Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Abha Mishra - MEL Study in LMB Countries

28 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Abha Mishra - MEL Study in LMB Countries

Veröffentlicht in: Wissenschaft
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Abha Mishra - MEL Study in LMB Countries

  1. 1. Understanding the Pattern of Change Resulting from the SRI Capacity Building Interventions in Four LMB Countries through Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Study Regional Workshop, Bangkok, Thailand, November 01-02, 2018 Abha Mishra, ACISAI, AIT
  2. 2. 1. OBJECTIVE To evaluate and learn about the pattern of change in SRI-LMB region among different groups of farmers due to direct and indirect effects of Farmers’ Participatory Action Research (FPAR) intervention
  3. 3. 2. METHODOLOGY • Pre and post intervention surveys from 30 districts in 10 provinces from 4 LMB countries, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam • Purpose of the study was to learn from the evolution of farmers’ practices at FPAR and and non-FPAR sites with respect to pre-project baseline scenario, and with the respect to control groups • Three groups surveyed: • FPAR group: Farmer participants in the direct interventions of the project which included attendees from both CFPAR and FPAR, • Non-FPAR group: Farmers from the same village/neighborhood where the FPAR has been conducted, but who have not attended and followed the project’s direct interventions, but could be indirectly influenced by their neighbor who attended FPAR, and • Control group: Farmers with similar agro-ecological and socio-economical profiles as that of FPAR group, but that have not been directly or indirectly influenced by the project’s interventions.
  4. 4. 2.1 STUDY AREA Country Baseline survey MEL survey (Pre & post FPAR) Thailand January 2014 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017 Cambodia January 2014 -do- Laos December 2014 Nov-Dec 2015 & 2018 Vietnam June 2014 Bac Giang July 2015 and Feb 2016; July-Aug 2016 and Feb-March 2016Year 3; July August 2017 Ha Tinh July-Aug 2015 and Feb 2016; July-Aug 2016 and Feb 2017; July Aug 2017 and Nov-Dec 2017 Years of Data collection
  5. 5. 2.2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MEL STUDY
  6. 6. 2.3 SELECTION OF THE RESPONDENTS • Randomly selected using stratified sampling method FPAR structure in each province and FPAR MEL survey groups Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Lao PDR Year 2014-15 FPAR 238 81 N-FPAR 105 43 Control 99 42 Year 2015-16 FPAR 109 111 84 117 N-FPAR 81 69 40 74 Control 99 69 38 84 Year 2016-17 FPAR-1 75 111 90 FPAR-2 77 FPAR-3 72 N-FPAR 73 72 42 Control 73 72 41 .Number of respondents in MEL survey among country and subgroups
  7. 7. 2.4 SELECTION OF LOCAL MONITORS AND CONDUCTION OF MEL SURVEY • Selection of local monitors and training (One from each district were selected for data collection by national universities. • Questionnaires were developed, adapted and translated into the local language. During the training survey questionnaire were pre-tested, adjusted and finalized. • http://www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/resources/practical.php • Conducting MEL Survey - A full set of questionnaire can be seen in the MEL study protocol available at: http://sri-lmb.ait.asia/downloads/MEL%20Protocol-SRI-LMB- AIT.pdf . The MEL study protocol was developed in consultation with regional and national partners.
  8. 8. 2.5 DEFINED SRI CROP MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WITH RESPECT TO CM AND SRI-T Crop management practice Conventional practice (CM) SRI-Transition SRI-D Seedbed Wet seedbed with high seed rate Wet seedbed with less seeding rate Dry raised seedbed with seed rate Seedling age > 30 days old 16-30 days 8-15 days (VT-19-8 d) Seed rate 100-150 kg/ha 20-30% less than CM 5-20 kg/ha Transplanting spacing Random/less than 10×10 cm 10×15 cm–19×19 cm 20x20 cm–30x30 cm Seedlings/hill 5-6 seedlings/hill 4-5 seedlings/hill 1-3 seedlings/hill Soil condition Flooded Relative aerobic soil Maintain aerobic condition Manure application <5 t/ha 6-9 t/ha >9 t/ha Weed management Chemical and manual With rotary hoe 1-2 times With rotary hoe more than 2 times Pest management Chemical Apply IPM Apply IPM (environment management)
  9. 9. 2.6 DATA COLLECTION The data were collected in four broad areas:  Crop management practices applied w.r.t. SRI principles Cost and benefit to the households  Women farmer’s socio-economic status and overall well-being  Responses of farmers to extreme events (drought/flood/pests/disease outbreak), if any. Indicators selected for the MEL study were: 1. For crops/cropping system – (change in yield, change in maturity period, change in farming systems (diversification of crops/livestock) 2. For socio-economic aspects – change in net on-farm return, relative change in food security, change in labour requirement 3. For exposure and sensitivity to extreme events Data analysis • Microsoft excel 2016 was used to perform various exploratory and descriptive statistical analysis and tests. Statistical tests were performed by using analysis of variance (ANOVA); Cluster Analysis was done visualize the adaptation response pattern; Regression analysis was done, where
  10. 10. 2.7 DATA ANALYSIS • Microsoft excel 2016 was used to perform various exploratory and descriptive statistical analysis and tests. Statistical tests were performed by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) in Sigma Plot 12.5 • Cluster Analysis was done visualize the adaptation response pattern • Regression analysis was done, where needed. • DATA VARIABLES
  11. 11. 3. KEY FINDINGS 3.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND OF THE RESPONDENTS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FPAR Non-FPAR Control FPAR Non-FPAR Control FPAR Non-FPAR Control FPAR Non-FPAR Control Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos Age,years %farmers Gender distribution of respondent farmers Female (% farmers) Male (% farmers) Age (years) Gender and age distribution (Feminization of agriculture and working with aging population)
  12. 12. 3.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND OF THE RESPONDENTS 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 FPAR Non-FPAR Control FPAR Non-FPAR Control FPAR Non-FPAR Control FPAR Non-FPAR Control Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos Area,ha Land holding and area under rice cultivation of respondent farmers Land holding Area under rice cultivation Average land holding and area under rice cultivation
  13. 13. 3.2 CROP MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPLIED Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control Year 2014 (n=81) (n=43) (n=42) (n=238) (n=105) (n=99) Transplanting 40 28 14 73 59 41 Direct seeding 8 0 0 26 22 59 Broadcasting 56 72 86 2 18 0 Parachuting 0 0 0 0 0 0 Year 2015 (n=111) (n=39) (n=39) (n=109) (n=81) (n=99) (n=84) (n=40) (n=38) (n=74) (n=117) (n=84) Transplanting 36 18 09 65 64 41 46 43 53 99 98 99 Direct seeding 17 13 12 29 27 59 2 3 0 0 1 0 Broadcasting 47 69 79 6 9 0 20 25 21 1 1 1 Parachuting 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 30 26 0 0 0 Year 2016 Thailand Cambodia Vietnam FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR-1 FPAR-1 FPAR-2 NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control (n=115) (n=45) (n = 43) (n=75) (n=77) (n=72) (n=73) (n=73) n=110 (n=45) (n=45) Transplanting 41 27 13 50 40 45 30 33 45 43 54 Direct seeding 18 17 11 43 51 68 58 62 2 2 0 Broadcasting 41 56 67 7 9 8 12 5 20 24 22 Parachuting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 31 24 3.2.1 Sowing method (Moving from transplanting to direct seeding but with low seed rate
  14. 14. 7 11 13 10 19 15 13 0 19 63 70 87 90 78 85 88 66 64 30 18 0 0 3 0 0 34 18 0 20 40 60 80 100 2014 2015 2014 2015 2016 FPAR-1 2016 FPAR-2 2016 FPAR-3 2015 2015 (n=74) Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos %farms Seedbed rasing method over years in FPAR group farmers Dry seedbed (% farms) Wet seedbed (% farms) Seedling Tray (% farms) 3.2.2 Seedbed raising method (Wet seedbed preferred)
  15. 15. CROP MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPLIED WITH RESPECT TO SRI 3.2.3 Percent change in SRI practices from 2014 to 2016 in FPAR farmers 0 20 40 60 80 Transplanting Younger seedlings Wider spacing Seedlings per hill Change in practice over the years in Thailand 2014 2015 2016 0 50 100 Transplanting Younger Seedlings Wider Spacing Seedlings per hill Change in practices over the years in Cambodia 2014 2015 2016 0 50 100 Transplanting Younger Seedlings Wider Spacing Seedlings per hill Change in practices over the years in Vietnam 2015 2016 2017  Fewer seedlings/hil l  Wider spacing
  16. 16. FPAR Non-FPAR Young seedlings Wider spacing Lower no. of seedlings/hill Young seedlings Wider spacing Lower no. of seedlings/hill Thailand 47-28 (2014-16) 51-71 (2014-16) 66-71 (2014-16) 25-31 (2014-16) 25-29 (2014-16) 9-12 (2014-16) Cambodia 4-8 (2014-16) 33-27 (2014-16) 54-78 (2014-16) 0-3% (2014-16) 14-20 (2014-16) 31-39 (2014-16) Vietnam 49-63 (2015-17) 37-34 (2015-17) 79-60 (2015-17) 55-61 (2015-17) 31-33 (2015-17) 52-47 (2015-17) Laos 49 (2015) 74 (2015) 84 (2015) 3 (2015) 22 (2015) 24 (2015) 3.3.4. Percentage farmers in FPAR and Non FPAR groups adopting SRI practices
  17. 17. ADAPTATION RESPONSE PATTERN Cluster Profile Plots 1 SOILCONDITIO SEEDAGE SEEDRAISE SPACING SEEDPERHILL 2 SOILCONDITIO SEEDAGE SEEDRAISE SPACING SEEDPERHILL SRI practices F ratio Seedling/hill 7307.98 Spacing 412.39 Seedling raising method 398.12 Seedling age 80.23 Aerobic soil condition at least for a week at vegetative stage 0.358 Landholding is correlated to the method of planting Seedling/hill and spacing have the highest impact in group formation than any other SRI principles
  18. 18. 3.3.5. Method of weed control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas %farms Manual Chemical Both SRI Rec.: Manual (rotary hoe)  Cambodia and Laos are predominantly control weed by manual methods  In Vietnam farmers reported more of chemical control of weed Manual: FPAR: 50% [NFPAR- 40% and Control- 34%]
  19. 19. Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control Year 2014 (n=80) (n=42) (n=41) ((n=232) (n=103) (n=38) Manual 36 17 10 69 65 61 Chemical 38 55 66 18 25 24 Both 14 14 12 7 2 13 None 13 14 12 6 9 3 Year 2015 (n=110) (n=71) (n=71) (n=105) (n=77) (n=72) (n=83) (n=40) (n=38) (n=74) (n=117) (n=84) Manual 50 36 21 75 64 61 16 10 5 70 60 54 Chemical 22 38 59 18 17 24 45 48 50 4 4 5 Both 15 5 5 1 8 13 40 43 39 0 3 0 None 13 21 15 6 12 3 0 0 5 26 33 42 Year 2016 Thailand Cambodia FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR-1 FPAR-2 FPAR-3 NFPAR Control (n= 104) (n=69) (n-69) (n=75) (n=77) (n=72) (n=73) (n=73) Manual 56 37 24 73 71 69 83 60 Chemical 20 39 60 16 18 24 11 24 Both 12 7 8 5 7 4 3 8 None 12 17 8 5 4 3 3 8 3.3.6.THE PERCENT OF FARMS ADOPTING VARIOUS METHODS OF WEED CONTROL  In Thailand manual method of weed control has increased in FPAR groups  Vietnam still prefers chemical method  Manual method of weed control is being practiced in Cambodia and
  20. 20. 3.3.7.MANURE APPLICATION INCREASED 37 41 65 95 91 88 33 41 42 8 35 23 39 80 79 77 37 34 31 11 31 26 34 59 59 67 36 35 33 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2015 2016 2017 2015 Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos FPAR N-FPAR Control  Application of manure has been increased in Thailand  Cambodia remained same  A slight increase in Vietnam has been seen
  21. 21. 3.3.8. PRODUCTIVITY INCREASED (PADDY YIELD) 2.71 3.65 3.18 5.44 2.51 3.25 2.88 5.18 2.33 3.02 2.68 4.48 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Cambodia Thailand Laos Vietnam Rice Yields (t/ha) (average of three years) in all four countries among groups FPAR NFPAR Control In Cambodia, average yield was 14% more than the control In Thailand it was 17% more and in Vietnam it was 18%
  22. 22. 3.3.9.PROFITABILITY INCREASED (ON FARM NET RETURN) 344.49 734.30 1053.00 164.96250.29 508.73 761.19 32.54 294.00 453.77 695.43 -339.92 -800.00 -600.00 -400.00 -200.00 0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 Cambodia Thailand Laos Vietnam Average net return (average of three years) in all four countries among groups FPAR NFPAR Control The average gain in Cambodia was 14%, in Thailand it was 38%, in Laos it was 33% whereas in Vietnam it was three times higher with respect to Control
  23. 23. 3.3.10. LESS INORGANIC FERTILIZER USE IN THAILAND AND VIETNAM 165 173 162 239 217 195 436 191 194 167 242 245 235 449 166 166 171 337 384 308 556 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2015 Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Amountofinorganicfertilizer,kg/ha Amount of inorganic fertilizer applied (kg/ha) among groups FPAR N-FPAR Control
  24. 24. 3.3.11. LESS PESTICIDE USE IN THAILAND AND VIETNAM 19 26 15 40 16 76 1 22 19 11 40 13 90 1 15 48 28 95 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2015 2015 Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos %farms Percent farmers applied pesticide among groups FPAR N-FPAR Control
  25. 25. 3.3.12. RICE YIELD ACCORDING TO GENDER 3.7 3.4 3.6 3.4 2.8 2.6 3.1 3 5.6 4.1 3.9 2.19 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.2 2.9 2.9 5.0 3.7 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 2014 2015 2016 Baseline 2014 2015 2016 Baseline 2015 Baseline 2015 Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos Riceyield,t/ha Rice yield (t/ha) among the gender Female Male Women farmers reported higher yields
  26. 26. 3.3.13. NET PROFIT FROM PADDY ACCORDING TO GENDER 960 1057 1060 187 395 321 370 526 230 72 1962 704 858 600 700 535 444 205 -567 1108 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 2014 2015 2016 Baseline 2014 2015 2016 Baseline 2015 Baseline 2015 Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos Netincome,US$/ha Net income (US$/ha) among the gender Female Male Women reported higher net return
  27. 27. 3.3.13. EFFECTS ON CROP MATURITY 45 19 50 41 33 25 55 81 4 4 0 6 0 0 2 19 52 78 50 53 67 75 44 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2015 2015 Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos %farms SRI experience among FPAR farmer group Matured earlier Maturity delayed No difference No significant effects
  28. 28. ADAPTATION RESPONSE 0.30 0.72 0.27 1.32 0.20 0.15 0.27 1.52 0.30 0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos AreaunderSRI,ha Area under SRI (ha/household) 2014 2015 2016 Average area under SRI per FPAR farmer In Thailand it was 13%, (2014 - 46%) In Cambodia, it was reduced from 0.3 ha to 0.27 in 2016. In Vietnam, the area increased from 33% to 53,6% in 2017 Vietnam> Thailand> Cambodia > Laos 53% > 46% > 32% > 7% Area increasing under SRI
  29. 29. ADAPTATION RATE AND PERFORMANCE INDEX 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2014 2015 2016 Adoption rate (%) Thailand Cambodia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2014 2015 2016 Adoption rate (%) Thailand Cambodia  No of farmers adopting the new practices /total no of farmers who have received FPAR training  In Thailand, it was 34% in 2014 which increased to 65% in 2016  In Cambodia, it increased from 35.2% to 38%  Average adoption rate was 51%  In Vietnam 70% FPAR farmers applied SRI practices after the training Better chances for higher adoption
  30. 30. WOMEN PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING Cambodia Thailand Vietnam FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control n=109 n=81 n=39 n=110 n=38 n=37 n=84 n=40 n=38 Number of events/percentage/days where women in the household participated in decision making during last one year Percentage of women contribution to decision making Number of days in a year women participated in decision making Number of events involving decision-making that women participated out of 10 events Household farming 100 100 92 6 5 6 8 8 8 Household use of the earned money 100 100 97 30 48 32 8 8 9 In any political event like local elections or other pressure groups 96 87 89 6 1 2 7 7 6 Marriage/any other household events 99 98 95 22 26 21 7 8 8 Any other social events where women participated in decision making 100 97 94 18 12 18 8 10 8 The women participation in decision making in Cambodia was higher in FPAR group
  31. 31. PRODUCTIVITY GAINS AT FPAR TRAINING SITES, FPAR FARMERS’ FIELDS WITH RESPECT TO BASELINE 6.01 3.9 4.4 4.35 5.44 3.65 2.71 3.18 4.1 3.3 3 2.19 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vietnam Thailand Cambodia Laos A. Paddy yield (t/ha) FPAR-TS FPAR-MEL Baseline
  32. 32. PRODUCTIVITY GAINS AT FPAR TRAINING SITES, FPAR FARMERS’ FIELDS WITH RESPECT TO BASELINE 384 782 493.4 838 164.96 734.3 344.49 1053 72 187 426 704 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Vietnam Thailand Cambodia Laos B. Net return estimated (US$/ha) FPAR-TS FPAR-MEL Baseline
  33. 33. PRODUCTIVITY GAINS AT FPAR TRAINING SITES, FPAR FARMERS’ FIELDS WITH RESPECT TO BASELINE 2.2 0.24 0.61 1.06 2.16 0.28 1.91 4.08 1.9 -0.16 2.87 2.24 0.4 0.14 2.5 2.41 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Thailand Vietnam Cambodia Laos Economic productivity (US$/ha) Economic productivity FPAR-T Economic productivity FPAR-MEL Economic productivity Control Economic productivity Baseline  EP was higher in Thailand and Vietnam at FPAR sites and at FPAR-MEL sites  In Cambodia the EP was lowest at FPAR training sites and even at FPAR-MEL sites
  34. 34. WHY FEWER SEEDLINGS/HILL AND WIDER SPACING PRACTICES WERE ADOPTED 3 9 7 41 5 6 6 36 5 2 9 5 88 95 92 79 88 0 20 40 60 80 100 Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos Regional % Household rice sufficiency 6 months 8 months 10 months 12 months
  35. 35. EFFECTS OF PLANT SPACING Higher yield and higher profit with wider spacing
  36. 36. EFFECTS OF FEWER SEEDLINGS/HILL
  37. 37. ECONOMICS OF MECHANICAL VS. HAND TRANSPLANTING Why mechanization in Thailand No significant difference in yield Higher net return with mechanical transplantation Higher paddy price for hand transplanted rice
  38. 38. LABOUR AND FERTILIZER COSTS CONTRIBUTE SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF COST OF CULTIVATION 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 FPAR Control FPAR Control FPAR Control FPAR Control Labour Fertilizer Seed Pesticide Input costs (US$/ha) Cambodia Laos Thailand Vietnam Labour use Cambodia = 53 Laos = 65 Vietnam = 123 Thailand = 40 Av labour cost in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos = 5 US$/man day Av labour cost in Thailand = 8.5 US$/man day  Family labour (50%) has not been accounted by Thai farmers  In other three countries farmers are not paying for the labours Is labour costs are real or virtual/just estimate?
  39. 39. CONCLUSION This was evident that ‘SRI farmer’ are not applying 100% SRI as per SRI definition. They have modified the practices according to their needs and adapted and applied to suit their local conditions. The common principles, which were the guiding force for adaptation were increase yields, increase benefits, reduce cost of cultivation. Even farmers have not applied the full principles of SRI, the SRI intervention has increased the yields and net return in all four countries. The average increase in yield reported was 7-18% whereas average net return reported was in the range of 15% to three times. Fewer seedlings/hill and wider spacing were the most preferred practices, if they applied transplanting method for crop establishment, and wider spacing and fewer seeds/hole if they apply direct seeding method. The adoption response was based on the agronomic and economic performance of the practices in the SRI fields and was linked with the input (labour, seeds, fertilizers) and output (paddy price, incentive, where applicable)price policies of the countries. This was visible in Thailand and Vietnam focused on reduction in input use (seeds, chemicals and labour) through training intervention, whereas Cambodia and Laos’s intervention was mixed, encouraging good practices such as SRI and also encouraging application of increased dose of fertilizer, organic and inorganic
  40. 40. CONCLUSION Though, Laos’ average fertilizer dose at FPAR sites were less compared to the baseline survey, but this was due to the facts that many FPAR farmers did not apply fertilizer at their SRI/FPAR sites, especially the sites located near to mountain areas. adoption of SRI practices was more prominent at women farmer’s field. They have not only reported better adoption of practices but also higher yields and higher net returns. They have also reported less labour use. They stay at home so they are in better position to take care of their fields with regular supervisions and so less field maintenance costs (other costs). Labour and fertilizer were the two main inputs where costs saving was significant, if they tend to reduce the costs of cultivation such as in Thailand and Vietnam In Thailand introduction of direct seeder was one of the approaches to reduce the labour and seed use. A similar trend was followed in Cambodia in 2016 where more than 50% farmers applied SRI with direct seeding. further trainings on the production methods that conserve natural resources, improve soil health and enhance ecosystem services would strengthen sustainability of the production system and resilience capacity of the smallholder farmers
  41. 41. CONCLUSION  Improved farmer’s connectivity to markets along with farmer compliance with market standards would be required.  Laos and Cambodian farmers apply less chemical fertilizers and more organic manures. Both countries have good environment for organic rice/crop production, quality production.  Such intervention can be possible through development of farmer’s cooperatives and by changing price policy for their quality produce.  The SRI-LMB has already created informal farmer’s groups in 11 provinces across all four countries by involving 30,000 farmers directly in the last five years. These groups can be further strengthened to develop farmer’s cooperatives at district and province level and also at the country level to accelerate the sustainable rice intensification along with market development for smallholders.
  42. 42. Thank you. Questions/comments

×