IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-1

Research articleerd

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI): Assessment on SRI
Farmers’ Contribution to the Rice Markets
SOPHY CHES*
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences,The University of Tokyo, Japan
Email: sophy_ches257@yahoo.com

YAMAJI EIJI
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Japan
Received 15 December 2014

Accepted 8 April 2015(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract One of the main reasons of food shortage in some areas of Cambodia is low
productivity. Conventional farming practice is believed to cause the low yield. The Systemof Rice Intensification (SRI) proved to increase the yield has been introduced and practiced
in Cambodia. Therefore, it is very interesting to research whether SRI farmers are able toshare their contributions to the market since SRI can provide higher yields. This study aims
to assess whether SRI farmers can contribute their products to the markets that are still
immature and inaccessible. A households survey and field observations were conducted inthree rain-fed villages in the southern part of Cambodia: two in Kampot Province and one
in Kampon Speu Province. Findings revealed that besides the sufficiency of selfconsumption, most of selected farmers are able to sell products to the markets and based on
the expenditure on agricultural input and income analyses, farmer could earn profits
although labor is the highest cost. It was also found that prices set by middlemen in thevillage are slightly cheaper than the one set on the market. However, farmers agree to sell to
middle men because they would spend more on transportation and labor fee if they wanted
to sell directly to the market. Importantly, collective sale in a large amount helps farmers toget higher prices compared to an individual sale. Results also indicate that practicing SRI
positively increases the household’s production and leads to the increase of village
production, possibly also to national level production, therefore, the surplus can becontributed to the rice markets.
Keywords system of rice intensification (SRI), conventional practice, rice market,
collective sale, farmers’ contribution

INTRODUCTION
Cambodia is known as an agrarian country, which heavily depends on its agricultural sector as thecore of economic growth. According to records, since 1995 Cambodia produced a rice surplus(Hang Chuon and Suzuki, 2005) and has been able to export paddy to other countries such as
Thailand, and Vietnam. However, most of the exporting activities are conducted in informal ways.
The middle men or brokers determine the price and demand for products since farmers do not haveadequate access to market information (CDRI, 2014). Although Cambodia could produce a rice
surplus, it did not refer that all rice producing farmers could make themselves at subsistence level.
Farmers are still facing shortage of food resulting from low production. IFAD in Cambodia (n.d.)said that 1.6 million rural households face seasonal food shortages every year and conventionalfarming practice causes low yields. In 2009 about 110,530 Cambodian farmers with area of 59,785
ha were practicing a new method that can improve their rice yields (Chhay, 2010). This renewedsystem is called the System of Rice Intensification (SRI). This technique can increase yields up to15 to 20 t/ha when farmers can apply the methods well and improve the soil (Uphoff, 2004).

Ⓒ ISERD69

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-1

OBJECTIVE
It is very interesting to know whether SRI farmers are able to share their contribution to the rice
markets since SRI can increase the yields. Therefore, this study aims to assess whether SRI farmers
can contribute their products to the markets that are still immature and inaccessible.
METHODOLOGY
The fieldwork was conducted during February and March, 2014 in Kampot and Kampong Speu
provinces of Cambodia. Farmers including SRI and Non-SRI Farmers were selected from eachvillage (A1-A3, B1-B3, and C1-C3) for the household interviews. Farmers were selected randomly
among other farmers assigned by village chiefs upon the requests of the author.
Field observation and document review: Village resources, farming land and the status ofagricultural practices in the village can be noticed in order to create real images for the research.
Journals and reports on SRI practices and promotion were also reviewed in order to understand thecurrent SRI practices in Cambodia.
Data analysis: It was done by using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Data arecondensed and critically discussed in order to respond to the above-mentioned objective.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONVillage Based Information
In village A (Trapaing Russey), six farmers of total household farmers are practicing SRI; while invillage B (Khnheay Khang Lech) there are 86 out of 198 and 42 out of 84 households in village C(Mohaleap). Data on land use is not available in village B, even the village chief has still availed
any confirmation from the upper level. About 50% and 94% of total area in village A and C,
respectively, are used for agricultural activities. Selected farmers got the SRI trainings from same
local NGO. Farmers in Village A and B started to practice SRI in 2004 or 2005; while farmers inVillage C in 2006.
Table 1 Village based information for 2013
Description
No. of Total Household
No. of Farmer Household
No. of SRI Household
Area (ha)Agricultural Area (ha)Available Jobs

Village A
181
1816216.9132.9
Farmers, businessmen,
factory and construction
workers, NGO staff, etc.

Village B
20019886
Farmers, businessmen,
factory and construction
workers, NGO staff, etc.

Village C8684
42193.8
145
Workers, farmers,tailors, handmade craftmakers, etc.

Based on the field observation, there is a disparity between villages A and B and village C interms of the location of residential houses. In villages A and B, houses are scattered far from one toanother. There is a long distance between one house and another due to innumerable paddy fields
in between. Farmers have their own personal small ponds. In village C, also a rain-fed area,
residential houses are gathered in one place. Paddy fields are outside the residential areas. With fewponds in the village, rainfall is stored at the reservoir.
Information on Selected Farmers
Majority of selected farmers have more than one farming plots. Therefore, some farmers can growrice twice per year. It is impossible for a farmer possessing one plot to grow rice twice on the same
Ⓒ ISERD

70

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-1

plot since water is available only in the rainy season. Normally, the main source of water is rainfall.
The average plot size is about one hectare, which included both conventional and SRI practices.
The production difference between SRI and conventional practices are shown in Table 2. Majorityof SRI farmers are able to increase their yields after practicing SRI although some still get the sameamount. It is believed that poor water management might be one of main constraints causing SRI
yield having no significant different from the conventional yield. Proper water management isdifficult to be conducted in these rain-fed areas where rainfall is unstable and there is no irrigation
system. Still, at least SRI can help farmers increase their yields with their own adaptive conditions.
Table 2 Information on selected farmers
FarmerArea (ha)Varieties

Practice

A1Conv.
Production (t)(a) 0.70
LRV (Korchor Chab)Conv.
2.50(b) 0.15
LRV (Car51)
0.32
A2SRI(c) 0.10
LRV (Korhorm)
0.30(d) 0.60
LRV (Korchor Chab)
1.00
A3SRI(e) 0.48
LRV (Korhorm)
0.60(f) 1.00
LRV (Korhorm)
Conv.
1.30
B1(g) 1.00
ERV (Jasmine)
SRI
1.00
B2(h) 1.00
ERV (Jasmine)
SRI
0.80(i) 2.00
LRV (Korhorm)
2.00
B3(j) 0.06
LRV (Korchor Chab)
SRI
0.10(k) 0.40
ERV (Jasmine)(l) 0.88
LRV (Chhmarprum)
1.50
C1SRI(m) 1.98
ERV (Jasmine)
2.00
C2(n) 1.00
LRV (Chhmarprum)
SRI
1.20(o) 0.50
LRV (Riangchey)
0.70
C3SRI(p) 0.50
ERV (Jasmine)
0.80
Source: Ches and Yamaji, 2014
LRV: Late Ripening Varieties; ERV: Early Ripening Varieties; Conv.: Conventional* No past data available because just started growing ERV in 20132013 SRI
Production (t)
0.32
0.30
1.30
0.80
2.00
1.00
2.00
0.20
0.80*
1.75
3.00
1.62
1.00
1.00

IncreasedProduction byplot in %0%0%+30%+33%0%+100%+25%+100%+17%+50%+35%+43%+25%

Total Expenditure on Rice Growing in 2013
The main items of expenditure include seed, fertilizer, irrigation and hired labor. Seeds, local
varieties exchanged among inside or outside villagers, have been stored from previous harvesting.
Then, farmers do not spend on seeds. However, farmers spend more on hired labor; followed bychemical fertilizer and irrigation (Table 3). The cost of hired labor varies based on the working
condition. The land preparation work costs about 20,000Riel to 30,000Riel and transplanting work
costs from 10,000Riel to 15,000Riel per day per person. Harvesting work is paid based on theamount of the harvest. Farmers stated that the costs keep increasing due to less labor in the village.
People leave the village for other non-farming jobs. The costs of hired labor can be negotiated.
However, some farmers did not spend or spent less on hired labor cost because they could get help
from neighbors or worked with their family members. Although water is important, most of thefarmers did not spend money on it; they strongly depend on rainfall. The cost of irrigation was theexpenditure on fuel for pumping machines. Water was pumped from small streams, reservoirs orfrom ponds nearby their farms or houses. In case of village C, acquiring water from the reservoir islimited because the same water source is also used for raising animals.
Most of the farmers spent a lot of money on chemical fertilizers to add up on amount of theorganic ones. Normally, chemical fertilizers are used during the land and nursery preparation.
Some farmers did not spend on them because they used only organic fertilizers; compost which
they produced by themselves or some farmers just collected and applied the animal wastes andleaves to the field. However, farmers have tried to reduce or kept the same amount of chemicalfertilizers. They understand the adverse impacts of chemical fertilizers on the soil quality and on
their health.
Ⓒ ISERD71

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-1

Table 3 Total expenditures on rice growing in 2013
Items (Riel)
ChemicalSeed
Irrigation
FertilizerA1(a) 0.70
090,000
10,000(b) 0.15
015,8000A2(c) 0.10
019,4000(d) 0.60
000A3(e) 0.48
070,0000(f) 1.00
0155,000
0B1(g) 1.00
000B2(h) 1.00000(i) 2.00
0495,000
0B3(j) 0.06
0010,000(k) 0.40
080,0000(l) 0.88
0174,000
45,000C1(m) 1.980240,000
45,000C2(n) 1.00
0360,0000(o) 0.50
010,000
0C3(p) 0.50000
Source: Household Interview; 1USD=4,000Riel (basic estimation)
FarmerPlot (ha)Hired Labor
438,000
138,000
138,000
0000
50,000459,000
88,0000257,000
370,000
255,000
75,00075,000Total Expenditure
USD
Riel(Calculation)
538,000
134.50
153,800
38.45
157,400
39.35
0070,00017.50
155,000
38.75
00
50,00012.50
954,000
238.5098,00024.50
80,00020.00
476,000
119.00655,000
163.75615,000
153.7585,00021.25
75,00018.75

Table 4 Details of paddy price and sold amount
FarmerPlot (ha)Varieties

2013
Production (t)A1(a) 0.70(b) 0.15(c) 0.10(d) 0.60(e) 0.48(f) 1.00(g) 1.00(h) 1.00(i) 2.00(j) 0.06(k) 0.40(l) 0.88(m) 1.98(n) 1.00(o) 0.50(p) 0.50

LRV
LRV
LRV
LRV
LRV
LRV
ERV
ERV
LRV
LRV
ERV
LRV
ERV
LRV
LRV
ERV

2.50
0.32
0.30
1.30
0.80
1.30
2.00
1.00
2.00
0.20
0.80
1.75
3.00
1.62
1.00
1.00

A2
A3
B1
B2
B3
C1
C2
C3

Sold
Amount
(Kg)
300
1000
1000
1000
500
1700
800
2400
1000
1000

Price
(Riel/Kg)

Total Income
Riel

Self-Consumption
1,200
360,000
Self-Consumption
1,000
1,000,000
Self-Consumption1,000
1,000,000
1,350
1,350,000
1,350
675,000
1,000
1,700,000
Self-Consumption
1,600
1,280,000
Self-Consumption
1,200
2,880,000
930
930,000
Self-Consumption
1,400
1,400,000

USD (Calculation)
90.00
250.00250.00337.50168.75425.00320.00720.00232.50350.00

Incomes and Profits for Each Household
All selected farmers grow Jasmine variety for early growing season due to its popularity. Even
farmers possessing single plot are able to sell some to the market such as Farmer B2. Farmers
prefer to sell total amount of Jasmine paddy to the markets and keep the LRV paddy for
consumption. Middlemen buy paddy directly from the farmers. Price set by middlemen is cheaper
than the price set at the markets. However, farmers agree to sell; otherwise, they will spend moreon transportation and labor costs if they were to sell directly at the market. Importantly, collectivesale (some farmers put their products together in order to get a bigger amount of products) help
farmers to get higher prices compared to an individual or one-time sale. Moreover, collective salehelps middlemen to save the time to buy the large amount of paddy. That is why; middlemen canset the higher price for farmers. For example, Jasmine variety (ERV) sells for 1,600R/kg if farmers
can collect a big amount and sell. Otherwise, the price is only 1,350Riel to 1,400Riel per kg forsingle sale. The collective sale could happen due to two possible reasons: (1) the short distance
between each household’s house or plot where farmers easily gather their products and (2) goodⒸ ISERD72

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-1relationship with the neighboring household. According to household interviews, farmers statedthat their harvests for a year are enough for their family consumption and were able to sell thesurplus to middlemen. This means that farmers could earn some profits from their farming
activities. Total expenditure and incomes of each selected farmer are referred to Table 3 and Table
4 respectively. The Fig. 1 clearly illustrates that besides the sufficiency for self-consumption,
farmers also could earn the profit by selling their surplus. The negative income as shown in Fig. 1
is the value of the paddy amount for self-consumption.
800

720

600

556.25US Dollars

425

400

337.5
337.5
250250

200

134.5

0090
38.4551.5539.35
0a-200b-134.5

c-39.35250
211.2517.50

0d38.75

e-17.5fg

Total Expensehi163.75

119

24.50

12.5

0350
331.25320300238.5
186.5
168.75156.25j-24.5

Total Income

200k

Profitl

232.5
153.7578.75
21.250

m

n

18.75

o-21.25

p-119

Fig. 1 Expenditure, incomes and profits for each household
Table 5 Surplus produced by SRI farmers in each village
FarmerA1A2A3B1B2B3C1C2C3

Increased Production by
Family0%+31%+100%+25%+4.8%+36%+35%+33%

Ratio of Increased
Production

Average No. of SRIHousehold

Surplus Produced by
SRI Farmers+22.5%

3%+0.68%+33.3%

43%+14.3%+35.0%

50%+17.5%

Contribution to the Rice Markets
Increased production in percentage for each family was the average of all plots that each farmer has.
The ratio of increased production, derived from the increase of total production of selected families,in village A, B, and C is 22.5%, 33.3% and 35.0% respectively. As shown in Table 2, most of theselected farmers are practicing SRI and it led to increase in their conventional yield. It can be
deduced from the study that SRI farmers contributed to increase in production in each village.
With the average number of total SRI household in each village, total surplus produced by SRI
farmers in village A, B, and C is 0.68%, 14.3% and 17.5% respectively (Table 5). It can beconcluded that practicing SRI positively increases the household’s production and leads to theincrease of village production as a whole. Thus it can be explained that a village has moreproduction to share to rice markets besides the sufficiency of self-consumption of each householdin the village. Finally increase in the number of SRI farmers in each village will increase the village
production. Possibly, increase the number of SRI also leads to the increase of national paddy
production in Cambodia. Average of SRI yield in Cambodia was recorded as 3.48 t/ha (rangingfrom 2.7 to 4.2 t/ha) with SRI applied area of 59,785 ha in 2009 (Chhay, 2010). However,according to data from Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) the averagenational yields were 2.84 and 3.17 t/ha in 2009 and 2011 respectively. With these data, at least
within the rice growing area of 59,785 ha, only in 2009 SRI could increase the rice production
about 22.5%. Therefore, it can be concluded that increase the number of SRI as well the SRIⒸ ISERD73

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-1

applied areas will increase not only the household production but also the country production. Thiswill lead to the increase the paddy supply in the rice markets.
CONCLUSION
As explained and discussed so far, most of the selected farmers can share their products to the rice
market although selling and buying processes are happening indirectly via the middlemen.
However, collective sales can help farmers to get better prices. Since the national paddy production
is still low, increase in the number of SRI farmers as well as SRI applied areas can increase thehousehold and village production as well as possibly lead to the increase of the country production
and the surplus can be contributed to the rice market.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is deeply grateful to the farmers and village chiefs in three rain-fed villages in Kampong
Speu and Kampot Provinces for their friendly cooperation during interviews. Furthermore, manythanks to my mother Mrs. Pheng Phany, my father Mr. Ches Chea, my sister Ms. Ches Sopheapand Mr. Kwan Vinhsou for assisting me during my fieldwork and Mr. Lim Sopokhem for spendingtime to proofread my paper. Without their kind supports, this paper would not be finished. FinallyThanks are given to Ms. Tuba Zahra and Ms. Vanessa Landriault for helping in editing this paper.
REFERENCES
Chhay, N. 2010. Overview of SRI application and adaptation in Cambodia. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestryand Fisheries. (Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/SRI.CORNELL/overview-of-sri-applicationand-adoption-in-cambodia, Accesed on 10th April, 2015.)
Ches, S. and Yamaji, E. 2014. Impacts of the system of rice intensification (SRI): Labor requirement
analyses in Cambodia. Oral presentation by Power Point File for Paddy and Water Environment
Engineering [PAWEES] Conference. 30-31 October, 204 in Kaoshiung, Taiwan.
Cambodia Development Resource Institute [CDRI]. 2014. Annual development review 2013-14. Phnom
Penh, Cambodia.
Hang Chuon, C. and Suzuki, N. 2005. Characteristics of the rice marketing system in Cambodia. Faculty ofAgriculture, Kyushu University, Japan, 50 (2), 693-714.
International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD]. (n.d.). Rural Poverty in Cambodia. (Retrieved fromhttp://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/home/tags/cambodia, Accesed on 25th April, 2015.)
Uphoff, N. 2004. System of rice intensification responds to 21 st century needs. (Retrieved fromhttp://archieves.dailynews.lk/2004/08/03/bus15.html, Accesed on 27th April, 2015.)Ⓒ ISERD74