Please Signup
I accept all terms and conditions
I accept all terms and conditions
SEARCA Research Desk
AFNR Knowledge Platform
Published
22/09/2026AFNR Knowledge Watch
Issue No. 5
nderstanding the contribution of smallholders requires looking beyond hectares to how farms of different scales contribute to production, livelihoods, markets, and food systems under particular conditions.
Smallholders remain an important part of agriculture and rural livelihoods across much of Southeast Asia, but their contribution cannot be understood from farm size alone.
Public discussion has often relied on broad claims about how much food small farms produce. Ricciardi et al. (2018), using a global sample covering 55 countries and 154 crop types, note that it had been widely reported that smallholder farmers—generally defined in these claims as operating less than 2 hectares—produce 70–80 percent of the world’s food. They also point to the limited empirical data then available on smallholder farms and their role in the food system. In their empirical analysis, Ricciardi et al. (2018) estimated that farms below 2 hectares account for around 28–31 percent of global crop production and 30–34 percent of global food supply. More recently, Arslan et al. (2025), using harmonized surveys and censuses conducted between 2007 and 2023 and covering 77 countries and 120 food crops, estimate that farms below 2 hectares contribute approximately 9–16 percent of global crop-derived kilocalories, depending on methodological assumptions.
The quantitative global estimates discussed here are primarily crop-based and should not be read as estimates of smallholder contribution to all food production. These differences reflect data coverage, methods, and what is being measured. More importantly, they expose a basic problem in how smallholder contribution is discussed: farm size, land share, production volume, and contribution to food supply describe different dimensions of agriculture and should not be treated as interchangeable (Ricciardi et al. 2018; Arslan et al. 2025).
Nor should a particular hectare threshold be treated as a universal definition of “smallholder.” In this brief, size thresholds are used when reporting the categories applied by individual studies; “smallholder” is treated more broadly as a policy and production category whose characteristics vary across countries and commodities.
For Southeast Asia, this distinction is particularly important. Small and fragmented farms remain widespread across much of Asia, but the relationship between farm size and agricultural performance changes with labor conditions, mechanization, land markets, and broader structural transformation (Yamauchi 2021). Earlier global evidence also identified data gaps in smallholder-dominant Southeast and East Asia (Ricciardi et al. 2018). Although Arslan et al. (2025) considerably expand the available evidence, their headline estimates remain global rather than Southeast Asia-specific.
Farm size can help describe agricultural structure and identify particular producer groups, but it is insufficient on its own as a basis for designing smallholder policy. Policy relevance depends on how farms of different scales contribute to production, food supply, livelihoods, and markets—and on the production, economic, market, and institutional conditions under which they operate.
1
Where animals, crops, or food production become more concentrated, a failure in biosecurity, sanitation, feed or water quality, or input management may have consequences across a larger number of products or producers. This describes a potential risk pathway that may warrant stronger controls as systems expand; it does not establish that intensive or concentrated production is inherently unsafe or that production concentration has increased illness regionally.
A study of meat sold in Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi, and Dong Thap in Vietnam detected antimicrobial residues; only the Ho Chi Minh City samples were tested for non-typhoidal Salmonella, and these yielded resistant isolates (Nhung et al. 2018). These findings document detected hazards in sampled meat products, but do not provide a national prevalence estimate for Vietnam or a regional estimate, nor do they demonstrate that a particular production system caused the contamination. Prevention requires biosecurity, responsible antimicrobial and pesticide use, clean water and feed, records, surveillance, and affordable extension and testing for smaller producers (WHO 2020; WHO 2022; Resilience Development Initiative Team and Diana 2024).
Are agricultural statistics and policies distinguishing among farm size, land share, production volume, and contribution to food supply?
2
Different farm scales can make different contributions to crops, markets, and food systems.
Arslan et al. (2025) find that smaller farms remain particularly important for certain crop groups. Farms up to 5 hectares produce more than one-third of the world’s vegetables, nuts and seeds, and spices and aromatics. Their contribution also varies by national income context: in low- and lower-middle-income countries, farms below 2 hectares account for around 60 percent of national food production in the study’s crop-based estimates.
These findings suggest that aggregate production alone does not capture the full significance of farm scale. What is produced, where it is produced, and the role it plays within particular food systems also matter. Rather than identifying one farm size as universally preferable, Arslan et al. (2025) emphasize complementary contributions across farm scales, crop groups, regions, and income levels.
Evidence from Asia further shows that the relationship between farm size and productivity can change during agricultural transformation. The historically observed inverse relationship between farm size and land productivity may weaken as real wages rise and labor-saving mechanization becomes more important. Under some conditions, larger operational farms can benefit from scale advantages, although outcomes depend partly on the functioning of land, labor, and machinery markets (Yamauchi 2021).
This complicates simple arguments either for preserving small farms or for encouraging larger ones. The relevant issue is not whether smaller or larger farms are inherently preferable, but what functions farms at different scales perform and under what conditions they can perform them effectively.
For smallholders, those conditions include access to finance, technology, extension, standards support, market information, capacity development, and market access. ASEAN’s regional framework identifies these as important areas of support for small food, agriculture, and forestry producers, cooperatives, and micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (ASEAN 2021).
Complementarity also does not imply equal opportunity. ASEAN (2021) notes that individual small-scale farmers may have limited bargaining power and difficulties meeting food safety, quality, and other market requirements. A food system may therefore depend on producers of different scales while still requiring targeted measures to address disadvantages faced by smaller actors.
Are policies recognizing complementary roles across farm scales while addressing the constraints that limit smallholder participation?
3
Country and commodity evidence shows how local conditions can support, complicate, or qualify broader relationships.
Global relationships between farm size, production, and productivity should not be assumed to apply uniformly across Southeast Asia.
Arslan et al. (2025) show that farm-scale contributions differ according to national income, agricultural structure, geography, and crop composition. Across Asia, changes in wages, labor movement, mechanization, and land rental can also alter both farm size and the relationship between scale and productivity (Yamauchi 2021).
Two recent Southeast Asian studies illustrate how particular production conditions can complicate these broader patterns. They are not regional averages; rather, they show how local conditions can support, complicate, or qualify broader farm-scale relationships
Taken together, these cases do not establish a common Southeast Asian relationship between farm size and farm performance. A one-hectare paddy farm and a one-hectare cacao farm may both be considered small, yet their technologies, labor requirements, markets, risks, and support needs can differ substantially.
The cases therefore qualify the global evidence in an important way: farm size can describe agricultural structure, but it cannot by itself explain farm performance, contribution, or policy need.
Taken together, these cases do not establish a common Southeast Asian relationship between farm size and farm performance. A one-hectare paddy farm and a one-hectare cacao farm may both be considered small, yet their technologies, labor requirements, markets, risks, and support needs can differ substantially.
The cases therefore qualify the global evidence in an important way: farm size can describe agricultural structure, but it cannot by itself explain farm performance, contribution, or policy need.
Food safety is a shared responsibility across the food chain (ASEAN 2024, arts. 5, 7–11; WHO 2020; WHO 2022).
2
Detect and confirm hazards, support outbreak investigation and source attribution, and provide reliable evidence for risk assessment and management (WHO 2020; WHO 2022)
3
Comply with applicable food safety requirements, prevent and control hazards, maintain traceability where required by national law, so that unsafe food can be withdrawn (ASEAN 2024, arts. 5(2)(c), 5(4))
4
Depending on national regulatory arrangements, may support vendor verification, consumer complaints, traceability, and incident reporting. Their specific regulatory responsibilities should be defined within national food control systems (WHO 2020; Resilience Development Initiative Team and Diana 2024)
5
Apply good production, hygiene, animal health, and input management practices and may help smaller producers obtain training, testing, traceability, and certification services (WHO 2020)
6
Generate evidence, support risk assessment, develop practical controls, and translate requirements into guidance that producers and businesses can apply (WHO 2020; WHO 2022)
7
Store and handle food safely, follow recalls and official advice, and report suspected incidents. These actions complement but do not replace government and business controls (WHO 2020)
ASEAN Food Reference Laboratories provide specialized testing expertise and technical training to national laboratories. The regional network may support specialized testing and capacity development, but its effective use can be affected by sample transport costs, differing import regulations, communication delays, uneven analytical capacity, and shortages of skilled personnel. Routine detection and outbreak investigation therefore still depend on functioning national and subnational laboratory systems (Resilience Development Initiative Team and Diana 2024; WHO 2020; WHO 2022).
As of 14 August 2026, the AFSRF Agreement remained listed by ASEAN as “Not In Force” (ASEAN n.d.). The Agreement provides that it will enter into force upon the deposit of the tenth Member State’s instrument of ratification, approval, or acceptance (ASEAN 2024, art. 18). Its provisions should therefore be distinguished from measures and mechanisms already operational under existing national and ASEAN arrangements.
The Agreement calls for national measures covering food controls, traceability, emergency response, and information sharing while recognizing the circumstances of SMEs (ASEAN 2024, art. 5). Its eventual regional effect will depend not only on entry into force but also on the development of implementing Protocols, national implementation, institutional capacity, and the ability of smaller actors to comply without lowering food safety protection.
The evidence supports several qualifications when interpreting farm-scale patterns in Southeast Asia:
•
Arslan et al. (2025) substantially expand evidence on production by farm scale, but their headline findings should not be converted into a Southeast Asia-wide production share.
•
A hectare threshold is useful for comparison, but farms below the same threshold can differ substantially in commodity, commercialization, livelihood strategy, labor, technology, and resource access.
•
Farm numbers, land share, crop production, crop-derived kilocalories, and estimated contribution to food supply should not be used interchangeably (Ricciardi et al. 2018; Arslan et al. 2025; Lowder et al. 2025).
•
The Vietnam and Philippine studies examine specific relationships under particular commodity and production conditions.
•
The Davao de Oro findings, for example, should not be interpreted as showing that subsidies or extension services caused lower technical efficiency (Placencia et al. 2025).
1.
Are agricultural statistics distinguishing farm numbers, land share, production, marketed output, household consumption, and contribution to food supply?
2
How are wages, labor movement, mechanization, land rental, and structural transformation changing farm size and production organization (Yamauchi 2021)?
3
How do small, medium, and large farms contribute within particular commodities, value chains, and food systems (Arslan et al. 2025)?
4
Does emerging country and commodity evidence support, modify, or contradict broader relationships among farm size, production, crop composition, and food supply?
5
Does improved access to finance, technology, extension, standards support, producer organizations, and market access lead to measurable gains in production, livelihoods, and participation (ASEAN 2021)?
The evidence points to a clear policy implication: farm size can help identify and describe producers, but it should not determine smallholder policy on its own. For Southeast Asia, the more useful question is how farms at different scales contribute to production, livelihoods, markets, and food systems—and what conditions enable smaller producers to participate effectively, inclusively, and sustainably.
Get the latest policy insights, research highlights, and knowledge resources from across Southeast Asia delivered straight to your inbox.
