IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Research articleerd

Comparison of System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
Practices in Irrigated and Rainfed Areas of Cambodia
SOPHY CHES*
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, University of Tokyo, Japan
Email: sophy_ches257@yahoo.com

EIJI YAMAJI
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, University of Tokyo, JapanJUN TSURUI
Sustainable Inc.
Received 15 December 2011

Accepted 18 April 2012

( *: Corresponding Author)

Abstract Based on principles of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) practices,farmers need to manage properly the water level in the paddy fields to get higher yields. It
is only in the irrigated area where farmers can control the water level. However, thepractice of SRI has been disseminated to farmers also in rain-fed areas in Cambodia.
Therefore, the study aimed to compare the SRI results done so far by farmers in irrigatedand rain-fed areas and explain the SRI practices in both areas. Irrigated and rain-fed areasin Kampong Speu Province of Cambodia were selected as study areas. In irrigated areas,
five farmers from upstream and downstream were selected. In rain-fed areas, five SRI
farmers were also chosen. In-depth interview was conducted with field observation. Theresults showed that farmers at upstream can grow rice twice (late ripening variety-LRV
and early ripening variety-ERV) per year. Farmers at downstream and in rain-fed areas cangrow rice only one time (ERV) per year. There is an irrigation system at downstream area,
but farmers cannot grow rice twice due to the lack of irrigation facilities, poor water
distribution, and geographic condition. In rain-fed area, drought occurs in some years; sowater availability is a big concern. In both areas, LRV conventionally provides the yieldfrom 2.31 to 2.36t/ha. SRI way can improve the yield up to 3.30t/ha to 3.70t/ha. Besides
same provided yields, farmers have applied almost same SRI principles such as reducing
seeds for sowing (up to 50%) and chemical fertilizers (20% to 40%), raising nursery bed,
and transplanting with fewer seedlings. So, the study concludes that SRI practices in rainfed areas are similar with ones in irrigated area. Although irrigation system is a big
advantage, controlling water in paddy fields in both areas is still a problem since irrigatedfacilities are poor.
Keywords system of rice intensification (SRI), irrigated area, rain-fed area,
early ripening variety, late ripening variety

INTRODUCTION
In spite of the fact that several big NGOs such as Oxfam/GB and GTZ have played an importantrole in supporting local NGOs to implement and disseminate SRI in several provinces in Cambodia(CEDAC, 2004), most Cambodian farmers cannot practice SRI well due to inadequate irrigation
systems and other inputs. Proper management of water level in paddy fields is one of thefundamental practices of SRI that produces higher yield. Today only 16% of total cultivated areas
have been irrigated, revealing that Cambodia is using only 1% of its total water resources inAgriculture (Ngin, 2010). However, currently, SRI techniques are being promoted in rain-fed areas(Tsurui, 2010). This is surprising since it is hard for farmers in rain-fed areas to practice SRI
without proper irrigation systems. Thus, it is worthwhile to know how much farmers in rain-fedareas earn after applying SRI techniques since only irrigated farmers can benefit from theseⒸISERD207

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

techniques before. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the SRI results produced by farmers inboth irrigated and rain-fed areas, and to explain the SRI practices in both areas.
MEHODOLOGY
The study was conducted in Kampong Speu province in Cambodia. Two types of SRI farmers inChbar Mon City were selected as key informants for irrigated areas. Five Farmers in Srae Thnalvillage (upstream) are represented as Farmers A1-A5, and five Romleang village farmers(downstream) are represented as Farmers B1-B5. The other five SRI farmers in Samraong Tong
District were selected as key informants for rain-fed areas. They are represented as Farmers C1-C5.
Qualitative and quantitative approaches were mainly used. Primary and secondary data collections
were utilized to get needed information from various existing sources and field works.
Primary Data: The research employed the following data collection to get the needed data:
In-Depth-Interview: Fifteen classified farmers (A1-5, B1-5, and C1-5) were thoroughly questioned
about SRI results, performances, perceptions and willingness to continue SRI.
Village observation: Village resources, farming land and the status of agricultural practices in thevillage can be noticed in order to create real images for the research.
Secondary data: Documents related to the concept of SRI are reviewed. Those documents can bereached by accessing the websites, libraries, reports, or research journals, etc.
Data analysis is done by using both descriptive and statistical analysis. Data are condensed andcritically analyzed in order to respond to the above-mentioned objectives.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Comparison of rice yield between SRI and Conventional ways
Before following the SRI techniques, farmers were told that SRI can provide higher yields. Thisestablished a reason for farmers in study areas to decide to apply these techniques. Based on theinterviews with SRI selected farmers, some have made comparisons of SRI to conventional
methods by applying these techniques in different plots. Without conducting experiments, aresearcher simply asked farmers to compare the yields of conventional plots and SRI plots during
2009-2010.
Table 1 Comparison of average rice yield between SRI and Conventional ways
Area(t/ha)
Irrigated
Upstream

Farmers
A1-A5

Irrigated
Downstream

B1-B5

Rain-fed

C1-C5

SeasonsDry(2009)
Rainy(2009, 2010)
Rainy(2009, 2010)
Rainy(2009, 2010)

Varieties
ERV
LRV
LRV
LRV

Methods
Conventional
SRI
Conventional
SRI
Conventional
SRI
Conventional
SRI

Average Yield
2.25
3.51
2.31
3.70
2.36
3.20
2.31
3.30

As shown in Table 1, in the upstream portions of the irrigated areas, the average yield for LateRipening Variety (LRV) conventionally is 2.31 t/ha; while SRI way can improve the yield up to3.70 t/ha. For the downstream and rain-fed areas, the average yield of conventional methods isalmost the same as upstream yields, approximately 2.31 to 2.36 t/ha. SRI method yields are slightly
less compared to those of upstream, at roughly 3.20 to 3.30 t/ha. However, the difference was not
as much as expected. It can therefore be concluded that SRI practices in both areas provide nearlyⒸISERD208

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

the same results because they have not applied all the SRI techniques. Moreover, irrigation systems
in irrigated area do not greatly help improve the SRI results. Although there are irrigated facilities,
good water distribution and the functions of facilities remain poor. It can be said that irrigation
systems in Cambodia are not on big scale but of a small farming scale. Therefore, it is hard forfarmers to use the irrigated facilities to full capacity because they have a limited knowledge inoperating those facilities.
Rice cultivation practices in irrigated area and rain-fed area
In irrigated areas, most farmers are able to perform rice cultivation two times per year for the earlyripening variety (ERV) and late ripening variety (LRV); especially in upstream villages because of
the water availability through canals and rainfall. Some farmers still practice conventional farming;
while some farmers have practiced SRI. In the case of the selected upstream farmers (A1-A5),
some of them apply both conventional and SRI methods in different plots to be compared. Theothers have already applied SRI method for all of the plots. On the other hand, upstream farmers
are likely to use water inefficiently. Although there are irrigation facilities, water is not distributed
properly because farmers have limited knowledge on operation of these facilities. This makes
downstream farmers suffer from water shortage. Then downstream farmers including selectedfarmers (B1-B5) do their farming one time per year for LRV only. As with upstream farmers,
downstream farmers apply both conventional and SRI methods in separated plots or two-partdivided plots.
In rain-fed areas, the majority of farmers are able to perform rice cultivation only once peryear for LRV due to insufficient water or less rain. The main water storage for rain-fed area is a bigreservoir. In case that there is no enough rain, farmers need to save water in the reservoir for otherworks such as daily life use, animal raising and vegetable watering. Under the support from NGOson the SRI dissemination, farmers in the rain-fed areas have learnt what SRI is. According to theconducted interviews, some of the selected farmers (C1-C5) have applied both conventional andSRI methods in different plots for comparison. Nevertheless, some farmers have fully applied SRI
to all the plots. Again the interviews with farmers reveal that in some years with little rain, rice
plants are in tiller and panicle initiation stages. This significantly worsens the yield. However, if
there is enough rain from early in the cultivation season, the rice plants will grow well and provide
a high yield. But some farmers hesitate to drain water out when there is too much water in thepaddy field because they are afraid of facing water shortages. This is one reason that SRI farmers inrain-fed areas face difficulty controlling water in the paddy field since the water availability isunpredictable.
Degree of Adoption of SRI principles by selected farmers in study areas
Under the past support from CEDAC (Cambodian Center for Study and Development inAgriculture), selected farmers started to practice SRI techniques since 2006. CEDAC introduced
SRI with 12 principles and strongly recommended farmers to follow them (JICA, 2008). However,according to the interviews with the 15 selected farmers about their farming practices during 2009
and 2010, once CEDAC was removed, farmers became unable to follow all the principles. Inirrigated areas as well as in rain-fed areas, farmers cannot apply all the 12 SRI principles (Table 2).
In irrigated areas, roughly 76% of upstream farmers can adopt the SRI principles; compared with
only 62% of downstream farmers. In addition, in rain-fed area, 68% of farmers can adopt SRI
principles. Two principles stood out as being adopted by rain-fed and downstream farmers but notby upstream farmers. Those include the principle to "transplant seedlings younger than 15 days"
adopted at level of 40%, 10% and 0%; and the principle to "transplant seedlings 25-40 cm apart"
adopted at level of 60%, 80% and 0% by rain-fed farmers, downstream farmers and upstream
farmers respectively. Nevertheless, there is one principle adopted only by upstream farmers. It isthat which says to "weed at least 2-4 times a season" with adoption rate 40%. For the rest, theaverage rates of adoption are somehow the same. Therefore, it can be said that rain-fed farmers
have stronger commitments towards following SRI principles. On the other hand, most farmersⒸISERD209

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

generally have difficulty in keeping less water in their paddy fields. Even in the irrigated area, theact of keeping less water in paddy fields is still a big problem for farmers. This is because ofinsufficient irrigation facilities and geographic conditions. In rain-fed areas, water is not fully
available all the time, so even though there is abundant water in the paddy fields, farmers do not
dare to drain it out because they are afraid of future water shortage.
Table 2 Degree of SRI principles adoption by selected farmers (2009-2010)
Farmer A1-A5

Farmer B1-B5

Farmer C1-C5

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Level the paddy field and provide drainage

480

480

5100

Keep less water in the paddy field

360

240

360

Raise nursery beds or use dry nursery beds

5100

360

5100

Select purified and dense seedlings for sowing

5100

480

5100

Transplant seedlings younger than 15 days

001

10

240

Transplant big seedlings immediately480480

480

Transplant one plant per hill

360

360

240

Transplant seedlings shallowly with horizontal roots

5100

5100

5100

Transplant seedlings with square pattern or in line

480

240

240

Transplant seedlings 25-40cm apart

00

480

360

Apply natural fertilizer as much as possible

5100

5100

5100

Weed at least 2-4 times a season

240

1

1000

SRI Principles

Average of adoption

676268Change in using seeds
Revealed in the interviews with selected farmers, it seems that all farmers do feel positive about thedecrease of seeds used for sowing and transplanting. They said that applying SRI in their fields canhelp reduce a large amount of seeds per year. Saving seeds can help them use the remaining seeds
for food and for storage in the following year (save space for storing seeds).
Table 3 Change in use of seed on average during 2009-2010
Seed(kg/ha)
BeforeSRI
AfterSRIRatio(%)

A1

A2

A3A4A5

B1

B2B3B4B5C1C2C3C4C5100

250

80

502306560

1621081149080

200

17575

36835025110

3530505071304080503864673850524650

6954386750607149

A decreased weight of seeds is what farmers can notice quickly when they start to apply SRI.
It is also another reason why they decide to apply SRI. Table 3 shows that farmers can reduce theweight of seeds from 38% up to 71%. The majority of farmers can also decrease the weight ofseeds up to 50%. This is because most farmers know how to select full-inside seeds, to raise
nursery beds for sowing and to select big healthy seedlings for transplanting.
Change in application of chemical and natural fertilizers
The effect on environmental understanding is noticeable since farmers have changed their habits,
started to reduce the weight of chemical fertilizers and increase the use of natural fertilizers. DuringⒸISERD210

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

interviews with selected farmers, they were asked to reveal the weight of the chemical and natural
fertilizers they used before and after practicing SRI. These changes are shown below:

Fig. 1 Change in application of chemical and natural fertilizers
According to Fig.1, the weight of chemical fertilizers decreased remarkably. Previously,farmers had used chemical fertilizers from 7 kg/ha up to 500 kg/ha for conventional farming, butafterwards farmers reduced this amount to 4 kg/ha to 120 kg/ha for SRI practice. This results inalmost 20% to 40% decrease from previously used conventional practices. This shows that farmers
have understood the impact of chemical fertilizers on soil fertility, health, expenditure andenvironment.
In contrast, there is also a noticeable increase in the weight of natural fertilizers as shown in
Fig. 1 as well. On average, conventionally farmers used 3 ox carts of natural fertilizers per ha up to25 ox carts. However, for SRI practices, farmers can increase from 4 ox carts of natural fertilizers
to 35 ox carts. Although there is not much improvement in the use of natural fertilizers, it is evident
that some farmers are still making attempts to increase the use of natural fertilizers. Moreover, it
can be said that farmers have used the resources available near their living areas on the fields inorder to reduce the expenses of chemical fertilizers. Therefore, farmers have gained a better
understanding since SRI techniques require farmers to use natural fertilizers in order to sustain andenrich the soil quality over a long period.
Benefits and difficulties in Practicing SRI
According to interviews with selected farmers, there are various key benefits from practicing SRI.
These include increased yields, saving of seeds, decreased amount of chemical fertilizer, reductionof labors, and time saving. Among these benefits, saving seeds is the most popular answers fromSRI farmers. 15 farmers out of 15 (100%) said that they can save a lot of seeds after applying SRI.
14 farmers of 15 farmers (93%) also said that their yields increased after practicing SRI compared
to previous practices. The other three popular answers about the benefits of practicing SRI are thereduction of labors, decreased amount of chemical fertilizer, and time saving with the percentage ofanswers 66%, 46% and 20% respectively. Nevertheless, some difficulties arise while practicing
SRI. 53% of the responses from 15 SRI farmers complained about transplantation in a line. They
faced difficulties in making a line, or did not have the equipment to make a line in their paddy
fields. In addition, other reported difficulties included water management (53%), weeding (26%),
preparation of nursery beds (6%), and plowing (6%). The percentage of weeding is very low
because farmers do not have weeding tools and they need to do it by hand. That is why farmers donot care much about weeding, which requires intensive labor.
ⒸISERD211

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

CONCLUSION
Although SRI techniques are believed to provide higher yields than conventional methods, mostfarmers still cannot apply all 12 SRI principles due to insufficient irrigation systems, labor
shortages, and time consuming activities. It can be said that farmers` behaviors toward SRI
technique are somehow positive and that they will be able to apply all principles if all thoseinconvenient things mentioned above can be resolved.
Upstream farmers can grow rice twice per year for LRV and ERV; while downstream andrain-fed farmers can grow only once per year for LRV. In comparison with conventional methods,
all selected farmers can get the average LRV yield of 2.31 to 2.36 t/ha. The SRI method for LRV isaround 3.30 to 3.70 t/ha. The differences of yield between the SRI method and the conventional
method are roughly the same for irrigated and rain-fed areas. This means that in both irrigated andrain-fed areas, SRI results are higher than the conventional method by around 1 to 1.5t/ha. In
addition to the SRI method providing the same yields in irrigated and rain-fed areas, farmers also
applied nearly identical SRI principles such as reducing seeds for sowing (up to 50%) and chemicalfertilizers (20% to 40%), raising nursery bed, and transplanting with fewer seedlings. Therefore,
this study concludes that SRI practices in rain-fed areas are similar with those in irrigated areas.
Although irrigation systems provide big advantages, controlling water in paddy fields in both areas
is still a problem since irrigation facilities are poor. Nevertheless, all selected farmers have also
faced the same problems in practicing SRI such as transplanting in line, doing weeding, andmanaging water. Finally, some farmers still have strong intentions to continue SRI, and also havewillingness to share these techniques with other farmers. However, others have given up due to alack of external supports.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is deeply grateful to the farmers in Chbar Mon City and Samraong Tong District inKampong Speu Province for friendly cooperating and kindly spending their times for theinterviews. Furthermore, many thanks are granted Ms. Kako Inoue for providing useful comments
and encouragement. Without these kind supports, this paper would not be finished. Finally otherbig thanks are given to Mr. Chris Malcolm for kindly helping editing this paper.
REFERENCESCEDAC. 2004. An assessment of ecological system of rice intensification (SRI) in Cambodia in wet season
2002. Field Document, 5.
JICA. 2008. Draft final report on the study on comprehensive agricultural development of Prek Thnot Riverbasin in the Kingdom of Cambodia.
Ngin, C. 2010. Overview of SRI application and adaptation in Cambodia. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries. Cambodia.
Tsurui, J. 2010 Improvement in practicing system of rice intensification (SRI) principles by farmers in rainfed Area of Cambodia. 2nd ICERD Abstracts Book, 52.

ⒸISERD212