Producers` perceptions of public good agricultural practices and their pesticide use: The case of MyGAP for durian farming in Pahang, Malaysia

Abstract

This paper investigates the local implementation of Malaysian public GAP standard called MyGAP by examining its effectiveness in raising the awareness and improving the pesticide use practices of participant smallscale farmers toward better food safety and quality assurance. For this objective, 19 MyGAP certified and 57 uncertified durian farms in the state of Pahang, Malaysia were surveyed. The research found that certified farm managers have a much better understanding of the basic intent of the policy than uncertified farms, reflecting the individually oriented interests and motivations of participant farmers in the national scheme. Their interests in and assessment of the merits of the scheme are found to concentrate in economic realms rather than in the original policy goal of food safety and quality assurance. As regards pesticide use practices, certified farms showed a much better performance than uncertified farms in record keeping and pesticide use and management. There remains a question, however, whether it is due to the farming practices improved through MyGAP adoption or due to the participation of farms already well-performing prior to MyGAP adoption. Contribution/ OriginalityThe primary novelty of this study is that it is the first study that examines the local implementation of Malaysian Good Agricultural Practices standard called MyGAP with a breath of farm samples. The paper should be of interest to readers in the areas of global agri-food standardization, in particular that of public GAPs in Southeast Asia.

Challenges in implementation of MyGAP among paddy farmers

“…Surprisingly, three out of four farmers who do not have MyGAP certification stated that they never heard of the existence of MyGAP in paddy cultivation. These results reflect those of Amekawa et al (2017), who also found that 74% of durian farmers in Pahang responded that they never heard of MyGAP. In contrast, in this study, one officer from the technical department stated that promoting MyGAP had been made solemnly among the farmers in Sekinchan by providing training.…”

“…However, the MyGAP awareness program did not meet the overall objective, and only a few farmers understand the purpose and basic concept of MyGAP. Amekawa et al (2017) has successfully promoted the GAP system to many farmers via education and training and registered their name on Thailand's GAP program list. This explains why effective monitoring and comprehensive enforcement are crucial in increasing the farmers' awareness of the GAP system.…”

“…In the 11th Malaysia Plan (2015-2020, it is reported that until 2014, only 4.6% (3585 farms out of 77191 farms) complied with MyGAP (RMK-11, 2015). Most of the previous GAP study focuses mainly on GAP's implementation and effectiveness without discussing the challenges or reasons behind the poor implementation of MyGAP among farmers (Amekawa et al, 2017). Hence, this study investigates the challenges of implementing good agriculture practices (MyGAP) among the paddy farmers and proposing relevant actions, using Sekinchan as a case study.…”

Global and National Food Safety and Quality Standards: Implications and Impacts for Farmers in Thailand and India

“…In 2016, 112 thousand farms in Thailand were certified against the standard (Department of Agriculture, 2016). This is almost as many producers as are certified with GlobalGAP worldwide (GLobalGAP, 2014), 4 but a huge decline from more than 220,000 producers that were Q-GAP-certified in 2012 (Amekawa et al, 2017). The decline started with the introduction of the TAS in 2013 (TAS 9001-2013), which replaced Q-GAP and made it more challenging for Thai farmers to obtain a certificate.…”

“…5 The TAS standard has 116 control pointsand farmers have to comply with 100% of 23 control points and with 60% of 41 control points. A total of 54 control points are recommendations (Amekawa et al, 2017). In comparison, the Q-GAP standard has only 84 control points and farmers were required to comply with only 51% of the control points (Amekawa, 2013).…”