View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
1
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A REGIONAL
PROJECT PROMOTING AGROECOLOGY
IN THE GREAT MEKONG SUBREGION
Appendixes: Country Reports
Jean-Christophe Castella Jean-François Kibler
December 2013
FIN
AL R
EP
OR
T
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
2
Référence bibliographique pour citation :
CASTELLA Jean-Christophe, KIBLER Jean-François, Feasibility study of a regional project promoting
agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region, Vientiane, Laos, Gret, Décembre 2013, 113 p. &
annexes
Campus du Jardin tropical
45 bis avenue de la Belle Gabrielle
94736 Nogent-sur-Marne Cedex, France
Tél. : 33 (0)1 70 91 92 00
Fax : 33 (0)1 70 91 92 01
gret@gret.org - http://www.gret.org
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
123 A3 – Agroecology in Cambodia
APPENDIX 3. AGROECOLOGY INITIATIVES IN CAMBODIA
by Lucie Reynaud and Sereyvath Prak
This literature review focus on projects and experiences related to agroecology in Cambodia since
the last 20 years. However the literature review does not aim to be exhaustive. Some agroecology
initiatives are not mentioned due to similar actions implemented by several stakeholders, low date
available about results of the project and finally, limited assessment made on recent experiences.
INTRODUCTION
The agriculture sector plays a significant role in Cambodia as it contributes to 33% of the GDP in 2011
(Ambassade Française au Cambodge, 2012) and remains the largest employer, engaging more than
70% of the active population (Reyes, 2009). Agriculture is mainly based on rice growing with an
annual production of 2.3 million T and an average yield of 2.7T/ha obtained during rainy season
(Royal Government of Cambodia, 2010). The low diversification comes from vegetables, fruits
productions and some cash crops such as corn, cassava, soya or cashew nuts in specific provinces of
Cambodia. In Cambodia, agriculture sector refers to family farming system which is mainly based on
subsistence crops.
The agriculture sector covers the needs of national subsistence but many regions face food crisis
during bad production years, hence the need for sustainable food production system (Reyes, 2009).
The agricultural sector faces several issues: demographic concentration and lands ownership,
seasonal migration towards cities or outside country, lack of capital access, low fertility soils,
degradation of environment by deforestation.
Cambodian agricultural sector faces also some issues regarding (i) Water access due to lack of
hydraulic infrastructures. Water management remains limited as most of agricultural production
system relies on natural rain fall. Farmers are facing both kinds of problems with a lack of water
during the period of March to June, whereas they are also confronted during the rainy season
(August to October) to an excess of water. Now, actors observe irregular pluviometry due to climate
change. (ii) Market access as the government’s regulations concerning imported products are not
well implemented and lack of supportive policies from government.
ORGANIC AGRICULTURE SECTOR: HIGH POTENTIAL DESPITE MANY CHALLENGES
ORGANIC RICE PRODUCTION
In 2003, several programs led by GTZ, Oxfam Quebec and CEDAC began promoting the production
of organic rice among farmers (COrAA, 2011). The first initiatives on organic rice production were
thought for the international markets, toward USA or Germany, by establishing agricultural farmers’
cooperatives. Moreover organic rice production was often seen as the second step after SRI system
to fit organic standard’s certification. As SRI system already encourages farmers to reduce pesticides
and chemical fertilizers.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
124 A3 – Agroecology in Cambodia
Various Organic Rice Producer Associations have been established in the framework of the
Community Based Rural Development Program of GIZ implemented in collaboration of CEDAC.
According to COrAA some of them initiated a process of certification but with difficulties to manage
the Internal Control System. In 2010, over 8,000 hectares of rice land have been cultivated
organically and about 1,000 tons of milled organic rice was sold, most of it through CEDAC’s shops
(COrAA, 2011). Cooperatives face constraints which can lead to a decrease of interest in the organic
sector. Failure on exportation planning, land tenure problems, lack of access to capital which lead to
incapacity to buy all organic paddy, difficulty to assure the organic integrity of the product by internal
controls (COrAA, 2011). Data concerning ongoing activities and results of these agricultural farmers’
cooperatives are limited as reporting and monitoring are often managed by NGOs.
The Ibis rice program of the Wilde Conservation Society (WCS) Cambodia encourages practices
which do not endanger wildlife and do not lead to further expansion of farmland at the expense of
the wildlife, particularly the ibis (CORAA, 2011). Since 2008, WCS Cambodia program works on land-
use planning in Preah Vihear protected forest, in Northern plains of Cambodia. The Ibis rice project is
implemented in partnership with the Ministry of Environment and the Forestry Administration, and
mainly funded by World Bank Devlopment Marketplace, UNDP-GEF CALM project. The Ibis rice
program has been expand from 2 to 10 communities and now, concern around 10,000 farmers.
The project provides local communities with an incentive to engage in conservation, by offering
farmers a premium price for their rice if they agree to abide conservation agreements that are
designed to protect the rare water birds and other species that use the protected areas (Nielsen,
2010). At the beginning of the program, farmers were trained in SRI practice in order to promote
system of production without any pesticides use or chemical fertilizers. The program deals with two
issues: (1) low rice productivity in average yield 2T/ha (1.5 T/ha on old rice field and 4T/ha on field
located near forest) and (2) low pure rice seed production (farmers reach 85% of pure variety).
Recently WCS decided to change from SRI system to organic rice production due to the low level of
adoption among farmers (poor water management because of no irrigation scheme, no monitoring
phase foresee after training sessions). WCS intend to support traditional rice seed production as they
disagree with CARDI policy, where farmers become dependent on CARDI scheme of replenishing
seeds every 4 to 5 years.
WCS support in each community the establishment of Village Marketing Network, which buy organic
rice from farmers. Then the local NGO Sansom Mlup Prey, created in 2009 under the support of WCS,
organizes the collection and the delivery of the rice to mill. Finally, the Ibis rice is labeled as “Wildlife
Friendly” brand, following the certification standard of Wildlife Friendly Enterprise Network. The Ibis
rice is marketed in shops, restaurants and hotels in Siem Reap and Phnom Phen.
ORGANIC VEGETABLE PRODUCTION
The pioneering initiative in this sector is the Peri-Urban Agricultural Center (PUAC) created in 2001
and supported by the Belgian NGO Aide au Développpement Gembloux (ADG) (COrAA, 2011). ADG
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
125 A3 – Agroecology in Cambodia
Producteurs PUAC KFG
Restaurants,
Supermarkets,
Wholesalers,
Consumers
project aims to strengthen support to the production of high added value and chemical residue free
vegetables and the organization of the commercialization channel of the farmer production to hotels,
restaurants and supermarkets of Phnom Penh, thus directly contributing to the increase of farmers’
incomes (PUAC website, 2011). In 2009 ADG project was converted into an agricultural cooperative
since then, PUAC become autonomous and legally registered at MAFF. The cooperative has 2
hectares of land at Kampong Speu to implement research and development activities for trials of
new varieties and organic cultural practices (PUAC website). In 2012, 252 farmers were associated
and supplied the cooperative with an annual production of 60 tons of European and locals
vegetables. ADG’s strategy to improve the coordination between market demand and production is
based on (i) the creation of collective structure via the model of agricultural cooperative, (ii) the
establishment of participatory system for quality control and standards (their products are certified
Chemical Free and Fair Trade) and (iii) contract farming made between farmers and the cooperative
to agree on vegetable quantity, selling price and delivery conditions.
Figure 1: Vegetable supply chain pattern (Source: Goossens, 2012)
The agricultural cooperative targets local markets via short value chain. PUAC developed improved
services to its members though the procurement of agricultural inputs, trials, alternative pest control
and alternative fertilization advices, transport and marketing with the establishment of a market unit
called “Khmer Farmer Garden” based at Phnom Penh, and direct support to auto-promotion (PUAC
website). PUAC has developed partnership with COrAA and FAEC, one of Cambodian Farmer
Federation. In the recent two years, PUAC has lost some of its important clients and with it a
significant part of its market due to competitors who have been able to closely observe PUAC’s
business (COrAA, 2011). PUAC cooperative remains an ambitious and well-known initiative in
Cambodia that become a reference for many others stakeholders in the field of organic vegetable
production and commercialization.
In 2009, International Volunteer Center of Yamagata (IVY), a Japanese NGO, started to support two
village Women’s Association Farmers Association which were engaged in vegetable cultivation at
Svay Rieng province (Cheattho, 2012). IVY provides different services to farmers such as technical
support (training and materials), marketing assistance, management training and financial
monitoring.
The agricultural cooperative gathers 544 vegetable producers and buys 3 tons per month of
vegetables. During the rainy season the production dropped to 1 or 2 tons per month. Producers
group are established at village level. Among the group, one farmer is in charge of the collect of
vegetable productions. Collectors are key link in the production flow, as they coordinate farmers’
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
126 A3 – Agroecology in Cambodia
544 Producers
59 Collectors
20 Zone leaders
1 Cooperative
Restaurants, Hotels, Casino
production and zone leader’s demand. Two times a week, zone leaders bring vegetables to the
cooperative. In low demand period, zone leaders need to find others commercial circuit to sell their
products. In the contrary during strong demand period, cooperative collectors adjust their offer by
buying vegetables from non-members of the cooperative. IVY lend 4 000 USD to the cooperative as
cash flows in order to facilitate the beginning of their activities and to handle interval payments.
Vegetable prices are review and fixed every month with restaurants and hotels.
Figure 2: IVY vegetable supply chain pattern (Source IVY, 2011)
In 2010, IVY opened a shop in collaboration with the Provincial Department of Agriculture (PDA)
which provides a location and takes in charge all costs of office consumable. Up to now IVY play a
role in the supply chain, later on IVY plans to establish the Svay Rieng Vegetable Supply Association
which will be operated mainly by its members, and will establish a systematic delivery (COrAA, 2011).
The NGO planned to fully delegate the management of the cooperative and the shop to farmers. IVY
has started a process of quality control with the support of COrAA by a first training to set up an
internal control system (ICS) (Cheattho, 2012). 102 vegetable growers intend to obtain a certification
for chemical-free production (COrAA, 2011). In October 2011, the association has been registered as
a cooperative and officially recognized by PDA.
FROM INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT TO INTEGRATED AGRICULTURE
FAO introduced the IPM Farmer Field School in Asian countries (Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and
Cambodia) from 1992-98 based on Indonesia’s experience (Winarto T., 2004). Cambodia particular
background lies in the institutionalization in 1993 of a National IPM program carry out by the
Department of Agronomy and Agricultural Land Improvement (DAALI) of MAFF. The program aims to
enable farmers to grow healthy crops with high yields leading to production sustainability and socio-
economic effectiveness, while safeguarding human health and protecting natural environment
(Cheythyrith, 2012). The program commenced its activities as pilot phase from 1993-1995 with the
assistance and financial support from IDRC, IRRI and FAO (Chhay, 2002). In 1997, Cambodia joined,
as 12 others countries, the FAO Southeast Asia Regional Vegetable IPM Program with core technical
and financial support for farmer training from FAO and various donors such as World Bank, UNDP,
DANIDA, AusAID, EU […] (FAO website).
By 2000, the program has been spread in 14 provinces of Cambodia, focuses on rice, vegetables,
mungbean, chili and cassava productions. In 2002 Ngin Chhay, the National IPM Coordinator, assure
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
127 A3 – Agroecology in Cambodia
the need to promote IPM program as it brings a combine solution to many common constraints
faced by the Cambodia agricultural sector:
Low rice productivity and so, the necessity to obtain food security;
Lack of Cambodian farmer’ ability to manage crop production related to agricultural ecology
knowledge, particularly the relationship between insects pests and their natural enemies
(Bartlett, 2005);
Lack of trained personnel limiting the ability of Government to provide agricultural services;
Reliance on chemical fertilizers used on soils of poor quality;
Inappropriate use of pesticides (ecosystem damaged, hazardous on human).
Table 1: Yields and Farmer returns under IPM and FFS in Cambodia
According to MAFF (2012), the achievement of the IPM program refers to 160,000 farmers trained,
2530 farmers’ trainers, but also 673 district trainers from the agricultural department.
IPM program shows some disadvantages:
To acquire ecological knowledge is definitely not enough, and IPM FFS does not guarantee the
capacity of dissemination among village and adaptation
IPM Program is not relevant to all provinces, as farmer’s traditional practices are close to no
pesticides utilization in some area.
In assessment report figures related to yield measurement often seem to be a source of
argument due to high variation between areas.
In a Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) evaluation of the FFS approach in Battambang,
it was concluded that the FFS approach was fundamentally unsustainable and most of the
farmers who had participated in the Schools had reverted back to their old practices (Agrifood
Consulting International, 2005).
Others organizations have also contribute to the extension of the program with the implementation
of similar projects related to crop pest management. Srer Khmer organization - meaning Field of
Cambodia - is a local NGO established in 2002 by a group of former staff of FAO Community IPM
Program providing ongoing support after the FAO project ended in late 2001. DANIDA IPM training
project named - reduction in use of hazardous insecticides in rice - has been implemented In
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
128 A3 – Agroecology in Cambodia
Cambodia since 2000. The impact evaluation of the project conducted in 2004 shows a mixed
conclusion with the reduction of 43% in insecticide use from 2.9 to 1.6 applications per season and
decrease of pesticides volume of 64% mainly on hazardous pesticides. However the evaluation
reports also large differences in pesticide volumes between provinces, yield and profits were not
significantly affected by training, exposed farmers showed a pesticide use similar to non-FFS farmers,
and finally a limited diffusion of knowledge and practices within-village (Van den Berg, 2004).
DANIDA IPM project ended by the establishment of Agriculture Technology Services Association
(ATSA) which aims to carry over the achievements, impacts, networks and structures created during
the 5 years project.
D ISCUSSION ON IPM LEVEL OF ADOPTION
For Cambodian context, agro-ecology is an appropriate technique that is already applied by
indigenous people living in the North and North-Eat parts of the countries (Rattanakiri, Mundul Kiri
and Preh Vihear). National IPM program will conduct an assessment on SRI performance through a
SRI dissemination program using on-farm action research.
The director of ATSA and the assistant coordinator of the Department of Rice Crop of MAFF share
their experience and key achievements regarding IPM National Program. Farmers have a better
understanding and well use of chemical fertilizers (proper time, quantity required according to crop
stage growing). Rough estimation, 70% of farmers come regularly to the training. Only these farmers
are able to get good results and get a reduction of pesticides quantity.
D ISCUSSION ON FFS APPROACH
Farmers Field School - clarification of the definition -
FFS is a weekly learning process based on observation and analysis of the agroecosystem. In reality
the national program refers more to integrated crops management (ICM) than integrated pest
management, as it includes good use of fertilizers, identification of pest, theirs impacts and control,
and post-harvest techniques.
Different ways to implement FFS among stakeholders (MAFF and Srer Khmer), some NGOs have
adapted FFS to a “farmer to farmer extension approach” because FFS required too much time (20
weeks) and few farmers can joined the all process. When a farmer abandon, they usually send
another member of their family. Many donors used to support FFS as a dissemination approach but
due to the high cost required funding have been stopped. Many government officers working for
Provincial Department of Agriculture in almost all provinces were trained on IPM (intensive ToT
course). They are well qualified and appreciated by many employers in agriculture sector. This is a
significant impact of national IPM program.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
129 A3 – Agroecology in Cambodia
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE, A NEW TECHNOLOGY TOWARDS AGROECOLOGY
The introduction of conservation agriculture in Cambodia started in 2004 with the first
experimentations on crops diversification and direct sowing mulch cropping system (DMC) inside
rubber development project (2004/2008); implemented by Cirad a French agronomic research center
specialized on tropical agronomy. From 2008 to 2012, PADAC - project for the development of
agriculture in Cambodia - follows on this previous phase with DMC experimentations. PADAC is a
research-development project, implemented by the Ministry of Forest and Fisheries of Cambodia
(MAFF) with the scientific and technical assistance of Cirad using funds granted by French
Development Agency (AFD) (Boulakia et al., 2010). A partnership and complementary financing has
been found by USAID.
The project aims to develop sustainable and diversified productions for smallholders’ farmers by
conciliating agriculture productivity and environment in order to reduce poverty and ensure food
security. The project is based on technical transfer and adaption of successful experiences present in
South America to Cambodian context. DMC systems are based on the principle that soil is the main
capital and should be respected in its systemic functioning inspired from forest soil (Boulakia et al.,
2010).
PADAC designed conservation agriculture production systems focusing on corn, cassava, soybean and
upland rice. The creation of DMC has been developed and implemented in three pilot zones, first in
two districts in Kampong Cham province and then replicated in Battambang. In 2011 CIRAD has made
an assessment on the first impacts of DMC adoption among smallholders. They present their results
according to a typology of 5 farming systems built on various criteria: (1) soils localization (upland or
lowland) (2) the farm area and (3) the level of diversification. According to CIRAD (Chabierski and al.,
2011) the surface of DMC systems has significantly increased, from 180ha in 2009 to 370ha in 2011.
Conservation agriculture covers 600ha in 2012 and involves 700 households.
NB: Types 1 & 2 = 70% of farming system, Types 3& 4 = 29-30%, Type 5 < 1%
Figure 3: Main characteristics of the farming system of case study in Kampong Cham province (Source:
Chabierski and al., 2011)
Farmers face some constraints in the adoption of DMC systems: (i) High level of investment (ii)
Technical problems (iii) Conversion to perennial crops. DMC systems seem to require to control
complex technology limiting the adoption of CA by smallholders’ farmers. The abandon rate dropped
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
130 A3 – Agroecology in Cambodia
from 45% in 2009 to 18% in 2011. PADAC developed contract farming between farmers and agro-
industry processors to ensure the sustainability and extension of conservation agriculture.
SRI SYSTEM, A MAJOR INNOVATION IN CAMBODIA
The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) emergence and dissemination is associated to the
Cambodian NGO CEDAC - Center for Studies and Development of Cambodian Agriculture - with the
support of GTZ Rural Development Program (RDP). Since 2000, CEDAC has been promoting SRI
practice as an agroecological innovation in rice cultivation that allows farmers to increase their rice
production through a shift in the management of plant, water, soil and nutrients toward a more
favorable environment for the growth of rice plants (Koma, 2011). The introduction of SRI started in
two pilot provinces Kampot and Kampong Thom.
The improvement of rice productivity is one of the main objectives of any agricultural and rural
development program in Cambodia (Anthofer, 2004). MAFF has lent large credibility to this
innovative practice by setting up a SRI Secretariat under the coordination of DAALI and in
cooperation with CEDAC (Im, 2008). MAFF went further by including SRI practice in the National
Strategic Devlopment Plan (NSDP) and policy frameworks for 2006-2010, which aims to improve rice
production and contribution to poverty reduction of farmers in Cambodia (Im, 2008). Currently
several SRI training and dissemination programs can be found all over the country: governmental
institutions at national and local levels, farmer organizations, local NGOs as well as international have
been taking over this agricultural innovation and tried out in various context of intervention. SRI is
considered as the major agronomic innovation in Cambodia (Mund, 2010), which has spread rapidly
in the past 5 years in terms of number of farmers, cultivated land surface and stakeholders
involvement.
Several assessment studies (CEDAC 2004; GTZ Anthofer, 2004; MAFF, 2008; Vuthy, 2011)
experimented and concluded to similar advantages: an increase of rice yield from 40 to 60%,
minimize expenses of production as SRI requires lower amount of seed (50% decrease) and chemical
fertilizers (50 to 70% decrease), increase of farmers incomes and net profit. A further advantage of
SRI is its ability to show immediate results during the first season of production, which allows farmers
to get confidence in the technology and definitely facilitate the change from traditional practices to
news agricultural system as very often change is related to a risk for smallholders’ farmers.
In 2008, CEDAC estimated and published the progress of SRI in Cambodia. The table below
summarizes the key results of SRI dissemination. We can notice with regret the absence of farmers’
abandon rate from year to year.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Number of SRI farmers
28 500 3000 10,000 17,092 40,000 60,000 82,386
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
131 A3 – Agroecology in Cambodia
Number of Villages 18 122 350 815 1,397 2,500 2,685 3,023
Number of provinces
4 7 11 14 17 20 24 24
Average SRI yield (T/ha)
5 3.2 3.5 3.87 3.66 4 3.7 3.56
National average yield (T/ha)
2.11 2.07 1.91 2.1 1.97 2.47 2.48 2.4
Average SRI land area (ha/HH)
0.06 0.07 0.30 0.47 0.28 0.28 0.33 0.57
Total SRI land area (ha)
1.6 28.7 900 4,700 4,786 11,200 16,386 47,039
Table 2: Information on farmers' SRI practice (Source: Im Sothea, 2008)
Although SRI system shows interesting technical and economic assets (higher yield, lower cost) for
smallholders’ farmers, the use of SRI still remains limited. Several constraints can explain this
situation: (i) SRI increase labor requirement for weeding, transplanting and water management
cultural operations (Deichert and Koma, 2002), (ii) its implementation is difficult on big land rice
surface, (ii) few farmers practice the all set of the 12 principles (some of them are difficult to follow
in the Cambodian context such as minimize water or transplanting young seedling as most of
agricultural production system relies on natural rain fall), (iv) It takes several years for farmers
before they become skillful in applying SRI practices (Koma and Siny, 2004), (v) SRI requires intensive
training with a high demand for human and financial resources (Anthofer, 2004).
Now, challenges for SRI are to adapt this practice to different agro-ecosystems and different season
of production (wet and dry seasons), to ensure soil sufficient moisture but not continuously flooded
(water management is a limiting factor in Cambodia, few hydraulic scheme functional). SRI should be
combined with integrated farming system (fish, chicken raising, vegetable production) in order to
propose alternative to organic fertilizers preparation often see as a constraint by farmers and often
limited to compost (lack of materials, transport difficult to remote plots, required big quantity
4T/ha). There is a need to maintain access to technical assistance for farmers in order to ensure long
term adoption and dissemination of SRI.
D ISCUSSION ON SRI IMPLEMENTATION AND EXTENSION
All participants mentioned and observed a gap between the principles in theory and the
implementation in the field. For example, farmers never apply the 12 principles of SRI, but they can
still get good result by an increase of their rice yield. SRI has been design in the best condition but
agricultural innovations need to be flexible and adapted to the context. Then, why can we consider
SRI as a system of production, as we observe in the field that many farmers apply only some
principles among the all set? This could be a good perspective for SRI to combine this practice with
integrated activities such as animal husbandry, multi-purpose trees, and vegetable productions.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
132 A3 – Agroecology in Cambodia
The level of adoption relies on many factors such as the size of the rice field, family labor (only
husband and wife are not possible, there is a need for assistance from children). If farmers own big
land surface, they will usually used the broadcast method like in Battambang or Kampong Cham
provinces. Different external factors also affected SRI adaptation / adaptation during the last 10
years. For example in Prey Veng, Svay Rieng and Kandal provinces before SRI was applied more
widely but since last 10 years there is a significant decrease due to development of garment sector,
providing a better job opportunity for young people leading to reduce family labor amongst farmers.
Mr. Tep Sarem, member of FAEC, shares his experience regarding SRI production. According to him,
the best advantage of SRI is the increase of rice yield. However since 2008 he observes a decrease in
the number of farmers applying SRI practice due to migration to Thailand and the establishment of
factories (clothes, shoes, bicycles etc.) in some provinces such as Svay Reing, Preah Veng. Other
participants mentioned also two others reasons: the development of new rice variety lead to a
change in the technique and the importation of Vietnam rice (lower price and short-cycle production
= 99days).
Even if SRI production allows farmers to increase their rice yield, external factors influence the
adoption and dissemination of this practice. The young generation often sees job factory as a better
opportunity to increase quickly their incomes. This situation has a strong impact on SRI extension as
this practice required at least 3 members in the family. The lack of labor force leads to broadcast
method.
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE – AGROECOLOGY PRACTICES
Since 2010 GRET and CIRD, a Cambodian NGO, implement in collaboration APICI project which aims
to increase incomes and to improve the livelihood of smallholders’ farmers through the development
of sustainable agriculture. To reach this objective, the project is built on three basis: (1) to increase
diversification and interactions between different production sub-components of the farm in order
to decrease the use of chemical inputs by farmers; (2) to get high productivity through improvement
of production techniques to increase incomes from agricultural activities; (3) to strengthen producers
groups in order to improve local market access. APICI project currently targets 1300 smallholders’
farmers in 50 villages located in Siem Reap province.
GRET and CIRD refer to sustainable agriculture as a vast array of techniques and approaches that can
be chosen and adapted to fit specific circumstances, needs and resources of the farmers. The two
NGOs have been promoted sustainable agriculture at different scale from plot to farm management
to deal with poor soil fertility (sandy soil poor in organic matter, acidic pH) and low agricultural
productivity (conventional rice yield average reach 1.8T/ha in wet season in 2011 in Siem Reap
province). The training program is based on SRI practice, chicken raising (interactions between crops
and livestock), vegetable growing and agroecology practices on soil fertility management (compost
making, cover crops such as green manure plant, mulching, ramial chipped wood), on crops
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
133 A3 – Agroecology in Cambodia
protection (safety use of pesticides, preparation of bio-pesticides), on seed saving and production
(vegetable and rice), and finally, on integrated farming system via multi-purpose farm concept.
Among agroecology practices trained, most farmers apply solid and liquid compost preparation and
vegetable seed saving. They are particularly concern about soil fertility management and well
development of vegetable crops. Seed saving techniques allows farmers to reduce expenditures on
production cost. Farmers observe good result on their seed production as they mention better
resistance to diseases although some of them mention lower yield. The project will focus on other
agroecology practices to face pest management issue. Farmers require time to feel easy with
techniques and convinced on their effectiveness.
GRET and CIRD also developed a marketing component within the project. Ten vegetable producer
groups have been established at village level in order to improve the coordination between
production and market need. They gather around 200 members which cooperated with seven local
collectors to supply markets in Siem Reap province. Local collectors are key links in terms of
transport (producers are located far away from Siem Reap town, around 30 km); access to prices
information and adviser on market vegetable demand.
APICI project combines participatory and on farm research-action approaches by working in
collaboration with Tuk Vil research center and technical officers from PDA of Siem Reap in order to
meet small-scale farmers need and build technical references regarding the local context. One
principle is not to impose technical solutions promoted by the project, but much more to adopt new
techniques based on farmers’ capacity. Two experimental farmers are supported in order to establish
technical recommendations and 120 pilot farmers to demonstrate their application. These two
categories of farms represent “field tools” used to disseminate innovative techniques to the 1180
beneficiaries.
In 2011 Agrisud International a French NGO carries out a project on diversification of peri-urban
agriculture and malnutrition alleviation in Siem Reap province. The project implemented in
collaboration with Agri-Cam and Antenna Technologies has been supported 320 farmers in 8 villages
and created 1 sprirulina production. Agrisud refers to sustainable agricultural model as models
respectful of the environment, economically efficient, ensuring human development, food security
and health for the populations (Agrisud, 2011).
The project aims (1) to increase local agricultural production through the dissemination of agro-
ecology practices and sustainable agricultural models; (2) to improve agricultural products
marketing; and (3) to structure agricultural value chain through farmer group creation and
reinforcement (Logel, 2012). The NGO supports farmers on livestock raising (pigs and chicken),
vegetable growing, agroecology practices (compost, mulching, and crops rotation), farm economic
management and marketing and pre and post harvest techniques. Farmers have been increasing
their vegetable yield from 1.4 to 1.7 kg/m2, increase their monthly incomes and improve their level of
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
134 A3 – Agroecology in Cambodia
diversification. Although farmers start to diversify their production, there is still an important
necessity to have a better regularity of the offer at the village scale to favor marketing (Logel, 2012).
Agrisud has developed and implemented a technical-economic monitoring system to collect regular
data and analysis on vegetable growing in order to advise all producers on economic and technical
farm management and to guide farmers’ on cropping choice by highlighting more profitable
productions. To improve local market access, Agrisud strengthen producers groups and collectors by
initiate the establishment of 2 market units: (1) one short circuit supply by 10 producers and one
collector Sofitel Hotel thanks to the partnership developed with ACCOR group and (2) local collector
supply markets in Siem Reap town.
Agrisud International is also involved in the capacity-building and dissemination of agroecology to
other organizations. In January 2012, Agrisud organized in Cambodia a one week agroecology
training cycle based on their Best Agroecology Practices Guide. Among the participants, NGOs were
mainly involved such as Oxfam America, Srer Khmer, GRET and CIRD. The capacity-building program
aims at improving participants’ ability to disseminate agroecological practices by strengthening their
technical knowledge and pedagogical know-how (Agrisud, 2011). It is based on a transfer of methods
and tools for:
Understanding agroecology in its economic, social and environmental aspects;
Understanding interrelationships within an agro-system , between the soil, the water, the
plant, the animal and the landscape;
Mastering the management of an agro-system’s elements and the associated agricultural
practices
Preparing and conducting training on agroecological practices.
VEGETABLE SEED PRODUCTION
In the 80’s Church World Service (CWS) an American NGO was asked by MAFF to develop a vegetable
crop program. CWS participate to provide emergency seed and input for a vegetable producing area
around Phnom Penh, and to help establish the country’s first national vegetable crop research and
seed multiplication program (Brent, 1995). From this collaboration was established the public
research center named as “Kbal Koh Station” in 1985 with technical and material support from CWS.
In 1995, the NGO hangs over all the activities to the public station and so, became autonomous.
Since then the station is still continuing their operation with the financial support of ADB. The station
has 3 main missions:
Conduct research on vegetable to determine best adapted vegetable varieties;
Produce vegetable seed for farmers;
Provide training for extension services workers.
Currently the station produces approximately twenty different vegetable seed varieties, on their own
experimental agroecology farm, but also through collaboration with farmers. Their research focus on
varieties well adapted to local conditions (low land, rainy season). However, their capacity of
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
135 A3 – Agroecology in Cambodia
research is limited because of lack of financial and human resources. Kbal Koh station is not able to
cover all national demand. Seed varieties come from aboard and present high variability of quality.
Up to now there is no organization system in Cambodia for supplying seeds. Local seed supply is
restricted to Vietnam products with low quality; traditional techniques of vegetable seed selection
and production are not widely developed, and concern certain kinds of fruit vegetables (cucumber,
yard long bean, eggplant).
INTEREST AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE MAIN CAMBODIAN ACTORS IN RURAL
DEVELOPMENT REGARDING A REGIONAL NETWORK ON AGROECOLOGY
All of the actors involved in agro-ecological initiatives are definitely interested in taking part in the
establishment and the development of a regional network on agro-ecology.
Agroecology initiatives are present in several provinces of Cambodia mainly in the area around the
Tonle Sap. Most of the organizations implement different approach of agroecology, without making
direct reference to this concept due to its recent “introduction” in Cambodia. However common
references can be find such as friendly environmental practices, ecological system of production and
sustainable agriculture. Some participants underline the importance to consider and built the
agroecology network on common objective.
Why do we need to consider principles of the others agroecology schools and not directly stick to the
historical principles? Originally agroecology has been defined by scientists with 5 historical principles.
Through the years, this living concept has been modified by the contribution of different actors
(farmers’ federations, NGOs, civil society). Thus, the historical principles are the starting point of
designing sustainable systems of production, but all of them are expressed via operational principles.
Then agroecology is defined as a federative concept which gathers various forms of agricultural
system but sharing one common goal to reach sustainability. One example has been given: chemical
inputs reduction.
The technical advisor of ADG mentioned two main objectives that could be possibly associated to the
agroecology network: (1) Work efficiency among organizations; and (2) Higher visibility of
agroecology in Cambodia and GMS region.
Most participants are interested in:
- Sharing information on agroecology practices (development of innovations and adaptation to
Cambodia context);
- Sharing information on the dissemination of agricultural innovations;
- Publications on agroecology experiences in Cambodia;
- Doing advocacy activities to policy markers (especially regarding market control).
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
136 A3 – Agroecology in Cambodia
There are already existing agricultural networks in Cambodia:
(1). PROLINNOVA an international multi-stakeholders platform that promotes local innovation,
including farmer-led experimentation (Cedac, Srer Khmer and Padek are members);
(2). COrAA committee gather different stakeholders (farmers federations, private sector, NGOs) but
focuses mainly on marketing network;
(3). NGO-Forum is a platform of several NGOs involving on different topics such as the Pesticides
Reduction Network (PRN-C). It seems to be strongly managed by the committee; so members gave
little information on potential complementarities or overlapping activities.
REFERENCES
Agrifood Consulting International, 2006. Diagnostic Study, Agricultural Program, Cambodia, 2001-2012.
Program Concept Document Final Report. Appendix I, Review of the Farmer Field School Approach to
Extension.
Agrisud International, 2011. Capacity-Building Session for agroecological practices diffusion. Presentation
Report. February 2011.
Ambassade de France, 2012. L’agriculture au Cambodge. Service Economique de Phnom Penh.
Anthofer J., 2004. The potential of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) for poverty reduction in Cambodia.
Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development, October 5-7, 2004, Berlin.
Bartlett A., 2005. Farmer Field Schools to promote Integrated Pest Management in Asia: the FAO Experience.
Case Study presented to the “Workshop on Scaling up Case Studies in Agriculture”, International Rice
Research Institute, 16-18 August 2005, Bangkok, Thailand.
http://www.ipm-info.org/library/documents/bartlett_ffs_case_for_irri_workshop_2005.pdf
Boulakia S., Pen V., Sann V., Chabierski S., et Gilard O., 2010. Conservation Agriculture, a 4 wins solution for
rained agriculture in Mekong countries. The case of Cambodia. Background paper for Conference on
‘The Environments of the poor’, 24-26 November 2010, New Delhi, India.
Boulakia S., Kou P., San S., Lang V., and Chhit K., 2009. Five years of adaptative research for upland DMC based
cropping systems creation in Cambodia. A PADAC report.
Brent R., 1995. The role of Non-Governmental Organizations in Vegetable Research, Extension, Training and
Seed sector. Perspectives of ASEAN Cooperative in Vegetable Research and Development. University of
Kentucky, USA.
CAPS, 2011. Conservation Agriculture for Food Security in Cambodia.
http://conservationagricultureandagroforestry.org/cambodiaproject/57-conservation-agriculture-for-
food-security-in-cambodia
Chabierski S., Penot E., Tyneth L., Rada K., Sona S., Boulakia S., and Séguy L., 2011. First impacts of DMC
adoption among smallholders in Cambodia. Second conference on conservation agriculture in South
East Asia, 7th
July 2011. Royal University of Agriculture-Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Cheattho P., 2012. Workshop on Asian Network for Sustainable Organic Farming Technology.
Chhay N., 2002. Report on the integrated pest management (IPM) activities in Cambodia. The Cambodian
National Integrated Pest Management Program.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
137 A3 – Agroecology in Cambodia
Cheythyrith C., 2012. Annual regional workshop of USAID/IPM- CRSP for Southeast Asia. October 22-23, 2012,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
COrAA, 2011. Organic agriculture and Food processing in Cambodia. Status and potentials. Phnom Penh,
Cambodia.
COrAA, 2011. Inspection and certification of Organic Rice farmers. Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh,
23 March 2011.
Deichert D. and Koma Y.S, 2002. Experiences with System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Cambodia.
FAO Regional IPM program. Southeast Asia Regional Vegetable IPM Program.
http://www.vegetableipmasia.org/Countries/cambodia.htm
FAO, IFOAM and UNCTAD, 2010. Global Organic Market Access a project of FAO, IFOAM and UNCTAD.
Framework for Cooperation on Organic labeling and Trade in Asia. Executive Summary.
IFOAM & FIBL, 2012. Organic agriculture 2012: Key indicators and leading countries. The World of Organic
Agriculture – Statistics and Emerging Trends 2012.
Im S., 2008. The progress of System of Rice Intensification in Cambodia. Annual Conference Report 2006, DAALI
and CEDAC. Phnom Penh.
Koma Y.S and Siny S., 2004. An assessment of ecological system of rice intensification (SRI) in Cambodia in wet
season 2002. CEDAC Field Document, January 2004.
Koma Y.S, 2011. Building experiences with SRI development and dissemination in Cambodia 2000-2010, pg5-
11. Extract from Agroecology and Advocacy: Innovations in Asia. Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy (IATP) and the Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Devlopment (AFA).
Logel J., 2012. Rapport final d’activités: 1ère
phase d’intervention. Composante Agricole – Août 2012.
Mund J-P., 2010. The agricultural sector in Cambodia. Trends, Processes and Disparities. Pacific News #35.
January/February 2011.
Royal Government of Cambodia, 2010. National Strategic Development Plan Update 2009-2013.
Reyes M.R, 2009. Conservation for Food Security in Cambodia and the Philippines. A proposal submitted to
USAID-SANREM-CRSP. Office of International Research, Education and Development, Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia.
Scheewe W., 2013. Organic Agriculture in Cambodia – Latercomer with potential. Article written in German for
Ökologie & Landbau, Issue 4, 2012.
Van den Berg H., 2004. IPM farmer Field Schools: A synthesis of 25 impact evaluations. Wageningen University,
Prepared for the Global IPM Facility.
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/ad487E/ad487E00.pdf
Winarto T. Y., 2004. The Evolutionary changes in rice farming: Integrated Pest Management in Indonesia,
Cambodia and Vietnam. Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 42, No. 3, December 2004.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
138 A4 – Agroecology in Lao PDR
APPENDIX 4. AGROECOLOGY INITIATIVES IN LAO PDR
by Joël Coudray
In Laos, most of the stakeholders involved in agro-ecology consider it more as a philosophy or a way
of thinking than a simple set of techniques (SRI specialist in the Department of Irrigation of the MAF
stated that “SRI is more a technique than an agro-ecological practice”).
Agro-ecology is commonly defined or understood as a sound use and management of agro-
ecosystems or a good balance between all the components of the ecosystems (water, soil, forest,
wildlife, human, fauna and flora, etc.).
However the divergence of the definition of the concept “agro-ecology” appears on the use or not of
chemicals: some actors (mainly involved in the promotion of sustainable or organic farming systems)
exclude the use of any kind of chemicals as others (IPM, GAP, CA) propose rather a sound or reduced
use of chemicals and possibly their elimination as a final step of their action (nearly never reached).
Some of the persons met mention also that agro-ecology includes also a notion of balanced or
equitable development for the human people (PADETC slogan mentions “a balanced development
between environment, culture, human and economy) with:
food security and quality for everybody;
equitable access to natural means of production (soil, water, forests);
farmers’ organizations and association (strengthening of rural civil society) for a better
organization and equitable access to market, information and knowledge; and
equal access to quality and relevant education.
In addition, biodiversity conservation as well as protection and development of local knowledge
(techniques) and material (such as local seeds) is also mentioned as one characteristics of the “agro-
ecology” concept.
Main initiatives on agro-ecology in Lao PDR (see table and list of projects/organization in appendix)
We can distinguish 5 main practices or set of techniques related to agro-ecology in Lao PDR:
Organic and sustainable agriculture;
Conservation agriculture;
Agro-forestry and NTFPs;
System of Rice Intensification (SRI);
Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
Some practices could be distinguished as permaculture or VAC farming systems but they are
generally implemented within the framework of interventions promoting organic farming systems.
ORGANIC AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
139 A4 – Agroecology in Lao PDR
Some organizations consider sustainable agriculture as the old wording for agro-ecology (more
fashionable) and therefore organic agriculture is just one part of sustainable agriculture. Others
consider sustainable and organic agriculture as two very similar concepts and include the same types
of practices.
Anyway, organic and sustainable agricultures have been promoted for more than 10 years in Lao
PDR, mainly through ASDSP, SAEDA, PADETC, Helvetas (PROFIL project) but also by other
organizations like Oxfam, AgriSud, SNV, GAA, CIRAD (promotion of organic coffee in the Bolovens).
As a whole, those organizations have implemented interventions aiming at promoting organic
farming systems through the following activities:
Capacity building of farmers and agricultural departments staff on technical and marketing
issues;
Farmers or producers’ organization;
Development of efficient value chain;
Development of agricultural products’ processing through supply of appropriate equipment;
Certification and standardization of agricultural products (including organic and fair trade
certifications);
These interventions have given some interesting results with some good adoption rate (up to 50% in
some villages) of organic farming techniques, the establishment of 8 producers’ group in Vientiane by
PROFIL-Helvetas project (500 families involved in organic rice production, more than 200 in organic
vegetables production) and 2 producers’ groups for organic rice and vegetables set-up by SAEDA
association, as well as the development (through farmers’ organization, marketing and processing
facilities) of organic tea (in Paksong and Xieng Khouang by ASDSP) and coffee (in Paksong by
CIRAD/MAF/AGPC).
In general, the adoption of organic farming techniques is generally motivated by the 3 main benefits
of organic agriculture, i.e. (i) higher farm-gate prices, (ii) preservation of farmers’ and animals’
health, and (iii) preservation of the environment (including fauna and flora).
But the adoption of these techniques is also facilitated by several factors such as:
The limited use of chemical inputs in the conventional systems (what is very often the case in
Lao PDR);
A good capacity for village organization, depending on the village leadership and sometimes
the ethnicity;
A logical implementation strategy including farmers’ organization, capacity building and use
of local resources;
Interest of farmers, depending generally on attractive market and prices.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
140 A4 – Agroecology in Lao PDR
On the other hand, a certain number of constraints limit the adoption of organic farming systems
like:
Technical constraints: higher levels of labour force and production costs (for crop
management and production of bio-fertilizers/pesticides) and longer vegetative cycle period;
Socio-economic constraints: existing demand still limited (in spite of potential regional
opportunities for organic products), farm-gate prices need to be significantly higher than
“normal” prices to be attractive, higher needs for credit facilities (to cover additional
labour/production costs).
There is no formal national network on organic and sustainable agriculture but many partnership or
relationships between the public sector (MAF) and NGOs (like Helvetas for PROFIL project) or
between NGOs and NPAs like between Oxfam, Helvetas or CCL and SAEDA, ASDSP or PADETC.
One regional network (Towards Organic Asia, TOA) seems to focus specifically on organic agriculture
(PADETC is one of its members).
The action of other national or regional networks focusing on related issues such as civil society (Civil
society partnership development effectiveness, NPA network,), on farmers’ organizations (Asian
Farmer Association, future Farmers’ network with the department of cooperatives), on value chain
development (Sub-working group on agro-business) or on pesticide use reduction (Pesticide Action
Network Asia Pacific) can facilitate the development and expansion of organic and sustainable
farming systems.
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) INITIATIVES
FAO started to promote IPM practices in 1996 in collaboration with the MAF (plant protection
research centre) by the establishment of Farmers’ Field Schools (FFS) in Vientiane capital for paddy
rice production systems. The promotion and development of IPM practices for vegetable production
systems started 4 years later (2000) also in Vientiane capital. Since then many international/national
projects associated with local agricultural authorities (PAFO/DAFO) such as ABP, AgriSud, SNV, Oxfam
Belgium with ASDSP have also implemented interventions including the promotion of IPM practices.
In 2013, IPM practices are promoted and implemented at farm level in all provinces for paddy rice
production systems and in 8 provinces for vegetable production systems (Vientiane, Vientiane
capital, Xieng Khouang, Oudomxay, Luang Namtha, Phongsaly, Sayaburi and Champassak).
The IPM promotion, development and diffusion process can be described by the following successive
activities:
Training of PAFO and DAFO staff (on IPM practices);
Selection of target villages (no more than 2-3 villages per cropping season are allocated to 2
DAFO staff to maintain a regular follow-up and monitoring and ensure better quality of the
extension activities);
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
141 A4 – Agroecology in Lao PDR
Preliminary baseline survey, mainly on chemicals use and pest incidence at village level;
Villagers’ training (around 30 people per village for 3 days) on (i) use of chemicals and their
impact/efficiency (appropriate products and doses), (ii) danger of chemicals for
human/animal health and environment contamination, and (iii) poisoning problems (and
their related symptoms and consequences).
Participatory identification and definition (after the 3-day training) of a pesticide risk
reduction plan (at community level) according to the interest of farmers (at that step none of
the IPM practices have been introduced);
Follow-up and monitoring of the application of that plan by the villagers;
According to the interest of the farmers for further development of alternative pest
management, establishment (at farm level) of participatory research activities (plot with
traditional pest management compared with plot with IPM techniques);
Follow-up and monitoring of these activities; discussion and evaluation with the farmers of
the appropriateness of IPM proposed techniques.
The promotion, development and diffusion of IPM practices depend on the interest of farmers but
more particularly on the quality and the regularity of the follow-up (mainly related to the quality of
local trainers). Good village leadership is also an additional factor which facilitates the promotion of
IPM practices.
However, other factors not related to human/social aspects are also important determinants for the
adoption of IPM practices such as:
The implementation of IPM practices require more labour force;
IPM has no certification and then do not require additional production costs but on the
contrary do not generate additional incomes with higher farm-gate prices;
The promotion and development of IPM practices is much more difficult with farmers who
commercialize their productions with private companies through contract farming or in land
concessions (contracts 2+3 or 1+4);
The promotion and development of IPM practices is generally more successful in villages
where there are important problems related to crop diseases or pests.
An IPM network has been organized within the government, from MAF to PAFO (where in each
province there is one IPM responsible/expert) and DAFO (not every DAFO has an IPM technician).
This national network is definitely useful for the implementation of national/international rural
development interventions including activities related to IPM practices.
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE (CA) INITIATIVES
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
142 A4 – Agroecology in Lao PDR
The development of Conservation Agriculture (CA) in Lao PDR has mainly resulted from a strong
partnership between the AFD and the MAF for the implementation of CA-based interventions for the
last decade.
Actually the CA-based interventions find their origins in the PRODESSA when a specific component on
research was integrated to that rural development project and when research activities started in
2001 in Kenthao district (Sayaburi province).
Following that first initiative on CA, the PRONAE was launched (preparatory phase from 2001 to 2003
and implementing phase from 2004 to 2009) in 3 districts of Sayaburi province (Kenthao, Botene and
Paklay) and 3 districts of Xieng Khouang province (Pek, Kham and Nonghet).
In a second time, the PASS project (2005 to 2009) was implemented in four Southern districts of
Sayaburi province (Kenthao, Botene, Paklay and Thongmixay districts).
Finally the PROSA started in 2007 with the main objective of providing an institutional support for
the MAF. That project which was closed by the end of 2012 has also implemented farm-level
activities related to CA mainly in Savannakhet province (Outhoumphone district).
All of these interventions were funded by the AFD, managed by the MAF and implemented by CIRAD
in collaboration with PAFO and DAFO.
These CA-based initiatives have implemented three types of technical activities:
Research activities in controlled conditions (16 sites in Xieng Khouang and Sayaburi
provinces) mainly conducted by the PRONAE intervention;
Research and development activities in farming conditions (demonstration sites) mainly
undertaken by the PRONAE in Xieng Khouang and Sayaburi provinces and at a smaller scale
by the PROSA;
Activities of promotion, development and diffusion of CA techniques at village level on
o Farming systems mainly based on corn monocropping systems (with the integration
of legumes in association or rotation) in the 4 Southern districts of Sayaburi (by the
PASS) and in Xieng Khouang province (Kham basin and karsts of Nonghet district) by
the PRONAE;
o Farming systems based on extensive animal production with upland or paddy rice
(with the promotion of improved animal production systems through the
establishment of forage pastures) in Xieng Khouang province (plain of Jars and
Northern Kham district) by the PRONAE and to a smaller extent by the PROSA (in
Savannakhet province);
o Farming systems based on wet season paddy production (with the promotion of
direct seeding techniques and integration of a legume in the cropping cycle) in
Savannakhet province by the PROSA.
During the implementation of these interventions, the adoption of CA techniques has been quite
high, motivated by the positive outcomes of CA-based systems in terms of:
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
143 A4 – Agroecology in Lao PDR
Economic and technical performances: reduction of labour force or/and production costs and
increased yield or production;
Ecological issues: protection against erosion/siltation in sloppy fields with mono-cropping
corn systems (particularly in Botene district, Sayaburi province) and improvement of soil
fertility or productivity (in particular in acidic soils of the plain of Jars and Savannakhet paddy
fields).
After the end of PRONAE and PASS implementation (the sustainability of the activities implemented
by the PROSA cannot be assessed yet as that project terminated end 2012), many farmers who had
previously adopted CA techniques did not implement them anymore due to the following constraints
related to the promotion and diffusion of such systems:
No or limited access to market, in particular for legumes (resulting in limited association or
rotation corn with legumes);
Limited access to equipment for direct sowing (in non sloppy corn fields);
Limited access to credit system (for developing improved animal production systems) or high
level of dependency on traders for credit access (in corn cropping systems);
Lack of long-term technical support and slow adoption of innovative techniques;
Farmers’ perception (improved systems do not present significant advantages compared to
traditional systems, due to additional production and labour costs for pasture/fences
establishment and maintenance) and strategy (livestock is mainly considered as a source of
manure, for paddy fields in the plain of Jars, and more generally as a means of savings rather
than income generation or business) unfavourable for the adoption of CA techniques and
intensified animal production systems.
One of the main mandates of PROSA was to support for the definition of national strategy and policy
in order to promote, develop and disseminate CA within the country. In that way, the PROSA has
contributed to create the Conservation Agriculture Network for South-East Asia (CANSEA) in 2009
with 7 institutions from 6 different countries. The objectives of the CANSEA are to exchange
knowledge, experiences and technical expertise between the main stakeholders involved in CA
development in South-East Asia in the fields of research, development, capacity building on CA.
AGROFORESTRY AND NTFPS
The Forest Science Research Centre (FSRC) of NAFRI undertakes research programs on 3 main axes:
Protection and regeneration forestry: inventory of forest species and production of forest
seeds;
NTFPs and biodiversity: survey and inventory of different species, sustainable management
and use of NTFPs including conflict resolution between villages, NTFP domestication;
Botanical research with faculty of forestry and Darwin initiative (G-B)
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
144 A4 – Agroecology in Lao PDR
The agro-ecological practices related to agro-forestry and NTFPs can be distributed into 3 main fields
of activities:
Production of forestry systems with regeneration and protection forests (PADETC and SDC
with the collaboration of NAFRI-FSRC
Promotion of agro-forestry systems with plantations based on wood/commercial trees (such
as rubber, candlenut, Jatropha, palm oil trees) in association with rice, corn or
galangal/ginger cropping systems (SIDA project in collaboration with NARC and FSRC in
Sayaburi, Luang Prabang, Oudomxay, Luang Namtha and Bokeo provinces, 2004-2010);
Development and protection of NTFPs population through (i) promotion of development of
NTFPs into forest systems (SDC/NAFRI/FSRC project), (ii) improved use and management of
NTFPs (GRET project in 3 districts of Houaphanh province since 2010 on bamboo use and
management), and (iii) domestication of NTFPs (plantation of NTFPs, possibly associated with
traditional crops) like SIDA/NARC/FSRC project, AgroForex company in Phongsaly and
Houaphanh provinces on benzoin and GAA in Oudomxay province (Namo district) for 6 years
on cardamom.
In spite of encouraging results (like NTFPs domestication with AgroForex company and GAA), several
constraints limit the adoption rate of the different agro-ecological systems related to agro-forestry
and NTFPs:
Important promotion and propaganda for the establishment of monocropping systems of
rubber or cassava by the Chinese and Vietnamese;
Slow economic profitability of agricultural systems based on tree production;
High variability of fruit tree production;
High variability of prices (high variability of farm-gate prices of cardamom in Lao PDR and fall
of world price of rubber);
Significant labour force requirements that limit generally the adoption of those systems to
the “middle class” as the poor lack of labour and the rich lack of interest.
There is no real national network on agro-forestry in Lao PDR and related interventions depend
sometimes on MAF and sometimes on the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.
The researcher from the FSRC did not know much about the REDD or international conferences on
forestry organized by IUCN or FAO.
SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION (SRI)
System of Rice Intensification SRI) is based on the following characteristics:
Early transplanting;
Limited number of plants per hole;
Limited rice population density (in order to facilitate rice tillering);
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
145 A4 – Agroecology in Lao PDR
Intermittent and temporary irrigation (implying regular water drainage).
The first organization to introduce SRI techniques in Lao PDR was Oxfam Australia in Vientiane and
Saravan provinces. The Lao National Agriculture Research Center (NARC) conducted then its own
trials in 2001-2002 and concluded that “the likelihood of disseminating SRI throughout Laos is
extremely slim”.
That negative evaluation of SRI systems by the NARC was justified by the following aspects:
Impossibility to implement temporary irrigation during the dry season;
Impossibility to implement individual water management due to the design (plot to plot) of
irrigation systems in Lao PDR;
SRI systems need fertile soils or high quantity of organic fertilizers what is not realistic in Lao
PDR;
Difficulties for supplying large quantities of organic fertilizers in Lao PDR.
Then SRI techniques were re-introduced through 2 projects in 2006/07:
Pro-Net 21 (a Japanese NGO) demonstration trials in Thangone farm (Vientiane province);
The ADB-funded Northern Community Management Irrigation Sector Project (NCMI) with the
Department of Irrigation (DoI) of the MAF in 2 demonstration farms in Sayaburi and Luang
Prabang provinces.
SRI techniques were then disseminated by both of these projects at farm level during the following
cropping season:
In 2010, Pro-Net 21 (under JICA grant program) intervention did disseminate successfully
(yield objectives reached) SRI techniques in 7 villages of the 3 target provinces (Vientiane,
Luang Prabang, Sayaburi) for a total of 141 ha under SRI techniques conducted by 420
households;
In 2010, the NCMI project had promoted SRI techniques in 5 Northern provinces (Luang
Prabang, Sayaburi, Houaphanh, Xieng Khouang and Vientiane provinces) and 11 districts with
976 households (332 ha).
In addition, the MAF issued an official decree in September 2008 so that all the 17 PAFOs develop
SRI-based systems. As a result the DoI has been promoting since 2008 SRI techniques in all irrigated
areas and in 2010, the total area under SRI techniques (including NCMI and Pro-Net 21 projects) was
3625 ha for 10666 households.
Other interventions have been implementing in order to promote SRI-based systems since 2006.
Those interventions were conducted by different organizations such as CUSO-VSO, SAEDA, WWF or
ADRA Japan.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
146 A4 – Agroecology in Lao PDR
The SRI systems did give good technical and economic results due to the following aspects:
Good yield and much tillering;
No much labour force costs for nursery establishment and transplanting operation;
No much need in water;
Reduced costs in seeds per area unit;
Limited land for the rice nursery.
However, the SRI systems imply a certain number of technical and economic constraints such as:
Important incidence of rat damages due to early transplanting;
Important labour force requirements for water, weed and pest management.
As a result, the adoption of SRI techniques is facilitated by the following conditions:
Small farms and farms not much sufficient in rice (higher interest in rice intensification);
Small rice cropping areas or small individual plots (enabling easier water management);
Available and family labour force for the different additional tasks;
Good drainage conditions (better drainage conditions in dry season and in mountainous
areas like the Northern provinces);
Good soil (fertility) conditions.
The results of the NCMI project in terms of adoption of the SRI techniques have been relatively high
in Luang Prabang province (up to 60-70% in some villages) due to the presence of those favourable
factors (small paddy areas and high family labour availability due little external employment
opportunities during the dry season) and on the contrary not very good in the other Northern
provinces (due to low availability of family labour during the dry season).
At the DoI, no national or regional networks on SRI systems are known although these networks
could exist through the community of Japanese researchers or developers.
INTEREST AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE MAIN LAO ACTORS IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT
REGARDING A REGIONAL NETWORK ON AGROECOLOGY
All of the actors involved in agro-ecological initiatives are definitely interested in taking part in the
establishment and the development of a regional network on agro-ecology.
Most of the actors are first interested in sharing information, ideas and experiences in their own field
of expertise (“visit interesting and successful IPM cases in other countries” for the national IPM
expert), through:
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
147 A4 – Agroecology in Lao PDR
reports, publications, meetings, specific network websites;
study tours organized for farmers and national/international rural development
stakeholders;
training sessions for staff on specific topics;
exchange of expertise.
Beyond these expectations which focus mainly on technical (or socio-economic) issues, Oxfam Lao
country director has specifically mentioned that this kind of network should have a wider mission or
vision, including a philosophical common objective related to environment and human well-being
issues.
In general, these actors have also mentioned that this network could be a source of funding for its
own activities (organization of meeting, creation of website), for capacity building activities
(organization of multi-country study tours or training) but also for financing multi-country agro-
ecological initiatives (such as multi-country research & development projects).
Last but not least, a few NPA representatives (mainly from PADETC) have also mentioned that this
network could be a means of communication for promoting their own actions/activities and more
particularly for empowering the civil society and facilitating the recognition of NPA organizations (by
the government) as real and competent development partners.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ABP: Agro-Biodiversity Project
ADB: Asian Development Bank
ADRA: Adventist Development and Relief Agency
AFD: Agence Française de Développement or French Agency for Development
AGPC: Association des Groupements des Producteurs de Café du Plateau des Bolovens or Bolovens
Plateau Coffee Producers’ Group Association
ASDSP: Association pour le Soutien au Développement des Sociétés Paysannes or Association for the
Support to Lao Farmers’ Communities Development
CA: Conservation Agriculture
CANSEA: Conservation Agriculture Network for South-East Asia
CCL: Comité de Coopération avec le Laos or Cooperation Committee with Lao
CIRAD: Centre International de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement or International
Centre of Agriculture Research for the Development
DAFO: District Agriculture and Forestry Office
DHO: District Health Office
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
148 A4 – Agroecology in Lao PDR
DLMA: District Land Management Authority
DoI: Department of Irrigation (of the MAF)
DoPC: Department of Planning & Cooperation (of the MAF)
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization (of the United Nations)
FFS: Farmers’ Field School
FSRC: Forest Science Research Centre
GAA: German Agro Action
GAP: Good Agriculture Practices
GFS: Gravity-Fed Water Supply System
GRET: Groupe de Recherches et d’Echanges Technologiques or Group for Research and Technology
Exchanges
IAASTD: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for
Development
IPM: Integrated Pest Management
IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature
JICA: Japan International Cooperation Agency
LEAP: Laos Extension for Agriculture Project
LFP: Lao Farmers’ Products
LWU: Lao Women’ Union
MAF: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
NAFRI: National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute
NARC: Lao National Agriculture Research Center
NCMI: Northern Community Management Irrigation Sector Project
NGO: Non-Government Organization
NPA: Non-Profit Association
NRI: Northern Rural Infrastructure Development Sector Project
NTFP: Non-Timber Forest Products
PADETC: Participatory Development Training Center
PAFO: Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office
PASS: Point d’Application du Sud de Sayaburi or Application Point of South Sayaburi
PLUP: Participatory Land Use Planning
PRODESSA: Projet de Développement rural des 4 districts du Sud de la province de Sayaburi or Rural
Development Project of the 4 Southern Districts of Sayaburi Province
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
149 A4 – Agroecology in Lao PDR
PROFIL: Promotion of Organic Farming & Marketing in Lao PDR
PRONAE: Programme National d’Agro-Ecologie or National Program of Agro-Ecology
PROSA: Programme Sectoriel en Agro-écologie or Sector-based Program in Agro-ecology
REDD: Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
SAEDA: Sustainable Agriculture and Environment Development Association
SDC: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
SIDA: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
SNV: Stichting Nederlandse Vrijwilligers or Foundation of Netherlands Volunteers
SRI: System of Rice Intensification
SRS: Sustainable Rice System
TOA: Towards Organic Asia
VAC: Vuon, Ao, Chuong or Garden/Pond/Livestock pen
VAP: Village Action Plan
WWF: World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly called World Wildlife Fund)
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
150 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
APPENDIX 5. AGROECOLOGY INITIATIVES IN MYANMAR
by U San Thein and Aye Kyaw Swe
One of the aims of the Regional Project promoting agro-ecology in GMS is said to be fostering the
understanding of the principles of agro-ecology. Myanmar had been and is still undertaking nature
farming, organic farming or conservation agriculture or similar activities within the scope of agro-
ecology but people in related stakeholders in Myanmar do not used to express their activities in
broad agro-ecology term. In an attempt to evaluate the perception on agro-ecology of the
participants joining the workshop, a short pre-review questionnaire was delivered to each and the
collected opinions of the participants on what agro-ecology stands for could be seen as follows;
Environment related Agriculture
Study of ecology process that operates in agricultural production system
Conservation agriculture, one kind of environmental care
More efficient if we can apply proper sustainable agricultural practices in specific ecosystem
As per elevation, climate, cropping
Geology, agro plantation, environmental condition
Related to accepted definition of agro-ecology zones with similar climate and soil
characteristics and similar physical potentials for crops, livestock and forest production.
The remaining participants gave no definite answers.
U Nay Win paw, one of participants holds the view that the concept of agro-ecology is almost similar
to Climate Smart Agriculture in which permaculture is excluded (as defined by FAO). Climate Smart
Agriculture comprises integrated farming, conservation agriculture and natural farming. The
boundary of Climate Smart Agriculture excludes IPM. Here, Agro-ecology boundary consists of IPM as
one package with integrated agriculture. Permaculture has not been popularized in Myanmar.
Participants have no clear vision on permaculture as they didn’t have experience. The other domains
of Agro-ecology concept are already being practiced in Myanmar. Organic agriculture is popular in
Myanmar but not sure whether it is systematically performed. Daw Heather Morris, one of the
participants responded that Organic Agriculture can be recognized as standard organic agriculture
after certification. Most organizations here approach Sustainable Agricultural Practices. Scope is very
wide. She does not expect too much adoption of nature farming like permaculture. Dr. Htet Kyu has
referred four criteria to agro-ecology approaches such as sustainability, stability, equitability and
productivity. U San Thein, workshop facilitator mentioned the concepts of Dr. Gordon Conway on
agro-ecosystems and his similar criteria in his agro-ecosystems analysis during the 1980s.
FROM GAP TO ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
DEFINITION, PRECISION OF CONCEPT – CHARACTERISTICS
Broadly speaking, Good Agriculture Practices (GAP) approach aims at applying available knowledge to
address environmental, economic, social sustainability dimensions for on-farm production and post-
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
151 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
production processes resulting in safe and quality food and non-foods agricultural products. Each
region has its own GAP standard. ASEAN GAP module contains food safety, food quality,
environment management and workers’ health and welfare. Myanmar is in the process of setting up
its own GAP but meanwhile it is referred to ASEAN GAP standard. Use of chemical is not restricted in
GAP but may be applicable in a manner not to violate the required standard. Organic farming entirely
rests on natural materials, free from chemical.
The Codex guidelines specify that an organic production system is designed to:
“enhance biological diversity within the whole system;
increase soil biological activity;
maintain long-term soil fertility;
recycle wastes of plant and animal origin in order to return nutrients to the land, thus
minimizing the use of non-renewable resources;
rely on renewable resources in locally organized agricultural systems;
promote the healthy use of soil, water and air as well as minimise all forms of pollution
thereto that may result from agricultural practices;
handle agricultural products with emphasis on careful processing methods in order to
maintain
the organic integrity and vital qualities of the product at all stages;
become established on any existing farm through a period of conversion, the appropriate
length of which is determined by site-specific factors such as the history of the land, and type
of crops and livestock to be produced”.
H ISTORY OF INTRODUCTION IN MYANMAR
Over the whole country basis, Myanmar agriculture used minimum agro-chemicals until the present
day except for the commercial intensive areas of high-yielding crops production, exportable
vegetable and industrial crops production. Export–oriented production of pulses has led to excessive
use of pesticides since 1995. Tomato growing on the floating gardens of Inlay Lake of Southern Shan
State became profitable with the expansion of markets in the cities after 1980s and it had led to
excessive application of pesticides and fungicides in the Lake body. Environmental pollution and
health hazard become serious issue to the country and minimum use of agrochemicals and switch to
organic farming option are present day hot issues. Now pesticides problems of Inlay lake are being
tackled under the integrated watershed development project. Food safety becomes a great concern
to consumers particularly in high income layer. Access to Western market focusing on organic foods
also pushed the agribusiness people to turn to GAP or nature farming.
MAIN ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED AND PARTNERSHIP
Nitrogen fixing bacteria such as Rhyzobium culture was the early attempt to deliver as Rhyzobium
inoculums in pulses growing areas. Blue green algae and azotobacter culture had been promoted in
the same period of 1970s by MAS. Rhyzobium culture was commercially undertaken at CARI from
which it was delivered to all States and Divisions through the extension division of MAS. Due to
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
152 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
inefficiencies in the government distribution channels, the microbe based fertilizers application was
not actively adopted by farmers. In the hilly States under fragile ecosystem, INGOs applied the
natural resources management practices to support the sustainable livelihood programme. One
Japanese nature farming group introduced effective microbe (EM) in Myanmar around 1990s and the
EM–based farming was attempted to implement in Yezin Agricultural University in collaboration with
Myanmar Agriculture Service. Later main driver for organic farming is Myanmar Organic Agriculture
Movement Group (MOAG) which was established with the following objectives;
To produce the farm products in sufficient quantity with high nutritional quality.
To maintain and improve long-term fertility of soils.
To reduce all forms of pollution that may result from agricultural practice.
To maintain the genetic diversity of agricultural system.
To encourage the use of local resources.
To encourage the organic farming associations or groups for effective cooperation.
After the country switched to market economy system since 1988, trade and marketing of organic
foods such as organic rice, organic sugar, etc, were exported by private business group to a small
extent. Myanmar Fruits, Flower, and Vegetables Producers Entrepreneurs’ Association emerged as
key player since its establishment in 2006. MFFVPEA is affiliated to Union of Myanmar Federation of
Chamber of Commence and Industry (UMFCCI) which has all trade association of Myanmar.
Members of MFFVPEA increased from 500 in 2006 to 3000 at present. It includes the commodity
association specialized in fruits and vegetable farmers (producers), crop buyers (traders),
wholesalers, distributors, and exporters as well as the suppliers of support services. ( Cluster
Approach ) drawing members from this entire business chain.
MFVPEA plays various important roles mainly in the areas of;
Encouraging and supporting fruits and vegetable producers to be able to produce fresh and
high quality safe fruits and vegetable up to export quality and packaging standard
Enhancing coordination, cooperation and networking among the fruit and vegetable farmers
(producers), crop buyers, wholesalers, distributors, exporter and suppliers of support
services.
Major functions of MFVPEA are:
Intermediary between government departments/agencies and private sector
Advocacy and trade negotiation
Promotion, standards and quality development
Capacity building program for members through organizing and providing of seminar,
symposium, workshop and trainings
Exhibition, fair, market and other information provision, including business-matching
Overcoming logistical difficulties
Dispute settlement (mediation and arbitration)
Market research
F IELD OF ACTIVITIES AND MAIN INTERVENTIONS
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
153 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
INGOs such as GRET, and local NGOs applied some components of organic farming in their
sustainable agriculture development programme. These are compost making, ready made compost
(Zwe Myanmar), fermented Plant Juice (FPJ), fermented Fruit Juice (FFJ), fish Amino Acid (FAA),
chemical free plants and crops products. Vermiculture technology was also delivered from the
Agriculture Department. Private sector also played important role in use of organic based manure
such as mycorrhyza, trichoderma, and several other beneficial microbes. GRET in Northern Chin State
adopted the organic culture based resource management system.
MOAG is a only one responsible organization to issue the organic certificates in Myanmar. There are
three types of certificates: Organic Certificate for organic inputs, Organic Certificate for organic
farming, and Organic Certificate for organic processing. Up to now , two companies had already
applied for organic inputs and 12 farms and orchards for organic farming certificates. MOAG is
working with Myanmar Green Network which is a group working for environment in the whole
country.
MOAG is educating all of the stakeholders of organic movement in collaboration with NGO, INGO and
other interested public organizations occasionally. All of educators are graduated from foreign
countries both MOAG members and invited Guest Professors.
LOCATION AND SCALE OF OPERATIONS
GRET-CORAD had disseminated the organic based farming system in Northern Chin with the
following outputs:
98 Village Facilitators trained
• 1856 farmer group members trained
• 79 demonstration plots for testing organic fertilizers and SRI
• 30 Farmer Field Days (18 for SRI)
• 1697 farmers from 80 outside villages trained and 47 of them visited farmer groups
to practically learn.
Introduction of technology such as compost, dochakin, plant juice, charcoal acid had been started in
2006. Sum total of trials are 2561. GRET Monywa adopted Vermiculture for 10 beneficiaries in 10
villages (5 Monywa, 5 Yinmabin). Management advice extended to family farm (MaLaSaKa) for 29
beneficiaries (1 per village; 1 migrates). There are total: 818 beneficiaries from 30 villages in Farmer
Extension Groups.
For the public awareness of organic technology, organic seminars were organized by MOAG for the
five times from 2008 to 2011 as in the following chart. There are over 300 participants joining the
organic awareness training at UMFCCI hence up to now, there are 700 participants have undergone
awareness training. Dr. Than Than Sein, advisor to MOAG and trainer for MFVPEA is conducting
several trainings on organic farming, safe foods, beneficial effects of microbes, marketing of organic
foods, etc on demand from customers. She is conducting research on Spirula microbe (available in
old volcanoes of Budalin township) and the place is one of three sites in the world producing Spirula
which is high- value pharmaceutical products in Myanmar. The product is high potential for export.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
154 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
There are private producers specializing organic manure. There are more than 20 OA growers
especially commercial orchards ( Mango and Pomelo ) and input companies ( Shan Maw Myae and
Supreme Biotech Company Limited). In the consultation workshop, Shan Maw Myae Company
Limited explain about Organic product production and exporting products. He is a manufacturer of
organic fertilizers and organic foliar fertilizer. And he practice organic agricultural production (fruit
and vegetable) linking with Super Market. There are 60 branch market centers to distribute his
organic products (fertilizers) in Myanmar.
U Soe Myint, Marketing Officer, Supreme Groups of Companies explained his company’s production.
Based on wild rice and grasses grown in wet land delta areas, the company had set up the
biofertilizer producing factory in delta area (Pantanaw township) (the birth place of late U Thant,
former UN Secretary General) in Delta area. They purchased Australian made microbe for
decomposition agents. With successful marketing over three years, the company built another
factory near the bank of Inlay Lake (Shan State) from which old man-made floating islands.
Production capacity of two factories was 2500 tons of organic fertilizer a year. Their marketing areas
are Shwebo (heavy irrigated rice growing township of Dry zone), Bago region, Magway region and
Mandalay to some extent. Some are exported. The founder –owner of Supreme Company during the
private meeting said that their organic manure production obtained the ISO and higher recognition
status.
ADOPTION RATE AND FACTORS OF SUCCESS
In organic product exportation, certification is important for market chain. For local market, even
though real OA certification cannot get, if consumers trust producers, organic products can be sold
out. Microbiology technologies are introduced to farmers to be used at farmer level. Certification
body is existing in Myanmar. Organic Certification body checks the agricultural production system.
Since Myanmar agriculture does not customarily apply agro-chemicals, turning current practices into
organic farming may be feasible. There should be a market access and Myanmar should try to
acquire brand image to attract consumers market. There had been attempted to sell organic sugar to
European market around 2000. The sugar factory passed the inspection for certification. The market
access was out of link after Myanmar had been hit by US and EU economic sanctions due to political
reasons. Now the sanctions are removed and market opportunities now open.
Adoption rate by the project beneficiaries is steady in the INGOs –operated project areas. As long as
natural resources management practices are adhered, the use of organic inputs will be continued.
Sustained use of the organic or GAP farming practices will be questionable after the exit of the
INGOs.
In the market, there is likely to have the capacity to produce crop commodities by GAP standard first.
Then organic standard could be followed. According to Daw Tin Tin Cho, the participant from the
Ministry of Agriculture in the consultation workshop, the Agriculture Dept. has published GAP
standard book. They are in the process of drafting GAP standards for exportable foods and fruits and
it is submitted to the Minister for further presentation to the Cabinet. She said that the country is in
ready position at GAP standard of agriculture production but it is not ready for organic food
production at the country scale.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
155 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
CONSTRAINTS – DIFFICULTIES – LIMITS TO ADOPTION
The main difficult ties for organic agricultural production is market demand and price. It is difficult to
compete with the price of conventional products. For organic crop production, farmers can get risks
of yield, price. Cost for organic agricultural production is high for farmers. Farmers have not fully
understand physical properties of soils including microbe. They are now aware of fertilizers and
chemical properties. Dr Than Than Sein is trying to introduce microbe to be produced at village level.
Tricodama Fungi can suppress soil born plant pathogen. Weak IT system for database, therefore, low
efficiency to respond to need of members, other stakeholders and need of market.
Limitations are i) volunteer based, limited focus on specific model; 2) limited time and financial
resources against with expected activities; 3) weak IT system for database, therefore, low efficiency
to respond to need of members, other stakeholders and need of market
NETWORK (NATIONAL OR REGIONAL)
Sound coordination exists with other related departments with strong resources pool from
Institutions such as MAS, Myanmar Agricultural Produces Trading (MAPT) (now the name changed),
and private sectors ( Strong PPP). It could have linked with ASEAN GAP. New Zealand government
assisted with technical support the GMS countries to have a GAP standard with access to the regional
market. In the private sector, there has been offers from the EU countries for export of agricultural
goods at a good standard. Organic products will be also in larger demand if production becomes in
qualified standard.
PERSPECTIVES – PROSPECTS – RECOMMENDATIONS
For promotion of organic products, strengthening the private sector is needed for the following
areas;
Linkage with foreign investment companies for export of fresh fruits and vegetable.
Discussion with local and foreign people to invest in post-harvest industry for value added
products, e.g.value chain system improvement with GIZ.
Trying to establish cold storage facilities throughout supply chain system and exporting.
Enhancing the members capacity to participate and keep abreast with ASEAN level growers
Grouping of the contractual growers in compliance with GAP or organic farming std.
For sustainable agriculture development with pro-poor approach, more reliance on natural resources
should be encouraged. Nature and market should be placed first. Farming scale should be adjusted
with availability of natural resources since poor farmers have to rely on the natural resources, by-
products or farm waste as his inputs. It is necessary for him to maximize utilizing natural resources
and by products to meet nutrient requirement of his crops. Economic system design should be
integrated with self-supplied inputs in such a way that there should be minimum dependency to
market for inputs, maximum use of nature and by-product, medium production but low cost and
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
156 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
high profit. The need for natural resources management and pro-poor approach to livelihood
improvement will be the basis of executing the organic farming programme.
INTEGRATED FARMING
DEFINITION, PRECISION OF CONCEPT – CHARACTERISTICS
In the presentation of U WIN SEIN NAING from Mangrove Service Network(MSN) Small scale
Integrated Farming Practice for Rural Community in the Ayeyarwady Delta, he employs the
definition as follows:
“The integrated farming is concurrent or sequential linkage between two or more activities, of which
that at least one is aquaculture. That may occur directly on-site, or
indirectly through –off site needs and opportunities, or both. (Edwards, 1997)”.
“Earlier concepts in 1980s conceived integrated farming in how aquaculture and agriculture
enterprises cane be integrated. Integrated farming can be defined as systems where the output from
one subsystem becomes an input to another sub-system resulting in a greater total effect than the
sum of the individual sub-systems. Material input, byproduct or waste of one subsystem may be
flowing as an input into sub-system”.
(Lecture notes from Natural Resources Management Training by IRRI)
H ISTORY OF INTRODUCTION IN MYANMAR
Diffusion of “integrated farming” knowledge had been made primarily through International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI)-Myanmar project. Integrated farming systems hade been set up and
demonstrated in research based institutions such as Central Agricultural Research Institute (CARI),
Yezin around 1990s. It was known to the State level and regional level authorities leading to set up of
integrated farming locally named as “Bet Sone”. It was also understood as a rice-fish farming system.
Byproduct utilization was also considered. During the Socialist Regime, there had been country wide
attempts to adopt biogas based methane generation technology by installing biogas digesters in
most States and Divisions. The attempts were not however met with wide adoption except in few
places like CARI, Yezin. When integrated farming was designed after 1990, rice-fish farming and
biogas production and utilization model was constructed. Several experiments were also done by the
Zoology Department of the University of Yangon on safe use of pesticides in rice-fish farming around
1990-1993 (refer to Kyaw Myint Oo in the list of literature). Myanmar was not however made access
to the regional workshops on rice –fish farming technologies and adoption of integrated pest
management. After 1988 under the military rule, Myanmar was denied for access to most technology
update through several regional or international seminars or trainings. Adoption rate was rather
slow. After the Cyclone Nargis hit the delta areas and lower Myanmar in 2008 leading to over
100,000 death of inhabitants, several INGOs and UN agencies came into these areas and assisted all
possible ways of recovery from the disaster and livelihood improvement. Integrated farming
becomes one of the development tools at the community and households level and U Win Sein
Hlaing’s presentation in this workshop gives a good example for small scale farm. Commercially,
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
157 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
there has been a medium-scale integrated farming in Northern Shan State (outskirt of Lashio city)
which is quite successful until now.
MAIN ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED AND PARTNERSHIP
Community Empowerment and Networking toward Food Security, Poverty Alleviation and Natural
Resource Management in 50 Cyclone Nargis Affected Villages of Bogale and Mawlamyinegyun
Townships, Ayeyarwady Division, Union of Myanmar Project (GRET/MSN) (referring to U Win Sein
Hlaing’s project).
Integrated Pilot Farms: 3 villages in Bogale and 2 Villages in MLGN
Basic needed of supply inputs to setup an integrated farm (Household level)
Type of input Quantity Remark
Land (~ 90’ x60’) (+,-) 5400sq.ft near creek/ river
Small ditch 1 For water supply
Fish breeding water body 1800 sq.ft 4’ depth
Fish fingerlings 150 (recommended spp; Tilapia)
Vegetable seeds lot Multi
Chicken + chicken house 5 (hens + chick)
Piglet + pig house 2 > 3months old
Forestry seedlings >50 (sesbania, euclyptus tree,
Fruit trees 50 Banana sucker, Guava, other
Betel nut 50
Inputs delivered to small integrated farmers
Farm area: 90 ft x 60 ft (5400 sq.ft)
Fish pond area: 60 ft x 32 ft (water surface area 1432 sq.ft)
No. of fish fingerling stock: Tilapia - 120
No. of chicken breed: 5 hens + 20 chicks
No. of banana tree grown: 50 plants
Type vegetable grown: Snake gourd, Bitter gourd, Long bean, Roselle, etc.
No. of forestry tree grown: Sesbania 50 plants
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
158 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
Sample layout design of an Integrated Small Farm
A medium scale integrated farms locating on the outskirt of Lashio, Northern Shan State is currently
operating profitably. Field study could be conducted there.
CONSTRAINTS – DIFFICULTIES – LIMITS TO ADOPTION
According to Fishery Law, if fish pond is greater than the size of 50 by 50 ft. wide, the farmers
have to apply for license.
According to the Farm Land Law, farmer has to apply La Na 39 to convert paddy field to other
uses such as making pond, building house, etc.
If the beneficiary’s farmer’s plot is lying on the way water run-off ways, it is difficult to make
a fish pond. It will block the flowing water current and fish pond making is inhibited in those
areas.
Integrated rice- fish culture is not allowed in the leasable fishery area.
If there are sea eels, these aquatic species bore the soil of the fish pond bund damaging the
bund stability.
NETWORK (NATIONAL OR REGIONAL)
Myanmar Fisheries Federation (MFF) was established in 1998. Currently it is one and only NGO that
deals with fisheries industries and supporting aquaculture development. It provides recommendation
to the Department of Fishery (DoF) for grant of license on newly establishment aquaculture and also
to livestock and fisheries development bank to disburse loans for aquaculture extension. Although
the rice –fish integrated farm is usually too small in scale to draw attention from MFF, the problems
of fish ponds establishment should be addressed to make aware of them. Micro-finance policy is
needed in such integrated farming. There should be advocacy for formulation of fishery policy to
promote medium and small aquaculture production units which give employment to the rural poor
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
159 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
which will compliment the government’s agenda of poverty alleviate. In Myanmar, the concept of
agriculture as an umbrella covering crops, livestock, forestry and fishery had been faded after the
disintegration of Ministry of Agriculture into (i) Ministry of Agriculture & Irrigation, (ii) Ministry of
Livestock and Fishery, (iii) Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry. Under separate
jurisdiction of each Ministry, there are sector-bias policy overshadowing the integrated agricultural
development. Accordingly, expansion of integrated farming may encounter the sector bias policy
constraints which need to address to each Ministerial officials. In the reform agenda of the new
government, national land use policy will formulated in the near future. In this connection, policy
advocacy should be pursued to a prospectus comprehensive land use policy in so far as the
integrated farming systems is concerned.
INTEGRATED PEST-MANAGEMENT
DEFINITION, PRECISION OF CONCEPT – CHARACTERISTICS
“The use of all appropriate techniques of controlling pests in an integrated manner that enhances
rather than destroys natural controls. If pesticides are part of the programme, they are used
sparingly and selectively, so as not to interfere with natural enemies”. (L. Speerling and U.
Scheidegger, 1995).
A critical issue is how much should sustainability rely on outside inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides,
in contrast to the internal resources that are available on the farm. Internal resources are natural
parasites and predators of pests; algae, bacteria and green manure supplying nitrogen; under-
exploited wild trees and fish species; indigenous crop varieties tolerant to salt or cold injury; etc.
H ISTORY OF INTRODUCTION IN MYANMAR
After about 1980s, Central Agricultural Research Institute, Yezin had initiated integrated pest
management (IPM) application programme by offering training to its entomology staffs. When these
trainees receive the post graduate degrees from the oversea universities, the IPM unit was opened at
the Plant Protection Division of Agricultural Corporation (presently transformed to Department of
Agriculture). It was in 1986 that serious infestation of brown planthopper (BPH) damaged almost the
entire rice crop in central Java of Indonesia. The government of Indonesia asked the experts to
investigate this problems. The findings astonished many, particularly those at the policy level, since
they had been advised to advocate the use of chemical insecticides to control the infestation of
insects. To their surprise, the investigation team explained that in rice fields there are both harmful
insects, such as BPH, and beneficial insects; and most of the beneficial insects live on the upper parts
of the plants while the harmful ones are on the lower parts. When insecticides are sprayed on the
rice field, it is the beneficial insects which are killed first. The use of chemical insecticides in that
particular year was so high that they destroyed most of the beneficial insects, which primarily
checked the population of the destructive insects. It was the beginning of the evolution of IPM at
regional scale.
After 1986, Daw Heather Morris as Head of IMP Unit at Plant Protection Division of Myanmar
Agriculture Service, conducted several IPM trials throughout the country. She then worked for UNDP-
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
160 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
HDI programme and adopted the Farmers’ Fields School (FFS) approach to build the capacity of
farmers to learn pest management and IMP approach around 2003. With assistance from UNDP/FAO
–Dry Zone project manager Dr. David Kahan, FFS approach- based IPM was diffused throughout the
project villages in three townships: Kyaukpadaung, Magway and Chaung U of the Dry Zone areas. The
method was known to the senior officials of Agriculture Ministry. Agriculture Department attempted
to adopt the FFS-based IPM. The Department Head instructed all of his township extension offices to
open FFS throughout the country. But subordinate regional offices proposed the budgets of
constructing farmers schools around the country. Being told by the FFS specialists that FFS are
schools without walls and school buildings are not required, township officers withdrew their budget
proposals for school buildings. They let farmers come to their head quarter department auditorium
and teach IPM technology. It appeared that the government agencies do not understand the real
essence of FFS. Later on the FFS-based IPM training and farmers capacity building process are
primarily carried out by the UN-systems agencies such as FAO, UNDP and INGOs and Local NGOs.
MAIN ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED AND PARTNERSHIP
With support from UNDP- HDI-III project (MYA/99/006), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
implemented the dissemination of pest management strategies through Farmer Field School
approach in the dry zone of Myanmar. Its National Consultant, Daw Heather Morris had designed
and operated IPM programme by FFS approach in 2000- 2005. Myanmar Agriculture Service (MAS)
crops and disciplinary oriented researchers had assisted the programme as resource persons. World
Concern Myanmar, Yangon –based INGO had dealt with IPM programme from 2005 to 2012. GRET
has implemented natural resources management and pest management using FFS approach in Chin
State and Rakhine State. GRET Dry zone (Monywa and Yinmabin) integrated pest management and
safe use of pesticides through Certified Pesticides applicators. GRET’s partner is and Solidarités
International (SI). Metta Foundation, a local NGO also carried out IPM using FFS approach. AVSI
Foundation, an INGO also involved in FFS programme aiming to improve community capacity in rural
development through sustainable agriculture system.
ACTIVITIES AND MAIN INTERVENTIONS
Farmers are divided into groups based on similar cropping patterns, agro-ecological conditions and
location. Each group identified their problems and one representative presented their group’s
deliberation. Most problems had been solved by class room participatory discussion while some
problems addressed are solved by setting up demonstrations. Pre and post quiz test are conducted
to evaluate the impact of the approach. IPM modules often include the following items.
1. Learning natural enemies of crop pests (e.g., If coccinellid bettles are observed, then
chemical spraying should not be applied as these natural enemies reduced aphid population.
Learning experience to farmers)
2. Preparation of natural pesticides such as neem oil soap solution and neem extract solution.
Farmer’s learning by doing themselves in preparation of natural pesticides by materials
locally available. Let them convince by themselves of the natural pesticide without
environmental pollution nor toxicity.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
161 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
3. Compare farmers’ traditional pest control practices and IPM practices.
4. Comparison of farmers’ pest control practices before FFS and that after FFS.
5. Learning crops pest incidence.
6. IPM module including weed control in and around the fields and the reason why and the
method how; crop rotation; mechanical control; choice of cultivars;
Daw Heather Morris implemented the FFS based on the following principles.
School without walls
Plants are the teachers
Regular extension message
Learning by doing
Seeing is believing
Bottom up approach
FFS is by the farmers
Trainers are facilitators
There are several steps in Agricultural Extension Workers (AEW) Training program. Exemplary steps
are i) selection of resource persons for training programme, 2) training materials preparation, 3)
selection of trainers (facilitators), 4) selection of training location, 5) selection of farmers extension
workers, 6) organizing and conducting training for trainers (TOT), 7) identifying agricultural
constraints during training session, 8) sorting out the constraints and solving by school session,
demonstration, trials and outside technology, 8) evaluation of results from trials, 9) discussion of
results of field trials to other farmers by conducting field days and farmers workshops.
Implementation process slightly differed with respect to the agencies. The UNDP-HDI project funded
the programme and FAO implemented IMP with its national consultant. The government department
especially Agriculture Extension Department had participated in training or workshop session as local
resource persons. GRET’s FFS in Northern Rakhine State were implemented by their own agricultural
field agents known as animator without any training for trainer (TOT). The agricultural field agents
are trained by their agronomists. FFS methodologies covers trial fields and deliberations of
theoretical session once a week during the entire crop season. GRET in Chin State offered week long
training to farmers using a mix of farmers-led extension methods. World Concern Myanmar
implemented FFS by their own staffs who have strong technical background. They received TOT
about one week long. FFS methodologies include demonstrations and field trials. FFS graduates were
called Farmers Facilitators who share their learning with other farmers when they returned to their
villages after FFS. Swiss Foundation for Development Cooperation (SWISSAID) had not implemented
it but provided funding support to some NGOs for FFS.
LOCATION AND SCALE OF OPERATIONS
In 2003, 40 farmers (36 male & 4 female) from 17 villages of Magway township were trained for AEW
training. In 2003, 40 farmers (34 male & 6 female) from 29 villages of Chaung U township were
trained for AEW. In 2004, 40 farmers from 20 villages of Kyaukpadaung township were trained for
AEW by UNDP/FAO implemented FFS-IPM programme. Out of 40, 31 were male and 9 were female.
In 2003, 25 farmers from Letpadan and 5 from Thone gwa townships were trained for black gram
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
162 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
cultivation practices including IMP methods. IN 2003, 30 farmers from Kalaw townships and Taunggyi
townships were trained for soybean production inclusive of IPM approach. In 2004, 25 farmers from
Monywa and 5 from Mahlaing townships were trained for chick pea cultivation practices including
IPM methods. The former two and latter one focusing on crop- oriented programme were carried
out by FAO –Improved Legumes Production Technologies Project.
GRET in Northern Rakhine State conducted FFS/ natural resource management plus IPM and opened
51 FFS and trained 687 farmers. GRET-CORAD in Northern Chin State implemented natural resources
management programme including application of organic acids and natural pesticides in the project
villages. There were 3632 farmers from 185 villages in four townships of Northern Chin State. CORAD
is local NGO (Chin Organization for Rural and Agricultural Development) which is affiliated with GRET
in Northern Chin. In another project area, Monywa and Yinmabin townships, The project on
integrated pest management and safe use of pesticides through Certified Pesticides applicators is
implemented jointly by GRET and SI through a consortium). Training for Certified Pesticide
Applicators turned out 60 small or medium farmer Certified Pesticide Applicator beneficiaries (30
Monywa, 30 Yinmabin) from 28 villages (15 Monywa, 13 Yinmabin). In 2012, trained was conducted
in one 5‐day training by assistance from Plant Protection Division of MAS.
World Concern Myanmar had conducted 7 FFs and trained 131 farmers for IPM in Kachin State. It
conducted 5 FFs and trained 53 farmers in Northern Shan State. It was 4 FFs and 59 farmers trained
in Mon State. The programme was carried out during the period from 2005 to 2012. Metta
Foundation implemented FFS activities in three States as follows.
State/ Region FFS Farmers Acres Type of FFS
Ayeyawwady 31 567 772 Lowland
Kachin 14 283 211 Lowland
Kachin 20 488 289 Upland
S. Shan & Kayah 24 248 286 Lowland/Upland
S. Shan 60 1295 1067 Upland
N. Shan 26 253 193 Upland/Lowland
Total 175 3399 2818
VI. ADOPTION RATE AND SUCCESSFUL FACTORS (ADVANTAGES)
Change of farmers’ attitude and interests towards sustainable agriculture.
Growing realization of farmers about ill-effects of chemical pesticides
Farmers gain knowledge and FFS was viewed as learning opportunities for them
Yield increase in some place as reported from WCM-Myitkyina.
Participatory learning as an outcome of FFS.
Success in technology adoption (85 % of farmers expressed the success in application of
natural pesticides in Dry Zone project of FAO.
CONSTRAINTS – DIFFICULTIES – LIMITS TO ADOPTION
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
163 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
Limited impact had been identified by almost all organizations as one important challenges in
FFS-based technology transfer.
Lack of proven technology – not enough proven technologies to give an impact.
Difficulties in the use of chemicals – Without effective alternative, farmers still have to opt
for chemical pesticides.
No standard curriculum for FFS
Require Facilitators’ manual.
Not enough human resources (facilitators, resource persons and trainers)
Language barriers for illiterate farmers, particularly in remote townships.
Some resource persons feel that FFS is a costly method of agriculture extension and it is
concerned for sustainability.
NETWORK (NATIONAL OR REGIONAL)
Each NGO group was able to make its own action plan but all relevant NGOs accept the formation of
Core Group to make collective plan. There is no network yet from the side of NGOs. In the public
sector, there are some international development agencies and institutions organized the training
program for relevant country to participate, There is no regular contact for Myanmar with the
concerned organizations.
PERSPECTIVES – PROSPECTS – RECOMMENDATIONS
A review workshop had been conducted in 2006 by the organized efforts of the World Concern
Myanmar in Yangon and the key stakeholders expressed some recommendation. These are as follow;
1. Develop core group of master trainers and specialists. There is a need for constant feed
back and backstopping support to the facilitators by an advanced group of another level
of facilitators.
2. Curriculum development workshop should be organized emphasizing use of adult
learning materials.
3. Start the application of FFS on proven crops with proven technologies
4. Collaborate with research institutes
5. Define IPM extension methodologies and develop common understanding.
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE
DEFINITION, PRECISION OF CONCEPT – CHARACTERISTICS
Conservation agricultural practices involve man-made activities not at farm level but at upstream and
downstream levels. At community level, imagine that a village of hilly area locates on the sloping side
with forest on the top and paddy fields in the valley bottom. Without forest conservation, mountain
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
164 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
springs will be dried up and soil erosion will become accelerated causing flooding in the valley paddy
fields. Without regional or national level conservation policies and practices, the whole water shed
level ecosystems will suffer environmental, economic and social deterioration. A prime example for
the need of conservation and integrated watershed management is the current situation of Inlay
Lake, the second largest one in Myanmar. Thus conservation agriculture is addressed not only at
farm level but also at upstream and downstream level. Conservation practices range from farm level
to watershed level activities. Conservation agriculture usually meets at least three criteria: 1)
minimum tillage, 2) permanent soil cover, and 3) adoption of proper crop sequences (crop rotation/
relay cropping).
Conservation agriculture involves several components of natural resources including physical
resources (e.g., soil and water conservation), biological resources including pests and predators,
beneficiary insects, biodiversity, fisheries, rangeland, etc. in the farming activities from tillage, crop
care and management until post harvest operation. It may include conservation tillage or so-called
minimum tillage or zero tillage in which the seed is placed directly in the soil with little or no
preparatory cultivation. This practice is designed aiming to reduce the amount of soil disturbance,
lessen run-off and loss of sediment and nutrients. Conservation agriculture in broad term is known as
the way the sufficient foods are produced without degrading the natural resources or without
sacrificing the future generation needs.
H ISTORY OF INTRODUCTION IN MYANMAR
Traditional method of conserving soil moisture by inter-cultivation in the dry land farming is an age-
old practice. When the prolong drought occurred on the standing crops, dry zone farmer inter-
cultivate his field leaving soil mulch on the top of the field surface in order to minimize evaporative
loss of soil moisture and reduce heat stress on the crops. Similar case could be found in each farming
system under various agro-ecosystems. These practices are not documented yet.
Conservation attempts are well documented at the water shed level management. There had been
prolong and interrupted activities of soil conservation from 1915 to 1985 in the forest department
programme. Intermittent attempts occurred during the period from 1986-2002 and from 2002 to the
present. Environmentally sustainable food security and micro income opportunities in critical water
shed project in Southern Shan State was carried out during the period from 1996 to 1999 and that
from 1999 to 2002. The similar project (MYA/99/006) was carried out in the dry zone and
conservation agriculture was systematically and widely undertaken by UNDP/FAO project personals.
Mr. Volli F.P. Carucci, soil conservation and water harvesting expert from FAO project has established
several conservation measures in the dry zone project villages and he established the systems and
methods which were spilled over to the national soil scientists and young agronomists who involved
in the project. At present day, U Nay Win Paw, set up Farm Business Development Technical Group
and carried out the conservation agriculture in the water shed areas of Inlay Lake, Southern Shan
State. Dr. Kyaw Tint, Chairman and U Ohn, Vice-Chairman, Ecosystem Conservation and Community
Development Initiative (ECCDI) with their team members have brought about conservation and
management on ecosystem of natural resources with the aims of enhancing the socio-economic
development of the community through upgrading capacity building and poverty alleviation in
important water shed areas of Myanmar. GRET-CORAD project also consistently carried out the
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
165 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
agricultural development activities incorporating natural resource management practices in the
beneficiaries field plots. Several activities are done in Northern Chin State and the program
continued in the Dry zone project area. U Thein Su, Project Coordinator, Welthungerhilfe-Lashio,
Northern Shan State attempted to disseminate conservation agriculture and sloping agriculture land
technology-SALT in his project areas after 2008. U San Thein, the workshop facilitator, had been
carried out conservation agriculture as the project manager of the IRRI-Myanmar hilly regions
farming systems development project in Shan State (north and south) during 1992 to 1994 by
adopting the hedgerow planting, alley cropping and SALT technology. Soil and Water Conservation
specialist U Hoke Sann devised the soil and water conservation measures in Northern Chin Hills in
cooperation with GRET-CORAD and he offered series of trainings to the local communities.
MAIN ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED AND PARTNERSHIP
The development agencies mentioned in the above section are the major implementers involved in
conservation agriculture besides other regular activities. UNDP is the main funding support
organization which received funds from international donors and coordinated and monitored the
development programme. GRET received the funding from LIFT and ECCDI received support from
MERN, LIFT and UNDP. Food Security Working Group (FSWG), the largest professional network of
local, international NGOs. community based organizations and individuals with common concern of
all stakeholders for improved food security in Myanmar, also played coordinating and advocacy role
in development of sustainable agriculture. The main government agencies involved are the Ministry
of Environmental Conservation and Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation and the respective
State and Regional government bodies. A the water shed level, integrated water shed management
programme as in the case of Inlay Lake rehabilitation are implemented by a large organized body of
all the union and regional level government agencies, UN systems agencies, INGOs, local NGOs, CBOs
and individual researchers and development workers and the center piece of all the activities are
seen to be conservation agriculture.
F IELD OF ACTIVITIES AND MAIN INTERVENTIONS
Soil and water conservation measures are taken not only at the cultivated fields but at the forest
lands and waste and semi-waste land in the project areas. Contour soil bunds, contour vegetation
strips, percolation stone bunds, sediment storage bund, gully plugs, etc. are constructed across the
slopping lands along the contour lines. Monitoring of sedimentation and siltation are being
undertaken. These activities are intensively carried out in Shan, Inlay Lake water shed area, Chin and
Dry zone areas. No-tillage system has been introduced by German INGO in northern Shan State in
which maize cultivation plots are covered with previous crop residues and trash and planted with no
soil disturbances in the next crop season. Different tillage practices are adopted such as minimum
tillage, zero tillage, in -row tillage, in -line tillage, etc. in different agro ecological zones in Myanmar.
Conservation agriculture can conserve soil erosion. Crop residues can cover the soil and improve
fertility and rain water infiltration. As the soil is not exposed to sun, rain and wind, evaporation can
be reduced. Cover crop can reduce surface crusting and run-off. Farmers find difficult to practice
cover crop if it is not edible plant. So the selection of crop is important for cover crop. For example,
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
166 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
when the major crop is maize cover crop is bean in relay cropping system. Mulching with crop
residues may be subject to fire hazard in Myanmar dry land condition. In sugar industry of private
sector, sugarcane crop leaves and trashes are covered in-between rows to conserve soil fertility and
moisture. This method, termed as trash blanketing is applied by Australian sugar industry and the
method is transferred to the Thailand sugar industry. Myanmar sugar industry started adopting this
method after 2005. It enhance soil fertility, suppress weed growth, conserve moisture and prolong
rationing crop cycle. In Myanmar central zone, fire hazard could occur in the hot dry months. This
problem has been minimized by incorporating trashes into soil by trash incorporator machine.
LOCATION AND SCALE OF OPERATIONS
No-tilled cultural practice of German INGO was adopted by nearly 2500 households with nearly
twenty thousand population in Northern Shan. The project intervention areas are (i) Wa people
dwelling in 55 villages of Wa Self-Administered Region, (ii) ethnic minorities (Palaung, Shan, Lahu,
Kachin) dwelling in 26 villages of Townships of Lashio, Theinni, Namtu, and Kutkai.
Inlay Lake rehabilitation progress report of UNDP on outcome until 15 Oct 2012: Environmental
Conservation and Environmental Friendly Community Based Development activities enhanced
indicated the number of beneficiaries trained as follow;
After training, follow up field activities include construction of check dam, cut off drain, contour
bund in 120 acres of 8 villages. Other activities included field survey for soil and water conservation
works in 3 villages, ii) follow up actions on conservation agriculture demonstration plots and iii)
preparation of training materials for Conservation Agriculture and Land Management training in
Kalaw and Pindaya townships and 105 villagers are being trained.
ECCDI has implemented the program targeting 50 landless poor households in for mangrove areas of
Laputta township and 224 households in Inlay Lake water shed areas of Shan South townships. In
GRET-CORAD project areas, training on NRM subjects covered 28 staffs, 99 Village Facilitators and
1899 farmer group members particularly in the area of Land Management & Water Management.
There are 27 staffs trained on agroforestry. Through cross visit program, 1697 farmers from 80
outside villages were trained and 47 of them visited farmer groups to practically learn the
technology. About 219 acres of terraces for 602 households have been constructed. The Agricultural
Mechanization Department of the Chin State also assisted the local farmers to construct terracing by
their machines.
In the private sugar factories, trash blanket method has been applying by four sugar companies
covering over 1000 acres now.
ADOPTION RATE AND FACTORS OF SUCCESS
Conservation agriculture involves the cost item particularly in the hilly areas. It costs kyats 130,000
per acre for standard conservation agriculture in slopping area in Southern Shan State. In the poor
sector, loan or funding support to the poor households will increase the adoption rate. In Chin State,
the adoption rate is slow since the poor households have to find out their livelihood needs from most
part of their farm holdings while the small portion was allotted for terrace building slowly by slowly.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
167 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
In the project areas of ECCDI, it was reported that attitudes of the beneficiaries are not fully
cooperative yet. Weak commitment of the beneficiaries delay the establishment of agroforestry
plantation also.
CONSTRAINTS – LIMITS TO ADOPTION , PROSPECTS AND RECOMMENDATION.
As stated above, dual purposes of building up the conservation agriculture and seeking food security
for poor farm households are difficult to be met simultaneously. The external assistance may be
necessary to help them help themselves. Conservation efforts may not be sufficient at the farm level.
Several external threats and counteracting factors could be listed as: logging, agricultural expansion,
shifting cultivation, conversion of forest to plantations, conversion of coastal habitats, infrastructure
development, pollution, poverty, capacity constraints, lack of comprehensive land-use policies and
planning, undervaluation, lack of grassroots support for conservation, global climate change. A
comprehensive and integrated approach is essential to implement the sustainable agricultural
development and livelihood improvement.
U Ohn from FREDA identified the important imperatives which the Government should give the
highest priority to achieve the national goals of sustainable livelihood development and
environmental conservation. Some of these are 1) protection of soil, water, wild life, biodiversity and
the environment, 2) meeting the basic needs of the local people for fuel, food, shelter and
recreation, 3) participation of the people in the conservation and utilization of forest resources, and
4) public awareness. In the developing market economy system, it is high time to create payment for
environmental services system from the economic sector. For example, tourism industry has been
expanding around the Inlay Lake and several hotels are in the process of building and expansion. The
commercial sector of the tourist industry should share or shoulder the partial requirement of the
environmental conservation in general and conservation agriculture in particular.
SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION
DEFINITION, PRECISION OF CONCEPT – CHARACTERISTICS
The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) – a new approach to growing rice - has drawn much attention
since its emergence after the observation of Father Henri de Laulanié, during his work in Madagascar
in 1960s-1980s, on the maximizing the rice crop productivity by changing management of plants,
soil, water and nutrients. Basic principles of SRI are i) rice seedlings are transplanted very young
(usually just 8-12 days old, with just two small leaves), carefully and quickly to have minimum trauma
to the roots, 2) singly, only one per hill instead of 3-4 together to avoid root competition, 3) widely
spaced to encourage greater root and canopy growth, 4) in a square grid pattern, 25x25 cm or wider
-- 30x30 cm or 40x40 cm, even up to 50x50 cm with the best quality soil, 5) soil is kept moist but well-
drained, aerated and a minimum of water is applied during the vegetative growth period, and then
only a thin layer of water is maintained on the field during the flowering and grain filling stage, 6)
weeding is necessary at least once or twice, starting 10-12 days after transplanting, and preferably 3
or 4 times before the canopy closes. Using a rotary hoe - a simple, inexpensive, mechanical push-
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
168 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
weeder - has the advantage of aerating the soil at the same time that weeds are eliminated and are
left in the soil to decompose so their nutrients are not lost.
H ISTORY OF INTRODUCTION IN MYANMAR
In 2000, SRI was first introduced to the FFSs training plots under the project of Metta Foundation in
Kachin State. Their agricultural advisor Humayun Kabir decided to introduce SRI after two years
attempts to their FFSs. The rice yield of the next years was over 5.5 t/ha in the average. Since 2001,
Metta has conducted more than 600 FFS where SRI method has been delivered as the major strategy
in rice cultivation. After being practically trained in the Alam Training Centre of Metta Fondation in
Kachin State, the project team of GRET –CORAD had conducted different training sessions in
Norhtern Chin State addressing to the Village Facilitators (VF) selected by the farmer groups’
members (2 to 3 per village). The SRI method was mainly introduced in the Chin villages low land
fields. . In 2005, most of the concerned VFs were able to start small scale adaptability trials for the
Chin local conditions. Sharing of the outputs of the experimentation was done through the conduct
of Farmer Field Days in the demonstration plots of the Village Facilitators.
MAIN ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED AND PARTNERSHIP
Metta Development Foundation, being the main project stakeholder has been in the forefront of the
project. Three partner organizations as well as with the external funding agencies are MISEREOR and
Swiss Aid. Swiss Aid funded the entire activities of the project. Kachin Independence Organization
(KIO) has been an important partner of the project at local level. Kachin Baptist Convention (KBC),
the denominational organization of Christian Baptists in Kachin State, is another important partner of
this project allowing widespread trials throughout Kachin State. In later adoption of SRI, each INGO
and local NGO developed their own agenda.
Among other NGOs working with SRI in 2008 were : Gret in Northern Rakhine State, GAA (German
Agro Action) in Wa Region and Ayaryawady Region and World Concern in Kachin, Northern Shan and
Mon State. A Consortium of 20 primarily local NGOs, known as Food Security Working Group is also
supporting SRI trials.
With own initiative of the Rector of Taung Oo University, SRI method was adopted in 2009 on the 50
acres of the campus farms of 285 acres. Neighbouring farmers tried the method on their 1 -2 acres
first and successful adoption in the first year had led them to grow rice by SRI method on 100 acres.
In this 2013, farmers from nearby township Oaktwin are planning to adopt SRI method. The
University Rector Dr. Aung Thu are leading the research programme related to SRI and assigned the
relevant research topics to his faculty staffs. Research funding is however limited to its single
university source.
F IELD OF ACTIVITIES AND MAIN INTERVENTIONS
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
169 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
SRI and FFS are combined assuming that they will benefit each other – with FFS achieving maximum
benefits for farmer-participants while SRI will have greater adoption/adaptation. The first phase of
the SRI project by Metta Foundation started in 2001 for three-year period after initial trial year.
During this period (2001- 2003), the project established 258 FFSs in around 200 communities and
trained 5,202 farmers of which 4,080 were male and 1,116 female. Compared with the third year, the
scale of operation and the number of FFSs established in the first and second year of the project was
limited. Since 2004, a new phase of the project has begun for another three-year period. Under the
new phase in 2004 the project established more than 100 FFSs. The locations are Myitkyina,
Waimaw, and Lai Za of Kachin State.
Based on the conduct of focus group discussions in the case of Chin Gret project, the main
techniques adopted were 1) the selection of quality seeds, 2) the transplantation of young seedlings
(12 to 20 days) and 3) one seedling per hill. For other SRI practices (alternate water management,
manure application, frequent weeding), the FG members have acknowledged their difficulties to
cope with the existing constraints and external factors. It is important to emphasize that the SRI
method does not have to be considered as a technical package or a recipe but rather be adapted to
the local conditions with any necessary adjustments (such as timing, spacing, sol preparation,
weeding practices, and water management) answering to the specificities of the locations. As well,
innovating besides the recommended practices in order to favor the growth of the plants is certainly
recommended.
LOCATION AND SCALE OF OPERATIONS
After two years of experimentation (from 2004 to 2006) at small scale for testing the adaptation of
the SRI method in Gret-CORAD Chin, the Village Facilitators started demonstration plots on a bigger
scale in order to start diffusing the method to other farmers. At the end of 2006, around 225 farmers
in 15 villages of the four townships (Hakah, Falam, Tidem and Htantalan) had introduced the SRI
methods in their lowland paddy farms. The rapid adoption of the technology was obviously the
results of the wide dissemination of the SRI methods through the conduct of Farmer Field Days
addressed to the FG members and non-members as well as the experience sharing of the Village
Facilitators during various meetings in the villages. In Ayeyarwady Region, Metta Foundation trained
35 facilitators who conducted 35 FFSs in Laputta, Myaung mya, Pathein and Kangyidaung townships
A total of 688 farmers (617 male and 71 female) participated in the FFS schools. The project
distributed drum seeders and rotary weeders to the farmers to use with SRI method. A total of 633
farmers proceeded to cultivate 679 acres of rice by SRI. At Taung Oo University, there are 110
farmers –adopters increasing in the present year. In Oaktwin township, initial farmers were only 10
but it increased to 40 farmers adopting SRI in the present 2013. More than 100 acres are under
planting with SRI.
ADOPTION RATE AND FACTORS OF SUCCESS
According to the 2008 update of Mr. Humayun Kabir, adviser to Metta Foundation, estimated that
about 50,000 farmers in Kachin and Shan States are using some combinations of SRI method. In the
project of Kachin State, the average rice yield under SRI method was 5.5 t/ha compared with
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
170 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
traditional yield of 2.5 t/ha. As previously stated, since SRI and FFS are combined, they benefit each
other – with FFS achieving maximum benefits for farmer-participants while SRI will have greater
adoption/adaptation. As stated above, SRI is not a package technology but rather a combination of
the prescribed technology components depending upon the locality. As noted by Kabir, the
contribution of a particular technology varied from its single use to its combined use with other
technologies. For example, the contribution of better quality seed to increased rice yield was found
to be higher when it was used with SRI or with a better rice variety, or with both of them, than when
used alone. This was also the case with better rice variety and SRI. The rate of adoption of SRI along
with quality seeds and a better rice variety was found to be significantly high. The more the
combination of the technology components, the higher the rice yield will be obtained.
The advantages of SRI are 1) water savings (estimated at 25 to 50%) as the fields are not continuously
flooded and resulting in a higher productivity of the water which is a considerable advantage in areas
facing water scarcity, 2) higher land productivity by increasing yield per acre and by improving the
soil quality, 3) higher profitability to farmers, 4) environmentally-friendly method: the SRI has effects
on the environment such as lower water demand resulting in higher capacity to use water for other
purposes and reduced production of methane (as fields are not flooded).
CONSTRAINTS – DIFFICULTIES – LIMITS TO ADOPTION
Many farmers were not able to use compost and maintain intermittent water application as in the
rainy season controlling water is very difficult. During the 1970s, paddy high –yielding campaign was
promulgated with the promotion of transplanting young seedlings among other yield components,
paddy transplanters were reluctant to transplant very young seedlings. So adjustment had been
made for the seedling age and prescribed date of 10 days seedlings was increased to 20 days-old
seedlings for favour of paddy transplanters. This problem is likely to encounter in SRI method.
NETWORK (NATIONAL OR REGIONAL)
The role of Agriculture Ministry is missing in this SRI adoption process. The Ministry is focusing on
hybrid rice which is also found to be high potential in irrigated tracts by working with better–off
farmers. Farmers who adopt SRI do not require excessive inputs. No method is fit for all places. With
the background information of agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions, a matching exercise
could be done to select locality for a particular method. This is a national scale exercise. This will be
supportive to potential development agency to work on SRI method. With such data base, there
should be a net work of development agencies, either public, NGOs or private sector who could
engage with rice yield enhancement programme involving SRI and related technology components.
PERSPECTIVES – PROSPECTS – RECOMMENDATIONS
Further reduction in labour requirement of SRI will enhance adoption rate. The main labour
requirement was observed to be at transplanting time and weeding time. A standard paddy weeder
should be introduced and reproduced in local blacksmith or workshop. An artistic skill of field leveling
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
171 A5 – Agroecology in Myanmar
should be practiced among the beneficiaries in simple and easy way. The cost of producing rice with
SRI practices was found to be just as one-third of what is needed with the traditional practices.
Hence the SRI technology is pro-poor method and it should be promoted in the country’s current
poverty reduction agenda.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
172 A6 – Agroecology in Thailand
APPENDIX 6. AGROECOLOGY INITIATIVES IN THAILAND
by Jean-Christophe Castella
RECENT HISTORY OF AGRICULTURE IN THAILAND: EMERGENCE OF A DUAL AGRICULTURE
Since 1960, the agriculture sector has been Thailand’s main engine of economic growth, with annual
growth in the sector of 4-5 percent in the 1960s and 1970s. In the mid-1980s, manufactured exports
overtook agricultural exports in importance, but agriculture still accounted for a large share of
employment; provided raw materials for agribusiness; and, continued to ensure household food
security. The growth in agriculture in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s resulted from land expansion from
forests combined with the application of green revolution techniques. To increase the productivity,
intensive use of agricultural machines, chemical fertilizer, herbicide and insecticide spread over the
country. After two decades the problems from intensive agriculture appeared in 1980s.
Generalization of intensive mono-cropping techniques combined with inappropriate use of agro-
chemicals has resulted in soil erosion and soil exhaustion and lower productivity. Many farmers
became dependent on the use of pesticides leading to indebtedness and health damage from
intensive use of herbicide and insecticide.
Today, the country is the world’s first-ranked exporter for rice, tapioca and fruit and comes third
among to sugar exporters. The value of Thai agricultural and food exports accounts for 60 percent of
Thailand’s total export. The sector, which involves about 30 million people or 50% of the Thai
population, has a dual structure. Large-scale commercial farmers, who produce mainly for agro-
industries and export markets, produce side-by-side with small-scale subsistence farmers, who
struggle to produce for household consumption and domestic markets. These small-scale farmers
typically own about 2.5-3 ha of land. They are approximately 50% of the total farm population, but
contribute only 25% of the total market value of agricultural production. The poorest group of small-
scale farmers are those who reside in rainfed areas with scarce resources, limited opportunities, and
poor access to markets. They are producing food for their own consumption, and selling the surplus
to earn some income. If farm income is insufficient, off-farm employment is important for such
farmers. This group of small-scale farmers is estimated at 8 million households, using about 4 million
ha of land.
Thai government’s agricultural policy remains focused on achieving maximum crop productivity
through the use of agro-chemicals if necessary. Investments into agro-industry and export-oriented
agricultural commodities have increased steadily over the recent decades. Agroecology-based
sustainable agriculture is seen as an alternative solution for smallholders who wish to farm
differently from mainstream agriculture, which is mainly responding to market forces.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
173 A6 – Agroecology in Thailand
ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
H ISTORY
The ‘green revolution’ techniques of the 1970s were not adopted by all farmers. Around early 1980s,
farmers and local non-government organizations (NGOs) joint their forces to establish the Alternative
Agriculture Network (AAN). The AAN supports experience sharing and policy advocacy for sustainable
agriculture, including organic farming. The AAN at present constitute the core of the organic and
sustainable agriculture movement in Thailand. The early pioneers in organic project are the non-
governmental organizations. Aiming at promoting sustainable farming practices, NGOs under AAN
umbrella organized organic conversion programme and developed organic farming technologies.
Their strategies emphasize farmers’ awareness on the negative impacts of agro-chemicals and the
undue dependency on external markets and promote indigenous knowledge of sustainable farming
practices through seminar, research, study tour, and individual on-farm experiments. Some NGOs
also initiated fair trade programmes for domestic and/or export markets. Their main targets are
small-scale producers and marginalized farmers. The AAN saw the importance of organic certification
and forged cooperation with consumer and environmental movements to establish a national
organic certification body in mid 1990s. The organic cum fair trade projects constitute a large part of
the organic movement until today.
The agribusiness sector also initiated organic projects. Local entrepreneurs with linkages to overseas
markets have seen business opportunities in the emerging organic markets. As they often lack
knowledge on organic production, they engage local researchers and government agencies in helping
them with farms’ conversion. They also tend to use services of foreign organic certification bodies as
suggested by their overseas trading partners. These early pioneers appear to be the large-scale
business with export facilities, however, as the domestic market emerges, more and more of smaller
local business and entrepreneurs come into the scene. In the last few year, several new organic
business projects were launched and have become important actors in the Thai organic movement.
The collapse of the Thai economy in 1998 had both positive and negative implications: it encouraged
more organic conversion as agro-chemical farm inputs became more expensive and Thai organic
exports were more competitive but it slowed down the growth of domestic markets due to tight
financial flow. The active engagement of the government in organic agriculture since the early 2000s
helped farm conversion to organic practices for both domestic market and exports. Thailand’s
National Agenda on Organic Agriculture invested 1.2 billion baht (US$ 39 million) on the promotion
of organic agriculture over four years (2005-2008). Since 2008, the government began a 5-year
National Organic Development Plan (NODP) and a 5-year Action Plan. Out of the 4 core development
strategies, one focus was on knowledge and innovation. The plan was developed by various
government agencies from 3 main ministries: Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative, Ministry of
Commerce, and Ministry of Science and Technology and coordinated by the National Economic and
Social Development Board/Commission. In 2009, an additional budget of 923 million Baht (around 23
million Euros) was approved for over 100 projects proposed by several government agencies based
on the NODP and the 5-year Action Plan. The National Innovation Agency, Ministry of Science and
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
174 A6 – Agroecology in Thailand
Technology, serving the secretary of the Working Group on the Knowledge and Innovation Strategy
of the NODP, coordinates various projects.
Current organic production is dominated by rice, with vegetables as a distant second and baby corn.
Green Net and the Earth Net Foundation estimate that the area under organic farming in Thailand
increased from just over 2,100 ha in 2001 to 21,701 hectares in 2005 and 34,079 hectares in 2012,
representing 0.16 percent of the total agricultural land area (21 million hectares) and employing an
estimate of 7,405 farming families (GreenNet 2012 - http://greennet.or.th). While still marginal in
terms of area and production volume, the Thai organic agriculture has been growing at a steady rate
fuelled by export opportunities. The development of domestic markets was constrained by recent
politico-economic crisis.
STAKEHOLDERS
Organic Certification and Regulation have played a key role in the expansion of the organic sector.
Since gaining the IFOAM-accreditation at the end of 2002, the Organic Agriculture Certification
Thailand (ACT - www.actorganic-cert.or.th/en) is the first and the only Thai organic certification body
that can offer internationally-recognized organic certification services. Established in 1995, ACT is an
independent private certification body. ACT’s standards include crop, wild product harvest,
aquaculture, processing and handling. In 2007, ACT helped to organize a regional collaborative
platform of organic certification bodies in Asia, Certification Alliance to provide one-stop inspection
services to organic operators in the region. More than half of the organic farms are certified by
foreign, mainly EU-based, certification bodies. Several local certification bodies also exist offering
services for specific regions or at national level but for limited scope. The Northern Organic
Standards Organization (private organization) certifies organic crops in the Northern Thailand, the
Organic Crop Institute (Department of Agriculture) offers certification of crops (except rice),
Department of Rice offer certification for organic rice, Organic Aquaculture Farm and Product
Certification Center (Department of Fisheries) offers certification for aquaculture and Department of
Livestocks offer certification for livestocks. There are also several foreign certification body operating
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
175 A6 – Agroecology in Thailand
in Thailand, mainly from the European Union. The National Office of Agricultural Commodity and
Food Standards (ACFS), Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative, introduced the national organic
standards in 2002 and launched the national accreditation for organic certifier in 2004. However,
these remain a voluntary scheme and only ACT has yet applied and accredited by ACFS for its organic
certification activities. Besides, there are a couple of producer groups who use participatory
guarantee system (PGS) as a organic verification methods, e.g. organic vegetable grower in Chiang
Mai and the organic farmers in Phangan island.
The Thai Organic Trade Association (TOTA - www.thaiorganictrade.com) was founded in October
2005 with a common goal to enhance the organic movement in Thailand, in particular, understanding
on organic products of Thai consumers and market expansion. The TOTA members consist of private
companies involved with certified organic production and trade. TOTA members’ organic products
are sold domestically and overseas. The range of products consists of organic vegetables, organic
baby corns, organic Thai Jasmine Rice, organic honey, organic tapioca starch, organic sugar, organic
coconut milk, etc.
The Alternative Agriculture Network (AAN - http://aanesan.wordpress.com/) and later on the
Sustainable Agriculture Foundation Thailand (SAFT - http://sathai.org) spearheaded organic farming
activities in the 1990s. Farmers’ groups throughout northeastern Thailand (the Esan region)
developed sustainable agriculture techniques based on the local ecology and expanded their positive
impacts by training and educating other members of their communities through farmers field
schools. The Sustainable Agriculture Foundation (www.sathai.org) now provides support to AAN in
eight northeastern provinces – Roi Et, Ubon Rachatani, Yasothon, Mahasarakam, Khon Kaen, Kalasin,
Petchabun and Surin – with activities in Sisaket and Udon Thani. Partnerships have been developed
with government agencies through the Community Organizations Development Institute (CODI) of
the Agricultural Land Reform Office. With the support of the Thai Health Promotion Foundation,
marketing activities of the network target green consumers in northeast Thailand and beyond. Joint
activities with La Via Campesina, Grain, ENGAGE, and a number of other international non-
governmental organizations provide opportunities to publicize the situation of Thai organic farmers
at the global level.
Green Net Coop has been registered as a cooperative under the Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives since 1993 originally under the name “The Nature Food Cooperative”. Thereafter the
size and scope of its activities grew thus it legally changed its name to “Green Net Cooperative" in
2001. Green Net’s mission is “To serve as a marketing channel for small-scale organic farmers,
incorporating fair-trade principles in its marketing activities” by combining organic agriculture and
fair-trade as its core policies. Green Net (http://greennet.or.th) is a member of the International
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and the World Fair Trade Organization
(WFTO). The Earth Net Foundation received registration as a non-profit organization in 2000. The
Foundation’s main objective is to promote and support initiatives related to production, processing,
marketing and consumption of organic food, natural products and ecological handicrafts.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
176 A6 – Agroecology in Thailand
INTEGRATED AGRICULTURE - NEW THEORY - SUFFICIENT ECONOMY
H ISTORY
Thai farmers have historically practiced subsistence-based integrated farming combining crops,
livestock and trees in complex landscape mosaics. By 1980, 51 % of farms in the central provinces of
Thailand practiced integrated farming. In 1993, His Majesty the King Bhumiphol Adulyadej proposed
a new agricultural theory based on the concept of “Sufficiency Economy”. The integrated agriculture
and aquaculture system is designed for small-scale farms and takes advantage of the mutually
reinforcing linkages between crops, fish and livestock. Under the “New Theory”, farm land is divided
into 30% rice paddy for self-consumption, 30% field crops, orchard and vegetables, 30% fish pond
and 10% living space and livestock raising. Since 1995 the Office of the Royal Development Projects
Board has introduced the New Theory farming system to farmers over the country through a number
of royal projects. With the cooperation with royal development study centres located in each region,
local agricultural cooperatives and government units such as the Department of Agricultural
Extension, the royal projects distribute seedlings or livestock breeds that have been developed and
proved suitable for the area.
Studies by the Thai government Department of Agriculture found that a 6 rai integrated farm
generates an annual profit of 24,770 baht compared with 6,500 baht from rice growing alone.
Because of its income generating potential, the integrated agriculture and aquaculture farming
system was introduced into Northeastern Thailand as a solution to the failure of conventional
agriculture. More recently the Thai Department of Agricultural Extension (DOAE) has encouraged
farmers to convert to an integrated farm system by stressing the potential increase in income and
the decreased risk involved with the production of a variety of produce instead of a single crop under
a monoculture system. The DOAE uses a variety of methods to extend the idea of integrated farming
including arranging farm visits for farmers to model integrated farms; regional competitions such as
the 'Best Integrated Farm in the Eastern Region'; and seminars for farmers to learn about, and
discuss, the mechanics of integrated farming.
STAKEHOLDERS
The Royal Project Foundation (www.royalprojectthailand.com) implements the New Theory across
the whole country through research, development and marketing activities. It provides high quality
fruits, vegetables, flowers, coffee, fish and meat (chicken, rabbit and pork) to some of Bangkok’s
most prestigious restaurants. All Royal Project fruits and vegetables minimally meet the Good
Agricultural Practices (GAP) regulations, while they also have a percentage of produce that meets
GLOBAL GAP codes and they additionally provide produce that meets organic standards.
The Royal Project Foundation not only provides a model for sustainable, fair, and profitable farming
practices. Royal Development Study Centers are supported by the Chaipattana Foundation. The
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
177 A6 – Agroecology in Thailand
centers usually cooperate with the Department of Agriculture Extension, the Department of Royal
Forestry, the Department of Royal Irrigation, and the Department of Water Supply. The centers’
ultimate goal is that Thai individuals, especially rural farmers develop sustainable livelihoods. In
order to focus on the development options most suitable for each region, 6 Royal Development
Study Centers were established.
Located in Chiang Mai, the Northern Thailand center was established in 1982 to develop agricultural
techniques and irrigation system adapted to the agroecological conditions of the Northern
landscapes. With the help of Kasetsart University, the University of Chiang Mai and Majo University,
there are currently more than 35 project development centers in the North of Thailand where
researchers test hundreds of temperate-climate fruit trees and vegetables for their potential as cash
crops. At present, the Royal Project administers 28 extension stations situated in Chiang Mai, Chiang
Rai, Mae Hong Son and throughout the north of Thailand. Two hundred and seventy four villages
comprising of 10,695 families (or 53,589 people) directly benefit from participating in this program.
The Khao Hin Sorn Royal Development Study Center was established in Chachoengsao, in the Central
region in 1979. The center concentrates on techniques to improve the soil quality and avoid soil
erosion. Also, the center disseminates knowledge of soil improvement to farmers in the area through
training courses, for example on compost or organic fertilizer making and proper use.
The Kung Krabaen Bay Royal Development Study Center was established in Chathaburi, in the Central
region, in 1981. This center focuses on the conservation and proper use of mangrove, sustainable
aquaculture, and aquaculture-incorporating agriculture system.
The Pikun Thong Royal Development Study Center was established in Narathiwat, in the Southern
region, in 1981. The center has conducted researches on sustainable agriculture adapted to peat soil.
The center also established a small-scale palm oil processing plant and biodiesel plant while
conducting researches to improve the palm oil crushing process and biodiesel conversion process.
The Huai Sai Royal Development Study Center was established in 1983 in Phetchaburi, west of
Bangkok to develop farming system based on the New Theory, mixed farming, organic farming,
agroforestry, and practical use of herb.
The Puparn Royal Development Study Center was established in Sakon Nakon, Northeastern Thailand
in 1984 to conduct researches and disseminates agricultural knowledge and techniques most
appropriate to Northeast Thailand. The Center’s activities focus on the New Theory farming system
and other sustainable agriculture methods.
The Highland Research and Development Institute (HRDI - www.hrdi.or.th/en/) was created in 2005
to support and strengthen the Royal Project’s research and development activities. Working beyond
the existing operating areas of the Royal Project, the HRDI extends its activities throughout the
country. The HRDI builds on the success of the Royal Project which was initially aimed at eradicating
opium poppy cultivation, improving hill tribe community livelihoods and restoring highland
watershed forests. HRDI works closely with the Royal Project Foundation to encourage the use of
technologies and innovations that were already generated by the Royal Project.
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) AND GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES (GAP)
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
178 A6 – Agroecology in Thailand
In the 1980s, capacity building activities in pest surveillance and economic threshold analysis were
developed in the country's central region with support from the FAO Inter-Country Program for
Community Integrated Pest Management (CIPM) to build farmer's skills in taking more immediate
and self-reliant crop management decisions themselves. In the early and mid-1990's, however, IPM
implementation slowed until nearly stagnant due to technology transfer-oriented approaches by
entrenched plant protection and extension systems, as well as close and mutually-beneficial
relationships between many government staff and the pesticide industry. A number of
breakthroughs occurred in the later part of the 1990's. The first was that the Ministry of Education,
with support from CIPM and Thai Education Foundation (TEF), pioneered IPM activities with primary
school children, a program that caught the interest of both central level planners and the media.
Shortly thereafter, the Education Ministry's Department of Non-Formal Education (DNFE), also
collaborating with the CIPM and TEF, began conducted training courses for their staff and field
schools for both farmers and DNFE students.
The other major development during this period came with Royal support IPM and field schools,
bringing about the creation of the Institute of Biological Agriculture and Farmer Field Schools
(IBAFFS) in the Department of Agriculture Extension (DOAE). The CIPM provided IPM trainers from
the region and partial financial support for the initial training courses undertaken by this institute
under a Royal Initiative, as well as those conducted by the DNFE.
More recently, IPM and Farmer Field Schools enjoy strong backing and financial support from both
the Ministries of Agriculture and Education. Field Schools have and are being conducted in nearly
every province nationwide. The FAO IPM strategy for Thailand (www.vegetableipmasia.org) is
designed towards assisting Programme partners (Government, Royal Project, NGOs, DANIDA project)
in implementing IPM training and assistance towards development of alternatives to toxic pesticides.
This assistance is primarily focused on collaborative and inclusive initiatives to support provincial
governments to build stronger IPM farmer training programmes in vegetable production areas where
pesticide use is still unnecessarily high. A concrete example of such more focused FAO support
approach is reflected in the ongoing collaborative initiative in support of establishment of effective
IPM-based crop protection in highland brassica production systems in the North (Chiangmai) and
Northeast (Phetchabun) of Thailand. In particular, Diamond Back Moth (Plutella xylostella), a target
for frequent pesticide applications, remains a major pest problem in these production systems. This
collaborative effort, involving various (National and Provincial) government (Phetchabun Province,
DoAE, DoA), semi-public/private sector (Royal Project Foundation) and nongovernment stakeholders
(Thai Education Foundation) helped building robust provincial IPM farmer training programmes and
changed farmer crop protection practices in favour of elimination of toxic pesticides and shifts to
biocontrol and softer biopesticide alternatives.
Besides IPM related activities, Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) is a multidisciplinary area of work in
FAO which is attracting a significant and growing demand for assistance. Over the period 2003 –
2005, FAO has carried out a number of activities and consultations related to GAP, focusing on
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
179 A6 – Agroecology in Thailand
information provision, technical assistance and capacity building to help developing countries cope
with changing and globalizing food systems and the proliferation of GAP standards. A GAP Working
Group has been established in this context in 2004, bringing together FAO experts on food safety and
quality, marketing, commercialization and trade, plant production, animal production and health,
forestry, fisheries, policy assistance and institutional strengthening.
As FAO partners have been trained over long periods they have gradually become autonomous and
require less direct support. The Field Alliance (www.thefieldalliance.org) was created in 2002 to
support and build upon activities similar to those that were supported by the Regional IPM program.
Those activities include: the development and application of farmer educational approaches such as
the Farmers Field School, community planning, farmer action research, participatory pesticide
surveillance studies, local and international advocacy, farmer based information and evaluation
systems, and environmental education in rural schools. The Field Alliance consists of a Regional
Group, National Partners, and Collaborating Organisations. The National Partners are either new
NGOs established to play a role similar to the Field Alliance at a country level or existing national
NGOs that share the vision of the Field Alliance and have previously implemented IPM training
programmes. National partners manage activities in cooperation with a wide range of collaborating
organisations, such as community groups, farmers associations, NGOs, local and national
government. The Regional Group provides support to National Partners. This support include training
services, technical backstopping, information-sharing, advocacy and resource mobilization. In
Thailand, the Thai Education Foundation (TEF), a non-profit organization, coordinates the national
Field Alliance program. It works closely with the Government agencies, international donors and
various other NGOs in the development of environmental education programmes for school children
based on the 'farmer field school' approach.
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE
Conservation agriculture practices, consisting in no tillage or minimum tillage combined with
permanent soil cover through mulching or cover crops and systems of crop association or rotations
have been tested by different soil and water conservation projects, including Land Development
Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (www.ldd.go.th), agricultural universities
(e.g. Kasetsart, Khon Kaen, Chiang Mai, Maejo) and Royal Projects. Soil and water conservation
research culminated in the 1990s. The LDD became the national host of several global soil and water
conservation networks such as WOCAT (World Overview of Conservation Approaches and
Technologies - www.wocat.net) or the World Association of Soil and Water Conservation (WASWAC -
waswac.soil.gd.cn). The LDD has developed a national network of applied research and extension
stations all over the country to support the diffusion of soil and water conservation practices. Since
1995, soil doctors are trained in all villages as intermediaries between LDD extension staff and
farming communities. Volunteer farmers are trained to soil and water conservation practices to help
their fellow villagers and can request support from LDD extension agents when necessary. This
participatory approach responded to the need to develop alternatives to the traditional ‘technology
transfer’ extension approaches and also responded to the problem of decreasing number of LDD
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
180 A6 – Agroecology in Thailand
staff available on the ground. At present, there are approximately 60,000 volunteer soil doctors
representing the LDD at the village level.
At Kasetsart University, an institute initially developed to support 'critical areas' (e.g. drought or flood
prone areas) was renamed Agro-Ecology Systems Research and development Institute in the 2000s
and now conducts applied soil and water conservation research in 4 stations in Chiang Mai,
Petchabun, Kanjanaburi and Prajuab Kirikan provinces (www.aerdi.ku.ac.th). Since 2007, CIRAD
collaborates with Kasetsart University to study the impact of agricultural practices on the soil
biological characteristics and functioning. A laboratory of soil biology installed in the campus of
Sakon Nakhon (northeast of Thailand, Sakon Nakhon Province) and has is organized around three
main activities: applied research in the field of soil biology, training and expertise. Field experiments
have been conducted in Kasetsart University campus to evaluate the effect of various no-till systems
with cover crops on soil quality: e.g. study of the quality of the fresh organic matter brought back to
the soil, impacts on soil macrofauna abundance and diversity, impacts on soil microbial abundance
and activity. Long-term and short term training has been proposed to Thai students and other
partners from the CANSEA network. Support to conservation agriculture research conducted by
members of CANSEA network: in Laos within the framework of the European project ORCATAD
(Open Resources for Conservation Agriculture and Trade and Development, 2006-2008), in Cambodia
(collaboration with the project PADAC: Projet d’Appui Durable de l’Agriculture au Cambodge), in
Vietnam (collaboration with Nomafsi Institut – ADAM project). This expertise in situ (sampling,
identification) was completed by analyses in the laboratory of Sakon Nakhon.
Through the Managing Soil Erosion Consortium (MSEC - http://msec.iwmi.org/), the French Institut
de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) was also involved in conservation agriculture
experiments in its Thai benchmark site located in Pak Huay Ooi village, Ban Wiang subdistrict, Rong
Kwang District, Phrae Province, to measure impacts on soil fertility.
AGROFORESTRY
Agroforestry is a dynamic, ecologically-based, natural resource management practice that, through
the integration of trees on farmland in the agricultural landscape, diversifies and sustains production
for increased social, economic and environmental benefits. Combination of trees and non-tree crops
or animals on the same land management unit is considered more as an approach than as a single
technology. Agroforestry systems have long been developed in Thailand before the emergence of
export-led monocropping (e.g. fruit trees in homegardens). In reaction to deforestation and resource
depletion in the 1980s, agroforestry practices have been promoted to protect natural resources
while increasing agricultural productivity and diversifying sources of income. More recently, the
potential of complex agroforest to reduce atmospheric concentration of CO2 and mitigate climate
change has been valorised as part of climate smart agricultural strategies.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
181 A6 – Agroecology in Thailand
The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF - www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/sea) as part of the
Alternative to Slash and Burn Initiative (ASB - www.asb.cgiar.org) have spearheaded agroforestry
research in Thailand. Implementation responsibility was delegated to the Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives, and the Royal Forest Department (RFD) was assigned to serve as the responsible
counterpart agency. The Mae Chaem watershed in Chiang Mai Province was selected as the
benchmark research site in association with the multi-institutional ASB-Thailand consortium. Many
publications have been produced over the years based on experiments conducted in this benchmark
site. In addition, many Thai universities have been involved in agroforestry related research over the
years with relatively limited impact in term of adoption of innovative practices as compared to the
large and sustained research investments on agroforestry.
SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION
(http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/countries/thailand/index.html)
Although initial 2001 trials of SRI methods by the Multiple Cropping Center (MCC) at Chiang Mai
University were not successful, continued evaluations by MCC and others led to a national SRI
network, which was formalized at a national SRI workshop held in Chiang Mai in May 2003. With
Thailand Alternative Agriculture Network (AAN) coordination, the SRI Network organized a workshop
in June 2005 co-hosted by the Surin Farmers' Support Project (SFS) in the southern section of
northeast Thailand.
Since 2005, researchers at the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT - www.ait.ac.th) engaged with the
CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food to support participatory action research with farmer
field school groups to evaluate SRI. SRI was introduced to villages in northeast Thailand through
action-research .Successive SRI projects were then conducted by AIT in Thailand and in the Lower
Mekong Basin and have been institutionalized in 2013 with the creation of the Asian Center of
Innovation for Sustainable Agriculture Intensification (ACISAI) at AIT.
NATURE FARMING
Santi Asoke, a Bhuddist sect, was founded in Thailand 25 years ago by Phra Bodhiraksa. This sect did
not become involved in agriculture until the farmers who were Santi Asoke members began to adopt
nature farming methods in order to complement their Bhuddist beliefs of working to enhance nature
Like some other religious groups in Thailand, Santi Asoke has developed a system of farming based
around organic farming and nature farming. Unlike organic farming however, Santi Asoke farming
does not allow the deliberate killing of pests through integrated pest management or the use of
inorganic inputs.
Although Santi Asoke grows farm produce for sale in their own vegetarian restaurants and shops (the
income from these activities is used to fund charitable and spiritual activities), the farmers involved
in these religious movements are primarily concerned with practicing a form of agriculture which is in
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
182 A6 – Agroecology in Thailand
harmony with their belief in Bhuddist philosophy i.e.: no killing, no industrial inputs and working to
enhance and protect the farms natural ecosystem. Given that practicing a farming system in line with
Bhuddist beliefs is their main goal this system can be rated as having a low degree of market
orientation.
By 1996 Santi Asoke had 5 main centers of agricultural production, each ranging from 50 to 100 rai in
size, based in Sisaket, Nakon Ratchasima, Nakon Pathom, Nakon Sawan and Ubon Ratchani
provinces. There has been no research to date to determine the number of farmers in Thailand who
practice a Bhuddist farming philosophy.
PERMACULTURE
The term permaculture was coined by Bill Mollison, an Australian ecologist, in 1978. Permaculture's
goal is to integrate human dwellings, micro-climate, annual and perennial plants, animals, soils and
water management into stable, productive communities. Through a combination of landscape design
and organic farming methods, permaculture promotes a return to small-scale community or
household farming where food is grown and eaten by the same people. Permaculture is not a farm
production system, per se, but rather a land use planning philosophy. However farms run according
to permaculture philosophy are encouraged to practice a number of common activities: organic
farming; agro forestry, aquaponics (the integration of hydroponics with aquaculture).
The main purpose of farming within the whole philosophy of permaculture is to provide an
environmentally sustainable supply of food to the farm household and, if there is any surplus, to the
local community. This system has a low degree of market orientation. Historically, permaculture has
had little impact in Thailand. However, many eco-farms and permaculture projects have flourished
recently in Thailand (e.g. www.panyaproject.org, www.raktamachat.org, http://ecovillage.asia) that
provide training and design courses to tourists or foreign volunteers interested in alternative
agricultural practices.
ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE SYSTEMS IN THAILAND
Thailand agriculture is still dominated by monocropping-based, export-led production systems that
generates the largest share of the total agricultural production, occupies most of the agricultural land
and rural population. Very large economic interests are vested in mainstream agriculture, which may
explain why beyond the ideological discourses about sustainable agriculture and self-sufficiency,
alternative agricultural practices have not generalise in the recent years. Agrochemical industries
have developed very strong lobbies that prevent, or at best slow down, conversion to alternative
farming practices.
As a result, conversion processes have been mainly supported by alternative farming philosophies
(e.g. New Theory, Santi Asoke, Permaculture) or market opportunities provided by consumer-led
emerging organic markets. An efficient market infrastructure in natural farm produce is a
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
183 A6 – Agroecology in Thailand
prerequisite for the widespread adoption of alternative agriculture in the country. A nationally
recognized natural farm produce certification scheme benefits farmers because consumers
sometimes doubt the authenticity of farm produce which is simply labelled 'organic' or 'chemical
free'. One obstacle to the growth of alternative agriculture in Thailand is the limitations in the
existing certification scheme. Non-governmental organizations have been very effective at promoting
sustainable agriculture as they are working at the grass roots level with the poorest farmers who are
worst affected by the failures of conventional agriculture.
Besides organic agriculture, integrated agriculture and aquaculture (New Theory) practices are the
most widely adopted alternative agriculture systems in Thailand. The integrated agriculture and
aquaculture system is easier to implement for risk-averse farmers as it starts from existing practices
and engages with local farmers in a stepwise process of conversion towards Good Agricultural
Practices. Organic farming being considered as the ultimate stage of an agroecological transition
process. Aside from the economic pressures it was found that alternative agriculture farmers are
typically associated with some form of spiritual and/or environmental activist group. These groups
give the farmers a number of non-financial motives for adopting alternative farming, the main
examples are concerns over health and environmental damage and/or philosophical and religious
factors. Many farmers engaged in alternative farming claim that the non-monetary rewards
compensate for the lack of premium on the price of organic products.
There are three key obstacles which most farmers have to overcome in order to successfully adopt
an alternative agricultural farming system:
1) Farmers have to deal with the financial and food supply implications of a drop in farm output
during the transition phase that occurs during the switch from conventional farming to the
alternative farming system. It can take several cropping seasons for the soil to regain its natural
fertility after the prolonged use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. During this period crop
production is likely to fall relative to previous production obtained under conventional farming.
2) Whereas farmers in developed countries who adopt alternative farming systems are able to take
advantage of efficient markets and the premium prices paid by consumers for natural produce,
farmers in Thailand are faced with a less developed organic market infrastructure and standards.
3) For alternative farming systems to be run effectively, farmers need in-depth ecological knowledge
(crops, livestock, farm pond and other components of the agroecosystem). Most farmers have to
learn again about agroecological processes that were very familiar to their ancestors before they
transitioned to conventional agriculture.
Farmer networks play an important role in the development of sustainable agriculture systems. They
support farmers learning and sharing activities during the conversion phase and link them to relevant
market outlets. Community-level exchange networks should therefore be promoted as an incentive
to the dissemination of agroecology practices.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
184 A6 – Agroecology in Thailand
LIST OF CONTACT PERSONS:
Rajendra Shrestha, Coordinator Natural Resources Management, School of Environment, Resources
and Development, Asian Institute of Technology
Peeyush Soni, Coordinator Agribusiness Management, School of Environment, Resources and
Development, Asian Institute of Technology
Avishek Datta, Agricultural Systems and Engineering, School of Environment, Resources and
Development, Asian Institute of Technology
Clemens Grunbuhel, Natural Resources Management, School of Environment, Resources and
Development, Asian Institute of Technology
Prabhat Kumar, Asian Center of Innovation for Sustainable Agriculture Intensification (ACISAI), Asian
Institute of Technology
Damien Jourdain and Sylvain Perret, CIRAD, Natural Resources Management, School of Environment,
Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology
Jan Willem Ketelaar, Team Leader of the Regional IPM/Pesticide Risk Reduction Programme in South
and Southeast Asia, FAO Regional Office
Johnny Boyer, Soil Biology Laboratory CIRAD/Kasetsart University-Sakon Nakhon
Benedicte Chambon and Regis Cote, CIRAD – Kasetsart, rubber research platform in Thailand
Vitoon Panyakul, Director of the Organic Agriculture Program, Green Net Cooperatives. Email
contact.
Nithan Torngkot, Agro-Ecological system Research and Development Institute, Kasetsart University
Martin Greijmans, Forest Products and Rural Development, RECOFTC, Bangkok
Regan Suzuki, Networking and Stakeholder Engagement Program Officer, RECOFTC, Bangkok
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAN Alternative Agriculture Network
ACFS National Office of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards
ACT Organic Agriculture Certification Thailand
AIT Asian Institute of Technology
ASB Alternative to Slash and Burn Initiative
CIPM Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Programme (UN/FAO) for
Community Integrated Pest Management (CIPM) in Asia
CODI Community Organizations Development Institute
DNFE Education Ministry's Department of Non-Formal Education
DOAE Thai Department of Agricultural Extension
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
185 A6 – Agroecology in Thailand
GAP Good Agricultural Practices
HRDI Highland Research and Development Institute
IBAFFS Institute of Biological Agriculture and Farmer Field Schools
ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre
IFOAM International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements
IPM Integrated Pest Management
LDD Land Development Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
MSEC Managing Soil Erosion Consortium
NODP National Organic Development Plan
RFD Royal Forest Department
SAFT Sustainable Agriculture Foundation Thailand
SFS Surin Farmers' Support Project
SRI System of Rice Intensification
TEF Thai Education Foundation
TOTA Thai Organic Trade Association
WASWAC World Association of Soil and Water Conservation
WFTO World Fair Trade Organization
WOCAT World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
186 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
APPENDIX 7. AGROECOLOGY INITIATIVES IN VIETNAM
by Patrice Lamballe, Nguyen Van Phuc and Lucie Reynaud
ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
H ISTORY OF INTRODUCTION IN V IETNAM
Organic agriculture is a very new concept and new development in Vietnam. It has started from the
mid-1990s with small amounts of organic tea and spices (Vu Le Y Voan, 2006).
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED AND PARTNERSHIP
Adda (with VNFU), in Ha Tinh, Nghe An, Hoa Binh, Son La, Dien Bien, Lai Chau, at center level,
the main partner is Vietnamese Lawyers Association (VLA)
IUCN (with SNV, Dard), on certified organic shrimp
Seed-to-Table (with Agricultural Extension Center), on OA and PGS, since 2009, funded by
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan and Japanese companies - 400-700 HH
IAE (Institute of Agriculture and Environment)
Casrad (safe vegetables, PGS, also working on Geographical Indication certification, social
certification, registration trademark, and mapping shops distribution for safe and organic
vegetables in Hanoi)
Veco (Women Unions, PPD, local cooperatives), in Lang Son and Phu Tho provinces, on
Participatory Guarantee Systems, Sustainable agricultural chain development level with safe
agricultural practices : IPM, SRI, composting, mulching, using nets, crop rotation, multiple
cropping …, started in 2008 for safe vegetables and 2012 for gagay sticky rice chain – 1,007
HH -Project funded by Misereor, Cordaid, DGD Belgium
F IELD OF ACTIVITIES AND MAIN INTERVENTIONS
In 2005 ADDA in collaboration with VNFU implemented a five year project on organic farming, which
has been expanded to a second phase (2011/2012). The project activities aimed at increasing
awareness and knowledge on organic agriculture for participated farmers and assist them to produce
organic products (Ngo Doan Dam, 2012).
The project activities focus on 3 areas:
1. Production of organic products;
2. Development of market for organic products;
3. Support to certification system development.
LOCATION AND SCALE OF OPERATION
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
187 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
The Adda-VNFU project established 25 farmer groups producing organic products in nine provinces,
with the area of 70 ha with several products such as vegetables, rice, orange, litchi, grapefruit, tea,
fresh water fish (Ngo Doan Dam, 2012) and trained 120 farmers on organic production. The
beneficiaries of Adda projects are estimated of about 100,000 households.
ADDA-VNFU organic project collaborates with MARD to support development of national organic
standards and certification. In 2006 the government set up a national standard to guide organic
productions. ADDA-VNFU developed Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) tool to promote organic
vegetables for domestic market.
Figure 4: PGS logo for certified farmers (Source: https://sites.google.com/site/pgsvietnam/Home)
Specific case of Eco-link (participating to the workshop) : Eco-link, private company (Hiep Thanh
company), has organic centers, like in Hoa Binh province, to train staff, partners and farmers.
Certification and branding for agro-products of Vietnamese origine, is important to development of
organic production in Vietnam and has to respond to international inspections.
Eco-link acknowledges that production decreases for some crops; it is particularly the case for tea
these years with no enough production; is it due to drought and climate change ; needs to cooperate
with researchers to overcome the problem.
Hiep Thanh Company : since 2001 – Sustainable Agriculture (tea, coffee, spice, vegetables) – 14 tea
factories producing 4,000 tons of high quality dried tea per year – work as supply chain consultant for
other tea plantations.
Hiep Thanh also starts to form supply chain of spice (ginger, cinnamon, etc, …), herbal products, bio-
coffee, organic and fair trade food (dried packed food and fresh food). Can supply equipment,
processing technology and material.
Vipagro (from Hiep Thanh) : Handling conventional tea business, processing hub, logistic
Bysco : Services to develop supply chain ; export promotion
Sadas : Build-up and support farmers’ organizations; services for community; PGS system
In Ca Mau (extreme south of Vietnam districts of Nhung Mien, Ngoc Hien), IUCN with SNV, with
also funds from BMU, and provincial Dard, have recently started a project aiming at protecting /
rehabilitating the mangrove (largely encroached by large intensive shrimp production) through, inter
alia, organic product standard : certified organic shrimp in Ca Mau.
One of the main activity is the negotiation with shrimp processors and exporters to have as expected
result an agreement with commitment to offer premium to shrimp producers respecting the
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
188 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
standard. To do so, farmers/producers have to organize in groups of significant size to offer sufficient
volume to the market.
One of the first results is the new expansion of surface of mangrove covering; the mangrove cover
requirement to meet in 2016 is 60%. The total potential land size is 12,000 hectares. The targeted
beneficiaries are 600 farmers in 2013, and 20% per year in 2014, 2015 and 2016.
In Quang Tri province, Renew project supports the development of mushroom production by
hundreds of farmers; it is expected to be successful.
There is VietGap certificate only; the process is good but not organic. Organic farming is quite
difficult to meet international standards and it’s very expensive for farmers to achieve.
ADOPTION RATE AND FACTORS OF SUCCESS
According to the 2010 IFOAM report, the certified organic area in Vietnam was some 21,000
hectares, equivalent to 0.2% of the total cropped area of which 7,000 ha was for aquaculture
(shrimps mainly).
According to participants of the workshop, the main successful factors are :
Economies of scale (farmers grouping)
Collective responsibility (remarkably for shrimp raising with checking on pesticides used by
farmers) with “farmers checking on farmers”
Very strong market linkages
High degree of verification / monitoring (satellite-based)
CONSTRAINTS – DIFFICULTIES – LIMITS TO ADOPTION
ADDA and VNFU identified several farmers’ difficulties that limit the production:
- Lack of quality inputs to organic production (seed, green manure etc.)
- Producers not organized and/or do not have central handling facility;
- Cultivation area of each farmer households is small and fields are scattered;
- No sufficient economy of scale to reach the market;
- Lack of knowledge on organic farming and marketing skill.
More largely, the organic sector in Vietnam faces different constraints and challenges:
- Low level of awareness on agro-ecological practices and importance for environment
- Language problems in ethnic minorities zones (between trainers and farmers)
- Time to change the deeply ingrained long time chemical practices
- Wait and see attitude
- Best models for Vietnam not yet clear or identified
- Income of farmers from organic production is low.
- Short term gain versus long term benefits
- Lack of market information on organic production;
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
189 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
- Low consumer demand (more precisely trust) in safe products, eco-friendly systems
- Price of organic products is not (significantly) higher than common product;
- Organic market share in local market seems nearly “zero”;
- Lack of comprehensive program to promote agro-ecological practices
- High certification costs from international companies for global international standards;
NETWORKS (NATIONAL OR REGIONAL)
Regional level : Organic Asia network (Vietnam, Laos, Thailand)
Vietnam level : Eco-farming, Farmers’ association (branches working on organic farming)
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) AND INTEGRATED AGRICULTURE
DEFINITION, PRECISION OF CONCEPT – CHARACTERISTICS
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest
management that relies on a combination of common-sense practices. IPM programs use current,
comprehensive information on the life cycles of pests and their interaction with the environment.
This information, in combination with available pest control methods, is used to manage pest
damage by the most economical means, and with the least possible hazard to people, property, and
the environment.
The IPM approach can be applied to both agricultural and non-agricultural settings, such as the
home, garden, and workplace. IPM takes advantage of all appropriate pest management options
including, but not limited to, the judicious use of pesticides. In contrast, organic food production
applies many of the same concepts as IPM but limits the use of pesticides to those that are produced
from natural sources, as opposed to synthetic chemicals.
4 principles of IPM : a) grow a healthy crop, through applying certain appropriate treatments that
include using a good variety, suitable transplanting timing and density, balanced fertilizer
application, prompt care for resistance against pest and unfavorable conditions of rice plants, b)
conserve natural enemies, being aware of, and protecting natural enemies in the field, c) conduct
regular field observations to learn about the ongoing field status for timely actions, and d) farmers
become experts based on the knowledge and skills they acquire, farmers become the core force
to support the whole community.
The Farmer Field School (FFS) is the foundation for and the first step in developing the
knowledge and skills of farmers. The training course equips farmers with basic and thorough
knowledge and skills for each designated crop. It is a firm foundation for the farmers knowledge.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
190 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
H ISTORY OF INTRODUCTION IN V IETNAM
The National IPM Program in Vietnam was established in 1990 with support from FAO to address
concerns regarding heavy reliance on chemical inputs in crop production and protection, negatively
affecting smallholder farmers, their livelihoods, consumer health and the environment (FAO, 2010).
Originally, the IPM Program aims to improve farmers’ decision-making capacities by enhancing their
knowledge and skills to secure more effective production conducive to human health and
environment protection, and at the reduction of the widespread of insecticides use on rice
production, then the program targeted others crops such as tea, vegetables, corn.
The National IPM Program was managed by the Plant Protection Department (PPD) under the
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). Starting from 1996, the MARD encouraged
provincial governments to establish Safe Vegetable Program as a response to public concern after
studies detected high levels of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables (FAO, 2010). Through
provincial funds, these provincial government programs organize training activities on safe vegetable
production in almost all of Vietnam’s now 64 provinces. In recent years, FAO has supported the VN
government’s efforts in expanding the cadre of qualified trainers as well as strengthening the
content and methodology of this training by introducing the season-long IPM FFS approach as the
farmer education model (FAO, 2010).
During implementation PPD has been receiving direct support from many entities, including a
variety of FAO-funded IPM programs (for rice, vegetable, cotton), the IPM component of the
Agriculture Sector Program Support (ASPS), the Biodiversity Use and Conservation in Asia Program
(BUCAP), and some other NGOs.
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED AND P ARTNERSHIP
FAO, PPD, DANIDA, Adda; SEARICE, ACIAR, CIDSE (introduction of IPM for tea)
Other organizations involved in integrated agriculture : IAE, CGFED, CCRD, Veco, WVI, ICM, Adda
F IELD OF ACTIVITIES AND MAIN INTERVENTIONS
Participatory Needs and Opportunity Assessment (PNOA); Training of Trainers (ToT), Farmer Field
School (FFS), FFS Follow-up activities.
From 1994, FAO implemented a one year program which covered 7 provinces of Vietnam and
focuses on rice production. FAO self-evaluation shows three main benefits of IPM practices:
The reduction in insecticide use of 82%, from 1.7 to 0.3 applications per season.
Farmers saved on average $8 on pesticide expenditures per season.
Yield increase was 7% over the study period.
The pooled results by provinces hide considerable differences in levels between provinces (Van den
Berg, 2004).
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
191 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
Agricultural Development Denmark Asia NGO (Adda) has been implementing a project on IPM via
the use of the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach. The IPM project was started in 1999 and after
being extended with a second phase is was terminated by 2005. The IPM project was implemented in
collaboration with the Hanoi Farmer Union, the Horticultural Technology Centre of Hanoi and the
Plant-Protection Sub-Division of Hanoi (Adda website).
By the end of 2005, more than 11 000 farmers have been trained on IPM vegetables management.
Training sessions were focus on 3 vegetable crops: cabbage, tomato and bean. ADDA assessment
shows a significant decrease of insecticides and fungicides use on the three crops. The yield was been
increased by 14% for cabbage and bean, and 27% for tomato.
Wageningen assessment concluded that this preliminary result demonstrated the potential of IPM to
substantially reduce pesticide use in vegetables while improved agronomic practices can help
increase yield. Further evaluation is needed to study whether IPM is being adopted by vegetable
farmers (Van den Berg, 2004).
LOCATION AND SCALE (NUMBER OF FARMERS , …)
A total of 1,132,654 farmers of 22 provinces of VN (for IPM on rice)
ADOPTION RATE AND FACTORS OF SUCCESS
Farmers organizations (capacity building for marketing)
Collective action in production and marketing
Consumers and potential consumers awareness
Important role of enterprises and businesses
Marketing to connect farmers to “aware”, better paying markets
Support from local government
CONSTRAINTS – DIFFICULTIES – LIMITS TO ADOPTION
Long time habits to use chemical fertilizers and pesticides
Subsidies from the government for these products, in some conditions/situations
Short term vision of farmers, focused on quantitative production and incomes
Technical practices (often too labor consuming) to produce organic fertilizers
Markets and remuneration for organic products (in the production zone if remote)
Lack of appropriate support policies
Limited agriculture services
No total ban for dangerous products (most of time smuggled products from China)
Mountainous zones have been more prioritized (before they use too many pesticides)
Some staff of related governmental bodies have too strong links with companies selling
seeds and pesticides
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
192 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
I (PL) add here 2-3 other (secondary) elements since I participated directly to an IPM farmer field
school / training during spring rice season of 1996 in Phu Tho province :
30 farmers or village, mass association representatives participate to the training; it is
suppose that each of these trainees will train or have an impact on 30 other persons; this
statement is considerably overestimated and the impact is much more limited
The activities on the field are too repetitive and after 3-4 sessions, only several participants
go down to rice fields for observations and measurements
The course is too much standardized and the trainer focus only on the two rice fields
dedicated to the class activities ; no initiative to go and visit other rice fields with more insect
attacks or with no pests for example, to learn more and to adapt to conditions.
The most dangerous pesticides were not presented to raise awareness of farmers on their
level of danger and the potential consequences …
NETWORK (NATIONAL OR REGIONAL)
Regional level : Pesticides Action Network – Asia and the Pacific (PAN-AP), CGFED is a member.
VAC INTEGRATED SYSTEM
DEFINITION, PRECISION OF CONCEPT – CHARACTERISTICS
The VAC system is a highly intensive method of small-scale farming in which food gardening, fish
rearing and animal husbandry are integrated. Developed from traditional gardening in the fertile Red
River Delta, which is a major rice growing area, VAC farming is now practiced in most regions of
Vietnam (Morrow, 1995). VAC is an acronym of three Vietnamese words: “Vuon” meaning garden or
orchard, “Ao”, meaning fish pond, and “Chuong”, meaning animal sheds.
The aim of VAC in Vietnam is to provide diversified agricultural products to meet the complex
nutritional demands of a developing society. The strategy is to renew energy by recycling solar
energy through photosynthesis of trees and plants, which will provide more foods for people and
feeds for raising cattle and poultry (Thi Hop, 2003). On the other hand, recycled residues of the VAC
ecosystem create a permanent biological agriculture, in which waste is recycled into organic
fertilizers to replace chemical fertilizers and helps to protect the environment. The VAC system is a
traditional kind of farming for Vietnamese people. In Vietnam, the VAC system is considered to be an
effective solution for poverty alleviation, dietary improvement and the prevention of malnutrition
(Thi Hop, 2003).
H ISTORY OF INTRODUCTION IN V IETNAM
Main drivers of introduction of VAC in Vietnam :
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
193 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
After “Doi moi” in 1986 and market orientation economy, land was allocated to farmers and
utilization of chemical products increased sharply
A large amount of chemical fertilizers is lost, wasted (for about 40-45%) leading to lower
profitability, danger of environment pollution and considerable NO2 emissions
VAC started essentially in 1986 as an answer to these problems ; it is a form of small-scale bio-
intensive farming.
The traditional bases of VAC are the combination of gardening, fishing and breeding, which is a long-
standing tradition in Red River Delta. They are now more sustainable scientific bases put forward :
high biology intensive technique and recycling strategy.
MAIN ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED AND PARTNERSHIP
Vacvina (see paragraph on network)
CCRD (Vietnamese NGO, directed by Mr. Thanh, who did presentation at the workshop); CCRD
belongs Vacvina and has the responsibility to introduce different bio-technologies in order to
improve the VAC effects and impacts.
Main funders : FAO, Ausaid
F IELD OF ACTIVITIES AND MAIN INTERVENTIONS
The VAC models depend on household structure and conditions. VAC systems could be established
with integration of three components or only two of them. Some of these combinations bring back
good and effective results, such as : rice + duck, rice + fish, fruit tree + fish, or again honey bee +
forest …
The VAC models are also adapted according to 6 main eco-zones of Vietnam and try to extend in
large in other conditions (than delta garden and rice fields) : hill land gardens, forests, lakes, rivers,
intensive breeding areas, … In the Word document “VAC Integrated system based Agro-Ecology in
Vietnam”, three main VAC models are outlined : 1) VAC model in Coastal Sandy areas, 2) VAC model
in Mekong delta, 3) VAC models in Midlands and Mountainous areas.
Vacvina also promotes the production and use of bio-fertilizers (reducing NPK fertilizer by 40-45%).
VAC has integrated biogas with Vacvina Bio-digester : turning waste into energy, save land area, easy
construction, reasonable price, stable and sustainable operation.
Regarding biogas / bio-digesters, during the last years, a national program has been launched by SNV
in partnership with Department of livestock to support the building of about 150,000 biogas
equipments in all regions of the country (result is however limited in mountainous zone). This is the
reason why a small project of Gret gave the focus to North-West Thanh Hoa (zone of Gret-run
bamboo project) to support the building of more than 100 bio-digesters in 2010-2011. We can
mention the Cotes d’Armor bilateral cooperation which also supported the building of at least 600
bio-digesters in 2010. IRD (Didier Orange and colleagues) carried out some in-depth research on bio-
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
194 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
digester and use of bio-digestats to improve the soils on slopes of Dong Cao watershed experimental
and pilot zone.
Test and marketing activities on EM (Effective Microorganisms) can also be mentioned here.
LOCATION AND SCALE OF OPERATIONS
One of the main project on VAC system was called “VAC Integrated Farming for Food Household
security” (HFS) and was implemented from 1992 to 1995. Main project activities :
Capacity building on agro-ecology and sustainable agriculture development
Capacity building on VAC integrated system as Agro-Ecology model
Introduction of Bio-technologies for improving VAC integrated systems
Introduction of demonstration models
VAC and biogas have been promoted and supported nationwide (less in mountains however).
2,500 staff of Vietnam Gardening Association trained in ToT on VAC Integrated systems
300 households participating and involved in 300 VAC demonstration models
ADOPTION RATE AND FACTORS OF SUCCESS
From the last 20 years, several studies have been done on economical effectiveness of VAC system
and its role in the improvement of nutrition issue. Annual income through VAC farming is three to
five times higher than that derived in the same area from growing two rice crops per year (Morrow,
1995). VAC system is managed by family farming and can be found in different agro-ecological area
(mountains and low lands).
Figure 5: The impact of the VAC system on diet and income of the households (Thi Hop, 2003)
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
195 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
According to Mr. Thanh from CCRD, VAC has increased the part of agricultural incomes not
depending directly on rice cultivation, to 70%, as an average.
CONSTRAINTS – DIFFICULTIES – LIMITS TO ADOPTION
Main publications are coming from FAO and the government. It was difficult to found recent data
and constraints of implementation. According to CCRD, there are serious challenges:
Though some existing programs on Organic Agriculture and some important changes in
Conventional Agriculture, initiatives on agro-ecology still are very limited
New government orientation programs promoting agro-production for exportation by
agglomeration of cultivation land, policy for forming large fields towards mechanization and
modernization of agricultural production
Large amount of chemical fertilizers and pesticides have been produced, imported and used
on the fields of the country, causing a huge environment toll
Disappearance of local varieties, of formerly existing indigenous knowledge on agro-ecology,
and more dependence on imported inputs
Local extension services play a marginal role in supporting sustainable agriculture/AE
Current national vocational training for 1 million farmers by Mard : poor farmers seem to be
marginalized, not benefitting from this policy, one of the reason being that VAC integrated
system / agro-ecology are not yet introduced
Land acquisition / “grabbing” for national development projects
Climate change impacts
NETWORKS (NATIONAL OR REGIONAL)
Vietnam Gardening Association (about 900,000 members).
VACVINA was founded in 1986. Its purpose is to (1) build sustainable agriculture, (2) increase
economic and social efficiency of the VAC system, diversification of agriculture, (3) implement
technology and management progress into VAC system, (4) help and direct consolidation of family
and collective VAC (ASIADHRRA and AGRITERRA, 2002). VACVINA’s competence lies in developing
and implementing income generation projects such as livestock raising and gardening:
- Setting VAC ecosystem
- Creating high yielding varieties of crops
- Transferring technology to members
http://permaculturewest.org.au/ipc6/ch06/morrow2/index.html
There are Vacvina branches in 30 provinces. We only remark here that the website link given by
CCRD (and Vacvina) integrates the name “permaculture”, the sole reference we had on this
component/school during the seminar and in the documents.
PERSPECTIVES – PROSPECTS – RECOMMENDATIONS
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
196 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
1) To assess VAC integrated systems for identifying impacts/gaps for evidence based policy
advocacy which could lead to more commitments, investments of government on practical
ecological alternatives
2) To enhance farmers’ knowledge and creativity, incorporated in the process of building
sustainable and ecological alternatives
3) To promote and share VAC integrated system based on agro-ecological practices in context
of climate change
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE
DEFINITION, PRECISIONS ON CONCEPT – CHARACTERISTICS
Three simultaneous principles :
1) Soil is permanently covered (mulch or living cover)
2) Soil is neither ploughed nor even superficially tilled (sowing is done directly through soil
cover, mechanically or chemically controlled beforehand)
3) Biodiversity is enhanced by implementing rotations, successions and associations with cover
plants
H ISTORY OF INTRODUCTION IN V IETNAM
The introduction and development of conservation agriculture (CA) in Vietnam has mainly resulted
from a long-term partnership between Vietnamese and French agricultural research centers:
Vietnamese Institute of Agronomic Sciences (VASI), Agricultural Research Centre for Northern
Mountainous Areas (NOMARC now Nomafsi) and CIRAD (since 1996).
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED AND PARTNERSHIP
Cirad – Nomafsi – CANSEA – ACIAR funded projects, district and provincial authorities SFRI – IRD
Think soils – University of Queensland – ACIAR (with Nomafsi and TBU)
F IELD OF ACTIVITIES AND MAIN INTERVENTIONS
a) The ADAM project follows SAM project - Mountainous Agrarian Systems (1999/2005) – aims at
the extension of conservation agriculture for sustainable development of the mountainous farming
systems in 3 Provinces of Vietnam : Phu Tho, Son La and Yen Bai. Field activities undertaken by the
project are based on 2 components: (1). to promote direct seeding mulch-based cropping systems
(DMC) (2). To design and test innovations based on agro-ecology for sustainable tea production on
slopping lands (ADAM website).
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
197 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
ADAM project was launched at the end of 2009 and focuses on the development of
durable/sustainable intensification of tea plantations through agro-ecology:
1. Restore soil fertility before planting new tea plantations (after fallow, tree plantation, mono-
cropping);
2. Improve tea plantation intensification schemes (replacement by more productive varieties);
3. Generate adding income during immature period of tea with minimal impact on soil fertility
and tea growth (DMS based cropping systems intercropping with tea, mulch-based cropping
systems, and leguminous cover plants, associations between cover crops and cash crops);
4. Reduce application of chemicals both during immature period and commercial stage of tea
plantations (living covers intercropped with tea, organic methods to control pest, diseases
and weeds: bio-pesticides, sentinel plants etc.);
5. Generate regular additional income during mature period of tea plantation (diversification
using fruit or rubber trees intercropped with tea);
6. Generate long-term additional income (high value trees intercrop with tea).
In some words, the ADAM project is 1) adaptive research, training, and communication &
networking.
b) Besides Cirad and ADAM project, other researchers have carried out experimentations and
observations regarding Conservation Agriculture. University of Queensland and Think Soils (private
company), funded by ACIAR and Ausaid, work in the North-West, particularly in Son La province.
Gunnar Kirchhof started these kinds of research activities in 1980 and more particularly in Vietnam in
2008.
The main goal of the research of the University and Think Soils is research for development and
environment, on sustainable land management practice; in Vietnam it is more specifically soil erosion
management. The three main target beneficiaries are subsistence farmers, students and researchers.
Local partners are Nomafsi and Tay Bac University.
Main problems/constraints are mentioned below. However Think Soils put forward the fact that soil
erosion in North-West Vietnam can be compensated for by improved maize varieties, increased
fertilizer application and enhanced agro-chemical application…
The powerpoint sent by Dr. Kirchhof put the stress on some particular methods : managing the soil
and the erosion, monitoring erosion, the soil pin method, and on techniques : ensure groundcover at
start of rainy season, increase soil roughness and soil structural stability. He points out the benefits
of conservation tillage and problems with zero / minimum tillage.
c) Vietnam Soil and Fertilizers Research Institute (SFRI), in cooperation with IRD, is carrying out
experimentations and measurements on Dong Cao Watershed (between Hanoi and Hoa Binh
provinces) since 2001-2002. Different DMC techniques (rice straw mulching, using of Glyphosate, …)
have been experimented, in comparison with farmer-control plots.
Donors : initially ADB, then the IWMI, IRD, AFD and French MFA
After ten years of experimentation, some results are quite spectacular : increase of soil moisture,
biodiversity (earth worms), soil erosion decreased dramatically (from 75 T/ha to 1.5 T/ha) and in
parallel, nutrients losses in considerably reduced, yield increased. The labour for cultivation has been
halved, but some participants didn’t agree with this observation / statement. As consequence of
these significant changes, farmers’ incomes have increased.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
198 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
LOCATION AND SCALE OF OPERATION
The ADAM project is located in 4 districts (Thanh Ba, Van Chan, Mai Son and Moc Chau) from 3
provinces (Phu Tho, Yen Bai and Son La).
Nomafsi works in 16 provinces of Vietnam. One of the main projects is : Improved market
engagement for sustainable upland production systems in the North-western highlands of Vietnam
(AGB/2008/002). The project is funded by ACIAR and partners are : PPRI, Casrad, HUA, Tay Bac
University, Dard of Lai Chau and Son La.
ADOPTION RATE AND FACTORS OF SUCCESS
According to Damien Hauswirth (ADAM project – Cirad), the main performances are : agronomic
efficiency (yield, weed control, …), resilience, robustness, mitigation of climate risks, and
environmental (rebuilding natural capital, …)
There are few data available on ADAM project compare to publications made on SAM project. The
main key achievements of SAM project are the increase of upland crop yield from 20 to 200% on rice,
maize and cassava, reduction of soil erosion up to 96% and diversify farmers’ incomes options like
integration of animal husbandry, agro-forestry (Le Quoc Doanh and Ha Dinh Tuan, 2008).
Regarding AGB project, main results are : 1) erosion on mulch plots was approximately 4 times lower
than on burn & cultivate plot, 2) no tillage treatments have significantly higher yield than burn and
cultivate treatment. However, non of mulch treatments was accepted by farmers because it is “hard
work” and mice population in mulched plots is higher.
CONSTRAINTS – DIFFICULTIES – LIMITS TO ADOPTION
The main constraints met by the farmers are the capacity of investment in labor force, access to
inputs, land access due to high population pressure and the integration to markets (Ha Dinh Tuan,
2009). Screening cropping systems require several years to adapt and assess.
The other constraints are : strongly constrained small-scale farmers, lack of supply chains
(equipments, seeds, …), knowledge gaps, information and communication gaps, policy implication,
absence of added value for products cultivated under CA, length of transition period between
projects and funds (sometimes all has to start again from scratch), …
According to participants of workshop, the main constraints are :
Ownership by stakeholders (above all small farmers and local authorities)
Traditional habits, ways of doing of farmers
No short term gain in adoption of soil conservation practices
It takes time to be economically attractive
Sometimes, more labor (divergent figures between Cirad and Nomafsi)
Livestock negative interaction on crops
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
199 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
Lack of appropriate supportive policies, no existing in extension programs
Gaps between research and farmers (researchers have also to change behavior)
Very dependent on local conditions and constraints
Globalization of trade and resources
NETWORK (NATIONAL OR REGIONAL)
Regional level : CANSEA (Conservation Agriculture Network in South-East Asia)
The research of Dr. Didier Orange, together with SFRI in Dong Cao watershed in embedded within an
international research network of benchmark watersheds in North Laos, North Thailand and North
Vietnam :
MSEC (Management of Soil Erosion Consortium), from 1999 to 2010, implemented by IWMI
and IRD in National Partnership
MSEC3 (Multiscale Environmental Changes), from 2011 to 2015, implemented by IRD in
National partnership and with the support of the Allenvi (from French MRES).
PERSPECTIVES – PROSPECTS
What are the next steps for ADAM / CA projects ?
How to maintain research for development sites in the long run
How to involve scaling-up of CA while dealing with local variability
Policy-level implication
Building supply chains for equipments and seeds
Crop-livestock integration
AGRO-FORESTRY
DEFINITION, PRECISION OF CONCEPT – CHARACTERISTICS
From 1978 the term agro-forestry (AF) has been used by ICRAF (International Council for Research on
Agro-Forestry) and becomes now popular in many countries in the world. According to Young (1997),
Agro-Forestry (AF) is practically classified into 4 major types:
1. Agro-sylvi-cultural: trees with crops
2. Sylvo-pastoral: trees with pastures and livestock
3. Tree predominant: forestry with other components subordinate
4. Components present: Trees with insects or fisheries.
Vision of Icraf : A rural transformation in the developing world as smallholder households
strategically increase their use of trees in agricultural landscapes to improve their food security,
nutrition, income, health, shelter, energy resources and environmental sustainability.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
200 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
Agro-forestry according to Icraf : “ Simply, the incorporation of trees in agricultural landscapes ”.
Why agro-forestry : “ Trees offer options for diversification that can reduce production risks for small
holders while enhancing basic ecosystem functioning ”.
New concept/activity : “Payments for forest environmental services”
H ISTORY OF INTRODUCTION IN V IETNAM
Although researches on agro-forestry systems were implemented in the world for a long time, these
systems were not introduced into Vietnam until the early 1970s. In the last twenty years, the
Vietnamese Government and the Communist Party implemented agro-forestry policies for rural
development in the mountainous regions of Vietnam (CARES, 2000).
The Extension and Training Support Project for Forestry and Agriculture in the Uplands (ETSP,
2003/2007) is a follow-up project of the Social Forestry Support Program (SFSP, 1994/2002)
implemented by Helvetas Vietnam and funding by the Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation (SDC). Within SDC’s Mekong Region Program, the project is situated in the thematic
areas of Governance, Rural Livelihood and Natural Resource Management (Helvetas, 2007).
Icraf started in 2007 in Vietnam as a not-for-profit, international non-government organization; it is
based in Hanoi with 20 scientific and support staff + PhD and MSc students, volunteers, interns.
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED AND PARTNER SHIP
Helvetas (Switzerldand, funded by SDC)
Finland was/is also an important partner on forestry and agro-forestry
Cares - IAE (Governmental Bodies)
ICRAF (member of CGIAR, headquartered in Nairobi, with 6 regional offices); main partners : Tay Bac
University (TBU), North-West Centre for Forestry Sciences and Production (NWCFSP), Nomafsi, and 3
provincial offices of Dard.
ADDA
Nomafsi : Agro-forestry for Livelihoods of Small-holder Farmers in North-West Vietnam
Some other Vietnamese actors/partners on agro-forestry : IAE, …
According to Helvetas, the Extension and Training support project aims at:
1. To improve livelihoods through i) need-based extension methods and content and ii)
strengthened local institutional capacities in selected districts and communes in upland areas
(via participatory approaches: participatory technology development (PTD) and farmer field
school (FFS) to link farmers with extension workers and researchers);
2. To develop effective and sustainable extension and training services (and their linkages to
applied research);
3. To assist MARD in the development and coordination of an integrated system of demand-
driven and appropriate research, education, training and extension (National Forest
Strategy).
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
201 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
F IELD OF ACTIVITIES AND MAIN INTERVENTIONS
The component dealing with governance activities (Helvetas, 2007):
Support to the National Working Group on Community Forestry Management (NWG-CFM) in
providing inputs to the new Law on Forest Protection and Development.
The development of the Community Forestry Management guideline approved by the
Minister of MARD for testing in 40 communes.
ETSP approaches/methods have been embedded into Curriculum Standard on Training in
Extension for a nation-wide dissemination by the National Agricultural Extension Center
(NAEC) under MARD.
Research - Education -Training - Education (RETE) became a Support Program No. IV in the
National Forestry Development Strategy (2006-2020).
Icraf vision for Vietnam and main activities : research, capacity development, knowledge sharing
and policy dialogue.
Icraf major research projects / activities, in Vietnam :
Agroforestry for livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Northwest Vietnam (AFLI)
Agro-forestry spatial characterization
Tree-cover change and drivers analysis
Simulation of agro-forestry and landscape scenarios
Tenure and property rights, gender and socio-economic activities
Reduction Emission from All Land Uses (REALU)
Agro-forestry and landscape models from Icraf :
WaNuLCAS (Water, Nutrient and Light Capture in Agroforestry Systems)
LUWES (Land Use planning for Low Emission Development Strategies)
The Center for Agricultural Research and Ecological Studies (CARES) in Hanoi has been working on
agro-forestry models. These researchers identified 2 kinds of benefit which ensure AF model to be
sustainable model:
- Socioeconomic benefit: diversifying outputs, reducing risk and ensuring food security, and
increasing household income.
- Environmental benefit: improving soil, conservation of forestry resources and biodiversity.
LOCATION AND SCALE OF OPERATIONS
Regarding Helvetas project, by the end of 2007, 16,300 farmers attended the training in the three
target provinces: Dak Nong, Thua Thien Hue and Hoa Binh.
Icraf projects Location (provinces) Duration
AFLI Son La, Dien Bien, Yen Bai Nov. 2011 – June 2016
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
202 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
REALU Phase I
Phase II
Dak Nong
Bac Kan
Oct. 2009 – May 2010
July 2010 – July 2011
Projects funded by Aciar and CGIAR.
Potential beneficiaries of Icraf projects : 3.4 million people in northwest region of Vietnam.
ADOPTION RATE AND FACTORS OF SUCCESS
For Helvetas, the key achievements are the increase of farmers’ incomes due to the increase of yield
on rice, maize and cassava productions, in these more sustainable systems.
Regarding the factor influencing farmer’s adoption, they considered three aspects:
(i) feasibility (do farmers have capital and necessary information to apply these techniques), (ii)
profitability (farmers calculate whether applying new technique is more economically effective than
other techniques that they can practice or not) and (iii) acceptability (advantages getting from these
systems, looking at external factors such as environmental awareness, poverty, and gender issue).
Main outputs (according to Icraf)
Scientific information and knowledge about agro-forestry prod. systems, landscapes…
Proto-type payments/rewards for Forest Environmental Services Schemes to local
communities
Researchers trained in agro-forestry systems research design and implementation
Extension agents and NGO workers trained in a range of agro-forestry practices in VN
Policy advising and decision-support tools for decision-makers and planners
CONSTRAINTS – DIFFICULTIES – LIMITS TO ADOPTION
According to CARES’s review on Agro-forestry, Vietnam’s land policy has not been entirely suitable
for stimulating agro-forestry practice. Due to the fact that the paddy field is allocated to households
dispersedly and the forest land is not adjacent to agricultural land, it is difficult to build agro-forestry
systems in household size. There are many problems with these policies because they are integrated
into other policies such as the land policy, the forest development policy, the rural development
policy, and the poverty alleviation program (CARES, 2000).
According to Icraf, main difficulties/constraints to develop agro-forestry and good practices are :
market for products, land availability/tenure, capital, labor, lack of monitoring (PFES)
NETWORK (NATIONAL OR REGIONAL)
Regional level : South-East Asia Network for Agro-Forestry Education
National level : Vietnam Network for Agro-Forestry Education
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
203 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION - SRI
DEFINITION, PRECISION OF CONCEPT – CHARACTERISTICS
The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is an innovative paddy cultivation method attaining high
paddy yields with lower resource utilization of such inputs as water and fertilizer. The basic concepts
that characterize SRI are: (i) a unique transplanting method using a single young seedling with wide
spacing, and (ii) water management by intermittent irrigation (no impounding).
Transplant seedlings at a younger age (before 14 days after seeding), which preserves the original
seeds nourishment potential by around 40-50%, and thereby optimizes the potential for tillering and
root growth;
Transplant a single seedling at each location;
Widen the spatial interval of transplanting (30 cm x 30 cm or more) to provide room for profuse root
and tiller growth by allowing the plant to monopolize the soil fertility and sunshine energy.
Water management: Apply intermittent irrigation periodically to keep the soil both moist and
aerated periodically at least during the vegetative growth period. Aeration of soil allows aerobic and
anaerobic bacteria an opportunity to contribute to plant growth. Consequently the growing paddy is
durable against wind and pests, and irrigation demand decreases by about 40% on the average.
In addition to the basic concept above, provision of organic matter (compost) to the soil has been
recommended to help achieve sustainable SRI cultivation practices. This can be any decomposed
biomass, including rice straw or weeds.
During the seminar, one participant raised the problem of SRI name, because in international
language, and especially in Vietnamese language, “intensification” generally means more inputs,
more fertilizers and chemicals, thus creation confusion for farmers and local authorities.
H ISTORY OF INTRODUCTION IN V IETNAM
Regarding rice production in Vietnam, nationwide, there is an serious existing problem of overuse
of chemical fertilizers (especially nitrogen) and pesticides and secondary, of seeds. High
applications of nitrogen and high transplanting density have become major reasons for the rice
crop’s vulnerability to pests, resulting in decreased yield, less economic efficiency, and deteriorating
environmental quality.
Overuse of chemicals (fertilizer, pesticide, etc.) will pollute the environment, affecting the
environment’s health. In order to solve this situation, since 2003 the National IPM Program has been
introducing the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) to IPM farmers for experimentation. Based on SRI
principles, IPM trainers and IPM farmer groups together studied and developed the training
procedures for farmers to apply SRI.
Surprisingly, SRI was introduced quite late in Vietnam, compare to less developed countries such as
Cambodia or Madagascar.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
204 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED AND PARTNER SHIP
PPD, DANIDA;
Oxfam America (one of the main promoter of SRI in North Vietnam),
SRD, WVI, Casrad
SNV (Quang Binh and Binh Dinh provinces, with Dard as main partner, for rice production, including
business, renewable energy, knowledge management and policy advocacy – 500 hectares – 13,000
beneficiaries – funded by Ausaid)
F IELD OF ACTIVITIES AND MAIN INTERVENTIONS
Introduction of SRI manual to local staff and farmers
Upgrading and adapting FFS procedures on SRI
Conducting FFS on SRI
Assessment and reflection of FFS implementation
Farmers carry out SRI experiments on their own fields
Organize a workshop to promote and, advocate for SRI dissemination and replication
Throughout the whole process, farmers should be observing their rice crop and their rice field
carefully, looking for any signs of stress or poor growth. Farmers should feel free to make some
adjustments in practices like timing, spacing, soil preparation, weeding, or to try any other thing they
think might give their rice a better chance to grow vigorously. Innovations should be tried first in
small areas rather than for the whole field.
LOCATION AND SCALE OF OPERATION
In 2005, SRI was applied on a larger scale, ranging 2-5 ha for each site in 14 provinces across the
country. In 2006, SRI was applied in 17 provinces with the participation of 3,450 farmers. The results
showed that due to SRI application, seed volume can be reduced by 70 or 90% in comparison
to conventional farmers’ practice with some increase in yield.
The volume of nitrogen applied has been reduced by 20-25%, with average yield increased by 9-15%.
The healthier crop leads to better resistance against pests and diseases, and to a significant
reduction of pesticides use in the field.
In Ha Tay Province in 2008, there were 33,000 hectares of SRI applied by 95,000 farmers
PPD, Oxfam America, SRD : Hanoi, Thai Nguyen, Bac Kan, Phu Tho, Ha Tinh, Nghe An.
SNV : 500 ha and 13,000 beneficiaries in the provinces of Quang Binh and Binh Dinh
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
205 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
ADOPTION RATE AND FACTORS OF SUCCESS
In May 2007, the Science Council of MARD temporarily recognized SRI as a scientific advance. The
Science and Technology Department of MARD was requested to advise MARD in order to issue an
official request to DARDs in Northern region for SRI expansion. An official recognition was made in
October, 2007.
The main successful factors for adoption, according to the participants of the seminar are :
Support from local government (at commune and district level particularly)
SRI expanding activities sometimes integrated in Socio-Economic Development Plan of
district and commune level
Cost reduction in terms of fertilizers and seeds
Farmers Field School training approach
CONSTRAINTS – DIFFICULTIES – LIMITS TO ADOPTION
SRI is well adapted only in favourable places (mastering of water level)
Lack of water, means that farmers are afraid to drain their fields
Degraded and poor soils in northern mountain areas
Weed problems due to poor soil and lack of water
Water-logging makes some fields difficult to drain
Need to determine optimum SRI practices on various land types
High risk for young seedlings due to cold during spring season
Farmers’ beliefs and habits on transplanting density
Need to integrate SRI into the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development guidelines
Lack of funds to support SRI research and extension
Large rice field practices and due to governmental orientations in Mekong delta, excluding
small scale producers or rendering water more difficult to manage
DESIGNING FUTURE NATIONAL / REGIONAL NETWORK ON AGRO-ECOLOGY
AGROECOLOGY PRINCIPLES
During the workshop, there was no problem among participants about the definition of concept of
agro-ecology; all agree to consider that agro-ecology is a generic name including all the other
components or concepts presented above. Nor subjection when it was presented at the beginning of
workshop, that Conservation Agriculture is a component of agroecology.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
206 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
NETWORKS IN V IETNAM
Some networks exist already for Agro-forestry, VAC (Vacvina) and organic agriculture (eco-farming).
Nothing yet so far on IPM, SRI and Conservation Agriculture.
To discuss, exchange ideas and experience more broadly on agro-ecology, the current Sustainable
Agriculture and Natural Resource Management, one the forum of NGO Resource center, co-organizer
of the workshop, could become a relevant platform.
ENLARGING SCOPE OF CANSEA FOR A REGIONAL NETWORK OF AGROECOLOGY ?
During the workshop, researchers like Dr. Jean-Charles Maillard, exposed their point of view; Mrs
Delia Catacutan, from Icraf, totally agreed on this statement as well.
Jean-Charles Maillard (and regional Cirad) was strongly involved in creation and management of
CANSEA. This network comprises now 8 structures (maybe Aciar will be a new member in the coming
months) and it is not easy to manage on research objectives, scientific program, fund research, fund
sharing, ….
If we consider that in the six related countries, there are about 100 institutions working more or less
on agro-ecology, a network with such a high number of structures, is too big and too difficult to
manage. For example, who will participate, decide, on scientific program of the network. That’s why,
“to want to build a regional network on agro-ecology is too ambitious”.
It would be more relevant to organize or strengthen regional networks per component, as it already
exists for Agro-Forestry, Organic Agriculture, IPM, and Conservation Agriculture. CANSEA already
plays a significant role in Conservation Agriculture in the region and is an example of what could be
done in other components, knowing that CANSEA is a network including only research structures.
It will be possible to see further how to shelter all these components in an unique regional umbrella.
However, the workshop has clearly showed that there is a huge need of exchanges on different
concepts, activities, experiences, … That’s why, we can propose a platform to exchange on agro-
ecology at Vietnam level (see proposition to be sheltered by SANRM). It would be quite additional to
CANSEA, knowing that this network has not private sector or NGOs represented. To finish the
discussion the representative of WVI at the workshop proposed to take into account the Sustainable
Development Strategy, and part for Sustainable Agriculture now existing at government level and
could support some initiatives.
EXPECTATIONS FROM PARTICIPANTS TOWARDS A GMS AGROECOLOGY NETWORK
a) Sharing information, techniques and experiences
Sharing information and experiences
Technical support
Develop to larger scale in the practice
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
207 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
Training among farmers, farmers to learn together
Platform to promote sustainable organic farming
b) Enlarge to other partners and institutions
Looking on larger public (not only farmers to change their practices)
Synergies to train staff, facilitate project implementation (seeds, soil analysis, equipment,
expertise, …)
Mix national institutions, research organizations and NGOs, NPAs
To become a regional recognized institution under GMS and opening to involvement of NGO
and private actors
c) At researchers or research institutions level
Create a research synergy for effective extension of conservative practices
To mobilize donors within an integrative regional project on AE based on research and
applying
Develop collaborative R4D activities for soil conservation
Possibility to implement regional programs / projects with “trans-boundaries” R4D topics
REFERENCES
ASIADHRRA and AGRITERRA, 2002. Profiles of People’s Organizations in Rural Asia.
CARES, 2000. Reviewing Agroforestry and agroforest markets in Vietnam’s Uplands. Agroforestry
development situation in Vitenam’s Uplands.
CARES, 2005. Factors Influencing farmers’ adoption of agroforestery models. Case study: Seo hamlet,
Cao Son commune, Da Bac district, Hoa Binh province. Hanoi Agricultural University.
FAO, 2010. Country Strategy Paper Vietnam. Extension period July 2010-June2013. Pesticide risk
reduction “IPM Component” towards a non-toxic environment in South East Asia.
Ha Dinh Tuan, 2009. ADAM project “Support to development of agroecology in mountainous teas-
areas of Vietnam”. Development issues and ADAM project’s activities.
Helvetas Vietnam, 2007. Forestry and Agriculture Extension in Vietnam: Five years of experiences of
the extension and training support project for forestry and Agriculture in the uplands, ETSP,
2003-2007.
Le Quoc Doanh and Ha Dinh Tuan, 2008. Conservation agriculture on sloping lands in Northern
mountainous regions of Vietnam.
Morrow R., 1995. Intensive small-scale farming in Vietnam. LEISA.
Ngo Doan Dam, Doan Xuan Canh, Nguyen Thi Thanh Ha, Nguyen Van Tan, Nguyen Dinh Thieu, 2012.
Vietnam Organic Agriculture. An overview on current status and some success activities. Paper
presented at the 4th ANSOFT Workshop – Korea.
Thi Hop L., 2003. Programs to improve production and consumption of animal source foods and
malnutrition in Vitenam. Animal source foods to improve micronutrient nutrition and human
function in developing countries. National Institute of Nutrition, Ministry of Health, Hanoi,
Vietnam.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
208 A7 – Agroecology in Vietnam
Van den Berg H., 2004. IPM farmer Field Schools: A synthesis of 25 impact evaluations. Wageningen
University, Prepared for the Global IPM Facility.
Vu Le Y Voan, 2006. Organic production in Vietnam.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AEW Agricultural Extension Workers
AVSI AVSI Foundation -(Italian INGO)
CARI Central Agricultural Research Institute, Yezin
CORAD Chin Organization for Rural and Agricultural Development
DoF Department of Fishery
ECCDI Ecosystem Conservation and Community Development Initiative
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FFS Farmers Field School
FSWG Food Security Working Group
FREDA Forest Resource, Environment Development and Conservation Association
FSWG Food Security Working Group
GAA German Agro Action
GAP Good agriculture practice
GMS Greater Mekong Sub-region
GRET Groupe de Recherche et D’Echanges Technologiques
IPM Integrated pest management
KBC Kachin Baptist Convention
KIO Kachin Independence Organization
LIFT Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund
MAPT Myanmar Agricultural Produces Trading
MAS Myanmar Agriculture Service
MFF Myanmar Fisheries Federation
MFFVPEA Myanmar Fruits, Flower, and Vegetables Producers Entrepreneurs’ Association
MOAG Myanmar Organic Agriculture Movement Group
MoECaF Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry
MSN Mangrove Service Network
SALT sloping agricultural land technology
SI Solidarites International
SRI The System of Rice Intensification
SWISSAID Swiss Foundation for Development Cooperation
UMFCCI Myanmar Federation of Chamber of Commence and Industry
UNDP-HDI United Nations Development Programme –Human Development Initiative
WC-M World Concern (Myanmar)
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
209 A8 – Agroecology in Yunnan
APPENDIX 8. AGROECOLOGY INITIATIVES IN YUNNAN – CHINA
by Dietrich Smidt-Vogt
AGRICULTURE IN YUNNAN
Yunnan has maintained a strong agricultural focus from the past into the present. In the past,
agricultural systems were extremely diverse due to the topographical, climatic and ethnic diversity
that is characteristic of Yunnan which stretches from the northern rim of the tropics in
Xishuangbanna in the south to the escarpment of the Tibetan Plateau in the north. Agricultural
systems were also to a large extent subsistence-oriented due to low population densities, and the
location of Yunnan at the periphery of the Chinese empire. An exception was the production of tea
which was traded into Tibet. Another characteristic of traditional land use in Yunnan is the important
role played by wild edible plants which are collected from the forests or which are in the process of
domestication. An example are mushrooms. Yunnan has one of the most abundant resources of wild
edible mushrooms. In China, there are 938 kinds of edible mushrooms, of which over 800 varieties
can be found in Yunnan. Mushrooms exported from Yunnan make up 70% of the total export of this
product from China. The potential of cultivating mushrooms within an agroecology context will be
explored later.
The current situation is characterized by rapid modernization and intensification of agriculture in
Yunnan as a result of government programs, new market opportunities, and increasing cross-border
linkages. A characteristic of this development is the adoption of cash crops by state enterprises, but
also on a large scale by smallholder farmers. Important cash crops in Yunnan are tea, tobacco, and
more recently rubber and coffee. The large-scale transformation of formerly diverse landscapes into
monocultures, especially in the southern, tropical parts of Yunnan encourages a rethinking on land
use with more focus on sustainability and maintaining ecosystem services.
GENERAL LAND USE POLICY REVIEW
The decisions of farmers on crops and long-term versus short-term investments are strongly
influenced by prevailing land tenure systems and tenure security. Land tenure in China has gone
through several policy changes, which have also affected farmers in Yunnan.
After the founding of the PRC in 1949, the Chinese government confiscated rural land from landlords
and redistributed it to farmers, thus, for a short period, usually for a period of three years, granting
smallholders private ownership of land. From 1951 to 1956, farmers were forced to consolidate their
land holdings into large cooperatives comprising about 160 households each. After 1958, rural
households were organized into giant “people’s communes” of around 5000 households each. Most
of China’s agricultural land became collectively owned and managed until the beginning of the
reform process initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978. As part of this reform process, the Chinese
government instituted the Household Responsibility System (HRS) in 1979. Under this system, village
collectives allocated land-use rights to individuals. The HRS, however, did not grant land-use rights to
farmers in the long term. Moreover, the duration of use rights granted to individual households
varied greatly from region to region. Because the HRS did not require written land-use contracts,
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
210 A8 – Agroecology in Yunnan
farmers felt that they could not rely on their land-use rights which affected their land-use planning.
In order to improve this situation the contractual term of land-use rights was extended to 15 years in
1984, and to 30 years in 1993. To sum up, one can say that the current rural land-use law has
strengthened the tenure security of farmers, which in turn has encouraged them to plan their land-
uses for the longer term (Dean et al. 2010).
Implementation of the Household Responsibility System and subsequent improvements of tenure
security have thus encouraged farmers to invest heavily in perennial cash crops such as tea, rubber,
and coffee, especially after 2000.
AGROECOLOGY IN YUNNAN
Agroecology, i.e. agricultural land uses for production and conservation, in Yunnan is a mixture of
traditional and modern practices. Many traditional land uses of ethnic minorities in Yunnan were
characterized by a high level of agrobiodiversity on farm level as well as on landscape level, and by
conservation measures such as fallowing for soil fertility instead of applying fertilizers. Policies for
improving land security, for promoting cash crops, for watershed conservation, and for suppressing
undesirable land uses such as shifting cultivation were an important factor in bringing about land use
change towards an expansion of commercial monocultures at the expense of more diverse and often
more sustainable land use systems. Modern agroecology initiatives in Yunnan can be seen as a
countermovement to this general trend for the promotion of more sustainable land uses, the
production of healthier food, and the conservation of traditional knowledge and practices.
POLICIES RELATING TO SUSTAINABLE LAND USE
The policies briefly outlined here, are a testimony to the awareness that current farming practices
can be detrimental to the environment. However, instead of promoting change or adaptation of
farming practices, these policies either promote conversion of farmland to woodland, or try to
prevent farmers from converting forest to farmland by providing incentives for forest conservation.
The Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) or Grain for Green 2000-2006, 2007-present,
implemented by the State Forestry Administration.
Under this program, grain and cash payments are distributed as temporary compensation for
opportunity costs foregone by farmers for afforesting or reforesting agricultural lands, particularly
those on sloping lands. The primary motivations for this program were drought and ensuing floods
experienced in 1997-1998, after which afforestation/reforestation were promoted as a general
approach to watershed restoration Subsidies are paid per mu (land area measurement unit in China)
and are broken down as an annual living expense, a subsidies for the Yellow River and Yangtze River
watershed restoration. The length of the time of payment depends on the type of land involved.
Reforestation is often carried out with commercially useful species such as walnut or even rubber so
as to provide a source of income after the end of compensation payments. This contributed to the
policy’s popularity among farmers and provided an added incentive for the conversion of farmland
for cropping of annuals to commercial tree plantations. The program was initiated in a 2000-2006
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
211 A8 – Agroecology in Yunnan
phase, under which 130.1b RMB was spent, and was renewed in 2007 with a new funding
commitment. Over 139 m mu (9.27m ha) of cropland and 205 m mu (13.67 m ha) wasteland have
been converted. SLCP is the PRC’s largest eco-compensation program at this point, and its popularity
has bred large interest in policy circles in the use of PES or market-based instruments.
Forest Ecosystem Benefit Compensation Fund for forest conservation or restoration, implemented by
the State Forestry Administration.
The Forest Ecosystem Benefit Compensation Fund was established under the 1998 Forest Law of the
PRC. Its pilot phase received 1 b RMB for the construction, management, and protection of public
benefit forests, and involved 200 m mu (13.33 m ha) in counties and national reserves across China.
The priority for allocation of these funds is watershed protection and restoration.
CERTIFICATION SCHEMES
Agricultural Product Certification
With the growing importance of organic farming for the domestic market but more importantly for
export, national certification systems have developed, while international certifiers still play an
important role for the export market (OCIA, ECOCERT, BCS, IMO, JONA, OMIC).
The Organic Food Development Center of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, China (OFDC-MEP), founded in 1994, is the pioneer of the organic movement in China. It became China’s first member of the International Federation of International Agricultural Movements (IFOAM). OFDC-MEP has long been engaged in researches on policies, standards, practical technology, production base planning, publicity, training and quality control of organic farming and eco-farming.
Organic Food Development and Certification Centre of China http://www.ofdc.org.cn/
The China Organic Food Certification Center (COFCC) under the Ministry of Agriculture is a specialized certification body that has been registered at China national authority (CNCA) and is both nationally (CNAS) and internationally (IFOAM) accredited. In China it is also registered in the Bureau of Industry and Commerce, and has its own legal personality. COFCC is focusing on inspection and certification of organic products and China. COFCC has functional departments as Department of Certification, Department of Administration, and Department of Development, each with its own apparent responsibilities. COFCC has built a team of qualified staff and inspectors with high professional skills and foreign language proficiency.
Major functions:
Organic food certification and training service
Support enterprises to cultivate organic food market
International cooperation to promote organic trade in international market
Provide organic food information service
Theoretical research on organic agriculture development
Provide evidence for Chinese government to make organic food standard and organic agriculture policy
www.ofcc.org.cn
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
212 A8 – Agroecology in Yunnan
Green Foods Certification
Ministry of Agriculture (Green Foods), Ministry of Environmental Protection (Organic Foods)
The green foods certification system was established in 1990, and involved 3 initial years of
establishing standards, a certification regime, and the Green Foods Development Center. Green Food
Labels were established in 1992, which do not strictly require organic practices but allow for reduced
synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use. The distinguishing A and AA ratings were made to separate
organic from green foods. www.greenfood.org.cn
Yunnan Greenfood Office http://www.greenfood.org.cn/sites/yn/
Along with these certification approaches have been the development of a number of subsidies,
financial incentives, and supportive policies promoting the development of green and organic food
industries including: (Dalian) Green Agriculture Support Subsidies, (Shanghai) Organic Fertilizer
Subsidies, (Bejing) Organic Fertilizer and Safe Pesticide Subsidies, and a National VAT Tax Exemption
for organic fertilizer.
According to information provided by stakeholders in organic products trading in Yunnan, OFDC has
recently changed its rules and made certification more difficult and more costly. A number of
operations apparently had their licenses withdrawn or have voluntarily dropped out of the
certification systems as further elaborated below.
Certification of NTFPs
Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) include food, fiber etc which are usually collected from a forest
environments, but some of which are increasingly domesticated, sometimes in a managed forest
environment such as an agroforestry system. In China, NTFPs are cultivated on a total of 680,000 ha
outside forests (Schmitt et al. 2008).
China is the largest producer of NTFPs worldwide. The well-established local markets are, however,
more important than the international markets. The commercially most important NTFPs are
bamboos and bamboo shoots, medicinal plants and mushrooms.
Yunnan plays a nationally important role in NTFP production due to high biodiversity of forests in
subtropical and tropical locations and due to the large amount of indigenous knowledge on forests
products of the many ethnic minorities in Yunnan.
There exists as yet no separate certification scheme for NTFPs. However, a number of NTFPs are
covered by existing certification schemes such as the Green Food Label which covers NTFPs such as
mushrooms, bamboo shoots, wild herbs, medicinal plants and wild honey.
ORGANIC FARMING IN CHINA AND YUNNAN
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
213 A8 – Agroecology in Yunnan
Certified organic agriculture began in China around 1990 and has grown rapidly since then, mainly
driven by overseas markets. There is also a growing demand in China by consumers for better quality
food, as manifested by the 1st Chinese BioFach exhibition.
China is already the third largest producer of organic products. Organic farming is carried out on 2.3
mio ha, which represents 2 % of the total agricultural area of China. The organic food industry is
growing by 30% per year. The increase in organic farming has gone hand in hand with certification
schemes which, however, are applied mainly to products for export in order to gain confidence of
overseas consumers. In the domestic market, only 0.02% of the total food consumption is certified
(Schmitt et al 2008). In Yunnan, according to assessments of local stakeholders in organic products
training, the proportion may be declining.
The situation in Yunnan province is different in other ways as well. While organic production outside
of Yunnan province is mainly for overseas markets and controlled by overseas-based certification
companies, production of organic foods and other products in Yunnan is mostly for the Chinese
market. Organic farming started in Yunnan about 10 years ago with the operations of the Haobao
Organic Farm near Kunming.
While consumer interest in organic products is increasing among Chinese customer, especially those
from the emerging middle-class, prices for organic products have also increased, mainly due to more
costly certification processes. Some producers in Yunnan therefore no longer have their products
certified, but still use the term organic, relying on the confidence they have been able to build up
among their clientele. Organizations like the Pesticide Eco-Alternative Centre (PEAC) are trying to
counter this situation by establishing Participatory-Guarantee-Systems (PGS).
Pesticide Eco-Alternative Centre (PEAC)
PEAC, established in 2002, is a non-profit, non-governmental organization dedicated to the
collection, extension and advancement of ecological alternative forms of pest control, elimination of
chemical pesticides and development of ecological and organic agriculture, so as to protect both
human and environmental health and further promote sustainable development.
Main areas of activities are 1) reducing the use of pesticides in agricultural, urban and natural
ecosystems, and promoting alternative ecological forms of pest control, 2) supporting organic and
sustainable farming development, and 3) providing public education for awareness on the risks of
pesticide use, and the benefits of a Green Economy.
Main forms of activities are research, promotion, public education, and policy advocacy.
Research is aimed at providing scientific proof of the risks of exposure to pesticides through baseline
surveys and health risks assessments to be used in public education and policy advocacy. Another
area of research is into alternative forms of pest management by e.g. using light and color to attract
pests into traps. This research is carried out in laboratories, but also on experimental plots. Research
includes also, the collection and dissemination of existing indigenous knowledge about alternatives
to chemical pest control, as many local farmers in the province’s mountainous and remote areas
actually do apply eco-friendly indigenous knowledge and techniques in farming. T
Ecological methods of agriculture are promoted by supporting individual farmers or farmer
cooperatives through know-how on farming technology and through marketing facilities. So far over
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
214 A8 – Agroecology in Yunnan
35 households have participated in ecological farming. As farmers, however, cannot afford to pay for
organic certification fees and cannot meet the often complicated requirements and standards by
organic certification bodies, PEAC engages in the development of Participatory Guarantee Systems
(PGS). Other supporting activities include ecological stores for partners and organizing a monthly
ecological market in Kunming.
Public education is mainly aimed at consumers. Over hundreds of consumers have participated in
trainings related to food safety and ecological products. An important form of such trainings consists
in bringing together consumers and farmers on partner farms for mutual exchange. Public education
is also administered through the internet. PEAC runs a website for the dissemination of knowledge
on environment and health, and for downloading course materials based on an E-learning platform
for teaching on pesticide risks, organic products etc. www.6weidu.com
With course materials, PEAC targets teachers as multipliers for information and messages. PEAC also
publishes an English language newsletter: PEAC News
Policy advocacy is aimed at raising the awareness of decision-makers for pesticide risks. PEAC counts
among its major successes that a number of chemical pesticides have been banned as a result of its
campaigns.
As part of PEAC operations, Eco Women as a women-only volunteer and decision-making network
was founded in 2002. Eco Women aims to improve women’s awareness and abilities on
environmental protection, to protect the health of women and children, and to develop women’s
sustainable livelihoods.
In March 2005, PEAC started a new project in cooperation with the Hong Kong based NGO
Partnership for Community Development (PDC - http://www.pcd.org.hk) to monitor organic and
sustainable farming development in Yunnan. Through this study, PEAC hopes to provide an overview
of existing organic agricultural projects in the province, plus documenting the dangers of
irresponsible farming practices. By focusing on areas of production, marketing and certification, PEAC
will supply information on the province’s complex agricultural situation, an analysis of the barriers to
and opportunities for organic development and promotion.
PEAC is committed to build up a mutual action network for the reduction of pesticide use and its
risks. Its activities were initially limited to Yunnan, but have by now spread all over China. PEAC is
strongly interested in forming an international network with the commitment to reduce chemical
pesticide use. A previous visit to Thailand through which PEAC staff have learned about the strong
support of organic farming by the government through e.g. paying certification fees for farmers, has
shown them the value of learning from different countries in the same region.
Main problems, as perceived by PEAC staff are the long time required for promoting their ideas and
concepts, and changes in climatic patterns. They encounter a considerable resistance on farmers’
parts to give up pesticides and experiment with alternative methods of pest management and
ecological farming. Also consumer awareness is difficult to promote in China even among the
recently well-to-do who still tend to spend money rather on consumer items than on safe food. It is
also difficult to convince farmers of the importance of food safety, mainly because of their still
prevailing concern over food security. These problems are re-enforced in Yunnan by the drought that
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
215 A8 – Agroecology in Yunnan
has been prevailing over the past four years. Pest outbreaks as a result of these droughts has caused
many farmers to abandon alternative methods and to resume using conventional pesticides.
Source: www.panchina.org
There is a large number of organic farms in Yunnan, mainly catering to the domestic or even to the
local market. Two of the bigger enterprises will be introduced here:
Huabao Qing Organic Farm, located just outside of Kunming, is still one of the biggest organic
operations in Yunnan province. Its products are licenced by OFDC and are mainly for the Chinese
market. www.haobaoqing.com, haobao.organic@gmail.com
Another notable operation is the production of organic coffee at the Manlao River Organic Coffee
Plantation near Pu’er in SW Yunnan, 500 km away from Kunming. The farm was started in 2004 and
produces organic coffee on 100 ha out of a total of 10,000 ha farmland
http://manlaorivercoffeeco.com/organic_farming.htm
A new and very specialized effort is the Organic Chinese Medicine Development Project of the Sino-
Agri Holding Company Limited.
AGROFORESTRY
The term agroforestry is applied to land-use systems and technologies where woody perennials
(trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, etc.) are deliberately used on the same land-management units as
agricultural crops and/or animals, in some form of spatial arrangement or temporal sequence. In
agroforestry systems there are both ecological and economical interactions between the different
components.
This definition implies that:
agroforestry normally involves two or more species of plants (or plants and animals), at least
one of which is a woody perennial;
an agroforestry system always has two or more outputs;
the cycle of an agroforestry system is always more than one year; and
even the simplest agroforestry system is more complex, ecologically (structurally and
functionally) and economically, than a monocropping system.
Agroforestry is promoted worldwide by the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), which states the
following key objectives of its operations.
Broadening the range and diversity of trees that can be integrated into farming systems,
especially as many produce higher income per unit of area than annual crops, require less
labor and are more resilient to drought.
Maximizing the productivity of agroforestry systems through improved tree germplasm,
integrated soil fertility and the enhanced supply of high-quality tree fodder resources.
Improving the income of poor households by facilitating their access to markets. This is also
important in stabilizing land-use change in some areas, as well as increasing farmers’
investment in agroforestry trees and systems.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
216 A8 – Agroecology in Yunnan
Working in agricultural landscapes that experience the greatest environmental stress to
balance improved productivity with the sustainable management of natural resources. For
example, stabilizing forest margins in Southeast Asia by converting slash-and-burn systems,
and rehabilitating degraded agricultural land throughout Africa.
Managing trees in agricultural landscapes to ensure the health of river and groundwater
systems.
Examining reward systems or other types of institutional and policy innovations (such as for
carbon or water) to sustain biodiversity at the interface between smallholder agricultural
landscapes and conservation areas.
AGROFORESTRY IN YUNNAN
In many parts of Yunnan, agroforestry has been practiced as a traditional land use system especially
of ethnic minorities. Examples are shifting cultivations systems with an integrated fallow period for
restoring soil nutrients, home gardens, the practice of planting ‘ancient tea’ or ‘jungle tea’, and
agroforestry systems based on nitrogen-fixing trees such as the Himalayan alder (Alnus nepalensis).
Shifting cultivation was widely practiced by ethnic minorities especially in Xishuangbanna in southern
Yunnan, but has largely vanished due to policy pressures for the conversion of temporary land use to
permanent land use (Sturgeon 2005, 2011).
Homegardens for domestic supply and characterized by high biodiversity were once widespread in
southern Yunnan, but have now largely vanished (Schaffert 2011).
‘Ancient’ or ‘Jungle tea’ is the traditional form of tea cultivation in southern Yunnan. In this system,
tea trees are managed in the as one component among other species. Tea trees are not kept at shrub
size as in modern systems, but are allowed to grow to nearly their full size and often attain a high age
of several hundreds of years. Yunnan Pu’er tea as the most notable brand of ancient tea has
experienced a market boom in the past ten years, because it was associated with historical,
ecological and health attributes and promoted as a brand. The tremendous demand and investment
on Pu’er tea drove the prices up to as high as 20 times the original value in just a few years,
especially for “old tea” or “agroforest tea”, which is produced in the traditional tea agroforestry
systems.
In Yunnan, planting a local species of ginger Ammomum Tsoa-ko under Himalayan alder has come
into use. Wa farmers of Ximeng County in Yunnan, who manage Himalayan alder-based swiddening
as described above, have also been practicing alley-cropping of Himalayan alder and food crops since
the 1980s, as a locally developed practice. Himalayan alder is also widely used as a shade tree in tea
plantations in Tengchong and Fenqing counties in western Yunnan. (Guo et al. 2007).
Modern agroforestry as defined by the World Agroforestry Center is promoted in Yunnan by the
Centre for Mountain Ecosystem Studies (CMES)
THE CENTRE FOR MOUNTAIN ECOSYSTEM STUDIES (CMES)
CMES has been established in 2002 as an applied research & development institution jointly
managed by the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) and the Kunming Institute of Botany (KIB),
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
217 A8 – Agroecology in Yunnan
Chinese Academy of Sciences. It is working on environmental research and development in the
Southwest of China, which is characterized by diverse mountain terrain and climate, a large
population of ethnic minorities an, rich biodiversity and increasing pressure on natural resources.
CMES cooperates with various government institutions and NGO partners to strengthen community’s
capabilities to change by introducing farmers, government agencies, and NGO staff to new
approaches and methods adapted to diverse upland situations. By diversifying the agroforestry
model, certifying organic farming, promoting fair trade, sustainable use of NTFPs, use and research
on bioenergy, setting up mechanisms for Payment for Environmental Services, and addressing global
climate change, CMES is committed for a long term goal of sustainable development in the
Southwest of China
Organic Farming and Fair Trade
Since 2005 CMES is working with communities, government agencies and NGOs to raise farmer’s
awareness of the benefits and challenges of organic farming. It is also exploring the potential for
formal certification. Key partners include the BioFach China Project (http://www.biofach-
china.com/) and the Organic Food Development Center of China (http://www.ofdc.org.cn/). The goal
is to develop a model organic and fair trade smallholder producer group.
Non-Timber Forest Products
NTFPs include food (nuts, mushrooms, fruits, herbs), fibers, resins and gums, and products used for
medicinal purposes. Forest products play an important role in the household economies of
Southwest China, especially in mountain communities. With the enforcement of a strict logging ban
in 2000, most upland communities lost their rights to sell timber. Many households substituted for
this loss by intensifying the collection of NTFPs, which has led to a severe decline in some products
and an increased threat to biodiversity.
Since 2004, poor upland households have participated in research and development for integrating
medicinal plants into agroforestry systems. Some medicinal plants such as Dipsacus daliensis,
Foeniculi fructus and Pinellia ternata have a high potential for domestication but the lack of technical
knowledge of farmers is a constraint.
A commodity chain analysis of major local NTFPs – mushrooms, walnuts and pine nuts – was begun
in 2005 to provide an essential base for strategic development inputs at the local level. A focus of this
research is on commodification and sustainable management of the matsutake mushroom in
agroforestry systems (He et al. 2010).
CMES and its partner organizations is also exploring different certification schemes which, however,
is challenging in view of the diversity of NTFPs in Yunnan and their complex ecological interactions.
Green Rubber
In Xishuangbanna, Yunnan, rubber increased by 175% between 2002 and 2010. Conversion of diverse
multi-use landscapes to rubber monoculture has degraded ecosystem services and the well-being of
some peoples, especially upland minority groups. Conversion to rubber also leads to substantial net
release of carbon dioxide and to the degradation of soil structure and nutrient levels. Forest area is
now greatly fragmented. Local people have fewer opportunities to collect NTFPs and the traditional
exchange of these products between indigenous groups has been disrupted. Under pressure from
both national and provincial governments to address problems caused by rubber, in 2009 the
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
218 A8 – Agroecology in Yunnan
Xishuangbanna prefectural government and the rubber industry established the “Leadership Group
for Environmentally Friendly Rubber” (LGEFR). The group links government, research, and industry
stakeholders, and thus provides a forum for discussing and implementing policy instruments for
restoring ecosystem services and alleviating poverty. CMES is planning a project to design a Green
Rubber landscape that balances income from rubber with restoration of ecosystem services for
sustainable poverty alleviation. The overall project objective is to develop an integrative, applicable
and stakeholder-validated “green rubber” land-use model that can be implemented directly.
http://www.chinaagroforestry.org
AGROBIODIVERSITY INITIATIVES
TianZi Biodiversity and Development Center
The TianZi Biodiversity and Development Center was established by Josef Markgraf near Jinghong in
Xishuangbanna. The objectives of the Center are the promotion of organic and traditional products,
the conservation of traditional land uses as well as the restoration of degraded forests through a
process termed ‘rainforestation’. The guiding idea is to conserve traditional livelihoods along with
the environment that sustains them. www.natureproduct.net
Center for Biodiversity and Indigenous Knowledge (CBIK)
The Centre for Biodiversity and Indigenous Knowledge (CBIK) was established in 1995 as a non-profit
membership organization, based in Kunming, Southwest China. It has more than 100 members from
20 different Chinese institutions including research professionals of natural and social sciences as
well as development practitioners. It focuses on the issues of biodiversity conservation and
community development including natural resources management.
CBIK has undertaken surveys and action research on the impacts of the SLCP since 2005. A survey
carried out on the remote Dulong valley found that before 2002, at least 12 crop types were planted
in fields. By 2009 only a minority of households still cultivated these crops, others had converted
their fields to tree plantations. CBIK supports activities to conserve agrobiodiversity such as seed fairs
and revival of traditional farming techniques (Shen et al. 2010). www.cbik.org
RURAL-URBAN NETWORKS
A particularly Chinese problem is the gap between city and countryside which is reinforced by the
hukou registration system which divides Chinese people into urban and rural dwellers. Because of its
perceived potential for future social conflicts there are various initiatives to bridge this gap and to
bring urban and rural dwellers closer to each other. Such initiatives exist also in the area of
agroecology where the focus is on bringing produces and consumers together as already mentioned
above as one of the activities of PEAC.
Other organizations building farmer-consumer networks in Yunnan are the Hongkong-based
Partnership for Community Development (PCD) and the Guangdong Green Farming Social Network
Development Center.
Feasibility study of a regional project promoting agro-ecology in the Great Mekong Sub-Region
219 A8 – Agroecology in Yunnan
REFERENCES
Dean, Robin and Tobias Damm-Luhr (2010): A current review of Chinese land-use law and policy: a
‘breakthrough” in rural reform?”. Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal 19 (1): 121-159.
Guo, H., Xia, Y., Padoch, C., 2006. Alnus nepalensis-based agroforestry systems in Southwest China.
In: M. CAIRNS (Ed.).Voices from the forest: integrating indigenous knowledge into sustainable
farming, pp. 326-340. RFF Press, Washington.
He, Jun, Zhimei Zhou, Huixian Yang and Jianchu Xu (2011) Integrative management of
commercialized wild mushroom: a case study of Thelephora ganbajun in Yunnan, Southwest
China. Environmental Management 48: 98-108.
He, Jun (2010). Globalised forest products: commodification of the matsutake mushroom in Tibetan
villages, Yunnan, Southwest China. International Forestry Review 12 (1): 27-37.
He, Jun, Stark, Marco, Min, Dong and Horst Weyerhaeuser (2007). Small mushrooms, local process,
and global trade: bridging gaps between markets and policy in sustainable management of
Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) in Southwest China. ICRAF China Working Paper.
Li, Hongmei, Youxin Ma, T.M. Aide, and Wenjun Liu (2008). Past present and future land use in
Xishuangbanna, China, and the implications for carbon dynamics. Forest Ecology and
Management 255: 16-24
Liang, L.H., Shen, L.X., Yang, W.M., Yang, X.K., Zhang, Y., 2009. Building on traditional shifting
cultivation for rotational agroforestry: Experiences from Yunnan, China. Forest Ecol Manag
257, 1989-1994.
Lu, Juliet (2010) Synergies between conservation, adaptation and mitigation: a review of technical
options and implementation measures. Final report for SNRD Asia – Sector Network Natural
Resources and Rural Development. GIZ.
Schaffert, Angela (2012) Agrobiodiversity and its importance in homegardens of hill tribes in
Xishuangbanna, SW China. Master thesis. University of Hohenheim: Stuttgart, Germany.
Schmitt, Julia, Benno Pokorny and Li Ying (2008). Certification of Non-Timber Products in China:
effects on food quality, forest conservation and rural development. Forests, Trees and
Livelihoods 18 (1): 81-89.
Shen, Shicai, Andreas Wilkes, Jie Qian, Lun Yin, Jian Ren and Fudou Chang (2010). Agrobiodiversity
and biocultural heritage in the Dulong Valley, China. Mountain Research and Development 30
(3): 205-211.
Sturgeon, Janet C. (2005). Border landscapes: the politics of Akha land use in China and Thailand.
Silkworm Books: Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Sturgeon, Janet C. (2011). Rubber transformations: post-socialist livelihoods and identities for Akha
and Tai Lue farmers in Xishuangbanna, China. In: Michaud, Jean and Tim Forsyth (eds.). Moving
mountains: ethnicity and livelihoods in highland China, Vietnam, and Laos. UBC Press:
Vancouver, pp. 193-214.
Recommended