|
- SRI - A collaborative effort of Association Tefy Saina and CIIFAD |
 |
Sri
Lanka
2007-2008 Activities At an April 8, 2008, SRI Network (SRIN) meeting, members agreed to establish district-wise SRI networks by inviting government organizations, INGOs, NGOs and CBOs, operating in each of six districts to promote SRI and share the knowledge and resources among the members in the district (see minutes). Plans to develop instructional material, facilitate SRI research and undertake weeder improvements were also discussed. • Oxfam/Australia Releases Three Studies on SRI in Sri Lanka Progress 1999-2005 • Because SRI was not introduced through the Ministry's Department of Agriculture, and had not been subjected to three years of testing before being 'released' to farmers, however, there was resistance from the technical staff of the Department and the government's rice research station at Batalagoda. It was promoting hybrid rice as the best solution to Sri Lanka's rice yield stagnation, so resisted SRI even though Prof. Yuan Longping, 'the father of hybrid rice,' was promoting SRI in China. The attacks on SRI made it 'controversial,' although this also gave the methods much free publicity and may be ultimately advantageous for SRI. The criticisms from rice specialists have not deterred many farmers from trying out the methods. • Other government agencies -- the Mahaweli Authority, Irrigation Management Division, Agricultural Development Authority, Agrarian Services Department, and Ceylon Electricity Board (wanting to save water for hydroelectricity generation) -- have become interested in SRI and have been spreading knowledge of it to farmers in different districts and irrigation systems. • Farmer innovation and leadership has been very important for SRI in Sri Lanka. An evaluation by farmers in the Namal Oya irrigation scheme reported in 2001 found that their yield with SRI methods was 8.5 t/ha, whereas that with 'modern' methods using fertilizer was 4.7 t/ha and with traditional farmer practice 2.9 t/ha. Rooting depth for the three alternatives they measured as 8, 3 and 2 inches, respectively. Costs of production were calculated at 3.00, 5.65 and 6.00 rupees/kg. This shows the kind of systematic approach to SRI evaluation many Sri Lankan farmers took. • H. M.
Premaratna
has trained over 4,000 farmers in SRI methods at his own expense
at the Nature Farming Center on his farm (1.4 ha) at Mellawalana.
He is now working with the Australian NGO Community Aid Abroad/Oxfam
to train Tamil farmers living in areas until now controlled by the
LTTE secessionist movement. • In October 2002, Dr. Aldas Janaiah from the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research in Mumbai, India, and formerly on the agricultural economics staff of IRRI, visited Sri Lanka to evaluate SRI based on interviews with farmers who were practicing these methods. From data from 30 farmers, he calculated that yield had increased 88% (8.0 vs. 4.5 t/ha), with 15% higher return from the rice harvested because of quality differences (1,500 vs. 1,300 rupees/kg), and with total costs (excluding family labor) reduced by 18%. Gross returns/ha were 120,000 rupees with SRI vs. 548,500 rupees with conventional methods, and net returns were 102,000 rupees vs. 36,500 rupees. In addition, family labor earnings were higher per day of work, and water savings were 50-40%. • In 2003, staff of the International Water Management Institute did an evaluation of SRI in Sri Lanka, studying the experience of SRI and non-SRI farmers chosen at random in two districts [N=60 for both samples]. They found that even though the SRI farmers were not using all of the practices and had only a 50% increase in yield over comparable non-SRI farmers, water productivity was increased by 90% with SRI methods. Cost of production (rupees/kg) was reduced by 17-27% counting all labor inputs at prevailing market wages, and by 111-209% if family labor was used and not paid for. Profitability per hectare was raised by 83-206%, depending on how the cost of labor was considered. Very important, economic risks were reduced by SRI, as non-SRI farmers experienced net economic losses in 28% of their seasons, while SRI farmers had losses in only 4% of seasons. Such considerations will make SRI ever more popular in Sri Lanka. In terms of who adopts SRI, the study found that poorer and richer households were more likely to adopt than average households, and that poorer households once they started with SRI were least likely to disadopt. These results (see summary) were reported in a paper presented to the ICID conference in Taipei in November, 2003, and have been published in as IWMI Research Report #75.
|
Home Tefy
Saina |
CIIFAD |
MOIST |
http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/countries/srilanka/index.html
last updated: June 21, 2008
Copyright © 2006 Cornell University