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

Research article
erdIntroduction and Adoption of Rice Intensification System
towards Low-Input Agricultural Production in Vietnam
KAKO INOUE*
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, the University of Tokyo, Chiba, Japan
Email: kako.inoue@gmail.com

EIJI YAMAJI
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, the University of Tokyo, Chiba, Japan
Received 14 December 2011

Accepted 7 February 2012(*: Corresponding Author)

Abstract This paper illustrates the viewpoints   of   the   government,   farmers’   organizations,  namely Agricultural Production Cooperatives (APCs), and individual farmers in relation to theintroduction and adoption of a System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Vietnam. It also
identifies factors that can promote or impede the social shift towards fewer agricultural inputs
through the SRI method. The qualitative analysis is based on field studies in three communes
in the Red River Delta as well as interviews with relevant actors in Vietnam in order todescribe   each   actor’s   viewpoints   and   the   realities   of   farmers’   behaviors   towards   agricultural  inputs. We demonstrated that farmers could correct their overuse of pesticides and herbicides
by SRI adoption through training opportunities provided by a Farmer Field School (FFS),
inducing farmers to recognize the positive effects of SRI on pest damage and plant protection.
However, we also found that the attitude and mental barriers of some governmental bodies and
APCs narrowed the opportunities of SRI introduction at a community level. In addition,
farmers often faced initial mental barriers and managerial difficulties in adopting the fullelements of SRI even if they were trained in the SRI method, leading them to adopt a“modified”  SRI  in  order  to  meet  their  personal needs. Nevertheless, the rapid extension of SRIin   Northern   Vietnam   can   be   explained   by:   (i)   the   government’s   acknowledgement   of   SRI,  together with an administrative focus on the integrated pest management with the extension
tool of the FFS, (ii) the role of APCs in coordinating farmers to lower the entry barriers forthem  to  adopt  new  techniques,  and  (iii)  communities’  involvement  in  SRI  adoption  in  order  to  manage agricultural production collectively without pesticides and herbicides as well as
increasing   the   product’s   value,   suggesting   possible   approaches   for   small-scale farmers to
improve their livelihoods while saving agricultural input costs.
Keywords system of rice intensification, Vietnam, low input agriculture, farmer field school,
integrated pest management

INTRODUCTION
The rapid growth of agricultural production in Vietnam has often been accompanied by a heavy useof agricultural inputs, bringing serious problems of food safety and environmental stress (Van Hoi,
2009; Khanh, 2006). For many developing Asian countries, the difficult challenges of adopting
alternative agricultural methods that have less environmental burden in a sustainable mannerremain (Kada, 1998).
Aiming to identify factors behind a social shift towards low input agriculture in Asiandeveloping countries, this paper explores the realities of the uptake and spread of the System of
Rice Intensification (SRI) in Vietnam, as one of the low external-input technologies (LEIT) (Tripp,2006). SRI was first tested in Vietnam in 2002, and it has been drastically popularized in Northern
Vietnam since 2007. Approximately 780,000 farmers practiced SRI within an area of about
286,000 ha in 2010 (Plant Protection Department, 2010). The principles of SRI in Vietnam include:(i) transplanting young seedlings with two or three leaves, (ii) transplanting seedlings individuallyand spacing them widely, giving them maximum access to the sun and room to grow to their fullpotential, (iii) managing water carefully, providing intermittent irrigation to keep fields moist, butⒸ ISERD

16

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

not continuously flooded, (iv) weeding frequently, either by hand or with mechanical weeding
devices, and (v) using organic fertilizers, such as animal and plant waste, to promote thedevelopment of a healthy soil ecosystem (http://vietnamsri.wordpress.com/). SRI enables plants togrow efficiently by means of more fertile soil and to produce healthier plants with greater root
growth.
The objective of this paper is to illustrate and analyze the viewpoints of different actors and todescribe  farmers’  actual  behaviors  on  pesticides and herbicides in relation to SRI introduction andadoption. The experience of SRI extension in Vietnam will be discussed in order to identify factors
to promote or impede the introduction and adoption of SRI as a low-input cultivation method.
METHODOLOGYThis paper is based on field studies conducted in November 2009, August and October 2010, andJanuary-February and June-July 2011. The sample population consists of three communities underthe management of three Agricultural Production Cooperatives (APCs) in the Red River Delta(RRD), namely the APC “A” of  the  Chuong  My  district  and  “B” and “C” of the My Duc district inthe Ha Noi City (former Ha Tay Province). This paper is supplemented by interviews with different
actors and informants and a literature review. The qualitative research method is used for analysis,
which is supported by semi-structured and open interviews and questionnaire surveys to target
actors, namely farmers, managers of APCs, government officials of key agencies, and donors. In
addition, the participant observation method is applied as the researcher enters the lives of farmers.
RESULTS
Introduction of SRI to rural communities by government
SRI was first tested in 2002 and 2003 at a small scale and then at a larger scale in 2005 and 2006
under the scheme of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program implemented by the Plant
Protection Department (PPD), MARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development). Resultsfrom 2005 and 2006 tests indicated that a significant reduction in input use was possible withoutyield drops: seed and nitrogen volume was reduced by 70-90% and 20-25%, respectively, while
average yield increased by 9-15% (Plant Protection Department, 2010). The crop also showed good
resistance against pests. Such results were reported to the Council for Science and Technology of
MARD for evaluation, sharing with other state management agencies that manage crop production,
extension, science and technology and water resource management.
Several agencies, however, interpreted that some principles of SRI contradicted their policies.
For instance, the extension policy was focused more on disseminating the direct seedling method
nationally with continued herbicide use for rice cultivation to decrease labor intensity. These
agencies  considered  that  SRI  was  applicable  to  the  “transplanting”  technique only, requiring morelabor, meaning that it was not suitable to extend SRI to southern areas where direct seedling weregenerally applied and promoted. Political contradictions perceived by several agencies of MARD
implicitly influenced the actual dissemination of SRI to limited areas (mainly Northern Vietnam),even though MARD officially admitted the technical advantages of SRI, issuing a decision in 2007.
In spite of the negative attitudes of some governmental agencies, PPD, the only state management
agency that actively disseminates SRI, considered the SRI method to be compatible and effectivewith the IPM approach, and therefore determined to extend it through its own extension tool, theFarmer Field School (FFS), which was often used to promote IPM in Vietnam. Moreover, many
IPM officers were stationed across the nation in order to teach farmers about SRI methods throughthe FFS.
It should also   be   noted   that   MARD’s   decision   to   acknowledge   SRI   provided   new  opportunities through additional support with more fund availability. In addition, someinternational NGOs included SRI extension activities in their own projects in Vietnam, as theyobserved that SRI could be an effective tool to build farmers capacity because testing SRI at theⒸ ISERD

17

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

FFS  requires  farmers’  openness  and  confidence  towards  the  new  method  in  addition  to  a  risk-taking
attitude.
APCs’  agricultural management and organization of the FFS for SRI introduction
Characteristics of agriculture and the role of APCs: Through the policy reform in 1988 and therevised land law in 1993, the land use right of farmland was distributed equally to farmers in
Vietnam. For instance, 3-6 pieces of scattered land with a total size of 0.3-0.4 ha were allocated toeach household in the RRD. Several farmers use parts of the same paddy plots and operate andmanage farming jointly through an agreement on water management and other cultivation activities.
APCs typically operate and manage the irrigation system and provide agricultural services in the
RRD. They were originally set up as the center of collective agricultural production regime at theend of the 1950s, but transformed to become service providers for farmers along with the
Cooperative Law in 1996.
Because of the characteristics of agriculture in the RRD, especially the presence of manysmall-scale farmers, APCs can be the first contact point to coordinate farmers to introduce the new
method. In the case of introducing SRI at community level, the Provincial PPD first asked APC
managers if they wanted to introduce SRI to their communities. APC managers were given
opportunities to visit the SRI test sites in order to make decisions. Table 1 shows the different
characteristics (management style, attitudes towards new techniques and social relations with
farmers in the communities) of each APC. Only APCs A and B, but not APC C, were willing to
introduce SRI to farmers.
Table 1 Characteristics of APCs and SRI introduction to farmers
No. ofhouseholds
Paddy field area
SRI introduction
APC’s  objectives
APC’s  attitude  towards SRI
Social relation
with farmers

APC A

APC B

APC C

1,400

750

1,860

240 ha2007
Economic development
through agricultural activities
Interested in testing SRI after
being convinced by the effectduring site visit
Small local productiongroups are invited to take partin APC management

180 ha2006
Economic development
through agricultural activities
Interested in testing any newtechniques (including SRI) ona small plot

436 haNot yetAccomplishment of
assigned task
Understood  SRI’s  effect but technicallydifficult to adopt
Lack of trust between
APC and farmers
observed

APC directly coordinates andnegotiates with farmers

Attitudes: (i) APC A introduced SRI to its community after the APC confirmed its performance byvisiting  other  SRI  sites.  The  government’s  approval  of  the  SRI  method  also  provided a mental easeto the APC A in disseminating the new method to communities with governmental authorization.
(ii) APC B was the pioneer of SRI introduction at a community level. The APC wished toexperiment any new technique even if it was not well recognized. The early experiment wasperceived to be possible in the APC B, as the experiment was always started with a small area toevaluate the results first, lowering potential loss. (iii) APC C also had opportunities to visit SRI
sites, and observed that the SRI method would give better results than the conventional method did.
However, it decided not to introduce SRI because of perceived technical difficulties.
Relations with farmers: (i) APC A had seven Production Groups, which have been the social andeconomic core of local communities with historically developed territorial bonds. The APC
coordinated well with leaders of each Production Group and arranged core farmers of the
Production Groups to participate in SRI experiments at the FFS site that the APC rented fromfarmers. The APC influenced Production Groups to self-manage the production process whilesuggesting strategies to produce high-value products, providing fertilizers and high-quality rice
varieties. (ii) In APC B, not all farmers necessarily supported the introduction of SRI at the
beginning because it was an unconventional agricultural method and the APC had to negotiate welland to guarantee the productivity of SRI for farmers in advance. In addition, APC B risked itsⒸ ISERD

18

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

reputation if the new method was to fail. However, it gained its confidence on the SRI method as
the rice grew, and eventually gained further trust from farmers after achieving higher yields with
reduced inputs. (iii) APC C felt difficulties attracting farmers to challenge SRI or any kind of newtechniques under the guidance of the APC. It provided services to the administrative area, which
had been established by merging three villages, and as a result local farmers had little attachment tothe  new  “commune”  and  the  agricultural  activities  of  the  three  villages  were  not  managed  easily  in  a unified manner. Severe criticism about the performance of the APC and farmers was typicallyheard from both sides, reflecting a lack of trust between them.
Adoption of SRI and use of external inputs by farmers
Adoption of SRI: Core farmers from APC A participated in the FFS without hesitation as it was apure learning opportunity and did not sacrifice their own fields. Those farmers were given
opportunities to evaluate rice growth through the SRI method by themselves and found that the SRI
method brought about higher benefits despite reducing labor and input costs. The difficulties that
farmers generally felt came mainly from the technical side, such as handling small seedlings at
transplanting, careful land preparation, and controlling water. Even with such difficulties, farmers
who participated in the FFS were satisfied with SRI because of its cost advantages. Core farmers
who were impressed by the advantages of SRI then became farmer-trainers in order to transfer SRI
techniques to those who did not participate in the FFS. As core farmers had been selected fromleaders of small-scale communities in which neighboring farmers have close relationships, theytended to believe and follow what the leaders learnt at the FFS. Furthermore, farmers who lived
near the FFS site had easy access to observe the progress of the SRI experiment despite not being
officially  involved  in  the  FFS’s  training  activities.  Farmers  who  lived  near  the  FFS  site  started  to  adopt SRI right after its introduction in 2007, followed by neighboring farmers.
Farmers in APC B recalled their feelings of the difficulties in accepting SRI at the beginning,as they could not believe its effects (especially not believing in using small seedlings, transplanting
with space and not keeping flooded water), and even remembered disputes among neighbors that
disagreed with SRI adoption. With compensation deals offered via the APC for any possible losses
associated with testing SRI, farmers finally accepted testing SRI through the FFS using some
portions of their own land but not taking any financial risks. The SRI experiment was started from4 ha in 2006, then expanded to 15 ha in the spring of 2007, 50 ha in the autumn of 2007, and all
fields, 180 ha, in the spring of 2008. Farmers were confident about adopting SRI in their own land
without having any compensation deal in 2009, while making flexible and innovative adjustments
to overcome their technical and mental difficulties of SRI adoption. Modifications to the SRI
method in 2010 and 2011 were: 15-18 cm space between ridges (narrower than the   FFS’s   best  results but wider than the conventional method) and the transplantation of seedlings few days older
than originally recommended. Narrower transplanting was preferred by farmers with larger
farmlands because they preferred to lessen the weeding cost, reducing weed growth with lesssunshine.
In the commune C, farmers were unfamiliar with SRI and typically conducted their own
cultivation activities, believing in the conventional method.
Use of agricultural inputs: The reduced use of seedlings and water resources is a widely
recognized characteristic of SRI because of its SRI principles. In order to understand actual
farmers’  behaviors  in  terms  of  pesticide  and  herbicide  use,  Table  2  summarizes  the  interviews  and  observation results. Farmers in A and B reduced or stopped using pesticides as they learnt throughthe experience of the FFS and SRI adoption that healthier roots with wider spaces between plants
brought about fewer occurrences of pests and diseases. By contrast, farmers in C who had notreceived any opportunities to adopt SRI believed that the more pesticides they sprayed, the morethey could protect their rice from pest attacks. These farmers tended to use pesticides in every crop
season regardless of the degree of pest damage.

Ⓒ ISERD

19

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

Table 2 Pesticide and herbicide use by farmers
Pesticides

Village X(*)
APC A
No useHerbicides

No useVillages Y1 and Y2
APC B Spring rice: No use Summer-autumn rice: no use or sprayonce if heavy damage is expected
Use sometimes to cover labor shortage

Villages Z1 and Z2
APC C
Spray more than twice forany crop season
Always use (at least once) tocover labor shortage

Note: Based on (i) repeated interviews with six farmers in the Village X, three farmers in the Village Y1 and Y2, andthree farmers in the Villages Z1 and Z2, (ii) interviews with APCs to confirm general behaviors and perceptions offarmers, and (iii) participatory observation results in villages.
(*) FFS site for SRI experiment was located in the Village X of the commune A.

Farmers’  use  of  herbicides were more complex because of the trade-offs with labor costs. As
seen in APC B, farmers kept using herbicides even though they realized that earlier weedingpractice made the work easier and also acknowledged the negative influence on their own health. If
farmers decided to weed completely by hands instead of using herbicides, farmers with larger land
needed to employ additional labor for weeding. Increasing labor cost in Vietnam was a serious
burden for farmers, and therefore farmers in APC B still preferred to use herbicides to save laborcosts. On the other hand, farmers in the Village X of the commune A had already become
accustomed to using no herbicides, establishing an easier way of weeding by strictly following SRI
guidance while they were advised not to use pesticides and herbicides to obtain a certificate so that
the Production Group as a whole could sell the rice at a higher price. In addition, farmers in thesame Production Group in the village had close family-like relationships, and such united  farmers’  Production   Groups   worked   together   to   maximize   their   community’s   profit   by   producing   highquality rice without using pesticides and herbicides, planting the same varieties in order not to mix
with other varieties in the area. Farmers were able to achieve higher profits this way with less useof pesticides and herbicides and caring  for  community  members’  health  at the same time.
DISCUSSION
From the experience in Vietnam regarding the introduction and adoption of SRI, multi-layered
barriers - government,   farmers’   organizations   (i.e.,   APCs), and farmers - were found. First, thegovernment’s   belief   in   SRI’s   limitation   (i.e.,   labor-intensiveness or incompatibility with direct
seedling) led to narrowing areas of SRI introduction to Northern Vietnam. Second, the introductionof SRI into local communities was influenced by management capacity and attitudes of APCs who
could act as coordinating agencies to promote the uptake of SRI in their communities. Finally,
farmers’  attitudes  and  their  managerial  difficulties (e.g., preference to use herbicides over weedingby hands to save labor costs for large fields) could cause farmers not to adopt some elements of
SRI. By contrast, the rapid extension of SRI in Vietnam since 2007 can also be explained by efforts
made   by   the   government,   farmers’   organizations   (APCs), and farmers. The approval of SRI in
Vietnam added confidence to the PPD to disseminate it widely in Vietnam, lowering the politicalrisk for local adopters to implement techniques backed by the government.  APCs’  strategic  support  to farmers to test SRI lowered risks while the extension tool of the FFS together with IPM
experience gave opportunities for farmers to examine the effect of SRI by themselves, which
helped them make rational decisions about whether to adopt SRI, overcoming their initial prejudiceagainst it. Moreover, the introduction of SRI to the community did not only test the APC’s  managerial capacity but also provided further managerial opportunities. As seen in APC A, ricethat was grown without the use of pesticides and herbicides was differentiated by high price, which
was realized by a small-scale  community’s  bond  and  thus  secured  social  and  economic  profit  for  the overall community. Such a system to reward the effort of both individuals and the community,
together with strong community relations, worked as positive factors to reduce the use ofherbicides.

Ⓒ ISERD

20

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

Government-Government’s  approval  of SRI-Plant protection efforts

Discouraging

Encouraging-Government agencies’ attitudes

Farmers’ community / organization-Assistance to lower risks

Encouraging

Discouraging

Farmers-FFS to prompt farmers’ findings
Encouraging
Discouraging-Reward system-Community’s efforts for producing
Farmers with low input
value-added and safe crops-Community / organizations’  attitudes-Farmers’ attitudes-Individual managerial efforts tosave labor costs

agriculture through SRI

Fig. 1 Multi-layered actors and factors influencing SRI introduction and adoption
CONCLUSION
This research found that two communities (namely areas under APC A and B) that introduced andadopted SRI experienced community-based shifts toward lower agricultural inputs. The case of
APC A especially indicated that it was possible for a community as a whole to manage theproduction of value-added rice without using pesticides and herbicides. Factors that promoted theintroduction  of  SRI  included  the  government’s  initiative,  especially  through  the  IPM  program  with  the  FFS  and  the  management  efforts  of  farmers’  organizations  to  lower  farmers’  entry  barriers  to  adopt SRI, even though the political attitudes of some government bodies as well as the limited
capacity and attitude of agricultural organizations could also become barriers to SRI introduction.
This research also demonstrated that the social solidarity of rural communities in the RRD could bea source of competitive advantage because it could allow the Production Group to supply highquality crops without the use of pesticides and herbicides.
Although small-scale farmers in the RRD have limited capacity in the face of the marketoriented economy in Vietnam, this research suggests possible approaches to raise theircompetitiveness with community-level efforts towards safe crop production while tackling issues
related to the overuse of agricultural inputs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Prof. Dr. Pham Thi My Dung of the Hanoi University of Agriculture
and her staff for issuing research permits and assisting with fieldwork in the villages.
REFERENCES
Kada, R. 1998. Sekai Kakkoku no Kankyohozengata Nogyo: Senshinkoku kara Tojokoku made(Environmentally-friendly Agriculture in the world: developed countries and developing countries).
Tokyo: Nosangyoson Bunka Kyokai. Japan.
Khanh, T.D. 2006. Current status of biological control of paddy weeds in Vietnam. Weed Biology andManagement, 6(1), 1-9.
Plant Protection Department 2010. SRI application in rice production in the North of Vietnam. Plant
Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Vietnam.
Tripp, R. 2006. Self-sufficient agriculture labor and knowledge in small-scale farming. London: Earthscan.
Van Hoi, P. 2009. Pesticide distribution and use in vegetable production in the red river delta of Vietnam.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 24(03), 174-185.

Ⓒ ISERD

21