Dr. Suresh Lokhande presented on 'Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL): Regional Trend' at Regional Review and Planning Workshop 2017, Hanoi, Vietnam

1. MEL Learnings – Regional Perspective
Suresh Lokhande
Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand
Regional Review and Planning Worshop, Hanoi, Vietnam, April 25, 2017

2. Acknowdgement
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Dr. Paneerselvam for analysis of
data and putting together MEL interim report.
We appreciate his efforts.

3. Background and Data
Objective
To evaluate and learn about the pattern of regional change
in SRI practices adaptation among different groups of
farmers due to direct and indirect effects of Farmers’
Participatory Action Research (FPAR)

4. Background and Data
Study Area and Year(s) of Data
10 rainfed and food insecure provinces
Thailand: (2014 & 2015)
Cambodia: (2014 & 2015)
Vietnam: (2015)
Laos: (2015)

5. Background and Data
DATA (Respondents)
A total of 623 households were interviewed from three groups of farmers across the 10
provinces in four countries.
Cambodia:
 98households were interviewed
 48, 24 and 24 farmers from FPAR, non-FPAR and control groups respectively.
Lao PDR:
 275 households were interviewed
 73, 117 and 85 farmers from FPAR, non-FPAR and control groups respectively.
Thailand:
 166 households were interviewed,
 81 from FPAR, 43 from non-FPAR and 43 from control groups.
Vietnam:
 84 households were interviewed
 42 from FPAR and 21 each from non-FPAR and control groups.

6. Background and Data
Data Variables
 General background– Gender, age, Landholding
 Cropping practices: Sowing method, seed rate, seedling age, spacing,
fertilizer source and use, planting density, weeding method and
frequency, method of input use (seed and fertilizer), pesticide and
herbicide
 Water management
 SRI related
 Yield and Net returns

7. Background and Data
Groups
 FPAR group: Farmer participants of direct intervention of project
 Non-FPAR (NFPAR) group: Farmers from same village/neighborhood
where FPAR has been conducted but have not attended and followed
project’s direct intervention but indirectly influenced by farmers who
attended FPAR
 Control group: Farmers with similar agro-ecological and socio-economical
profile as that of FAPR group but have not been directly or indirectly
influenced by project's intervention.

8. Background and Data
SRI for MEL study
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 less 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

9. KEY FINDINGS
GENERAL BACKGROUND OF THE
RESPONDENTS AND LANDHOLDING

10. General background of the respondents and land holding
Gender distribution and age of the respondents
49
46
49
52
50
48 47
50
48
42 42 43
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
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 Laos
Male Female Age
Regional level:
Female - 62%
Male – 38%
Age – 48 yrs.
 More female
participation – Step
towards women
empowerment
 We are working with
aging farmers

11. General background of the respondents and landholding
Landholding
Regional :
 Unlike Thailand and
Laos, Vietnam has
small land holding per
household (HH)
 Cambodia is well above
1 ha/HH
Average regional landholding/HH – 2.1 ha
0.37 0.41 0.38
3.8
3.6 3.56
1.12
1.28 1.23
3.5
3.14 3.1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control
Vietnam Thailand Cambodia Laos
Area,Ha

12. Background and Data
Percent area under SRI (Cambodia & Thailand)
Cambodia Thailand
 In Cambodia, the area under SRI in 2015 was increased and male farmers (14%) practiced SRI in more
than 50% of rice area though it was higher than female farmers practicing SRI in 2015
 In Thailand, there is 11 % increase in SRI area cultivated by Male farmers, whereas, in case of female
farmers the increase about 13% from 2014 to 2015
0
10
20
30
Male Female Male Female
2014 2015
14
11
23 24
Percent of SRI area among the gender and over
the years

13. KEY FINDINGS
CROPPING PRACTICES

14. Cropping practices
Seedling raising methods in four countries among the groups
SRI practice – Dry Seedbed
 Cambodia and Laos
and Thailand farmers
tends wet/flooded
seedbed
 Vietnam farmers
inclined towards
seedling trays
Dry Seedbed: FPAR- 15% [NFPAR- 29% and Control- 21%]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas
%offarms
Dry seedbed Wet/flooded seedbed Seedling tray

15. Cropping practices
Seed rate in transplanting among the groups in four countries
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
%offarms
< 25 kg/ha 25-50kg 50-100 100-150 >150
SRI practice: <25 kg/ha
 Majority of Thailand
farmers are using less
seed rate compare to
Vietnam and Cambodia
 Laos FPAR farmers are
making difference by
going with less than 25
kg/ha seed rate
(<25 kg/ha): FPAR- 49% [NFPAR- 28% and Control- 27%]

16. Cropping practices
Seedling age
SRI practice: 8-15 days
 In general, Vietnam
and Laos farmers
preferred younger
seedlings compare to
Cambodia
 Thai FPAR farmers are
use younger seedlings
compare to non-FPAR
(with <8-15 days): FPAR: 24% [NFPAR- 20% and Control- 17%]
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
%offarms
8 to 15 days 16 to 22 days 23 to 30 day 31 to 40 days >40 days

17. Cropping practices
Spacing
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
%offarms
More than 10 x10 and less than 15 x 15 More than 15 x 15 and less than 20 x 20
More than 20 x 20 and less than 30 x 30 More than 30 x 30
Random transplanting
SRI practice: 20x20 cm to 30x30 cm
 At regional level and in
all groups 29% farmers
use spacing between
20x20 cm to 30x30
cm.
 Whereas, 27% farmers
planted rice with high
plant density (lower
than 20x20 cm)
(with 20x20 to 30x30 spacing): FPAR: 40% [NFPAR-21% and Control- 25%]

18. Cropping practices
Seedlings per hill
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
%offarms
1 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 >5
SRI practice: 1-3 seedlings/hill
 In Vietnam, majority
of farmers (FPAR,
NFPAR and control)
are using 1-3
seedlings/hill
 In Cambodia,
Thailand and Laos,
we have more FPAR
farmers using 1-3
seedlings/hill
compare to NFAPR
and control
(1-3 seedlings/hill): FPAR: 45% [NFPAR-18% and Control- 27%]

19. Background and Data
% of FPAR farmers adapting SRI practices
Crop management
practice
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos Regional
Seedbed (Dry seedbed) 2.5 20 - 23 15
Seedling age (8-15 days) 20 3 65 44 24
Seed rate (<25 kg/ha) 40 20 - 88 49
Transplanting spacing
(10x10cm to 20x20cm)
22 36 28 75 40
Seedlings/hill
(1-3 seedlings/hill)
29 29 53 70 45

20. Background and Data
% of Non-FPAR farmers adapting SRI practices
Crop management
practice
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos Regional
Seedbed (Dry seedbed) 19 28 - 30 29
Seedling age (8-15 days) 7 2 - 3 20
Seed rate (<25 kg/ha) 50 20 - 13 27
Transplanting spacing
(10x10cm to 20x20cm)
7 25 33 21 21
Seedlings/hill
(1-3 seedlings/hill)
5 9 34 22 18

21. Background and Data
Regional Adaption – FPAR and Non-FPAR farmers
15
24
49
40
45
29
20
27
21
18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Seedbed Seedling age Seed rate Transplanting
spacing
Seedlings/hill
%farms
SRI- practices
FPAR-Regional Non-FPAR Regional
 Regionally we have
more adaption
reported in seed rate
followed by
seedlings/hill and
transplanting
spacing
 Adaption of SRI
practices by
Neighborhood
farmers (Non-FPAR)
is good sign

22. Background and Data
% Change in SRI practices from 2014 to 2015 (Cambodia & Thailand)
37
10
76
19
27 28
42
22
68
21
49
35
5
12
-8
2
22
7
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Transplanting Direct seeding Broadcasting Young seedling Wider spacing 1-3 seedling/hill
Percent change on SRI practices from 2014 to 2015 in FPAR
farmers
2014 2015 % change
Cambodia Thailand
 In Cambodia, there is increase in practicing SRI practices between 2014 & 2015. Single seedling (8%);
Dry seedbed (7%); wider spacing (3%)
 Similarly in Thailand, 22% increase in practicing wider spacing; 7% in placing 1-3 seedlings/hill

23. KEY FINDINGS
Manure Application, Weed control and
Water Management

24. Manure application
Manure application
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas
%offarms
Yes No with Fertilizer
SRI Rec.: > Apply Manure
 In Vietnam, very few
farmers reported
about manure
application
 In Cambodia,
Thailand and Laos,
we have more
farmers applying
manure.
YES: FPAR: 39 % [NFPAR- 37% and Control- 31%]

25. Manure application
Amount of organic manure used
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas
%offarms
Less than 5t/ha 6-10t/ha more than 10t/ha
SRI Rec.: >9 t/ha
 In Cambodia and
Laos, we have more
farmer reported
less amount of
manure application
 In Vietnam and
Thailand, we have
more amount of
manure application
reported.
6-10 t/ha: FPAR: 17% [NFPAR- 12% and Control- 23%]

26. Weed control
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%]

27. Weed control
Number of weeding
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
%
1 time 2 times 3 times >3 times
 In general at
regional level, 46 %
FPAR farmers
reported 1 time
weeding whereas,
and 25% FPAR
farmers reported 2
times weeding
 In Vietnam, farmers
predominantly
reported 1 time
weeding because of
chemical control

28. Water management
Water management at different crop stages
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas
%farms
Intermittent wetting and drying
Kept wet for most of the vegetative phase
Kept standing water for most of the vegetative phase
Kept standing water for most of the vegetative period but water level was less compared to previous season
Completely dependent on rainfall so do not care about paddy field/soil condition
 It is crucial to
maintain aerobic
conditions during
vegetative phase
 In general at
regional level, 23 %
FPAR farmers
reported keeping
soil wet during
vegetative phase,
whereas, about
28% FPAR farmers
reported
intermittent
wetting and drying

29. Adoption Rate and Performance index
Adoption rate: Adoption rate is the number of farmers adopting the new practices divided by
total number of farmers and multiplied with 100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2014 2015
Adoption rate
Cambodia Thailand
Performance index: is the yield from the adopting new practices (SRI) divided by yield from
both adopting new practices and conventional practices (N-SRI and SRI)
24%

30. KEY FINDINGS
YIELD AND COST BENIFITS

31. Yield, cost and benefits
Yield (t/ha)
30
8
17
4
49
14
118
32
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
FPAR NFAPR FPAR NFAPR FPAR NFAPR FPAR NFAPR
Vietnam Thailand Cambodia Laos
Percentchangeinriceyieldw.r.t.controlgroup
Percent change in rice yield (FPAR & NFPAR) w.r.t. control group

32. Yield, cost and benefits
Net Return (US$/ha)
433
37
107
25
143
26
43
24
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
FPAR NFAPR FPAR NFAPR FPAR NFAPR FPAR NFAPR
Vietnam Thailand Cambodia Laos
Percentchangeinnetreturnw.r.t.controlgroup
Percent change in net return (FPAR & NFPAR) w.r.t. control group

33. Rice Sufficiency
Rice Sufficiency
3
9 7
4
1
5 6 6
3
6 5
2
9
5
88
81
92
79
86
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos Regional
%
Household rice sufficiency
6 months 8 months 10 months 12 months

34. Feedback from farmers
Reasons for practicing SRI
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos
Less seed requirement Less water requirement Higher Yield
More drought resistant Less lodging Looks more vigorous
Less pest and disease
 62% Higher yield
 60% Less seed requirement
 54% Less water requirement
63
83
5960
52
45
57
100
18
45
83
45

35. Key conclusions
Highlights/Learnings
 There is evident that women’s participation (62% regionally) is higher than male
(38%) which is evident of exploration of decision making and women empowerment
 At regional level, FPAR famers are adapting SRI practices
Seed rate (49%) > seedlings/hill (45%) > spacing (40%) > seedling age (20%)
 At regional level, Non-FPAR famers are adapting SRI practices
Dry seedbed (29%) > Seed rate (27%) > seedling age (24%) > spacing (21%)
 37% FPAR farmers are applying manure which is good indicator for soil health in
long term
 Weed management was carried out manually (50% FPAR farmers at regional level)
reported by farmers is tending towards less use of herbicide

36. Key conclusions
Highlights/Learnings
 There is substantial increase in reported rice yield and net income in FPAR
compare to Non-FPAR farmers field.
 Farmers are practicing SRI to achieve higher yield, less amount of seed
requirement and less requirement of water

37. Thank you.
Questions/comments