1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

Evaluation of the System of Rice Intensification through … [Nepal]

Conducting participatory action research with farmers and district level line agencies for demonstrating, disseminating and scaling up SRI

• Compiler: Madhav Dhakal
• 01/19/2009 midnight

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

A method for increasing the productivity of rice by changing the management of plants, soil, water, and nutrients.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) was developed in Madagascar by Henri de Laulanie, in the 1980s. He worked with Malagasy farmers and colleagues to improve the possibilities of rice production. The practice contributes to both healthier soil and healthier plants, supported by greater root growth and the nurturing of soil microbial abundance and diversity. It is based on a number of well-founded agro-ecological principles. SRI concepts and practices have also been successfully adapted to upland rice.
SRI involves transplanting very young rice seedlings (usually 8-12 days old with just two small leaves) carefully and quickly so as to cause minimum disturbance to the roots. The seedlings are planted individually, in contrast to the traditional method where clumps of 3-4 are planted together, minimising root competition between the seedlings. The seedlings are kept widely spaced to allow better root and canopy growth, in a square grid pattern at a spacing of at least 25 x 25 cm. Planting can be done even wider at 30 x 30 or 40 x 40 cm and even up to 50 x 50 cm in the best quality soils.
The soil is kept moist but well drained and aerated to support increased biological activity. A small quantity of water is applied during the vegetative growth period following which a thin layer of water is maintained on the fields only during the flowering and grain-filling stages. Better quality compost, such as well decomposed farmyard manure, can be applied to achieve additional yield increases. Since weed growth will be more abundant and will be a problem in fields that are not kept flooded (and because of the wider spacing), weeding needs to be done at least once or twice in the first 10-12 days and a total of three or four times altogether before the canopy closes.
SRI does not require additional inputs like new seeds, chemical fertiliser or pesticides, but it does require the skilful management of the factors in production and, at least initially, 25-50% more labour inputs, particularly for the transplanting and weeding. As farmers become more skilled and confident in SRI, the amount of labour needed decreases and can eventually become the same or even less than with conventional methods.
SRI is being tried out by farmers in many areas of Nepal’s middle mountains including in the Jhikhu Khola watershed. This area has an altitude of 800-2200 masl, and receives about 1200 mm annual rainfall, about 70-80% in the monsoon months (June to September).

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Nepal

Further specification of location:

Kavre palanchowk/Jhikhu Khola watershed

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

• < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)

Comments:

This was the first year of on farm research cum demonstration on the farmers field after the trial in the research station. Six farmers tested SRI in 2003. It was tested in Panchkhal, Hokse, Bhimsensthan, Baluwa, and Patalekhet VDCs.

Map

×

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Madagascar

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Cropland

• Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• cereals - maize
• vegetables - other

• rice, wheat

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 3

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 150; Longest growing period from month to month: Jun - Oct; Second longest growing period in days: 120; Second longest growing period from month to month: Nov - Feb

Comments:

major cash crop: Vegetables
major food crop: Rice
other: Maize, wheat

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Limited production due to soil fertility decline, increased amount of agrochemical inputs and lack of sufficient irrigation water and irrigation infrastructures.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Decreased production, lack of irrigation facilities and increased amount of chemical fertilizers.

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• post-harvest measures

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

management measures

• M2: Change of management/ intensity level

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

chemical soil deterioration

• Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: urbanisation and infrastructure development (poor irrigation infrastructures), other natural causes (avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mud flows, highly susceptible natural resources, extreme topography, etc.) specify (uneven distribution of precipitation throughout the year), land tenure (population growth, separating famility members from a household.), labour availability (out migration for a off-farm employment)

Secondary causes of degradation: other human induced causes (specify) (Weak institutional collaboration), poverty / wealth (lack of government subsidy on agricultural sector), education, access to knowledge and support services (lack of sufficient discussion with concerned technicians and experienced farmers.)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 0 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Comments:

labour: person -day, cost of agrochemicals
All costs were estimated in 2006.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Due to increased off-farm employment trend , there is lack of manpower for field operation, which increases the labour cost .

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Landforms: Also hill slopes

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil depth on average: Variable

Soil fertility is very low - low

Soil drainage / infiltration is medium - poor

Soil water storage capacity is medium

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Availability of surface water: Maximum during rainy season (June to september), starts decresing from October reaching minimum in April/May

Water quality (untreated): Poor more in rainy season (June- September), less in April/May, but otherwise good drinking water

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users

Population density: 200-500 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 2% - 3%

15% of the land users are rich and own 35% of the land.
35% of the land users are average wealthy and own 40% of the land.
50% of the land users are poor and own 25% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: In most farm households, off-farm income plays at least a minor and increasingly a major role. Occasional opportunities for off-farm income present themselves in the form of daily

Level of mechanization: Manual labour for planting, irrigation, harvesting, animals are used for field preparation and machines as well but in the valley bottom.

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

Climatological disasters

Hydrological disasters

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

If rice fields need to be established, the short-term establishment costs and the benefits realised are about the same. However, most farmers already had rice fields and therefore the benefits are more than the costs.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• > 50%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

35 households in an area of 10 ha

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 91-100%

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

35 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

Comments on spontaneous adoption: survey results

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Farmers are adopting the SRI method carefully and slowly by at first only putting small areas under SRI and then
slowly increasing the area planted.

SRI is an innovation rather than a technology. It is gaining popularity all over the world. Increased yields of 50-100% have been reported in most places where it has been tried. The practice is gaining popularity in Nepal especially in the eastern Terai plains.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

IRRI International Rice Research Institute, www.irri.org.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

ICIMOD (2007) ‘Good Practices in Watershed Management, Lessons Learned in the Mid Hills of Nepal. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Available from where? Costs?

ICIMOD

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Uphoff, N. (2004) ‘System of Rice Intensification Responds to 21st Century Needs’. In Rice Today, 3 (3):42