The Good Agricultural Practice certification

The respondents in this study comprised 106 certified farmers and 110 non-certified farmers. In general, certified farmers were HM users, and non-certified farmers were TM users. However, the results of the sample in Table 7.11 suggest that 11% of TM users obtained certification, and 15% of HM users did not obtain certification. The reasons behind this discrepancy were that some certified farmers were not market oriented, so they obtained the certification for other reasons, such as persuasion by others or desire to employ good production systems (as explained later in this section). On the other hand, some non-certified farms, which could produce enough high quality fruit, could participate in HMs, due to undersupply of certified fruit in the market.

158

Nevertheless, the two types of market users were strongly related to the state of certification, because the majority (89%) of TM users were non-certified farmers, and 85% of HM users were certified farmers (χ2=118.942,p=.000, ߮=.742).

Table 7.11: Certification and the two types of market users

Certification TM users HM users Total

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Certified 11 11% 95 85% 106 49% Non-certified 93 89% 17 15% 110 51% Total 104 100% 112 100% 216 100% χ2 =118.942,p=.000, ߮=.742 x Non-certified farms

The 110 respondents (non-certified farmers) have provided several reasons for why they did not obtain the certification (Table 7.12). The most important reason (26%) was a lack of information and knowledge about the certification process. Many of the non- certified farmers stated:

"I have no idea about the certification"

"I do not know information about the certification" "Officials have never told me about the certification"

21% of them stated that they did not need to use the certification, or they thought that the certification did not have any advantages for them. Many of them stated:

"I do not use the certification for selling fruit, so I am not interested to be certified." "I can continue to sell my fruit to the market no matter what I get certified or not." "I do not need to use the certification because I have a small-scale fruit farm."

"I usually sell my produce to traditional markets, and they do not require any certification"

The third most important reason (18%) was that they did not have enough time for the certification process. Another reason, which might be related to this reason, was the stringency of the standard, with which they thought they were not able to comply (6%). The remainder of the non-certified farmers had some involvement with the certification

159

process, but they still did not hold certification at the time of the survey. Their reasons were that they were registered and were waiting for training or inspection (16%); another 10% had gone through the certification process but did not pass; some of them used to be certified but the certification had expired (3%); and other reasons, such as the farm ownership had recently been transferred from parents (2%).

Table 7.12: Reasons for non-certification

Reasons Frequency Percent

x Lack of information 28 26%

x No advantage 23 21%

x Lack of time for certification process 20 18%

x On-going process 17 16%

x Did not pass 11 10%

x Stringency of the standard 6 6%

x Expired 3 3%

x Others 2 2%

Total 110 100%

As indicated by Sardsud (2007), one of the barriers that prevent farmers adopting the certification was failure to gain information about the objectives and concept of the Q- GAP programme for farmers. This issue still existed at the time of the survey, partly due to the vast number of small farms (approximately 50,000 farms in Chanthaburi province), in conjunction with the limited budgets and staff of relevant government agencies. As noted by Pongvinyoo, Yamao, and Hosono (2014), Thailand has a limited number of officials responsible for training and processing the certification process. Since Q-GAP implementation did not guarantee either minimum or premium prices, non-certified farmers usually considered there was no motivation for them to gain the certificate (Amekawa, 2013; Sardsud, 2007). Another reason was that fruit farmers have various choices of TMs available to use for their convenience.

x Certified farms

The majority of certified farmers (57%) obtained one fruit crop certification, followed by 33% of farmers who had two fruit crop certifications. The other 10% of farmers had all three certified fruit crops (Table 7.13).

160

Table 7.13: Non-certified and certified farmers in the sample

Number of certification Frequency Percent

Certified farmers 206 100%

One fruit crop certification 60 57%

Two fruit crop certification 35 33%

Three fruit crop certification 11 10%

Table 7.14 indicates that, among the certification of the three main fruit crops, mangosteen was the most certified fruit, being 69% of the certified farmers. Just over half of the certified farmers (51%) obtained durian certification, and only 28% of certified farmers achieved rambutan certification. The results also indicate that the certified farmers in this study had been certified for a period ranging from 0 (just certified in 2014) to 10 years, with an average of 5.3 years. In the case of the average years of each main fruit crop, mangosteen certification had an average of 5.7 years, followed by rambutan and durian certification, with averages of 5.0 and 4.8 years, respectively (Table 7.14).

Table 7.14: The three main fruit crops of the sample’s certified farmers

Certification Responses Percent of Cases

(106) Average years Count Percent Durian 54 34% 51% 4.8 Mangosteen 73 47% 69% 5.7 Rambutan 30 19% 28% 5.0 Total 157 100% 148% 5.3

More than half (53%) the certified farmers in the sample stated that the Q-GAP certification provided better market opportunities (Table 7.15). The second most important reason was that they were certified because of persuasion from others, such as officials and neighbouring farmers (21%), and the third reason was that they considered the certification contributed to good farming practices or quality improvement (16%). The reasons for certification for different types of fruit crops were different. As can be seen in Table 7.15, among the 54 certified durian farmers, the large majority (74%) indicated that the most important reason was for market opportunities. Correspondingly, over half (52%) of the 73 certified mangosteen farmers also indicated the same reason, followed by persuasion by others (26%) and good practice or quality

161

improvement (15%). However, the reasons for rambutan certification (30 farmers) show a different pattern, since the most important reason was persuasion by others (30%), followed by good practice or quality improvement (23%). Another interesting reason (20%) was that rambutan was grown in areas mixed with other certified crops, so they were certified implicitly.

Table 7.15: Reasons for certification

Reasons

Durian Mangosteen Rambutan Total

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

x Market opportunities 40 74% 38 52% 5 17% 83 53% x Higher prices 1 2% 3 4% 1 3% 5 3% x Cost saving 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 1 1% x Good practices/ quality 7 13% 11 15% 7 23% 25 16% x Safety 1 2% 1 1% 1 3% 3 2% x Persuasion by others 5 9% 19 26% 9 30% 33 21% x Mixed crops certification 0 0% 1 1% 6 20% 7 4% Total 54 100% 73 100% 30 100% 157* 100%

Note: *Some farmers were certified for more than one fruit crop.

Although the Q-GAP certification did not contribute to explicit price incentives for the farmers, it could provide several benefits, in terms of product quality improvement and market opportunities. Since the Q-GAP standard contains eight elements of control points, i.e. water source, cultivation site, use of agro-chemical, product storage and on- site transportation, disease and pest-free production, quality management, and data records, the certification makes it easier for farmers to meet high-value market requirements (Pongvinyoo et al., 2014). Q-GAP certified products can be labelled with a Q-GAP logo called 'Q quality mark', to indicate high quality and safety for consumers and support for other 'Q' certification, such as 'Q Shop' for supermarkets and 'Q GMP' for pack-houses (ACFS, 2015). Furthermore, the Q-GAP standard has been developed largely in accordance with the requirements of FAO/WHO, so the certification can be

162

used as a baseline for access to international markets (ACFS, 2012), therefore, increasing market opportunities. According to Kersting and Wollni (2012), farmers obtaining the Q-GAP certification are likely to succeed in participation with other international food standard programmes, such as GlobalGAP, which is required by many lucrative markets.