However we look at it, the System of Rice Intensification, or SRI, is a major success story. Over the past decade it has helped millions of family farmers, notably in Asia and Africa, to improve their food security and food sovereignty. SRI methods simultaneously raise the productivity of the land, labour, water and capital employed in irrigated rice production. The approach is now being applied to other crops, such as wheat, maize, millet, sorghum, vegetables and tubers, and is proving equally effective. While the research establishment is still debating the relevance of SRI, more and more people are getting to know about it, and more and more farmers are practising it.
Willem Stoop
SRI derives from the life’s work of Henri de Laulanié, a French priest who worked with small-scale farmers in Madagascar. It is a fascinating case study of innovation from below. The idea developed completely outside the rice research establishment. It is a civil society innovation and has mostly been propelled by “champion” farmers, NGOs and farmers’ organisations, supported by a significant number of people in universities, research institutes and international organisations. And although built on farmers’ experiences, SRI also challenges the idea that the knowledge of farmers by itself can provide a foundation for further agricultural advances. The emergence of SRI shows that, for thousands of years, farmers have not been growing rice in the optimal way. SRI has come about through farmers’ willingness to experiment with different approaches in co-operation with researchers and the results show the benefits of such experimentation. The dissemination of SRI, from Madagascar to the rest of the world, and from rice to other crops, is equally fascinating. Early articles, such as Justin Rabenandrasana’s “Revolution in rice intensification in Madagascar”, were taken up by people like Ramaswamy Selvam, the current President of the All India Association of Organic Farmers and Narayana Reddy, a pioneer organic
farmer from Karnataka, India. They took up SRI practices,
came to view SRI as “the innovation of our lifetime”,
and took on the personal mission of disseminating
it. Other farmers, extensionists and researchers
began to champion SRI. The role these people have
played in bringing SRI to the attention of others cannot
be over-estimated.
Agronomic adaptations SRI is not a
fixed package of practices but involves a set of interdependent
agronomic principles. It is a system, and
scientists are now looking at the fundamental plant
physiological processes that can explain the SRI
phenomenon. The practice of spacing single plants
more widely enables plants to create more and stronger
tillers and roots and become much more efficient in
their uptake of water and nutrients and in utilising solar
radiation. The result is a crop that is more resilient to
droughts, pests and diseases. Moreover, the combination
of aerobic soil conditions and the use of organic
fertilizer creates a favourable environment for interactions
between roots and the soil’s micro-organisms – a
factor that has been seriously neglected by modern
farming methods and research. These recent findings
imply that SRI is not merely a “niche technology” whose
relevance is limited to groups of poor smallholders. The
spread of ongoing innovations that build on SRI
principles shows its importance for family farmers
around the world. It is obvious, however, that SRI
requires adjustments in response to locational context
and farmer-specific conditions. Thus flexibility is a key
SRI – A grassroots
revolution
However we look at it, the System of
Rice Intensification, or SRI, is a major
success story. Over the past decade
it has helped millions of family farmers,
notably in Asia and Africa, to
improve their food security and food
sovereignty. SRI methods simultaneously
raise the productivity of the
land, labour, water and capital employed
in irrigated rice production.
The approach is now being applied
to other crops, such as wheat, maize,
millet, sorghum, vegetables and tubers,
and is proving equally effective.
While the research establishment is
still debating the relevance of SRI,
more and more people are getting to
know about it, and more and more
farmers are practising it.
Willem Stoop
Farming Matters | March 2013 | 9
ably, farmers are initially alarmed when they see the
early growth status of an SRI field. Farmers, as well as
scientists, can experience a severe psychological
barrier when first confronted by SRI methods as these
undermine much of what they thought they knew.
Good training and support of farmers especially in the
initial stages, is crucial for the success of SRI.
Equally important is the role of knowledge networks
and movements around the world, which are catalysts
in upscaling SRI and other complementary approaches.
A strong synergy between many different actors,
ranging from farmer champions to scientists and politicians
with global influence, will help this grassroots
revolution reach its true potential.
Finally, one exciting aspect of the still-unfolding SRI
movement is that in today’s world of electronic communication,
new ideas spread fast, provided that they work.
SRI may well be generating a shift towards a new scientific
paradigm that focuses less on genotypes and more
on phenotypes. This the more so since SRI principles
are also shown to be effective for crops as diverse as sugarcane,
finger millet, wheat and tef. These ideas may
prove to be particularly beneficial in rainfed agricultural
systems, which are the ones most vulnerable to
future climate change related shocks.
Willem Stoop is an agronomist and soil scientist, having
worked with CIMMYT, ICRISAT and the Africa Rice centre,
WARDA. E-mail: willem.stoop@planet.nl. For a more
detailed description of the guidelines for adaptation, read
“Agronomic adaptations in SRI practices to meet farmers’
conditions and needs” on our website.
characteristic of SRI – and yet it is this flexibility that is
often used to criticise SRI as a vague concept.
Interestingly, the plant physiological processes mentioned
above can be used to develop a set of relatively
simple agronomic guidelines on how SRI principles can
be adapted to specific circumstances. These guidelines
provide leads on how farmers can optimise these practices
through simple experimentation.
Two paradigms While many farmers,
NGOs and scientists have embraced SRI, the rice
research establishment is very slow in coming
around to appreciate its merits. What is holding
them back? It is more than a superficial difference in
the interpretation of facts, it is about a clash between
scientific paradigms.
One paradigm is based (often implicitly) on the
thinking and practices that have shaped conventional
Green Revolution research and development,
which views knowledge as something developed in
scientific institutions and passed on to farmers.
The other paradigm is grounded in the idea that
technologies need to be developed and adjusted locally.
Farmers are key actors – not just passive recipients
– in this process of technology development, in
which knowledge is jointly constructed by farmers
and scientists.
There are huge vested interests behind the conventional
paradigm. The seed and agrochemical industries
and the actors associated with them have little
to gain from processes that empower farmers and
give them more knowledge while also reducing their
dependency on costly inputs.
Breaking the barriers Farmers show
little interest in this debate. At the Global Farmers
Forum in Rome in 2012 a year ago one Cambodian
farmers’ leader said: “We have experienced that SRI
works, so why should we bother about scientists who
do not believe that it works?” Yet, there are many
other barriers to overcome. Traditionally, farmers sow
their rice at high densities and after a couple of weeks
the paddies appear reassuringly green. Understand-
