_x000dx000dx000d__x000d_rice-based...

RICE-BASED SYSTEMS RESEARCH (RSR) PROGRAM: Food Security in Lao PDR, Cambodia and Bangladesh

Mid-term Technical Workshop: Building program synergies

Lao Plaza HotelVientiane, Lao PDR

13-15 June 2012

SUMMARY REPORT6 August 2012

Prepared by Dr Lisa Robins, Robins Consulting, Canberra.

Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)

38 Thynne Street, Fern Hill ParkBruce ACT Australia

GPO Box 1571 Canberra ACT 2601Australia

P: +61 2 6217 0500 F: +61 2 6217 0501E: [email protected]

aciar.gov.au

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................1INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................7DAY 1 – PROJECT STATUS & DISCUSSION..............................................................................8

Welcome and outline ACIAR’s role in food security and in the focus countries..................8Official workshop opening.................................................................................................8Overview of the Rice-based Systems Research (RSR) Program.........................................8The Players: Who’s in the room & aspirations for the meeting.........................................8Project sessions.................................................................................................................9

Project 1: Developing improved farming and marketing systems in rainfed regions of southern Lao PDR (Project No. CSE/2009/004)...............................................................9Project 2: Improved rice germplasm for Cambodia and Australia (Project No. CSE/2009/005).............................................................................................................13Project 3: Improved rice establishment and productivity in Cambodia and Australia (Project No. CSE/2009/037)..........................................................................................13Project 4: Improved irrigation water management to increase rice productivity Cambodia (Project No. LWR/2009/046).......................................................................14Project 5: Introduction of short duration pulses into rice-based cropping systems in western Bangladesh (Project No. CIM/2009/038).........................................................15

Day 1 round-up................................................................................................................16Workshop close: 4.00 pm...............................................................................................16

DAY 2 – LOCAL-REGIONAL INSIGHTS, ACROSS-PROJECT SYNERGIES & HIGH VALUE-ADD COMMUNICATIONS..............................................................................................................17

Project sessions (cont.)....................................................................................................17Project 6(a): Agricultural policies affecting rice-based farming systems in Bangladesh, Cambodia and Lao PDR (Project No. ASEM/2009/039).................................................17Project 6(b): Developing agricultural policies for rice-based farming systems in Lao PDR and Cambodia (Project No. ASEM/2009/023)........................................................17Project 6(c): Policy constraints in rice-based farming systems in Bangladesh (Project No. ASEM/2011/005)....................................................................................................18Adaptation to Climate Change in Asia (ACCA).............................................................19

Guest Speakers: What does it take to succeed (or fail)?: Reflections on delivering research projects and programs in the Mekong region....................................................20

Panel Discussion..........................................................................................................21Working Groups – Project WGs and Communications WG................................................22Day 2 round-up................................................................................................................23Workshop close: 4.00 pm...............................................................................................23

DAY 3 – DIALOGUE DAY: SYNERGIES, COMMUNICATIONS & RESEARCH FUTURES...............24Communications Dialogue: Synthesis of Outcomes........................................................24Synergies Dialogue: Synthesis of Outcomes...................................................................31Research Futures Dialogue: Synthesis of Outcomes.......................................................39

Mekong Region............................................................................................................39Lao PDR.......................................................................................................................41Cambodia....................................................................................................................41Bangladesh..................................................................................................................42

Workshop close: 3.30 pm...............................................................................................42WORKSHOP EVALUATION....................................................................................................43

Best aspects of the workshop..........................................................................................44Suggested workshop improvements................................................................................46

ATTACHMENT A – List of Workshop Delegates.....................................................................49ATTACHMENT B – Workshop Program..................................................................................51ATTACHMENT C – List of Materials Distributed at the Workshop on USB.............................59ATTACHMENT D – Worksheets.............................................................................................61ATTACHMENT E – List of Working Groups............................................................................65ATTACHMENT F – Completed Worksheets from Synergies Dialogue....................................69ATTACHMENT G – Completed Worksheets from Futures Dialogue.......................................77ATTACHMENT H – Evaluation Form......................................................................................83ATTACHMENT I – Acronyms and abbreviations....................................................................85

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the outcomes of the mid-term technical workshop for the Rice-based Systems Research (RSR) Program: Food Security in Lao PDR, Cambodia and Bangladesh. The workshop was convened over a period of three days in Vientiane, Lao PDR (13-15 June 2012). It was attended by 38 delegates (excluding ACIAR representatives) from the program’s eight projects together with a number of guests from related projects or with particular expertise to contribute to the deliberations (see Attachment A – List of Workshop Delegates). The main purpose of the workshop was to develop across-project synergies that will enhance the program’s overall success and identify opportunities for high value-add communication activities at the program level. Opportunity was also provided to brainstorm and discuss ideas on future research priorities (see Attachment B – Workshop Program). Key workshop outcomes are tabulated here with respect to program-level communications (Table 1), overview of project-to-project linkages identified (Table 2), synopsis of project synergies (Table 3), future research priorities (Table 4) and workshop evaluation (Table 5). Refer to Attachment B for a list of project numbers and titles.

Table 1: Synopsis of program-level communications opportunities identified by the Communications Working Group.

Communications Opportunity Target Audience

1. Webpage Expand the RSR program web page on ACIAR website.

RSR program workshop participants, as well as broader stakeholders who visit website.

2. Workshop summary

Summary of RSR program mid-term workshop.


3. E-newsletter E-newsletter for RSR program. RSR program members.4. Online forum Establish a secure online forum for RSR

researchers and invited others.RSR researchers and invited others.

5. Scope NGOs Scope the potentially relevant NGOs operating in the region to determine if there is merit in establishing an umbrella organisation that would support targeted linkages and synergies.

NGOs in the region, but not necessarily only agricultural.

6. Co-learning with other programs

Develop and institutionalise co-learning between RSR and other relevant programs.

Like-minded research programs in developing countries.

7. Integration strategies

Identification of integration strategies for the various components of research projects.

Project and program stakeholders.

8. Targeted linkages

Develop targeted linkages with significant ‘players’ in the region.

M-POWER but there may be others.

9. Practices manual

Produce and disseminate a manual on establishment practices across the region.

Extension.

10.

‘The Conversation’ and the like

Contribute to (for example) The Conversation: an independent source of analysis, commentary and news from the university and research sector viewed by

Serious readers.

1

Communications Opportunity Target Audience

350,000 readers each month.11.

Study trips ACIAR provides two study trips (3-5 days) awarded through a competitive process.

Project members within the RSR Program, and in-country policy ‘guests’.

Table 2: Overview of project-to-project linkages identified Project^ 1 2 3 4 5 6(a)-(b) 6(c) ACCA* Other

1A X

1B X X IWMI*

2 X X

3 X X X

4 IWMI

5 X X

6(a)-(b) X X

6(c) X X X

ACCA X X X X

^ 1A (agronomy, livestock, water sub-projects); 1B (socio-economics & livelihoods; knowledge management sub-projects)* ACCA – Adaptation to Climate Change in Asia project; IWMI – Integrated Water Management Institute

Table 3: Synopsis of synergy ideas and related actions identified by the Project Working Groups

Projects^ Synergy Idea Action Who (When)

1. 1A 5 Source short season pulses from Project 5 and test/evaluate in rice-based farming systems in the Mekong region.

Discuss linkage and potential to acquire germplasm.Discuss capacity to run field day in 2012 (with S. Hack?).

P1 representative/s (asap).Phil EBERBACH and Tassilo TIEMANN (asap).

2. 1B 4 & ACCA

Share socio-economic analyses methods with ACCA and mapping work with Project 4.Convert to more useful economic tools that are agronomist-friendly.Improve knowledge systems on how to manage short duration rice, and how to manage post-rice legumes.Understand the value of levelling in both irrigation and rainfed systems.Understand the value of rice seeds.Integrate (or achieve integration) across RSR

Not identified. Not identified.

2


projects through a separate project.Conduct technical workshops and publish proceedings.

3. 1 4 Sharing information about groundwater quality.

Contact Evan CHRISTEN to exchange details about project activities.

Ketema ZELEKE.

4. 2 3 & 6(b) Share survey data on Cambodia and publish joint paper.

Talk to Geoff BEECHER and Rob CRAMB, as well as ask ACIAR for funding to support a writing workshop.

Melissa FITZGERALD (asap).

5. 3 2 Access early rice variety and varieties with insect tolerance.

Meet with Dr DOLE (IRP) to discuss access to short duration seed.

Som BUNNA (mid-Jul).

6. 3 2 Provide the germplasm project with access to cone seeder.

Purchase first plot drills. Geoff BEECHER.

7. 3 4 Negotiate sharing of laser levelling, seed drill and drum seeder equipment.

Liaise with Project 4.Liaise with GDA re establishment experiments following levelling.

Som BUNNA.OUM ENG Setha.

8. 3 4 Improve the understanding of the effect on establishment of cutting/tillage of topsoil.

Discuss with Evan CHRISTEN.

Som BUNNA.

9. 3 ACCA Share experiences and knowledge gained in experiments on planting methods and weed control.

Contact N DALGLEISH re BMP for chemical weed control and drill/drum seeder.


10. 4 IWMI Share data, resources, study communes and case study sites.

Email IWMI proposal to Evan CHRISTEN.Send concept note already developed on irrigation schemes.

Sonali SELLAMUTTU (asap).Evan CHRISTEN (asap).

11. 5 6(c) Project 6(c) is also working in Bangladesh where there could be an opportunity to include pulses in policy formulation regarding rice-based systems.


12. 5 ACCA Collaborate with ACCA (which is also working in Bangladesh) to learn from its experiences in Cambodia to widen the window for a two-rice-crop.


13. 6(b) 1 & 4 Develop knowledge and skill at the local level, and share tangible examples of success.

Discuss with Project Leaders 6(b), 1 and 4.

Silinthone SACKLOKHAM (July).

14. 6(c) 6(b), 5 Share experience and Discuss with Project Mohammad

3


& ACCA information with 6(b), and work closely with 5 & ACCA to complement each other.

Leaders and decide whether and to what extent complementarities can eventuate.

ALAUDDIN (end July).

15. ACCA 1 Share climate data and analysis between ACCA and Southern Laos Project (SLP) water component to extend climate analysis from Savannakhet to Champassak.

Discuss how to combine climate analysis and APSIM modeling for Champassak.

Thavone INTHAVONG/Alison (by Sep/Oct 2012).

4


16. ACCA 1 & 3 Share learnings on rice establishment and weed management in dry season and wet season.

Write to Geoff BEECHER requesting information on weed management and availability of herbicides. Organise technical workshop involving CARDI/NAFRI/ CSIRO/NSW DPI on weed management, and consider similar experiments in wet season 2013.

Christian ROTH (Jun).

Som BUNNA (by end wet season 2012).

17. ACCA 4 Collaborate on APSIM. Coordinate meeting with Evan CHRISTEN and others to explore options.

Christian ROTH (by Sep/Oct).

18. ACCA 6(a)-(b)

Use information on rice value chain and policy analyses to fine tune adaptation strategies in ACCA.

Request reports on analysis conducted by Projects 6(a)-(b).


^ 1A (agronomy/ livestock/ water sub-projects); 1B (socio-economics & livelihoods/ knowledge management sub-projects)

Table 4: Workshop outcomes on future research prioritiesResearch Priority Themes

Mekong Lao PDR Cambodia BangladeshIncreasing post-harvest rice yield (significant opportunities).Addressing constraints to diversification of farming systems.Managing intensification and increasing farm size.Improving regional and local seasonal climate and weather forecasting.Using best bet technologies to increase profitability and production.Integrating within and across projects.Developing a knowledge sharing matrix.Reviewing current investments in multiple vs single use reservoir systems.Establishing a gene bank resource facility for the Mekong region.

Realising high productivity of smallholder farming systems.Developing post-rice crops.Improving soil fertility.Improving access to existing information and identifying/ addressing data gaps.Monitoring and evaluating private sector involvement/ contributions.

Addressing labour constraints through improving small-scale mechanisation.Addressing low income and soil nutrition deficiencies through crop diversification.

Expanding pulses in rice-based cropping systems in Indo-Gangetic plain.Utilisation of fallow lands after T. aman rice in Southern Bangladesh, especially saline areas.Developing policy instruments for sustaining rice-based farming systems in Bangladesh.

5

Table 5: Synopsis of workshop evaluation outcomesTheme No. of

Respondents

Best

asp

ects

Networking and interacting with other researchers 13Workshop organisation and facilitation 13Establishing synergies between projects, including feedback and improvement

12

Overall program content and structure, including scope for discussions

11

Learning about RSR program and specific projects 8Knowledge sharing and exchange 7Hearing about different country perspectives and achievements 5Time management 5Active participation and collegiality of workshop delegates 3Futures Dialogue 3Specific project insights 3Panel discussion 2Communications Working Group/Dialogue 1

Sugg

este

d im

prov

emen

ts

Technology and facility issues 10Addition of a field trip 7Improvements to presentations (content and/or delivery) 7More time for delivering presentations 5More time for discussion and interaction 4Further input from delegates external to the RSR program 4Consideration of language and cultural issues 4Better ACIAR framing 3Synergies Dialogue report-back fell short of potential 3Presentation and availability of workshop documents and materials 3Changes to workshop duration and scheduling 3Adjustments to workshop design 3Clarity about next steps for the RSR program 2Different location for next workshop 2Miscellaneous 2

7

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the outcomes of the mid-term technical workshop for the Rice-based Systems Research (RSR) Program: Food Security in Lao PDR, Cambodia and Bangladesh. The workshop was convened over a period of three days in Vientiane, Lao PDR (13-15 June 2012). It was attended by 38 delegates (excluding ACIAR representatives) from the program’s eight projects together with a number of guests from related projects or with particular expertise to contribute to the deliberations.The main purpose of the workshop was to develop across-project synergies that will enhance the program’s overall success and identify opportunities for high value-add communication activities at the program level. Opportunity was also provided to brainstorm and discuss ideas on future research priorities.‘Synergies’ are additional benefits that projects may achieve or deliver from working together. These synergies may enhance the success of a project during its life and/or beyond its completion as a more lasting legacy.The workshop represented an important opportunity for ACIAR to work closely with key project members in shaping and refining the program’s vision, and articulating the role of individual projects in realising the overarching intent of program. Workshop objectives:Day 1/2: To provide opportunities for sharing experiences and project learnings to-date; and

To develop understanding of and commitment to the program’s core strategies (intensify crops; boost yields; improve livestock; strengthen policy; and build capacity) by key project members and collaborators.

Day 2/3: To identify and discuss options for working collaboratively across projects to enhance the program’s overall success; To identify and prioritise ideas for high value-add communication activities at the program level, such as best practice guidelines, policy briefs, journal papers and book chapters/a book; and

Day 3: To brainstorm ideas on future research priorities to which ACIAR may contribute both for specific countries (Lao PDR, Cambodia and Bangladesh) and for the Mekong region more broadly.

Attachments to this report:A. List of Workshop DelegatesB. Workshop ProgramC. List of Materials Distributed at the Workshop on USBD. WorksheetsE. List of Working GroupsF. Completed Worksheets from Synergies DialogueG. Completed Worksheets from Futures DialogueH. Evaluation FormI. Acronyms and Abbreviations

9

DAY 1 – PROJECT STATUS & DISCUSSION

Day 1 introduced and enabled enquiry about Projects 1-5 (their research plans and progress to-date, including outputs and learnings). Workshop delegates also developed an understanding of the overarching Rice-based Systems Research (RSR) Program and how each project contributes to its five core strategies. All project sessions were divided equally between making a formal presentation and allowing workshop delegates to participate in a moderated discussion (questions and answers).

Welcome and outline ACIAR’s role in food security and in the focus countries

Dr Gamini KEERTHISINGHE ACIAR Principal Regional Coordinator, Mekong CountriesFile (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR PROGRAM Gamini K presentation.pptx’

Official workshop opening

Dr Bounthong BOUAHOM Director-General, National Agricultural and Forest Research Institute, Lao PDR

Overview of the Rice-based Systems Research (RSR) Program

Dr Caroline LEMERLEACIAR Research Program Manager, Agricultural Systems ManagementFile (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR overview Lemerle.pptx’

The Players: Who’s in the room & aspirations for the meeting

Dr Bruce MUNDAY RSR Program communications supportAspirations Learn about the RSR program, and the people involved in specific projects Understand ACIAR priorities in the region Identify opportunities to work more closely with ACIAR Identify scope for having input to or creating synergies with… organisations (eg

AusAID), research programs, and projects Share learnings… from projects, personal experiences, etc Build networks Go home with knowledge and connections, including useful information for

colleagues Look out for future collaborative work opportunities Build greater integration and partnership between countries, and between projects Think about ways of improving the cost-effectiveness of what we are doing; how

best to use the available funds to address priority issues (eg use locally available expertise, two-way capacity building)

10

Project sessions

Project 1: Developing improved farming and marketing systems in rainfed regions of southern Lao PDR (Project No. CSE/2009/004)

(a) Overview and introduce sub-projectsPresenter: Dr Pheng SENGXUA

Operational Coordinator; National Agriculture and Forestry Research InstituteFile (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR Presentation Project 1 PenghB.ppt’Main concluding remarks^Areas of improvement … All protocol need to be provided to DAFO staff with detail sheet for data collection Seed and other material need to provide in early of the season Site selection with farmers and DAFO need to select by component leader or

teamwork Each component should pay more attention on activity monitoring PAFO and DAFO staff would need to improve their communication with component

team leader or responsible person for solving all happened problems DAFO could recommend to the implementing organization to help them for solving

their problems DAFO should help the DAFO staff to explain to farmers about the project objective

and outcome Integration of all components activitiesKey discussion points Research-related questions for discussion under sub-project presentations (eg

approach to marketing systems component, project learnings, technologies for transferring).

Good management system in place, and open lines of communication with ACIAR. Up-skilling and training needed to conduct research (eg data collection, writing

reports, presentation skills).

(b)Agronomy sub-projectPresenter: Dr Pheng SENGXUA

Operational Coordinator; National Agriculture and Forestry Research InstituteFile (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR Presentation Project 1_PenghA.pptx’Main concluding remarks Only grain yield response to fertiliser; but not to water regime No effect of bentonite on rice yield in both first and second seasons TSN1 and TSN3 gave higher yield in Phanomxay district PNG1 and PNG5 gave greater yield in Hieng village, but not in Nongmango village

(PNG3) Post-rice crops could increase farmers’ income and also shown some effect on rice

yield in almost all locations Most of the sites of SSNM could not achieve yield target Low rice yield under GAP due farmers could not follow the 7 stepsKey discussion points What is the reason for using bentonite as a treatment in this experiment?

o Response: Most areas have sandy soil; clay mineral can help maintain nutrients and water in the soil (and potentially increase productivity); soil sample analysis to-date show strong site-specific response to application; no response in rice yield in Champassak province, but strong response in Savannakhet province; response greater in dry season.

_______^ ‘Main concluding remarks’ have been reproduced from presenters’ powerpoint presentations verbatim

11

Income may be very high, but at what input cost?o Response: Bentonite imported from Thailand at high price; when its utility

has been demonstrated the project will look for locally-sourced materials with similar functionality; project will look at benefit-costs (through socio-economic sub-project).

Don’t try to turn district extensionists into researchers (it’s not their nature or their mandate).

o Response: Training for district staff is to enable them to capture the essential details of the experiment (eg about data collection to inform district-level reporting, not to write formal research papers).

Suggest that the project could explore the use of mulches in the early establishment phase of the crop; early mulching to grow wheat is now a significant technology in South Asia (eg northern Thailand) and may have application for rice (eg early drought).

(c) Livestock sub-projectPresenter: Dr Tassilo TIEMANN

Forage & Livestock Scientist; Centro Internacional de Agriculture TropicalFile (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR Presentation Project 1 Tiemann.pptx’Main concluding remarksOpportunities and linkages … Farmers can start forage seed production with “Happy Farmers”

o Although the return to labor is quite good and risk relatively low, there has been little interest

Birla Lao pulp company tries to use forages as a strategy in their impact mitigation program

o Establishment and management of forage plots in between Eucalyptus plantations could be challenging

o Especially aspired free-grazing systems do require good management for sustainability

Linking farmers to traders will be the next challengeTraining and HR constraints … Farmer and district staff training is an important issue Intensive follow up is constrained by the large area Lack of institutional incentives make the successful intervention in each district

dependent on the personal commitment and interest of the local staff Slow and bureaucratic processes in place to ensure proper use of funds make work

cumbersomeKey discussion points Is the project looking at forages integrated into the same field as the rice crop or at

systems that forgo some of the area (for continuous forage systems)? o Response: The project is looking at specialised forage systems (ie completely

separate from the rice system); because it’s easier (ie no interaction management issues) and because we have the requisite experience; difficulty of finding forages for lowland situations; alot of marginal lands used for rice production are not suitable, which could change to perennial forage fields (ie only serve purpose of forage production).

Is it likely that you need rice in the system to manage soils that become anaerobic (ie that conditions are naturally anaerobic)?

o Response: Don’t know answer; don't know exactly why forage plants don't perform well after rice crops; it is assumed that it’s soil conditions, but it’s still too early to answer.

Are you familiar with South Asia project (in Bangladesh and Southern India) selecting varieties on fodder quality, and could some of these traits be brought into the Lao project?

13

o Response: Yes. The quality of grain and straw improves when the rice crop is fertilised; management has a big impact; rice straw could be integrated into our forage systems; fertiliser is expensive here, so not sure how quickly Lao farmers will use fertiliser; 6% improvement is not a big enough incentive.

14

Livestock equals money for farmers. In moving to money as long-term security, need to keep in mind emergency money.

o Response: Farmers keep animals as a bank account; project is looking at opportunities for continuous money flow and continuous security.

Get bosses involved in and keen about the project. Not enough to just engage and succeed with District Agricultural Field Officers (DAFOs).

The project needs to consider the whole production system and connections to markets.

o Response: The project will link farmers to traders; it is what farmers want to do and what they see as useful that is most important; this will take a long time and requires continuous intervention.

(d)Water management sub-projectPresenter: A/Prof Phil EBERBACH

Applied Soil Hydrology; Charles Sturt UniversityFile (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR Presentation Project 1_Eberbach.ppt’Key discussion points Has the project done surveys of what farmers actually do with water (further to

comments on perceived lack of use of pond water)?o Response: Extensive discussions with socio-economic sub-project about

water use (including groundwater); after domestic uses farmers tend to use water for high value uses, such as growing fish and rice nurseries (for transplanting rice); ideas can extend within a village once an entrepeneur takes on a practice; acknowledge that it is important to understand the socio-economic dimensions of water use.

It is important to understand how to best manage water and nutrients at landscape level.

o Response: The project recognises that it can’t deal with water in isolation from soil and nutrient behaviour.

A lot of material has been produced by IRRI (eg breeding lines). Will the project use this material and ascertain its suitability for Lao (eg drought tolerance)?

o Response: Materials are here in Lao already; materials have also been acquired from other sources (including drought materials); while some material may be demonstrated as suited to Lao, they may not be acceptable to local consumers/markets.

(e) Socio-economic and livelihoods sub-projectPresenter: Dr Jonathan NEWBY

University of QueenslandFile (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR Presentation Project 1 socio-ec_Newby.pptx’Main concluding remarksRecommendations – Rice marketing chain … Strengthening the horizontal linkage in the supply site: Farmers in the study area

should have a formal collective action in order to facilitate the purchase of rice by traders, whilst giving them “a bargaining power”;

Improving the vertical linkage: the vertical linkage can be leveraged to increase the flow of information to farmers. If the information transfer between farmers and traders is better organised and linked, farmers can orient their production to meet the market demand rather than produces for home-consumption;

Improve processing knowledge and facilities to be able to ensure quality recognised by international standard.

Key discussion points What do you mean by ‘banned rice exports’?

15

o Response: During the price spike and during flooding/drought the government has given priority to protecting the nation’s rice supply (as rice has moved out of the country); there are a number of reasons why the price dropped, but farmers perceive the government’s market intervention as the main one (which affects their confidence to invest).

What sort of rice was taken by traders into Vietnam?o Response: Vietnam needs sticky rice from Lao, especially for the production

of sticky rice cake during the new year period. What is the labour situation in each group, especially for the poorest?

o Response: Some households are labour-oriented out of necessity; it is important to understand the dynamic between labour and migration; if you can improve the subsistence base then any income can be used to improve livelihoods.

To what extent has the project considered risks (market price risk was mentioned) as a constraint? Climate is a significant risk in the case of reaching subsistence.

o Response: Climate risk is something the project has been thinking about. Do you have a good understanding of how farmers manage their land relative to

whether they intend to stay in or move out of farming (eg increasing or decreasing farmed areas)?

o Response: The project has found that some bigger areas farmed have low yields because they don’t have the labour to do things in a timely way; households try to avoid labour costs; it may be better to reduce the farmed area and use the marginal land for forages (eg many people with 4 ha where 2 ha are marginal).

Are there separate markets for broken grain? How much does the broken grain reduce the price of the rice?

o Response: Broken rice is used for raising animal (eg duck, chickens); can be sold or farmers keep for their own animals.

(f) Knowledge management sub-projectPresenter: Mr John SMITH

Extension Agronomist; Department of Primary Industries, NSWFile (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR Presentation Project 1 John Smith.ppt’Main concluding remarksRemainder of the project (strengthening the linkages) … Knowledge sharing (KS) to focus on promoting proactive communication and

participation between all components of the project working closely together and sharing ideas/needs

o This is taking time and has limited some activitieso Stronger direction is also required from KS to drive this in the initial stages

Better integration with the other components is requiredo This requires strong enthusiastic local leadership from KS

Knowledge sharing – Next time … There needs to be a base component at the beginning of the project Is it necessary to have a separate component for KS? If it is, then each project component needs a KS leader to ensure consistent

communicationKey discussion points Are you collecting the same information that is gathered under RiceCheck in

Australia (eg mill prices, the effect of different price limiting traits)?o Response: No. The project has moved quite a long way from RiceCheck; for

example, a lot of operations in the dry season are done by hand (which adds complexity and variability, so huge fluctuations compared to Australia).

How do you discuss conceptual models/theories of change about extension? How have you dealt with these different models/perspectives in project design?

16

o Response: The project needs to think further about these questions; there have been active discussions about how to draw on local ideas/research to inform project implementation; a lot of dialogue in the process so far, but this now needs to relate more strongly to formal extension models.

Project 2: Improved rice germplasm for Cambodia and Australia (Project No. CSE/2009/005)

Presenter: Prof Melissa FITZGERALD University of Queensland

File (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR Presentation Project 2_fitzgerald.pptx’Main concluding remarksOpportunities for connections – Quality … Most SE Asian countries like Cambodian style rice so any QTLs we find for quality

will be useful elsewhere. Rice along the Mekong is soft textured and we are on the cusp of identifying the

gene that makes them so soft. This will have immediate application in SE Asian breeding programs. Opportunities for connections – Duration … Important in Cambodia, Laos, and BangladeshOpportunities for connections – Drought … The rice-growing regions of Asia all grow rainfed rice. If this and the related projects find drought resistant germplasm and tools to create

market-appropriate versions, the application could be huge. We must remember the consumers! …Key discussion points A lot of rice growing is going back to traditional varieties. What makes 504 so

attractive?o Response: It’s early duration. Very early maturing (90-100 days). Good

markets. Why is the rice so yellow in your photograph showing three rice preparations?

o Response: Compounds are yellow. Do you think that yield is necessarily reduced when duration is short? Why do yields

differ between Australia-Cambodia?o Response: There are associations between yield and duration, and

sometimes also with poor quality; the Australian industry of shorter duration suggests that it’s not a complete association; it is possible to get a good yield from a short duration variety; this gives emphasis to identifying the responsible gene/s; yield differences between Australia-Cambodia relate to higher radiation in Australia and different crop management, as well as nitrogen.

Circumstances for rice growing are very different in Cambodia compared to Australia.

o Response: Not trying to say that germplasm works in Cambodia so it will work in Australia or vice versa; we are looking for the best germplasm for that environment.

Where are you at with the quality traits you are targeting?o Response: Taste compounds from jasmine fragrant rices (populations made

and grown; genotyping is underway; phenotyping when instruments are ready at UQ); no genotyping or phenotyping yet at CARDI.

17

Project 3: Improved rice establishment and productivity in Cambodia and Australia (Project No. CSE/2009/037)

Presenter: Mr Som BUNNAProject Institutional Coordinator; Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute

File (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR Presentation Project 3 Buna.ppt’Main concluding remarksConclusions for wet season rice 2010 … High seed rate > 200 kg/ha result for grain yield not so good; Seed rate 150 kg/ha > 60 kg/ha suitable Among direct seeding (broadcasting and drum seeder) not a significant difference Transplanting with 10 day ages with 1 seedling per hill did not advantage over

transplanting of 20-30 day old seedling 2-3 seedlings per hill Weeding increased rice yield 378 kg/ha or 9.8%Conclusions for dry season rice 2011 … No weeding control, high seed rate, high grain yield as weed biomass reduced Transplanting still performed well There was interaction for PM *LOC due mainly Kg. Thom site There was no difference among direct seeding Weeding increased rice yield 575 kg/ha or 8.2%Key discussion points When referring to dry season cropping, are you only talking about rice?

o Response: The project is about rice, so we are concentrating only on rice; in Australia, we are looking at salinity tolerance; we are using Australian and some standard varieties; our research includes glasshouse trials and field work.

It is surprising that you didn't find any difference in yield between drum seeding vs broadcasting.

o Response: The data indicates that transplanting may be more important for farmers than either drum seeding or broadcasting.

Comparing transplanting and direct seeding, are you only looking at research plots and are these significantly different to what farmers are doing?

o Response: Just based on research plots at the moment. The project has tested quite a number of forms of mechanisation. Do you suggest

an ideal system and one that farmers are prepared to adopt (eg a drum seeder is too heavy for some farmers to pull)?

o Response: Farmers have different preferences and capacities in different circumstances; modifications can also be made to some machinery.

Project 4: Improved irrigation water management to increase rice productivity Cambodia (Project No. LWR/2009/046)

Presenters: Dr Evan CHRISTENProject Leader; CSIRO Land & Water, AustraliaDr SENG Vang Project Coordinator; Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute

File (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR Presentation Project 4 - Christen.pptx’Main concluding remarks The project is just gaining momentum, 1st year Much room for improvement in rice yields across all seasons Wide distribution of rice yields, 2 fold in wet season and 4 fold in dry season – learn

from the best farmers

18

Laser land levelling is ready for adoption in Cambodia – filling the gaps in business models required (CAVAC collaboration)

Getting MOWRAM engaged in on-farm results is critical to improving returns from government investment in irrigation infrastructure

Rice water requirement for evapotranspiration (dry season) is about 5mm/day, percolation, lateral leakage and any draining of paddies will increase this.

Need to understand ‘leakiness’ of soils better to understand total water requirements for rice in any particular region

Linking irrigation infrastructure and paddy field condition with socio-economics is unique exercise and should be very informative

19

Key discussion points The disconnect between primary and secondary canal systems, and related

institutional disconnects, are significant constraints with Cambodia’s irrigation system. Have things changed, and what is happening to getting those systems connected?

o Response: The problem is still there; don't see any signs that the message is getting through that the area of irrigation does not match the scale of capital investment; what are the best irrigation systems? (there are so many different types; that discussion is needed, but it’s quite political); 23 sub-irrigation projects (very small scale) were established last year.

How do you intend to deliver your research results to farmers?o Response: These sorts of issues will be discussed at this workshop (eg how

the project links to rice variety development); we need to think about how to roll out different aspects at the right time and in right place.

Looking at success case studies, do any look at the water association group level (eg rules of water management)?

o Response: Not specifically; however, water association leaders have been surveyed and focus groups have discussed systems and so on; the project won’t delve into any depth about how they’re working; it is an issue that warrants greater understanding; more evidence-based investment in irrigation is needed.

What is the scale when you consider land levelling? Do you need a critical mass, and does it lead to land consolidation? Are international companies acquiring land for investments in Cambodia?

o Response: There is a lot of land acquisition for investment purposes in Cambodia; the smallest area for land levelling is about half a hectare; we haven’t taken the step of connecting farmers for the purposes of levelling; one of the demonstration areas has involved straightening out boundaries (but at a very demonstration scale); GDA has been talking about conducting a trial to test concurrent levelling and consolidation.

The policy project (Project 6b) may be able to use data generated by this project (Project 4) to inform some of the above comments.

Project 5: Introduction of short duration pulses into rice-based cropping systems in western Bangladesh (Project No. CIM/2009/038)

Presenter: Dr Al Imran MALIKResearch Associate; University of Western Australia

File (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR Presentation Project 5 Imran Malik.pptx’Main concluding remarksMajor findings for year 1 … Early T. aman rice allow green pea before Boro rice Identified early pea genotypes Relay sown lentil/pea between T. aman and T. aus/mung On-farm lentil (relay sown) and mung demonstrationsKey discussion points Planting high value pulses offers income for farmers. How dry are the soils at the

end of rice cropping phase?o Response: If there is excess water on the soil surface then it will no work;

seeds are soaked for 8 hrs or so for relay cropping. I understood that your project was working on short duration pulses not rice; was

that your intention when you started the project?o Response: The opportunity was there so we took it.

Where did your figures on protein content come from? I have never seen anything that low for rice (6-7 up to 14-15).

20

o Response: Figures are from the literature, but must be incorrect.

21

Did you mention the grain yields of various pulses?o Response: Data only available for lentils at 2 tonne/ha.

What kind of nutrition to impose on relay crops; how much fertiliser use?o Response: Haven’t looked at subsequent rice just coming out; in normal

practice 20:40:20 (NPK). When growing legumes here can we expect any problems with insects, and what

will be the impacts at the time of harvesting?o Response: Yes, insect problems are likely (eg grasshoppers), and the impacts

will depend on the local circumstances.

Day 1 round-up

Dr Gamini KEERTHISINGHE ACIAR Principal Regional Coordinator, Mekong CountriesReflections Not saturated with research; lots of questions within a changing environment. Resource management – soil (avoid further degradation), nutrients (keep fertility

going) and water (increase water use efficiency). Diversification options (increase overall productivity and increase income to

farmers):o What are the challenges when you bring in these crops (eg legumes)?;o Need to take a whole-of-system perspective.

Mechanisation options (in conjunction with direct seeding):o Moving out of transplanting because of labour limitations.

Scope for laser levelling. Breeding is an integral area:

o Consumer preference is very important;o Availability of seeds not touched upon.

Livestock component and bringing fodder into the system. Socio-economics and marketing issues (including improving the whole chain). Imperative of taking a multi-disciplinary and partner-based approach.

Workshop close: 4.00 pm

22

DAY 2 – LOCAL-REGIONAL INSIGHTS, ACROSS-PROJECT SYNERGIES & HIGH VALUE-ADD COMMUNICATIONS

Day 2 commenced with sessions for Projects 6(a)-6(c) on project status and discussions, and was followed by a presentation on the Adaptation to Climate Change in Asia (ACCA) project. After morning tea, three guest speakers shared their insights on delivering research projects and programs in the Mekong region, which was followed by a panel session. Drawing from Day 1 and 2 presentations and deliberations, individual project teams broke into working groups to reflect upon potential across-project synergies^ (an additional working group reflected upon potential project synergies with the ACCA project). In parallel, a Communications Working Group deliberated on opportunities for high value-add communication activities at the program level.^ ‘Synergies’ are additional benefits that projects may achieve or deliver from working together. These synergies may enhance the success of a project during its life and/or beyond its completion as a more lasting legacy.

Project sessions (cont.)

Project 6(a): Agricultural policies affecting rice-based farming systems in Bangladesh, Cambodia and Lao PDR (Project No. ASEM/2009/039)Project 6(b): Developing agricultural policies for rice-based farming systems in Lao PDR and Cambodia (Project No. ASEM/2009/023)

Presenter: Dr THENG Vuthy Cambodia Project Coordinator; Cambodian Development Resource Institute

File (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR Presentation Project 6b_Vuthy.pptx’Main concluding remarksPreliminary observations – Farm credit … Credit for rice farmers can work effectively if there is good combination of:

o physical infrastructure; market availability; skill and extension services; mechanisms to cope with shocks and reduce vulnerability

Most MFIs focus on their own sustainability rather than helping farmers by reducing interest rates

Preliminary findings – Rice value chains … Wet season rice is for home consumption, dry season rice is for income and

repayment of input costs Post-harvest operations inefficient – storage, Cambodia trading capacity, investment

capital Farmers are price takers, no bargaining power Local and regional traders make more profit Rice marketing is highly dependent on Vietnamese traders who set prices, quality,

and quantity of rice marketed in Cambodia Summary – Contract farming … Contract farming has benefited ‘good’ farmers in study areas by giving access to …

o good quality seed; credit; technology; market Benefits come with problems of …

o monitoring; complying with the contract terms; natural disasters (drought and flood)

Key discussion points What is your view of extension/fertiliser dealers in Cambodia?

o Response: In Cambodia extension from government is not efficient; there are increasingly other players in the system (eg private sector, NGOs), from which farmers are benefiting but there is much scope for improvement.

23

In Cambodia, if farmers organised themselves into groups (or associations), would they be in a stronger position in terms of contract farming and access to credit?

o Response: Farmers have little bargaining power in terms of contracting; they have weak systems of organisation and tend to trade as individuals; contracts are not enforced and any party can break the contract; in terms of credit, individuals can’t be assured that members of a group will pay their contribution (so individual contracts/credit arrangements are seen as more reliable); access to micro-financing is a problem because farmers largely have small deposits.

A program in Laos on rice contract farming has worked with millers to improve operations, and contracting arrangements with farmers; increases in yield were 30-50% and increases in incomes were >60%; traders/millers have been proactive in supporting farmers rather than profiteering (their interest is to improve supply, volume and quality to their mills); millers have acted as nodes of information dissemination to farmers (sometimes employing their own extension staff); for example, if a miller is at risk from pest/disease damage to its 1-2 rice varieties then they have a strong incentive to mobilise resources to ensure appropriate management responses by farmers (to ensure their supply); we need to change the way we look at information dissemination and the value chain (eg farmer cooperatives could buy their own fertiliser rather than the millers; thus reducing loan requirements on millers); when new elements/arrangements are added to the system then opportunities arise for changing the roles that different people play.

o Response: Onground experience has identified some potential problems; millers have had contracts with farmers, but not collected and paid for the rice (because they don’t have the finance); authorities have prevented farmers who have signed contracts from selling their rice to alternative buyers; it is therefore necessary to look at the whole chain (as a system); the quality of seed supplied to farmers from millers is sometimes poor, so policies need to look at how to improve this; how the government or trade provincial departments deal with the trade of rice; while big farmers buy good seed, low prices (due to government policy interventions) are a disincentive to rice production; millers do not buy rice when they can’t sell it (eg policies that prevent the export rice).

Project 6(c): Policy constraints in rice-based farming systems in Bangladesh (Project No. ASEM/2011/005)

Presenter: A/Prof Mohammad ALAUDDIN Project Leader; University of Queensland

File (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR Presentation Project 6c- Alauddin.pptx’Main concluding remarksWorkshop held on 28 May 2012 – Central message … Comprehensive rather than piecemeal approach to policy making Strong support for a research project that embraced agricultural policy making

under complex natural, socio-economic and environmental constraints instead of focusing on a single aspect

Key discussion points How many farmers can there be in Bangladesh if you want people to have a certain

standard of living? Farm size is going down but policies aim to increase incomes (ie the opposite to other development situations). There must be limit on the land area.

o Response: Bangladesh is a land of paradox; smallholders would look to the government for help 15-20 yrs ago but now they look to themselves; small farmers cannot necessarily rely on rice production; before the green revolution there was more integrated systems of farming (eg poultry, vegetable, etc); this is beginning to come back; there are many examples of farmers taking innovative approaches.

24

What policies have you identified (with respect to driving or constraining incomes through intensification in the context of small fields and a high population)? Can conservation agriculture solve the problem?

o Response: Conservation agriculture (CA) needs to be analysed for costs and benefits and how far Bangladesh can go; it is problematic if CA practices cause any decline in supply; if less labour is used then policies can be devised for small-scale mechanisation; policies are need that drive more investment and much better research management than is currently the case, as well as provide incentives for growing crops that use less water.

Development of early duration rice has been a great leap forward for Bangladesh. What policies are in place to address the links between rice variety traits, water, children’s health, and the like? For example, the benefits of high zinc and iron varieties developed by IRRI will be lost if children have diarrhoea.

o Response: Current policies and processes are not well coordinated across sectors (including children’s health).

Adaptation to Climate Change in Asia (ACCA)Presenter: Dr Christian ROTH

CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, AustraliaFile (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR Workshop presentation ACCA Roth.pptx’Main concluding remarksWhere to from here? … Use location specific climate projections to test impact of climate change on current

cropping systems Conduct scenario analyses and future-proof current rice farming practices and new

adaptation practices using APSIM-ORYZA parameterised for local environments and crop varieties

Use the household typologies and generalised modelling to scale-up from case study sites

Derive design principles and policy recommendations in collaboration with key stakeholders and policy makers

Prepare for mid-term review in Oct 2012Key discussion points The emphasis of ACIAR’s climate change research is on adaptation (not mitigation).

Looking to identify and support clear-cut researchable issues where ACIAR has comparative advantage.

o Response: ACCA is sharing methods with Vietnam project. The impact of the climate change component is often a distraction. It is more

important to focus on the risks associated with current practices in the current climate.

o Response: Agreed, but the situation is more complicated; farmers have perceptions about climate change, but it’s peripheral to their everyday issues and decision-making; the current rate of change in their operating environment is so great that climate change scenarios 20 yrs into the future are not relevant; all ACIAR work relates to adapting to climate change to some extent; policy-makers feel they have to react to climate change, but in reality there are more immediate policy issues (eg markets).

Can you explain how SRI is a climate adaptation measure?o Response: In India, SRI is going to save water; it is being strongly pushed by

NGOs, so it has been included to gather some hard data; SRI does use less water and it does increase yields, but the labour story is different; SRI is a technique that will suit 1-2 out of 12 household types in India, so it only has a niche role to play.

Short duration rice is used in Cambodia. Need to link to Project 2 to select rice varieties that farmers like to grow, traders like to trade and consumers like buy.

26

o Response: The project has used CARDI short duration rice; a proof of concept has been completed; 4 successful varieties and 10 unsuccessful varieties; the former doubled their net income; rice intensification will only be suitable for some households; we need to select the right varieties (and can liaise with Project 2 in doing so).

Are you looking at temperature volatility (eg impact on quality, etc)?o Response: Working with IRRI models, which do have temperature variability;

so should be picked up in projections (but these haven’t been done yet).

Guest Speakers: What does it take to succeed (or fail)?: Reflections on delivering research projects and programs in the Mekong region

Speaker: Prof Silinthone SACKLOKHAM Vice Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, National University of Laos

File (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR_panel_Sacklokham_Research_Impact_final.pptx’Main concluding remarks Unsuccessful research and technology transfer because the research is not based

on local problems Unsuccessful research because lacking consideration of local conditions and the

complexity of farms and farmerso ‘good techniques’ should be ‘effective techniques’

Capacity of many Lao researchers is still limited resulting in normal, conventional research, not answering the demands of society (farmers)

Research structure and the link between research and extension institution do not allow to have successful transfer of the technology to farmers and report back the problems to researchers.

Working conditions of extension staff and access to new technologies limit their ability to transfer the technology to famers and to feed back.

Some agricultural policies do not encourage farmers to use new technologies to increase their income

Speaker: Dr Kulwant SINGH (for Mr Vinoth VANSY)Sustainable NRM & Productivity Enhancement Project (SNRMPEP), ADB-IFAD

File (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR_panel_subVANSY_ACIAR.pptx’Main concluding remarksMain features of sub-projects … Based on genuine stakeholder demand Have sound technical, commercial, social, and environmental prospects Potential impact on poverty reduction by targeting poor farmers Based on a demonstrated technology Financially and institutionally sustainable Consistent with national agricultural development strategies; Start with start-up activities we have prepared total 71 sub-project amounting US$

21.6 million Feasibility studies for all sub-projects completed Implementation of all sub-projects started

Speaker: Mr John DORE AusAID Senior Water Resources Advisor - Mekong Region

File (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR_panel_ Dore_ACIAR_2012.ppt’Main concluding remarksConclusions – Failure … Wrong people… Blindness

27

Internalising most of the money Dominating the communications Token partnerships Dubious logic Appear, disappear, appear, disappear Politically disconnectedConclusions – Success … Persistent effort and engagement Politeness Programs Fellowships Active steering committee, not too much turnover Real partnerships Friendships Not too much nonsense! Tangible impacts

Panelist: Dr Christian ROTH CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Australia

File (USB): ‘Presentations’ > ‘RSR Workshop presentation ACCA Roth.pptx’ Main concluding remarks See previous session

Panel DiscussionClarification points What are the challenges and successes of research transformation into

implementation if farmers don't benefit from research findings?o Silinthone: There are many answers on how to ensure that research is used

by farmers; researchers need to carefully define their research topic and have the capacity to collect data, select an appropriate methodology, the analytical skills, etc.; need to establish better links between different institutions to make technology transfer to farmers useful.

o Christian: I agree that many projects focus too much on relatively complex solutions. We need to tackle complex issues, but with simple ways of implementing in the field.

When it comes to extension, how responsible are research projects for extension (eg dilemma of not turning DAFOs into researchers)? How do we integrate research into the system better?

Key discussion points What are the successes from your research, as most of your stories and conclusions

were negative?o Silinthone: The objective of focusing on negative issues was to improve our

work (eg incomes for farmers, higher productivity, etc); we have many examples of improvement (cycles of implementation and adjustment) and success.

What are the ways of interfacing with groups from your participatory-based experiences?

o Christian: Lessons from ACCA are that an upfront effort is needed in time and resources to contextualise and fully scope out the situation; need to understand what drives farmers (if you don't understand the drivers of decision-making you will miss the story); need appropriate skills in team to undertake participatory methodologies and the like.

o John: For complicated issues, make sure there are the skills for convening multi-stakeholder fora (it is important to make a space for different people to contribute to these issues); need to be clever and delicate in how such fora

28

are executed; track 2 can assist governments (track 1) to do what they may not be in a position to do.

o Kulwant: SNRMPEP is a development project so we depend on research projects; knowledge is only useful if it is disseminated to the farmer; there needs to be ongoing coordination between RSR and SNRMPEP.

29

After your project finished, how did you manage the follow up?o Silinthone: We developed a publication to transfer the research results to the

public; researchers from provincial level and district extension level were included at the beginning of the project so they could play an ongoing/follow-up role; other projects have assisted farmers since we left (as no funds for our work to continue).

How can research impact on food security and energy?o John: There is a lot of research in different ministries in Cambodia; food

security is a bit trendy; Australian investments are convened under water-food-energy, so you get all ministries in the same room; it makes a space where different ministries can convene on the same footing; water-food-energy is a helpful umbrella for bringing together researchers and policy-makers from a range of sectoral and disciplinary areas.

o Christian: We need to be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that agricultural research alone can address food security; it requires input from multiple sectors and disciplinary areas (eg health); need to look at what agricultural research can contribute to the debate about food security; the food security-energy concept provides a space that allows researchers to become aware of the broader issues and connections so that their work may be more properly placed and well targeted.

A good news story about interfacing with farmers and users – ACIAR’s project on intensification in low land cropping systems engaged 788 farmers; others are encouraged to use the same approach.

The tyranny of participation. Is the tail wagging the dog? Does everything a researcher does have to involve the farmer? To do good research we need to understand where farmer participation fits in each context. We should be able to take good research and transfer it directly to the right situation.

o Christian: Agree. People can preach about participatory research as if it is an ideology; we need to be match farmer participation to the specific context in an open and flexible way; perhaps the pendulum has swung too far – from all research taking place on-station to all research requiring farmer participation; some questions are better answered on-station; we also need to be much better at using the information/research that’s already there; not enough time is spent reflecting on what’s out there (both written and by talking to people); not enough synthesising and looking across existing literature.

o Silinthone: Researchers are sometimes required to conduct their work too quickly without enough time to adequately analyse the information and situation; socio-economic analysis is often deficient because donors and governments are working on shorter timeframes for responding or taking action.

o Kulwant: Many donors support action-research and development projects, but sometimes they are not well matched (eg research that the development project doesn’t require); need to better link research with development.

o John: AusAID has a modest ‘research for development’ partnership with CSIRO; partnerships need to be persistent; M-POWER is an example of a research for development success story that passes the ‘test’ of persistence.

Working Groups – Project WGs and Communications WG

Project Working GroupsEight Project Working Groups, comprising 3-5 delegates, discussed ideas for and benefits arising from potential across-project synergies (see Attachment E – List of Working Groups). Not all delegates could be assigned to their specific project (in order to evenly distribute contributors), and workshop guests were allocated to a group that suited their expertise. A worksheet (with a worked example) was provided to guide discussions and for recording the group’s outcomes (see Attachment D – Worksheets).

30

Each group nominated a representative to report back to the workshop delegation at the Synergies Dialogue on Day 3.Table 6 summarises the potential linkages between projects identified by the groups. Completed worksheets submitted by delegates are provided at Attachment F, while a synopsis of the content of the worksheets is reported under the ‘Synergies Dialogue’ section.

Table 6: Overview of project-to-project linkages identified Project^ 1 2 3 4 5 6(a)-(b) 6(c) ACCA* Other

1A X

1B X X IWMI*

2 X X

3 X X X

4 IWMI

5 X X

6(a)-(b) X X

6(c) X X X

ACCA X X X X

^ 1A (agronomy/ livestock/ water sub-projects); 1B (socio-economics & livelihoods/ knowledge management sub-projects)* ACCA – Adaptation to Climate Change in Asia project; IWMI – Integrated Water Management Institute

Communications Working GroupA Communications Working Group, comprising 8-10 delegates from a range of projects and disciplinary backgrounds (see Attachment E – List of Working Groups), convened around the workshop’s ‘Bright Ideas Board’ to discuss the collection of ideas posted. All 38 workshop delegates had been asked earlier to post their ideas about opportunities for high value-add communication activities at the program level. The Working Group added some new ideas, and decided which ones most merited further exploration. They worked in small groups using the worksheet provided (see Attachment D – Worksheets) to further develop each of the ideas. The ‘Communications Dialogue’ section reports on the group’s outcomes and the deliberations of the assembled workshop delegation.

Day 2 round-up

Dr OUK MakaraDirector, Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI)Reflections Credit and contract farming; input quality in Cambodia is poor; most benefits go to

middlemen (traders/millers rather than farmers). How to progress development in Bangladesh; constraints to overcome (water,

conservation agriculture and climate change). Climate change modelling will inform the introduction of new technologies. Research-extension linkages; research design and conduct has implications for

farmer adoption. Sustainable NRM & Productivity Enhancement Project (SNRMPEP) is a large-scale

project; it needs technologies from RSR program research to inform its development work.

M-POWER is a working example in the Mekong of operating and having impacts at a high level.

Three ingredients for research to succeed and have impact:

31

o Truth – understand the real situation of our client (farmers); understand growing conditions; understand their socio-economic situation; and understand the needs and interests of donors/partners;

o Trust – build trust with the farmers and others you are working with; farmer participation is very important; and

o Commitment – commit to truth and trust; persistence/patience is needed because the timeframe to impact may be long.


DAY 3 – DIALOGUE DAY: SYNERGIES, COMMUNICATIONS & RESEARCH FUTURES

Day 3 comprised three dialogue sessions to hear about, discuss and further develop the ideas arising from Day 2’s working groups. The Communications Working Group explored some prospective high-value add communications activities at the program level, which was followed by a Synergies Dialogue on ideas arising from individual Project Working Groups (and the Adaptation to Climate Change in Asia project). In the afternoon, a Futures Dialogue brainstormed ideas on future research priorities. Outcomes from the Futures Dialogue pertaining to Lao PDR and the Mekong Region were fed into ACIAR’s in-country consultation on 18 June 2012.

Communications Dialogue: Synthesis of Outcomes

This section summarises the outcomes of the Communications Dialogue. Table 7 provides an overview of the eleven communications opportunities identified and reported by the Communications Working Group, including the nominated target audience/s. Following Table 7, a more detailed summary of each option is presented, including key message/s, related communications activities, perceived benefit/s, resources required, tangible success measure/s, and potential road-blocks to success. Each communications opportunity is followed by the key discussion points raised by workshop delegates and, where relevant, any response/s.

Table 7: Synopsis of program-level communications opportunities identified by the Communications Working GroupRef. Communications Opportunity Target Audience

1. Webpage Expand the RSR program web page on ACIAR website.


2. Workshop summary

Summary of RSR program mid-term workshop.


3. E-newsletter E-newsletter for RSR program. RSR program members.4. Online forum Establish a secure online forum for RSR

researchers and invited others.RSR researchers and invited others.

5. Scope NGOs Scope the potentially relevant NGOs operating in the region to determine if there is merit in establishing an umbrella organisation that would support targeted linkages and synergies.

NGOs in the region, but not necessarily only agricultural.

32

Ref. Communications Opportunity Target Audience

6. Co-learning with other programs

Develop and institutionalise co-learning between RSR and other relevant programs.

Like-minded research programs in developing countries.

7. Integration strategies

Identification of integration strategies for the various components of research projects.

Project and program stakeholders.

8. Targeted linkages

Develop targeted linkages with significant ‘players’ in the region.

M-POWER but there may be others.

9. Practices manual

Produce and disseminate a manual on establishment practices across the region.

Extension.

10. ‘The Conversation’ and the like

Contribute to (for example) The Conversation: an independent source of analysis, commentary and news from the university and research sector viewed by 350,000 readers each month.

Serious readers.

11. Study trips ACIAR provides two study trips (3-5 days) awarded through a competitive process.

Project members within the RSR Program, and in-country policy ‘guests’.

1. Opportunity: Expand the RSR program web page on ACIAR website; link to relevant project reports and other relevant websites, publications, media, etc; photo gallery of researchers and research activity.Target audience: Fellow researchers (both within and outside program); policy-makers; other funding bodies; host countries.Key message/s: Existence of the program; who/what/where? (who are the key players; what does the program do; in what countries/regions does it operate?).Related communications activities: Use information from existing Program Overview and related materials as a basis for updating the web page.Benefit/s: First stop for people wanting to know about the RSR program; makes products more accessible; provides intelligence re. where hits come from (countries/institutions) and what users are downloading.Resources: This could be done either by ACIAR, or could be outsourced if web-related staff too stretched.Success measure/s: Number/trend of hits and downloads. Road-blocks: Need to keep information current and tight (people won’t read if out-of-date or too long); can’t just directly transpose the Program Overview and other materials; need to amend to suit web format.Key discussion points:

Find ACIAR website difficult to negotiate; often can’t find information on the site; it needs to have more information, which needs to be easier to find.

Use ACIAR website a lot; one of the slowest websites for uploading; people stop using it when it’s too slow.

Use the website to find out what’s going on; not with an expectation of getting a lot of information about projects; it will be necessary to change people’s view of the ACIAR website; currently, it’s not a good repository of information (more about the organisation and small project snapshots).

33

2. Opportunity: Summary of RSR program mid-term workshop – to be housed on program website (to include copies of presentations, chair summaries, working group findings, group photo).Target audience: RSR program workshop participants, as well has broader stakeholders who visit website.Key message/s: Key messages from the workshop (ie summary of cross-project synergies; communications suggestions; possible future priorities).Related communications activities: To be based on notes and summaries prepared by Lisa Robins (workshop coordinator).Benefit/s: Easy access to papers delivered, contacts, and summaries (all in one spot); will encourage participants to maintain relationships with fellow researchers.Resources: Web text and relevant docs/presentations to be provided by Lisa; text will need to be uploaded to web; powerpoint presentations to be saved as PDF and large files reduced.Success measure/s: Hits to workshop web pages and downloads; relationships between project participants enhanced.Road-blocks: Might need permission for uploading John Dore’s file.

34

Key discussion points: Who’s the audience?

o Response: Participants, but others may be interested.

3. Opportunity: E-newsletter for RSR program, more frequent and less detailed than annual progress report (eg every 3 months); could be just program/project news or could be interactive, posing specific questions about topical issues with opportunity for reader response.Target audience: RSR program members.Key message/s: Updating on program/project developments and activities.Related communications activities: Could piggy-back on existing newsletters (eg Jono Newby’s Lao newsletter?).Benefit/s: Sharing of project knowledge; increased interaction between researchers and managers on relevant issues.Resources: If started from scratch, would need a dedicated person (and money) to set up the e-newsletter and group mailing list, research relevant information, write it, pose the gritty questions, and to monitor responses.Success measure/s: Spontaneous feedback from readers; lively discussion arising from pertinent questions.Road-blocks: Finding the right person to compile the newsletter, and to stick with it to the end of the program (if they leave, and someone else must be found, it could lose momentum); needs program/project leaders to contribute raw material; consider confidentiality issues.Key discussion points:

A bit nervous about yet another newsletter; input issue addressed to some extent by employing someone to do it; need to get more out of it than you put into it; needs to be driven by incentive or it will ultimately fail.

First need to assess what other newsletters are around (eg Google); potential to establish a newsletter as a joint venture with an existing newsletter.

Could each program contribute something useful on a quarterly basis? What are the perceived benefits?

An e-newsletter could be useful (eg sharing trip reports, travel schedules, calendar); concept needs to be developed by the people who will use it.

A quarterly newsletter is envisaged for new ACIAR Burma program for both internal partners and key external stakeholders who need to be kept up-to-date (eg NGO, private sector).

Opportunity to link technical messages to key policy initiatives; not just the technical results (broader impacts); newsletter needs the right flavour (colour versus dry, some human interest stories); reinterpreting messages for the policy environment goes beyond the newsletter.

E-newsletters often look and feel too much like a printed newsletter; need active links to reports and the like; should be useful enough to go back to, not just throw away.

Needs high quality, interesting and relevant news/stories about what is happening (beyond not just people’s meeting and travel schedules).

Other media (social media, television, etc) is needed to deliver research results to farmers (who have poor reading and writing skills).

o Response: Not the purpose or target audience of this particular initiative. Lesson from Jono’s e-newsletter is to remove ‘reply-all’ mechanism.

4. Opportunity: Establish a secure online forum for RSR researchers and invited others; forum could provide opportunities for intra- and inter-project discussion; general queries (eg ‘I have a question but don’t know who to ask’); dissemination of administrative information (eg travel arrangements for workshop); data sharing. Target audience: RSR researchers and invited others.

35

Key message/s: Connecting the research family.Related communications activities: Much of the function might lose value if there is an e-newsletter.Benefit/s: Can simultaneously simplify and expand communication within the program; develops a sense of teamwork.Resources: Moderator needed.Success measure/s: Level of usage.Road-blocks: Needs everyone to use it for full potential to be realised; must be moderated (a small but consistent task).Key discussion points:

Query as to whether this is a ‘small but consistent task’; can be a substantial task if contributions need to be chased.

o Response: If people don’t contribute of their own volition then it’s not working.

Melissa Fitzgerald coordinates a heavily used/successful online forum with 108 members; it’s an effect communications tool for exchanging information, writing papers and the like; but also coordinates a forum to which no one is contributing.

Should be like a virus; if it’s useful it should spread; defeats purpose if you start to chase people.

5. Opportunity: Scope the potentially relevant NGOs operating in the region to determine if there is merit in establishing an umbrella organisation that would support targeted linkages and synergies.Target audience: NGOs in the region, but not necessarily only agricultural.Key message/s: There is strength in partnerships and collaboration.Related communications activities: Jono Newby’s communications activities, for example.Benefit/s: Some NGOs will have capabilities and linkages that will benefit ACIAR’s research effort and particularly its connection to communities.Resources: Probably need to draw on the capabilities of consultants who have worked across the region and are ‘well connected’.Success measure/s: Initially there would be a map of who is doing what where; ultimately an umbrella group that functions somewhat like a Conservation Action Plan. Road-blocks: This would operate across multiple jurisdictions with all the complexity that this implies; however, it could be rolled out in stages. Key discussion points:

Want to see NGOs providing interesting observations, problem clarification, lessons of what works; should be ‘exchange’ not ‘transfer’ of information.

Very useful in Savannakhet; general interest at local level to do something like this (eg JVC).

This is a strategic issue to be taken up by ACIAR in country reviews (difficult to achieve at project level); defining how these groups can help in research formulation and communication; would help future PLs to develop and execute better project proposals and communications.

ACIAR proposal development requires knowledge of in-country NGOs (numerous in some contexts); due diligence needed on how NGOs operate; scope first then step back and decide which ones to engage with.

NGOs in Laos are well connected at the grass roots level and excellent agents for ACIAR projects; they are thirsty for the knowledge we generate; don't get mixed up in some of the other things they do.

NGO forum idea could link with the e-newsletter; very good potential for links and cross-stimulation.

We don’t use the INGO network anywhere near enough; need to become active partners in learning alliances; big NGOs have their own networks (eg Oxfam,

36

CRS); need a mechanism for fostering/financing that interaction; some NGOs are rich enough to make a contribution for the information provided to them by us (this concept would need to be ‘sold’ to them).

37

6. Opportunity: Develop and institutionalise co-learning between RSR and other relevant programs (such as Julian Prior’s Burma project, but also well established programs).Target audience: Like-minded research programs in developing countries.Key message/s: ACIAR supports informal partnerships.Related communications activities: Inviting ‘guests’ to ACIAR events.Benefit/s: Lessons learned are of greater value when shared; partnerships open the door to unexpected opportunities.Resources: Time must always be invested in partnerships, even informal partnerships and where no financial transactions are involved.Success measure/s: Partner reports back favourably and reciprocates.Road-blocks: Partnerships that wither through lack of attention may leave a bad taste; agreed boundaries should be established around each partner’s contribution/commitment.Key discussion points:

Past data and information in older formats are not always (readily) accessible.

7. Opportunity: Identification of integration strategies for the various components of research projects (documenting processes and clarifying the mode of operation and underpinning theory of change).Target audience: Project and program stakeholders.Key message/s: Explicit definition of what ‘integration’ means and commitment to this as a resourced strategy; clarity around research/extension/change model being adopted.Related communications activities: ACIAR Phases 1 and 2 application forms should explicitly require description of integration/change model.Benefit/s: Better synergies and co-learning with greater impact and effectiveness; easier to document integration/change model and learning processes. Resources: Person to take on the responsibility; structured workshop process with clearly identified outcomes.Success measure/s: Integration of components and co-influence of research and capacity building.Road-blocks: Need acceptance from teams and individuals that integration is desirable and the process is valid.Key discussion points:

Context: Biophysical and socio-economic research sat separately in the past; now we do livelihoods research – how to use this research to guide the research and extension components?; how do you integrate these in the RSR program?; what are the conceptual models being used?

Co-learning is essential to our thinking; learnings on ‘research for development’ in its own right is an important subject area; opportunity to link RSR (and other ACIAR programs) with the alliance to reflect on what we’re doing; AusAID funding a 1-year project to learn about design and implementation of past projects, design principles and how to improve future programs; we are under-represented in the international literature on how to do this research (we have done the work but not the reflections); it is resource intensive to do that well; CSIRO very interested to contribute to this.

Look at UNE’s geography department (David Lee) for work in this arena.

8. Opportunity: Develop targeted linkages with significant ‘players’ in the region; an example might be M-POWER which has no specific association with agriculture but which is intimately involved with water, which in turn will have impacts on agriculture.Target audience: M-POWER but there may be others.Key message/s: We need to be well informed on water-use planning in the Mekong.

38

Related communications activities: -Benefit/s: Reduce risk associated with RSR program.Resources: Program manager needs to establish robust linkages with M-POWER at decision-maker level.Success measure/s: M-POWER keeps RSR management well briefed on water related development in Mekong.Road-blocks: Change of personnel at M-POWER.Key discussion points:

Go through the process of looking at who’s out there; M-POWER is one of many; CGIAR system isn’t being well used; approach this systematically.

9. Opportunity: Produce and disseminate a manual on establishment practices across the region.Target audience: Extension.Key message/s: Research has tested this technology.Related communications activities: Needs checking.Benefit/s: Provides extension personnel with confidence when dealing with farmers.Resources: The data exists (for most regions) but needs to be collated; writing can be done in-house (?); printing would be a significant cost (online much cheaper).Success measure/s: Evidence that manual is being used and with encouraging results in the field.Road-blocks: Cost could be significant; information might date rapidly if new varieties obey different rules.Key discussion points:

Need to be careful as it's a transfer of technology model; need to deconstruct the technology and see how it fits into a particular system; need to have examples in the context of where it is being rolled out, including case studies; need to be more dynamic and organic than what’s been suggested.

10. Opportunity: Contribute to (for example) The Conversation: an independent source of analysis, commentary and news from the university and research sector viewed by 350,000 readers each month; a team of professional editors work with more than 2,900 registered academics and researchers from 200 institutions (http://theconversation.edu.au/).Target audience: Serious readers.Key message/s: Australia is supporting important agricultural research as part of its foreign aid.Related communications activities: ACIAR’s website.Benefit/s: Raises the profile of ACIAR and gives an account of how some of Australia’s foreign aid is invested.Resources: Time to craft a serious article.Success measure/s: Comments on site.Road-blocks: None of note.Key discussion points:

Planned just to be in English; explore equivalent sites in other languages; large amounts of information in English for some colleagues is difficult to manage.

Attracted to this one because of its credibility. If ACIAR at strategic level thinks it’s important then they should facilitate and

support; can’t see myself writing for something at this level.

39

11. Opportunity: ACIAR provides two competitive study trips (3-5 days) for project or components thereof within the program; any of the components could submit a proposal for 2-3 staff, plus one policy ‘guest’ for their country, to visit field activities of another of the projects/components; this would have to state the area of interest and how this could provide some stimulus to their own activities; the host project would need to agree and provide a worthwhile program; both the visitors and the host would then receive funds for the study trip, to be followed by a short report by each on the trip itself and insights gained. Target audience: Audience is the national team members, and the policy guest.Key message/s: The field interaction will provide fertile ground and a real sense of interaction/bonding for both the visitors and the host.Related communications activities: Reports to be exchanged and added to ‘RSR program website’. Benefit/s: Formation of the proposal will force projects to think very specifically about areas of interest from the other projects and how these might provide some benefits to their work; thus there will be a more active sense of appreciation of other projects than passive listening in workshops. The joint time in the field will:

Allow real issues of implementation to surface during the trip and be discussed by both sides;

Understanding of the differing contexts of environment, economy, culture will become evident, and thus take both visitors and hosts out of their ‘boxes’ and so allow them in some cases to recognise that some assumptions they may accept within their own work place do not need to be ‘givens’; this could result in more innovative thinking within each program or further openness to new ideas;

Travel time together as well as the field exposures will result in more intense and meaningful, reciprocal and lasting relationships.

Resources: Funds for trip and for host to prepare activities; time for both parties; time for ACIAR RPM to adjudicate.Success measure/s: Cambodia visits Laos to explore farmer typology; understand differences in underlying economic activity, policy and culture; this may result in ideas for different classification in Cambodia as some types may have been conflated due to a particular economic context not being active in the study region; but more important would be the exchange of ideas between staff, stimulation for the policy guest as to how context might be changed; and ongoing openness to exchange between the participants.Road-blocks: Time of the participants to prepare trip and then travel; cost to ACIAR, although this would be less than workshop, but for smaller number of participants.First steps: ACIAR to draft proposal guidelines by August; on receiving guidelines, the project team leaders would hold consultation within team to identify ‘areas of interest’, designate team, prepare proposal; each project could submit up to three separate proposals; ACIAR to select best three and have ‘host’ projects indicate their acceptance, proposed program and funds needed. Key discussion points:

Not discussed.

40

Synergies Dialogue: Synthesis of Outcomes

This section summarises the outcomes of the Synergies Dialogue. The dialogue comprised 5-10 minute report backs by representatives from each of the eight Project Working Groups convened on Day 2. Each presentation was followed by an opportunity for questions and discussion from the workshop delegation. Table 8 provides an overview of the eighteen synergy ideas identified and reported by the Project Working Groups, including the nominated action/s by whom and when. Following Table 8, a more detailed summary of each synergy idea is presented, including perceived benefit/s, tangible measures of success, potential road-blocks to success, and some first step actions to progress the idea. Each synergy idea is followed by the key discussion points raised by workshop delegates and, where relevant, any response/s. Completed worksheets submitted by workshop delegates are provided at Attachment F.

Table 8: Synopsis of synergy ideas and related actions identified by the Project Working GroupsRef. Projects^ Synergy Idea Action Who (When)

1. 1A 5 Source short season pulses from Project 5 and test/evaluate in rice-based farming systems in the Mekong region.

Discuss linkage and potential to acquire germplasm.Discuss capacity to run field day in 2012 (with S. Hack?).

P1 representative/s (asap).Phil EBERBACH and Tassilo TIEMANN (asap).

2. 1B 4 & ACCA

Share socio-economic analyses methods with ACCA and mapping work with Project 4.Convert to more useful economic tools that are agronomist-friendly.Improve knowledge systems on how to manage short duration rice, and how to manage post-rice legumes.Understand the value of levelling in both irrigation and rainfed systems.Understand the value of rice seeds.Integrate (or achieve integration) across RSR projects through a separate project.Conduct technical workshops and publish proceedings.


3. 1 4 Sharing information about groundwater quality.

Contact Evan CHRISTEN to exchange details about project activities.

Ketema ZELEKE.

4. 2 3 & 6(b) Share survey data on Cambodia and publish joint paper.

Talk to Geoff BEECHER and Rob CRAMB, as well as ask ACIAR for funding to support a writing workshop.

Melissa FITZGERALD (asap).

5. 3 2 Access early rice variety Meet with Dr DOLE (IRP) Som BUNNA (mid-Jul).

41

Ref. Projects^ Synergy Idea Action Who (When)

and varieties with insect tolerance.

to discuss access to short duration seed.

6. 3 2 Provide the germplasm project with access to cone seeder.

Purchase first plot drills. Geoff BEECHER.

7. 3 4 Negotiate sharing of laser levelling, seed drill and drum seeder equipment.

Liaise with Project 4.Liaise with GDA re establishment experiments following levelling.

Som BUNNA.OUM ENG Setha.

8. 3 4 Improve the understanding of the effect on establishment of cutting/tillage of topsoil.

Discuss with Evan CHRISTEN.

Som BUNNA.

9. 3 ACCA Share experiences and knowledge gained in experiments on planting methods and weed control.

Contact N DALGLEISH re BMP for chemical weed control and drill/drum seeder.


10. 4 IWMI Share data, resources, study communes and case study sites.

Email IWMI proposal to Evan CHRISTEN.Send concept note already developed on irrigation schemes.

Sonali SELLAMUTTU (asap).Evan CHRISTEN (asap).

11. 5 6(c) Project 6(c) is also working in Bangladesh where there could be an opportunity to include pulses in policy formulation regarding rice-based systems.


12. 5 ACCA Collaborate with ACCA (which is also working in Bangladesh) to learn from its experiences in Cambodia to widen the window for a two-rice-crop.


13. 6(b) 1 & 4 Develop knowledge and skill at the local level, and share tangible examples of success.

Discuss with Project Leaders 6(b), 1 and 4.

Silinthone SACKLOKHAM (July).

14. 6(c) 6(b), 5 & ACCA

Share experience and information with 6(b), and work closely with 5 & ACCA to complement each other.

Discuss with Project Leaders and decide whether and to what extent complementarities can eventuate.

Mohammad ALAUDDIN (end July).

15. ACCA 1 Share climate data and analysis between ACCA and Southern Laos Project (SLP) water component to extend climate analysis from Savannakhet to Champassak.

Discuss how to combine climate analysis and APSIM modeling for Champassak.

Thavone INTHAVONG/Alison (by Sep/Oct 2012).

42

Ref. Projects^ Synergy Idea Action Who (When)

16. ACCA 1 & 3 Share learnings on rice establishment and weed management in dry season and wet season.

Write to Geoff BEECHER requesting information on weed management and availability of herbicides. Organise technical workshop involving CARDI/NAFRI/CSIRO/NSW DPI on weed management, and consider similar experiments in wet season 2013.


Som BUNNA (by end wet season 2012).

17. ACCA 4 Collaborate on APSIM. Coordinate meeting with Evan CHRISTEN and others to explore options.

Christian ROTH (by Sep/Oct).

18. ACCA 6(a)-(b)

Use information on rice value chain and policy analyses to fine tune adaptation strategies in ACCA.

Request reports on analysis conducted by Projects 6(a)-(b).


^ 1A (agronomy/ livestock/ water sub-projects); 1B (socio-economics & livelihoods/ knowledge management sub-projects)

1. Project 1 (agronomy/ livestock/ water sub-projects) synergy with Project 5Synergy idea: Source short season pulses from Project 5 and test/evaluate in rice-based farming systems in the Mekong region.Benefits: Project 1 will benefit from access to germplasm/short season pulses to evaluate in the Mekong region, and to assess the value of varieties as livestock fodder; regional benefits include introduction of high value pulse to system, lower water demand, N-fixation, residue provides high quality fodder, manure provides quality fertiliser, and disease cycle break in rice-rice rotation.Success: Increased farmer income (for farmers who can accommodate a more complex system); inclusion of profitable livestock in the system; supplement animal feed in dry season; much better nutrition; lower water use; healthier soil.Road-blocks: Requires farmers have better knowledge and management (eg wandering animals that can eat the feed); Project 5 approaches cannot be directly superimposed in Laos; market chain strategy needed; non-trivial grain storage and handling issues (including protection from pests and disease).Where to: Establish dialogue within Project 1 to look at what work options exist for first season and whether Project 5 is interested in discussing linkages; if included this year would require cooperation of agronomy program leader to come on board. Key discussion points:

Agree that this is high priority; using some pulses already; have seen some disease issues; disease is a risk, particularly root diseases.

Farmers need access to markets for the livestock; there are technical issues in fitting the pulse into the system, but the markets also need to be obvious to the farmer.

o Response: This idea requires more detailed thinking, including a strategy to grow markets (what type of animal/s and the market opportunities for each).

Lao and Cambodian situation is the same; legumes grown in rainfed uplands; grow legumes after rice (so price of legumes going up); need to meet farmers requirements first then surplus to markets.

43

o Response: Grain storage needs to be thought through in terms of strategy (to release product into the market when the price is higher, not necessarily straight after harvest when there is a surplus); not just market availability but timing of release.

Marketing strategy: unclear which group would take the lead role (eg cooperative, rice millers); advice sought from anyone who has experience with similar issues.

2. Project 1 (socio-economics & livelihoods/ knowledge management sub-projects) synergy with ACCA & Project 4Synergy idea (a): Share socio-economic analyses methods with ACCA and mapping work with Project 4 (interpolation of mapping in Cambodia differs to Lao PDR).Synergy idea (b): Convert to more useful economic tools that are agronomist-friendly (eg CIMMYT – ‘Ag Data 2 Rec’).Synergy idea (c): Improve knowledge systems on how to manage short duration rice, and how to manage post-rice legumes.Synergy idea (d): Understand the value of levelling in both irrigation and rainfed systems (consolidation of paddy fields, level, volume).Synergy idea (e): Understand the value of rice seeds (eg who uses high value seeds?; can high value seed be readily bought?; people claim to use a particular variety when they do not).Synergy idea (f): Integrate (or achieve integration) across RSR projects through a separate project (ie monitoring and evaluation, knowledge management).Synergy idea (g): Conduct technical workshops and publish proceedings (as the only place to publish larger data and analyses).Key discussion points:

Income loss is about $300 (earliest compared to the latest); potential for looking at genes for early duration rice.

3. Project 1 (socio-economics & livelihoods/ knowledge management sub-projects) synergy with 4 & IWMISynergy idea: Sharing information about groundwater quality and quantity.Benefits: Spatial information about groundwater quality along the Mekong.Success: Data exchange; comparative analysis; methodology.Where to: Ketema ZELEKE to contact Evan CHRISTEN to exchange details about project activities.Key discussion points:

Consider relationship to the new ACIAR project in Lao PDR with IWMI.

4. Project 2 synergy with Projects 3 & 6(b)Synergy idea: Share survey data on Cambodia and publish joint paper.Benefits: Stronger information, better paper, new understanding.Success: Joint paper accepted for publication.Road-blocks: Willingness of researchers to share and commit to publishing, and to participate in a writing workshop.Where to: Melissa FITZGERALD to talk to Geoff BEECHER and Rob CRAMB, as well as ask ACIAR for funding to support a writing workshop.Key discussion points:

Project 2 has short-term varieties that can fit into our intensification experiment.

44

5. Project 3 synergy with Project 2Synergy idea: Access early rice variety and varieties with insect tolerance.Benefits: Increase crop intensity for I.C.E experiment.Success: Three crops with these varieties. Road-blocks: Unavailability of seed for experiment.Where to: Som BUNNA to meet with Dr DOLE (IRP) to discuss access to short duration seed in mid-July.Key discussion points:

This worksheet was submitted but not discussed during the Synergies Dialogue.

6. Project 3 synergy with Project 2Synergy idea: Provide the germplasm project with access to cone seeder.Benefits: Test the performance of the cone seeder in establishment experiments.Success: Demonstrate the cone seeder at all breeder experiments. Road-blocks: Delays in machinery purchase and importation.Where to: Geoff BEECHER to purchase first plot drills.Key discussion points:


7. Project 3 synergy with Project 4Synergy idea: Negotiate sharing of laser levelling, seed drill and drum seeder equipment.Benefits: Optimise use of equipment while providing best establishment conditions; uniform crop establishment and crop response; even yield across the field.Success: Experiments conducted across projects rather than ‘in silos’.Road-blocks: People unwilling or unable to cooperate.Where to: Som BUNNA to liaise with Project 4; OUM ENG Setha to liaise with GDA re establishment experiments following levelling.Key discussion points:

Need to increase both rice productivity and income for the farmer; there are many constraints to improving productivity.

o Response: Getting 8-9 tonne (with 504 and a reasonable amount of fertiliser) is readily achievable for some crops (in the dry season); less potential for improvement in the wet season.

8. Project 3 synergy with Project 4Synergy idea: Improve the understanding of the effect on establishment of cutting/tillage of topsoil. Benefits: Uniform establishment and uniform fertiliser application.Success: Little spatial variation in rice crop establishment, growth and yield. Road-blocks: Willingness of researchers to collaborate – will both projects benefit?Where to: Som BUNNA to discuss with Evan CHRISTEN.Key discussion points:


45

9. Project 3 synergy with ACCASynergy idea: Share experiences and knowledge gained in experiments on planting methods and weed control.Benefits: The application of best practice (determined from ACIAR experiments) to ACCA experiments.Success: Useful data for ACCA in the target project. Road-blocks: Delays in machinery purchase and importation.Where to: Som BUNNA to contact N DALGLEISH re BMP for chemical weed control and drill/drum seeder by mid-July.Key discussion points:


10.Project 4 synergies with IWMI (Cambodia)Synergy idea: Share data, resources, study communes and case study sites. Benefits: Improved cost effectiveness, development of conceptual thinking, and increased number of disciplines bringing broader perspective.Success: Co-authorship on reviews, and joint concept notes.Road-blocks: Timing and funding to undertake the work.Where to: Sonali SELLAMUTTU to email IWMI proposal to Evan CHRISTEN (asap); Evan CHRISTEN to send concept note already developed on irrigation schemes (asap).Key discussion points:

10-month ACIAR SRA just started in mid-May (with Andrew NOBLE).

11.Project 5 synergy with Project 6(c)Synergy idea: Project 6(c) is also working in Bangladesh where there could be an opportunity to include pulses in policy formulation regarding rice-based systems.Benefits: Appropriate policy settings can encourage farmers to adopt Project 5 outputs.Success: The collaboration could accelerate the achievement of Project 5 objectives in relation to nutritional and livelihood improvement, soil improvement, and reduction in pulse imports. Key discussion points:

Policy work is a small project; pulses have been considered, and are an important part of the project; less important than rice but still key (noting that dahl is key part of diet).

12.Project 5 synergy with ACCASynergy idea: Collaborate with ACCA (which is also working in Bangladesh) to learn from its experiences in Cambodia to widen the window for a two-rice-crop.Benefits: Knowledge gained from ACCA can assist Project 5’s efforts to incorporate pulses between T. aman and Boro rice; demonstrate economic benefit to farmers.Success: Collaboration will accelerate progress; accessing expertise on data collection to model/predict effect on legume and short/long duration rice into the system.Key discussion points:

Operationalisation of this idea has to be thought through; what can we do within existing resources?; low hanging fruit (that doesn’t cost) should come out of this workshop; how far can we go where we need to extend ourselves?; what is the mechanism on how we are going to get there?

o Response: Focus for Synergies Dialogue is the former, while Futures Dialogue addresses the latter (new research, which feeds into country

46

consultations); contact relevant RPM to discuss scope for modifying existing project and its resources.

13.Project 6(b) synergy with Projects 1 & 4Synergy idea: There are opportunities to collaborate with Projects 1 and 4, operating in Laos and Cambodia, to develop knowledge and skill at the local level, and to share tangible examples of success. Benefits: More effective use of resources and expanded knowledge based on shared experience and potential for generalisation.Success: Exchange of knowledge through integrated network, and capitalisation on knowledge and experience to aid in policy development.Road-blocks: The degree of cooperation among researchers and leaders; relevance of the result should dictate whether to persist with integration.Where to: Silinthone SACKLOKHAM to discuss with Project Leaders 6(b), 1 and 4 in July. Key discussion points:

This worksheet was presented at the workshop but no discussion points were raised.

14.Project 6(c) synergy with Project 6(b), 5 & ACCASynergy idea: Project 6(c) identifies policy constraints and challenges in Bangladesh while Project 6(b) undertakes detailed policy analysis albeit in different regions, so opportunities exist for sharing experience and information. Project 5 and ACCA have direct relevance to Bangladesh and both provide useful scientific information, so there are opportunities to work closely to complement each other.Benefits: More effective use of resources, knowledge of shared experience from 6(b) from regional perspectives especially regarding contract farming and value chain; sharing scientific information from Project 5 and ACCA – lessons of experience in dealing with stakeholders in Bangladesh.Success: Possible collaboration for research publication to disseminate findings beyond the immediate stakeholders and to the broader scientific community; difference in livelihoods following the project’s impact on policy making if any; ACCA, 6(b) and 6(c) are already collaborating through supervision of a PhD thesis at The University of Queensland. Road-blocks: Degree of cooperation among project researchers; research priorities of the individual project researchers; and revisiting currently defined activities in the respective project proposals including timing and nature of deliverables.Where to: Mohammad ALAUDDIN to discuss with Project Leaders, and decide whether and to what extent complementarities can eventuate by end July.Key discussion points:


15.ACCA synergy with Project 1Synergy idea: Share climate data and analysis between ACCA and Southern Laos Project (SLP) water component to extend climate analysis from Savannakhet to Champassak.Benefits: Enables SLP to better select variation in accordance with climate variability.Success: Better matching of drought tolerant varieties with incidence of drought.Road-blocks: No designated people. ACCA only works in Savannakhet, but SLP also needs analysis in Champassak and so probably needs funding to extend climate analysis.Where to: Thavone INTHAVONG/Alison to discuss how to combine climate analysis and APSIM modeling for Champassak by Sep/Oct 2012.

47

Key discussion points: This worksheet was presented at the workshop but no discussion points were

raised.

48

16.ACCA synergy with Project 1 & 3Synergy idea: Share learnings on rice establishment and weed management in dry season and wet season.Benefits: More effective weed control and timely establishment.Success: Farmers using herbicide more effectively and seeing good yields in dry season and wet season rice.Road-blocks: Constraints on internet and email such that cannot download large documents; insufficient funds to support workshops; herbicides unavailable in Laos.Where to: Christian ROTH to write to Geoff BEECHER requesting information on weed management and availability of herbicides by June. Som BUNNA to organise technical workshop involving CARDI/NAFRI/CSIRO/NSW DPI on weed management by end wet season 2012, and consider similar experiments in wet season 2013.Key discussion points:


17.ACCA synergy with Project 4Synergy idea: Collaborate on APSIM. Benefits: Model validation leading to more confidence in APSIM; joint scenario analysis; training of Project 4 in APSIM.Success: Opportunity to model water productivity and irrigation efficiency; and the synchronise people’s visits.Road-blocks: There are no modellers in Project 4 that use APSIM; can be done with existing resources.Where to: Christian ROTH to coordinate meeting with Evan CHRISTEN and others to explore options by Sep/Oct. Key discussion points:

No mention of scenario analysis.o Response: Activity that probably won’t take additional resources; joint

session needed; give us the scenario definitions to run; it's a problem if they are sites not calibrated for APSIM; can be pursed through technical workshop.

Increasing dependence on APSIM through a number of projects; ACIAR might want to consider a general workshop for people to be trained up in APSIM.

o Response: ACIAR having in-house deliberations on APSIM. Review processes about benefit of using APSIM; APSIM is a complicated beast

and not necessarily the best tool in some situations; need to do some comparisons (costs and benefits of using different models); training for APSIM is just exposure; best vehicle is John Allwright Fellowships (2-3 yrs to become a modeller).

18.ACCA synergy with Project 6(a)-(b)Synergy idea: Use information on rice value chain and policy analyses to fine tune adaptation strategies in ACCA.Benefits: Adaptation strategies more refined.Success: Pathways for farmers to move from subsistence to commercial production (lowland conditions in Laos and Cambodia).Where to: Christian ROTH to request reports on analysis conducted by Projects 6(a)-(b) in June 2012. Key discussion points:

49


50

Research Futures Dialogue: Synthesis of Outcomes

This section provides a synthesis of outcomes arising from a 2-hour dialogue session involving 30-35 researchers on future priorities for rice-based farming systems research. Workshop delegates were initially assigned to small working groups based on the Mekong region and on specific countries (Lao PDR, Cambodia and Bangladesh) (see Attachment E – List of Working Groups). A worksheet was distributed prior to the workshop to stimulate thinking and enable effective use of the available time (see Attachment D – Worksheets). The dialogue concluded with a 1-hour report back and group discussion.Completed worksheets submitted by workshop delegates are provided at Attachment G.Table 9 provides an overview of the research priority themes that emerged from the dialogue, and is followed by a more detailed record of outcomes for each of the four regions.

Table 9: Workshop outcomes on future research prioritiesResearch Priority Themes

Mekong Lao PDR Cambodia BangladeshIncreasing post-harvest rice yield (significant opportunities).Addressing constraints to diversification of farming systems.Managing intensification and increasing farm size.Improving regional and local seasonal climate and weather forecasting.Using best bet technologies to increase profitability and production.Integrating within and across projects.Developing a knowledge sharing matrix.Reviewing current investments in multiple vs single use reservoir systems.Establishing a gene bank resource facility for the Mekong region.

Realising high productivity of smallholder farming systems.Developing post-rice crops.Improving soil fertility.Improving access to existing information and identifying/ addressing data gaps.Monitoring and evaluating private sector involvement/ contributions.

Addressing labour constraints through improving small-scale mechanisation.Addressing low income and soil nutrition deficiencies through crop diversification.

Expanding pulses in rice-based cropping systems in Indo-Gangetic plain.Utilisation of fallow lands after T. aman rice in Southern Bangladesh, especially saline areas.Developing policy instruments for sustaining rice-based farming systems in Bangladesh.

Mekong Region

Framing

What will farming would look like in the future, and what are the issues and development pathways going to be (particularly for Laos, Cambodia and Burma)? [Research themes 1-4]

Small farms moving to large farms (more rice to sell from larger farms). Labour and mechanisation. Market links and distortions (what’s keeping the rice price low?). Diversification.

51

Variability in the climate (and perceptions of climate change).

52

Research priority themes

1. Increasing post-harvest rice yield (significant opportunities). Pre-harvest issues and harvest issues. Drying, storing and handling. Mills (increase whole grains but reducing mill breakage). Markets (there are markets for broken rice, but poor prices). Varieties/quality. Australia does post-harvest very well.

2. Addressing constraints to diversification of farming systems.3. Managing intensification and increasing farm size.

Varieties, markets, mechanisation, rotations.4. Improving regional and local seasonal climate and weather forecasting.

Varieties/crop management (eg planting, irrigation scheduling, etc). Risk reduction (eg insurance). Policy and planning for supply.

5. Using best bet technologies to increase profitability and production. Government priority to attain yield goals for production, food security and

livelihoodso What proven technologies are on the table? o How to get impact across Mekong typologies?

Farmers can grow more crops and integrate crops (including forage) with livestock to earn income and improve livelihoods.

o Access to and knowledge about local-to-global markets and technologies, and opportunities for increasing private sector investment.

6. Integrating within and across projects. Draw ideas, science, technologies, deliverables for Mekong typologies.

7. Developing a knowledge sharing matrix. What has been done, and how successful has it been? Consider suitability (eg for village, district, ethnicity, etc). Starting point to inform future projects.

8. Reviewing current investments in multiple vs single use reservoir systems. For example, hydropower/irrigation/fisheries vs hydropower only. In different countries across Mekong region. Broader food security issues (not just rice-based systems). Assess contributions made by multiple use systems to increasing agricultural

productivity in these countries.9. Establishing a gene bank resource facility for the Mekong region.

For seeds, for varieties, for information of characteristics.

Key discussion points

#1 – Need to also study varieties/quality; quality is inherent in knowing what the markets and products are, and how to target those markets.

#1 – During and pre-harvesting issues (15-30% losses); not just milling process but before milling.

#4 – Risk reduction not just for farmers but for governments/policy-makers; better assessments are needed of the likelihood of a surplus or a deficit; policy implications flow from that; main issue is flood/drought and disaster risk management; this theme is about governments (not farmers) knowing how many 1000s ha may be lost to production.

#9 – What is the added value when Lao traditional varieties have been collected, copies are with NAFRI gene bank, and there is a gene bank in Thailand?

#5-#9 – Research needs to consider the interconnectivities at the Mekong region scale (ie relationships between labour dynamic, water, land availability and the like) and the implications for agriculture. Response: Policy 6(b) has a labour dynamics component.

53

Lao PDR


1. Realising high productivity of smallholder farming systems. Market-oriented export with benefits at national level. Productivity, post-harvest, quality.

2. Developing post-rice crops. Opportunities/constraints.

3. Improving soil fertility. Shortening rotations. North vs South.

4. Improving access to existing information and identifying/addressing data gaps. Biophysical/socio-economic information. Use information as a planning tool to inform future research.

5. Monitoring and evaluating private sector involvement/contributions Market-oriented approaches (input, extension, marketing). Understanding impact pathways.


#1 – Current rice production is at subsistence level; increasing productivity for sale beyond local markets will require higher quality rice.

#1 – Need a fully functional breeding program for reaching the government’s target for rice exports (0.5 million tonnes); breeders must be active participants.

#1 – Concentrated research needed on the quality traits of waxy rice and how to measure them; quality evaluations for non-waxy rice show that the associations for waxy rice do not hold.

Cambodia

Framing

Rainfed lowlands rice; as it represents 70% of rice-based farming systems in Cambodia.


1. Addressing labour constraints through improving small-scale mechanisation. Social – labour dynamics; land consolidation; cooperatives (which could facilitate

land consolidation). Economic – models of credit access; market dynamics. Biophysical – crop establishment (eg drill, direct seeding); weed

management/herbicide resistance; reducing harvest losses.2. Addressing low income and soil nutrition deficiencies through crop diversification.

Test different crops in the system (eg legumes, maize, vegetables). Improve germplasm. Use supplementary irrigation (rice and non-rice). Soil fertility management. Pest and disease management.


#1 – Small farmers need an income stream; research should explore market opportunities.

Response: market orientation comes after ‘testing different crops in the system’; farmers have no surplus to supply to the market.

#1 – CIAT work (on peanuts) demonstrates that market studies involving subsistence farmers quickly changed farmer perceptions with flow on effects to other issues (eg regulations); market studies shouldn’t be about the status quo, but stimulate new modes of production.

55

#1-#2 – Process-related research; how to link with markets and relationships to NGOs; linkage to partners may be a development rather than a research issue.

Bangladesh


1. Expanding pulses in rice-based cropping systems in Indo-Gangetic plain Region has a similar cropping system heavily based on rice. Rice is very water hungry, so water is a key issue; another crop will help with

water issues. Disease problems in lentils especially; no variety available that is resistant. Regional breeding program needed; not possible to just breed for one area.

2. Utilisation of fallow lands after T. aman rice in Southern Bangladesh, especially saline areas. Scope for another crop (eg fodder) after fallow. Research needs to focus on diversification and utilisation of fallow lands.

3. Developing policy instruments for sustaining rice-based farming systems in Bangladesh Focus is on putting science into policy. Similar to the Project 6(b) but tailored to Bangladesh. Two key areas: water (especially in very dry areas), and climate variability and

change. Strong demand for a policy project on-the-ground.


#3 – ACIAR has funded quite a lot of policy work in Bangladesh.


56

WORKSHOP EVALUATION

A one-page evaluation form was provided in the workshop materials, which delegates were reminded to complete and submit at the conclusion of the workshop (see Attachment H – Evaluation Form). Table 10 provides a summary of the main themes (and number of related respondents) emerging from delegates’ feedback, in terms of the best aspects of the workshop and suggested improvements. The table is followed by a more detailed breakdown of each theme showing the specific remarks made by delegates (with the number of related comments in brackets).

Table 10: Synopsis of workshop evaluation outcomesTheme No. of

Respondents

Best

asp

ects

Networking and interacting with other researchers 13Workshop organisation and facilitation 13Establishing synergies between projects, including feedback and improvement

12

Overall program content and structure, including scope for discussions

11

Learning about RSR program and specific projects 8Knowledge sharing and exchange 7Hearing about different country perspectives and achievements 5Time management 5Active participation and collegiality of workshop delegates 3Futures Dialogue 3Specific project insights 3Panel discussion 2Communications Working Group/Dialogue 1

Sugg

este

d im

prov

emen

ts

Technology and facility issues 10Addition of a field trip 7Improvements to presentations (content and/or delivery) 7More time for delivering presentations 5More time for discussion and interaction 4Further input from delegates external to the RSR program 4Consideration of language and cultural issues 4Better ACIAR framing 3Synergies Dialogue report-back fell short of potential 3Presentation and availability of workshop documents and materials 3Changes to workshop duration and scheduling 3Adjustments to workshop design 3Clarity about next steps for the RSR program 2Different location for next workshop 2Miscellaneous 2

57

Best aspects of the workshop

Networking and interacting with other researchers (13) Scientific collaboration and networking People interaction (communication) Time allowed for personal interaction between participants was very good Good networking opportunities Meeting old and new friends Meeting colleagues Good networking opportunity Meeting ‘new’ players Establish network for research and development Opportunity to interact with people outside project Provide opportunity to ACIAR’s researchers to interact with each other Establish network among project and country Opportunity for interaction with other ACIAR projects in region

Workshop organisation and facilitation (13) Very good organising in the workshop Workshop was well organised (program was well structured; social events were

good) Well organised/coordinated program Facilitation and management Organisation Overall organisation of the workshop was very good (including food) As a course on how to organise the international workshop Good arrangement/facilitation Good organisation Well-organised Very good workshop organisation In general, the organisation of the workshop is perfect, thanks Excellent desserts at Lao Plaza – please choose as meeting venue again

Establishing synergies between projects, including feedback and improvement (12) Understanding the synergies of projects Meeting people from other projects and developing linkages The workshop itself which synergised RSR projects of the three developing countries

(synergy) Achieved expectations of synergies and complementarity Synergies among the six projects Feedback from other project Possible collaboration with other project Establish the relationship between some projects that have similar

activities/mandate Being able to discuss with people in similar projects Group discussion on project synergies Provide the opportunity to discuss how to improve the activities of research to cope

the main objectives Establish relevant project among country

Overall program content and structure, including scope for discussions (11) Good program structure Very effective workshop Agenda and content (including synergies) Good balance of project versus program discussions

58

Discussion Sufficiently interactive Good balance between presentations and small group discussions Good time allocation for interaction/clarification after each presentation Guidelines for participants in capturing synergies and developing country needs for

future dialogue work very clear Number of people presentations Workshop exceeded my expectations

Learning about RSR program and specific projects (8) Getting to know different project components The program was able to provide very good overall coverage of the projects

happening in the region Finding out about different projects Sharing information of various projects in RSR program of the three countries

including ACCA project Getting better understanding of the RSR program and projects that our (SRA) can

collaborate with To let the participants know the interaction research project in three countries:

Cambodia, Lao, Bangladesh Better understanding of the RSR program and different components Listen and learn about other project

Knowledge sharing and exchange (7) Knowledge sharing Good opportunity for sharing experiences Knowledge sharing Sharing experience on the ground with potential to learn from each others

experiences Provide opportunity to ACIAR’s researchers to share information effectively Presentations were good and interesting Sharing the project outcome or progress among participants

Hearing about different country perspectives and achievements (5) Presentations from different speakers relating to different representative countries Inter-country information Insights into other countries Seeing progress and achievement of research in each country Sharing the knowledge from different programs in Lao, Cambodia and Bangladesh

Time management (5) Timing Keeping the program on time to enable the workshop to be as productive as

possible Good time management for each presentation, thus no stop time and no delay

workshop time We stayed to time or even got ahead Generally, very good – did not run out of time in most (not all) discussions, which is

rare!

Active participation and collegiality of workshop delegates (3) Participants were very serious about the whole workshop and participated Participants were collaborative-spirited and happy to share information Collegial environment, free and frank discussions

59

Panel discussion (3) Panel discussion had a great array of contributions and was well thought-out Exposure to other projects success/problems Learning successful project outcomes

Futures Dialogue (3) Good future dialogue Identify together the future research areas, especially in the region Lao and

Cambodia Group discussion on futures dialogue

Specific project insights (2) Improve rice germplasm for very early maturing Trying to find a small machineries to cope with labour shortage and cost in rice

production

Communications Working Group/Dialogue (1) Research communication. This is very important to develop plan for publication of

projects’ key findings

Suggested workshop improvements

Technology and facility issues (10) Screen should be a bit higher position The LCD screen is too low to allow other participants seating at the back to see the

whole slide display Facilitation did not allow for screen to mounted high enough to enable all

participants to see presentation clearly Overheads – very difficult to see/understand in communications presentation Elevated projection screen Sound system Maybe an improved use of microphones by people who asked questions could help

save some time Microphone technique of some speakers needs improvement Facility excellent, but a printer would have been good help to have around Photography and printing service beside the workshop hall would have been an

added advantage

Addition of a field trip (7) A field trip in the region (in Laos) would have given opportunity to understand better

the agricultural practice A sight seeing trip would have been a good opportunity for the outside participants Half a day sightseeing – tourism, etc Field visit?? Field visit for successful project outcome or ongoing project Excursion on research field should be added Field visit and rotation workshop place

Improvements to presentations (content and/or delivery) (7) Presentation should be only the project introduction rather than something in detail Contents could be more focussed. Some presentations had too many slides – the

central message drowned! Research findings reporting what difference they are going to make to people’s

livelihoods; what message for the policy-makers, scientific community

60

The presentations may be structured to guide speakers prepare for delivery of information most important to achieve the workshop objectives

Concentrate to concrete issue Don't get too complex Integrated farming system needed to be discussed as part of presentation

More time for delivering presentations (5) A bit short time for each presentation Time for talks could have been a bit longer to allow for genuine delivery of findings Some presentation has limited Time of presentation should be longer, thus presenter have enough time to share

the information Speaking in presentation should be at least 20 mins

More time for discussion and interaction (4) Give time for more discussions OK but more interaction Discussion opportunities as a group to be devoted more time More time for small group discussion

Further input from delegates external to the RSR program (4) Most participants attended the workshop are mainly researchers; they should have

extension (development) that they could share Invite more researchers to join More external input from ‘guests’ (the IFAD presentation was disappointing) Additional input from projects recently completed or nearing completion

Consideration of language and cultural issues (4) Get native English speakers to slow down in presentation to get understanding of

presentations English speakers speak slower and don't use colloquialisms Low level of input from non-English speakers; not given enough opportunity? Don’t use English cultural specific cartoons

Better ACIAR framing (3) An ACIAR vision/strategy on impact pathways Maybe an ACIAR representative can provide summary of concluded projects with

their outcomes and influence; what difference have they made? Communication session mixed project level with ACIAR strategic activities

Synergies Dialogue report back fell short of potential (3) Given the huge synergies, the synergies dialogue did not really work as well as it

could/should have Synergy session Reporting back from synergies dialogue was not all that clear

Presentation and availability of workshop documents and materials (3) Correct errors in documentation – names, titles, project assignments, and be

consistent across documents (Note: these errors mostly relate to draft documentation circulated to Project Leaders prior to the workshop)

Powerpoint presentation should be provided in advance or hardcopies to read during presentations

Form of presentation should be provided in advance

61

Changes to workshop duration and scheduling (3) Duration of workshop should be more Time management Nothing specific, only lunch is late

Adjustments to workshop design (3) Project break-out sessions for project-to-project in depth discussions/presentations Bigger groups Maybe put the sticky labels on desks so that they are filled out then posted

Clarity about next steps for the RSR program (2) RSR program operations, developments, etc did not really come out; what can be

done to improve? Follow-up actions from what came out of this workshop

Different location for next workshop (2) Rotation the workshop place Organise in other place/country with field visit

Miscellaneous (2) Generally very good and just nit-picking for improvements Policy project – unevenly distributed – Mekong area has a full-blown project based

on an SRA/Bangladesh SRA only; contexts are different

63

ATTACHMENT A – List of Workshop Delegates

Name Discipline Institution

A/Prof Mohammad ALAUDDIN Socio-economics University of Queensland

Mr Geoff BEECHER Agronomy, Soils Yanco Agricultural Institute

Mr Som BUNNA Agricultural Engineering CARDI

Dr Evan CHRISTEN Irrigation, Drainage Engineering CSIRO Land and Water

Mr CHUONG Sophal Agronomy Royal University of Agriculture

Mr John CONNELL Agriculture Extension, Rural Sociology James Cook University

Mr John DORE Water & Ag Science, Political Economy AusAID

A/Prof Philip EBERBACH Soil Science, Hydrology Charles Sturt University

Dr Keith FAHRNEY Agronomy CIAT

Prof Melissa FITZGERALD Food Science & Quality University of Queensland

Dr Tamara JACKSON Systems Charles Sturt University

Dr Rod LEFROY Agronomy CIAT

Dr Al Imran MALIK Plant Physiology, Agronomy

University of Western Australia

Dr Jacquie MITCHELL Agronomy, Crop Physiology University of Queensland

Dr Jonathan NEWBY Agricultural Economics University of Queensland

Dr Thavone INTHAVONG Crop Modelling NAFRI

Dr OEURNG Chantha Hydrology & Water Resources

Institute of Technology Cambodia

Dr OUK Makara Plant Breeder CARDI

Mr OUM ENG Setha Agronomy General Directorate of Agriculture

Dr Vanthong PHENGVICHITH Agronomy NAFRI

Dr Julian PRIOR NRM & Socio-economics,Agricultural Extension University of New England

64

Name Discipline Institution

Dr M Matiur RAHMAN Plant Breeding IRRI

Dr Christian ROTH Soil Science CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences

Prof Silinthone SACKLOKHAM Socio-Economics, Policy NUoL

Dr Benjamin SAMSON Agronomy IRRI

Dr Sonali Seneratna SELLAMUTTU

Water Resources, Livelihood Systems IWMI

Dr SENG Vang Soil Science CARDI

Dr Pheng SENGXUA Agronomy NAFRI

Mr Thongchanh SENSOULIVONG Livestock NAFRI

Ms Dulce SIMMANIVONG Rural Development AusAID

Dr Kulwant SINGH Sustainable Agriculture MAF, Dept of Planning

Mr John SMITH Agronomy, Extension Agriculture NSW

Mr Pisay SOUNVANSAY Rural Development AusAID

Dr THENG Vuthy Agricultural Policy CDRI

Dr Tassilo TIEMANN Livestock CIAT

Mr Vinoth VANSY Hydropower Engineering MAF, Dept of Planning

Prof Len WADE Crop Physiology, Farming Systems Charles Sturt University

Dr Ketema ZELEKE Water Management Charles Sturt University

65

ATTACHMENT B – Workshop Program

66

ATTACHMENT C – List of Materials Distributed at the Workshop on USB

RSR Workshop ProgramList of ParticipantsPresentations

ACIAR presentations all projects all speakers

Publications RSR Program Overview RSR Program Progress 2011 RSR Program Fact Sheet (English, Lao and Khmer)

74

ATTACHMENT D – Worksheets

76

ATTACHMENT E – List of Working Groups

80

ATTACHMENT F – Completed Worksheets from Synergies Dialogue

PROJECT SYNERGIES DIALOGUES:Summary of Worksheets

(listed in order of projects)Project No.: 1A Recorder’s Name: Phil EBERBACH, Tassilo TIEMANN, Pheng SENGXUAOpportunity for project synergiesWith which project/s?5

Describe the across-project opportunity Source short season pulses and test/evaluate in rice-based system.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?P1A will benefit from access to germplasm and opportunity to assess the value of varieties as livestock fodder.Regional benefits include introduction of high value pulse to system; lower water demand; N-fixation; high quality fodder; break disease cycle.Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likeIncreased farmer income; inclusion of profitable livestock in the system; lower water use. What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?Farmers will require good knowledge and management skills to successfully integrate animals into their cropping systems. This includes incidental issues such as wandering animals.Need strategy for grain storage including protection from pests and disease.Need market research.First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who?1 repsWhen?ASAP

Do what?Discuss linkage and potential to acquire germplasm.

Who?EBERBACH, TIEMANNWhen?ASAP

Do what?S Hack [?] discuss capacity to run field day in 2012.

Project No.: 1 Recorder’s Name: Ketema ZELEKEOpportunity for project synergiesWith which project/s?4 and IWMI/ACIAR

Describe the across-project opportunity Sharing information about groundwater quality.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Spatial information about groundwater quality along the Mekong.Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likeData exchange; comparative analysis; methodology.What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?

84

-First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who?Ketema ZELEKEWhen?-

Do what?Contact Evan CHRISTEN to exchange details with regard to project activities.

Project No.: 2 Recorder’s Name: ___________Opportunity for project synergiesWith which project/s?3 & 6(b)

Describe the across-project opportunity Share survey data on Cambodia and publish joint paper.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Stronger information, better paper, new understanding.Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likeStrong completed paper to inform research direction.What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?Willingness of researchers to share and commit to publishing.Willingness to participate in a writing workshop.First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who?Melissa FITZGERALDWhen?ASAP

Do what?Talk to Geoff BEECHER and Rob CRAMB. Ask ACIAR for funding for writing workshop.

Project No.: 3 Recorder’s Name: Som BUNNAOpportunity for project synergiesWith which project/s?4

Describe the across-project opportunity Improve the understanding of the effect on establishment of cutting/tillage of top soil.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Uniform establishment and uniform fertilizer application.Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likeLittle spatial variation in rice crop establishment, growth and yield. What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?Willingness of researchers to collaborate – will both projects benefit.First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who?Som BUNNAWhen?-

Do what?Discuss with Evan CHRISTEN (Project 4).

85


Describe the across-project opportunity Access early rice variety and varieties with insect tolerance.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Increase crop intensity for I.C.E experiment.Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likeThree crops with these varieties.What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?Unavailability of seed for experiment.First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who?Som BUNNAWhen?Mid July

Do what?Meet with Dr DOLE (IRP) to discuss access to short duration seed.


Describe the across-project opportunity Negotiate sharing of laser levelling, seed drill and drum seeder equipment.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Optimise use of equipment while providing best establishment conditions. Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likeExperiments conducted across projects rather than ‘in silos’.What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?People unwilling or unable to cooperate.First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who?Som BUNNAWhen?-

Do what?Liaise with Project 4.

Who?OUM ENG SethaWhen?-

Do what?Liaise with GDA re establishment experiments following levelling.


Describe the across-project opportunity Provide the germplasm project with access to cone seeder.

86

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Test the performance of the cone seeder in establishment experiments.Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likeDemonstrate the cone seeder at all breeder experiments.What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?Delays in machinery purchase and importation.First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who?Geoff BEECHERWhen?-

Do what?Purchase first plot drills.

Project No.: 3 Recorder’s Name: Som BUNNAOpportunity for project synergiesWith which project/s?ACCA

Describe the across-project opportunity Sharing experiences and knowledge gained in experiments on planting methods and weed control.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?The application of best practice (determined from ACIAR experiments) to ACCA experiments.Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likeUseful data for ACCA in the target project. What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?-First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who?Som BUNNAWhen?Mid July

Do what?Contact N DALGLEISH re BMP for chemical weed control and drill/drum seeder.

Project No.: 4 Recorder’s Name: Evan CHRISTENOpportunity for project synergiesWith which project/s?IWMI Cambodia (Sonali SELLAMUTTU)

Describe the across-project opportunity Share data, resources, study communes and case study sites.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Improved cost effectivenessDevelopment of conceptual thinking.Increased number of disciplines bringing broader perspective.Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likeCo-authorship on reviews.Joint concept notes.

87

What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?Timing and funding to undertake the work.First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who?Sonali SELLAMUTTUWhen?ASAP

Do what?Email IWMI proposal to Evan CHRISTEN.

Who?Evan CHRISTENWhen?ASAP

Do what?Send concept note already developed on irrigation schemes.

Project No.: 5 Recorder’s Name: Imran MALIKOpportunity for project synergiesWith which project/s?6(c)

Describe the across-project opportunity Project 6(c) is also working in Bangladesh where there could be an opportunity to include pulses in policy formulation regarding rice-based systems.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Appropriate policy settings can encourage farmers to adopt Project 5 outputs.Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likeThe collaboration could accelerate the achievement of Project 5 objectives in relation to:

Nutritional and livelihood improvement. Soil improvement. Reduction in pulse imports.

What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?-First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who?-When?-

Do what?-

Project No.: 5 Recorder’s Name: Imran MALIKOpportunity for project synergiesWith which project/s?ACCA

Describe the across-project opportunity Collaborate with ACCA (which is also working in Bangladesh) to learn from its experiences in Cambodia to widen the window for a two-rice-crop.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Knowledge gained from ACCA can assist Program 5’s efforts to incorporate pulses between T. aman and Boro rice.Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likeCollaboration will accelerate progress. What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?-

89

First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who?-When?-

Do what?-

Project No.: 6(b) Recorder’s Name: Silinthone SACKLOKHAMOpportunity for project synergiesWith which project/s?1 & 4

Describe the across-project opportunity There are opportunities to collaborate with Projects 1 and 4, operating in Laos and Cambodia, to develop knowledge and skill at the local level.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?More effective use of resources and expanded knowledge based in shared experience and potential for generalisation.Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likeExchange of knowledge through integrated network.Capitalisation on knowledge and experience to aid in policy development.What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?The degree of cooperation among researchers and leaders. Relevance of the result should dictate whether to persist with integration. First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who?Silinthone SACKLOKHAMWhen?July

Do what?Discuss with PLs 6(b), 1 & 4

Project No.: 6(c) Recorder’s Name: Mohammad ALAUDDINOpportunity for project synergiesWith which project/s?6(b), 5 & ACCA

Project 6(c) identifies policy constraints and challenges in Bangladesh while Project 6(b) undertakes detailed policy analysis albeit in different regions. Opportunities exist for sharing experience and information Project 5 and ACCA has direct relevance to Bangladesh. Both of these projects provide useful scientific information. There are opportunities to work closely to complement each other.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?More effective use of resources, knowledge of shared experience from 6B from regional perspectives especially regarding contract farming and value chainInformation sharing scientific information from Project 5 and ACCA – lessons of experience in dealing with stakeholders in BangladeshProvide some tangible examples of what success would look likePossible collaboration for research publication to disseminate the find beyond the immediate stakeholders and to the broader scientific community. Difference in livelihoods following the project’s impact on policy making if any.ACCA, 6(b) and 6(c) are already collaborating through supervision of a PhD thesis at The University of Queensland.

90

What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?Degree of cooperation among project researchers Research priorities of the individual project researchersRevisiting currently defined activities in the respective project proposals including timing and nature of deliverablesFirst step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who? Project LeadersWhen?By end July

Do what?Discuss idea/s outlined in this worksheet, and decide whether and to what extent complementarities can eventuate

Project No.: ACCA Recorder’s Name: Christian ROTHOpportunity for project synergiesWith which project/s?4

Describe the across-project opportunity Collaborate on APSIM.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Model validation leading to more confidence in APSIM; joint scenario analysis; training of Project 4 in APSIM.Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likeOpportunity to model water productivity and irrigation efficiency.What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?There are no modellers in Project 4 that use APSIM. Can be done with existing resources.First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who?-When?Sep/Oct 2012

Do what?ROTH to coordinate meeting with CHRISTEN et al to explore options.

Project No.: ACCA Recorder’s Name: Christian ROTHOpportunity for project synergiesWith which project/s?1

Describe the across-project opportunity Share climate data and analysis between ACCA and SLP water component.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Enables SLP to better select variation in accordance with climate variability.Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likeBetter matching of drought tolerant varieties with incidence of drought.What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?No designated people. ACCA only works in Savannakhet, but SLP also needs analysis in Champassak and so probably needs funding to extend climate analysis.First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who? Thavone/AlisonWhen?

Do what?Discussion on how to combine climate analysis and APSIM modeling for Champassak.

91

Sep/Oct 2012Project No.: ACCA Recorder’s Name: Christian ROTHOpportunity for project synergiesWith which project/s?3, 1

Describe the across-project opportunity Share learnings on rice establishment and weed management in dry season and wet season.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?More effective weed control and timely establishment.Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likeFarmers using herbicide more effectively and seeing good yields in dry season and wet season rice.What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?Constraints on internet and email such that cannot download large documents. Insufficient funds to support workshops.Herbicides unavailable in Laos.First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who? ROTHWhen?June 2012

Do what?Write to Geoff BEECHER requesting information on weed management and availability of herbicides.

Who? BUNNAWhen?End of wet season 2012

Do what?Organise technical workshop involving CARDI/NAFRI/CSIRO/NSW DPI on weed management. Consider similar experiments in wet season 2013.

Project No.: ACCA Recorder’s Name: Christian ROTHOpportunity for project synergiesWith which project/s?6(a) and 6(b)

Describe the across-project opportunity Use information on rice value chain and policy analyses to fine tune adaptation strategies in ACCA.

What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Adaptation strategies more refined.Provide some tangible examples of what success would look likePathways for farmers to move from subsistence to commercial production (lowland conditions in Laos and Cambodia).What are the main issues arising or potential road-blocks to success?-First step actions (who needs to do what and when?)Who? ROTHWhen?June 2012

Do what?Request reports on analysis conducted by Projects 6(a) and 6(b).

92

ATTACHMENT G – Completed Worksheets from Futures Dialogue

FUTURE DIALOGUES:Summary of Worksheets ^

(listed by delegate in alphabetical order)

Mohammad ALAUDDIN

Describe the research ideaDevelopment of policy instruments in rice-based farming systems in Bangladesh to address issues around water, conservation agriculture and climate change.What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Putting ACIAR’s scientific research results into a policy framework will better position it to influence policy makers and make it more relevant to other regions.

What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?There will be a need to proceed with caution in demonstrating the relevance and appropriateness of this research to the broader region.

How might these obstacles be overcomeLinking Project 5 with Projects 6b and 6c makes the scientific research more practicable and fit-for-purpose. Som BUNNA

Describe the research ideaDiversify rice-based farming systems in rainfed lowlands. Research opportunities for supplementing valuable crops with alternative crops (e.g. potato, fruit, etc) and livestock along with post-harvest processing.What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Provide off-season income and assist with weed and insect control in valuable crop.

What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?Cultural preference for mono-crop, along with water shortage and high temperatures in dry season

How might these obstacles be overcome?Develop efficient water management system. Identify rapidly maturing vegetable candidates and optimum layout for production and management. CHUONG Sophal

Describe the research ideaBuild on the experience with direct seeding of rice in some areas of Cambodia to transfer the technology to other parts of the country. Some research and training will be required to ‘fit’ the technology to varying agricultural ecosystems.What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Help overcome the problem of low yields from high inputs.^ Notes - Not all delegates submitted worksheets- Worksheets developed/submitted by delegates sometimes differ from their allocated working group (country/region)

93

Evan CHRISTEN

Describe the research ideaInvestigate the appropriate scales of irrigation development in Cambodia to ensure biophysical, social and economic sustainability. What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?More cost-effective investment in irrigation.

What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?Entrenched views that ‘big and expensive' is best.

How might these obstacles be overcome?Evidence base that irrigation designs need to take into account specific local biophysical, social and economic conditions.Melissa FITZGERALD

Describe the research ideaImproved germplasm for LaoNew scientific tools to measure quality in waxy riceCapacity building to equip Lao breeders to measure quality.What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Ability to test Lao breeding material in Lao will increase speed of delivery of high yielding breeding products.Research to unravel quality of waxy rice will enable breeding products to meet market needs. What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?Funding for breedersCapacity to keep a quality evaluation lab running. How might these obstacles be overcome?Negotiation and careful funding modelCareful budget design and membership of the International Network for Quality Rice to provide support.Rod LEFROY

Describe the research ideaImprove access to spatial and non-spatial social and resource information – both existing and emerging. Not only should existing data be more readily available, it should be easier to fill some of the gaps.Land use and soils information needs to be digitised from old soil and land use maps and overlaid with climate, farming systems, livelihoods, etc. Data needs to be available through a portal. What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Better understanding of the context of current research, so improving its applicability and the predictability around where research results can, should and should not work.

What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?Accessibility of data (hence the need for a portal)Missing or unreliable information

How might these obstacles be overcome?Satellite imagery and new technologies for sampling, identification, measurement and interpolation.^ Notes - Not all delegates submitted worksheets

94

- Worksheets developed/submitted by delegates sometimes differ from their allocated working group (country/region)

Imran MALIK

Describe the research ideaIntroduction of pulses to rice-based cropping systems has the potential to improve human nutrition while optimising the use of otherwise fallow land. RSR Project 5 is already working in Bangladesh and has identified disease problems that need to be addressed by further research into disease resistance. What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Extending the research effort to the wider region (Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Burma) has the potential to attract international co-investment (e.g. ICARDA).

What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?Inter-country research can encounter conflicting policy positions and additional transaction costs.

How might these obstacles be overcomeIn the first instance there needs to be high level dialogue between potential collaborators.Jacquie MITCHELL

Describe the research ideaRainfed lowland rice improvement – plant breeding. Research to support Lao, Cambodia and Bangladesh plant breeding for intensified and diversified cropping systems (i.e. short duration rice varieties with abiotic stress tolerance and improved quality. What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Germplasm and unique traits to stay within country boundaries, but techniques and training opportunities can be across country.

What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?Plant breeding requires continuity of long term funding.

How might these obstacles be overcome?Training might need to be ongoing so as to reduce the risk associated with staff turnover.

OUK Makara

Describe the research ideaA fast maturing mung bean has been identified and production technology developed. However there is a need to improve insect and disease management along with weed control. There is a further need to investigate other crops and cropping systems suitable for other socio-economic situations and growing conditions.This research would supplement earlier projects by introducing further crop options.What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Rainfed lowland farmers are generally poor as they depend on a single rice crop. Having several crops to complement rice will help them to improve nutrition and income.

What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?Labour requirements.

How might these obstacles be overcome?Small and simple machines and tools could be developed for use with existing tools.^ Notes - Not all delegates submitted worksheets- Worksheets developed/submitted by delegates sometimes differ from their allocated working group (country/region)

95

OUM ENG Setha

Describe the research ideaAssess current and potential rice establishment methods, management practices, and use of machinery in lowlands rice-based systems. From this develop strategies that could improve rice productivity.Optimise establishment methods for soil types and farming systems including soil nutrient, pest, water and post-harvest management.Identify agronomic practices for dry season, high yielding irrigated rice system in Cambodia (specifically to raise productivity by 25 per cent). What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Enhanced rice production in rain-fed and irrigated lowland ecosystems through better matching of production systems to soil type and water quality and availability and through farm mechanisation.

What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?Short duration rice varieties providing high yield and good grain quality with resistance to pests is still not readily available.Farmers have limited access to good quality rice seed and use high rates for direct seeding.Weed, insect and disease management are still poorly applied in Cambodia.Lack of suitable irrigation systems.Knowledge on integrated soil nutrient management is still limited.Availability and use of farm mechanisation is limited.

How might these obstacles be overcome?Ensure that trials and demonstrations address each of the above issues. Vanthong PENGVICHITH

Describe the research ideaNAFRI and ACIAR research has provided mainly new technologies that have enabled some smallholders to dramatically increase farm productivity. However limited access to markets has often prevented adoption of these new technologies – excess production cannot be marketed. Integration of technical research for improved productivity, post-harvest technology development and market studies can help address lack of adoption.What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Increased smallholder productivity and poverty alleviation through market oriented production systems (rice, other crops and livestock). What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?Low adoption of new technologies by smallholders due to lack of capital/credit.History of being unable to sell excess production How might these obstacles be overcome?Group formation and associated empowerment to improve access to credit and to markets.Better market intelligence to inform production.^ Notes - Not all delegates submitted worksheets- Worksheets developed/submitted by delegates sometimes differ from their allocated working group (country/region)

97

Matiur RAHMAN

Describe the research ideaOf the 0.8M ha of land sown annually to T. aman rice, most lies fallow after harvest. This valuable resource could be utilised with appropriate crops, cropping patterns and livestock systems. Collaboration between RSR projects and research underway at BSISA Bangladesh should address the fundamental limitations of water quality and water availability. What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Livelihoods of farmers will be improved by adoption of technologies enabling productive use of otherwise fallow land.

What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?This ‘system’ problem will need relevant input from several research bodies which collectively bring together the necessary technologies

How might these obstacles be overcomeCollaboration between researchers and research organisations and subsequently with extension providers. Benjamin SAMSON

Describe the research ideaThere is a wealth of genetic diversity in rice in the Mekong region which is in largely untapped gene banks. This research could utilise this diversity and find ways to conserve it within the socio-cultural environmental conditions where they were developed by farmers and communities.What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?A living and evolving database for rice genetic diversity that would enable utilisation of unique and novel traits.Understanding of how environmental, social and anthropological factors have shaped rice germplasm and of their potential to continue doing so.

What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?Requires a multi- or inter-disciplinary approach with strong social science input. Few people or groups would be able to do this, and developing such groups might be a major achievement in itself.

How might these obstacles be overcome?Careful selection of people or group who already have a good history of working effectively together.SENG Vang

98

Describe the research ideaBuild on the recently completed project CSE2006/040. This involves the development of supplementary irrigation to broaden agricultural options in rain-fed lowland rice-based systems in Cambodia.What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?The research has the potential to improve the income and hence nutrition and welfare of families in the rain-fed lowland region. This project would add value to existing work in Projects 3 and 4 and ACCA (LWR2008/019)

What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?The range of biophysical and socio-economic conditions in the region together with labour shortages and cost of farm inputs.

How might these obstacles be overcome?Projects 6a and 6b have identified policy constraints in Cambodia which will inform this new project. The ACCA project has identified farming system typologies and strategies that will also be relevant here.^ Notes - Not all delegates submitted worksheets- Worksheets developed/submitted by delegates sometimes differ from their allocated working group (country/region)

THENG Vuthy

Describe the research ideaPoor small landholders face constraints on access to credit. Research could examine current models of credit provision and explore how constraints might be relaxed. This research could add value to existing research under Project 6(b) and lead to reform of credit policy.What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Access to credit can unlock the potential for increased productivity.

What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?MFIs might be reluctant to cooperate and the financial sector might oppose any new policy or additional regulations.Ketema ZELEKE

Describe the research ideaIntegrated exploration of post-rice crops and forages option in rain-fed southern Laos. This includes identifying and addressing the opportunities and constraints. Key issues to be addressed are water and soil constraints, farming practice, marketing and policy.Tools include survey, experimentation and modeling.What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Optimal use of land, water and labourImproved household income, nutrition and healthImproved soil quality What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?Adapting current farming practices to the new system How might these obstacles be overcome?Learning from similar practices in the region.No name

99

Describe the research ideaSpatial analysis of data for optimal application/adoption of relevant technologies. Overlay biophysical data with socio-economic data, for example using Thavonne’s model as a start.What do you perceive to be the main benefits arising?Make better use of existing data to target technologies to where they are most appropriate in both biophysical and socio-economic terms. What are the main obstacles to achieving these benefits?Unavailability of relevant data at a suitable scale. How might these obstacles be overcome?Prioritise data requirements and decide on appropriate scale which is both useful and available.^ Notes - Not all delegates submitted worksheets- Worksheets developed/submitted by delegates sometimes differ from their allocated working group (country/region)

100

ATTACHMENT H – Evaluation Form

101

ATTACHMENT I – Acronyms and abbreviations

ACCA Adaptation to Climate Change in AsiaACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchADB Asian Development BankAPSIM Agricultural Production Systems sIMulatorASAP As soon as possibleASEM Agricultural Systems Management (ACIAR program)AUD Australian dollarAusAID Australian Agency for International Development BMP Best management practiceCA Conservation agricultureCARDI Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development InstituteCAVAC Cambodia Agriculture Value ChainCDRI Cambodian Development Resource InstituteCGIAR Consortium Group on International Agricultural ResearchCIAT International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CGIAR centre) CIM Crop Improvement and Management (ACIAR program) CRS Catholic Relief Services CSE Cropping Systems and Economics (ACIAR program) CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Australia)DAFO District agricultural field officerGAP Good agricultural practiceGDA General Directorate of Agriculture (Cambodia)HA HectareICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (CGIAR centre) IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development (United Kingdom)INGO International non-government organisations IRRI International Rice Research Institute (CGIAR centre)IWMI Integrated Water Management Institute (CGIAR centre)KG KilogramKS Knowledge sharing LCD Liquid crystal displayLOC LocationLWR Land & Water Resources (ACIAR program) MAF Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryMFI Micro finance institutionsMOWRAM Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology (Cambodia)M-POWER Mekong Program on Water, Environment and ResilienceNAFRI National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (Lao PDR)NGO Non-government organisationNPK Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassiumNSW DPI New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (Australia)NUOL National University of Laos

103

ORYZA Rice simulation model named after ‘Oryza’, the genus to which rice belongsPAFO Provincial agricultural field officerPDF Portable document formatPDR (Lao) People’s Democratic RepublicPL Project leaderPM Planting methodPNG (1, 3, 5) Rice varietiesQTLs Quantitative trait loci (stretches of DNA containing or linked to the genes

that underlie a quantitative trait)RPM Research Program Manager (ACIAR)RSR Rice-based Systems Research (ACIAR program)SLP Southern Laos Project SNRMPEP Sustainable NRM & Productivity Enhancement Project SRA Strategic Research Activity (ACIAR)SRI System of rice intensificationSSNM Rice varietyTSN (1, 3) Rice varietiesUNE University of New England (Australia)UQ University of Queensland (Australia)US United States (of America)USB Universal serial bus (flash drive, stick, thumb-drive, etc)WG Working group

104

_x000d__x000d__x000d__x000d_rice-based...

Documents

_x000dx000dx000d__x000d_rice-based...