Forest Guardians, Forest Destroyers: The Politics of Environmental Knowledge in Northern Thailand

7. Agrochemicals

7 Agrochemicals The specter of chemical contamination has played an important role in justifying regulatory intervention in the uplands. Agrochemical use is widely believed to bring considerable risks to ecosystems and to human health. Discussions of upland chemical use regularly feature familiar concerns about environmental fragility and environmental crisis brought about by irresponsible agricultural production and commercialization . In addition, this narrative of environmental crisis conveniently places a selective focus on the activities of particular groups of upland farmers, despite the widespread use of chemicals in both upland and lowland farming systems. In June 2003, for example, the Thai Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment announced that it was to conduct “a study on the use of pesticide in ecological-sensitive watershed areas to limit their use and promote environment-friendly farming practices” (Anchalee 2003). This study chose two case-study sites, one in Nan province and the other in Chiang Mai province “because they were located in Watershed Class 1A, very ecological sensitive areas and where all man made constructions are prohibited.” A ministry spokesperson commented that the “problem of agriculture in highland [areas] is rather sensitive since you deal with tribal people that have their own culture.” In an earlier visit to one of the study areas he found that the local villages—“ethnic Lesaw [Lisu] people, once a nomad hill tribe from China’sYunnan province”— had been involved in “self-sufficient and organic farming for decades” but that they had “turned to using pesticides after the state and com170 panies promoted mono-crop farming such as barley, lychee, persimmon and cabbages.” This brief report encapsulates many of the perceptions surrounding agricultural chemical use in Thailand’s northern watersheds. The underlying narrative is the familiar account of preexisting sustainability disrupted by the external intrusion of both state and market. The social focus is narrow, with public concerns focusing on minority tribal groups whose presence in Thailand is both recent and, quite possibly, illegitimate. And a specific environmental focus is placed on sensitive Class 1A areas, with the Bangkok Post headline—“Contamination”—reflecting widely held anxiety that these nationally significant upland water sources have been sullied by the promotion of “mono-crop farming and the use of pesticides since 1990” (Anchalee 2003). These idealized characterizations of both landscapes and people previously untarnished by modernization have influenced how agrochemicals are represented in public discussion. In this simplified narrative, chemically supported agriculture is framed as an inappropriate presence in fragile upland ecosystems, underlining the importance of watershed classification and land-use regulation. There is no room for alternative valuations of agrochemicals, such as their role in supporting poor farming livelihoods, nor is there room for consideration of the ways in which idealized images of pristine watershed forest and ethnic traditions might give an inaccurate picture of environmental and social processes in the uplands. These key perceptions about agrochemical use in Thailand’s northern uplands have emerged over time and in specific circumstances. Agrochemicals have played a central role in the recent transformation of upland agriculture, and there has been a subsequent backlash against upland chemical use among government agencies, media, and ngos. This backlash has spawned a range of alternative “chemical-free” approaches to upland agriculture. Critics of agrochemical use have used scientific and other knowledge claims to create the appearance of known risks and certain impacts, despite the persistence of very significant uncertainty. This “stabilization” of uncertain knowledge indicates that dominant perceptions about agrochemicals in northern Thailand are shaped more by political concerns about “appropriate” upland livelihoods than by a clear understanding of the risks and benefits of chemical use. Agrochemicals 171 172 Agrochemicals AGROCHEMICAL USE BEFORE THE 1970S Moerman’s classic account of the paddy farmers of Chiang Kham district in the 1950s provides a good indication of the prechemical farming system and some of the factors driving adoption of chemicals. Despite farmer concerns about declining yields on “tired” land, fertilizer use was not considered: New land, increased herds, and tractor rental—not commercial fertilizer—are their answers to declining yields. Some of them theorize that fertilizer is unnecessary because Ban Ping’s fields are close to the mountains and thus get the freshest water with the most plentiful nutrients. . . . Fertilizer is seen as a costly substance used by a few Chinese market gardeners and by largescale citrus growers. To the villager, fertilizer is a symbol of...