IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

Research article
erd

Contribution of Sustainability Rice Cultivation Practicefor Farmers according to SRP Standard: A Case Study of
Ubon Ratchathani Province, THAILAND
NARAT RATTANACHAROEN*
Graduate School of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan
Email: 46318002@nodai.ac.jp, narat.stou@hotmail.com

RYUICHI YAMADA
Graduate School of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan
Received 25 January 2020

Accepted 18 October 2021(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract: Sustainable rice cultivation is the goal of agricultural development in Thailand.
With that in mind, the Thai rice department started the Sustainable Rice Platform (SRP) in
Ubon Ratchathani Province, one of the most important jasmine rice production areas ofThailand. Previous studies have shown that most of the paddy fields were in the essential
level or “working towards sustainable rice cultivation”, the intermediate level ofsustainability, while non-paddy fields achieved an overall Sustainable Rice Platform (SRP)
score that allowed them to claim to be sustainable rice farms. The purpose of this study was
to identify the significant factors that affected sustainability in the group of practices called“SRP theme” and the constraints of rice cultivation development. The study was conducted
on 85 farmers in Det Udom district, Ubon Ratchathani Province, Thailand. Questionnaires
and in-depth interviews were collected. The results showed that farm size had a significant
effect on the Pre-planting theme (a group of pre-plating activities), water management andnutrient management for the SRP score; a larger farm can lead to higher scores. The
integrated farming system had a significant effect on farm management, harvest and postharvest theme. Paddy fields that used the integrated farming system accomplished higherscores. The certified rice program had a highly significant effect on farm management, preplanting, harvest, and post-harvest theme, including the health and safety theme. Moreover,certified rice programs for farmers (Organic, Good Agricultural Practice - GAP and
Sustainable Rice Platform- SRP farmers) enabled higher sustainability rice cultivation scores.
Keywords: rice, sustainability, organic, SRP, GAP, certification

INTRODUCTION
Rice production plays an important role in Thai economy. Thailand was a top-5 rice exporter in 2019with about 10.3 million metric tons (Startista, 2020). However, this occupation is currently facedwith multiple challenges such as global market competition (USDA. 2020), declining yields, thecontamination of agrochemicals, biodiversity losses and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) (G.S.
Bhullar, 2015). Rice cultivation accounts for more than half of Thailand's agricultural GHG
emissions (MNRE, 2013). As a result, Thailand is rated 20th of the world in terms of agricultural
CO2 emissions (FAO. 2018). It was found that farmers can reduce GHG emissions and make their
paddy fields more sustainable by improving some farm activities. The activities that affect theconditions include changing the way to manage water on a farm, the selection of rice cultivars,
nutrient management, and cultivation methods (H. L. Suihawati, 2018) that avoid the burning of rice
residue (Noppol, 2017). The Rice Department in Thailand started a sustainable rice cultivation
project in Ubon Ratchathani Province, one of the most important jasmine rice production areas ofThailand, by using the Sustainable Rice Platform (SRP). This standard was designed for farm-level
impact at the smallholder level and consists of 8 sets of actions called SRP themes, each with severalⒸ ISERD

148

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

requirements, for a total of 46 types of requirements for sustainable rice production. These include:
1) Farm management, 2) Pre-planting, 3) Water use, 4) Nutrient management, 5) Pest management,
6) Harvest and postharvest, 7) Health and safety, and 8) Labor rights. Farmers who want toimplement the program must be trained and improve their farming activities following the SRP
standards. Within each theme, sustainability can be shown by a percentage score. To improve thesustainability of rice cultivation according to the SRP standards, there is a strong need to identify thefactors that impact the SRP scores in each SRP theme in order to boost the farmer’s sustainability inrice cultivation, not only reduce GHG emission but also to improve farming efficiency and economic
aspects.
OBJECTIVE
This research aimed to identify the significant factors that affected the sustainability in the group ofpractices and the constraints of rice cultivation development in Det Udom, Ubon Ratchathani
Province, Thailand.
METHODOLOGY
The researchers collected both quantitative and qualitative data by using a questionnaire as aninterview guideline to assess the characteristics of farmers and their farms in October 2018. The
sustainable scores were calculated by using SRP standard version 1.0 developed by SRP and IRRI.
(Wyn, 2015) The sustainable scores came from 46 requirements based on farmer’s activities. If theactivity belonged to idealistic sustainable rice cultivation, the farmer would receive a high score onthat requirement. In contrast, if the farm activities were not sustainable, the farmer would get a low
or zero score. Total scores were calculated and presented in percentage to clarify the level ofsustainable rice cultivation on farms. Stratified random sampling was used to select farmers fromeach of four types including SRP, organic, GAP and conventional farmer, according to the farmers’
list of extension service centers in Det Udom district, Ubon Ratchathani. The total sample size of 85
farmers comprised 11.3% of the farmers on this list.
This study identified the factors that affected each SRP theme score. Eight regression analysis
equations were operated based on the 8 SRP themes mentioned previously. All the dependent
variables comprised the total score on each theme, while the independent variables were thecharacteristics of farms and farmers. All independent variables were entered into the equation at thesame time, as shown in the following equation.
𝑌(1,2, . .8) = 𝑎 + 𝑏1𝑥1 + 𝑏2𝑥2 + 𝑏3𝑥3 + 𝑏4𝑥4 + 𝑏5𝑥5 + 𝑏6𝑥6 + 𝑏7𝑥7 + 𝑏8𝑥8 + 𝑏9𝑥9 + 𝑒 (1)Where Y1 = farm management scores, Y2= Pre-planting scores, Y3 = Water use scores, Y4 =Nutrient management scores, Y5 =Pest management scores, Y6 = Harvest and post-harvest scores,
Y7 =Health and safety scores, Y8 = Labor right scores, X1 = the certified practice of rice farm(dummy variable: certified/ noncertified), X2 = education period (years), X3 = Level of integration
on farm (dummy: 1 component integration), X4 = Level of integration on farm (dummy: 2component integration), X5 = source of income (dummy: multiple income sources), X6 = labors onfarm (person), X7 = yield (kg/Rai), X8 = farm size (Rai), X9 = income (Baht).
The data were evaluated and explained in the 8 equations using Statistical package for social
science (SPSS) version 23. The demographic features and farming practices of sample respondents
were determined using descriptive statistics and content analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Almost all the farmers in this study were descendants of farmers (98%). Over half of them were aged
40-59 years (63.52%). Most of them were full-time farmers and had more than 10 years of experience(88%). They learned agricultural techniques from their parents and grandparents and observed otherⒸ ISERD

149

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

techniques from neighbors as well as extension agents. A common cropping system in the area is
integrated agriculture. They plant food plants such as basil, bananas, and weed grasses in homegardens and various vegetables as commercial field crops. The average rice yield was 352
kilograms/rai (0.16 hectare), while mean annual farm income was 117,936 baht. Moreover, half ofthe farmers' revenue (58.82%) came from their farms alone. The factors that give effects to the SRP
theme scores are provided in Table 1.
Table 1 Effects of farmer and farm characteristics on average SRP scores for each theme
Theme &
Constant

Certified
Practice(x1)
19.08(0.00)**(9.9928.18)

Education
Period(x2)
0.30(0.54)(-0.681.28)

Pre-plant
(Y2)
43.17

21.66
(0.00)**(11.8531.48)-0.45(0.39)(-1.520.60)

Water use
(Y3)
60.99

-2.22
(0.62)(-11.186.74)

0.20(0.67)(-0.761.17)

Nu mgt(Y4)
102.132.24(0.69)(-9.1313.62)-1.01(0.10)(-2.240.21)

Pest mgt
(Y5)
88.72

1.04
(0.76)(-5.837.92)-0.34(0.35)(-1.090.39)

Harvest
(Y6)
55.81

9.23
(0.02)*(1.1217.34)-0.25(0.56)(-1.130.62)

Health
(Y7)
57.21

9.61
(0.00)*(3.3313.90)

0.08(0.79)(-0.590.76)

Labor
right
(Y8)
91.69

0.10
(0.96)(-4.895.10)

0.17(0.51)(-0.360.71)

Farm mgt
(Y1)
29.36

Integration
component
1 (x3)
2 (x4)
3.25-11.27(0.47)(0.02)*(-5.83(12.34)
21.131.40)
1.75
-5.55
(0.72)(0.30)(-8.07(11.54)
16.195.08)
-3.51
-3.38
(0.43)(0.49)(-12.47(5.44)
13.106.33)
-7.98
-8.97
(0.16)(0.15)(-19.36(3.39)
21.323.36)
0.79
-5.37
(0.81)(0.15)(-6.08(7.67)
12.832.08)
-2.76
-9.99
(0.49)(0.02)*(-10.87(5.33)
18.781.21)
1.52
-5.51
(0.62)(0.11)(-4.75(7.81)
12.331.30)
0.38
-3.16
(0.87)(0.24)(-4.61(-8.585.38)
2.26)

IncomeSources(x5)
2.98(0.46)(-5.1311.09)

farm
Labor
(x6)
0.73
(0.74)(-3.745.20)

4.14(0.34)(-4.6212.90)-0.45(0.85)(-5.284.37)-4.42(0.27)(-12.423.57)-0.01(0.99)(-4.424.39)

6.69(0.19)(-3.4616.85)

0.04(0.98)(-5.555.64)-2.78(0.36)(-8.923.35)

2.41(0.16)(-0.975.79)

3.70(0.31)(-3.5310.94)

1.71(0.39)(-2.265.70)

2.86(0.31)(-2.748.47)

1.88(0.22)(-1.214.97)

1.43(0.52)(-3.035.90)

1.94(0.12)(-0.524.39)

Yield
(x7)
0.10
(0.12)(0.020.23)
0.03(0.66)(0.110.17))
0.06(0.30)(0.060.19)-0.04(0.61)(0.200.12)-0.01(0.72)(0.110.08)
0.05(0.37)(0.060.16)
0.03(0.46)(0.050.12)
0.00(0.83)(0.060.07)

R2
&
Radj
0.27
0.18

Farm
size
(x8)
0.03
(0.79)(-0.200.26)

Income0.30(0.01) *(0.050.55)-0.00(0.13)(0.000.00)

0.29
0.21

0.32
(0.00)**(0.980.55)-0.00(0.39)(0.000.00)

0.14
0.03

-0.31
(0.03)*(-0.060.02)

0.00(0.56)(0.000.00)

0.13
0.03

-0.10
(0.25)(-0.270.07)

0.00(0.24)(0.000.00)

0.10
0.00

0.00
(0.95)(-0.200.21)-0.00(0.68)(0.000.00)

0.13
0.03

-0.09
(0.26)(-0.250.06)-0.00(0.71)(0.000.00)

0.17
0.07

-0.08
(0.18)(-0.210.04)

0.00(0.64)(0.000.00)

0.10
0.00

(x9)
-0.00
(0.90)(0.000.00)

Source: Investigation by the author (2018)
Note: mgt = management, *p-value >0.05, **p-value >0.01, 95% Confidence Interval

The group of independent variables (x1-x9) statistically affected 6 of 8 dependent variables(SRP theme scores). All details are explained as follows:
Farm management Scores
𝑌1 = 29.36 + 19.08𝑥1 + 0.30𝑥2 + 3.25𝑥3 − 11.27𝑥4 + 2.98𝑥5 + 0.73𝑥6 + 0.10𝑥7 + 0.03𝑥8 −0.00𝑥9(2)Ⓒ ISERD

150

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

In terms of farm management scores, farmers were required to update their crop calendar throughout
the crop cycle, keep recording of all fertilizers, pesticides, and machinery operations as well as
calculated quantities of water use, seed variety, yield, and production cost. They also had to attend
training or regularly seek professional advice on farm management. According to the Y1 equation,
certified practice of rice farm (x1) and integration component on farm (2 component integration : x4)
are the variables that contribute significantly to farm management scores. If farms or farmers use thecertified rice practice (Organic, GAP or SRP rice practice), the farm management scores increase
because farmers must attain training, report their crop calendar, and detail their agricultural activities(such as cost, yield, profit, timing of machine operation, etc.) to the inspectors of the government
extension agent, while conventional farmers are not required to do the same. Furthermore, farmers
who used integrated agriculture techniques will achieve higher scores on farm management, morecomponent is more sustainable scores. In contrast, farmers who used a monocrop technique got lower
farm management scores when compared to the integrated rice farmers.
Pre-planting Score
𝑌2 = 43.17 + 21.66𝑥1 − 0.45𝑥2 + 1.75𝑥3 − 5.55𝑥4 + 4.14𝑥5 − 0.45𝑥6 − 0.03𝑥7 + 0.03𝑥8 −0.00𝑥9(3)
To achieve high scores in pre-planting, farmers must have the documents to prove that the soil is safe
from heavy metal and there is no risk of soil salinity. Their farms must not be in primary forest; thefarmland must be flat or be sufficiently leveled. There can be no invasive species and the rice seedmust be pure and certified or traceable. Y2 equation shows that the certified practice of rice farm(x1) and farm size (x8) is a statistically significant factor that can increase the sustainability of the
pre-planting theme. Certified rice farmers have the condition to check the safety of soil and thequality of rice seed. Further, they are not allowed to cultivate in primary forest areas. This enables
certified farms to have higher sustainability scores while conventional farmers have higher risk toachieve lower scores. Additionally, the farmers with bigger farm size (x8) can raise theirsustainability in pre-planting of rice farms. If farmers want to develop the sustainability of the preplanting process, they must check soil quality, adopt land conservation practices such as covercropping, install erosion barriers or laser land leveling to adjust farm area to fit in the appropriate
slope at least every 3 years. This condition increase the production costs on land preparation amongsmallholder farmers and transform into the constraints of sustainable rice farm development for small
scale farmers. Bigger size farm plots will deliver price efficiency compared with smaller farms andprovide higher sustainability scores.
Water Use Score
𝑌3 = 60.99 − 2.22𝑥1 + 0.20𝑥2 − 3.51𝑥3 − 3.38𝑥4 − 4.42𝑥5 − 0.01𝑥6 + 0.06𝑥7 + 0.32𝑥8 −0.00𝑥9(4)
The sustainability of water use is focused on the efficiency of water management, which is consistedof water quality check, timely and appropriate crop establishment, and sufficient irrigation systemand safety water drainage. It was found that farm size (x8) had a significant effect on the water usescore of the Y3 equation. According to the geography of Det Udom district, which uses a rain-fed
rice production system, one of the most challenging factors is the amount of rain used for ricecultivation. Even though the farmers in this area have a good understanding of the local climate andplan well about timing the operation of rice crops, only the farmers who have larger farm areas haveenough space to keep rainwater in a pond or other system for supplementary irrigation. Regarding
this factor, the sustainability scores for water use theme increased as the size of rice farms increased.
Nutrient Management ScoreⒸ ISERD

151

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

𝑌4 = 102.13 + 2.24𝑥1 − 1.01𝑥2 − 7.98𝑥3 − 8.97𝑥4 + 6.69𝑥5 + 0.04𝑥6 − 0.04𝑥7 − 0.31𝑥8 +0.00𝑥9(5)
The scores for nutrient management depend on the efficiency of soil fertility enhancement. Farmers
should use crop rotation techniques, as well as apply fertilizer based on the result of soil analysis andsplit the application of nitrogen fertilizers or use slow/controlled release / deep placement fertilizers.
Organic fertilizer must be the first choice to improve soil quality and must be applied in the nonflood areas. In the Y4 equation, it was found that a larger farm size (x8) can help farmers achieve
higher sustainable scores on nutrient management. Based on the interviews of the farmers, they prefer
to apply the organic manure on wetland or flooding periods of their rice farms. They believe that it’seasier and more effective than a deep placement fertilizer technique. For the farmers who have alarge farm area (and for who have the rainwater storage pond), however, flooding their paddy field
only for fertilizer leads to higher production costs. They choose to apply the fertilizers on dry land
instead for economic reasons. Even though it is not based on a complete understanding of nutrient
management, the action's result is appropriate for the situation. Furthermore, when it comes tofertilizers, a larger farm size provides more economies of scale, both in terms of cost and wage. For
all these reasons, large farms achieve higher scores.
Pest Management Score
𝑌5 = 88.72 + 1.04𝑥1 − 0.34𝑥2 + 0.79𝑥3 − 5.37𝑥4 − 2.78𝑥5 + 2.41𝑥6 − 0.01𝑥7 − 0.01𝑥8 +0.00𝑥9(6)
On pest management, farmers should understand and adopt the Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
technique for principal pest control on their farms. If farmers use a non-chemical methodology tocontrol weed, insect, disease, mollusk, and avoid killing rodents and birds, they achieve high scores.
In serious cases, pesticide and chemical substances are allowed to be applied carefully in the target
area following the label instructions. Pesticide application equipment should be calibrated andmaintained within the current crop cycle. According to the Y5 equation, there is no independent
variable on this equation that significantly affects the pest management scores.
Harvest & Post-harvest Score
𝑌6 = 55.81 + 9.23𝑥1 + 0.08𝑥2 + 1.52𝑥3 − 5.51𝑥4 + 2.86𝑥5 + 1.88𝑥6 + 0.03𝑥7 − 0.09𝑥8−0.00𝑥9(7)
Harvest and post-harvest scores are focused on the timing of the harvest; the rice moisture content
should be 21%-24%. All machines and equipment should be cleaned to prevent contamination. Riceshould be transported to the drying facilities within 12 hours and stored away from hazardous
substances. Rice stubble and rice straw should not be burned to mitigate GHG emissions. On the Y6
equation, the certified practice of rice farm (x1) and level of integration on the farm (2 component
with rice: x4) are the independent variables that significantly affected the scores. Farmers that employ
organic, GAP, or SRP rice programs must abide with the rules, which include not permitting farmers
to burn their rice straw or using contaminated harvesting machines. The conventional farmers in thisstudy burned their rice fields to save their production costs. However, it caused them to achieve lower
scores in this sustainable theme. Farmers who use the integrated cropping system will have various
kinds of agricultural commodities. To get their products, many activities will happen on theirfarmland and some of them can cause dirt or contamination in rice products. In that case, farmers
become more concerned about the effect on their harvest and post-harvesting activities. This will
help to increase the scores as well as the sustainability of the SRP. In contrast, farmers used themonocrop system and there was less concern about contamination, though it may cause lower
sustainable scores.
Health & Safety ScoreⒸ ISERD

152

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

𝑌7 = 57.21 + 9.61𝑥1 + 0.08𝑥2 + 1.52𝑥3 − 5.51𝑥4 + 2.86𝑥5 + 1.88𝑥6 + 0.03𝑥7 − 0.09𝑥8 −0.00𝑥9(8)
To achieve high scores, farmers should prepare safety instructors for all farm laborers, prevent related
accidents and disease work. Further, first-aid kits should be available on the farms. Calibration andmaintenance of all equipment should be done within the crop cycle. Training for agriculturalchemical uses is needed if farmers use chemical elements on the rice farms. According to the Y7
equation, the certified practice of rice farm (x1) was statistically significant to the health & safety
scores. Participation in certified rice programs enables farmers to learn the effects of chemicals on
human health and to learn how to protect themselves.
Labor Rights Score
𝑌8 = 91.69 + 0.10𝑥1 + 0.17𝑥2 + 0.38𝑥3 − 3.16𝑥4 + 1.43𝑥5 + 1.94𝑥6 + 0.00𝑥7 − 0.08𝑥8 +0.00𝑥9(9)Labor rights scores focus on how farmers address human rights, including the wage and safety
conditions for laborers on their farms. Under this theme, no children below the minimum age canwork on farms or be around hazardous work. Further, employers must provide education for children.
There can be no forced, prison or bonded labor. Laborers must have the right to join or establish an
association or organization to negotiate their needs, received wages, and other benefits according tolocal and national laws. On the Y8 equation, independent variables on this equation did not have astatistical effect on labor rights scores.
CONCLUSION
The results of the analysis showed that there were three important independent factors that affected
the sustainability scores of rice cultivation, consisting of 1) Certified program of the farm, 2)
Integrated component of the farm, and 3) farm size. The use of certified rice programs has asubstantial impact on 4 SRP themes connected to document certification and training which are theimportant part to be the certified farmers. Certified farmers have already received extensive training,allowing them to better manage their farms, comprehend the importance of farm preparation, andharvest rice in a sustainable manner. Integrated components affected the management of farms. Morefarm components would encourage farmers to focus on their management, which will be reflected intheir farm management score and harvesting activities. While farm size affected the rice productionin pre-planting, water use and nutrient management which is related with farm investment. The larger
the farm, the better the chances of being a sustainable rice farm. All significant factors suggested that
two major issues need to be addressed to improve the sustainability of rice cultivation, 1) All farmers
require adequate knowledge and sustainable rice farming techniques, and the simplest way to achieve
this is to urge them to become certified farmers. 2) Farm size cannot be changed easily; therefore,
the government should assist farmers in making more profit in the same way, which is through cost
reduction. Farmers must participate in the cost-cutting initiative in order to improve their farms
sustainable. However, this study was limited in sample size and needed to improve the equation.
Future studies should apply this topic with additional budgeting to devise more accurate equations.
REFERENCES
Ellis, W. 2015. SRP standard for sustainable rice cultivation. Version 1.0 [PDF], Retrieved from www.
sustainablerice.org
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2018. World food and agriculture, Statistical book 2018. 254 pp.
Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0IGO, Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/ca1796en/ca1796en.pdf
Gurbir, S.B. 2015. Sustainable rice production. Chapter 5 (107), Sustainable Agriculture Review, Springer
International Publishing, Switzerland.

Ⓒ ISERD

153

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

MNRE. 2013. Thailand’s third national communication document for cooperation with the UNFCCC
secretariat (UN climate change). 42, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (Thailand), Retrieved
from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Thailand%20TNC.pdf
Noppol, A. and Nathsuda, P. 2017. Practice for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from rice production innortheast Thailand. MDPU, Agriculture, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture7010004
STATISTA. 2020. Principal rice exporting countries worldwide in 2018/2019. In Shahbandeh, M., Retrieved
from https://www.statista.com/statistics/255947/top-rice-exporting-countries- worldwide-2011/
Susilawati, H.L. and Setyanti, P. 2018. Opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emission from paddy rice
field in Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser., Earth Environ. Sci. 200 012027.
USDA. 2020. Grains: World market and trade. United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural
Service. USA. USDA, Retrieved from https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/grain-rice.pdfⒸ ISERD

154