Round 3

May 2011

Best Practices & Innovations (BPI) Initiative

Agriculture & Rural Livelihoods

System of Rice Intensification (SRI)

Africare
Best Practice Award for Natural Resources Management and Adaptation to Climate Change

Overview:
Africare’s “System of Rice Intensification (SRI)” project aims to alleviate poverty through strengthening
the social and economic status of women and their families, so that they can become active members of
civil society in Bangladesh. Working in the Timbuktu Region, the project achieves food and livelihood
security by increasing food production, boosting rural incomes, improving health and nutrition,
increasing gender equity, and strategically managing natural resources. In addition, women are
becoming more active participants in rice production and are now able to contribute to the overall
household income and are now seen as active contributors to the well-being of the family.

Intervention Details:
Location Timbuktu Region, Mali, West Africa
Start Date June 10, 2008
End Date Ongoing
Scale Local/Community
Target Population Structurally and chronically food insecure households in the Timbuktu
Region
Number of beneficiaries 60 vulnerable households (approximately 14,080 individuals) of 12 villages
Partners Local community members, the Malian Department of Agriculture, Institut
d’Economie Rurale du Mali (IER) located in Sikasso, the Rodale Institute
Funders/Donors The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the
Better U Foundation
Total Funding Initial SRI-specific funding of US$420,000, with on-going support through a
follow-on Food for Peace Multi-Year Assistance Program of approximately
US$ 7 million.
Website www.africare.org

About the Intervention

1. Background/Context
What challenges or problems were the interventions designed to address? Why was the intervention
 Round 3
May 2011

needed?
Mali, a landlocked country in West Africa, is one of the least developed1 countries in the world – with
approximately 63.8%2 of its population of 13 million living in poverty. Despite the fact that over 60% of
Mali’s land mass is part of the Sahara Desert and only 4% is arable, agriculture still accounts for a
substantial portion of Mali’s GDP and employs 70-80% of the rural workforce. The hot and dry climate
poses significant challenges not only to agricultural production, but also to providing stable, adequate
access to and utilization of food. According to an in-depth food security and vulnerability evaluation3, over
40% of Malians are classified as food insecure or highly vulnerable. Chronic malnutrition estimates reach
upwards of 40% and global acute malnutrition stands at 11%. Moreover, 80% of dietary energy is derived
from cereals of low micronutrient content. Further compounding food insecurity is a largely defunct public
health sector that receives only 2.9% of the national GDP. As a result, Mali’s under-five mortality stands at
194 per 1,000 live births, with an average child stunting rate of 33%, an average wasting rate of 25%, and
average life expectancy of only about 49 years.

Of all of the regions of Mali, households living in the Timbuktu Region are particularly prone to chronic food
insecurity and generally able to produce food only 4 months per year (with the seasonal flooding of the
River Niger). Weak annual rainfall (approximately 150mm/year), declining yields (< 1 ton/ha for both rice
and sorghum), increasing soil infertility from desertification, and extreme climatic variability further
exacerbate this already desperate situation. Among traditional smallholder farmers, livelihood uncertainty
now reigns and as a result, many increasingly seek either off-farm labor in urban centers or humanitarian
aid to maintain their households through the hunger season.

With funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Better U
Foundation, The project is working with rural smallholder farmers to end the cycle of relief-based food aid
distribution by building sustainable, resilient food security systems at the local level. Through a highly
participatory approach, together with villagers, the project experimented with the construction of
community-managed Village Irrigated Perimeters (VIPs) and the adoption of the System of Rice
Intensification (SRI). As integrated components of a larger holistic food insecurity intervention, VIPs and SRI
helped to empower Timbuktu smallholders to find local solutions to food production, benefit from value-
added market linkages, eliminate household hunger, participate in alternative income generating
opportunities, and provide insurance against rising food prices. Furthermore, the environmental benefits
associated with SRI methodology (i.e. reduced water requirements, intensification of production on less
land, stronger stem and root systems, diminished methane gas emissions, reduced nitrogen fertilizer use)
mean that, even in the face of increasing climate variability, smallholder farmers are able to remain
productive, secure, resilient, and self-reliant. Thus, the project provides an excellent example how
community-led, diversified agricultural growth can also seamlessly manage soil and water resources to
meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
food/livelihood security needs.

2. Goals & Objectives

1
The 2010 Human Development Index puts Mali near the bottom of all the countries in the world – with a ranking of 160th out of 169
countries. More than 50% of Mali’s population lives below $1.25 PPP per day with 64.7% intensity of deprivation.
2
Poverty headcount ration at national poverty line (% of population), World Bank 1998.
3
2008 Bellmon Analysis Update, USAID.
 Round 3
May 2011

What were the intervention’s goals and objectives? What was it meant to accomplish?
Project’s main goal is: to alleviate poverty through strengthening social and economic status of women and
their families, so that they can become active members of civil society in Bangladesh.

Four circles in the Timbuktu Region – Dire, Goundam, Niafunke and Timbuktu – were identified as priority
geographical areas for the project’s food insecurity intervention. These areas have similar livelihood
systems based in recessional agriculture, rice farming, pastoralism and fishing. The project selected 12
villages (approximately 60 food insecure households) with which it has collaborated over the past 5-10
years.

Overarching Goal: Achieve food and livelihood security by increasing food production, boosting rural
incomes, improving health and nutrition, increasing gender equity, and strategically managing natural
resources.

Theory of Change: Originally introduced in Madagascar in the 1980s, the System of Rice Intensification
(SRI) is an alternative crop management methodology aimed at increasing the productivity of irrigated rice
cultivation while simultaneously, reducing external inputs (i.e. water, seed, fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides,
labor). SRI is a knowledge-based methodological innovation and has the potential to spread quickly, with
low-cost inputs and technical support. It can be adopted by ordinary, smallholder rice farmers and as part
of a holistic intervention, SRI innovations can help to improve sustainable livelihood resiliency and asset
retention. Consistency, coordination and quality of technical extension, as well as openness to innovation
are the primary enabling factors. SRI, in this best practice, is thus seen as the key foundational agent for
synergy between interventions – ensuring that the overall impact is multiplicative, and not simply the sum of
its parts.

Basic differences between the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) and Conventional Rice Production.

SRI Conventional Methods

Age of seedling: Transplanted at 8-12 days old
Number of seedlings: 1-2 seedlings are planted in
hills
Spacing of plants: Wider spacing with hills 20-30
cm apart
Water management: Un-flooded, with
intermittent irrigation leaves aerobic soil
conditions
Soil fertilization: Organic matter is preferred to
the extent feasible
Weed/pest control: Annual weeders can
simultaneously remove weeds, aerate the top soil
Age of seedling: Transplanted at 21-40 days old
Number of seedlings: 3-4 are clumped and
pressed deep into flooded soils
Spacing of plants: Close spacing with hills 10-15
cm apart
Water management: Continuous, with 5-15cm of
water throughout the growth cycle
Soil fertilization: Inorganic, fertilizer applied to
replace organic matter
Weed/pest control: Flooding is supplemented by
manual weeding and herbicide applications

3. Key Activities
Please describe the intervention’s main activities. What role did each partner play? If applicable, how is the
intervention innovative?
(1) Construction of Village Irrigated Perimeters.
 Round 3
May 2011

The project has worked with farmers to establish village-based, small-scale irrigation schemes of about 30-
35 hectares that can be irrigated by one diesel motor pump. Since 80-100 farmers share this land, the
average irrigated crop area available per household is about 1/3 of a hectare. Getting maximum yields and
maximum efficiency of inputs, including water, from these small plots is essential to reducing poverty and
ensuring sustainable food security.

(2) Technical Knowledge Transfer of SRI Methodology

Farmers participated in the SRI evaluation on a completely voluntary basis. All 12 villages decided by
consensus to support 5 volunteer farmers per village to participate in experimentation SRI with the
innovative SRI methodology. The area under rice cultivation in the 12 villages totaled more than 1,900
hectares—roughly more than 10% of the entire area of irrigated rice in the Timbuktu region. The project
supplied each village with two rotary weeders and provided close technical support (1 field agent for every
15 farmers). The volunteers took part in farmer-to-farmer exchanges and even received visitors from
outside their communities who wanted to learn about SRI. Since farmers committed their own inputs to the
evaluation and were responsible for their own crop management, the project results directly reflect
contextually-specific field conditions and realities. With quality extension and active community
participation, farmers started to be more open to new ideas, to be more wide-ranging in their observations,
and to rethink current practices.

(3) Experimentation: Making Research an Iterative Process.

Field extension agents helped to promote farmer initiative and evaluation by encouraging them to take
more ownership and responsibility over adaptation and innovation. Beneficiary farmers were free to
choose their own plot size, rice variety, fertilizer, etc. Then, farmers planted one rice parcel with SRI
methods, while leaving a second parcel (the “control plot”) to be farmed under traditional rice production
techniques. Rice nurseries for both (each 400 square meters on average) were sown with the same seed,
on the same day. Data collection was done with, rather than for, the farmers and supervised by government
agent in charge of agricultural production based in Goundam. Thus, for example, smallholder farmers have
found and quantified for themselves that with SRI only 6 kg/ha of seed is required to yield production levels
comparable to what would traditionally require 40-60 kg/ha under non-SRI rice production techniques.

(4) Beyond Experimentation: Innovation.

SRI participants were encouraged even to push the boundaries of the research project and transform
traditional SRI application to the production of wheat (which they expected to respond agronomically in a
similar way to rice). The System of Wheat Intensification (SWI) used the Tetra variety, which has been
developed locally and is therefore already highly adapted to the contextual environment (resistant to cold
weather in the winter season). The combination of applied SWI methodology and Tetra seeds allowed
smallholders not only to maintain food supplies during the winter months when rice cannot be grown but
also to significantly boost production levels.

(5) Diversification to Nutrient-Rich Crops.

Apart from participation in SRI and SWI experimentation, smallholder farmers were also trained on
methods of improving nutrition and micronutrient availability through agricultural diversification.
Intensification of cereal production on less land using SRI/SWI methodology allowed the now ‘surplus’ land
areas to be farmed with a greater variety of crops, including: onions, tomatoes, and beans. These high-
nutrient crops are utilized first for household consumption and also serve a double purpose – in that they
also can achieve a high market price locally (local supply was typically low for these crops and of low
quality). Beneficiaries were encouraged to develop “backyard gardens” to grow other vegetables, such as
 Round 3
May 2011

cabbages and carrots. Females, in particular, were empowered by such diversification; since vegetables are
not traditionally considered a cash crop, women were not bound to cultural/gender norms and could more
freely monetize vegetables for alterative sources of cash income. In addition, diversification allowed
mothers more control over nutrient consumption options for their children, which had traditionally been
limited by the cash resources provided by men.

(6) Maximize profit by minimizing input costs and variability.

Sustainability of increased yields is also contingent on input availability (i.e. seeds and fertilizers). Through
training and sensitization, high-cost inorganic fertilizers were incrementally replaced by organic manure,
which readily adopted by farmers after small changes in herding behavior (livestock owners were
encouraged to keep animals “on-hold” overnight to ease manure collection). The project also collaborated
with local research stations to develop new crop varieties (rice, wheat, sorghum and millet) adaptable to
local conditions. Such collaboration ensured local access to quality seeds and also a lower input price than
those offered directly in the markets or by farm-door middlemen.

(7) Value-added Market Linkages.

The project then linked beneficiaries to local credit institutions to assist with small loans (to purchase and
install rice processing machines). In combination with improved post-harvest handling techniques, farmers
can now harvest rice and wheat with full confidence that they will (a) have capacity to stock their produce
until prices rise during the ‘hunger’ season, and (b) have household access to “bumper” yields that ensure
household food security sustainably through the year. Proper storage allows smallholders to benefit from
better prices, increasing cash resources and access to other nutrient-rich proteins, such as fish and meat.

(8) Alternative Income Generation

Finally, the project helped to organize women’s associations and provided training on entrepreneurship and
small business management. Women were trained strategic sales of surplus produce, methods of speeding
small ruminant production for the markets, improved poultry practices, etc. The project also trained
associations on how to start and manage loans/savings schemes, establish village banks, and access credit.

4. Effectiveness/Evidence of Success
What were the results of the intervention, and how were they measured? Who and how many people
benefited from the intervention? What evidence do you have to support these results (e.g. field visit reports,
internal tracking & monitoring, internal or external evaluations, etc.)?

Now, after 3 years of SRI implementation, the food security intervention has successfully resulted in: (i) a
tripling of average rice yields from 3mt/ha to 9mt/ha; (ii) a reduction in water requirements by up to 40%;
(iii) a reduced reliance on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides; leading to (iv) a decline in input-
associated costs (labor and capital investments reduced by approximately 23%); and (v) a significant
increase in income generated per hectare (up to 68% gains per household unit). Farmers have been
consistently enthusiastic about the benefits of SRI/ and their enthusiasm has been contagious – spreading
far and wide to surrounding communities. In conversations, they list the many advantages of SRI, including
increased yields, reduced seed, less weeding, and stronger and faster plant development. In addition,
smallholder beneficiaries have found that the application of organic matter reduced synthetic fertilizer use
by 30%.
 Round 3
May 2011

Innovating wheat production using SRI methodologies, farmers have seen their yields increase from
2.4mt/ha to 4.33mt/ha, a reduction in seed from 100kg-140kg/ha to just 5kg/ha under SWI, and a
reduction in fertilizer use from 100kg/ha to 50kg/ha. In addition, water use was reduced by 42%, which also
has tangential advantages in that significantly less petrol is used to power the water pumps. This translates
into increased cash resources for the family and minimizes further strain on the environment.

Further, women in particular have seen a dramatic impact in empowerment. Fifteen women’s groups have
successfully borrowed a total of CFA 2,120,000 from a village bank to buy potatoes seed inputs. At harvest,
that initial start-up money was transformed into a net profit of CFA 8,906,000 (following deduction
production costs), which translates to a 420% return on the original input cost (see table below). Women’s
groups also successfully paid back the loan, expanded their farming business, and even ventured into SRI
and SWI cash crops.

Number of Beneficiaries Quantity of Value of Other Production Value (CFA) Net Return
groups (Women) Seeds seeds charges in kg
(CFA) (CFA)
15 933 2000 kg 2.120.000 2.300.000 53304 13.326.000 8.906.000

Overall, impact of these layered interventions is tangible. Food and livelihood security have been improved
and strong linkages formed between households and both government and private sector resources. In
villages where the best practices have adapted, the Months of Adequate Household Food Provision
(MAHFP) have increased 5.5 months to 9 months in a year. Furthermore, cash resources gained from sale of
wheat, rice and vegetables have allowed families to supplement subsistence farming from the market
during the remaining three months so that no one goes hungry. Records from the Goundam Health Center
show that increasingly, more parents take their children to clinics and vaccinations. Malnutrition rates have
declined, more children have enrolled in primary school, and thanks to community mobilization and
motivation – a new primary school has even been constructed for 30 students in Bagadaji.

5. Equitable Outcomes
Describe how the intervention enabled the participation of and produced benefits for women. Please provide
data showing the comparative benefits for men and women. If the intervention focused exclusively on men,
please explain the rationale for doing so.

As rice is used both as a cash crop and a subsistence crop, it is traditionally considered a “man’s crop” in
Northern Mali. While women conduct more ‘tedious’ yet back-breaking tasks (such as removing seedlings
from the nurseries, weeding, and threshing), their participation in rice production is seen as largely
supplemental to the work of men and women do not produce rice on their own. However, in shortening
nursery management time, easing the work with smaller seedlings for transplant, and decreasing the
amount of time spent laboring in standing water, the utilization of SRI methods frees women’s time for
other activities and minimizes the risk they face from associated health complications4.

Despite the socio-cultural context and to the surprise of project staff, in the village of Findoukaina, 2

4
Traditional rice cultivation involves the need for women to stand or crouch for hours at a time in flooded fields, which can lead to
serious health problems over time.
 Round 3
May 2011

women were selected by their community to join 18 of their male counterparts in SRI trials. At the time of
selection, neither of these women had ever grown rice before, although they were members of a local
women’s association that used irrigation systems to market vegetable garden products during the cool
season. Following technical training on SRI by field agents, the women conducted all of the work
themselves – from plowing, to leveling, planting, and harvesting – without any help from their husbands or
other men from the village. With each step in SRI rice production, the women participants began to take
more and more pride in their work and both their excitement and feelings of empowerment proved
contagious. At the end of the first experimentation season, Maya Abdoulaye exclaimed, “This year we
learned about SRI. Next year, all 20 group members *of the Findoukaina women’s association+ will plant
their own SRI fields.” Despite the very late arrival of water from the river Niger in the 2009/2010 planting
season, over half of the women in the cooperative still successfully planted their own rice fields using SRI
practices. Women are now able to contribute to the overall household income and are now seen as active
contributors to the well-being of the family, instead of just “housekeepers”. In addition to employing SRI,
SWI, and vegetable gardening practices, women are now well-informed on health care options, hygiene,
nutrition (especially of children under 23 months), and savings and loans options.

Men have also changed their behavior towards their wives. They no longer view their wives as “parasites”
to household resources, but as equal partners in providing for the family. Before the intervention, in the
hunger season (May, June and July) men would leave their families, migrating in search of off-farm labor.
Upon return, in addition to modest income supplementation, some men would also come back with
sexually transmitted diseases. However, now with more stable livelihoods, men are not forced from their
families in search of work; during the lean season, men sell rice and wheat that have been stocked and have
the opportunity to participate in diversification / alternative income generation activities.

6. Efficiency/Cost-Effectiveness
How do the intervention’s relative costs compare to the outcomes achieved? Please provide evidence to
support your answer.

The table above summarizes the cost-effectiveness of rice production using SRI methodology in comparison
to conventional practice. Of the 53 farmers who diligently followed recommended practices, yields
averaged 9.1 tons/ ha which translates into a 66% increase over the control plots, which only yielded 5.5
tons/ha. Per hectare input costs were slightly higher for SRI. Initially SRI showed somewhat higher labor
costs for land preparation, transplanting, and estimated cost of manure. However, most SRI farmers
collected manure and transported it to the fields themselves, reducing fertilizer input costs significantly. As
shown in the table, SRI revenues were 2.1 times higher than revenues achieved in the control plots. Thus,
despite a slight increase in estimated input costs, overall profitability of SRI was increased and undeniable
for the farmers. At prevailing market prices, net revenue for SRI farmers would equal more than 1 million
CFA/ha (equivalent to $2,220 USD/ha) compared to 490,000 CFA/ha (equivalent to $1,089 USD/ha) for the
control plots. In addition to producing more and as a result of improved harvesting and storage techniques,
farmers have seen significant reductions in post-harvest losses, further increasing profits over the long-
term.

Production costs, production value and net revenue for SRI, control and farmer practice plots (per/ha)
INPUTS Quantities Cost in CFA (%)
SRI Control FP SRI Control FP
Irrigation 5 (gasoil) 90% 100% 100% 99.000 (21) 110.000 (27) 110.000 (29)
 Round 3
May 2011

Capital costs of pump 90% 100% 100% 40.500 (8) 45.000 (11) 45.000 (12)
Seeds (kg) 6 50 50 2,280 (0.5) 19.000 (5) 19.000 (5)
Urea (kg) 120 145 97 42.000 (9) 50.750 (12) 33.950 (9)
DAP (kg) 8 34 20 2.800 (0.5) 11.900 (3) 7.000 (2)

Manure (tons) 13 3 0 39.000 (8) 9.000 (2) 0

Labor (person days)* 251 169 161 251.000 (53) 169.000 (41) 161.000 (43)

Total input costs 476.580 (100) 375.950 (100)

414.650 (100)

PRODUCTION (per ha) 9.1 tons 5.49 tons 4.86 tons 1.501.500 CFA 905.850 CFA 801.900 CFA

NET REVENUE (per ha) - - - 1.024.920 CFA 491.200.CFA 425.950.CFA

- - -
Production cost per kg of paddy 52 CFA 76 CFA 77 CFA

Input cost as % of production value - - - 32% 46% 47%

FP= farmer practice, less – intensive than the Control plots, which were considered “best practice”
*Land preparation: SRI – 40% tractor, 60% hand; Control – 33% Tractor, 15% hand, 52% no-till, Farmer practice- 20% tractor, 80% no
till.
Note: SRI practices were still unfamiliar in this first season; farmers agreed that their SRI labor inputs should become less in
subsequent seasons.

7. Sustainability
Is this intervention sustainable in the long-term, socially, financially and environmentally? Please describe
the steps the intervention took to ensure services or impacts will be sustained over the long term, and the
role of local partners or the beneficiary community in continuing the intervention.

(i) Capacity Building: All activities were based on the development and strengthening of village-
level community based organizations - Food Security Committees (CSA) - to enable households
to manage risk and respond in a timely way to shocks.
(ii) Community Ownership and Enthusiasm: Active participation and integration of farmer’s ideas
into the adoption process enabled a sense of both ownership and accountability. Involvement
of the farmer’s in the process of data collection generated a sense of tangible proof that their
efforts had succeeded, thereby instilling a sense of contagious excitement and openness to
share their experiences.
(iii) Technical Documents and Technical training: Documents have been translated into local
languages to facilitate understanding and application. Lead farmers have been trained on the
technical aspects of SRI management (i.e. land preparation, spacing, weeding, water control
and proper harvesting methods) and also encouraged to share their experience with other
producers through both formal and informal farmer-to-farmer exchange.
(iv) Literacy Classes: All participating villages were offered literacy lessons as a way to build their
capacity for informed decision-making and also their ability to expand their farming into a
profitable business.
(v) Links to Government and Research Institutions: The project put explicit emphasis on the
active involvement of Malian government representatives, including staff from the Department
 Round 3
May 2011

of Agriculture and also the IER Research Center.

(vi) Agroforestry Practices and Environmental Awareness: Special emphasis was placed on
complementary environmentally-friendly activities, such as the creation of tree nurseries for
replanting, the planting of small woodlots as household assets, the use of living fences,
utilization of windbreaks in agricultural fields, and construction of erosion control barriers to
mitigate the impact of desertification. In addition, in conjunction with SRI, farmers were
encouraged to use organic manure and “fertilizing trees” such as Gliricida and Corcoba.

8. Challenges & Lessons Learned

What challenges or obstacles did you face and how were they addressed? What are the most important
lessons a reader should take from this practice?

CHALLENGES:
Quality and availability of low-cost fertilizer. Significant biomass resources are needed for organic
fertilization. On-site compost pits using rice straw, animal manure and other organic matter (plant
biomass) as variable components of quality fertilizer stock; however, the availability and
composition of these components are limited at some times of the year. When used, techniques for
applying synthetic fertilizer should be improved, especially for urea. For example, urea should be
incorporated during rotary weeding to preserve nutrient retention instead of being broadcast
indiscriminately into irrigation water.
Insufficient resources to meet farmer’s demand and excitement for training. Benefits of SRI and
associated livelihoods practices have spread quickly by word of mouth. As a result, there remain a
large number of villagers who want to adapt the new farming practices they have seen
demonstrated by beneficiary farmers. More irrigated perimeters will be required (which can be
costly and needs external support) and further training on management of SRI/SWI techniques.
Incorporation of sustainable value chain and market linkages. At all stages of the value chain - from
inputs to consumer-level purchases – sustainable market linkages and farmer’s empowerment take
significant planning and long-term support.

LESSONS LEARNED:
In Mali, SRI results have surprised practically every technician and every farmer. Many of the guidelines for
SRI contradict traditional agronomic schools of thought and sometimes, even clash with what farmers
traditionally think works best. For instance, farmers in Mali believe that (a) using more water to inundate
their rice fields will yield higher production levels, and (b) greater application of synthetic fertilizer will
increase yields. Thus, SRI/SWI methodologies require a change in mindset, willingness to experiment, and
openness for change. Risk-averse decision-making inhibits such social change. Thus, in addition to
trainings, intervention program must address smallholder mindsets – and not just focus on technical skills.

Contrary to expectations, men did not object to women’s participation in economic/productive activities.
Thus, the involvement of women in vegetable, SRI and SWI activities is a clear indication that gender
discrimination is not as entrenched as previously thought. Given adequate means, women can empower
themselves within the household and gain self-confidence as well. Women’s participation in the village-
level decision-making bodies has reached approximately 30%, further enabling them to actively participate
and have a voice in the development of their communities.
 Round 3
May 2011

Finally, the project has found that micro-enterprise activities can play an important role in maintaining
sustainable food security. Alternative income generation provided a source of additional cash during the
lean months that families could use to supplement their diets to maintain nutritional levels, especially
important for children and mothers.

9. Enabling Factors & Recommendations

What factors were critical to the success of the intervention? What should others know about this
intervention before replicating it elsewhere?

ENABLING FACTORS:
(i) Community Engagement: Active participation and trust allowed beneficiaries to transition from
a risk-averse mindset to a more open, innovative and experiment-oriented mindset.
Communities were initially sensitized on SRI principles and a respected and influential
community leader - the Imam of the village of Douegoussou - offered to do the first trial on his
own land with his own labor and inputs. This showed a perfect “demonstration effect” to the
communities.
(ii) Ownership and Responsibility: Farmers took ownership of the whole process from choosing
the plot size they could commit to the project, to selecting the proper rice variety, to identify
organic fertilizer sources, etc. The fact that farmers had to provide all the supplies themselves
also increased their commitment to adopting SRI and achieving a positive result. Finally, their
evolved expertise was honored and valued through participation in program evaluations and
also the creation of a field-based training manual for SRI.
(iii) Transfer of Technical Knowledge: High-quality technical backstopping is essential to adoption
of new techniques, especially in the adoption of SRI methodology. Farmers must fully
understand the principles of SRI and be confident in the practice in order to make their own
modifications and/or adjustments. The production and dissemination of good technical
support materials is influential in increasing adoption rates, as is data collection (done with
rather than for farmers). Farmers were also encouraged to consult with each other and
exchange experiences.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
Investigate alternative systems organic fertilizer production;
Improve field preparation techniques and introduce small machinery for tilling and leveling;
Evaluate SRI methodology’s application on other crops and rice varieties such as traditional African
rice (Oryza glaberrima) and new researcher-bred strains (NERICA varieties);
Experiment with different irrigation regimes to generate reliable technical recommendations for
the Timbuktu region and elsewhere in Mali;
Improve the sustainability and reliability of value-addition activities and market access.
Continue to empower women’s initiatives and provide on-going training in literacy and business
management.

10. Replicability/Adaptability
Has this intervention been successfully replicated or adapted in another setting? If so, where, when and by
 Round 3
May 2011

whom?

The benefits of SRI are visible across 40 countries throughout the world. The project “imported” this
innovation to Mali, using demonstration plots, experimentation, and farmer-to-farmer exchange to expand
the scale of intervention and increase its applicability in Mali’s contextually-specific environmental
landscape. Instead of using genetically modified seeds, SRI has been practiced in Timbuktu with locally
developed seed varieties that have been adapted to local conditions. Furthermore, wheat production was
successfully adapted using SRI methodology, providing an opportunity for farmers to engage in agriculture
all year round. Today, thanks to successful interventions, SRI is known all over Mali and awareness has
expanded widely beyond the original intervention zones. Currently, the project is supporting 300 farmers in
SRI. National observers claim that this is one of the most rapid uptakes of new agricultural practices seen in
the country. Both SRI and SWI practices are being replicated in other parts of the country, including the
regions of Segou, Mopti, and Sikasso. Within the intervention area, the “demonstration effect” has made
the practice to spread like “fire.”