ABSTRACT
Thailand’s rice sector plays a critical role in national food security, rural livelihoods, and export earnings; however, the industry is increasingly challenged by climate change, increased production costs, declining competitiveness, labor shortages, and environmental degradation. As a response to this situation, sustainable rice production has become a policy agenda of Thailand’s Bio-Circular-Green (BCG) economic model. In this report, we study the formation of sustainable rice production in Thailand, considering adjustments to farmers' strategies and the institutional and policy problems in the transition of farmers towards climate-smart agricultural processes. Research provides a summary of previous empirical studies, as well as policy reports and programs for developing agriculture in Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), organic rice farming, Integrated Pest Management (IPM), biological control, Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD), and precision agriculture technology. Findings suggest sustainable rice production in Thailand is still very complex and context-dependent. GAP systems have achieved the highest promotion and uptake levels, due to strong policy support and market-driven food safety requirements, whereas organic rice production is still highly concentrated in niche markets due to transition risks, labor shortages and certification limitations. IPM, biological control and AWD techniques have positive environmental and productivity results but are restricted due to behavioral impediments, infrastructure limitations and centralized irrigation supervision. At the same time, climate-smart and precision agriculture technologies have an early adoption profile, especially among elderly small farmers, confronted with digital and financial obstacles. This paper also shows that poor policy implementation, unconditional subsidies, and temporary trade-offs to the economy and resource limitations in financing access to green finance still restrict large-scale transition to sustainable rice systems. The article suggests policy recommendations based on human capital development, group-based technology, green infrastructure, and risk-mitigating financial mechanisms are recommended to strengthen Thailand's transition to resilient and sustainable rice production systems.
Keywords: Sustainable rice farming, climate-smart agriculture, precision agriculture, farmer adaptation, Thailand rice sector
INTRODUCTION
Rice is not just the primary crop of Thailand, but also a fundamental pillar of national food security, rural livelihoods, cultural identity, and employment generation in rural areas. Over half of Thailand’s agricultural households are involved in rice cultivation, demonstrating the vital socio-economic significance of the sector (Department of International Trade, 2016). Moreover, Thailand has consistently remained one of the world’s leading rice exporters, generating substantial export earnings and contributing significantly to the national economy (Bank of Thailand, 2025). Even with establishing itself as a key supplier to the global rice market, the Thai rice industry is experiencing a crucial transitional phase characterized by mounting structural issues and decreasing competitiveness, which have been piling up over the past decades (Paopongsakorn, 2022).
Climate change is one of the biggest agricultural challenges to Thailand due to its dire consequences for rice farming ecosystems. Extended periods of drought, erratic rainfall patterns, and unexpected intense flooding are now major threats to growing crops that have a far-reaching effect on the amount of rice produced and the living standards of farmers (Asian Development Bank, 2009). In addition, conventional Thai rice farming contributes to environmental problems by emitting greenhouse gases—principally methane — that escape from waterlogged rice paddies, a gas with a greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide (Dharma, 2021). Beyond the environmental dimension, the economic structure within farms also faces numerous problems. Production costs are continuously rising due to the prices of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and energy. Per unit area in Thailand remains relatively low compared with competing rice-producing countries in ASEAN (Nation Thailand, 2025). In addition, Thailand’s agricultural sector has entered an aging society, resulting in increasing labor shortages and reduced availability of agricultural workers (Udomkerdmongkol and Chalermpao, 2020; World Bank. 2021a). These combined challenges have intensified concerns regarding the long-term sustainability, competitiveness, and resilience of Thailand’s rice production systems.
Given these challenges, the transition of rice production systems to sustainable rice farming is not merely an alternative approach but an essential necessity for the resilience and long-term sustainability of Thailand’s food system. This article examines the current state of sustainable rice development in Thailand by focusing on two interconnected dimensions—farmers’ adaptive behavior at the farm level and the policy limitations and institutional challenges faced by the government. This study seeks to provide policy recommendations for relevant stakeholders and to offer practical insights and lessons that may serve as a useful reference for other rice-producing countries facing similar agricultural and environmental challenges.
FARMER ADAPTATION TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY
In the Thai context, sustainable rice production (SUR) extends beyond organic farming and encompasses a wide range of agricultural practices, technologies, and management systems that aim to reduce environmental impacts, improve resource-use efficiency, lower production costs, and enhance farmers’ livelihoods simultaneously (Srisopaporn et al., 2015). These approaches include reduced chemical input use, Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), Integrated Pest Management (IPM), biological control applications, Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD), organic farming, and climate-smart or precision agriculture systems (Srisompun et al., 2025). Over the past decade, government agencies, private sector actors, and international organizations have increasingly promoted these practices through policies related to food safety, greenhouse gas mitigation, agricultural standards, and premium rice markets (UNDP, 2017; IRRI, 2024). However, adoption levels remain highly uneven across regions due to differences in irrigation systems, farm size, market access, infrastructure, and farmers’ access to knowledge and technology. Structural constraints in rainfed rice ecosystems continue to limit the adoption of sustainable technologies, while short-term trade-offs between productivity and reduced chemical input use remain major challenges under low-fertility soil conditions (Srisompun et al., 2026).
The sustainable rice sector in Thailand that developed over the past decade demonstrates Thai farmers’ adaptive strategies to respond to growing pressures from climate change, increased production costs, and fluctuations of global markets alongside increasing demands on food safety and environmental conditions from domestic and international consumers (Srisopaporn et al., 2015). However, the evolution of sustainable rice production in Thailand has not followed a uniform pathway. Instead, it has developed in a highly heterogeneous manner shaped by differences in water resources, market structures, farm size, and the socio-economic capacities of farming households (Srisompun et al., 2024). Consequently, substantial variations in the adoption of sustainable technologies and practices can be observed across production regions and farming systems (Table 1).
Rice production under Good Agricultural Practices (GAP)
Rice production under Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) refers to a farm-level production management system in which all stages of rice cultivation are systematically controlled, monitored, and evaluated. These stages include land preparation, water resource management, use of inputs such as seed, fertilizer, and agrochemicals, crop maintenance, harvesting, and post-harvest handling (Schreinemachers et al., 2012). Based on previous studies, technical reports, and agricultural statistics, GAP rice production has become one of the most widely adopted forms of sustainable agriculture in Thailand, particularly when compared with other sustainability-oriented approaches such as organic farming and the Sustainable Rice Platform (SRP). This trend is especially evident in irrigated areas of the Central Region and the lower Northern Region, which serve as major commercial rice-producing zones for export-oriented white rice production (Srisopaporn et al., 2015).
A key driver of GAP adoption is the government's use of GAP standards as both a mandatory and a semi-mandatory policy instrument, particularly through their linkage to the Large-Scale Farming Scheme. This program has received continuous budgetary support and aims to strengthen technical knowledge, improve access to public support measures, and reduce the costs of innovation and the adoption of green infrastructure among smallholder farmers (Rice Department, 2024). The adoption of GAP standards is driven not solely by environmental considerations but also by their role as a market access requirement. Downstream actors in modern rice supply chains, including large commercial rice mills, rice exporters, and modern trade retailers, face increasing pressure from consumers concerned about food safety. GAP certification, therefore, functions as an entry point for assuring that rice products are safe from chemical residues and can be traced throughout the supply chain
Nevertheless, despite the rapid expansion of GAP-certified areas, several constraints continue to limit the long-term sustainability of GAP adoption among smallholder farmers. Bureaucratic and compliance costs remain a major challenge, particularly among aging farmers who often lack the digital and managerial skills required for farm record-keeping and annual certification processes (Chantharat et al., 2019; Office of Agricultural Economics, 2023). In addition, the failure of price premium mechanisms represents a critical economic barrier, as many local rice mills continue to procure GAP and conventional rice together due to logistical and storage limitations, preventing farmers from receiving sufficient premium prices to offset compliance costs (Rerkasem, 2017; Suwanmaneepong et al., 2023). Furthermore, biophysical risks and technical efficiency trade-offs are especially significant in non-irrigated areas, where more than 70–76% of Thailand’s rice-growing areas are located. Under rainfed conditions, uncertain water management and reduced chemical input use may temporarily lower productivity and technical efficiency, with empirical evidence showing a decline in mean technical efficiency scores from 0.83 to 0.79 (Srisompun et al., 2026).
Organic rice
The promotion of sustainable agriculture through organic rice cultivation in Thailand reflects a development trajectory that differs substantially from the expansion of GAP-certified rice systems. Although organic rice has attracted considerable attention from premium consumer segments concerned with health, food safety, and environmental sustainability, and has been positioned as a strategic component of Thailand’s high-value rice export policy, adoption at the farm level remains relatively limited. In practice, organic rice production continues to operate largely within a niche market framework and exhibits strong spatial clustering, particularly in rainfed agricultural areas of Northeastern Thailand. Empirical evidence from the central Northeastern region indicates that only 0.24% of farmers successfully achieved certified organic rice production, compared with 7.39% for GAP-certified rice systems (Srisompun et al., 2024). The primary factor motivating farmers to adopt and transition toward organic farming is the availability of price premiums, which function as an economic incentive to compensate for potential yield reductions and production risks.
Historically, one of the most significant barriers facing smallholder farmers was the high cost and complexity associated with obtaining international organic certifications such as the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA Organic). Certification expenses frequently exceeded the financial capacity of local farmer associations and community enterprises. Consequently, the current development trajectory has increasingly shifted toward the adoption of Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS), a socially embedded certification mechanism emphasizing transparency, trust, and peer-review processes among community members, consumers, and local academics (Phuengpracha, 2019). The PGS approach has substantially reduced compliance costs while simultaneously strengthening local market trust and facilitating the development of short supply chains (IFOAM – Organics International, 2019)
Several successful cases of organic rice development have emerged in Thailand, particularly in the lower Northeastern provinces of Yasothon, Ubon Ratchathani, and Amnat Charoen. These successes have been driven by strong farmer organizations, provincial policy support, and collaboration with local research institutions. Investments in community-based organic rice mills have helped prevent contamination from conventional rice systems, while forward market linkages through “fair contract farming” arrangements with environmentally oriented rice exporters have enhanced market stability (Panpluem and Yin, 2021). Under these integrated management systems, members cultivating Jasmine Rice 105 successfully reduced chemical fertilizer use by 100% and received organic paddy price premiums approximately 20–30% higher than conventional market prices, thereby improving household income and financial stability (Panpluem et al., 2019)
Despite several successful local models, the nationwide transition toward organic rice farming in Thailand remains relatively slow due to persistent structural and economic constraints. During the first two to three years of transition, farmers often experience severe yield declines of approximately 30–40% as soil ecosystems recover from chemical dependency, making it difficult for indebted smallholders to absorb temporary income losses (Pimentel et al., 2005). In addition, organic rice farming is highly labor-intensive because herbicide use is prohibited, while Thailand’s aging farming population and rural labor shortages further constrain expansion (Office of Agricultural Economics, 2024). Production efficiency trade-offs also remain important, particularly under the sandy and low-fertility soil conditions of Northeastern Thailand, where reduced chemical input use may temporarily lower technical efficiency and productivity (Srisompun et al., 2026).
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and biological control practices
IPM and biological control practices as a strategic intervention in accordance with emerging issues about food security, as the agricultural development strategies in Thailand has evolved, the switch from the use of intensive synthetic agrochemicals-based crop protection systems towards IPM and biological-based control systems has emerged as one of Thailand’s national strategic priorities in changing policies of adaptation to the agricultural technology due to increased issues related to food security and environmental sustainability. These are based on the application of organic and biological control methods, including Trichoderma spp. and Beauveria bassiana, with natural plant extracts that contribute to the ecological balance of rice ecosystems (Plant Research and Development Division, 2023). The use of such practices has attracted more and more policy focus, particularly among young, more progressive farmers who have higher social capital and stronger attitudes to ecological innovation than those of conventional farming groups. These farmers are generally more aware of the long-term health risks and hidden economic costs associated with intensive chemical use (Poungchompu and Phuttachat, 2025; Sukkasem et al, 2025).
Despite growing policy support, the farm-level adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and biological control technologies in Thailand remains relatively low due to several structural and behavioral constraints (Photong, 2023; FAO, 2020). Because of their fast “knock-down effect,” many farmers continue to depend on synthetic pesticides, whilst biological control agents typically perform more slowly and with less visible effects. Most biological products also have short shelf lives and show variable efficacy depending on environmental conditions such as temperature and humidity, while access to standardized products and technical services in rural areas is inconsistent. This is further complicated by the limited ecological and entomological knowledge of smallholder farmers that results in over-pesticide applications since these farmers have little idea where harmful pests are, as opposed to beneficial insects present in rice (Intupooti, 2018; Iamsaard, 2013).
Nevertheless, there are multiple socio-economic variables that positively influence adoption, the most common being farmers’ education, access to agricultural credit and exposure to training programs on natural extracts and compost processing. These findings imply that sustainable crop protection technologies should also be considered knowledge-intensive innovations with strong extension and capacity-building support. The productivity gains found in adopters also translate into practical benefits; farmers adopting biological control and natural extract techniques achieve average rice yields of 2.63 to 2.66 tons per hectare, in contrast to 2.36 tons per hectare achieved by non-adopters (Srisompun et al., 2024).
Alternate Wetting and Drying: AWD
Using AWD technology to save water and reduce water for growing rice has come to be one of the major systemic innovations in Thailand’s agricultural climate policy framework. This innovation has been promoted not only as a key mechanism for improving water-use efficiency under increasing drought risks, but also as an important climate change mitigation strategy. AWD can substantially reduce methane (CH4) emissions generated from continuously flooded rice paddies, which are recognized as a major source of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Methane possesses a global warming potential more than 28 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period (IPCC, 2014; Rice Department, 2021).
At present, the adoption of AWD technology has begun to expand in selected areas, particularly among farmers located within irrigated zones receiving integrated support from international development programs such as the Thai Rice NAMA Project. This initiative has served as a key institutional mechanism for strengthening green agricultural infrastructure and facilitating the transfer of eco-innovative farming technologies. In practice, AWD fundamentally changes farmers’ traditional water management practices by shifting from continuous flooding toward irrigation management based on critical crop growth stages and soil moisture conditions. The implementation process generally involves three major components: land preparation and land leveling, installation of water-monitoring devices such as perforated field water tubes (“Pani pipes”), and the management of intermittent irrigation cycles (GIZ, 2021).
Increasing prices of fuel and electricity linked with irrigation pumping have emerged as vital economic forces driving farmers to implement less frequent irrigation and Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) practices. Government support programs providing water-monitoring equipment and technical training have also contributed to increasing interest in AWD adoption. Nevertheless, the large-scale expansion of AWD remains limited despite its potential to reduce irrigation costs and greenhouse gas emissions.
Major constraints include the fact that more than 70–76% of Thailand’s rice-growing areas are in rainfed ecosystems outside irrigation zones, where farmers cannot regulate water cycles according to AWD protocols (Srisompun et al., 2024). Even within irrigated areas, centralized irrigation governance and open canal systems limit farmers’ ability to manage water according to field-specific needs (TDRI, 2022). In addition, fields lacking proper Laser Land Leveling (LLL) may experience excessive drying, weed infestation, and temporary yield instability, increasing labor requirements and reducing farmers’ willingness to adopt AWD practices (Department of Land Development, 2018; DEPA, 2022).
Climate-smart agriculture and precision farming technologies in Thailand’s rice sector
The adaptation of the rice production value chain in Thailand to climate-smart agriculture with precision agriculture applications has become an increasingly vital strategic tool under conditions of ecosystem instability and climate change. These innovations encompass a wide range of technologies, including the use of agricultural drones for input application, soil moisture and nutrient sensors, and geographic information systems (GIS) and satellite imagery for site-specific farm management. The primary objective of these technologies is to enhance input-use efficiency while simultaneously reducing the carbon footprint of rice production systems (Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency [GISTDA], 2023; World Bank, 2021b).
Despite their strategic importance, the diffusion of climate-smart and precision agriculture technologies in Thailand’s rice sector remains at an early stage, with adoption rates below 10% nationwide and concentrated mainly among progressive farmers and government pilot projects (Srisompun et al., 2024). One of the most significant barriers is the aging demographic structure of Thai farmers, whose average age ranges between 58 and 60 years. This has contributed to a substantial digital divide, limiting farmers’ capacity to adopt knowledge-intensive and technology-driven innovations (Office of Agricultural Economics, 2024). Empirical evidence shows that educational attainment and access to information positively influence technology adoption, while increasing farmer age negatively affects adaptation decisions (Arunrat et al., 2017; Sayruamyat & Nadee, 2020; Aung et al., 2025)
In addition, the economic feasibility of smart agriculture adoption remains constrained by small and fragmented farm sizes, which limit economies of scale and increase the fixed costs of technologies such as drones, sensors, and precision input management systems (Kwanmuang et al., 2022). High initial investment costs, combined with uneven rural digital infrastructure and limited access to green financing, further restrict adoption among smallholder farmers already burdened by agricultural debt (Jantarasiri, 2022; Chantarat et al., 2023).
Table 1. Adaptation and adoption of sustainable rice production technologies in Thailand
|
Sustainable Production Approach
|
Adoption Trends
|
Influencing Factors
|
Barriers and Constraints
|
|
Good Agricultural Practices (GAP Rice)a
|
• Highest adoption and expansion rate among sustainable rice farming systems
• Highly concentrated in irrigated areas
|
• Mandatory and semi-mandatory government policies through the Large-Scale Farming Scheme
• Subsidies for production inputs (improved seeds, customized fertilizers, machinery)
• Food safety requirements and market access pressures from modern trade and export markets (traceability systems)
|
• Aging farmers (58–60 years old) often lack managerial and digital skills for maintaining farm record systems
• Failure of price premium mechanisms due to mixed procurement systems (“mixed paddy rice”) and the absence of segregated storage systems, resulting in limited premium price benefits for farmers
• Biophysical constraints, as 70–76% of rice fields are located outside irrigation zones, making pest and disease management more difficult
|
|
Organic Riceb
|
• Slow growth and expansion primarily within niche markets • High spatial clustering, particularly in lower Northeastern provinces
• Extremely low adoption rate in the central Northeastern region (0.24%)
|
• High price premiums, approximately 20–30% above conventional rice prices
• Adoption of Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) to reduce certification costs
• Strong farmer organizations, provincial policy support, and contract farming arrangements with rice exporters
|
• Severe yield decline during the 2–3-year transition period, making temporary losses difficult to absorb for indebted farmers
• Organic rice production prohibits herbicide use, resulting in high labor demand despite severe labor shortages and an aging farmer population (>59 years old)
• Lower technical efficiency under sandy soil conditions without chemical fertilizer use (average TE reduced to 0.79)
• High risks of cross-contamination from neighboring conventional rice fields, requiring costly buffer zones
|
|
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Biological Control Practicesc
|
• Farm-level adoption remains relatively low and fragmented
• Increasing interest among younger and progressive farmers with higher social capital
|
• Educational level of household heads
• Access to agricultural credit for alternative inputs
• Participation in training programs on natural extracts and composting
• Greater awareness of health risks and hidden costs associated with agrochemical use
• Potential yield improvements to 2.63–2.66 tons/ha compared with 2.36 tons/ha among non-adopters
|
• Farmers prefer the rapid “knock-down effect” of chemical pesticides, whereas biological agents act more slowly
• Biological products such as Trichoderma and Beauveria have short shelf lives and variable effectiveness depending on temperature and humidity conditions, while rural supply chains remain inconsistent
• Limited entomological knowledge prevents farmers from distinguishing between pests and beneficial insects, leading to excessive pesticide use
|
|
Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD)d
|
• Expansion remains limited to selected areas • Primarily implemented through international pilot projects such as Thai Rice NAMA
|
• Rising energy prices (fuel and electricity for irrigation pumping) encourage reduced irrigation frequency
• Government support for water-monitoring devices (Pani pipes) and technical training
• Increasing demand for greenhouse gas mitigation, particularly methane (CH4), which has a global warming potential 28 times greater than CO2
|
• Approximately 70–76% of rice cultivation areas are rainfed, limiting farmers’ ability to regulate water cycles according to AWD protocols
• Centralized irrigation management systems operate through top-down open canal distribution, which does not align with field-level water demand management
• High weed infestation risks in fields without proper laser land leveling (LLL), potentially leading to yield losses
|
|
Climate-Smart Agriculture and Precision Farming Technologiese
|
• Still at an early stage of development
• National adoption rate remains below 10%
• Technology use remains concentrated among progressive farmers and government pilot projects
|
• Climate variability and ecological instability increase demand for greater input-use efficiency
• Emergence of innovations such as agricultural drones, soil moisture and nutrient sensors, satellite imagery, and GIS technologies
|
• Aging farmers face difficulties adapting to knowledge-intensive and digitally based innovations, contributing to a significant digital divide
• Small and fragmented farm sizes reduce economies of scale, making investment economically unfeasible
• Precision farming technologies are capital-intensive and require substantial upfront investment, while indebted farmers face limited access to green financing mechanisms
|
Source: aSchreinemachers et al., 2012; Srisopaporn et al., 2015; Rerkasem, 2017; Chantharat et al., 2019; Office of Agricultural Economics, 2023; Suwanmaneepong et al., 2023; Rice Department, 2024; Srisompun et al., 2026
bPimentel et al., 2005; Phuengpracha et al., 2019; IFOAM – Organics International, 2019; Panpluem et al., 2019; Panpluem & Yin, 2021; Office of Agricultural Economics, 2024; Srisompun et al., 2024; Srisompun et al., 2026
cIamsaard, 2013; Intupooti, 2018; FAO, 2020; Plant Research and Development Division, 2023; Pothong, 2023; Srisompun et al., 2024; Poungchompu & Phuttachat, 2025; Sukkasem et al., 2025
dIPCC, 2014; Department of Land Development, 2018; Rice Department, 2021; GIZ, 2021; Thailand Development Research Institute, 2022; Digital Economy Promotion Agency, 2022; Srisompun et al., 2024
eWorld Bank, 2021b; GISTDA, 2023; Chantarat et al., 2023; Office of Agricultural Economics, 2024; Arunrat et al., 2017; Sayruamyat & Nadee, 2020; Jantarasiri, 2022; Aung et al., 2025
POLICY LIMITATIONS AND INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES
As the Thai government has increasingly made “sustainable agriculture” as well as “low-carbon rice farming” a national priority under the Bio-Circular-Green (BCG) economic model, the actual spread of such schemes to the farm level has been slow and fragmented. This situation implies that the large bottlenecks on the way to green agriculture are not just the result of farmers refusing to adapt to new methods or a lack of technology. Instead, some barriers can be attributed to policy limitations, poor institutions, and more general structural issues that the government needs to address urgently to achieve tangible and scalable outcomes.
1. Policy disconnect and distorted incentives
The framework of agricultural policy in Thailand continues to be fragmented and insufficiently integrated across institutions and policy objectives. While government departments have promoted sustainable agricultural practices like reduced chemical input use and Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD), key policy tools continue to depend upon short-term income guarantees and unconditional subsidies (e.g., cash transfers of around 1,000 baht per rai(0.16ha), without environmental stipulations) (TDRI, 2023). These subsidies induce moral hazard and distortions of the market incentives, rendering the implementation of green and knowledge-intensive agricultural technologies less economically attractive. Consequently, many farmers generally continue to rely on traditional chemical-intensive production systems, which are more conducive to short-lived profits (both short–term yields and subsidy benefits) rather than the adoption of sustainable farming practices that involve greater transitional risks (Poapongsakorn & Buranakij, 2022; Isvilanonda, 2023).
2. The inefficiency trap and short-term economic trade-offs
Government policies often assume that sustainable agriculture can immediately improve farmer profitability, while overlooking the short-term economic trade-offs associated with the transition process. Empirical evidence indicates that farmers adopting reduced chemical input practices experienced significantly lower technical efficiency (TE) scores than conventional farmers, with average TE declining from 0.83 to 0.79 (Srisompun et al., 2026). Under physically constrained conditions, particularly the sandy soils of Northeastern Thailand, reducing chemical inputs without adequate precision agriculture support may temporarily lower yields and increase labor requirements for weed management. In the absence of transition risk compensation mechanisms, indebted and resource-constrained smallholder farmers are often unable to absorb these short-term economic losses, leading many to eventually abandon sustainable farming practices
3. Biophysical barriers and centralized water governance
Thailand’s greenhouse gas mitigation strategy through AWD technology also faces severe spatial and institutional limitations. More than 70% of Thailand’s rice cultivation areas are located within rainfed ecosystems outside irrigation zones, where farmers are unable to control the timing of irrigation based on technical AWD requirements (Srisompun et al., 2024). So too, even in irrigated environments, AWD implementation is limited by Thailand’s centralized irrigation governance system, which has open canal networks and centrally controlled water distribution schedules that rarely match field-level water demand. Moreover, low investment in supporting infrastructure, including Laser Land Leveling (LLL), could aggravate drought stress and weed infestation in irregular fields, thereby compromising the efficiency and scalability of AWD applications (Rice Department, 2021; GIZ, 2021).
4. Demographic aging and credit constraints
The transition toward precision agriculture and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems is also constrained by Thailand’s aging farming population, with the average farmer age ranging between 58 and 60 years. This demographic structure creates a substantial digital divide that limits farmers’ ability to adopt and learn digital and knowledge-intensive technologies. Behavioral analyses indicate that increasing farmer age is significantly negatively associated with the adoption of environmentally friendly crop protection technologies (Srisompun et al., 2024).
At the same time, public agricultural extension systems continue to face limitations in both institutional capacity and human resources for delivering intensive grassroots-level training. Financial institutions, including the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), also remain limited in providing flexible green credit mechanisms for smallholder farmers. Since precision agriculture technologies such as drones, sensors, and satellite-based systems require substantial upfront investment and involve high sunk costs, many indebted farmers are unable to access sufficient financial capital. As a result, the adoption rate of precision farming technologies remains below 10% nationwide (BAAC, 2023; Isvilanonda, 2023).
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The transition of Thailand’s rice production sector toward climate-smart and sustainable agricultural systems over the past decade reflects an adaptive process that remains highly heterogeneous and context-specific across production areas. Despite increasing policy attention, the expansion of sustainable rice practices at the national scale has remained limited due to persistent structural and institutional constraints. These limitations are particularly severe in rainfed rice ecosystems, which account for more than 70% of Thailand’s rice cultivation areas and lack the capacity to regulate water management in support of water-saving technologies such as Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD). In addition, important short-term economic trade-offs continue to constrain farmer adoption. Reductions in chemical input use under physically constrained environments may generate temporary yield shocks and significantly reduce mean technical efficiency (TE) scores from 0.83 to 0.79. Furthermore, the aging demographic structure of Thai farmers, whose average age ranges between 58 and 60 years, has intensified the digital divide and limited the adoption of precision agriculture technologies. Consequently, the adoption rate of smart farming technologies remains below 10% nationwide, resulting in stagnation of green transformation efforts at the farm level.
To overcome these structural barriers and strengthen the competitiveness of Thailand’s rice sector under the green economy transition, several policy recommendations are proposed.
1. Investment in human capital and group-based technology adoption
The government should gradually shift from unconditional short-term subsidies toward long-term investment in human capital development. Strengthening Farmer Field Schools (FFS) and promoting collective technology adoption through large-scale farming systems would help improve farmers’ knowledge of sustainable agriculture and reduce the digital divide. Young Smart Farmers should be encouraged to serve as digital technology operators and coordinators for aging farming communities.
2. Strengthening green infrastructure and community-based biological supply chains
Technologies such as Laser Land Leveling (LLL) should be treated as strategic public infrastructure investments supporting AWD systems and climate-smart rice farming. At the same time, local Plant Protection Centers should be strengthened to produce and distribute affordable and standardized biological control agents, such as Trichoderma spp., to address limitations in product availability and rural supply chains.
3. Designing risk-mitigating financial incentives and green finance mechanisms
The government, together with the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), should develop concessional green credit schemes and transition risk insurance to reduce farmers’ income and productivity risks during the transition toward sustainable farming. In parallel, carbon credit markets and green premium pricing mechanisms should be expanded to create stronger economic incentives and financial safety nets for smallholder farmers adopting sustainable rice production practices.
REFERENCES
Arunrat, N., Wang, C., Pumijumnong, N., Sereenonchai, S., & Cai, W. (2017). Farmers’ intention and decision to adapt to climate change: A case study in the Yom and Nan basins, Phichit Province of Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 672–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.058
Asian Development Bank. (2009). The economics of climate change in Southeast Asia: A regional review. Asian Development Bank.
Aung, E. D., Sasaki, N., Tsusaka, T. W., & Silpasuwanchai, C. (2025). Investigating farmers’ adoption of mobile Agri-Tech: A TAM-based study of KaseChar in Eastern Thailand. Global Transitions, 7, 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2025.07.003
Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives. (2023). Annual report 2023.
Bank of Thailand. (2025). Thailand green taxonomy: Phase 2. https://www.bot.or.th/en/financial-innovation/sustainable-finance/green/Thailand-Taxonomy.html
Chantarat, S., Chawanote, C., Ratanavararak, L., Rittinon, C., Sa-ngimnet, B., & Adultananusak, N. (2023). Financial lives and the vicious cycle of debt among Thai agricultural households (PIER Discussion Paper No. 204). Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research. https://www.pier.or.th/files/dp/pier_dp_204.pdf
Chantharat, S., Phitchnambut, W., Tantirangsee, L., & Phromsawat, C. (2019). The landscape of Thai agriculture: How to transition in an aging society and changing climate (PIER Discussion Paper No. 122). Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research.
Department of International Trade Promotion. (2016). Thai rice for life. Ministry of Commerce. (In Thai).
Department of Land Development. (2018). Land leveling for soil and water conservation. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. (In Thai).
Dharma, A. W. (2021). Scoping study climate-smart rice, country report – Thailand: Promoting global best practices and scaling of low emissions technologies by engaging the private and public sectors in the paddy rice sector. UNEP Asia Pacific Office.
Digital Economy Promotion Agency. (2022). Laser land leveling. https://www.depa.or.th/th/article-view/Laser_Land_Leveling_2022 (In Thai).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2020). The state of integrated pest management (IPM) and biocontrol adoption in smallholder rice farming systems across Southeast Asia.
Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency. (2023). Application of satellite imagery for site-specific precision agriculture management in the Central Plains rice production zone. Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation. https://dragonfly.gistda.or.th/p/home (In Thai).
GIZ. (2021). Thai Rice NAMA: Climate-smart rice farming project and alternate wetting and drying (AWD) implementation manual. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. https://www.thai-german-cooperation.info/thai-rice-nama-nationally-appropriate-mitigation-action/
Iamsaard, P. (2013). Factors effecting the adoption of pest management technology by using the combination method of farmers in Mae Tha District, Lamphun Province [Independent study, Maejo University].
IFOAM – Organics International. (2019). Participatory guarantee systems (PGS): Shared vision, shared ideals.
International Rice Research Institute. (2024). Transforming Thailand’s rice sector toward low emissions.
Intupooti, J. (2018). Factors relating to an adoption of integrated pest management technology of rice farmers in Phitsanulok Province [Master’s thesis, Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University].
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_Front_matters.pdf
Isvilanonda, S. (2023, April 8). Dissecting Thailand’s agricultural sector: Populism does not answer BCG–Net Zero challenges as a new alternative. Thansettakij. https://www.thansettakij.com/business/trade-agriculture/561404
Jantarasiri, U. (2022, November 23). Thai agriculture needs a shake-up. Thailand Development Research Institute. https://tdri.or.th/en/2022/11/thai-agriculture-needs-a-shake-up/
Kwanmuang, K., Pongputhinan, T., Jabri, A., & Chitchumnung, P. (2020). Small-scale farmers under Thailand’s smart farming system. FFTC Agricultural Policy Platform, Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific Region. https://ap.fftc.org.tw/article/2647
Nation Thailand. (2025). Experts warn Thailand’s rice industry is losing global competitiveness as yields decline, domestic prices collapse and decades of populist subsidies hinder farmers’ productivity. https://www.nationthailand.com/business/economy/40058216
National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards. (2010). Thai agricultural standard: Organic agriculture – Part 4: Organic rice (TAS 9000 Part 4-2010). Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. FAOLEX Database.
Office of Agricultural Economics. (2023). Agricultural statistics of Thailand 2023. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.
Office of Agricultural Economics. (2024a). Report on agricultural economic conditions and labor structures in Thai agriculture for 2023 and outlook for 2024. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. (In Thai).
Panpluem, N., & Yin, C. (2021). Supply chain characteristics of certified organic rice in Yasothon Province, Thailand. STOU Agricultural Journal, 3(1), 45–54. https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/stouagjournal/article/view/249525
Panpluem, N., Mustafa, A., Huang, X., Wang, S., & Yin, C. (2019). Measuring the technical efficiency of certified organic rice producing farms in Yasothon Province: Northeast Thailand. Sustainability, 11(24), 6974. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246974
Phuengpracha, E., Nunthee, S., Thathong, W., Sarathatnanan, P., Thongkam, P., Pimrat, K., Maneanut, K., Paksarn, N., Sriprom, S., Thongya, K., & Thongya, P. (2019). Research project on enhancing the potential of farmers and model villages for production and green marketing under Dan Sai Green Net standards through the application of Participatory Guarantee System (PGS), Dan Sai District, Loei Province. Silpakorn University & Loei Rajabhat University. https://elibrary.tsri.or.th/fullP/RDG6020041/RDG6020041_full.pdf (In Thai).
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., & Seidel, R. (2005). Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience, 55(7), 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0573:EEAECO]2.0.CO;2
Plant Protection Group. (2022). Guidelines for integrated pest management (IPM) and bio-input applications in paddy fields. Bureau of Plant Protection and Soil-Fertility Management, Department of Agricultural Extension. (In Thai).
Plant Research and Development Division, Department of Agriculture. (2023). Integrated pest management for improving production of economic crops. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. https://www.doa.go.th/plan/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/54-1.pdf (In Thai).
Poapongsakorn, N., & Buranakij, C. (2022, September 26). Reclaiming the pride of Thai rice. Thailand Development Research Institute. https://tdri.or.th/en/2022/09/reclaiming-the-pride-of-thai-rice/
Pothong, S. (2023). Systemic and behavioral barriers in the diffusion of biological pest control agents among smallholder farmers in Thailand. Research Institute for Agricultural Public Health and Environment. (In Thai).
Poungchompu, S., & Phuttachat, P. (2025). Key determinants of young smart farmer success in northeastern Thailand for agricultural development and farmer empowerment. Journal of International Society for Southeast Asian Agricultural Sciences, 31(2), 171–181.
Rerkasem, B. (2017). The rice value chain: A case study of Thai rice. Chiang Mai University Journal of Natural Sciences, 16(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.12982/CMUJASR.2017.0001
Rice Department. (2021). Handbook on greenhouse gas mitigation technologies in rice farming: Alternate wetting and drying (AWD). Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. (In Thai). https://files.ricethailand.go.th/files/15/documents/page_doc/files-rice-1775720571225.pdf
Rice Department. (2024). Performance report of the large-scale rice farming promotion project for the fiscal year 2024. Rice Production Promotion Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. (In Thai).
Sayruamyat, S., & Nadee, W. (2020). Acceptance and readiness of Thai farmers toward digital technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (pp. 87–98). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0077-0_8
Schreinemachers, P., Schad, I., Tipraqsa, P., Williams, P. M., Neef, A., Saenger, M., & Grovermann, C. (2012). Can public GAP standards reduce agricultural pesticide use? The case of fruit and vegetable farming in northern Thailand. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(4), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9378-6
Srisompun, O., Tam, H. T., Thinh, T. Q., & Shimada, K. (2025). Assessing adoption patterns and determinants of sustainable rice cultivation in Central Northeast Thailand. International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development, 16(2), 164–171. https://www.iserd.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Ijerd_16-2_164-171.pdf
Srisompun, O., Tam, H. T., Thinh, T. Q., & Shimada, K. (2026). Technical efficiency of sustainable practice: The case study from rice farming in Central Northeast Thailand. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1608(1), 012058. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1608/1/012058
Srisopaporn, S., Jourdain, D., Perret, S. R., & Shivakoti, G. (2015). Adoption and continued participation in a public good agricultural practices program: The case of rice farmers in the Central Plains of Thailand. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 96, 242–253.
Sukkasem, C., Buamuang, P. P., Chimhad, P., Chantra, S., Janro, P., & Thongboonchoo, T. (2025). New generation of farmers toward precision agriculture for sustainability. Journal of Social Development Sciences, 8(6), 372–386. https://so07.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/JSSD/article/view/8356
Suwanmaneepong, S., Kultawanich, K., Khurnpoon, L., Sabaijai, P. E., Cavite, H. J., Llones, C., Lepcha, N., & Kerdsriserm, C. (2023). Alternate wetting and drying as water-saving technology: An adoption intention in the perspective of good agricultural practices (GAP) suburban rice farmers in Thailand. Water, 15(3), 402. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030402
Thailand Development Research Institute. (2022). A project to study innovative systems, structures, and mechanisms for managing the country’s water resources. Research report submitted to the National Research Council of Thailand. (In Thai). https://tdri.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/water-management.pdf
Thailand Development Research Institute. (2023). Agricultural policy responses to the BCG model and impacts on major economic crops. TDRI comprehensive research report. (In Thai).
Udomkerdmongkol, M., & Chalermpao, N. (2020). Thai agricultural sector: From problems to solutions. United Nations in Thailand. https://thailand.un.org/en/103307-thai-agricultural-sector-problems-solutions
United Nations Environment Programme. (2017). Thai government promotes low-emission rice farming.
Wongsiri, S., Khumphon, A., & Pratum, T. (2021). Attitudes and openness toward eco-innovation among smart farmers in safe and organic rice production. Khon Kaen Agriculture Journal, 49(Suppl. 1), 412–425. (In Thai).
World Bank. (2021a). Aging and the labor market in Thailand. World Bank Group. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/thailand/publication/aging-and-the-labor-market-in-thailand
World Bank. (2021b). Bringing digital diversity to agriculture: Overcoming constraints of high upfront sunk costs and credit barriers for smallholders in Southeast Asia. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/461421559326915086/pdf/The-Digital-Financial-Services-for-Agriculture-Handbook.pd
Sustainable Rice Development in Thailand: Farmer Adaptation and Policy Challenges
ABSTRACT
Thailand’s rice sector plays a critical role in national food security, rural livelihoods, and export earnings; however, the industry is increasingly challenged by climate change, increased production costs, declining competitiveness, labor shortages, and environmental degradation. As a response to this situation, sustainable rice production has become a policy agenda of Thailand’s Bio-Circular-Green (BCG) economic model. In this report, we study the formation of sustainable rice production in Thailand, considering adjustments to farmers' strategies and the institutional and policy problems in the transition of farmers towards climate-smart agricultural processes. Research provides a summary of previous empirical studies, as well as policy reports and programs for developing agriculture in Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), organic rice farming, Integrated Pest Management (IPM), biological control, Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD), and precision agriculture technology. Findings suggest sustainable rice production in Thailand is still very complex and context-dependent. GAP systems have achieved the highest promotion and uptake levels, due to strong policy support and market-driven food safety requirements, whereas organic rice production is still highly concentrated in niche markets due to transition risks, labor shortages and certification limitations. IPM, biological control and AWD techniques have positive environmental and productivity results but are restricted due to behavioral impediments, infrastructure limitations and centralized irrigation supervision. At the same time, climate-smart and precision agriculture technologies have an early adoption profile, especially among elderly small farmers, confronted with digital and financial obstacles. This paper also shows that poor policy implementation, unconditional subsidies, and temporary trade-offs to the economy and resource limitations in financing access to green finance still restrict large-scale transition to sustainable rice systems. The article suggests policy recommendations based on human capital development, group-based technology, green infrastructure, and risk-mitigating financial mechanisms are recommended to strengthen Thailand's transition to resilient and sustainable rice production systems.
Keywords: Sustainable rice farming, climate-smart agriculture, precision agriculture, farmer adaptation, Thailand rice sector
INTRODUCTION
Rice is not just the primary crop of Thailand, but also a fundamental pillar of national food security, rural livelihoods, cultural identity, and employment generation in rural areas. Over half of Thailand’s agricultural households are involved in rice cultivation, demonstrating the vital socio-economic significance of the sector (Department of International Trade, 2016). Moreover, Thailand has consistently remained one of the world’s leading rice exporters, generating substantial export earnings and contributing significantly to the national economy (Bank of Thailand, 2025). Even with establishing itself as a key supplier to the global rice market, the Thai rice industry is experiencing a crucial transitional phase characterized by mounting structural issues and decreasing competitiveness, which have been piling up over the past decades (Paopongsakorn, 2022).
Climate change is one of the biggest agricultural challenges to Thailand due to its dire consequences for rice farming ecosystems. Extended periods of drought, erratic rainfall patterns, and unexpected intense flooding are now major threats to growing crops that have a far-reaching effect on the amount of rice produced and the living standards of farmers (Asian Development Bank, 2009). In addition, conventional Thai rice farming contributes to environmental problems by emitting greenhouse gases—principally methane — that escape from waterlogged rice paddies, a gas with a greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide (Dharma, 2021). Beyond the environmental dimension, the economic structure within farms also faces numerous problems. Production costs are continuously rising due to the prices of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and energy. Per unit area in Thailand remains relatively low compared with competing rice-producing countries in ASEAN (Nation Thailand, 2025). In addition, Thailand’s agricultural sector has entered an aging society, resulting in increasing labor shortages and reduced availability of agricultural workers (Udomkerdmongkol and Chalermpao, 2020; World Bank. 2021a). These combined challenges have intensified concerns regarding the long-term sustainability, competitiveness, and resilience of Thailand’s rice production systems.
Given these challenges, the transition of rice production systems to sustainable rice farming is not merely an alternative approach but an essential necessity for the resilience and long-term sustainability of Thailand’s food system. This article examines the current state of sustainable rice development in Thailand by focusing on two interconnected dimensions—farmers’ adaptive behavior at the farm level and the policy limitations and institutional challenges faced by the government. This study seeks to provide policy recommendations for relevant stakeholders and to offer practical insights and lessons that may serve as a useful reference for other rice-producing countries facing similar agricultural and environmental challenges.
FARMER ADAPTATION TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY
In the Thai context, sustainable rice production (SUR) extends beyond organic farming and encompasses a wide range of agricultural practices, technologies, and management systems that aim to reduce environmental impacts, improve resource-use efficiency, lower production costs, and enhance farmers’ livelihoods simultaneously (Srisopaporn et al., 2015). These approaches include reduced chemical input use, Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), Integrated Pest Management (IPM), biological control applications, Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD), organic farming, and climate-smart or precision agriculture systems (Srisompun et al., 2025). Over the past decade, government agencies, private sector actors, and international organizations have increasingly promoted these practices through policies related to food safety, greenhouse gas mitigation, agricultural standards, and premium rice markets (UNDP, 2017; IRRI, 2024). However, adoption levels remain highly uneven across regions due to differences in irrigation systems, farm size, market access, infrastructure, and farmers’ access to knowledge and technology. Structural constraints in rainfed rice ecosystems continue to limit the adoption of sustainable technologies, while short-term trade-offs between productivity and reduced chemical input use remain major challenges under low-fertility soil conditions (Srisompun et al., 2026).
The sustainable rice sector in Thailand that developed over the past decade demonstrates Thai farmers’ adaptive strategies to respond to growing pressures from climate change, increased production costs, and fluctuations of global markets alongside increasing demands on food safety and environmental conditions from domestic and international consumers (Srisopaporn et al., 2015). However, the evolution of sustainable rice production in Thailand has not followed a uniform pathway. Instead, it has developed in a highly heterogeneous manner shaped by differences in water resources, market structures, farm size, and the socio-economic capacities of farming households (Srisompun et al., 2024). Consequently, substantial variations in the adoption of sustainable technologies and practices can be observed across production regions and farming systems (Table 1).
Rice production under Good Agricultural Practices (GAP)
Rice production under Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) refers to a farm-level production management system in which all stages of rice cultivation are systematically controlled, monitored, and evaluated. These stages include land preparation, water resource management, use of inputs such as seed, fertilizer, and agrochemicals, crop maintenance, harvesting, and post-harvest handling (Schreinemachers et al., 2012). Based on previous studies, technical reports, and agricultural statistics, GAP rice production has become one of the most widely adopted forms of sustainable agriculture in Thailand, particularly when compared with other sustainability-oriented approaches such as organic farming and the Sustainable Rice Platform (SRP). This trend is especially evident in irrigated areas of the Central Region and the lower Northern Region, which serve as major commercial rice-producing zones for export-oriented white rice production (Srisopaporn et al., 2015).
A key driver of GAP adoption is the government's use of GAP standards as both a mandatory and a semi-mandatory policy instrument, particularly through their linkage to the Large-Scale Farming Scheme. This program has received continuous budgetary support and aims to strengthen technical knowledge, improve access to public support measures, and reduce the costs of innovation and the adoption of green infrastructure among smallholder farmers (Rice Department, 2024). The adoption of GAP standards is driven not solely by environmental considerations but also by their role as a market access requirement. Downstream actors in modern rice supply chains, including large commercial rice mills, rice exporters, and modern trade retailers, face increasing pressure from consumers concerned about food safety. GAP certification, therefore, functions as an entry point for assuring that rice products are safe from chemical residues and can be traced throughout the supply chain
Nevertheless, despite the rapid expansion of GAP-certified areas, several constraints continue to limit the long-term sustainability of GAP adoption among smallholder farmers. Bureaucratic and compliance costs remain a major challenge, particularly among aging farmers who often lack the digital and managerial skills required for farm record-keeping and annual certification processes (Chantharat et al., 2019; Office of Agricultural Economics, 2023). In addition, the failure of price premium mechanisms represents a critical economic barrier, as many local rice mills continue to procure GAP and conventional rice together due to logistical and storage limitations, preventing farmers from receiving sufficient premium prices to offset compliance costs (Rerkasem, 2017; Suwanmaneepong et al., 2023). Furthermore, biophysical risks and technical efficiency trade-offs are especially significant in non-irrigated areas, where more than 70–76% of Thailand’s rice-growing areas are located. Under rainfed conditions, uncertain water management and reduced chemical input use may temporarily lower productivity and technical efficiency, with empirical evidence showing a decline in mean technical efficiency scores from 0.83 to 0.79 (Srisompun et al., 2026).
Organic rice
The promotion of sustainable agriculture through organic rice cultivation in Thailand reflects a development trajectory that differs substantially from the expansion of GAP-certified rice systems. Although organic rice has attracted considerable attention from premium consumer segments concerned with health, food safety, and environmental sustainability, and has been positioned as a strategic component of Thailand’s high-value rice export policy, adoption at the farm level remains relatively limited. In practice, organic rice production continues to operate largely within a niche market framework and exhibits strong spatial clustering, particularly in rainfed agricultural areas of Northeastern Thailand. Empirical evidence from the central Northeastern region indicates that only 0.24% of farmers successfully achieved certified organic rice production, compared with 7.39% for GAP-certified rice systems (Srisompun et al., 2024). The primary factor motivating farmers to adopt and transition toward organic farming is the availability of price premiums, which function as an economic incentive to compensate for potential yield reductions and production risks.
Historically, one of the most significant barriers facing smallholder farmers was the high cost and complexity associated with obtaining international organic certifications such as the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA Organic). Certification expenses frequently exceeded the financial capacity of local farmer associations and community enterprises. Consequently, the current development trajectory has increasingly shifted toward the adoption of Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS), a socially embedded certification mechanism emphasizing transparency, trust, and peer-review processes among community members, consumers, and local academics (Phuengpracha, 2019). The PGS approach has substantially reduced compliance costs while simultaneously strengthening local market trust and facilitating the development of short supply chains (IFOAM – Organics International, 2019)
Several successful cases of organic rice development have emerged in Thailand, particularly in the lower Northeastern provinces of Yasothon, Ubon Ratchathani, and Amnat Charoen. These successes have been driven by strong farmer organizations, provincial policy support, and collaboration with local research institutions. Investments in community-based organic rice mills have helped prevent contamination from conventional rice systems, while forward market linkages through “fair contract farming” arrangements with environmentally oriented rice exporters have enhanced market stability (Panpluem and Yin, 2021). Under these integrated management systems, members cultivating Jasmine Rice 105 successfully reduced chemical fertilizer use by 100% and received organic paddy price premiums approximately 20–30% higher than conventional market prices, thereby improving household income and financial stability (Panpluem et al., 2019)
Despite several successful local models, the nationwide transition toward organic rice farming in Thailand remains relatively slow due to persistent structural and economic constraints. During the first two to three years of transition, farmers often experience severe yield declines of approximately 30–40% as soil ecosystems recover from chemical dependency, making it difficult for indebted smallholders to absorb temporary income losses (Pimentel et al., 2005). In addition, organic rice farming is highly labor-intensive because herbicide use is prohibited, while Thailand’s aging farming population and rural labor shortages further constrain expansion (Office of Agricultural Economics, 2024). Production efficiency trade-offs also remain important, particularly under the sandy and low-fertility soil conditions of Northeastern Thailand, where reduced chemical input use may temporarily lower technical efficiency and productivity (Srisompun et al., 2026).
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and biological control practices
IPM and biological control practices as a strategic intervention in accordance with emerging issues about food security, as the agricultural development strategies in Thailand has evolved, the switch from the use of intensive synthetic agrochemicals-based crop protection systems towards IPM and biological-based control systems has emerged as one of Thailand’s national strategic priorities in changing policies of adaptation to the agricultural technology due to increased issues related to food security and environmental sustainability. These are based on the application of organic and biological control methods, including Trichoderma spp. and Beauveria bassiana, with natural plant extracts that contribute to the ecological balance of rice ecosystems (Plant Research and Development Division, 2023). The use of such practices has attracted more and more policy focus, particularly among young, more progressive farmers who have higher social capital and stronger attitudes to ecological innovation than those of conventional farming groups. These farmers are generally more aware of the long-term health risks and hidden economic costs associated with intensive chemical use (Poungchompu and Phuttachat, 2025; Sukkasem et al, 2025).
Despite growing policy support, the farm-level adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and biological control technologies in Thailand remains relatively low due to several structural and behavioral constraints (Photong, 2023; FAO, 2020). Because of their fast “knock-down effect,” many farmers continue to depend on synthetic pesticides, whilst biological control agents typically perform more slowly and with less visible effects. Most biological products also have short shelf lives and show variable efficacy depending on environmental conditions such as temperature and humidity, while access to standardized products and technical services in rural areas is inconsistent. This is further complicated by the limited ecological and entomological knowledge of smallholder farmers that results in over-pesticide applications since these farmers have little idea where harmful pests are, as opposed to beneficial insects present in rice (Intupooti, 2018; Iamsaard, 2013).
Nevertheless, there are multiple socio-economic variables that positively influence adoption, the most common being farmers’ education, access to agricultural credit and exposure to training programs on natural extracts and compost processing. These findings imply that sustainable crop protection technologies should also be considered knowledge-intensive innovations with strong extension and capacity-building support. The productivity gains found in adopters also translate into practical benefits; farmers adopting biological control and natural extract techniques achieve average rice yields of 2.63 to 2.66 tons per hectare, in contrast to 2.36 tons per hectare achieved by non-adopters (Srisompun et al., 2024).
Alternate Wetting and Drying: AWD
Using AWD technology to save water and reduce water for growing rice has come to be one of the major systemic innovations in Thailand’s agricultural climate policy framework. This innovation has been promoted not only as a key mechanism for improving water-use efficiency under increasing drought risks, but also as an important climate change mitigation strategy. AWD can substantially reduce methane (CH4) emissions generated from continuously flooded rice paddies, which are recognized as a major source of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Methane possesses a global warming potential more than 28 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period (IPCC, 2014; Rice Department, 2021).
At present, the adoption of AWD technology has begun to expand in selected areas, particularly among farmers located within irrigated zones receiving integrated support from international development programs such as the Thai Rice NAMA Project. This initiative has served as a key institutional mechanism for strengthening green agricultural infrastructure and facilitating the transfer of eco-innovative farming technologies. In practice, AWD fundamentally changes farmers’ traditional water management practices by shifting from continuous flooding toward irrigation management based on critical crop growth stages and soil moisture conditions. The implementation process generally involves three major components: land preparation and land leveling, installation of water-monitoring devices such as perforated field water tubes (“Pani pipes”), and the management of intermittent irrigation cycles (GIZ, 2021).
Increasing prices of fuel and electricity linked with irrigation pumping have emerged as vital economic forces driving farmers to implement less frequent irrigation and Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) practices. Government support programs providing water-monitoring equipment and technical training have also contributed to increasing interest in AWD adoption. Nevertheless, the large-scale expansion of AWD remains limited despite its potential to reduce irrigation costs and greenhouse gas emissions.
Major constraints include the fact that more than 70–76% of Thailand’s rice-growing areas are in rainfed ecosystems outside irrigation zones, where farmers cannot regulate water cycles according to AWD protocols (Srisompun et al., 2024). Even within irrigated areas, centralized irrigation governance and open canal systems limit farmers’ ability to manage water according to field-specific needs (TDRI, 2022). In addition, fields lacking proper Laser Land Leveling (LLL) may experience excessive drying, weed infestation, and temporary yield instability, increasing labor requirements and reducing farmers’ willingness to adopt AWD practices (Department of Land Development, 2018; DEPA, 2022).
Climate-smart agriculture and precision farming technologies in Thailand’s rice sector
The adaptation of the rice production value chain in Thailand to climate-smart agriculture with precision agriculture applications has become an increasingly vital strategic tool under conditions of ecosystem instability and climate change. These innovations encompass a wide range of technologies, including the use of agricultural drones for input application, soil moisture and nutrient sensors, and geographic information systems (GIS) and satellite imagery for site-specific farm management. The primary objective of these technologies is to enhance input-use efficiency while simultaneously reducing the carbon footprint of rice production systems (Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency [GISTDA], 2023; World Bank, 2021b).
Despite their strategic importance, the diffusion of climate-smart and precision agriculture technologies in Thailand’s rice sector remains at an early stage, with adoption rates below 10% nationwide and concentrated mainly among progressive farmers and government pilot projects (Srisompun et al., 2024). One of the most significant barriers is the aging demographic structure of Thai farmers, whose average age ranges between 58 and 60 years. This has contributed to a substantial digital divide, limiting farmers’ capacity to adopt knowledge-intensive and technology-driven innovations (Office of Agricultural Economics, 2024). Empirical evidence shows that educational attainment and access to information positively influence technology adoption, while increasing farmer age negatively affects adaptation decisions (Arunrat et al., 2017; Sayruamyat & Nadee, 2020; Aung et al., 2025)
In addition, the economic feasibility of smart agriculture adoption remains constrained by small and fragmented farm sizes, which limit economies of scale and increase the fixed costs of technologies such as drones, sensors, and precision input management systems (Kwanmuang et al., 2022). High initial investment costs, combined with uneven rural digital infrastructure and limited access to green financing, further restrict adoption among smallholder farmers already burdened by agricultural debt (Jantarasiri, 2022; Chantarat et al., 2023).
Table 1. Adaptation and adoption of sustainable rice production technologies in Thailand
Sustainable Production Approach
Adoption Trends
Influencing Factors
Barriers and Constraints
Good Agricultural Practices (GAP Rice)a
• Highest adoption and expansion rate among sustainable rice farming systems
• Highly concentrated in irrigated areas
• Mandatory and semi-mandatory government policies through the Large-Scale Farming Scheme
• Subsidies for production inputs (improved seeds, customized fertilizers, machinery)
• Food safety requirements and market access pressures from modern trade and export markets (traceability systems)
• Aging farmers (58–60 years old) often lack managerial and digital skills for maintaining farm record systems
• Failure of price premium mechanisms due to mixed procurement systems (“mixed paddy rice”) and the absence of segregated storage systems, resulting in limited premium price benefits for farmers
• Biophysical constraints, as 70–76% of rice fields are located outside irrigation zones, making pest and disease management more difficult
Organic Riceb
• Slow growth and expansion primarily within niche markets • High spatial clustering, particularly in lower Northeastern provinces
• Extremely low adoption rate in the central Northeastern region (0.24%)
• High price premiums, approximately 20–30% above conventional rice prices
• Adoption of Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) to reduce certification costs
• Strong farmer organizations, provincial policy support, and contract farming arrangements with rice exporters
• Severe yield decline during the 2–3-year transition period, making temporary losses difficult to absorb for indebted farmers
• Organic rice production prohibits herbicide use, resulting in high labor demand despite severe labor shortages and an aging farmer population (>59 years old)
• Lower technical efficiency under sandy soil conditions without chemical fertilizer use (average TE reduced to 0.79)
• High risks of cross-contamination from neighboring conventional rice fields, requiring costly buffer zones
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Biological Control Practicesc
• Farm-level adoption remains relatively low and fragmented
• Increasing interest among younger and progressive farmers with higher social capital
• Educational level of household heads
• Access to agricultural credit for alternative inputs
• Participation in training programs on natural extracts and composting
• Greater awareness of health risks and hidden costs associated with agrochemical use
• Potential yield improvements to 2.63–2.66 tons/ha compared with 2.36 tons/ha among non-adopters
• Farmers prefer the rapid “knock-down effect” of chemical pesticides, whereas biological agents act more slowly
• Biological products such as Trichoderma and Beauveria have short shelf lives and variable effectiveness depending on temperature and humidity conditions, while rural supply chains remain inconsistent
• Limited entomological knowledge prevents farmers from distinguishing between pests and beneficial insects, leading to excessive pesticide use
Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD)d
• Expansion remains limited to selected areas • Primarily implemented through international pilot projects such as Thai Rice NAMA
• Rising energy prices (fuel and electricity for irrigation pumping) encourage reduced irrigation frequency
• Government support for water-monitoring devices (Pani pipes) and technical training
• Increasing demand for greenhouse gas mitigation, particularly methane (CH4), which has a global warming potential 28 times greater than CO2
• Approximately 70–76% of rice cultivation areas are rainfed, limiting farmers’ ability to regulate water cycles according to AWD protocols
• Centralized irrigation management systems operate through top-down open canal distribution, which does not align with field-level water demand management
• High weed infestation risks in fields without proper laser land leveling (LLL), potentially leading to yield losses
Climate-Smart Agriculture and Precision Farming Technologiese
• Still at an early stage of development
• National adoption rate remains below 10%
• Technology use remains concentrated among progressive farmers and government pilot projects
• Climate variability and ecological instability increase demand for greater input-use efficiency
• Emergence of innovations such as agricultural drones, soil moisture and nutrient sensors, satellite imagery, and GIS technologies
• Aging farmers face difficulties adapting to knowledge-intensive and digitally based innovations, contributing to a significant digital divide
• Small and fragmented farm sizes reduce economies of scale, making investment economically unfeasible
• Precision farming technologies are capital-intensive and require substantial upfront investment, while indebted farmers face limited access to green financing mechanisms
Source: aSchreinemachers et al., 2012; Srisopaporn et al., 2015; Rerkasem, 2017; Chantharat et al., 2019; Office of Agricultural Economics, 2023; Suwanmaneepong et al., 2023; Rice Department, 2024; Srisompun et al., 2026
bPimentel et al., 2005; Phuengpracha et al., 2019; IFOAM – Organics International, 2019; Panpluem et al., 2019; Panpluem & Yin, 2021; Office of Agricultural Economics, 2024; Srisompun et al., 2024; Srisompun et al., 2026
cIamsaard, 2013; Intupooti, 2018; FAO, 2020; Plant Research and Development Division, 2023; Pothong, 2023; Srisompun et al., 2024; Poungchompu & Phuttachat, 2025; Sukkasem et al., 2025
dIPCC, 2014; Department of Land Development, 2018; Rice Department, 2021; GIZ, 2021; Thailand Development Research Institute, 2022; Digital Economy Promotion Agency, 2022; Srisompun et al., 2024
eWorld Bank, 2021b; GISTDA, 2023; Chantarat et al., 2023; Office of Agricultural Economics, 2024; Arunrat et al., 2017; Sayruamyat & Nadee, 2020; Jantarasiri, 2022; Aung et al., 2025
POLICY LIMITATIONS AND INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES
As the Thai government has increasingly made “sustainable agriculture” as well as “low-carbon rice farming” a national priority under the Bio-Circular-Green (BCG) economic model, the actual spread of such schemes to the farm level has been slow and fragmented. This situation implies that the large bottlenecks on the way to green agriculture are not just the result of farmers refusing to adapt to new methods or a lack of technology. Instead, some barriers can be attributed to policy limitations, poor institutions, and more general structural issues that the government needs to address urgently to achieve tangible and scalable outcomes.
1. Policy disconnect and distorted incentives
The framework of agricultural policy in Thailand continues to be fragmented and insufficiently integrated across institutions and policy objectives. While government departments have promoted sustainable agricultural practices like reduced chemical input use and Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD), key policy tools continue to depend upon short-term income guarantees and unconditional subsidies (e.g., cash transfers of around 1,000 baht per rai(0.16ha), without environmental stipulations) (TDRI, 2023). These subsidies induce moral hazard and distortions of the market incentives, rendering the implementation of green and knowledge-intensive agricultural technologies less economically attractive. Consequently, many farmers generally continue to rely on traditional chemical-intensive production systems, which are more conducive to short-lived profits (both short–term yields and subsidy benefits) rather than the adoption of sustainable farming practices that involve greater transitional risks (Poapongsakorn & Buranakij, 2022; Isvilanonda, 2023).
2. The inefficiency trap and short-term economic trade-offs
Government policies often assume that sustainable agriculture can immediately improve farmer profitability, while overlooking the short-term economic trade-offs associated with the transition process. Empirical evidence indicates that farmers adopting reduced chemical input practices experienced significantly lower technical efficiency (TE) scores than conventional farmers, with average TE declining from 0.83 to 0.79 (Srisompun et al., 2026). Under physically constrained conditions, particularly the sandy soils of Northeastern Thailand, reducing chemical inputs without adequate precision agriculture support may temporarily lower yields and increase labor requirements for weed management. In the absence of transition risk compensation mechanisms, indebted and resource-constrained smallholder farmers are often unable to absorb these short-term economic losses, leading many to eventually abandon sustainable farming practices
3. Biophysical barriers and centralized water governance
Thailand’s greenhouse gas mitigation strategy through AWD technology also faces severe spatial and institutional limitations. More than 70% of Thailand’s rice cultivation areas are located within rainfed ecosystems outside irrigation zones, where farmers are unable to control the timing of irrigation based on technical AWD requirements (Srisompun et al., 2024). So too, even in irrigated environments, AWD implementation is limited by Thailand’s centralized irrigation governance system, which has open canal networks and centrally controlled water distribution schedules that rarely match field-level water demand. Moreover, low investment in supporting infrastructure, including Laser Land Leveling (LLL), could aggravate drought stress and weed infestation in irregular fields, thereby compromising the efficiency and scalability of AWD applications (Rice Department, 2021; GIZ, 2021).
4. Demographic aging and credit constraints
The transition toward precision agriculture and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems is also constrained by Thailand’s aging farming population, with the average farmer age ranging between 58 and 60 years. This demographic structure creates a substantial digital divide that limits farmers’ ability to adopt and learn digital and knowledge-intensive technologies. Behavioral analyses indicate that increasing farmer age is significantly negatively associated with the adoption of environmentally friendly crop protection technologies (Srisompun et al., 2024).
At the same time, public agricultural extension systems continue to face limitations in both institutional capacity and human resources for delivering intensive grassroots-level training. Financial institutions, including the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), also remain limited in providing flexible green credit mechanisms for smallholder farmers. Since precision agriculture technologies such as drones, sensors, and satellite-based systems require substantial upfront investment and involve high sunk costs, many indebted farmers are unable to access sufficient financial capital. As a result, the adoption rate of precision farming technologies remains below 10% nationwide (BAAC, 2023; Isvilanonda, 2023).
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The transition of Thailand’s rice production sector toward climate-smart and sustainable agricultural systems over the past decade reflects an adaptive process that remains highly heterogeneous and context-specific across production areas. Despite increasing policy attention, the expansion of sustainable rice practices at the national scale has remained limited due to persistent structural and institutional constraints. These limitations are particularly severe in rainfed rice ecosystems, which account for more than 70% of Thailand’s rice cultivation areas and lack the capacity to regulate water management in support of water-saving technologies such as Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD). In addition, important short-term economic trade-offs continue to constrain farmer adoption. Reductions in chemical input use under physically constrained environments may generate temporary yield shocks and significantly reduce mean technical efficiency (TE) scores from 0.83 to 0.79. Furthermore, the aging demographic structure of Thai farmers, whose average age ranges between 58 and 60 years, has intensified the digital divide and limited the adoption of precision agriculture technologies. Consequently, the adoption rate of smart farming technologies remains below 10% nationwide, resulting in stagnation of green transformation efforts at the farm level.
To overcome these structural barriers and strengthen the competitiveness of Thailand’s rice sector under the green economy transition, several policy recommendations are proposed.
1. Investment in human capital and group-based technology adoption
The government should gradually shift from unconditional short-term subsidies toward long-term investment in human capital development. Strengthening Farmer Field Schools (FFS) and promoting collective technology adoption through large-scale farming systems would help improve farmers’ knowledge of sustainable agriculture and reduce the digital divide. Young Smart Farmers should be encouraged to serve as digital technology operators and coordinators for aging farming communities.
2. Strengthening green infrastructure and community-based biological supply chains
Technologies such as Laser Land Leveling (LLL) should be treated as strategic public infrastructure investments supporting AWD systems and climate-smart rice farming. At the same time, local Plant Protection Centers should be strengthened to produce and distribute affordable and standardized biological control agents, such as Trichoderma spp., to address limitations in product availability and rural supply chains.
3. Designing risk-mitigating financial incentives and green finance mechanisms
The government, together with the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), should develop concessional green credit schemes and transition risk insurance to reduce farmers’ income and productivity risks during the transition toward sustainable farming. In parallel, carbon credit markets and green premium pricing mechanisms should be expanded to create stronger economic incentives and financial safety nets for smallholder farmers adopting sustainable rice production practices.
REFERENCES
Arunrat, N., Wang, C., Pumijumnong, N., Sereenonchai, S., & Cai, W. (2017). Farmers’ intention and decision to adapt to climate change: A case study in the Yom and Nan basins, Phichit Province of Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 672–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.058
Asian Development Bank. (2009). The economics of climate change in Southeast Asia: A regional review. Asian Development Bank.
Aung, E. D., Sasaki, N., Tsusaka, T. W., & Silpasuwanchai, C. (2025). Investigating farmers’ adoption of mobile Agri-Tech: A TAM-based study of KaseChar in Eastern Thailand. Global Transitions, 7, 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2025.07.003
Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives. (2023). Annual report 2023.
Bank of Thailand. (2025). Thailand green taxonomy: Phase 2. https://www.bot.or.th/en/financial-innovation/sustainable-finance/green/Thailand-Taxonomy.html
Chantarat, S., Chawanote, C., Ratanavararak, L., Rittinon, C., Sa-ngimnet, B., & Adultananusak, N. (2023). Financial lives and the vicious cycle of debt among Thai agricultural households (PIER Discussion Paper No. 204). Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research. https://www.pier.or.th/files/dp/pier_dp_204.pdf
Chantharat, S., Phitchnambut, W., Tantirangsee, L., & Phromsawat, C. (2019). The landscape of Thai agriculture: How to transition in an aging society and changing climate (PIER Discussion Paper No. 122). Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research.
Department of International Trade Promotion. (2016). Thai rice for life. Ministry of Commerce. (In Thai).
Department of Land Development. (2018). Land leveling for soil and water conservation. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. (In Thai).
Dharma, A. W. (2021). Scoping study climate-smart rice, country report – Thailand: Promoting global best practices and scaling of low emissions technologies by engaging the private and public sectors in the paddy rice sector. UNEP Asia Pacific Office.
Digital Economy Promotion Agency. (2022). Laser land leveling. https://www.depa.or.th/th/article-view/Laser_Land_Leveling_2022 (In Thai).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2020). The state of integrated pest management (IPM) and biocontrol adoption in smallholder rice farming systems across Southeast Asia.
Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency. (2023). Application of satellite imagery for site-specific precision agriculture management in the Central Plains rice production zone. Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation. https://dragonfly.gistda.or.th/p/home (In Thai).
GIZ. (2021). Thai Rice NAMA: Climate-smart rice farming project and alternate wetting and drying (AWD) implementation manual. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. https://www.thai-german-cooperation.info/thai-rice-nama-nationally-appropriate-mitigation-action/
Iamsaard, P. (2013). Factors effecting the adoption of pest management technology by using the combination method of farmers in Mae Tha District, Lamphun Province [Independent study, Maejo University].
IFOAM – Organics International. (2019). Participatory guarantee systems (PGS): Shared vision, shared ideals.
International Rice Research Institute. (2024). Transforming Thailand’s rice sector toward low emissions.
Intupooti, J. (2018). Factors relating to an adoption of integrated pest management technology of rice farmers in Phitsanulok Province [Master’s thesis, Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University].
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_Front_matters.pdf
Isvilanonda, S. (2023, April 8). Dissecting Thailand’s agricultural sector: Populism does not answer BCG–Net Zero challenges as a new alternative. Thansettakij. https://www.thansettakij.com/business/trade-agriculture/561404
Jantarasiri, U. (2022, November 23). Thai agriculture needs a shake-up. Thailand Development Research Institute. https://tdri.or.th/en/2022/11/thai-agriculture-needs-a-shake-up/
Kwanmuang, K., Pongputhinan, T., Jabri, A., & Chitchumnung, P. (2020). Small-scale farmers under Thailand’s smart farming system. FFTC Agricultural Policy Platform, Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific Region. https://ap.fftc.org.tw/article/2647
Nation Thailand. (2025). Experts warn Thailand’s rice industry is losing global competitiveness as yields decline, domestic prices collapse and decades of populist subsidies hinder farmers’ productivity. https://www.nationthailand.com/business/economy/40058216
National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards. (2010). Thai agricultural standard: Organic agriculture – Part 4: Organic rice (TAS 9000 Part 4-2010). Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. FAOLEX Database.
Office of Agricultural Economics. (2023). Agricultural statistics of Thailand 2023. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.
Office of Agricultural Economics. (2024a). Report on agricultural economic conditions and labor structures in Thai agriculture for 2023 and outlook for 2024. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. (In Thai).
Panpluem, N., & Yin, C. (2021). Supply chain characteristics of certified organic rice in Yasothon Province, Thailand. STOU Agricultural Journal, 3(1), 45–54. https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/stouagjournal/article/view/249525
Panpluem, N., Mustafa, A., Huang, X., Wang, S., & Yin, C. (2019). Measuring the technical efficiency of certified organic rice producing farms in Yasothon Province: Northeast Thailand. Sustainability, 11(24), 6974. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246974
Phuengpracha, E., Nunthee, S., Thathong, W., Sarathatnanan, P., Thongkam, P., Pimrat, K., Maneanut, K., Paksarn, N., Sriprom, S., Thongya, K., & Thongya, P. (2019). Research project on enhancing the potential of farmers and model villages for production and green marketing under Dan Sai Green Net standards through the application of Participatory Guarantee System (PGS), Dan Sai District, Loei Province. Silpakorn University & Loei Rajabhat University. https://elibrary.tsri.or.th/fullP/RDG6020041/RDG6020041_full.pdf (In Thai).
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., & Seidel, R. (2005). Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience, 55(7), 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0573:EEAECO]2.0.CO;2
Plant Protection Group. (2022). Guidelines for integrated pest management (IPM) and bio-input applications in paddy fields. Bureau of Plant Protection and Soil-Fertility Management, Department of Agricultural Extension. (In Thai).
Plant Research and Development Division, Department of Agriculture. (2023). Integrated pest management for improving production of economic crops. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. https://www.doa.go.th/plan/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/54-1.pdf (In Thai).
Poapongsakorn, N., & Buranakij, C. (2022, September 26). Reclaiming the pride of Thai rice. Thailand Development Research Institute. https://tdri.or.th/en/2022/09/reclaiming-the-pride-of-thai-rice/
Pothong, S. (2023). Systemic and behavioral barriers in the diffusion of biological pest control agents among smallholder farmers in Thailand. Research Institute for Agricultural Public Health and Environment. (In Thai).
Poungchompu, S., & Phuttachat, P. (2025). Key determinants of young smart farmer success in northeastern Thailand for agricultural development and farmer empowerment. Journal of International Society for Southeast Asian Agricultural Sciences, 31(2), 171–181.
Rerkasem, B. (2017). The rice value chain: A case study of Thai rice. Chiang Mai University Journal of Natural Sciences, 16(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.12982/CMUJASR.2017.0001
Rice Department. (2021). Handbook on greenhouse gas mitigation technologies in rice farming: Alternate wetting and drying (AWD). Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. (In Thai). https://files.ricethailand.go.th/files/15/documents/page_doc/files-rice-1775720571225.pdf
Rice Department. (2024). Performance report of the large-scale rice farming promotion project for the fiscal year 2024. Rice Production Promotion Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. (In Thai).
Sayruamyat, S., & Nadee, W. (2020). Acceptance and readiness of Thai farmers toward digital technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (pp. 87–98). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0077-0_8
Schreinemachers, P., Schad, I., Tipraqsa, P., Williams, P. M., Neef, A., Saenger, M., & Grovermann, C. (2012). Can public GAP standards reduce agricultural pesticide use? The case of fruit and vegetable farming in northern Thailand. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(4), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9378-6
Srisompun, O., Tam, H. T., Thinh, T. Q., & Shimada, K. (2025). Assessing adoption patterns and determinants of sustainable rice cultivation in Central Northeast Thailand. International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development, 16(2), 164–171. https://www.iserd.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Ijerd_16-2_164-171.pdf
Srisompun, O., Tam, H. T., Thinh, T. Q., & Shimada, K. (2026). Technical efficiency of sustainable practice: The case study from rice farming in Central Northeast Thailand. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1608(1), 012058. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1608/1/012058
Srisopaporn, S., Jourdain, D., Perret, S. R., & Shivakoti, G. (2015). Adoption and continued participation in a public good agricultural practices program: The case of rice farmers in the Central Plains of Thailand. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 96, 242–253.
Sukkasem, C., Buamuang, P. P., Chimhad, P., Chantra, S., Janro, P., & Thongboonchoo, T. (2025). New generation of farmers toward precision agriculture for sustainability. Journal of Social Development Sciences, 8(6), 372–386. https://so07.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/JSSD/article/view/8356
Suwanmaneepong, S., Kultawanich, K., Khurnpoon, L., Sabaijai, P. E., Cavite, H. J., Llones, C., Lepcha, N., & Kerdsriserm, C. (2023). Alternate wetting and drying as water-saving technology: An adoption intention in the perspective of good agricultural practices (GAP) suburban rice farmers in Thailand. Water, 15(3), 402. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030402
Thailand Development Research Institute. (2022). A project to study innovative systems, structures, and mechanisms for managing the country’s water resources. Research report submitted to the National Research Council of Thailand. (In Thai). https://tdri.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/water-management.pdf
Thailand Development Research Institute. (2023). Agricultural policy responses to the BCG model and impacts on major economic crops. TDRI comprehensive research report. (In Thai).
Udomkerdmongkol, M., & Chalermpao, N. (2020). Thai agricultural sector: From problems to solutions. United Nations in Thailand. https://thailand.un.org/en/103307-thai-agricultural-sector-problems-solutions
United Nations Environment Programme. (2017). Thai government promotes low-emission rice farming.
Wongsiri, S., Khumphon, A., & Pratum, T. (2021). Attitudes and openness toward eco-innovation among smart farmers in safe and organic rice production. Khon Kaen Agriculture Journal, 49(Suppl. 1), 412–425. (In Thai).
World Bank. (2021a). Aging and the labor market in Thailand. World Bank Group. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/thailand/publication/aging-and-the-labor-market-in-thailand
World Bank. (2021b). Bringing digital diversity to agriculture: Overcoming constraints of high upfront sunk costs and credit barriers for smallholders in Southeast Asia. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/461421559326915086/pdf/The-Digital-Financial-Services-for-Agriculture-Handbook.pd