Farming Matters | 29.1 | March 2013

Originating in Madagascar in the 1980s, SRI crossed the ocean to Asia in 1999. We are proud that our magazine was the first outside of Madagascar to publish about SRI, as early as 1999. Today SRI principles are being applied by millions of farmers in over 50 countries, contributing substantially to food security.

Many visionaries, pioneers and champions have worked hard to make this happen. For instance, Ms Manomani, a Dalit woman farmer in South India, realised bumper harvests on her two acres of SRI paddy fields and made national headlines. Dr Yang Saing Koma, an agronomist from Cambodia, received the 2012 Ramon Magsaysay Award, Asia’s equivalent to the Nobel Prize, for his pioneering role in agricultural development, notably the introduction of SRI to Cambodia.

Knowledge networks and movements around the world, such as the Farmer Field Schools and agro-ecology movements, have also been catalysts in spreading in spreading SRI, showing their huge value in upscaling agro-ecological approaches. The main credit, however, must go to the millions of farmers who have adopted SRI, adapting and experimenting with it as they go along. They are now harvesting the benefits.

Yet, there are still policy makers and scientists who ignore the evidence of the success of SRI as they find it hard to open their minds to new ways of thinking, or prefer to hold on to vested interests. At the same time, multinationals are promoting a “rice intensification” approach which heavily leans on on the provision of external inputs.

Neither the cynics nor corporate interests can kill the spirit of SRI. It is a convincing example of how small-scale family farmers can develop sustainable practices independent of the research establishment and multinationals. “For me SRI means Merdeka (freedom)”, said Pak Enseng, a small-scale rice farmer in Indonesia. “I get a fair yield and am no longer dependent on buying seeds, chemical fertilizer or pesticides.”

Text: Edith van Walsum
director ILEIA

The post Editorial – SRI sets farmers free appeared first on Ileia.

Family farmers face climate change, limited water availability, rising fuel costs and unknown market opportunities, while their lands are coming under increasing pressure. They require access to information, and the knowledge that can help them deal with the complexity of the context in which they live. Most rural areas nowadays have access to some form of education.

Nonetheless, the agricultural education system often has many shortcomings. Many get frustrated because the education available does not provide them with the answers they are looking for. Education rarely prepares youth for a future in agriculture and often encourages them to migrate to urban centres. Girls and women often don’t have the same educational opportunities.

Many experiences are showing that agricultural education can do much more: it can be a powerful tool in strengthening the social value attached to farming. It can make people aware that there are low-cost and sustainable alternatives to “modern agriculture” which, for many small scale farmers, can be a route into debt and misery.

Clearly changes are needed at different levels – at vocational schools and agricultural universities, but also in informal and adult education initiatives and even at primary schools – so that education makes a positive contribution to agriculture. Agricultural educators – whether extension agents from public or private sector, university professors, school teachers or farmers themselves – need to become agents of change. They need to support farmers in the task of reconnecting to the agro-ecosystems that they manage, rather than becoming increasingly disconnected from them.

Issue 29.3 of Farming Matters will focus on the role of education in changing the mindsets of rural communities. We seek contributions that describe innovative education in rural areas. Who are involved? What is being taught? What teaching methods are used? What lessons are learned? And what makes these experiences valuable?

We will also look at how educators prepare themselves for their job in a fast changing world, what their aspirations are, how the education system supports and how they connect with different stakeholders in the agricultural system, such as farmers and other value chain actors, fellow educators, researchers and policy makers.

Please send us your contributions! Articles for the September issue of Farming Matters should be sent to Jorge Chavez-Tafur, editor, before June 1st, 2013. E-mail: j.chavez-tafur@ileia.org

Related content

• Guide for authors

The post Call for articles – Education for change appeared first on Ileia.

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-

The post SRI – A grassroots revolution appeared first on Ileia.

Transplanting the first SRI plot in Kouin, MaliCurious extension agents, researchers and farmers who learned of SRI set out to determine if this method from Madagascar would show similar results in their own environments.

Side-by-side comparisons were done mostly in farmers’ fields and on a few research plots, where farmer practice or researcher best management practices were compared to SRI practices as described in the extension materials from Madagascar.

The practices included raised bed nurseries, transplanting of young and single seedlings with wide spacing, application of organic matter to soil, alternate wetting and drying irrigation, and mechanical weeding to incorporate weeds and aerate the soil.

SRI 1.0: Curiosity, discovery and controversy

Based on their first field experiences, farmers and technical staff in different countries began to adapt the SRI practices to their own climates and rice growing conditions: ranging from humid to arid climates, from sea-level to high altitudes, and for irrigated, lowland and upland rice systems.

In many countries, excellent results were documented in research reports and field reports, as well as in a few scientific articles. This led to a period of controversy, when a handful of scientists from certain U.S. universities and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) questioned the legitimacy of the reported SRI yields and the associated benefits. Unless these results were validated in peer-reviewed scientific journals, the SRI system could not be taken seriously.

This observation about the lack of peer-reviewed scientific articles in this early period was correct, and understandable. More formal SRI research had just gotten underway. Formal agricultural experiments usually take 3-5 years from conception until results are published in a peer-reviewed journal, whereas technical reports can be available shortly after the field tests are finished.

The number of peer-reviewed research articles increased steadily each year. Prior to 2002, fewer than ten articles about SRI were published per year. This increased to 15-30 articles per year during the period 2003-2008, and reached over 60 articles per year by 2011- 2012. As of early 2013, we count a total of more than 350 peerreviewed journal articles about SRI.

Despite the greatly increased number of peer-reviewed journal articles, some observers, especially from scientific circles, have clung to their original objections, seeming to ignore the research and results published over the past decade. In any event, this intellectual controversy has been of little concern to farmers, who have continued to adopt the SRI method in more countries with support from pragmatic practitioners and scientists.

SRI 2.0: Adoption and innovation outpaces formal research

By 2008, the SRI method had been validated in 38 countries, based on solid fieldwork and research. Positive results were obtained under different ricecropping systems independent of the variety used, and in different climates and agro-ecological zones.

By early 2013, the SRI methodology had been validated in 51 countries. Reports consistently cite yield increases, decreased use of seed, water and agro-chemicals, and increased income.

Although practices vary according to specific rice systems, the underlying core principles for SRI remain the same:

1. early and quick establishment of healthy plants,
2. maintaining a low plant density to allow optimal development of each individual plant,
3. enriching soils with organic matter to improve nutrient and water-holding capacity, increase microbial life in soil, and to provide a good substrate for roots to grow and develop, and
4. reducing and controlling the application of water, providing only as much water as necessary for optimal plant development and to favor aerobic soil conditions.

Interestingly, it was resource-constrained smallholder farmers, who depend on agriculture and rice production to feed their families, who have been the most progressive in understanding the potential of SRI. To be able to change agricultural productivity based on their own resources and knowledge has empowered farmers and changed their outlook on what is possible in farming. In contrast to the conventional paradigm of agricultural intensification (“use more inputs to produce more”), farmers could now “produce more with less” – a real alternative and relief for many smallholder farmers. This has created a noticeable push for innovation. Farmers started experimenting in their fields with a fresh open mind, knowing that simple management practices can make all the difference.

Since the year 2005, farmers and technicians in India, Mali, Ethiopia, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Cuba, inspired by their success with SRI, have begun – independently from each other – to test the SRI principles with other crops. Improved yields, stronger plants, and an improved quality of the harvest have been reported for crops like finger millet, wheat, sugar cane, mustard, Ethiopian tef, legumes, and vegetables. The application of SRI principles worked also with other crops, thus the System of Crop Intensification, or SCI, was established.

We can observe a similar trend with SCI as happened earlier with SRI. As of early 2013, no peer-reviewed scientific articles on SCI have yet been published, although field reports are available. The most complete collection can be found at the Cornell SRI-Rice website under “Other Crops”.

An example for wheat production in India illustrates this well. We are aware of on-station experiments for the system of wheat intensification (or SWI) at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) in New Delhi and at the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in Patna, but no formal articles have been published to date. On the other hand, during the 2011/2012 season, more then 183,000 hectares were planted with SWI in the state of Bihar, achieving an average yield of 4.5 t/ha compared to the traditional 2.4 t/ha for that season.

Because innovation comes from the farmer, SRI and SCI turn the conventional research system approach upside down. It contradicts the still prevalent model where innovations are developed on research stations and “transferred” to farmers. With SRI and SCI, agriculture scientists need to go to farmers’ fields to learn about the innovations. Unfortunately, this is not happening often enough, so most researchers, development professionals, policy makers and donors remain unaware of what farmers’ innovations look like, and are thus unable to support new opportunities to improve food security.

So, how can we learn from these innovating farmers? Who tracks what they do and how is it reported? The press is often the first to make farmers’ results public, as seen in many newspaper articles coming out of India. Still, for many field-based NGOs, reporting farmer SRI and SCI results in a systematic way is not a priority. They tend to focus on responding to donorimposed monitoring indicators and requests for data, and if time allows, prefer to work in the field rather than writing additional reports.

A priority for research should therefore be to develop and implement methodologies that directly track farmer efforts and help to fine-tune their SRI practices and innovations. This can be done

1. through an action-research approach,
2. by designing “natural experiments” or “observational studies,” under which treatments are not superimposed but data are collected directly from farmers’ fields in a large enough sample size, enabling to track farmers’ specific farming practices, and
3. by training farmers and extension agents in data collection and scientific monitoring, enabling them to participate actively in research and directly share their findings.

How did experimental SRI research evolve?

While early research focused on comparison trials of SRI practices with farmer or best management practices, recently more research focuses on understanding the factors that contribute to improved plant performance and phenotype, such as studies of roots, plant physiology, and the influence of microorganisms on plant productivity. Much more research is needed to better understand “what makes SRI tick”.

To date, most research on SRI has been undertaken by nationally-funded programmes, especially in India, China, Thailand, Japan, and Indonesia. International research organisations, including those of the CGIAR system, have done very little.

That institutions in several different countries have undertaken independent SRI research is a plus. Less favorable is that members of this diversified research community tend to work in relative isolation because there is no easy way for them to collaborate, and valuable opportunities for synergy are lost. In order to address these constraints, at SRI-Rice we are developing an international SRI research network, where researchers can connect and collaborate easily with each other through an open-access internet platform.

Integration of agro-ecological approaches

Rethinking how we produce agricultural crops is more pressing than ever, given the fragility of our finite natural resource base, and the threat of climate change. The (New) Green Revolution paradigm, “producing more with more inputs”, is no longer an option.

Ecological approaches for sustainable agriculture intensification still offer much potential for development. With the accumulating evidence that the application of SRI core principles improves productivity not only for rice but also for other crops, the potentials for using the SRI methodology become broader and more relevant.

There is still tremendous opportunity to further integrate the SRI method with other ecological approaches such as conservation agriculture, integrated pest management, and agroforestry, to name a few. Each of these approaches concentrates on a different component within the farming system. Their integration will help to create diverse, healthy and productive farming systems with an improved resilience under a changing climate.

T ext: Erika Styger

Erika Styger works as Director of Programs, SRI International Network and Resources Center (SRI-Rice), Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. E-mail: eds8@cornell.edu.

More information is available at the SRI-Rice website, including an inventory of articles (http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/research/journalarticles.html). Readers are invited to become a member of the International SRI Research Network at: http://www.mendeley.com/groups/1178631/system-of-rice-intensification-research-network. The official network launch will be mid-2013.

The post SRI 2.0: How is SRI evolving, and what are we learning? appeared first on Ileia.

I have been growing rice since 1998, on my own farm at Fundo Santo Tomas, approximately 600 km north of Lima. This is in the Lambayeque-Chancay valley, one of the rivers that cross the desert coast of Peru.

Rice is one of the main crops in this area, which benefits from the presence of one of the largest water reservoirs in the country. Average yields in Lambayeque are around eight tons/ha.

In 2004 I came across an old magazine that included an interview with Angel Fernandez, a Peruvian researcher. There he spoke of SRI and of its many advantages, referring to examples from different parts of the world.

Intrigued, I asked every extension agent I met, but they all said that it was impossible, and actually silly, to try transplanting young seedlings at larger distances, or to think that rice could be produced with less than the recommended 10,000 m3 of water per hectare.

I met Ing. Fernandez in 2008 and asked him to come and talk to us, so I organised a seminar that was attended by 75 of my neighbours. This lecture, together with information he brought from Cuba, convinced me to try SRI in my fields in the 2008-2009 season.

My neighbours immediately called me “loco”, or crazy, for trying to change what apparently is an efficient system. But the results have been surprising, showing that the traditional way of growing rice is not so efficient. I needed only 6,500 m3 of water per hectare, saving 35% of the amount that I would normally use.

Instead of the 80 kg of seed regularly needed, I used only 6 kg. It is true that I needed more help, especially for transplanting the seedlings and for weeding. But these extra costs have largely been covered by the additional income we have seen. Not only have I spent less money on water and seeds; I have also seen much higher yields. Since 2009, my fields average the equivalent of 15 tons/ha.

Who’s “loco”?

I was convinced that these results would be more than enough to convince all my neighbours, yet this has not been the case.

One of the factors behind this may be that most of them are older, and therefore less willing to try new ideas (or less willing to go to the field quite so often, and see what is actually happening there).

Most importantly it seems that up to 90% of rice farmers in Lambayeque depend on other “pieces” of the production chain for their decisions: those who sell inputs, those who provide credit, or those who buy the produce.

We all find it hard to acknowledge that, even before we sow the seeds, they own the production process – and try to resist changes in the field. Equally sad is the lack of interest by the local authorities, most of whom hardly ever go out to the fields. They are even telling us that we should stop producing rice, as this should only be done in the Amazon region of the country, where more water is available.

Yet, I am making money, and I plan to continue doing so. Last year we started adding compost to our fields. I am saving even more money by not buying fertilizers, and my idea is to start selling organic rice soon. We are also trying some small hand weeders which make this task less cumbersome. And I am interested in improving our irrigation system so as to be even more efficient. I was told that farmers in Brazil are using sprinklers, and am curious to see if this would work.

Getting together

Fortunately, I am not alone any more. Together with some of my neighbours, we have started a small company, which we hope will help us to continue innovating. The objective of Agro-Corporación COMFIA is to provide the necessary inputs, like seeds, and to produce rice seedlings. We are starting with a small nursery where we aim to produce enough seedlings for 20 hectares. We would like to get financial support from one of the different government programmes aimed at small scale farmers, but we are not waiting for this to get going. We are convinced that this is not a crazy idea at all – and are sure that more farmers will join us.

Text: Divar Moya Zavaleta

For more information, please write to Divar Moya Zavaleta.
E-mail: dd.moya@hotmail.com

The post SRI in Peru: Crazy? Not at all! appeared first on Ileia.

The “miracle” solution to famine currently being promoted by the New Green Revolution for Africa is based on the intensive use of external inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified seeds. Unfortunately, despite the existence of these technologies, nearly one billion people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition. More than three quarters of them are family farmers in developing countries. In sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture is practised by the majority of the rural population. It is the main source of income for more than 80% of the inhabitants of the Sahel. Nevertheless, they face food insecurity. Family farmers who cannot produce enough to feed themselves do not have money to buy additional food. They are farmers, but they lack the power to influence policy decisions on agriculture. How can we make sense of this?|

These inputs are expensive, but not necessary. Better local solutions exist, that are able to ensure food security and strengthen the resilience of small-scale farmers to climate change. These solutions, which fall under the umbrella of agro-ecology, include mulching, natural pest management, and using local seeds and organic manure. Such approaches are affordable, adapted to local ecosystems and have demonstrated their ability to improve the food security of communities while preserving their natural resources.

Women play a vital role in this landscape. They are central to African agriculture: they do more than 70% of the work on the land, and are responsible for almost all processing activities. In times of crisis, women ensure the survival of their families by developing coping strategies to ensure their families are fed. They are the primary link between production, consumption and nutrition – for their children and, indeed, the whole family. And they demonstrate that the use of agro-ecological practices is paying off. We have recorded testimonies of large numbers of women, heads of households or not, who are capable of feeding their families and covering their children’s school fees. Thanks to their perseverance, these women have been able to increase their yields, and are now producing enough food.

The need to provide support to such innovative women farmers is evident. But some fundamental questions remain. Do we understand clearly enough the roles of rural women farmers? How can we provide women with strategic support that can enable them to influence agriculture policies? It is crucial to start developing answers to these questions so that we can spark a shift in resources and invest more in ecological agriculture. This will support the rural people in West Africa to work towards truly sustainable livelihoods.

Text: Fatou Batta

Fatou Batta is from Burkina Faso. She is the Groundswell International Co-coordinator for West Africa and a member of the “We are the Solution! Celebrating African Family Farming” campaign of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA).
E-mail: fbatta@groundswellinternational.org

The post Opinion: Women – the primary link appeared first on Ileia.

With more than 800,000 inhabitants, the Northern Rakhine State is one of the most densely populated areas of Myanmar. Situated on the western coast of Myanmar and bordering Bangladesh, it remains one of the least developed parts of the country and suffers from low income, poverty, malnutrition, and poor infrastructure. A high proportion of the population is made up of small-scale or landless farmers who can only partially meet their household food needs. Farmers lack information and marketing options, and inputs, such as seeds and fertilizers, are unavailable. SRI seemed like a good option for meeting our overall objectives of increasing rice production and supporting the most vulnerable farmer households.

An evolving methodology

During the first two years, GRET introduced SRI with demonstration plots, open field experiments and the use of incentives. Our objective was to convince farmers of the advantages of SRI and to increase the number of participants in the Farmer Led Experiments  implemented by the project (see box). Our strategy changed after the 2006 rainy season as, although more and more farmers seemed convinced by the approach, the total acreage under SRI cultivation remained low. This meant providing the tools needed by farmers and paying more attention to training and supporting local groups. We started working with farmer facilitators, organising six technical meetings per season, focusing on aspects such as transplanting, weeding and harvesting. We found out that the availability and price of the iron rotary weeder promoted by the project was one of the main obstacles to adoption of SRI, so we worked to design a new weeder which was not only lighter but also more affordable. After four years, we could see the results of our work in the fields of many farmers. Having worked with up to 5,700 farmers, a brief assessment showed that 18% of the summer paddy farmers in the area were practising SRI, with 9.3% of the area’s total acreage being cultivated in this fashion. SRI produced higher paddy yields than traditional farming practices: yields were about 700 kg/ha higher soon after the beginning of the project in 2005, and up to 1.4 tons/ha higher in 2007.

Results and lessons learnt

An impact assessment carried out at the end of 2008 showed that about 80% of the SRI users wanted to continue practising SRI in the next season. We also found that half of all SRI users had modified the recommended techniques according to their specific conditions, a clear consequence of the approach we followed, and of the farmers’ engagement in the participatory action research process. Unfortunately, GRET left the area in 2010, and because of restrictions and limited accessibility it was not possible to continue monitoring the situation. Yet we could talk of a “critical mass” and a “self-dissemination point”. As a result of our strategy, we were able to reach a large number of farming households in the area, regardless of their status. This led to a thorough and sustainable dissemination of SRI. The clear advantages of SRI were another factor: farmers were especially interested in SRI as yields increased, and because a smaller amount of seed is needed. The need for labour was not a hindrance to the uptake of the technique, as labour is plentiful in the area. Based on the experience gained in Northern Rakhine State, GRET was convinced that SRI could be beneficial in other areas too. After the damage caused by Cyclone Nargis in May 2008 we decided to work in the Ayeyarwaddy Delta, fully aware that this region has different characteristics.

Extension approaches

In both project areas farmer facilitators played a key role in reaching out to more farmers, both during training sessions and support visits. In both cases, they were an important part of the Farmer Extension Groups and of the Farmer Led Experiments. Our training sessions were built around demonstration plots, with a group of farmers gathering regularly during the season to focus on the main challenges in the field. Each demonstration plot was no larger than one third of an acre, in order to be easily manageable but still big enough to work as an on-site experiment. Training handouts were prepared by GRET agronomists and provided to each farmer at each session.
The Farmer Led Experiments were run by those already involved in a Farmer Field School or a Farmer Extension Group, and who wanted to continue experimenting with new practices on their own plot under the guidance of a local expert. Usually, the issues covered were proposed by the farmers themselves. Exchanges between individuals were a central part of this approach, and meetings were organised regularly. The plan was to build a participatory and long lasting process at the grassroots level, with farmers setting their own experiments and learning from each other. The provision of inputs was kept at a minimum in order to ensure ownership and the sustainability of the process.

Into a new area

The Ayeyarwaddy Delta is a rice growing area with thousands of acres of rainy season and summer rice. Summer rice was introduced in the early 1990s and then spread to practically all the rice fields where fresh water is available. It is cultivated with early maturing varieties, and it yields twice as much as local varieties of rainy season rice. However, after more than a decade practising the same crop management (including broadcasting more than 300 kg of seed per hectare), farmers were suffering from the cumulative effects of pests and diseases and soil degradation, and were also vulnerable to price fluctuations. The impact of Cyclone Nargis in the area only added to these difficulties. GRET decided to introduce SRI, relying first on demonstration plots and farmers who act as contact points, and then supporting the formation of Farmer Extension Groups. Special attention was given to the local production methods and context, and to the farmers’ major concerns, such as the availability of seed and the fertility of their soils. Starting in the 2009 summer season, our project targeted experienced farmers with an interest in trying out new practices. The SRI principles were discussed with farmers in awareness meetings. Farmers were selected to host the demonstration plots, where farmers experimented with early weeding, transplanting young seedlings, shallow transplanting, and the use of fewer seedlings per hill. The total amount of seeds used in all the demonstration plots was significantly lower than normally used (an average of 115 kg/ha). And the harvest records showed that yields were not lower than those obtained with the conventional practices – although they were also not higher. As in other areas, we saw that certain conditions needed to be met. In the Delta farmers broadcast a high amount of seeds as a way to suppress the growth of weeds. The farmers had no time to tend the nurseries, nor for transplanting the young seedlings, especially as the farmers here manage large areas. In addition it was difficult (and expensive) to find skilled labour for transplanting the seedlings.

More results, more lessons learnt

In 2010, the harvest records of the farmers we were working with in 37 different villages showed positive results, both with local varieties and with two “improved” high yielding varieties. While the local varieties showed an average increase of 17 per cent (+ 450 kg/ha), the “improved” ones yielded 19% (+ 750 kg/ha) more compared to the traditional rice production systems. Although positive, these results also showed that SRI is not a package or a recipe to follow in all areas and all farming households. The uptake of SRI was much lower in the Delta that in Rakhine. In the Delta, the average area managed by each farmer family is larger, and farmers are used to seed broadcasting methods. The availability of labour and the transplanting skills, as well as the access to finance for hiring labour, were amongst the main hurdles identified. Other farmers mentioned the lack of time (the planting period is short and this does not let farmers cover a large area) and a lack of equipment. Much better adoption rates were seen with seed producers, who are already used to providing extra care to their plots; they could cover the additional labour costs by getting a better price for the higher quality seed. In 2010, seed producers increased their incomes by 40 per cent. Our work in these two different areas showed how, before any introduction or demonstration, it is important to carefully consider the agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions in the target area. These will influence the uptake and impact of SRI. This also showed the need to adjust our practices, switching from transplanting to direct sowing and testing two different mechanical seeders. Building upon the findings of these first years, the project in the Delta has supported the introduction of “customised versions” which still lead to lower production costs and higher yields, and contribute enormously to improved food security and livelihoods.

Pierre Ferrand (ferrand@gret.org) is an agronomist currently working at GRET as a Project Officer. He worked in Northern Rakhine State as Technical Co-ordinator from 2006 to 2008 and in the Ayeyarwaddy Delta as Project Manager from 2009 to 2011. <b>Hla Min</b> (hlamin@gmail.com) is a recently retired agronomist. He worked as Senior Agronomist in Northern Rakhine State from 2004 to 2008 and in the Ayeyarwaddy Delta as Technical Co-ordinator from 2009 to 2012.

The post SRI in Myanmar: Adoption and adaptation appeared first on Ileia.

Enough is enough: Building a sustainable economy in a world of finite resources

R. Dietz and D. O’Neill, 2013. Routledge, Oxon. 240 pages.

This book condemns the idea of economic growth as a model for development, arguing that the continuous pursuit of economic growth has created problems such as climate change, social inequality and environmental degradation. Instead, the authors develop the idea of the “steady state economy” as an ecologically and socially responsible alternative.

The first part of the book summarises the scientific critiques of the model of economic growth. The second part proposes different policies to make the steady state economy a reality. These include policies on limiting the use of resources, stabilising population and redistributing income and wealth. The final part is a plan of action aimed at changing consumer behaviour, politics and international co-operation.

Nourishing the world sustainably: Scaling up agroecology

Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance, 2012. EAA, Geneve. 98 pages.

There is rich empirical evidence and growing theoretical insights into the success of agro-ecology. Now, this book argues, is the time to advance agro-ecology further. This highly accessible document describes what agro-ecology is, how it differs from other sustainable farming methods, how it can strengthen resilience to climate change and how it can increase food security. The Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance also identifies the challenges for scaling up agro-ecological innovations. These range from a lack of practical knowledge on the part of researchers and extension agents to biased agricultural policies and market failures. The final part of this document shows how government policies, NGOs, farmer-to-farmer networks and local markets can be used to scale up this approach.

The roads from Rio: Lessons learned from twenty years of multilateral environmental negotiations

P.S. Chasek and L.M. Wagner (eds.), 2012. Routledge, New York. 308 pages.

The United Nations Conference on Environmental and Development (UNCED), better known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, marked a new era in the world of international environmental treaties. Several new institutions, including the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development and the United Nations Environmental Programme, were founded, and numerous treaties signed in its aftermath. Rather than focussing on the impact or effectiveness of these treaties and institutions, the authors of this book focus on the negotiations, looking at their evolution and at the main actors involved.

Renewing innovation systems in agriculture and food: How to go towards more sustainability?

E. Coudel, H. Devautour, C.T. Soulard, G. Faure and B. Hubert (eds.), 2013. Wageningen Academic Publishers, 240 pages.

Many researchers continue to see innovation as a matter of disseminating technologies, developed in field stations or laboratories, amongst farmers. This book adopts a system-based perspective, viewing innovation as a process that involves different actors and organisations, operating at different levels and with different rules, norms and power. Tensions between actors or around the construction of shared goals are the dynamics that drive the innovation process and determine its success or failure. The first part of this book looks at the current challenges facing innovation systems. The second part addresses on-the-ground questions about how these new insights are used (or not), looking at, for example, cropping and farming systems, social inclusion and market innovation. The third part explores the main policy implications of the authors’ findings.

Agroecology and the transformation of agri-food systems: Transdisciplinary and participatory perspectives

V.E. Méndez, C. Bacon and R. Cohen (eds.), 2013. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37:1, 146 pages.

This is the first issue of Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, formerly known as the Journal of Sustainable Food Systems. Like its predecessor, the journal will continue to focus on the food system transformations that are needed to balance natural resource use and environmental protection with the needs of production, economic viability and social justice. This issue brings together perspectives that integrate transdisciplinary, participatory and action oriented approaches. The articles cover topics ranging from the emergence of agro-ecology, to new modes of learning and a set of case studies that trace the evolution of agro-ecology in Spain, the United States and Brazil.

Advancing agroforestry on the policy agenda: A guide for decision makers

G. Buttoud 2013, FAO, Rome. 38 pages.

The benefits of agroforestry have been proven to be numerous in practice and science. Agroforestry systems are productive, sustainable and resilient. They also sustain livelihoods, combat global warming and maintain and enhance the productive capacity of natural resources. Nevertheless the advancement of agroforestry is often hampered by unfavourable legal, policy and institutional environments.

The first part of this publication looks at the factors that stimulate and inhibit the advancement of agroforestry. The second part derives lessons from success stories in Niger, Malawi, France, Costa Rica, the United States, Guatemala and Canada. Amongst these lessons are: spread the word, secure the land, organise and synergise, and include all stakeholders.

More on SRI

Practical information on SRI can be obtained from different sources, like “How to help rice plants grow better and produce more: Teach yourself and others” (Association Tefy Saina and CIIFAD). “The scientific case for system of rice intensification and its relevance for sustainable crop intensification” (Willem Stoop, 2011) reviews the academic literature on SRI and provides a scientific basis for it.

“System of Rice Intensification: A synthesis of scientific experiments and experiences” (B.J. Pandian et. al., 2011) is a highly informative book on SRI in India but also relevant for other countries. “Transforming rice production with SRI: Reducing agriculture foot print and ensuring food security” (T.M. Thiyagarajan and B. Gujja, 2012) describes how SRI has spread throughout India.

The IFAD publication “Spreading the system of rice intensification across east and southern Africa” (F. Rappocciolo, 2012) discusses some of the challenges for the advancement of SRI in Africa. SRI-Rice ONLINE is a comprehensive website maintained by the SRI International Network and Resource Center at Cornell University. The website includes links to organisations, scientific publications, proceedings, practical information, newspaper articles, blog posts, video and photos on SRI from different sources and countries. (LvdB)

The post Mind! New in print / More on SRI appeared first on Ileia.

Nepal: Farmers Field Schools

The northern Nepalese region of Lalbojhi- Bhajani is very fertile, but water is not always available, limiting farmers’ options. Working to enhance food security, the European Union Food Facility Project decided to look at the potential advantages of SRI, setting up a demonstration plot of 1,500 m2 in May 2010.

This produced twice as much rice as a conventional field, using no fertilizers and with less water. This encouraged the project to start six Farmer Field Schools in different villages in the district.

Twenty-five farmers gathered in each one every week, throughout the season, studying the effects of different weeding practices, the age of the seedlings and the spacing needed. The overall yields, again, were at least twice as high as normal. Thirty new Farmer Field Schools were started in 2011, focusing on those aspects which required extra attention, such as weeding or the use of short-duration rice varieties, better suited for early season planting.

The adoption of SRI has been positive, covering a total of 80 hectares in the early rice season of 2011, and more than 120 hectares in 2012.

For more information, contact Ram Bahadur Khadka, former Programme Co-ordinator of the European Union Food Facility Project.
E-mail: vijayautsarga@gmail.com

Ethiopia: Trying out the System of Tef Intensification

Tef, the main staple food of the Ethiopian diet, is grown on at least 2.8 million hectares in Ethiopia. Yet the national average yield is 1.2 tons/hectare: technologies that improve yields can benefit farmers and the country at large.

Researchers at the DebreZeit Agricultural Research Centre tried to see if yields could improve by changing the planting methods, following the principles of SRI. Farmers traditionally broadcast the very small seeds at a rate of 25-50 kg/ha. In the experiment, tef seedlings were grown for two weeks and then transplanted, with a spacing of 20 cm x 20 cm.

The researchers also tried two different varieties, and two different fertilizer treatments, and compared these approaches to the standard broadcasting method. Yields increased fourfold. The main effect of transplanting was an increase in the number of tillers, but benefits were also seen in the production of stronger tiller culms and an increase in the number of seeds and panicles. Similar experiments are now being tried with farmers.

For more information, contact Tareke Berhe, Tef and Rice Value Chains Director at the Agricultural Transformation Agency.
E-mail: tareke.berhe@ata.gov.et

Dominican Republic: Lower costs, higher incomes

Although rice is the main crop in the Dominican Republic in terms of area, and local production is sufficient to satisfy national demand, production costs are high. Local production is threatened as cheaper foreign rice will get into the country when tariffs disappear as a result of the Free Trade Agreement signed with the United States.

The National Council for Agricultural and Forestry Research has started a project that aims to scale up the results seen in a set of trials carried out by the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture with small-scale farmers, in different parts of the country.

One of these took place in the province of Monte Plata, where Fabio Dasa, a farmer, harvested a total of 11.6 tons/hectare. Researchers and extensionists are not only interested in obtaining higher yields, but also in the other benefits seen in Monte Plata. These include rice with more panicles and heavier grains, which mean that farmers get a better price. SRI also reduces farmers’ production costs as, for example, less seed is used.

For more information, contact Manuel Sánchez Hermosillo, IICA representative in the Dominican Republic.
E-mail: manuel.sanchez@iica.int

Pakistan: Machanising SRI production

Even a country with a large population can face agricultural labour shortages. This is one of the main difficulties mentioned by SRI practitioners, yet it is a problem that can be overcome.

FarmMore is a company that specialises in agricultural mechanisation processes; since 2009 it has taken on the challenge of designing, developing and manufacturing machines that can help reduce the labour burden faced by small-scale SRI farmers. Working with research stations and with farmers, FarmMore has been focusing on developing an easier way to level the paddy field (and thereby helping to reduce the amount of water needed), and machinery that distributes compost efficiently, places the seedlings in the soil and weeds the fields.

As elsewhere, SRI trials in the Punjab have shown a reduction in water required of up to 70 per cent, and also shown higher yields. These studies have also shown an additional benefit: only 25 man-hours were needed, instead of 85. These obvious benefits are encouraging farmers to try using these machines with other crops, such as carrots and wheat.

For more information, contact Asif Sharif, at FarmMore, Lahore.
E-mail: aasifsharif@gmail.com

The post Locally rooted: Ideas and initiatives from the field appeared first on Ileia.

Some thirty years ago, near the town of Nagua in the Dominican Republic, small-scale rice farmers were experimenting with transplanting seedlings. The uncertainty of timely water availability and/or tools for soil preparation – small tractors or oxen ploughs – meant that some of the seedlings remained in their seedbeds way beyond the official planting deadlines of 30 to 40 days. This had immediate implications for the farmers – that they would not be eligible for credit that year.

This forced the unlucky farmers to experiment with a larger planting distance which would allow them to employ manual weeding techniques (rather than rely on what were now unaffordable chemicals) and to use manure instead of expensive chemical fertilizers. They planted a mixture of older seedlings and younger ones from a second seedbed and varied the number of seedlings per hole. I saw them obtain yields that were up to 90% of those of their colleagues with credit facilities.

The lecturers at the university where I was studying bluntly silenced my enthusiasm about these observations, stating that the way to produce rice was already “well-established and crystal clear”, and that any other approach was non-productive. What I learnt was that this rigid production model does not fit the many uncertainties – or opportunities – that rice farmers face. And that it has neither allowed for any real breakthrough as far as production levels are concerned!

Since 1999, the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) has been spreading from Madagascar to many other countries. Thanks to the efforts of many people, and to the information shared in, among others, the old LEISA Magazine (with articles I had the good fortune to select and edit), many people have been motivated to experiment with the approach and evaluate it for themselves. And this process is ongoing.

Some of the farmer groups I worked with in Indonesia, for example, were sceptical when they first heard about SRI. Then some – often younger – farmers would try it and allow the whole group see the results. What appealed to me most was that, in their enthusiasm, some farmers would carry on experimenting.

On the island of Timor, for instance, some farmers used to leave a few roselle plants (Hibiscus sabdariffa) growing in rice fields when they did their weeding as these provided a spice used to flavour local meat dishes. When farmers learned about the high economic value of the dried red calyces of the roselle flowers, they immediately started trying out larger quantities of roselle in their traditionally mono-cropped rice fields.

Now, like thirty years ago, this is agro-ecology in action. And everywhere farmers are taking the lead.

Text: Rik Thijssen

Rik Thijssen worked with Salam, in Indonesia, and also as editor of the LEISA Magazine. He currently works as a writer and independent consultant. E-mail: hjcthijssen@on.nl

The post Opinion: Agro-ecology in action appeared first on Ileia.