Title: Thailand's never-ending pesticide debate: Contested future sociotechnical imaginaries through a relational co-productionist lens / Henriette Erawan Kamphorst
Author: Miss Henriette Erawan Kamphorst
Year: 2024
Keywords: Sociotechnical Imaginaries, Pathways, Relational Co-production, Sustainable Agriculture,, Futures thinking
Theme: Environmental politics and policy
Advisor(s): Carl Nigel Middleton
The full thesis available here.
Abstract: Since the introduction of the Green Revolution, the use of agrochemicals in Thai farming has sparked repeated contentious debates among local policy elites, addressing issues such as consumer health, farmer livelihoods, and environmental degradation. In 2019, this subject re-emerged on the policy agenda with the proposed ban of three key agrochemicals: Chlorpyrifos, Paraquat, and Glyphosate. In order to understand why the pesticide issue has remained on policy actors’ agendas for so long and still continues to be subject to ongoing debate, this research takes on a new perspective by adopting a relational co-productionist approach in the construction of contesting sociotechnical imaginaries of Thailand’s future pathways to sustainable agriculture. It examines how these imaginaries shape the positions of two dominant movements in this debate: Sustainable Intensification (SI), which advocates for controlled pesticide use to maintain food security, and Agroecology (AE), which seeks fundamental reform of the global food system for food sovereignty.This study employs a qualitative research design built on 29 in-depth interviews with actors from relevant epistemic communities supporting each sociotechnical imaginary. The conceptual framework guided the interview process, focusing on the four sociotechnical dimensions to enable for a comparative analysis of their interactions.The study produced notable key findings. Firstly, by exposing the chronology of events that led to the window of opportunity for a ban policy to emerge, it becomes clear that the political context of the 2019 general election played a critical role in involving public health experts and shifting the debate toward health-related issues rather than the more common environmental focus. Secondly, the intertwined nature of the narratives leading both imaginaries has often led to any debates quickly reaching an impasse as arguments become repetitive and outcomes unchanged, with the notable contention being the true definition of what sustainable agriculture truly means. Thirdly, agrochemicals are shown to be either viewed as part of the solution by the SI supporters or as part of the problem by AE advocates leading to different kinds of knowledge bases to be created and built upon. Based on these findings, the recommendation is made that each side has the potential to take a step forward in attempting to find common ground together by shifting collaborative dialogue towards long-term future making, with the inclusion of farmers’ voices who may offer a relatively lesser heard yet vital perspective in policy debates. This study delivers strong implications that the framework of relational co-production of sociotechnical imaginaries offers policymakers a lens for understanding the roots of policy inertia by situating debates in the context of their position in peoples’ future making of the world and the technological systems associated with these