THE person at the other end of my Messenger sent a video of an outstanding Japanese agricultural technology. He requested me to view it and respond to his emphatic question: “Does it make any sense at all?”
I can see the point of this exchange. He just wanted to tell me we should be promoting the technology “as a permanent solution to conserve the quality of the environment.”
I have no problem with outstanding ecological and organic farming technologies. There can be a million videos of them that any Juan and Maria can view, which is a good thing.
But what did not sit well with me is how several like him who shares what they see on the internet and request “we must promote these to our local farmers.” I know their kind. Some wonder if what they are suggesting are possible under the given conditions. Some are angry that we are not doing well and enough. Their proofs are the technologies enjoyed by other farmers in advanced economies.
Meanwhile, not a few in our agency have also been pestering us for not doing well and enough in highlighting their accomplishments in the media so the public and the powers of the land may know their great work and accomplishments.
As far as I can recall, we have been defending the agency and its people from unfair criticisms and expectations from people who inhabit a different planet but can invade our spaces and peace at will. Here is what I want to know from them. Have they tried the technologies they wanted us to promote themselves? Have they lived in a farm and tried to listen to so-called experts on how to farm their land? If they are that good, at least they must have some moral sense of “not expecting others to do what they themselves could not really do.”
Agricultural and rural development is not simply about following the mere “say so” of so-called experts. It is studying the processes, approaches, discipline, and putting in the necessary sustained engagement that yields the desired change with a people, their culture, traditions, and ways of doing things in a given community and geographic location if necessary.
I am a student of rural and agricultural development. Thus far, the most enthralling reading I had on the subject pertains to a distinguished and genuine practitioner of this science and art. He is somebody who respects the factors and essential elements to carry out agricultural development in our Asian environment and cultural milieu.
While he was yet alive, his Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the ninth monarch of the Royal House of Chakri, Thailand conducted agricultural and rural development worth emulating in poverty-stricken villages in the countryside of Asia.
The King’s activities and decades-long engagement in developing village agriculture are based “on morality, true knowledge, and understanding of the situation; the expertise and experience of the society and communities, scientific studies, local wisdom, and appropriate technologies.”
Remarkable still, are the sustained effort and the time that he spent with his people in the villages to understand the problems affecting their lives. He has vision. His approach and principles are characterized by “simplicity, frugality, and effectiveness.” His development projects were tailored to solve problems at their root causes and fit the conditions in their villages. The development activities sought to lay a firm foundation for the prosperity and happiness of his people.
Some may think this is good for the Thais and their King’s descendant to croon about, it does not affect them. It should. Whether you are king, descended from some royal line, an ordinary Thai or any citizen from any other republic, what King Bhumibol leaves us – a sustained engagement and effort to understand the problems in our villages, finding solutions to actual farm problems, and implementing the solutions – are what we should have been doing in agricultural development all these years.
At one time in his career as Monarch, it was noted that King Bhumibol has initiated and pursued more than 3,000 development projects in Thai villages.
Rural and agricultural development that has made us sit in our offices, conference halls, and abroad listening to what others (farmers, politicians and experts from other nations) tell us and copying their ideas needs some deeper pondering as a development approach. Our theories could be wrong and so are the practices that we employ.
The King’s “New Theory” in agricultural development is a land and water management method for small farms in their given natural condition, both in normal times and in crisis. The King developed the theory and its practices out of his commitment and long engagement with Thai farmers in their villages. It was not some idea he plucked out visiting the lush farms found in highly developed countries.
The theory is clearly defined and can be implemented by local farmers themselves with their own resources and current capacities based on the division of the agricultural land of each rural household, which averages1.6 ha to 2.4 hectares, into four parts according to use in the proportion of 30-30-30-10 as follows:
Part 1: 30 percent or 0.48 hectare is used for a reservoir. This should be dug to a depth of four meters for a capacity of 19,000 cubic meters of water collected from rainfall. In Thailand, it was determined that this will be enough to irrigate the crops throughout the year.
Part 2: 30 percent or 0.48 hectare will be devoted to rice cultivation which will produce enough rice for the household needs.
Part 3: Another 30 percent of the land or 0.48 hectare may be used for growing more rice or horticultural crops, depending on the local conditions and the market demand.
Part 4: The remaining 10 percent of land or 0.16 hectare is used for building a house, paths and ditches and also for growing household vegetables and raising livestock.
The New Theory, according to the Thai Anurak Tourism, helps farmers achieve self-sufficiency at a frugal level.
King Bhumibol’s New Theory stresses the importance of water in agriculture and tackling water shortages. Building large reservoirs are becoming unrealistic due to urban sprawl, population increases, and decreases in the amount of land available. The building of household reservoirs, as advocated by the King, provides water for crops, and can also be used to grow fish and aquatic plants, thus adding to the household income.
The pursuit of the New Theory has shown that limited land can be maximized to produce sufficient food for consumption, and, if possible, for sale, which is the primary objective of agriculture, a profession that must do its work based on actual conditions and resources, not on some sublime aspirations by urban dwellers who do not know the difference between what is possible and not with the farmer and his resources. Tell me your theory and show me how well you have pursued it and you get my full support.