Key learnings including SWOT analysis and draft plans for the next action research cycle (Cambodia)

1. Regional Review and Planning Workshop for
SRI-LMB Project
02-03 June 2015, Siem Reap province, Cambodia
Prepared by Mr. Kong Kea, the Project Coordinator

2. Sustaining and Enhancing the Momentum for
Innovation and Learning around
the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in the
Lower Mekong River Basin (SRI-LMB)
Hosted by ACISAI Center, AIT in partnership with
Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) and
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), Cambodia
SRI-LMB
THIS PROJECT IS FUNDED BY THE
EUROPEAN UNION
A PROJECT IMPLEMETED BY ASIAN
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, THAILAND

3. Project Goal
Enhance rainfed smallholder farmers’ capacity confronting climate
change sustainably by applying SRI through Participatory Action
Research in order to improve food security, income and
occupational health status.
To contribute to enhance resilience of rainfed farmers of LMB
region confronting climate change
Increased crop yield, productivity and profitability on sustainable
basis at smallholders farmers’ field in rainfed in target areas.
Overall objective
Purpose

4. Project Activities and results of SRI-LMB project
implementation in 2014
1. Inception Workshop
2. Baseline survey
3. Center Farmer Participatory Action Research (CFPAR)
4. Farmer Participatory Action Researches
5. Over sea Study Tour for PMU, LMU and Farmer Trainers
6. Provincial LMU meeting
7. National Review and Planning Workshop

5. 1. National Inceptionand Planning Workshop
• The National Inception and Planning Workshop
was organized on 21-22 May 2014 involving 44
participants (08 women).
• The purpose of the National Inception and
Planning Workshop is to ensure wider national
consultation on the objectives and activities of
the project.

6. 2. Baselinesurvey
• This activities had been done to identify the general
situation of rice production and problem encountered
in each province.
• 45 farmers in each target province interviewed. Totally,
134 farmers (35 female) were interviewed.
• It was found that farmers

7. 3. Center Farmer Participatory Action Research
(CFPAR)
• Totally, 84 Participants (23 female) attended CFPAR, in
those 3 LMU, 9 District Trainers and 72 Farmer Trainers.
• There were 14 days training divided into four time of
classes ( 5 days at seedling stage, 3 days at tillering
stage, 2days at flowering stage and 4 days at ripening
stage.
• CFPAR aimed to increase knowledge of participants on
the basic of SRI, research methodology, facilitation
skills, and FFS management.
• Adult learning and non-formal education approach
were used such as plenary and small group discussion,
role play, and actual practice in the field.

8. Main Activities at CFPAR
→ Technical discussion on SRI
→ Training on facilitation skills
→ Discussion on the research methodology
→ Discussion on the management of FFS
→ Develop FFS curriculum and session guide
→ Conduct field experiments
→ Field Day

9. Result of experiments at CFPAR
There were 8 experiments conducted at CFPAR as following:
1. Seeding methods and seed rate for direct seeding
- T1: 60kg/ha by hand,
- T2: 100kg/ha by hand, and
- T3100kg/ha by drum seeder),
1. Different spacing for transplanting
- T1: 15cm x 15cm,
- T2: 20cm x 20cm, and
- T3: 25 cm x25 cm)
1. Different fertilizer application
- T1: N52 P15 K20,
- T2: Cow manure 10 t/ha,
- T3: N28 P12 K10 with cow manure 5t/ha,
- T4: N28 P12 K10 with cow manure 10t/ha)

10. 4. Different Number of Seedling per hill
- T1. Single seedling,
- T2: 3 sedling,
- T3: 5 seedling and
- T4: 7 seedling
5. Different transplanting method
- T1: transplanting in row,
- T2: Randomly transplanting, and
- T3: Parachute)
6. Different weeding methods
- T1:Hand weeding,
- T2: Neak Srer,
- T3: Spraying herbicide at 15 days after sowing)

11. 7. Different age of seedling for transplanting
- T1. 15 days
- T2: 25 days
- T3: 40 days
8. Different rice varieties
- T1. Phka Rumdoul
- T2: Chmar Prum
- T3: Chhmar La Eth

12. The result from experiment at CFPAR

13. The result of field experiments at CFPAR

14. The result of field experiments at CFPAR
4179
4328
4133
4248
4000
4050
4100
4150
4200
4250
4300
4350
N52 P15 K20 Cow manure
10t/ha
N28 P12 K10 ,
Cow manure
5t/ha
N52 P15 K20,
Cow manure
10t/ha
kg/ha
Graphic of yield of experiment on different rate of
fertilizer application at CFPAR
1253
1298
1239
1274
726
799
872
924
527
499
367
350
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
N52 P15 K20 Cow manure 10t/ha N28 P12 K10 , Cow
manure 5t/ha
N52 P15 K20, Cow
manure 10t/ha
US$/ha
Graphic of economic analysis of experiment on
different rate of fertilizer application at CFPAR
Income
Expense
Benefit

15. The result of field experiments at CFPAR

16. Mini-TOT activities
Activities at CFPAR

17. Activities at CFPAR

18. Activities at CFPAR

19. Activities at CFPAR

20. Activities at CFPAR

21. Activities at CFPAR

22. Activities at CFPAR

23. Activities at CFPAR

24. CFPAR Field Day activities

25. CFPAR Field Day activities

26. FarmerParticipatory Action Researchesin 2014
Province District Males Females Total
Kampong Speu
12 FFS
Borseth 79 43 122
Korng Pisey 33 86 119
Samrong Torng 44 74 118
Takeo
12 FFS
Bati 30 72 102
Prey Kabas 73 37 110
Tramkak 33 71 104
Kampot
12 FFS
Angkor Chey 43 74 117
Chhouk 38 82 120
Chumkiri 25 95 120
Total 398 634 1032

27. The summary result of field experiments
at FPAR in Kampong Speu province

28. The summary result of field experiments
at FPAR in Kampong Speu province

29. The summary result of field experiments
at FPAR in Takeo province

30. The summary result of field experiments
at FPAR in Takeo province

31. The summary result of field experiments
at FPAR in Takeo province

32. The summary result of field experiments
at FPAR in Kampot province

33. The summary result of field experiments
at FPAR in Kampot province

34. FFS activities

35. FFS activities

36. FFS activities

37. FFS activities

38. FFS activities

39. Problems encountered for FPARin 2014
• Drought prolonging until September
• There were changing family member to attend training.
• Some NGOs and projects give attendance fee for farmer
meeting or training at community.
• Farmers do not actively participate in collection data from field
experiments.
• Knowledge and facilitation skills for DT and FT
• Late advanced money for FPAR

40. Lesson learnt from FPAR in 2014
• It would be difficult to select good fields for FPAR if
starting late.
• Quality of FPAR is depending on facilitation skills and
technical knowledge of trainers.
• The number of participants at FPAR is more If the village
chief attend FPAR,
• Good experimental site and active cooperation farmer
selected will contribute to the successfulness of FPAR.
• If the identified local problems were considered and put
for experiments, farmers would much interested and
participated in observing field experiment regularly.

41. • It would be difficult to differentiate SRI and conventional
plots if both plot put in the same main plot.
• There was an observation that old age farmers pay less
attention in observing field experiment as compared to the
young.
• The quality of FPAR would be better if LMU and PMU team
provide backstopping visit regularly.
• It would be easy for farmers to learn and compare if the
experiment simply designed (single factor and single
replication)
• If duration of each training take over than 2h:30 minute,
farmers would pay less attention to the training (affect to
their daily works especially for women).

42. Solution for FPAR in 2015
 The FPAR should start as earlier as possible especially the
selection of experimental field and cooperation farmer.
 At the beginning of FPAR, facilitators have to discuss the local
practices and identify gaps for technical improvement.
 The technical problems identified have to be prioritized and put
for experiment.
 Only SRI demo plot ( about 1000m2 follow by one simple specific
comparison experiment (single factor and single replication
experiment) will be designed for FPAR in 2015.
 Village chief should be invited for FPAR training.
 Duration of training at FPAR should be minimized but more and
more focusing on the key points.

43. 5. Oversea Study tour for LMU, DT and FT
• In 2014, one oversea study tour to visit Thailand was
organized for PMU , LMU and Farmer Trainers (10people).
• It was very important for sharing experience of project
implementation among partner countries. All participants
reported that they learnt a lot from this study tour. The
result from study tour contributed to the improvment of
FPAR in Cambodia

44. • In 2014, three provincial reflection and evaluation workshops were organized to share
experience and result and prepare plan for next year. Relevant stakeholders were invited.
6. Provincial reflection and evaluation workshop

46. 7. National review and planning workshop
• The National Review and Planning Workshop was
organized on 28-29 May 2015 involving 46 participants
(10 women).
• The purpose of the National Review and Planning
Workshop is to summary the results of FPAR
implementation in last wet season 2014 and plan for
wet season 2015

47. Activitiesproposed for 2015
• Continuetodoexperiment at36old FPARandfollowupandmonitortheadoptionofSRIpractices
withparticipants.
• Expanding36FPARtoothervillage in targetcommunes.
• Formlandlessgroups,providetrainingon interestedsubjectmaterforimproving theirincome
generationthenlink this groupwithsaving forchange.
• LMUmonthlyreflection meeting
• Regularmonitoringandprovidebackstopingvisit of PMUandLMU
• One oversea studytourforPMU, LMU,DTandFT
• One nationalreviewing andplanningworkshop

48. Additional suggestion from LMU, DT and FT
• Request to buy one camera for each province
• Request to have office material and expense
for LMU office
• Increase allowance for DT and FT
• Increase cost of snack from 10$ to 15$ per
day/class since the price of food increased.