The document summarizes the System of Rice Intensification for Lower Mekong Basin (SRI-LMB) project. The key points are: - SRI-LMB was a 5-year EU funded project implemented in 4 countries (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam) to promote the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) for improved food security and climate-smart agriculture. - The project involved over 15,000 farmers across 33 districts and evaluated SRI practices through 582 on-farm trials. Results showed increases in yield, profitability, labor productivity, and resource use efficiency compared to conventional practices. - Data analysis found that SRI practices led to 52

1. Learning with the System of Rice
Intensification for Food Security and
Climate-Smart Agriculture
DR. ABHA MISHRA, ACISAI, AIT, THAILAND
abhamishra@ait.asia ( http://www.acisai.ait.asia/ )
Regional Workshop, Sustaining and Enhancing the Momentum for Innovation
and Learning around the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in the Lower
Mekong River Basin, 01-02 November, 2018, Bangkok, Thailand

2. CONTENTS
SRI-LMB
 FACTS AND FIGURES
 OBJECTIVES, PURPOSE & OUTPUTS
 GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS
 PARTNERSHIP
 PROGRAMME STRUCTURE
 IMPLEMENTAION STRUCTURE
 ACTIVITIES
 KEY FINDINGS
 WHAT NEXT
2

3. SRI-LMB HIGHLIGHTS
SRI-LMB WAS FUNDED UNDER THE EU’S 2009-2010 GLOBAL PROGRAMME
ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FOR DEVELOPMENT (ARD), FOOD SECURITY
THEMATIC PROGRAMME (FSTP), COMPONENT 1- RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGY
(BUDGET LINE: 21.02.01 FOR FOOD SECURITY)
3
European Commission

4. FACTS & FIGURES
 Implementation period: 72 month
 Duration: 01 January 2013 – 31st December 2018
 Coverage: 33 districts in 11 provinces in 4 countries
(Cambodia, Laos Vietnam and Thailand)
 Total costs of the Project: 3.4 million Euro (EU contributes 85%)
 Project partners: AIT, FAO, Oxfam
 Project Associates: SRI-Rice, Cornell University, University of
Queensland, Australia
 Beneficiaries: Direct 15,000 farmers (58% women), indirect:
30,000 farmers, 78 ministry staffs; 17 researchers; 30
project staffs;
 Ministries involved: MOE, Thailand; MAF, Lao PDR; MAFF, Cambodia; MARD,
Vietnam
 Universities involved: Rajabhat University, Thailand; Royal University of
Agriculture, Cambodia; Hanoi University of Agriculture,
Vietnam; Nabong College of Agriculture, Lao PDR
 Contribution : AIT, FAO and Oxfam America
4

5. SRI-LMB
FACTS & FIGURES
 Number of action research sites: 582
 Number of farmer’s led field trials: 2634
 Impact: 52% more productive crops;
70% more on-farm net return;
64% more labour productivity;
59% higher water productivity;
34% less energy use;
14% and 17% less GHG
emission from irrigated and
rainfed cropping respectively
5

6. 6
• To contribute to enhance resilience of rainfed farmers
of LMB region confronting climate change
Objective
• Increased crop yield, productivity and profitability on
sustainable basis at smallholder farmers’ field in rainfed
areas of the LMB region
PURPOSE • Multiinstitutional , multistakeholder developed from
local to regional level
• science-based pro-poor profitable crop management
practices developed
• Cogenerated knowledge and learning dissiminated
• National research-extension capacity strengthened
OUTPUTS
SRI-LMB
OBJECTIVE, PURPOSE AND OUTPUTS

7. SRI-LMB
GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS
7
• 33 Districts
• 11 Provinces
• 4 countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand
and Vietnam)
RAINFED AREAS OF LOWER MEKONG
RIVER BASIN (LMB)

8. Lower Mekong River Basin (LMB) 8
60 million
population in LMB
60% rice area is
rainfed
75% calories from
rice
 Small land holding (90%)
 Average age of farmers 50+
 More than 60% are women
 Grow only one crop of rice
 Increasing households loans
 Low rice productivity
 Costly farming technique are not
applied
 Declining profit (due to rising cost
of production and stagnating
yields)
 Increasing out-migration of
farmers
 Youth leaving agriculture
Challenge
Making farming
economically and socially
attractive in a rapid
changing environment,
such as climate change

9. SRI-LMB
PARTNERSHIPS
9
Royal University of
Agriculture
National
University of Laos
Hanoi University
of Agriculture
Rajabhat
University

10. CAMBODIA
Implementing
include NGO, GO,
academics
LAOS
Implementing consortia
include NGO, GO,
academics
THAILAND
Implementing
consortia include
NGO GO, academics
VIETNAM
Implementing consortia
include NGO, GO academics
P1
D
1
D
2
D
3
D
1
D
2
D
3
D
1
D
2
D
3
D
1
D
2
D
3
D
1
D
2
D
3
D
1
D
2
D
3
D
1
D
2
D
3
D
1
D
2
D
3
D
1
D
2
D
3
D
1
D
2
D
3
Provinces
Districts
Oxfam FAO
P2 P3 P1 P3P2 P1 P2 P1 P2
UQ
Australia
SRI-Rice
USA
Local
consortia
National
consortia
Regional
consortia
ProgrammeImplementation
consortia
SRI-LMB
PROGRAMME STRUCTURE

11. Government/ministries
Local
NGO
Academic
institution
PMU Office
Province 2
Dist.
2
Dist.
1
Dist.
3
Province 1
Dist. 2Dist.
1
Dist
. 3
Province 3
Dist.
2
Dist.
1
Dist.
3
IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE AT
COUNTRY LEVEL

12. 4th post FFS site (2 FT)
3rd post FFS site (2 FT)
2nd post FFS site (2 FT)
1st post FFS site (2 FT)
4th post FFS site (2 FT)
3rd post FFS site (2 FT)
2nd post FFS site (2 FT)
1st post FFS site (2 FT)
4th post FFS site (2 FT)
3rd post FFS site (2 FT)
2nd post FFS site (2 FT)
1st post FFS site (2 FT)
FPAR sites
FPAR sites
FPAR sites
IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE AT
PROVINCE LEVEL
Each province has three districts and each district has 4 FPAR sites

13. SRI-LMB
MAJOR ACTIVITIES 13
•Understanding the
pattern of change
among different group
of farmers through
monitoring, evaluation
and learning
• Policy research and
dialogue on pro-
poor options and
policy advocacy
recommendation
• Participatory Rural
Appraisal
• Baseline status
• Trainings for CFPAR
and FPAR
implementation and
for MEL work
• Documentation and
sharing learning
with a wider
audience
Review and
reflections at regional
level Regional
workshops
Capacity building
interventions and
Farmer-led field
experiments
FPARs
Review and reflection
at local level
Provincial workshop
Review and reflection
at country level
National workshops

14.  Transplanting younger
and fewer
seedlings/hill or direct
seeding with low seed
rate
 maintaining wider
spacing
 Avoiding continuous
soil saturation
 Applying compost as
much as possible
 Offers low cost solution
 Doesn’t require external inputs
 Practices are amenable to
farmers experimentation
 Follows agro-ecological
principles
 Strengthens livelihoods
SRI: A ’MENU’ FOR CHANGE AND
TRANSFORMATION
14
Capturing farmers' imagination by enabling them to
get higher yield with reduced external inputs, and
fueling their capacity for innovation

15. 15
DIFFERENT SETS OF PRACTICES APPLIED
AT FARMERS’ FIELDS
Crop
management
practices
Conventional
practices
(CP-Baseline)
SRI-Transition
(SRI-T)
SRI-Demonstration
(SRI-D)
Seedling age 40-60 day-old
(established by
baseline)
39-20 day-old 8-19 day-old*
(8-15 day-old for
Cambodia and
Thailand)
Seed rate 100-150 kg/ha 20-30% less than CM 5-20 kg/ha
Transplanting
spacing
Crowded, 10 x 10
cm
10 x 15 to 19 x 19 cm 20 x 20 – 30 x 30 cm
or more
Planting/hill >5-6 4-5 seedlings/hill 1-3 seedlings/hill
Soil condition Flooded (or no
effort in
maintaining
aerobic soil
condition
Relatively aerobic soil
condition with respect to
CM either through
shallow water level or
through intermittent
drying
Maintaining aerobic
soil condition at least
for a week during
tillering stage
 Three treatments and 4 replications
(minimum) for each experiment
 Data collection and analysis (average)
by farmers at three growth stages
(tillering, flowering, and harvesting)
 Data recorded by farmers using farmers
diary
 Data were compiled by district trainer
and subsequently by provincial
coordinator
Design and data handling at field
level

16. DATA HANDLING AT COUNTRY AND
REGIONAL LEVEL
 System Architecture
16
Query Data
INTERNET
Input Data
Download Output File
Save data into DB

17. SRI-LMB
FPARs DATA ANALYSIS
 Data were clustered under three performance indicators based on
performance indicators for sustainable rice cultivation developed by the
Sustainable Rice Platform (SRP) affiliated with the International Rice Research
Institute and UN Environmental Programme
(http://www.sustainablerice.org/assets/docs/SRP%20Performance%20Indicators%20v%
201%200%20Apr%202015.pdf
 GHG emission were estimated based on the input use following the protocol
developed by Yan et al. 2005; IPCC 2006 and Mossier et al 1998. All emissions
were expressed as CO2 equivalent per ha per year. Total GHG emissions were
calculated by:
Total GHG (tCO2 eq./ha/year) = CH4(flooded) + N2O(direct) + N2O(indirect) + CO2(urea) +
CO2(chemical substances) + CO2(fuel) (soil ph 4.5 – 5 was used for all the sites)
 Random effect analysis was done for the general trend emergent
 ANOVA
 Mean +/- standard error
17

18. SRI-LMB
KEY LEARNINGS FROM FPARs
18
VARIABLES:
 Improved Livelihood
• Productivity (yield), tons/ha
• Profitability (net return), US$/ha
• Labor productivity, kg of rice yield/man-day of labor
 Resource Use Efficiency
• Water productivity, kg of rice yield/m3 of water input
• Inorganic fertilizer use efficiency, kg of rice yield/kg of inorganic fertilizer
• Total energy input (Chemical, Mechanical and Biological), GJ/ha
 Climate change mitigation
• Greenhouse gas emissions – (CH4, N2O, CO2), tCO2 eq./ha
• GHG emissions (Rainfed and Irrigated scenarios)

19. Key Learnings: Improved
Livelihood
 Productivity: Paddy yield (t/ha)
 Profitability: Net income (US$/ha)
 Labor Productivity: kg of rice yield/man-day labor
19

20. Productivity (Paddy yield (t/ha)
20
-10 0 10 20 30 40
Average paddy yield
SRI-D (CAM)
SRI-D (LAO)
SRI-D (THA)
SRI-D (VN)
FP (CAM)
FP (THA)
FP (VN)
SRI -T (CAM)
SRT-T (VN)
SRI-T(CAM)
Summary effect
Summary effect size is 10.17 with 95% Cl 4.22 to 16.12.
Heterogeneity test Q= 12.86 , df =9 , p= 0.17 : I²=30%
The test of overall effect size: Z = 3.35 (P=0.0008).
Numbers next to error bars represent the no. replications used to calculate effect sizes in each
category.
3.34 (243)
5.66 (141)
4.1 (449)
5.11 (49)
3.18 (122)
3.32(153)
6.01 (49)
3.9 (139)
4.47 (74)
4.47 (153)
Key Learnings: Improved Livelihood

21. Profitability (US$/ha)
21
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Net Return (2015)
SRI-D (CAM)
SRI-D (TH)
SRI-D （VN)
SRI-D (LAO)
SRI-T (CAM)
SRI-T (VN)
FP (TH)
FP (VN)
Summary
Summary effect size is 5.58 with 95% Cl 2.18 to 8.98
Heterogeneity test Q= 7.71 , df =7 , p= 0.36: I²=9.15%
The test of overall effect size: Z =3.21 (P=0.001).
Numbers next to error bars represent net return (US$/ha) and
in parenthesis the no. replications used to calculate effect sizes
in each category.
493.61 (72)
1000.43 (50)
384.24 (13)
838.06 (28)
370.81 (206)
240.684 (33)
555.11 (50)
68.90 (13)
-40 -20 0 20 40 60
Net Return (2016 (US$/ha)
SRI-D (CAM)
SRI-D (LAO)
SRI-D (THA)
SRI-D (VN)
FP (CAM)
FP (THA)
FP (VN)
SRI-T(CAM)
SRT-T (VN)
Summary
Summary effect size is 2.68 with 95% Cl -5.91 to 11.29
Heterogeneity test Q= 16.53 , df = 9 , p= 0.057 : I²=45.6%
The test of overall effect size: Z = 0.61 (P=0.54).
Numbers next to error bars represent the no. replications used to
calculate effect sizes in each category.
758.11 (46)
544.41 (89)
549.69 (36)
182.68 (81)
95.97 (89)
248.00 (243)
580.41 (108)
182.68 (243)
340.18 (36)
346.84 (81)
More than 70% net return
with SRI-D in 2015 (US$
679)and 35% in 2016 (US$
542) compared to baseline
(US$ 400/ha)
Key Learnings: Improved Livelihood

22. Labor Productivity: kg of rice yield/man-day
labor
38
60
82
49
55
21
74
31
77
33
0
20
40
60
80
100
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Lao PDR Regional
LabourProductivity,KgRice/dayoflabor
Labour Productivity, Kg Rice/man-day of labor
SRI Baseline
22
Key Learnings: Improved Livelihood
At regional level,
55 kg rice per
man-day labour
80
%
161%
-
19%
64.5%
-35%
% change w.r.t. to
baseline

23. Key Learnings: Resource-use-
efficiency
 Water productivity: kg of rice/m3 of water (Molden et al., 2010)
 Mineral fertilizer use efficiency: kg of rice/kg of mineral fertilizer
 Total energy input: (GJ/ha) (Chamsing et al., 2006)
• Mechanical: manual and machine
• Chemical: organic and mineral fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide
• Biological: seed
23

24. Key Learnings: Resource Use Efficiency
Water Productivity: kg of rice yield/m3 of rainfall water
0.36
0.27
0.30
0.24
0.29
0.27 0.27
0.25 0.26
0.30
0.21
0.20
0.12
0.18
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Lao PDR Regional
WaterProductivity,kg/m3ofwater
Water Productivity, kg /m3 of water (For year 2015)
SRI FP SRI-T Baseline
19%
30%
19%
53%
35%
110%
59%
Efficient use
of natural
resource

25. Mineral fertilizer use efficiency: kg of
paddy/kg of mineral fertilizer
25.0 19.3
31.0
208.6
31.4
8.5
29.2
12.1 10.1 11.4
0
50
100
150
200
250
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Lao PDR Regional
Inorganicfertilizeruseefficiency,Kg
Rice/kgofinorganicfertilizer
Inorganic fertilizer use efficiency, kg Rice/kg of inorganic fertilizer
SRI Baseline
25
Key Learnings: Resource-use-efficiency
At regional level, 31 kg
of paddy per kg of
mineral fertilizer
Wu 2013: 21.4 kg of
rice/kg of NPK

26. Total energy input: GJ/h
26
Key Learnings: Resource-use-efficiency
7.44
9.46 9.12
2.25
7.07
15.58
6.48
14.29
8.66
11.25
0
5
10
15
20
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Lao PDR Regional
TotalEnergyInput,GJ/ha
Total Energy Input, GJ/ha )
SRI Baseline
-52%
46%
-36%
-74%
-37% Major contribution
to reduction in cost
of cultivation

27. Key Learnings: Climate change
mitigation
• Greenhouse gas emissions – (CH4, N2O, CO2), tCO2
eq./ha
• GHG emissions (Rainfed and Irrigated scenarios)
27

28. Greenhouse gas mitigation (t CO2 eq./ha)
Countries Irrigated Rainfed
SRI Baseline % change
w.r.t.
baseline
SRI Baseline % change
w.r.t.
baseline
Cambodia 2.20 1.54 43 1.76 1.09 61
Laos 1.17 1.74 -33 0.73 1.3 -44
Thailand 1.86 2.52 -26 1.42 2.07 -32
Vietnam 2.35 2.92 -20 1.9 2.48 -23
Regional 1.9 2.18 -13 1.45 1.74 -16
28
Key Learnings: Climate change mitigation

29. Key Learnings: Climate Change Mitigations
Rainfed and Irrigated Area
Resources used
Thailand: Report- situation of the cultivation of rice in Thailand-round 1.
Cambodia: Kamoshita et al.,2014; FAO Aquastat
Vietnam: General Statistics Office of Vietnam; FAO Aquastat
Lao PDR: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Lao PDR.
Cross checked: https://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2015/06/Southeast_Asia/Index.htm
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/sets/index.stm#sni
Area under Rice
cultivation, Million Ha
Country Irrigated Rainfed % Irrigated %Rainfed
Thailand 2.33 6.67 25.9 74.1
Cambodia 0.48 2.62 15.5 84.5
Vietnam 4.59 3.2 58.9 41.1
Lao PDR 0.19 0.79 19.5 80.5
Regional 7.62 13.26 36.5 63.5

30. Key Learnings: Climate Change Mitigations
Total GHG (COUNTRY IRRIGATED AREA)
4.34
1.12
10.77
0.19
5.11
1.11
13.27
5.88
0.78
13.41
0.33
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Lao PDR
GHGEmissions.MilliontCO2eq.
GHG Emissions Million t CO2 eq. for COUNTRY IRRIGATED
AREA
SRI FP SRI-T Baseline
Country
Irrigated
Rice Area
(Mha)
Thailand 2.33
Cambodia 0.48
Vietnam 4.59
Lao PDR 0.19

31. Key Learnings: Climate Change Mitigations
Total GHG (COUNTRY RAINFED AREA)
9.45
4.56
6.09
0.43
11.64
4.54
7.83
13.83
2.83
7.93
1.03
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Lao PDR
GHGEmissions.MilliontCO2eq. GHG Emissions Million t CO2 eq. for COUNTRY RAINFED
AREA
SRI FP SRI-T Baseline
Country
Rainfed
Rice Area
(Mha)
Thailand 6.67
Cambodia 2.62
Vietnam 3.2
Lao PDR 0.79

32. Production efficiency of different
systems
Variables Irrigated
(SRI)
Baseline Rainfed
(SRI)
baseline
Yield (t/ha) (2014-15) 6.26 4.5 5.82 3.06
Economic productivity (dollars earn/dollars
spent/ha) with farm-gate price
2.06 0.05 2.9 0.54
32
Organic SRI rice Inorganic SRI rice FP
Paddy Yield (t/ha) (2016) 3.92 4.62 3.4
Cost of production (US$/ha) 560 US$/ha
(0.14$/kg)
744 US$/ha
( 0.16$/kg)
828 (0.24$/kg)
Net return (US$/ha) 636 470 217
Economic productivity 1.13 0.63 0.26
10% premium (10% of cost of
production of 1 kg paddy)
0.014$/kg✔️✔️ 0.016/kg✔️ 0.024/kg
Economic
productivity was
higher in rainfed
compared to
irrigated system
Organic SRI was
more profitable
than inorganic SRI

33. SRI practices preferred by farmers 33
Dry seedbed
5%
SRI seedlings
17%
seedling/hill
41%
SRI spacing
37%
78%
Practices preferred by farmers

34. Cost of production and net return in
SRI & conventional practices

35. Effects of plant spacing on yield and
economic return

36. Effects of different practices on yield
and economic return
Production techniques Yield
(kg/ha)
Net Return
(USD/ha)
Unit cost of
production
(USD/ha)
Farm gate
price
(USD/ha)
SRI 4851 780 0.2 0.38
FP/CM 4228 391 0.25 0.38
<20 X 20 cm spacing 3365 137 0.23 0.18
> 30 x 30 cm spacing 3175 1403 0.24 0.68
2-3 seedlings/hill 3936 1565 0.2 0.44
> 3 seedlings/hill 3346 1109 0.21 0.28
Mechanically transplanted SRI
crop
4106 1699 0.19 0.52
Manually transplanted SRI crop 3925 1403 0.25 0.6

37. ECONOMICS OF MECHANICAL vs.
HAND TRANSPLANTING
THAILAND
Yield and net return
Unit cost of production and farm gate price
Statically not
significant

38. Production efficiency of SRI and
conventional practices in Laos
38
4.04
3.92
4.43
2.63
2.81
3.20
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Khammouan Province Savannakhet Province Vientiane Province
YIELD(T/HA)
SRI FP
420.39
343.42
477.78
140.36 149.07
284.15
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
Khammouan Province Savannakhet Province Vientiane Province
NETRETURN(USD/HA)
SRI FP
Cost of cultivation (Average of three provinces)
SRI = 477.77 US$ ; FP/CM = 627 US$/ha
Farm gate price of paddy = 0.27

39. 39
Facilitated development of informal
farmers group involving 15000
farmers 15000 (56%) FPAR farmers
were women
52% higher yields
70% higher net profit
64 % higher labor productivity
110% higher water productivity (kg/m3 of water)
74% less seed
40% less fertilizer
34% less energy
17% less GHG
emission
Less leaching loss of
fertilizer
More activity of soil biota
Crops more resilient to
Drought and flood
Less disease and pest
observed in SRI fields
Green growth in agriculture with System of Rice Intensification practices using
the farmers participatory action research approach
 Cleaner
 More
efficient
 More
Resilient

40. 40
FPARS
understanding the pattern
of change among different
group of farmers through
monitoring, evaluation
Policy research and
dialogue on pro-poor
options and policy
advocacy recommendation
Policy Environment and Adaptation
Response
Phase II of the SRI-
LMB

41. 41
MAFF Strategies (2011-2020)
 Increase of agriculture productivity
applying of newer scientific and
technological methods
 Ensure food security and
encourage agriculture for local
consumption as well as export.
 The country is adopting key policy
reforms to make its strong
economic growth benefit more
people, especially the poor and
disadvantaged, while protecting
the environment. “Green Growth “
LAO PDR CAMBODIA
Agriculture vision
 Food and nutrition security and
equitable distribution
 Enhancing quantity, quality and
safety of production with
sustainable ‘green’ technologies,
and resource management system
 Increase resilience to climate
change
 Ensure trade facility, economic
integration and trade market
 Quality extension service to small
producers
Policy Environment

42. 42
Agriculture Development Plan
Ultimate
Quality of life of farmers; food security
and export earning
Intermediate
Country competitiveness
Immediate
 Improve productivity
 Cost reduction
 Quality production
 Development and promotion of
organic agriculture
 Large production area
management
 Cost reduction and increase market
potential
THAILAND VIETNAM
Rice industry restructuring
programme approved by MARD in
2016
 Increase efficiency of rice
production to ensure food security,
generate more jobs, increase
income, protect environment,
sustain development and access
global market
 The MARD has included SRI as a
part of plan to reduce greenhouse
gas emission in rice production by
15-20% by 2020
Policy Environment

43. 43MACROECONOMIC SITUATIO N
Increase productivity and become self
sufficient
Scaling up and expansion to increase productivity
further (work on farmers group)
Diversify to other sectors if infrastructure and
support mechanism are in place
Oxfam Report

44. CHALLENGES THAT NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED
 Land access and exclusion, gender and
tenure security (women-headed households
are generally more likely to be land poor or
landless.
 Small holder farmer, landless and women
and their challenging (Inadequate
education and training; constraint to market
integration ; limited access to capital and
input resources; women friendly production
techniques; women health and child
protection issues
44
Oxfam Report

45. Exploring the potential for the strategy of farmer’s
collective action (CA) to accelerate scaling-up SRI
and market development
45

46. Farmers’ Collective Action
 WHAT WE HAVE
Informal farmers’ group (involving 15,000 farmers) evolved through the process of
experiential capacity building activities
 WHAT WE NEED
An intervention to have multifunctional farmers’ organization including farmers'
companies and farmers cooperatives that would focus on:
1. Production planning, input-output services with an objective to accelerate
adoption of ecologically sound SRI and Conservation Agriculture
2. Post harvest management including marketing and value addition
3. Institutional arrangement for capturing economies of scale for commercialization
of rainfed agriculture through mutually beneficial partnership with private sector
46

47. Farmers’ Collective Action
The main objective of FO managed CA would be:
 Farmer empowerment for equitable development
 Reduce farmer’s cost of production
 Gain access to high quality inputs through FO managed input-output services
 Reduce farmer’s transaction costs
 Develop FOs as farmer’s share-holding business enterprises
 Create more local employment opportunities
 Make FOs as platform for integrating line departments (Department of
agriculture, etc.)
47

48. Farmer’s Collective Action 48
District level
Federation
Province level
Farmers
Federation
District level
Federation
District level
Federation
V1 V2 V3 V4 V4V1 V2 V3 V1 V2 V3 V4
Possible FO structure

49. Farmer’s Collective Action
What FO would do as a part of Collective Action?
 Collective planning and decision-making
 Input-output services management
 Coordinated time of planning (reduce gap between first and last farmer)
 Planting varieties with same maturation
 Seed production
 Same package of technology/practices
 Soil testing on mass scale
 Experiential capacity building
 Participatory performances assessment and target setting
 Develop partnership with private sectors
49

50. Conclusions
50

51. SRI and Collective Actions
 SRI has demonstrated that it is a high yielding, climate-smart, low cost
practices with higher factor productivity (land, labors, water, chemicals, and
seed).
 SRI can lead the way to poverty reduction and can make smallholder farming
attractive, efficient, and smart
 With SRI, the economic productivity is higher in rainfed areas compared to
irrigated areas
 Collective action is needed by farmers' organization to capture the economies
of scale and to commercialize the rainfed agriculture and sustain the benefits
 National and international actors including private sectors’ support would be
needed to support this development
51

52. Contributor
s
52
 15,000 farmers
 77 ministries staffs
 16 researchers
 30 project staffs
 MOE, Thailand; MAF, Lao PDR; MAFF, Cambodia; MARD, Vietnam
 Rajabhat University, Thailand; Royal University of Agriculture, Cambodia; Hanoi
University of Agriculture, Vietnam; Nabong College of Agriculture, Lao PDR
 FAO, Oxfam, SRI-Rice Cornell University USA; University of Queensland,
Australia; ACISAI, AIT
 European Union
Visit SRI-LMB at: http://www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/
http://www.acisai.ait.asia/
Programme summary
at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu4f1JXOT9c&feature=youtu.be