Presented by: A.P.S. Fernando Faculty of Agriculture Rajarata University of Sri Lanka

1. ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF “SRI” AND
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
A.P.S. Fernando
Faculty of Agriculture
Rajarata University of Sri Lanka

2. An overview
Scope and limitations of the study
Socio-economic background of farmers
Land tenure and use
Farm mechanization and labour use
Productivity and output
Cost benefit and profitability
Conclusions and policy implecations

3. Table 1:Engagement in economic activity by sample paddy farmers
Main economic activity Non-SRI SRI
Farming (FA) 47.5 44.4
Casual Labour (CL) 18.6 16.8
Skilled Labour 5.9 8.1
Government sector (GE) 5.3 4.7
Private sector (PV) 12.4 10.5
Self Employment (SE) 4.8 12.6
Small Business (SB) 2.8 1.3
Other (OT) 2.7 1.6
Total 100 100
Figures are in percentages
1. Social and economic background of sample paddy farmers
Economic activities of sample paddy farmers

4. Figure 1:Average monthly income by employments of SRI participants
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Wage
labour
Skilled
labour
Govt.
emp.
Self emp. Private
emp.
(Rs/month)
Figure 2: Average monthly income by employments of Non-SRI
participants
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Wage
labour
Skilled
labour
Govt.
emp.
Self emp. Private
emp.(Rs/month)
Wage labour
Skilled labour
Govt. emp.
Self emp.
Private emp.
Contribution of income from off-farm employment sources

5. Engagement in off-farm employment and income of SRI farmers
40%
15%
10%
30%
5%
18%
13%
28%
15%
26%
Wage labour
Skilled labour
Govt.
employment
Self
employment
Privte
employment
Figure 3.a Engagement in
off-farm employment by
SRI farmers
Figure 3.b Composition
of off-farm income of
SRI farmers

6. Table 2: Tenure status of lowlands of SRI participants
Region Deeds Grants Permits Leased Rent in Encroach Shared
Hambantota 58.8 7.1 3.5 7.1 18.7 2.4 2.4
Nawagatt. 66.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. 33.3 n.a. n.a.
Rambukka. 66.7 n.a. n.a. 5.6 22.2 n.a. 5.6
Thambutt. 61.0 4.9 n.a. 4.9 22.0 2.4 4.8
Wanatawill. 68.4 10.5 n.a. n.a. 21.1 n.a. n.a.
Warakapola 82.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.7 n.a. 8.7
n.a.-not available and figures given in the table are percentages
Table 3: Lowland endowment and tenure status of low lands of Non-SRI participants
Deeds Grants Permits Leased Rent in Encroach Shared
Hambantota 57.1 2.4 4.8 2.4 23.7 4.8 4.8
Nawagatt. 50 NA 12.5 NA 37.5 NA NA
Rambukka. 66.7 NA NA NA 22.2 NA 11.1
Thambutt. 50 3.1 NA 6.3 12.5 NA NA
Wanatawill. 57.2 14.3 NA 4.1 24.4 NA NA
Warakapola 57.1 NA NA 14.3 28.6 NA NA
n.a.-not available and figures given in the table are percentages except land endowment
2. Land tenure and land use

7. Table 4: Allocation of lowlands by SRI participants
Location Average lowland
endowment (ac)
SRI Non-SRI
Yala Maha Yala Maha
Hambantota 2.07 (85) 0.53 0.49 1.55 1.58
Nawagattegama 3.60 (12) NA 0.92 2.3 3.5
Rambukkana 0.94 (18) 0.64 0.64 0.47 0.47
Thambuttegama 2.12 (41) 0.25 0.63 1.7 1.7
Wanatawilluwa 3.61 (19) 0.67 0.78 2.67 2.88
Warakapola 0.56 (25) 0.34 0.34 0.39 0.39
Average 2.58 (200) 0.49 0.63 1.51 1.75
Cases reported are given in parentheses

8. Table 5: Allocation of lowlands by different SRI adopter categories
Adopter
category
Average low
land endowment
(ac)
Allocation under
SRI
Allocation under
Non-SRI
1 1.80 0.40 (22.2) 1.40 (77.8)
2 2.65 0.60 (22.6) 2.05 (77.4)
3 1.99 0.48 (24.1) 1.51 (75.9)
4 3.00 0.75 (25.0) 2.25 (75.0)
Figures given in parentheses are in percentages
Table 6: Land use under different varieties by SRI participants
2011/2012 Maha 2011 Yala 2010/2011 Maha 2010 Yala
SRI with improved
varieties (ac)
0.46 (47) 0.46 (38) 0.54 (46) 0.48 (31)
SRI with traditional
varieties (ac)
0.68 (35) 0.56 (29) 0.61 (30) 0.60 (16)
Non – SRI improved (ac) 2.22 (127) 2.04 (126) 2.22 (120) 2.23 (108)
Cases reported are given in parentheses

9. Table 7: Ownership of machinery by participant group
Type of machine SRI (%) Non-SRI (%)
Four-wheel tractor 1.3 0.4
Two-wheel tractor 19.2 15.8
Weeder 10.8 3.8
Seeder/transplanter 2.1 0.0
Combine harvester 2.5 0.4
Water pump 0.4 0.8
Threshing machine 0.4 0.4
3. Farm mechanization and labour use

10. Activities demanding high labour are:
Leveling and transplanting
Harvesting
Threshing and winnowing
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Ploughing
Bund clearing and plastering
Leveling and transplanting
Water managment
Fertilizer application
Application of org./in org. chemicals
Visits and observations
Harvesting
Threshing and winnowing
Transportation
Mandays / acre
SRI
Non-SRI

11. Figure 5: Labour use per ac of padddy by region
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Hamba. Nawag. Rambu. Thamb. Wanat. Waraka. All
Mandays/ac
Non- SRI
SRI

12. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
SRI
Non-SRI
Familymale
Familyfemale
Hiredmale
Hiredfemale
Figure 6: Labour participation by gender, origin and region

13. Table 8: Average land productivity under different production systems (kg/ac)
Production system Ham. Nawa. Ram. Tha. Wan. Wara. All
SRI with traditional
varieties
1,217 NA 1,250 1,356 1,516 1,155 1,299
SRI with improved
varieties
1,895 2,366 2,105 2,047 1,250 1,840 1,994
Non – SRI 2,423 1,013 1,645 1,834 1,478 1,383 1,629
4. Productivity and output
1. Land productivity is high under SRI with improved varieties followed by non-
SRI, and SRI with traditional varieties
2. Therefore, SRI with improved varieties would enhance the average labour
productivity as well (kg/man-day)

14. Figure 7: Average labour productivity
0
20
40
60
80
100
SRI with improved
varieties
SRI with
traditional varieties
Non-SRI
Kg/manday

15. 5. Costs, benefit and profitability
Figure 9: Cost of labour (Rs/ac)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Hamba. Nawag. Rambu. Thamb. Wanat. Waraka. All
Rs./ac
Non- SRI
SRI
Figure 8: Cost of Material and farm power (Rs/ac)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Hamba. Nawag. Rambu. Thamb. Wanat. Waraka. All
Rs/ac
Non- SRI
SRI

16. * Rise of total cost of production owing to labour increases
* If the labour is not paid (family labour), it is the flip side of the coin
*In this analysis, however, environmental costs (particularly water and
chemical pollution) have not been taken into account.
Figure 10: Total cost of production with labor (Rs/ac)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Hamba. Nawag. Rambu. Thamb. Wanat. Waraka. All
Rs/ac
Non- SRI
SRI

17. Table 9: Average prices of paddy
Product Wet basis
(Rs./Kg.)
Dry basis
(Rs./Kg.)
Seed
paddy
(Rs./Kg.)
SRI Traditional 40.5 45.2 47.0
Improved 27.3 29.4 48.3
Non-SRI 27.5 28.4 NA

18. * Highest profit is from SRI with improved varieties
* Reasons are three-fold:
a. High price of seed paddy
b. High land productivity of SRI with improved varieties
c. Existence of established market (regular) for seed paddy
Table 10: Average profit under different scenarios (Rs/season/ac)
Wet basis
(Rs./season/ac)
Dry basis
(Rs./season/ac)
Seed paddy
(Rs./season/ac)
SRI Traditional varieties 2,934.40 9,039.70 11,377.90
Improved varieties 4,761.10 8,948.50 46,635.10
Non-SRI Improved varieties 14,210.85 15,676.95 NA

19. Conclusions
• Participants belong to different tenure groups and farmer classes
• None of the farmers fully allocate their lowland endowment under
“SRI”
• Only a very few own very basic farm equipment needed for “SRI”
• “SRI” is labour-intensive (leveling + transplanting and harvesting)
and involves more family labour
• Non-SRI is intensive of non-labour material inputs
• “SRI” is more land productive but less productive in labour
• Cost of production of SRI is high owing to labour
• Production of seed paddy under SRI is more profitable than other
systems

20. Policy implications
• More appropriate to smallholders with low-income
opportunities, but not for large-scale operators
• Development of labour-saving techniques, particularly for
1. transplanting
2. weeding
• SRI could be worthwhile to use in seed paddy production
• Establishment of markets or farmer cooperatives, if traditional
varieties are to be practiced, is more challenging

21. Thank you