feasibility study of a regional project promoting agroecology...

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


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

[email protected] - http://www.gret.org

mailto:[email protected]


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.



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



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’



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



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



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.



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



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



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.



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



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



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



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).



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.

http://www.ipm-info.org/library/documents/bartlett_ffs_case_for_irri_workshop_2005.pdf

http://conservationagricultureandagroforestry.org/cambodiaproject/57-conservation-agriculture-for-food-security-in-cambodia

http://conservationagricultureandagroforestry.org/cambodiaproject/57-conservation-agriculture-for-food-security-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.

http://www.vegetableipmasia.org/Countries/cambodia.htm

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/ad487E/ad487E00.pdf


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



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.



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);



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



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:



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)



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);



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.



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:



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



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



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)


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-



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



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



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.



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.



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



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


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)


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,



there has been a medium-scale integrated farming in Northern Shan State (outskirt of Lashio city)

which is quite successful until now.


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



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.


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.


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



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


“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.


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-



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.


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.



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.


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



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.




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.


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.


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


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



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.


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



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.


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.


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,



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.


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.


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.



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


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-



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.


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.


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.




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.


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.


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



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).


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.


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.


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



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.


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.



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



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

http://greennet.or.th/



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.

http://www.codi.or.th/

http://en.thaihealth.or.th/



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



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)



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



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 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

http://www.thefieldalliance.org/



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.



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



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

http://www.raktamachat.org/



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.



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


Clemens Grunbuhel, Natural Resources Management, School of Environment, Resources and


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

http://www.codi.or.th/



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


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


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



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

https://sites.google.com/site/pgsvietnam/Home



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.


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)


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;



- 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


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.




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


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).



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)


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


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



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 …


Regional level : Pesticides Action Network – Asia and the Pacific (PAN-AP), CGFED is a member.

VAC INTEGRATED SYSTEM


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).


Main drivers of introduction of VAC 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.


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


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-



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.


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


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)



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.


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.




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


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


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)


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).



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.




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.


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.


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



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


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


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.



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”


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).




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.


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



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.


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


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)


Regional level : South-East Asia Network for Agro-Forestry Education

National level : Vietnam Network for Agro-Forestry Education



SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION - SRI


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.


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.



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)


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.


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




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


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.



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



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.



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)


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,



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



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

http://www.ofdc.org.cn/

http://www.ofcc.org.cn/



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

http://www.greenfood.org.cn/

http://www.greenfood.org.cn/sites/yn/



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



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

http://www.6weidu.com/

http://www.pcd.org.hk/



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, [email protected]

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.

http://www.panchina.org/

http://www.haobaoqing.com/

mailto:[email protected]

http://manlaorivercoffeeco.com/organic_farming.htm



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),



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

http://www.biofach-china.com/

http://www.biofach-china.com/

http://www.ofdc.org.cn/



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.

http://www.chinaagroforestry.org/

http://www.natureproduct.net/

http://www.cbik.org/



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.

feasibility study of a regional project promoting agroecology...

Documents