Nutrition and Food Security in Upland of Thailand

Malnutrition and food security remain serious problems in Thailand, particularly amongst ethnic minorities living in remote, upland areas. Sustainably improving local food availability through improved agricultural production has the potential to address these issues; however, there was little evidence of effective strategies on how to carry this out, and specifically, how to link improvements in agriculture with corresponding improvements in diet and nutrition. Thus, a central question guiding this research project was: what practices and strategies would result in long-term improvements in local food availability, food consumption, and ultimately nutrition status of populations living in rural upland areas of Thailand The official starting of the project was February 2013, however, it took several months to get an ethic clearance from the Human Experimentation Committee of the Research Institute for Health Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, which was granted on 6 November, 2013. Baseline household surveys (about food security, dietary diversity, and child-feeding practices) were done using questionnaires in participating communities (98 Karen hill-tribe households in 4 villages and 77 Lua hill-tribe households in 4 villages). Focus-group discussions (FDGs) (in female and male groups of both tribes), and in-depth interviews (with agricultural and health officials) were then done to characterize the nutritional situation, nutrition practices and knowledge, and food consumption patterns, and to characterize the local farming practices, including documenting the heterogeneity of agro-ecological practices to identify potential practices that could be tested as nutrition-sensitive agricultural solutions. Baseline anthropometric measurement of children aged 0-5 years old were also done to determine nutrition status of the children. It was found out that the hill tribes practiced both shifting cultivation and permanent-field agriculture, with rice as the main crop. Food was locally grown, bought from the market, and gathered from the vicinity of the villages. It was found out that the studied population is 50% food secure. The studied population’s dietary diversity was about 40%. Only 4 % had a minimum acceptable diet. Results of the FGDs showed that the female and the males managed their food systems differently. Potential nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions were formulated afterwards, based on the baseline data, and discussed with research partners in Canada and Vietnam. A stakeholder meeting to discuss potential nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions was held in early 2014. Nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions (improving chicken raising by providing 5 chicken per household in 98 (58 Karen and 40 Lua) households and home gardens by providing seeds of 5 high-nutritive vegetables of their choices to the intervention villages) and nutrition intervention (educating children’s caretakers on nutrition knowledge) were selected and started in November 2014. The intervention villages were randomly pre-selected to be 4 out of 8, while the other 4 were set to be control villages (77 households) with no agricultural interventions, but the nutrition intervention. The households were very enthusiastic about the intervention as they perceived it to be beneficial to their children. However, some chicken started to die due primarily to the cold weather during the winter season. Some vegetables did not do well due to seasonal drought. After 1 year, the endline survey (similar to the baseline survey) was done. Endline anthropometric measurement was also done. In addition, focus-group discussions were done on the subjects of affordability (how the villagers perceived the interventions and whether they wanted to continue doing it or not once the project was finished). Most member of the intervention households responded to the affordability question that they want to continue with chicken raising (and support for chicken feed) because they will get eggs for their own consumption and home gardens (with more kinds of vegetables) as it saves time to buy vegetables from the market. They also found the nutrition knowledge training to be useful, and should be continued. Local and national policy makers will be informed of the results and recommendations for both practical nutrition-sensitive agriculture and further research topics, which are, for example, 1) searching for practical local feeds for chicken, 2) diversification of vegetables (and fruits) for home gardens, 3) water management for highland agriculture, and 4) changing behaviors for proper nutrition practices. Lastly, maps of land use of the 2 studied sub-districts were done, and stories of the projects have been published as blogs, posters, and research newsletters.

---

• View source