| Abstract | The Royal Government of Thailand formulated the Reshucturing Agricultmal Production System Project (RAPS) in 1993. The objective was to reduce the planted areas of crops that were facing price fluctuation, and inh·oduction of new crops and activities to stabilise the income of fa1mers. Rice, cassava, pepper and coffee were the main crops that were facing price instability at that time. The project encouraged farmers to grow vegetables, fruit trees, cut flowers, and bamboo, and also encouraged other farmers to engage in animal husbandly. The objective of this research is to assess the perfmmance of this project in Det Udom Dish·ict. The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives formulated the Project without the consideration of many variations between regions such soil quality, location and climate and followed a top-down approach, with the stakeholders (the farmers) having a minimal involvement in the formulation of the project. This had contributed to the difficulties encountered at the implementation stage of the project. The officials at the field level lacked adequate knowledge of the project and simply carried out the instructions handed down from above. Due to lack of understanding about the project objectives, the selection of farmers was not caiTied out in the anticipated manner. Although the intention was to focus more on the farmers growing rice on unsuitable land, most of the fa1mers who joined the project grew rice in areas where the conditions were highly suitable for the crop. Personal contacts played a role in the selection of the participants. The beneficiaries did not have sufficient knowledge of the projects objectives, due to the fact that there was no attempt, on the part of the implementers, to create an awareness of the project. Low interest credit appeared to be the most ath·active element of the project for many beneficiaries. Subsidized inputs were the next appealing factor. Some farmers misused the low interest credit extended to them. On the other hand, indebtedness appeared to be the most repelling reason for non-beneficiaries. In addition, the fruit h·ee seedlings provided under the project were of inferior quality and hence most of them failed to germinate. Due to lack of planning, the seedlings were delivered at the wrong time of the year, compounding problems for the farmers. Although the objective was to diversify the farming system, it did not really materialize due to certain factors that were beyond the conh·ol of the project implementers. As always, the price of rice and cassava fluctuated, and unfortunately for the project, these prices increased. The farmers responded to the higher prices of rice and cassava by replanting them instead of growing the crops that the project promoted as a sh·ategy for resh·ucturing. This leads to a vital question "whether it makes sense to plan projects of this nature for crop diversification"? If the awareness among farmers was increased, and the options available were demonstrated, allowing them to take decisions, the outcome probably would have been better. Shifting to livestock production produced better results in comparison with the group that attempted to substitute crops. They too faced problems due to low quality of pasture seeds and floods. Those who managed to find grazing land succeeded in earning a higher income. Among those who opted for animal husbandry, the workload of women increased because they had to accompany the cattle for grazing. The overall conclusion is that the project failed to achieve the objectives, mainly because the assumptions did not hold. External factors also had a drastic effect on the project. |