EFFECT OF THE SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION (SRI) ON ...

However even with this roll-on effect and free interpretation it is questionable how SRI will
develop and in what form in the future. There is a tendency that farmers practising SRI after some
time will mix SRI with some of their traditional methods and thus move away from SRI (Ma
Veasna – personal communication, 2008). Such tendencies are in accordance with the findings from
Moser & Barrett (2003) on disadoption rates amongst SRI farmers in Madagascar. CEDAC is
providing various extension services: SRI, production of organic fertilizers, pesticide reduction,
developing farmer associations, saving groups etc. (CEDAC, 2008c). The ILFARM project is
ending in October 2009 (CEDAC, 2008c) which raises the question, how will SRI survive without a
strong organization like CEDAC providing extension and training? First of all SRI is not a set of
rules to be strictly followed (Stoop & Kassam, 2005) and should not be regarded as a part of a TOT
and T&V strategy but a tool farmers can use and adapt like they wish. Farmers have participated in
SRI training sessions and have been involved throughout the process. Therefore the sustainability
must be larger – as the more participatory a project is, the more sustainable it is. Matteson (2000)
states that the conversion of development projects changing strategy from T&V to FFS experienced
much higher success rates, as farmers were involved more throughout the process of the project.
CEDAC did not use FFS but similar training strategies thus SRI would probably still be practiced
by the target farmers in the future but perhaps in a different set up.
However considering the major impact CEDAC has had with the farmers during the project the lack
of extension services after the end of the project might result in some farmers moving away from
SRI. The target farmers are now used to have some sort of access to extension through CEDAC
after the end of the project they will suddenly face another truth. Probably the most labour intensive
techniques will be left out such as. e.g. compost production and farmers who can afford chemical
fertilizers will increase in using it which is most likely the richer farmers. Poorer farmers might still
use compost production as means of supplying nutrients to their farming system.
9.5.4 Can farmers produce enough compost/GM for the future expansion of their SRI fields?
This section will evaluate if farmers will be able to produce enough compost and apply enough
biomass for the increase in area of SRI production for the season of 2009. According to the findings
from the household survey as mentioned earlier, the farmers will in average expand their SRI from
the present 534 m 2 to 3676 m 2 . According to CEDAC (2008a), 14% of interviewed household in
the ILFARM project area are in average able to produce 2.550 kg of compost per year and 81% of
60