivation at 48% and 2% respectively which is a little bit higher percentage than non native HHHs in Nongpraongai village (%) and Lumsai village (3%). The results from Suanprikthai village show more migrant HH heads there because Suankprikthai village is nearer to Bangkok and near to the Chaophaya river than other villages and many people rent the land to culture fish. And the reason why Lumsai village has only 3% of non native persons is because of limited availability of land and nearly 9% of land was already rented out for the native hybrid cat fish farms so, now there is little land left available for other families to come. Nongpaongai Village Morning Glory Total = 56 Households Native 89% (5) Suanprixthai Village Water Mimosa Total = 2 Household Native 8% (6) Migration in % (6) Lumsai Village Hybrid Catfish Total = 32 Households Native 97% (3) Migration in 2% (4) Suanprixthai Village Fish Polyculture Total = 27 Households Native 52% (4) Migration in 3% () Migration in 48% (3) Figure 3.8 Migration status of AFPS HH surveyed by production system 3

31 Table 3.7 Reason of migration of those HH heads who moved to their present location Migration purpose Village Production Systems Marriage &Family Reunion Work Opportunity Childs opportunity for education Total Nongpraongai (n=6) Suanprikthai (n=4) Suanprikthai (n=3) Morning Glory -non ww 4 7% Water Mimosa Farming 4 7% Fish Poly culture- non 4 ww 7% 2 8% 8 33% 4% 6 25% 4 7% 3 54% Lumsai (n=) Total Hybrid Catfish -non ww 6 67% n=hh member (person) 4% 46% 4% 4% 24 % From our annual survey (Apr, 23 - Jan, 25) the results showed that during the monitoring survey only a few HH members were migrating in and out from the study communities as shown in Table 3.8. One family member at Nonpraongai village was moving out to work in Ayuthaya province and one girl was born in Suanprikthai village and one Muslim family (4 persons) in Suanprikthai were moving back to the south of Thailand. Table 3.8 Annual migrations of AFPS HH members during the monitoring survey Village Nongpraongai (n=286) Production Systems Mon (May-Jul) 24 Mon 2 (Jul- Aug) 24 Mon 3 (Nov-Jan) Mi In Mi Out Mi In Mi Out Morning Glory -non ww Migration purpose Work opportunity Suanprikthai (n=96) Suanprikthai (n=98) Water Mimosa Farming Fish Poly culture- non ww 4 Lumsai (n=2) Hybrid Catfish -non ww Note: Mi In = Migration In, Mi Out = Migration Out and n= HH members New born Family Reunion 3

32 3.2.6 Housing and infrastructure issues ) Household construction Plate 3.4 Housing of HH surveyed by village The information of housing from the HH survey in these three communities is quite similar as shown in Plate 3.4 and it s difficult to judge which house is better off or poorer off because most typical Thai houses are quite similar. Some of the AFPS HHs have more than one house in a different place and it is not possible to go and observe all of their houses. Many HHs who were renting the land for culturing fish or farming plants just make a simple shelter or a small house on the farm area, where they stay whilst they are working. 32

33 The simple style of Thai house is made from wood or half cement and wood if they have two floors but in areas which flood such as Suanprikthai village all of the houses are raised with a higher bottom floor as shown in the Plate ) Household Assets % AFPS HH assets by village Car/Pick-up Landline telephone Motorbike Refrigerator TV NPG Morning glory non ww (n=56) SPT Water mimosa (n=2) SPT Fish polyculture (n=27) Lum Hybrid catfish (n=32) Note: NPG=Nongpraongai village, SPT= Suanprikthai village and LUM=Lumsai village Figure 3.9 AFPS HH assets by village Household ownership of many assets was collected but only few of these assets can reasonably be used as indicators for the wealth status of HH surveyed amongst AFPS HH in Bangkok. The major HH assets we are interested in include car/ pick-up, motorbike, refrigerator, television, and landline telephone. Figure 3.9 shows that at Lumsai village (fish polyculture) has a higher percentage of car (75%), landline telephone (69%), motorbike (97%) and refrigerator (%) than other villages. The comparison between water mimosa farmers and the polyculture fish culturists at Suanprixthai village showed that the mimosa farmers seemed to have a little more percentage in car (55%:52%), refrigerator (%:85%) and TV (%:97%) so, regarding the data in this case we cannot say that the fish farmer is better off that aquatic plant growers. However, this data is not a good reference for the HH wealth status because car or pick up is a common vehicle for the Thai people they can easily buy because the government provides a lot of advantages for the buyer such as % interest for 5 yrs or long term relief. 33

34 3) Land ownership Land ownership is a very good indicator for AFPS HH wealth status because land price in peri-urban areas surrounding Bangkok is quite expensive for example agricultural land in the surrounding Nonthaburi and Pathumthani provinces in the present day is about one million baht (25, USD) per rai (.25 ha). Table 3.9 Total Areas of owned and rented land of the AFPS HHs surveyed in the different study communities. Village Nongpraongai (n=56) Suanprikthai (n=2) Suanprikthai (n=27) Lumsai (n=32) Production Systems Owned (km2)*a Morning Glory -non ww 2.4 n=7 Water Mimosa Farming 5.4 n=5 Fish Poly culture- non ww 8.2 n=4 Hybrid Catfish -non ww 6.7 n=5 Total N= no of HH and unit of land ownership is Km % Rented (km2)*b Owned + Rented (km2)*c n=2 n=27.7 n=5 n= n=2 n= n=2 n= % % % Total land used for AFPS (km 2 ).6 n=56 7. n= n= n= % Land use changes in peri-urban areas can indicate and help to predict the future of AFPS activities around Bangkok. Table 3.9 shows the total land ownership of three communities by production systems. From our data, the largest total land area is in Lumsai village used by a group of the farmers who culture hybrid catfish (49.9km 2 ) and then following is Nongpraongai village who grow morning glory (.6km²*), Suanprikthai a group of fish polyculture farmers (36.4km²*2) and the smallest land area is in Suankprikthai village with a group of farmers who culture water mimosa (7.km²*). Most of the AFPS HH surveyed owned land more than renting it from others (see Table 3.) except SPT fish polyculture non ww. Table 3. Land ownership of AFPS HH surveyed by ownership or rental Village Production Systems Owned Rented Total land used for AFPS (km2*) (km2*) (km 2 ) Nongpraongai (n=56) Morning Glory -non ww 69 68% %.6 % Suanprikthai (n=2) Water Mimosa Farming %.7 24% 7. % Suanprikthai (n=27) Fish Poly culture- non ww 27% % 36.5 % Lumsai (n=32) Hybrid Catfish -non ww 9.4 8% 3.5 2% 49.9 % Total % 9.3 3% 295. % 34

35 3.2.7 Household accessibility ) Domestic water supply for general HH use Table 3. Domestic water supply of HH surveyed by the village Sources of domestic NPG (n=) SPT (n=5) LUM (n=52) Total (n=22 HH) water supply st 2 nd st 2 nd st 2 nd st 2 nd Own tap connected to mains 64 58% 2 2% 6 2% % 9 7% 3 6% 79 37% 5 2% Rainwater 32 29% 4 37% 6 32% 5 % 4 79% 9 2% 89 42% 55 26% Well 2 2% % 2% % 2% % 4 2% % River or stream % Purchase by tank/ bucket Public tap or standpipe 2 2% 8 7% Bottled water 2 2% Total % % 6 6% % % 5 47% 2 4% 7 4% % 8 36% 5 % 2% % % 2% 7 4% % 2% % % 52 % % % % 2 4% 4 2% 2 % 5% 8 4% 2 9% 22 % n= HH surveyed, st Major water supple and 2 nd is the minor water supply for the HH, NPG=Nongpraongai village, SPT= Suanprikthai village and LUM=Lumsai village 2 % 6 3% % 3 2% 72 34% Table 3. shows the results of the HH source of domestic water supply by village for the HHs surveyed. The data indicated that rain water (48%) is the overall most popular water source for household use with the second being own tap connected to mains water supply by community (37%), followed by bottled water (9%), purchase by tank/ bucket (5%), Public tap or standpipe (4%), well (2%) and river or steam (%). But in AFPS of Bangkok most of the households are living in relatively rural areas which can be very far from the main local community, so they need more that one choice for the water supply as shown in the 2 nd (minor water supply) and the result shows that the highest percentage of the 2 nd of water supply is still rainwater (26%) and a few percent of other sources of water supply. Actually in Thailand tap water is provided by the government to every village outside Bangkok since 989 by providing a well and a stand pipe to every village. This tap water is managed by the sub-district administration office under the control of the Department of Metropolitan Water. But sometime the pipes are limited in certain community areas so, most of the AFPS households who live far away in farm areas need to have their own source of water supply and the easiest and cheapest way to do this is to collect rain water. 35

36 Plate 3.5 Community Stand pipes providing tap water to peri-urban communities 2) Source of electricity The Metropolitan Electricity Authority of Thailand (MET) is the state enterprise who supplies electricity for Bangkok and its surrounding provinces. Figure 3. shows that overall a of HHs surveyed use the electricity from MET (98% of Suanprikthai and Nongpraongai households and % of those in Lumsai) Only % HHs at Nongpraongai village admitted to tapping electricity from the neighbours house, whilst % HHs surveyed in Nongpraongai and 2% from Suankprikthai villages are still using candles since they live and farm far from the mains electricity line. For example some HHs at Nongpraongai village are settled in the wetland area in the middle of the river and they cannot access mains electricity % Source of electricity supply of HH surveyed by village Main electricity from Tapped electricity Candles MEA NPG (n=) SPT (n=5) LUM (n=52) MET= (Metropolitan Electricity Authority, Thailand) Figure 3. Electricity sources for HH surveyed by village 36

37 3.2.8 Economic status of household surveyed ) Gross income activities Table3.2 Household gross incomes (US$) from AFPS - HHs surveyed by season and production systems. Village Production Systems Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Annual income USD Nongpraongai 2,67 84,3 34,623 22,828 (n=56) Morning Glory -non ww 46% 38% 6% % Suanprikthai,3,99 2,399 (n=2) Water Mimosa Farming 54% 46% % Suanprikthai 22,482,253 2,322 46,58 (n=27) Fish Poly culture- non ww 49% 24% 27% % Lumsai 62,65 96,893 32,625 92,69 (n=32) Hybrid Catfish -non ww 33% 5% 7% % Lumsai Hybrid catfish seed 75,555 59,235 34,79 (n=8) production 56% 44% % 6,989 68,48 44, ,46 Total 43% 45% 2% % Average annual gross Income per household 3,943 2,76 8,7 6,849 2,78 n=hh survey, Mon, 2 and 3= Monitory, 2 and 3 The gross income is one of the good indicators of the AFPS household income and related to wealth status of each AFPS activities especially to compare the income of both aquatic plants and fish culture systems. From those HHs surveyed there are 4 main types of production systems as shown in the Table 3.2:- hybrid catfish culture and hybrid catfish seed production at Lumsai village, fish polyculture and water mimosa at Suanprikthai village and morning glory farming at Nonpraongai village. In terms of total value of the production systems surveyed the data shows that the highest total annual gross income was from the group of morning glory farmers at Nongpraongai village at 229,828 USD per year, followed by the group of hybrid catfish farmers (92,69 USD per year), and hybrid catfish seed production producers (34,79 USD) at Lumsai village and polyculture producers (46,58 USD per year) and the lowest total income were water mimosa producers from Suanprikthai village (2,399 USD). However these figures although showing total overall incomes or values from the systems will very much be dependent on the number of HHs surveyed in each production group and it is not surprising that water morning glory farmers head the list since 56 separate HHs were interviewed compared to less than half of this number for the other systems. Therefore it is more revealing to calculate average annual gross income per household in each production system. This shows that although considerably smaller in the number of 37

38 HHs involved the hybrid catfish seed producers get the highest annual gross income per year at 6,849 USD/per HH/per year and the second is the hybrid catfish farm (8,7 USD/per HH/per year), the third is the morning glory farming (3,943 USD/per HH/per year), the fourth is fish polyculture system (,76 USD/per HH/per year) and the lowest production system for average income is the water mimosa farming (2 USD/per HH/per year) 2) Credit The provisions of credit in AFPS HH surveyed are shown in Table 3.3. The result shows the percentage of HH surveyed who are taking credit for their AFPS HH. The higher percent of HHs taking credit is in Suanprikthai village who practice fish polyculture (44%), and the second is Lumsai village in the Hybrid catfish farmers (4%) and the following is Nongpraongai in a group of morning glory group (27%) and the smaller amount of farmers taking credit is in the group of water mimosa farmers at Suanprikthai village (2%). This indicates that intensive AFPS activities particularly commercial hybrid catfish farming, fish polyculture and to a lesser extent commercial morning glory farmers need more capital and use more credit than extensive AFPS activities such as water mimosa farming in the canal. Household Production Systems Yes Nongpraongai Morning Glory -non ww 5 (n=56) 27% Suanprikthai Water Mimosa Farming 2 (n=2) % Suanprikthai Fish Poly culture- non ww 2 (n=27) 44% Lumsai Hybrid Catfish -non ww 3 (n=32) 4% Total 42 3% Table 3.3 Credit of AFPS HH Credit No 4 73% 8 9% 5 56% 9 59% 93 69% Total 56 % 2 % 27 % 32 % 35 % Credit sources used were described as shown in the Figure 3.. The popular sources of credit are community or rotating saving schemes, credit co-operatives, private lender and commercial bank only. 38

39 Credit sources by village % 8% 3 3 6% 4% % % Commercial Bank Community or rotating savings scheme Credit cooperative Private lender Store or shop Relatives NPG Morning glory non ww (n=5) SPT Fish polyculture (n=2) SPT Water mimosa (n=2) Lum Hybrid catfish (n=3) Figure3. Credit sources of AFPS HHs who are taking credit Household food consumption Plate 3.6 AFPS HH food consumption in the present day for Peri-urban villagers The surveyed households food consumptions were recorded for the HHs daily food consumption but most of time the household member interviewed could not identify what kind of food they ate and how much they bought because in peri-urban areas in the present day they have almost every type of food available in the communities especially in Thailand; mobile traders (see above pick up in Plate 3.6) come to sell food and vegetables in front of their houses at lease twice a day (in the morning and in the evening). The sources of food consumed of AFPS HH members are shown in Plate 3.6. The summary of food consumption for the villagers in the 3 communities are likely similar as follows, farmers consumed rice, fish, chicken, pork, egg, noodles, vegetables etc. There was no difference between the items consumed by seasons. The following table shows the items consumed by household from the farm and outside the farm. Both 39

40 on farm food such as fish, aquatic plants or household vegetables that grow close to the house and off farms foods bought from many sources are regularly consumed by HH members during our survey period. The important information of food consumption in AFPS communities in Bangkok is summarized below: ) On farm food Morning glory, water mimosa, tilapia, common carp, Snake head fish, Hybrid catfish and etc. And some vegetables they grow in the housing area such as chili, lemon glass Papaya, Lemon and Sweet basil. 2) Outside the farm Chicken, Pork, Egg, Prawn, Squid, Silver barb, Tilapia, Green mussel, Catfish, Canned fish, Goby, Pork ball, Egg, Baby clam, Chinese sausage, Pig intestine, Steamed duck, Noodle, Tomato, Vegetable oil, bean, Cucumber, Onion, Rice, Ginger, Bamboo shoot, Baby corn, Pineapple, Water mimosa, fruits and etc Household health status The Health status of AFPS HH members as shown by our data collected found from disease or any reasons especially AFPS HH members are working hard in their farms during the culture period. HH members working in AFPS activities are engaging and in contact with water which is often contaminated by chemicals or household consumption waste so, in this study we were concerned about the health problems related to how healthy were the AFPS HH members who were involved in AFPS activities and how do they deal with these problems. In general, health problems are common with the HH members surveyed with a range of different problems described. Figure 3.2 shows the health problems of AFPS HH members by gender in each survey. The results show that male (97 persons, 5.25%) and female (96 persons, 49.7%) of AFPS HH member reported more health problems during the baseline and monitoring (May-Jun, 24; summer season) survey (Jul-Aug, 26; rainy season) and third monitoring surveys. (Nov- Jan, 25; winter season) 4

41 Health problem of AFPS HH member by gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Baseline Monitoring Monitoring 2 Monitoring 3 NPG Morning Glory non ww (n=286) SPT Fish Polyculture (n=98) SPT Water Mimosa (n=96) LUM Hybrid Catfish (n=2) Figure 3.2 Health problems of AFPS HH member by gender ) HH report of health problems Among the AFPS HH members who were involved with AFPS production systems the data in the Table 3.4 described that during the 4 surveys the AFPS HH member seemed to have fever as the most popular health problem probably due to seasonal changes in the weather, weakness after working hard in the field, lack of sleep and contracting the fever off other family members. The second most important problem reported was back problems which happened with the old people or in people who are working in hard physical work. We found fewer people who reported skin problems, muscle aches, eye infection and stomach aches. The patients who got skin problems are mostly from Nongpraongai village because of their direct daily contact with the contaminated water (often up to their waists) which is difficult to avoid whilst they are working on the morning glory farms such as harvesting morning glory, applying the fertilizer and carrying the morning glory from the pond to package up before being sold out. Only a few workers wear gloves or boots to protect themselves. 4

42 Health problem Table 3.4 Health problems by production systems and in different survey period NPG Morning glory non ww (n=286) SPT Water mimosa (n=96) SPT Fish polyculture (n=98) LUM Hybrid catfish (n=2) Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Total (n= 582 person) Back problems % 5.4% 4 9.% 4 9.% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2 4.5% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 44 26% Skin problems % 3 3.6% 2 9.% 4.5% 2 9.% 22 3% Fever 3 3.5% 4 4.2% 3 3.3% 7 7.3%.4% 3 3.% 2 2.% Muscle aches 2 5% 8 8.3% 2 5% 8 8.3% 4 4.2% 3 3.% 4 4.2% 96 57% 4 2% Eye infections 2 % 2 % Stomach ache 2 % 5 3 Total 29.4% 7.6% % 3 7.6% 6.5% 6 3.5% 5 2.9% 6.5% 5.9% 5 2.9% 4 2.4% 5 2.9% 2 % 7 % n=hh survey, Mon, 2 and 3= Monitoring Surveys, 2 and 3 NPG=Nongpraongai village, SPT= Suanprikthai village and LUM=Lumsai village 2) Treatment of health problems There were several ways recorded that AFPS HH members choose to treat their health problems. The data from the Table 3.5 shows that the most popular way for the AFPS HH members to treat health problems was to confine themselves in the hospital (3%) which happens with people who have got a serious problem or a permanent disease who need to come to the hospital regularly. The second way is self treatment (3%) specially, in the patient who catches a fever, followed by patients who choose to consult a government doctor in the city (9%), consult a private doctor (9%), visit community/ village clinic (4%) and visit a traditional healer (7%). Traditional healers in Thailand are a very common remedial action for the people who got a backaches problem or have a general exhausted feeling; for those, a Thai massage is often seen as a cure for their problems. 42

43 Table 3.5 Treatment of health problems in AFPS HH members who reported a health problem Health problem Self treatment Consult a government doctor in the city Confine in the hospital Consult a private doctor NPG Morning glory non ww (n=286) SPT Water mimosa (n=96) SPT Fish polyculture (n=98) LUM Hybrid catfish (n=2) Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Mon Mon 2 Mon % % 2 2.7% 4 7.% 4.% 9% % 9 25% 9.6% 4 6.9%.8% 7.2% 5.9% 3 5.4% 6.3% % 2 3.6% 6 7% 7 2.% 2 3.6% 3 5.2% % 3 5.2% 2 3.4% 3 7.6% % Total (n= 582 person) 56 3% 36 9% 58 3% 7 9% Visit community/ village clinic 2 25% % 2.5% 8 4% Visit a traditional healer 4 3.8% % 3 7% Total 47 25% % % 5 8% 2 6.4% 3.6% 5.3% 7 9% 5.3% 8 4.3% 5 2.7% 5 2.7% 88 % 3.2. Future trends of Aquatic food production systems in the next 5 years ) Perception of future change of AFPS The AFPS HHs surveyed seemed to want to continue with their AFPS activities. However this can depend on a number of problems faced in the future such as the fuel price in Thailand which is rapidly increasing, new disease outbreaks such as chicken flu which affected the price and availability of hybrid catfish feed and due to market prices of AFPS products not rising in line with inflation in the future because many AFPS farmers complained that their investment and input costs are increasing but the price of aquatic plants and fish seems to be stable. Although last year with fish culture in particular catfish farming was affected by the outbreaks of chicken flu so, the farmers had a difficult time to buy chicken bone and waste products for feeding their catfish. Most of the catfish farms are growing catfish using an intensive system so they need to buy pelleted feed which is double the price of using waste products from the chicken/poultry industry. From Table 3.6 the farmer perceptions on the future of their production changed in the next 5 years shows that about 47% of AFPS HHs who expressed a view said they believed nothing would change, whilst 25% thought AFPS production areas will decrease, % said they will increase production area, % said the production systems will decrease intensity and 7% gave no answer as they might not know or they are not really keen to answer this question. Data didn t indicate any difference between AFPS 43

44 fish farmers and aquatic plant growers. Again this data might reflect being a question asked right at the end of the questionnaire when answering fatigue could be setting in. Overall if accurate it could reflect that the AFPS producers are not too worried about the future of their systems as well as perhaps indicating the maturity of their production systems and their robust nature within the many other development activities going on in peri-urban Bangkok. Table 3.6 Future of AFPS activities in the next 5 years NPG Morning glory non ww (n=56) 2) Future threats for AFPS HH SPT water mimosa (n=2) SPT Fish polyculture (n=27) LUM Hybrid catfish (n=32) Future of AFPS activities in the next 5 yrs Total No change % 75% 48.% 37.5% 47% Increase production area % 4.8% 9.4% % Decrease production area % 2.% 29.6% 2.5% 25% Decrease intensity.8% % No answer % 5.% 7.4% 4.6% 7% Total % % % % % The future threats of AFPS farmers to their livelihoods in the next 5 years can be a good indicator to the future of AFPS production systems in peri urban of Bangkok area where there is a high level of development, up and coming urbanization and industrialization and increasing residential housing estate projects which are invading and encroaching on the land used for AFPS activities in the peri-urban areas. Most of AFPS HHs surveyed who are involved with fish and aquatic system plants activities are afraid of disease outbreak (25.9%) in the future. Most of the farmers for both aquatic plants and fish farmers think that a new coming disease will be more influential and difficult to avoid in the future Table 3.7 shows that some problems like natural disasters (floods, typhoons etc), animal and plants pests are also concerning as one of future threats of the HHs surveyed. Data shows no different opinion between fish farmers and aquatic plants farmers here. This data can also tell us that the AFPS farmers are not sure what their future is going to be as we can see a very high percent of people who don t know and give no answer in this point. 44

45 When we asked about how to respond to these future threats if they have the disease outbreak appearing in the future, most of them answered to apply more medicine and few more percent of AFPS HHs want to ask for help from the government. And most of the AFPS farmers have no answer in mind what is the future and none of them gave comments for this question. Table 3.7 Perception of aquatic threats in the future Future threat of AFPS HH NPG Morning glory non ww (n=56) SPT water mimosa (n=2) SPT Fish polyculture (n=27) LUM Hybrid catfish (n=32) Disease 3.4% 5% 7.4% 4.6% 25.9% Natural disasters (floods, typhoons etc) 2%.% 5.2% 3 Falling market prices.8% 3.7% 3.% 2.2% Increasing input costs 5.4% 2.5% 5.2% Increasing feed costs 7.4% 5.6% 5.2% Loss of land to competing uses/ displacement.8% % 9.4% 4.4% Increasing land price/ rents 3.%.7% 2 4 Lack of access to markets.8% 5% 6.3% 3% 2 3 Plant pests 3.6% 5% 2.2% Animal pests 6.% 2% 3.7%.4% 3 3 Lack of household labour 5.4% 2.2% Low price 3.%.7% Pest.8%.7% Personal health problem.8%.7% Decreasing demand of product.8%.7% Not rain 5%.7% Thief 3.%.7% 2 High Contaminated Water.8% 3.%.5% 2 2 Lack of capital 7.4%.5% No answer 26.8% 2% 59.3% 25.9% Total % % % % % Total 45

46 3.3 Production Systems 3.3. Type of production systems including wastewater non waste water-fish and aquatic plants The AFPS production systems in Bangkok were divided into two 2 main categories the aquatic plants/vegetables and fish. After the preliminary survey in the first year we selected 3 communities in Bangkok to conduct Baseline and Monitoring surveys from year based on the types of production systems and the main production areas as shown below: Nongpaongai Village (Morning Glory Rep.) Households 445 People Number of Household (Total) Suanprixthai Village (Water Mimosa & Fish Polyculture Rep.) 5 Households 44 People Lumsai Village (Hybrid Catfish Rep.) 52 Households 28 People *Total = 22 Households 87 People Figure 3.3 Number of Household surveyed Type of the AFPS production system in Bangkok in baseline and monitoring surveyed are below Production System Total of the respondent (household) Morning glory farming in non wastewater 56 Hybrid catfish farm 26 Water mimosa farming 2 Fish poly-culture 26 Hybrid catfish seed production 8 46

47 Most of the report we have only been concerned about the AFPS HHs who play more important role in this study topic. The production experiences presented of the number of years they have been working in their present system in each AFPS activity is shown in Table 3.8. For the aquatic plants we found that more than 5% of those HH heads who have been farming both morning glory and water mimosa have more than years production experience. For fish culture there seems to be a higher percent of new families taking up the systems in which they have less than 5 years of the production experience. Table 3.8 Production experience of AFPS HH heads Village Production Systems 5 Years >5 Years > Years Nongpraongai Morning Glory -non ww (n=56) 32% 4% 54% Suanprikthai Water Mimosa Farming 5 5 (n=2) 25% 25% 5% Suanprikthai Fish Poly culture- non ww 2 5 (n=27) 44% 9% 37% Lumsai Hybrid Catfish -non ww (n=32) 47% 28% 25% Production holding facilities and water source Table 3.9 Production Holding Facilities and water sources Village Production Systems Holding facility (HF) % HF Water source (WS) %WS Nongpraongai (n=56) Morning Glory -non ww Earthen Pond % Canal diversion River water 79% 2% Suanprikthai (n=2) Water Mimosa Farming Canal % Canal diversion % Suanprikthai (n=27) Fish Poly culture- non ww Earthen Pond % Canal diversion % Lumsai (n=32) Hybrid Catfish -non ww Earthen Pond % Canal diversion % Since our project was concerned with AFPS which is related to water including wastewater and non waste water so, we had a question about the production holding facilities and the water sources of the AFPS production system to describe better about what is relationship of AFPS production system and the sources of water supplying each of the systems. In Thailand urban waste water is not fed directly to the aquatic fish and plants systems but instead the open irrigation canal system which is extensive throughout Bangkok is 47

48 used as a water source and in some cases as a holding facility. However these canals can be contaminated by the waste water drainage from agricultural systems, factory waste water released and household waste released into the same canals. Production water sources shown in Table 3.9 described that % of the AFPS HHs surveyed in Suanprikthai and Lumsai villages were using water from canal diversions but this was only 79 % of AFPS HHs surveyed in Nongpraongai village with the other 2% using the locally available river water as the sources for their morning glory farming. The result of this study shows most of the holding facilities for AFPS farmers are earthen ponds except at Suanprikthai village where water mimosa is cultured in the canal. Plate 3.7 shows the irrigation canal in Thailand which is used for several purposes for instance sources for agricultural activities, transport, irrigation canals and the water gate to protect the flooding disaster in the central of Thailand. Plate 3.7 Irrigation canals in Thailand are used for several purposes Production land use status ) Land area and the ownership status of AFPS HH by production systems Total land area ownership status % 8%.7 6% % 5.4 2% % 3.2 NPG Morning glory non ww (n=56) SPT Water mimosa (n=2) SPT Fish polyculture (n=27) Lum Hybrid catfish (n=32) Owned (km2) Rented (km2) Figure 3.4 Production land area and the ownership status of AFPS HH surveys 48

49 Figure 3.4 illustrates that among the 4 production systems in AFPS HHs surveyed in the 3 communities we found that hybrid catfish farmers at Lumsai village owned the biggest overall land area (43.2 km 2 ) than others production activities with morning glory farmers at Nongpraongai village second owning (3.2km 2 ) and then Suanprikthai - fish polyculture (8.4 km 2 ) and Suanprikthai- water mimosa (5.4 km 2 ). In terms of land rental hybrid catfish farmers at Lumsai village rent the most (6.7 km 2) with morning glory farmers at Nongpraongai village renting 7.4 km 2, Suanprikthai fish polyculture at Suanprikthai village (28. km 2 ) and the smallest land rented is by those who grow water mimosa at Suanpruikthai village (.7 km 2 ). Our data significantly indicates that overall the majority of both morning glory cultivation and fish farming in peri urban areas of Bangkok are being carried out on rented land. The exception to this is the special case of SPT villagers growing water mimosa in their canal. Please see Figure 3.5 for the comparisons of land status of fish and aquatic plants systems in the HHs surveyed as this can be a good answer for one of our research hypotheses that the households involved in fish farming are more likely to own land than aquatic plant growers, this being associated with higher gross incomes per household for fish farmers. The result shows that everybody rented land more than owned land (except Suanprixthai village in the water mimosa farming in the public canal) % Land status of fish culture and aquatic plants farming 8% 6% 4% 2% % owned (km2) Fish culture Rented (km2) Aquatic plants Figure 3.5 Comparisons of land status between fish and aquatic production systems 2) Production land acquisition Figure 3.6 below features the pattern of land acquisition of the households surveyed who owned the land for their AFP production activities and their house. The commonest mode of land acquisition was inherited or given by the family which is the normal method in most peri-urban communities in Bangkok. Following land acquisition are buying land and then only a few households who got land plots by right given by local leader, received from de-collectivization and agrarian reform. 49

50 Land acquisition methods of HH surveyed by village % 8% 6% 4% 2% % Bought Inherited/ given Resettled Use right given by local leader 6 Received from decollectivization NPG (n=) SP T (n=5) LUM (n=52) Agrarian reform Figure 3.6 Land acquisition methods of HH surveyed by village 3) Production land title status There are several titles of land ownership in Thailand as shown in Figure 3.7 the majority of the HHs have a deed as a legal paper to own a piece of land and have a right to trade, exchange and give that piece of land to others people following the land law in Thailand. Production land title status % 8% 6% 4% 2% % 5 None Occupancy license Paper from land vendor Deed NPG (n=) SP T (n=5) LUM (n=52) Figure 3.7 Land title status of HH surveyed 5

51 3.3.4 Production levels of surveyed aquatic plant and fish cultivation systems and the marketing system ) Annual production of AFPS systems Table 3.2 Total Annual production of AFPS systems surveyed (Ton) Village Production Systems Nongpraongai Morning Glory - (n=56) non ww Suanprikthai Water Mimosa (n=2) Farming Suanprikthai Fish Poly culture- (n=27) non ww Lumsai Hybrid Catfish - (n=24) non ww Lumsai Hybrid Catfish (n=8) seed production * = unit of hybrid catfish is million pieces. Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 (Summer) (Rainy) (Winter) /HH.28/HH 4.7/HH /HH /HH /HH 3.4 *.64*/HH /HH /HH /HH.77 *.35*/HH /HH 45.88/HH Total annual Production (Ton) /HH 3.4.5/HH /HH /HH 23.9* 2.99*/HH The production of the HH surveyed sold out for fish and aquatic plants culture in Table 3.9 shows in nearly all of the AFPS s production is influenced by the seasons mainly in the winter season all AFPS activities including fish and plants are producing less so higher prices are expected. But for our AFPS surveyed in the group of the water mimosa growers at Suanprikthai village they have no production for selling during the winter season (Nov-Feb) for the reason that the water mimosa stops growing and plenty of pests and diseases appear on the plants by that time. And for the reason of no hybrid catfish seed production at Lumsai village in the winter season because it is not a season for catfish breeding. 2) Gross income and yield of AFPS production systems Production income is shown in Table 3.2; we found that the highest annual income is for the group of morning glory farmers at Nongpraongai village (22,828 US$) who have more AFPS HH surveys (n= 56) than others villages and the following are hybrid catfish farm (92,69 USD), hybrid catfish seed production group (34,79 USD) at Lumsai village and fish polyculture (46,58 USD) and finally the group of water mimosa farmers at Suanprikthai village (2,399 USD). Yield of each AFPS production system is shown in the Figure 3.8. Higher yields (ton/per ha/per year) are found in aquatic plants for both morning glory and water mimosa farming than fish culture. This is because of the rapid re-growth of the aquatic 5

52 plant stems after harvesting they can be harvested more than 4 times per year compared to fish ponds which are harvested at the most 3 times annually but normally once or twice. This high productivity per unit area of aquatic plant cultivation systems and more regular harvesting and sales means that growers can command more regular incomes throughout the whole year compared to their fish farming counterparts. Table 3.2 Annual income of AFPS occupation by production systems Village Nongpraongai (n=56) Suanprikthai (n=2) Suanprikthai (n=27) Lumsai (n=24) Lumsai (n=8) Production Systems Morning Glory -non ww 2,67,824/HH Water Mimosa Farming 3 65/HH Fish Poly culture- non ww /HH Hybrid Catfish -non ww ,6/HH Hybrid Catfish seed production 9,444/HH Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 84,37,5/HH 99 55/HH /HH USD 34,623 68/HH Annual Income 22,828 3,943/HH /HH /HH 32625,359/HH 4,37/HH ,44/HH 4658,7/HH ,7/HH /HH Yield (ton/ha/yrs) Yield of AFPS production by production systems 6.35 NPG Morning glory non ww (n=56) 4.24 SPT Water mimosa (n=2) 2.7 SPT Fish polyculture (n=27).49 Lum Hybrid catfish (n=32) Figure 3.8 Yield of AFPS production by production systems (Yield = Total production of each systems produced in one year - unit is ton per hectare per year 3) Marketing system The Marketing system for fish and the aquatic plants culture in Thailand is dependent on the season for example in the winter plants seem to have many problems such as stopping growing, disease outbreaks and the contamination of wastewater in the canal. So, when the demand is still the same but the supply is decreased price of aquatic plants seems to 52

53 be increased in the winter season. Except for the water mimosa at Suanprikthai village the price seems to be decreasing in the winter season because the quality is not good because of contaminated water in the canal so, the water mimosa is smaller and smelly so, all of the water mimosa growers at Suanprikthai village cannot sell their production during this time and only harvest for household consumption (see Table 3.22). For the fish production systems price is reliant on many reasons for instance for festivals the Thai and Chinese New Year the price of fish is increasing because higher demand by that time. But fish prices are not stable dependent on the external indicators of investment cost and amount of fish supply available in each month. Catfish seed production is much lower during the winter season as they cannot breed but for the grow out (food fish) farmers of hybrid catfish they will be nursing catfish in the pond, grading sizes of the fish before selling and still fattening the smaller fish so, nearly everyone who works in the intensive hybrid catfish farms understand about the market system and always manages well to have enough fish to culture for selling all year round. This is a good example of how with increasing intensification and management and husbandry practices some peri-urban fish farmers have developed all year round production which whilst generating higher incomes for them also helps to maintain their markets and also a stable price for selling their product. Table 3.22 Average farmers selling price of AFPS produce by season Price of AFPS production per ton (USD) Village Production Systems Mon May- Jun, 24 Mon 2 Jul-Aug, 24 Mon 3 Nov-Jan, 25 Nongpraongai (n=56) Morning Glory -non ww Suanprikthai (n=2) Water Mimosa Farming 4.75 Suanprikthai (n=27) Fish Poly culture- non ww Lumsai (n=24) Hybrid Catfish -non ww Lumsai Hybrid Catfish seed (n=8) production 5.75* 5.5* Note: * = price of cat fish seed production per pieces 3.) Market sites of AFPS production by season The market sites for each AFPS production systems are shown below in Figure 3.9. It is a good indicator of where the production moves from farm to table and who are the market actors interacting with these AFPS systems and where the AFPS HHs sell their fish and aquatic plants to. Figure 3.9 shows that fish farmers mainly sell their production at the farm gate but for the morning glory growers at Nongpraongai village we found that more that half of the 53

54 farmers bring their production to sale at the wholesale market by themselves. This is because of the large and regular volumes of morning glory produced as well as the growers getting a superior price in the wholesale market compared to other outlets. Market site of AFPS HH survey % 8% 6% 4% 2% % Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 NPG Morning glory non ww (n=56) SPT water mimosa (n=2) SPT Fish polyculture (n=27) LUM Hybrid catfish (n=32) Farm gate Local market Wholesale market Delivery as need Figure 3.9 Marketing sites of AFPS production systems Hybrid catfish farmers at Lumsai village mainly also sell at the farm gate however they also can deliver the fish by order to other specific locations or buyers. Local markets are one of the markets sited specially for morning glory sales at Nongpraongai village, water mimosa and some mixed types of fish sell at Suanprikthai village. This market is mainly sold to their neighbours or the village nearby. However it is interesting overall to note how relatively little of both fish and aquatic plants are sold by the producers to local markets, and again is perhaps an indication of how developed these AFPS producers are in marketing their produce. 3.2) Types of buyer for AFPS production by season The buyer of AFPS production is mainly the middleman for both fish and aquatic plants production. Self sell appears with the morning glory farmers who bring their production to sell in the wholesale market and on a much smaller scale with water mimosa farmers in SPT village who sell their production to the local market and the village nearby. For the fish production the fish were mainly being bought by the middleman and only a few percent of the farmers sold their production by themselves. 54

55 Type of buyer for AFPS production % 8% 6% 4% 2% % Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 NPG Morning glory non ww (n=56) SPT water mimosa (n=2) Middleman SPT Fish polyculture (n=27) Self sell LUM Hybrid catfish (n=32) Figure 3.2 Types of Buyer for AFPS production systems Labour of aquatic food production system of household surveyed Labour in agricultural activities is a very important job for half of the Thai population because Thailand s economy is still mainly based on agricultural systems. Most of the people can easily find a job in a factory or in a new city nearby. For those AFPS HHs surveyed we found that many of the family members who have a higher education or the new generation in the house prefer to work outside, thus AFPS HHs need to fill this gap with more outside labour especially, in the intensive fish and aquatic plant farms. ) Number of working days per month by production systems Average total working day per months days NPG Morning glory non ww (n=56) SPT Water mimosa (n=2) SPT Fish polyculture (n=27) Lum Hybrid catfish (n=32) Figure 3.2 Average total numbers of working days/ per month/ per household by production activity 55

56 . Figure 3.2 shows the average total number of working days per month in each household by production system. The results show that more working days per month are required for morning glory farming (92 days) more than hybrid catfish culture (87 days), fish polyculture (54 days), and water mimosa farming (34 days). Even though these working days are related to the number of workers who are working 7 hrs per day so, this number can be from both family unit and hired out labour and paid by the number of working hours thus the culture periods (crop) are different between the fish culture period which can be one year, and only 3 months for morning glory, but 6 months per crop for the extensive water mimosa farming in the canal. Morning glory farming can involve weekly harvesting and weekly application of fertilizer and pesticide as well so, it seems to have more work to do compared to fish the farm which simply needs labour for feeding twice a day and need more labour when the fish are harvested which is on average one time per year. 2) Number of hired in labourers by production systems Table 3.23 Average number of labourers hired in AFPS activities Table 3.23 shows that the average number of labourers hired in AFPS HH activities - the data showed that an average of about 9 workers are hired in for working in morning glory farming compared to about 5 workers for hybrid catfish farming at Lumsai village and an average of 3 workers hired to work in the fish polyculture systems in SPT village. Village Nongpraongai (n=56) Suanprikthai (n=2) Suanprikthai (n=27) Production Systems Morning Glory -non ww Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Ave Ave Ave Max Min Max Min Max ± S.D. ± S.D. ± S.D ± ± ± 3.73 Min 2 Water Mimosa Farming Fish Poly culture- non ww 2.4 ± ± ± Lumsai (n=32) Hybrid Catfish -non ww 5.38 ± ± ±

57 3) Comparison of the average HH labour per week and the outside labour used by different AFPS. The use of family labour is essential for the AFPS systems but because of many of the younger working age generation are now working outside the AFPS systems for example in government jobs or working for a private company therefore AFPS HHs need to hire workers to help on the farm. Figure 3.22 shows that morning glory farming and hybrid catfish farming were hiring more outside workers ie non family but conversely the fish polyculture farmers in SPT use family labour more than outside labour. The extensive water mimosa farming is only for inside HH activities; as said before this activity is mainly for women in Suanprikthai village to work to get more additional money and is not aimed at producing a major income for living at all. Labour Production of AFPS activities % 8% 6% 4% 2% % HH labour Outside labour HH labour Outside labour HH labour Outside labour Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 NPG Morning glory non ww (n=56) SPT Water mimosa (n=2) SPT Fish polyculture (n=27) Lum Hybrid catfish (n=32) Figure 3.22 Comparison between HH labour and outside labour by production systems The outside labour wage rate for last year (24) during our survey is shown in Table The cost of hiring the labour depended on the types of work for example working cutting vegetables for feeding fish in polyculture fish production at Suanprikthai village got a rate of 5 baht ( US$) per job which is about -2 hrs working. But in hybrid catfish farming the work is harder and often longer hours therefore is generally better paid. 57

58 Table 3.24 Outside labour cost (24) Village Production Systems Mon (Baht per day) Ave± S.D. Max Min Mon 2 (Baht per day) Ave ± S.D. Max Min Mon 3 (Baht per day) Ave ± S.D. Max Min Nongpraongai (n=56) Morning Glory - non ww 8.8 ± ± ± Suanprikthai (n=2) Water Mimosa Farming Suanprikthai (n=27) Fish Poly culturenon ww 7.8 ± ± ± Lumsai (n=32) Hybrid Catfish - non ww 89.5 ± ± ± Note; currency unit (4 Baht per USD) Feed and inputs into aquatic food production systems ) Seasonality of fish and aquatic plant inputs by production systems Each different production system has different inputs in their farming system as shown in Table For the morning glory farming at Nongpraongai village the top three inputs during the culture period are pesticides / herbicides, chemical fertilizer and lime. These inputs are applied once a week in the morning glory pond. For fish culture both fish polyculture and hybrid catfish systems are using similiar types of input as shown in the table below. Herbicides, lime and chemicals are the top three ranking for the inputs into the fish culture systems which are similar wherever the culture area is. There appeared to be no seasonal variations in the use of the different inputs. 58

59 Table 3.25 Inputs of AFPS production system by season Village Production Systems Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Nongpraongai Pesticides & Pesticides & Pesticides & Morning Glory -non Herbicides Herbicides Herbicides Chemical Chemical (n=56) ww fertilizer fertilizer Chemical fertilizer Lime Lime Lime Suanprikthai Water Mimosa (n=2) Farming none none none Suanprikthai Herbicides Herbicides Herbicides Fish Poly culture- (n=27) Lime Lime Lime non ww Chemical Chemical Chemical Lumsai Herbicides Herbicides Herbicides Hybrid Catfish -non (n=32) Lime Lime Lime ww Chemical Chemical Chemical 2) Types of fish feed by Season Feed input for fish culture for AFPS HH surveyed % 8% 6% 4% 2% % Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 SPT Fish polyculture (n=27) LUM Hybrid catfish (n=32) Canteen waste Pellet Veget ables Chicken (intestines & bone) Figure 3.23 Types of feed input for fish culture According to the feed types used in different fish culture systems, various feeding methods are applied by the fish farmers themselves. The use of feed during our one year survey is shown in Figure 3.23 and Plate 3.8. The data indicated that only intensive hybrid catfish culture systems are regularly applying pelleted feed as the farmers said they used the pellet feed for catfish fingerlings in order to reduce the mortality rates. Most of the hybrid catfish farmers feed their fish with chicken wastes (intestine and bone) but since the chicken flu disease expanded in Thailand chicken intestines and 59

60 bones are difficult to find and more expensive therefore making many of the catfish farmers to look for another option such as pelleted feed and canteen waste. Canteen waste was introduced at Lumsai recently and is not popular yet because it s difficult to collect and this feed type required more workers to collect, prepare and feed. Also chicken wastes once ordered were delivered by the poultry company to the fish farm as a regular and cost effective service. For the fish polyculture culture at Suanprikthai village the farmers applied canteen waste, pellets and vegetables wastes for some types of omnivorous fish. The farmers here get up very early to go and collect the canteen waste in the morning and come back to feed their fish in the afternoon once per day. Plate 3.8 Types of fish feed for the AFPS HH by production systems 3.4 Institutions and Policy 3.4. Household members involvement in organizations Institutional membership of the AFPS HH members can be a valuable indicator for the interaction between farmers and the government. Table 3.26 shows the number and the percentage of HHs involved with all institutions both govt and non govt being quite low 6

61 with fish-polyculture HHs (44%), hybrid catfish farmers (4%), water mimosa farming (4%) and morning glory farmers (27%) being involved with institutions. Table 3.26 HHs involvement in organizations by production systems HH Involved in/with Institution Village Production Systems Yes No Total Nongpraongai n Morning Glory -non ww 26* 3* 56 (n=56) 27% 73% % Suanprikthai Water Mimosa Farming (n=2) 4% 6% % Suanprikthai Fish Poly culture- non ww 6* 2* 27 (n=27) 44% 56% % Lumsai Hybrid Catfish -non ww (n=32) 4% 59% % The institutional involvement of farmers can be determined by whether it is advantageous in some way for the farmer because most of AFPS HHs are generally quite busy with their farm work already. Figure 3.24 shows the institutional membership of AFPS HH members in each production system. The popularity of the institutions which have more membership than others are the credit union and the community co-operative and the reason why the farmer s participate in these is because they can provide loans for the farmer for buying their inputs for their AFPS activities. Other organizations that AFPS HH members like to join are Aor BorTor (community administration group), farmer organization, womens union, rural development bank, party committee and joint co-operative organization. The proportion of HHs surveyed who joined institutions in BKK is less than 5% and from the data it appears that involvement with govt sector organizations was minimal rather there being a preference for more local level non govt organizations often serving the role of providing small scale credit for producers or representing the producers at local level. 6

62 Institutional me mbe rship of AFPS HH member by production activity % 8% 6% 4% 2% % Farmer organisation Womens union Credit union Rural development bank Community co-operative group Aor bor tor (community administrative group) Party committee Joint co operative organization NPG Morning glory non ww SPT water mimosa SPT Fish polyculture LUM Hybrid catfish Figure3.24 Institutional membership of HH members by village Household surveyed involvement with government training and access of AFPS informationfor the households surveyed. Overall we found HHs surveyed had no training related to AFPS activities. A few HHs in Nongpraongai village (2) who had attended government training activities as shown in Figure 3.25 Nongpraongai-Morning glory non ww 5, 42% 5, 4% 2, 7% Pesticide application Land vegetable Aquatic plants management Figure 3.25 Number of HH members involved with the government training at Nongpraongai village (Nos, %) 62

63 Amongst both the fish and aquatic plant producers who were never involved in any government training they could otherwise get technical information from TV, newspapers or agriculture magazines. It appears that the minimal contact between AFPS farmers and government officers is because the AFPS farmers said that the government is quite slow to re-act or reply to their problems therefore it is better to ask for help from the private sector such as their neighbours, and also the agro-chemical companies who have very effective extension staff. Clearly none of fish and aquatic plants producers surveyed claimed to receive technical support or knowledge from the government sector Government policies affecting AFPS households surveyed Certain information on AFPS production systems is available from government and non government sources (NGOs). But this depended on the interest of the AFPS farmers and what kind of information they wanted. During the survey only a small proportion of the HHs (less than 5%) we interviewed asking this question actually answered that they needed government support. Table 3.7 shows the categories of government support needed mentioned by the AFPS farmers indicating that many farmers at Nongpraongai village who had morning glory farms were asking for more access to micro credit, adding value to their production, planning and governmental general issues. At Suanprikthai village for both fish polyculture and water mimosa systems help from the government on general issues, agricultural extension, providing free seed and equipment for aquaculture and a few more things such as welfare, planning and adding value to their products was mentioned. The hybrid catfish farmers at Lumsai village had only a few requests from the government for support for example adding value to their products, general government advice, and fisheries extension. Table 3.27 Types of government support needed by AFPS Farmers by community and production system Types of Gov support to the AFPS NPG Morning glory non ww (n=56) SPT water mimosa and fish polyculture (n=47) LUM Hybrid catfish (n=32) Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Mon Mon 2 Mon 3 Welfare 2 Fisheries extension Agricultural extension Legal Planning Get rid of the Water hyacinth 4 Micro-credit loans Government general Add value to their products How to get rid of the golden snail Provide free seed and equipments for aquaculture Commune People's Committee Farmer union Commercial Bank 2 Don't know

64 CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS AND MAIN FINDINGS OF THE REPORT The term peri-urban in relation to AFPS means those growing fish and aquatic plants in between urban and rural areas which has a different meaning in each country around the world. The Department of Land, Thailand (source ) estimates that 4 km 2 of land is peri urban in the Bangkok area which consists of 7 provinces surrounding Bangkok and more than 5 million people in this area who were working within agriculture systems in various activities. In this baseline and monitoring survey we were concerned with aquatic food production systems and some of non AFPS HHs in the selecting communities are indicative examples of aquatic food producers supplying to the markets of peri-urban Bangkok areas. The results from the baseline and monitoring survey are the work of more than one year surveying and collecting data on a seasonal basis to review the household details, the monitoring data and to be able to compare between each production system using different categories of questions as shown in the results and discussions section. Below are the main findings from this project study. Limitations and constraints to the surveys The delays in questionnaire preparation in the early part of 24 led to less time to go out for the interviews with the staff in Bangkok having to combine the baseline and the first monitoring surveys together so that this could be the cause of missing or not complete data due to survey fatigue with respondents. It was difficult to control the survey time because the participants were often busy with their activities and some times we cannot interview the same people in the household because of their work and a new different respondent (HH member) can have different opinions which could affect the validity of the data. In Bangkok, we found that the study sites were quite far away (average 4km from Bangkok) and the 3 communities were located on the border of the Bangkok area which has no public bus to travel there. As a result it was time consuming and overall quite expensive to carry out the surveys. The sampling framework of households surveyed in Bangkok Due to our sampling framework it was limited in the AFPS communities which have different sizes of the community and types of production system dependent on the trend of AFPS in those communities. In the Bangkok survey we could not find equal numbers of HHs in each study site so, our sampling was uneven. We interviewed households in Nongpraongai village, 5 HHs at Suanprikthai village and 52 HHs at Lumsai village 64

65 and in every village we found not enough AFPS HHs also therefore we then included non-afps HHs together. Ideally to get more comparison between AFPS HH and non AFPS HH but in the reality non-afps are difficult to analyse because there are too many occupations and not enough data to compare with the other occupations. Comparisons and finding of the 3 different sections between different AFPS households and production systems Aquatic plants growers as a group are less well off than fish farmers as calculated from the total gross income per household the results show that the hybrid catfish producers (,27 USD/per HH /per year) gain more income than those farming morning glory; 3,943 USD/ per HH /per year) and water mimosa (2 USD/ per HH /per year) but intensive production systems need more inputs and capital so, we cannot really judge from gross income but this data can be a good indicator that fish culture has a higher cash flow than aquatic plants culture. Both fish and aquatic plant production systems have pretty much the same size of household membership as an average of 4 persons which is comparable with the national average (Department of provincial administration) There is some relationship between religion (and gender) and the different growing systems because at Suanprikthai village we found that it is almost exclusively Muslim women growing water mimosa in the canal. In the other systems studied there appeared to be no significant differentiation. Proportionally more women than men are involved in aquatic plants production but men are more involved in fish production the reason being that this type of work with aquatic plant suits women more since it is less physically demanding and perhaps also fits in better with their other daily activities. Fish farmers generally have higher education status than those growing aquatic plants because fish farmers have higher incomes to send their children to get better education or fish culture is more attractive to better educated people than aquatic plants growing. However overall the majority of AFPS producers both fish and aquatic plants growers were only educated to primary school level because the farmers is quite older average age that other production system Most of the fish and aquatic plant systems are carried out on rented rather than owned land (excepting Suanprikthai village where water mimosa is grown in plots in the public canal). Of those producers who actually owned their land hybrid catfish farmers at Lumsai had the highest proportion who owned their own land. The HH members of fish farmers and aquatic plants growers have a similar number of HH members involved in institutions. These were almost all with NGO s, little government interaction was recorded with the AFPS producers throughout our one year survey (During Jan, 23-Dec, 23) none of the AFPS producers in the 3 communities 65

66 interviewed were involved in training related to AFPS fish or aquatic plants production systems. Fish farmers are less likely to have other major income earning activities than aquatic plant growers because good business will need less extra income ie they are generally earning higher incomes. In aquatic plant farming women were found to have more health problems than men but men have more health problems in aquatic fish production. Production sale of fish and aquatic plants is seasonal especially in the winter season (Nov-Jan), when production is lower and a higher price is expected. Fish farming requires higher daily labour input both from the HH and outside hired labour compared to aquatic plants production. Clearly many aquatic fish and plants farmers learned to grow their fish and plants from non-government extension sources such as friends, TV, newspapers and agriculture magazines. This indicates that for the considerable peri-urban fish and aquatic plants production this has been achieved with minimal government intervention or investment. Future perspectives of AFPS of Bangkok The future perspective of AFPS is depending on how fast urbanization and industrialization will continue in the peri-urban areas of Bangkok. Recently, many Bangkokians are moving out of Bangkok by aiming to buy houses in theses peri urban areas 2-4kms out of Bangkok where our AFPS study communities are located. There are an increasing number of housing projects which provide a compete package of a house plus a garden and other facilities such as sport center, swimming pool all at a lower price than living in Bangkok. Although this trend in peri-urban land use change is important most of the AFPS farmers in our surveys still said they are going to continue their activities if the price of the production is still acceptable. Regarding this reason land seems to be no problem for the AFPS Farmers but marketing is highly required to improve as we can see a high percentage of AFPS HHs surveyed are requesting the government to help them to add value to their aquatic products in the future. Disease outbreak is scaring the AFPS farmers since they have some diseases which appear in both fish and aquatic plants every winter which causes a huge income loss and the farmers need to use more chemicals and thus potentially create more pollution too. Last year, the hybrid catfish farmers were affected by the Chicken flu disease outbreak because they could not easily find another cost effective fish feed instead of chicken by products from the poultry industry. This problem is confirmed in that most of the AFPSs are afraid of disease outbreaks in the future because it s difficult to protect. This study gives an overview from a household levelof the peri-urban aquatic food production systems in the three peri-urban communities of Bangkok only. We would 66

67 recommend for those who want to continue studying in relation to this topic they should cover and compare more study areas around peri-urban Bangkok and also look at other types of AFPS production systems. To undertake this project it should have a proper plan for the survey and field work. REFERENCES Bryman, A.2. Social research methods.oxford University Press Inc., New York.59p. Falvey, L.2. Thai agriculture: Golden cradle of millennia. Bangkok, Kasetsart University. 459p. International Statistic Office. 23. Statistical Yearbook of Thailand 22. Number 49.Bangkok: National Statistical Office, Office of the Prime Minister. Kasetsart University 2.Proceeding of the international conference: The Chao Phraya Delta.Volume &2. KU/ UOS SOS (23). Production in aquatic peri-urban systems in Southeast Asia. Stateof-the-system report. Report series /23. Kasetsart University, Thailand Molle, F. and Srijantr, T.999. Agrarian change and the land system in the Chao Phraya Delta. Kasetsart University, DORAS Center, Research Report n.6. 84p. Moser, C. (998) The asset vulnerability framework: Reassessing urban poverty reduction strategies. World Development 2, -9. Sangwanich., A. and Phetrak, J. 2. Report of the APO seminar on urban fringe agriculture. Asian productivity organization. 245p. website of Peri-Urban Aquatic Production System in South East Asia (Papussa) (Jan-Dec: 25-26). Website of Department of Provincial Administration, Thailand (July 26) Website of Ministry of Agriculture (July 26) 67

68 APPENDICES Appendix : Map of the Chao Phraya Delta, including the study areas in peri-urban Bangkok city. 68