National Multi-stakeholder Workshop on Agroecological Transition
Vientiane, 2 - 3 June 2016
Sustainable Intensification
of Rice Production: Ecosystem-based
Approaches
Stephen Rudgard FAO Representative in Lao PDR
Background
• Objectives/Targets of Save and Grow-SIRP:
- Enhancing productivity and profitability;
- Increased resource use efficiency;
- Ecological sustainability;
- Climate-smart - Enhancing Resilience.
• Intervention: Capacity building through 13 Farmers Field Schools in 4 Lao rice producing provinces implemented during 2015.
• Implementation partners: MAF Plant Protection Center - Department of Agriculture, and National University of Laos.
Activities in 2015
- Baseline Surveys - February
- Curriculum Development and Training-of-Trainers - April
- Implementation of 13 FFSs (354 farmers including 112 women) in 4 provinces: April – November
- FFS Monitoring, and Trainers Exchange/Study tour – October
- FFS Results Assessment and Workshop – December
Save and Grow-SIRP improved management practices promoted in Farmers Field Schools
• Use of certified seeds and improved high-yielding varieties;
• Single, younger seedlings & wider plant spacing;
• Using natural biological control and natural pesticides, if needed;
• Balanced chemical fertilizer applications, including replacement with bio-fertilizers;
• Reduced labor through direct seeded method.
Field Experiment Design • 1,000 meter square plots,
replicated across 13 FFS sites, with Save and Grow good practices compared with conventional practices
• Yield estimates (tonnes/ha) at harvest time (through crop cuts and yield parameter assessments)
• Economic benefits assessments (revenue, total costs, gross margins (LAK/ha)
Targets to be achieved • Different provinces - different conditions
• Save and Grow approach adapted to local situation
• Separate productivity improvement targets set
Province Yield Labor Organic fertilizer
Chemical Fertilizer
Pesticides
Savannakhet Increase Reduce Increase
Better Balanced based on
crop needs
Not used
Champasack Increase Reduce Increase Better
Balanced/ increase
Not used
Xiengkhouang Increase Reduce Increase Better
Balanced Not used
Xaiyaboury Equal Reduce Increase Better
Balanced Reduced
Curriculum Development
17 week FFS curriculum developed to address production problems and inefficiencies of production input use based on location and situation specific baseline data
Farmer Field School Curriculum Overview: A typical weekly FFS session
• Regular field visit and crop monitoring
• Agro-ecosystem and Economical Analysis
• Icebreaker/Group dynamics
• Special Topics: Depending on location and situation specific learning priorities
Paddy Rice Yield by provinces
Control = Farmer practice
-
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
7,00
8,00
Control FFS
S&G
Control FFS
S&G
FFS
S&G
with fish
Control FFS
S&G
Control FFS
S&G
FFS
S&G
with fish
Champasack Savanakhet Xayaboury Xieng Khouang
To
n/h
a
Revenue and gross margin for Save and Grow in Savanakhet (LAK/ha)
-
2 000 000
4 000 000
6 000 000
8 000 000
10 000 000
12 000 000
14 000 000
16 000 000
18 000 000
20 000 000
Total cost Revenue Gross margin
LA
K/h
a
Control
FFS S&G
Returns on Investment Save & Grow vs. Farmer Practice
Return on Investment (ROI)
Farmer Practice Control
S&G – SIRP % change
Champasack 0.61 0.83 + 36
Savannakhet 0.67 1.05 + 56
Sayabouly 1.49 2.19 + 47
Xiengkhuang 1.23 1.96 + 60
• Farmers acquired new knowledge and skills in the FFSs;
• Results showed more efficient use of inputs, higher rice yields, and greater profits for farmers;
• In some provinces, production costs in Save and Grow interventions were higher but yields and profits increased;
• More efficient use of production inputs and no pesticides allowed rice-fish production, increasing land productivity and supporting food and nutrition security;
• Provincial and District Government officials highly appreciated FFS interventions and results.
Conclusions
Rice – Fish Systems
In Lao PDR
Rice Fields – More Than Rice
Food Security – Nutrition – Livelihoods
Consumption Survey
Location: rural villages in five provinces in
Laos
Timeframe: period of 10 days, September
2015
Participants: 239 people in 50 households
Method: families recorded the weight and
type of the aquatic resource (fish, plant, crab,
snail, etc.) before each meal, three times per
day. DLF officers recorded value at local
markets.
“Collecting this data caused me to think about my food in
a new way. I see the fish and think, ‘that’s money,’ or I see
the frogs and think, ‘that’s also money.’ If these resources
decrease, I understand more clearly how much I will have
to spend on food that was once free.”
- Mr. Boonthong, Farmer, Xieng Khuang province
Consumption Survey
87 kg 800,000 kip
78 kg 3,404,500 kip
61kg 1,982,500 kip
60 kg 1,680,000 kip
40 kg 1,452,500 kip
55 kg 1,265,000 kip 50 kg
2,700,000 kip
13 kg 162,300 kip
12 kg 376,700 kip
7.7 kg 179,000 kip
77 kg 807,900 kip
77 kg 693,000 kip
23 kg 229,800 kip 20 kg
260,000 kip
2.5 kg 1,500 kip
Xie
ngk
ho
un
g
Ou
do
mxa
i
Lau
ngn
amth
a
Sava
nn
aket
Ch
amp
asac
k
Lau
ngn
amth
a
Xie
ngk
ho
un
g
Ou
do
mxa
i
Sava
nn
aket
Ch
amp
asac
k
Sava
nn
aket
Lau
ngn
amth
a
Xie
ngk
ho
un
g
Ou
do
mxa
i
Ch
amp
asac
k
Fish Plants Aquatic (frogs, shell, crab...)
Summary of animal and plant consumption by 10 families in 5 Provinces (Kg)
Survey Results A
mo
un
t co
nsu
me
d b
y 1
0 f
amili
es
in 1
0 d
ays
(kg)
Survey Results Economic importance
Thank You!
19
http://www.fao.org/ag/save-and-grow/
Top Related