www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/

BRIEF REPORT

National Review and Planning Workshop in

Sustaining and Enhancing the Momentum for Innovation and Learning around the System of Rice Intensification in the Lower Mekong River Basin (SRI-LMB)

Venue: Cambodiana hotel,

Date: 28 – 29 November 2017

1.BACKGROUND

The AIT led, FAO and Oxfam partnered, EU-financed 2017, the SRI-LMB project implemented a training for project entitled: “Sustaining and Enhancing the the landless farmers on chicken raising activities, from Momentum for Innovation and Learning around the July to December 2017. System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in the Lower Mekong River Basin (SRI-LMB)” aims to contribute to 2. WORKSHOP INFORMATION

enhanced resilience of rainfed rice farming systems The Cambodian National IPM Programme organized a involving small-scale farmers confronting climate National Workshop on Reviewing and Planning on 28th- change in the Lower Mekong region (LMB) countries 29thNovember 2017 for the SRI-LMB Project at (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand, and Vietnam). Farmers’ Cambodiana hotel, Phnom Penh. (The details schedule Field School (FFS) approaches were used to educate of the Workshop is in Annex 1). smallholder farmers in rainfed areas of three provinces in Cambodia in order to sustainably improve The National Workshop on Reviewing and Planning agricultural productivity and food security in the saw participation by 52 persons (14 women) including context of climate change adaptation, and to enhance Dr. Mak Soeun, Deputy Director of General, research capacities to continue to support this Directorate of Agriculture, Dr. Ngin Chhay, Director of development. In Cambodia, SRI-LMB project has Department of Rice Crop and Deputy of NIPM, Ms. started from wet season 2014 after the National Alma Linda M. Abubakar, Program Development Inception Workshop was organized from 21-22 May Officer, FAO-RAP, Bangkok, Thailand, Mr. Ashwin 2014. The main activities carried out during the 3 years Mysore, Action Research Coordinator, SRI-LMB Project, (2014-2016) are related to the Central Farmer Mr. Kong Kea, Project Management Unit (PMU), 6 Participatory Action Research (CFPAR), Farmer participants from FAO-IPM, one participant from Participatory Action Research (FPAR), and post-FPAR. Oxfam, one from ATSA, one from Royal University of Totally, 3 CFPAR, 117 FPAR, and 72 post-FPAR were Agriculture (RUA), one from Multi-Angless Centre conducted (2014-2016). During the wet season of Co.Ltd, one from HEKS, one from Gret/CIRD, one from Leadership and Networking, 3 Director of PDAFF, 3

1

A project funded by EU A project implemented by AIT www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/

Local Management Units (LMU), 9 participants from

Takeo province,8 participants from province, and 11 participants from (List of participants is in Annex 2).

The National Workshop officially opened with Mr. Kong

Kea, Country Coordinator, Project Management Unit

(PMU), welcoming all participants, and briefed them The National Workshop on Reviewing and Planning was about the achievements of SRI-LMB Project well conducted. The participants actively discussed and implementation from 2014 to 2017, and summarized shared the good experiences about the FPAR the objectives and activities of the National Workshop. implementation and group work. They agreed to apply Dr. Mak Soeun, Deputy Director of General Directorate what they have learned in National Workshop on of Agriculture, expressed his pleasure seeing all Reviewing and Planning in their respective areas. participants at the National Workshop on Reviewing

and Planning for SRI-LMB Project. He said at present, 3. MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE WORKSHOP the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries The objectives of the Provincial Planning Meetings (MAFF) has many policies on agriculture components, were: such as those concerning updating the agriculture  To share the findings from FPAR and post FPAR technology, marketing, creating competition, food and implementation including SRI demonstration and nutrition, soil nutrient and water management, and specific experiments in Cambodia for 3 years. improving agricultural productivity and food security in  To share the results of project impact understood the context of climate change adaptation. He through Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning encouraged every participant to share all experiences activity. obtained during the implementation of SRI field  activities at FPAR and post-FPAR sites, and provide To discuss future plan for research and SRI details about the main constraints and solutions for promotion.

improving SRI activities in the future. He wished all 4. METHODOLOGY participants a safe and happy stay in Phnom Penh and To achieve the above objectives of the workshop, declared the Workshop officially open. group discussion, and lecture with slide presentations were used.

5. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

A. Farmer Participatory Action Research achievements (FPAR) and post-FPAR Local Management Unit Coordinators from project provinces presented the achievement of FPAR from the last 3 years. SRI-LMB Project supported 117 FPARs

from 2014 to 2016, and 72 post-FPARs from 2015 to

2016 in the 3 target provinces, namely Takeo, Kampot

2

A project funded by EU A project implemented by AIT www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/

and Kampong Speu. The summary result of FPAR and  result is based on the data from 90 experiments post-FPAR achievements are as follows: conducted from 2014 to 2016.  3393 farmers (2061 women) attended the FPARs  Farmers set up field experiments on different in the 3 target provinces in the last 3 years (2014- seed rates for broadcasting with 3 treatments: T1: 2016). 40-60 kg of seeds/ha, T2: 70-90 kg seeds/ha, and  1738 farmers (1201 women) attended in the 3 T3: 100-120 kg of seeds/ha. The average yield was target provinces in the last 2 years (2015-2016). 4041kg for T1, 3937kg for T2, and 3825kg for T3.  Farmers set up field studies to compare SRI Field The average yield of T1 (using seed rate of 40- demonstration and Farmer Practice (FP) plots in 60kg/ha) was slightly higher as compared with T2 every FPAR and post-FPAR field studies. For SRI (70-90kg/ha) and T3 (100-120kg/ha). However, and FP plots, two cultivation methods were used: the net return of T1 was 30USD and 60USD/ha transplanting and direct seeding. higher than T2 and T3, respectively. This can be  The average yield of field study SRI plots was attributed to farmers using only 20kg/ha of rice 4189kg per hectare; FP plot average yield was seeds while getting higher yields. This result is 3139kg per hectare. The average yield of SRI plots calculated based on the data from 89 experiments was 1,050kg/ha higher than that in the FP plots; conducted from 2014 to 2016. the net return was 225 USD/ha higher compared  Farmers set up field experiments on different to FP plots. This result is calculated with readings plant spacing with 3 treatments: T1: 20cm x from 90 SRI and FP plots, each, conducted from 20cm, T2: 25cm x 25cm, T3: 30cm x 30cm. The 2014 to 2016 applying transplanting method. average yield was 4657kg for T1, 4297kg for T2,  With direct seeding, the average yield of field and 3765kg for T3. The average yield of T1 study SRI plots was4268kg per hectare and FP (planting with spacing of 20cm x20cm) got highest plots recorded3530kg per hectare. The average yield compared with T2 (25cm x 25cm) and T3 yield of SRI plots was 738kg/ha higher than FP (30cm x30cm). T1 is most profitable as compared plots and the net return increased by 272 USD/ha to other 2 treatments. This result is calculated too. This result is based on data from 89 SRI and based on data from 10 experiments conducted FP plots, each, conducted from 2014 to 2016. from 2014 to 2016.  Farmers had set up field experiments on using different number of seedlings per hill with 3 treatments (T): T1: Single seedling, T2: 3 seedlings, and T3: 5 seedlings. The average yield was 4344kg for T1, 4274kg for T2, and 4035kg for T3. The average yield of T1 (transplanting 1 seedling/hill) was higher but it was not very

different as compared with T2 (3 seedling/hill) B. Chicken raising training and T3 (5 seedling/hill). However, the net return Local Management Unit from every target province of T1 is higher than T3. This can be attributed to presented the achievement from training on chicken reduced costs from lower seedling usage. This raising activities in the wet season of

3

A project funded by EU A project implemented by AIT www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/

2017.The SRI-LMB Project supported 10 trainings D. Solutions to problems concerning FPAR on chicken raising activities for the landless implementation farmers in the 3 target provinces namely, Takeo, Kampot and Kampong Speu, where 150 farmers  IPM Trainers postponed FPAR sessions until (89 women) participated. The objective of the sufficient rains were received. training was to improve the farmers’ knowledge on  Farmers delayed or re-sowed the rice seed when the chicken raising activities to increase their sufficient rains were received. income for improving their livelihoods in the  IPM Trainers closely cooperated with local community. The farmers were very interested and authoritiesy and had good relationship with actively participated in all activities such as chicken farmers house construction, preparing natural additional  IPM Trainers advised farmers to apply IPM feeds, vaccination, ensuring sanitation, and method to control pests. prophylactic treatment.  IPM Trainers encouraged farmers to apply chemical fertilizers (Urea) based on the need of rice crop and by observing the colour of rice leaves.  IPM Trainers encouraged farmers to apply more cow manure or compost to improve their soil quality.

E. Lessons learnt

 In the rain-fed lowland condition, it is difficult to completely apply SRI principles because it is almost impossible to control water C. Problems related to FPAR implementation  Application of SRI practices could increase rice yield and economic efficiency with both  Farmers faced problems with drought for a long transplanting and direct seeding methods time from July until end of September every year  Fully applying SRI principles requires the farmers  Farmers faced problem with lack of labor in their to spend more time to take care of their fields rice fields. than conventional practices  Different family members attended the FPAR  FPAR activities helped build farmers’ skills and instead of the same person being involved capacity to observe the field and make informed  Farmers faced some problem with rice leaf decisions as well as to set up experiments in their folders, and rice blast disease fields  Some NGOs provided allowance for farmers to  The quality of FPAR depends on facilitation skills attend the training or the meeting in community. and technical knowledge of Trainers This made them expect the same from FPAR  The number of FPAR participants is higher if the trainings too. village chief attends the FPAR

4

A project funded by EU A project implemented by AIT www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/

 Good site selection and, active participation and addition, the conclusion of Prof. Chuong Sophal was cooperation of farmers contribute to the success that there was not much difference between FPAR of FPAR implementation farmer and non-FPAR farmer for land preparation  If the experiments are in response to identified technique. local problems, farmers are very interested to participate in observing field experiments G. Oxfam presentation

regularly Mr. Khim Channy, Oxfam Coordinator, briefed the  Farmers found that they can plant the traditional activities which his organization has implemented rice variety in September and early of October since 2005 in Cambodia. Oxfam worked on a lot of when they faced problem with drought for a long activities with farmers in the communities, with time. programmes such as Sustainable Rice Platform (SRP), Integrated Farming System (Vegetable, chicken, pig, F. MEL presentation fish raising), and Promotion of Rice seed producer

group, Saving for Change, and Women led Agriculture Prof. Chuong Sophal, Dean of RUA, presented the Service Team. Oxfam provided the training on the results from the research done by RUA in three technical and management aspects, related to the target provinces. The presentation focused on the objective of each activity. He also discussed on how to cultivation practices of 3 kinds of farmers (FPAR form the Women led Agriculture Service Team. These farmers, non-FPAR famers, and farmers lived far teams are comprised of poor and landless people with from FPAR implementation). The summary result of a Team Leader to manage the group. The main MEL is as below: objective of forming the Agriculture Service Team is to provide labor to other families that need labor for - Cultivation method: 32-40% of all 3 kinds of agriculture production. The cost of various services farmers used transplanting method, 34-64% used related to the crop cultivation are shared on social direct seeding method with dry rice seed, and 2- media. In future Oxfam will develop the new activity 15% of farmers used broadcasting method with on the Organic rice. wet rice seed. - Land preparation: 87% of FPAR, and 81% of non- 6. SRI techniques adaptation FPAR and control farmers ploughed 2 times before rice seeding, and 10% of each group of During the National Workshop, Mrs. Phok La, SRI farmer ploughed 3 times. Farmer from Takeo province, and Mrs. Men Sopheap, - Fertilizer application: Generally, all 3 kinds of SRI Farmer from Kampong Speu province, shared their farmers applied DAP and cow manure as basal experiences with SRI techniques. The presentations dose was and Urea for top dressing. focused on the cultivation practices of farmers. After - Weed management: FPAR farmers controlled learning at FPAR and post-FPAR, they applied some SRI weeds by hand. techniques, such as good land preparation, land - The rice yield of FPAR farmers was higher than leveling, 1-2 seedlings for transplanting method, non-FPAR farmers. reducing the quantity of rice seed for direct seeding After presentation, there were some questions for method, using good quality rice seeds, application of clarification especially on fertilizer application. In more compost, and direct planting the dry rice seed.

5

A project funded by EU A project implemented by AIT www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/

After presentations, there were some questions for - adopting transplanting method in wet season of clarification especially on fertilizer application and 2017. cultivation methods. For the work plan they decided to - The average yield of rice fields with SRI techniques continue to follow SRI techniques in their rice was 4047kg per hectare and FP plots,3292kg per production and use more compost to improve their soil hectare, with direct seeding method. The average quality. yield of SRI plots was 755kg/ha higher than that from FP plots, and the net return increased by 186 USD/ha too. This result is based on the average calculation from 43 SRI and FP plots adopting direct seeding method in the wet season of 2017.

8. Field visit After the National Workshop, the participants visited the rice field activities of farmers at Beng village, Sdok commune, Korng Pisey district, Kampong Speu province. After learning at FPAR and post-FPAR in 2014-2015, farmers in Beng village applied some SRI techniques in their rice production, including: good land preparation, application of more compost, land 7. Follow up activities leveling, using 1-2 seedlings for transplanting, reducing the quantity of rice seed for direct seeding method, To understand the application of SRI techniques in the and using good quality rice seeds. The participants community, in wet season of 2017 the SRI-LMB Project visited the rice fields of two farmers where farmers in Cambodia continued to follow up with farmers of applied SRI techniques by direct planting with the dry some villages in the three SRI target provinces where rice seed in a row. They used around 40kg of rice seed FPAR and post-FPAR activities were implemented from per hectare for direct planting. The rice fields were in 2014. The main objective was to follow up on the SRI the ripening stage and the yield sampling recorded farmers to understand if they applied SRI techniques in 4,550kg per hectare with 14% of moisture content. their rice production after they learned at FPAR and After the visit there were some questions on land post-FPAR during the last three years. The result of preparation, fertilizer application, direct planting interviewing 90 SRI alumna and alumnus in 3 target method, and weed management. SRI farmers clearly provinces in wet season 2017 is as below: answered and all participants understood on how to - The average yield from rice fields with SRI prepare the field, applying fertilizer, etc. They agreed techniques application got 3901kg per hectare, to apply what they learned in the field trip in their and rice fields with Farmer Practice (FP) was 3189 respective areas. kg per hectare, with transplanting method. The average yield of SRI plots was 712kg/ha higher than that from the FP plots, and the net return

was 193 USD/ha higher too. This result is the average calculation from 66 SRI and FP plots

6

A project funded by EU A project implemented by AIT www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/

order to grow healthy crops, manage weeds and pests, get high yield, and gain more benefits, both economic

and environmental, in a sustainable manner.

He suggested:

- LMU and IPM Trainers should take more responsibility for their work and make timely

decisions for solving problems; 9. Suggestion - The curriculum of FPAR should include the general The general suggestion from participants of all Good Agriculture Practices (GAP), Food Safety and provinces was that AIT and FAO should continue to Nutrition aspects; - LMU should have good relations with Local support the implementation of SRI activities next year Authority in the provinces to gain more support too. The Trainers suggested to implement 10 Trainings for SRI field activities; on mushroom production and 10 training on chicken - All participants should apply the results of this raising activity. workshop to strengthen and further expand SRI 10. Closing ceremony activities.

Ms. Alma Linda M. Abubakar, Vegetable IPM Programme Development Officer, and Mr. Ashwin Mysore, Action Research Coordinator SRI-LMB Project, expressed their pleasure to see all participants in the National Workshop on Reviewing and Planning for SRI- LMB Project in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. They were very happy to see all the results of SRI activities for last 3 years presented by Local Management Unit (LMU) and SRI farmers. They hoped farmers in Cambodia can apply SRI techniques in their rice production. They thanked to NGO, PDAFF, and other participants who shared their experiences in the workshop. They also thanked the GDA that always supported the implementation of SRI activity in Cambodia. They wished the Chairman and all participants safety, happiness, and success in all works.

Dr. Ngin Chhay, gave additional recommendations in his closing remarks as follows: He reviewed the SRI principles and explained the meaning of SRI. SRI is the integration of all methods in

7

A project funded by EU A project implemented by AIT www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/

Persons attended the National Review and Planning Workshop

 Dr. Mak Soeun, Deputy Director of General Directorate of Agriculture  Dr. Ngin Chhay, Director of Department of Rice Crop and Deputy Director of NIPM  Ms. Alma Linda M. Abubakar, Program Development Officer, FAO-RAP, Bangkok, Thailand  Mr. Ashwin Mysore, Action Research Coordinator SRI-LMB Project  Mr. Kong Kea, SRI-LMB Project Management Unit  Mr. Chou Cheythyrith, FAO-IPM Project Coordinator  Ms. Srun Khema, FAO-IPM Assistant Project Coordinator  Mr. Ven Ratana, FAO-IPM Accounting Clerk  Mrs. Chea Lira, Administrative Assistant  Mr. Chhit Mak, IPM Training Officer  Mr. Suon Seng, Executive Director Multi-Angles Centre Co., Ltd, Phnom Penh  Mr. Khim Channy, Oxfam Coordinator  Prof. Chuong Sophal, Professor of Royal University of Agriculture  Mr. Muong Laing Ay, Gret/CIRD Officer  Mr. Phen Bunthoeun, Leadership and Networking Officer  Ms. Pan Sodavy, Program Advisor, ATSA, Phnom Penh  Ms. Say Trek Phallin, HEKS, Phnom Penh  Mr. Nhep Srorn, Director of PDAFF of Takeo province  Mr. Yang Nan, Deputy Director of PDAFF of Kampong Speu province  Mr. Chan Rith, Director of PDAFF of  Mr. Men Narith, LMU of Kampot province  Mrs. Ly Thyvy, LMU of Kampong Speu province  Mrs. Mel Channtevy, LMU of Takeo province  And participants of the National Workshop.

Annex 1- Schedule of the National Workshop on Reviewing and Planning

No. Day Morning Afternoon 1 Day 1 - Arrival of participants at Cambodiana hotel, Phnom Penh 2 Day 2 - Opening ceremony - Presentation on the result MEL finding - Presentation on the result of from RUA implementation FPAR, post-FPAR from - Presentation on ideas of policy advocacy & last 3 years (2014-2016), problem, communication strategy/action for SRI- lesson learnt, and suggestion. LMB in Cambodia. - Presentation on the SRI adaptation and - Plenary discussion about future plan for work plan for the next season from SRI SRI research and promotion. farmers. - Closing ceremony 3 Day 3 - Field visit for SRI adaptation and - Travel back home innovation at Kampong Speu province. - Summary result of the field trip

8 www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/

Annex 2- List of participants of the National on Reviewing and Planning for RI-LMB Project

No Name Sex Position Commune/ District/ Province

1 Dr. Mak Soeun M DDG, GDA GDA, Phnom Penh

2 Dr. Ngin Chhay M Director of DRC GDA, Phnom Penh

3 Mr. Ashwin Mysore M Action Research Coordinator SRI-LMB project, Thailand

Ms. Alma Linda M. Program Development Officer 4 F FAO-RAP Bangkok, Thailand Abubakar

5 Kong Kea M Project Management Unit SRI-LMB Project, Phnom Penh

6 Chou Cheythyrith M Project Coordinator FAO-IPM, Phnom Penh

7 Srun Khema F Project Assistant Coordinator FAO-IPM, Phnom Penh

8 Chea Lira F Admin Assistant Phnom Penh

9 Ven Ratana M Accounting Clerk Phnom Penh

10 Chhit Mak M IPM Training Officer Phnom Penh

11 Tai Chandara M Research Assistant Phnom Penh

12 Chuong Sophal M Professor RUA, Phnom Penh

13 Khim Channy M Oxfam Coordinator Oxfam, Phnom Penh

14 Pan Sodavy F Program Advisor ATSA, Phnom Penh

15 Suon Seng M Executive Director Multi-Angles Centre Co., Ltd, Phnom Penh

16 Phen Bunthoeun M Officer Leadership & Networking, Phnom Penh

17 Say Trek Phallin F Officer HEKS, Phnom Penh

18 Muong Laing Ay M Officer Gret/CIRD

19 Nhep Srorn M Director of PDAFF Takeo province

20 Yang Nan M Deputy Director of PDAFF Kampong Speu province

21 Chan Rith M Director of PDAFF Kampot province

22 Men Narith M LMU Kampot province

23 Ly Thyvy F LMU Kampong Speu province

9 www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/

24 Mel Chantevy F LMU Takeo province

25 Sok Ravuth M District Trainer Tramkak district, Takeo province

26 Long Yan M Farmer Trainer Tramkak district, Takeo province

27 Sok Mom M Farmer Trainer Tramkak district, Takeo province

28 Hun Borin M District Trainer Prey Kabas district, Takeo province

29 Ouk Sokha M District Trainer Prey Kabas district/ Takeo province

30 Ker Rem F District Trainer , Takeo province

31 Hin Piseth M District Trainer Bati district/ Takeo province

32 Phok La F SRI Farmer Bati district/ Takeo province

33 Tep Khen M SRI Farmer Tramkak district, Takeo province

34 Tonh An M District Trainer , Kampot province

35 Chea Sokea F Farmer Trainer Angkor Chey district, Kampot province

36 Ouch Ol M Farmer Trainer Angkor Chey district, Kampot province

37 Nget Kath M District Trainer Chumkiri district, Kampot province

38 Sem Sambath M District Trainer Chumkiri district, Kampot province

39 Pen Kosal M District Trainer Chhouk district/ Kampot province

40 Sok Saran M Farmer Trainer Chhouk district/ Kampot province

40 Sok Saran M Farmer Trainer Chhouk district/ Kampot province

41 Horn SreyPov F Farmer Trainer Chhouk district/ Kampot province

42 Svay Sarun M District Trainer Samrong Torng, Kampong Speu

43 Heng Heu M Farmer Trainer Samrong Torng/ Kampong Speu

44 Ping Tith M Farmer Trainer Samrong Torng/ Kampong Speu

45 Dy Sen Kosal M District Trainer Borsedh, Kampong Speu province

46 Kol Phally M Farmer Trainer Borsedh/ Kampong Speu province

47 Sok Touch M Farmer Trainer Borsedh/ Kampong Speu province

48 Chea Rotha M District Trainer Korng Pisey/ Kampong Speu province

10 www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/

49 Phuong Savan F Farmer Trainer Korng Pisey/ Kampong Speu province

50 Prum Sorya F Farmer Trainer Korng Pisey/ Kampong Speu province

51 Men Sopheap F SRI Famer Korng Pisey/ Kampong Speu province

52 Sem Moeun M SRI Famer Korng Pisey/ Kampong Speu province

Total 52 participants (14 women)

11