Abha Mishra - MEL Study in LMB Countries

1. Understanding the Pattern of
Change Resulting from the SRI Capacity Building Interventions in Four
LMB Countries through Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Study
Regional Workshop, Bangkok, Thailand, November 01-02, 2018
Abha Mishra, ACISAI, AIT

2. 1. OBJECTIVE
To evaluate and learn about the pattern of change in SRI-LMB region
among different groups of farmers due to direct and indirect effects
of Farmers’ Participatory Action Research (FPAR) intervention

3. 2. METHODOLOGY
• Pre and post intervention surveys from 30 districts in 10 provinces from 4 LMB
countries, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam
• Purpose of the study was to learn from the evolution of farmers’ practices at FPAR and
and non-FPAR sites with respect to pre-project baseline scenario, and with the respect
to control groups
• Three groups surveyed:
• FPAR group: Farmer participants in the direct interventions of the project which
included attendees from both CFPAR and FPAR,
• Non-FPAR group: Farmers from the same village/neighborhood where the FPAR has
been conducted, but who have not attended and followed the project’s direct
interventions, but could be indirectly influenced by their neighbor who attended FPAR,
and
• Control group: Farmers with similar agro-ecological and socio-economical profiles as
that of FPAR group, but that have not been directly or indirectly influenced by the
project’s interventions.

4. 2.1 STUDY AREA
Country Baseline
survey
MEL survey (Pre & post FPAR)
Thailand January
2014
2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017
Cambodia January
2014
-do-
Laos December
2014
Nov-Dec 2015 & 2018
Vietnam June 2014 Bac Giang
July 2015 and Feb 2016; July-Aug 2016
and Feb-March 2016Year 3; July August
2017
Ha Tinh
July-Aug 2015 and Feb 2016; July-Aug
2016 and Feb 2017; July Aug 2017 and
Nov-Dec 2017
Years of Data collection

5. 2.2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MEL STUDY

6. 2.3 SELECTION OF THE RESPONDENTS
• Randomly selected using stratified sampling method
FPAR structure in each province and FPAR MEL
survey groups
Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Lao PDR
Year 2014-15
FPAR 238 81
N-FPAR 105 43
Control 99 42
Year 2015-16
FPAR 109 111 84 117
N-FPAR 81 69 40 74
Control 99 69 38 84
Year 2016-17
FPAR-1 75 111 90
FPAR-2 77
FPAR-3 72
N-FPAR 73 72 42
Control 73 72 41
.Number of respondents in MEL survey among
country and subgroups

7. 2.4 SELECTION OF LOCAL MONITORS AND
CONDUCTION OF MEL SURVEY
• Selection of local monitors and training (One from each district were selected for data
collection by national universities.
• Questionnaires were developed, adapted and translated into the local language.
During the training survey questionnaire were pre-tested, adjusted and finalized.
• http://www.sri-lmb.ait.asia/resources/practical.php
• Conducting MEL Survey - A full set of questionnaire can be seen in the MEL study
protocol available at: http://sri-lmb.ait.asia/downloads/MEL%20Protocol-SRI-LMB-
AIT.pdf . The MEL study protocol was developed in consultation with regional and
national partners.

8. 2.5 DEFINED SRI CROP MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES WITH RESPECT TO CM AND SRI-T
Crop management
practice
Conventional practice
(CM)
SRI-Transition SRI-D
Seedbed Wet seedbed with high
seed rate
Wet seedbed with less
seeding rate
Dry raised seedbed with
seed rate
Seedling age > 30 days old 16-30 days 8-15 days (VT-19-8 d)
Seed rate 100-150 kg/ha 20-30% less than CM 5-20 kg/ha
Transplanting spacing Random/less than 10×10
cm
10×15 cm–19×19 cm 20x20 cm–30x30 cm
Seedlings/hill 5-6 seedlings/hill 4-5 seedlings/hill 1-3 seedlings/hill
Soil condition Flooded Relative aerobic soil Maintain aerobic condition
Manure application <5 t/ha 6-9 t/ha >9 t/ha
Weed management Chemical and manual With rotary hoe
1-2 times
With rotary hoe
more than 2 times
Pest management Chemical Apply IPM Apply IPM (environment
management)

9. 2.6 DATA COLLECTION
The data were collected in four broad areas:
 Crop management practices applied w.r.t. SRI principles Cost and benefit to the households
 Women farmer’s socio-economic status and overall well-being
 Responses of farmers to extreme events (drought/flood/pests/disease outbreak), if any.
Indicators selected for the MEL study were:
1. For crops/cropping system – (change in yield, change in maturity period, change in farming
systems (diversification of crops/livestock)
2. For socio-economic aspects – change in net on-farm return, relative change in food security,
change in labour requirement
3. For exposure and sensitivity to extreme events
Data analysis
• Microsoft excel 2016 was used to perform various exploratory and descriptive statistical analysis
and tests. Statistical tests were performed by using analysis of variance (ANOVA); Cluster Analysis
was done visualize the adaptation response pattern; Regression analysis was done, where

10. 2.7 DATA ANALYSIS
• Microsoft excel 2016 was used to perform various exploratory and descriptive
statistical analysis and tests. Statistical tests were performed by using analysis of
variance (ANOVA) in Sigma Plot 12.5
• Cluster Analysis was done visualize the adaptation response pattern
• Regression analysis was done, where needed.
• DATA VARIABLES

11. 3. KEY FINDINGS
3.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND OF THE RESPONDENTS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
FPAR Non-FPAR Control FPAR Non-FPAR Control FPAR Non-FPAR Control FPAR Non-FPAR Control
Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos
Age,years
%farmers
Gender distribution of respondent farmers
Female (% farmers) Male (% farmers) Age (years)
Gender and age distribution (Feminization of agriculture and
working with aging population)

12. 3.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND OF THE
RESPONDENTS
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
FPAR Non-FPAR Control FPAR Non-FPAR Control FPAR Non-FPAR Control FPAR Non-FPAR Control
Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos
Area,ha
Land holding and area under rice cultivation of respondent farmers
Land holding Area under rice cultivation
Average land holding and area under rice cultivation

13. 3.2 CROP MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPLIED
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos
FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control
Year 2014 (n=81) (n=43) (n=42) (n=238) (n=105) (n=99)
Transplanting 40 28 14 73 59 41
Direct seeding 8 0 0 26 22 59
Broadcasting 56 72 86 2 18 0
Parachuting 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 2015 (n=111) (n=39) (n=39) (n=109) (n=81) (n=99) (n=84) (n=40) (n=38) (n=74) (n=117) (n=84)
Transplanting 36 18 09 65 64 41 46 43 53 99 98 99
Direct seeding 17 13 12 29 27 59 2 3 0 0 1 0
Broadcasting 47 69 79 6 9 0 20 25 21 1 1 1
Parachuting 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 30 26 0 0 0
Year 2016
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam
FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR-1 FPAR-1 FPAR-2 NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control
(n=115) (n=45) (n = 43) (n=75) (n=77) (n=72) (n=73) (n=73) n=110 (n=45) (n=45)
Transplanting 41 27 13 50 40 45 30 33 45 43 54
Direct seeding 18 17 11 43 51 68 58 62 2 2 0
Broadcasting 41 56 67 7 9 8 12 5 20 24 22
Parachuting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 31 24
3.2.1 Sowing method (Moving from transplanting to direct
seeding but with low seed rate

14. 7
11 13
10
19
15
13
0
19
63
70
87
90
78
85
88
66
64
30
18
0 0
3
0 0
34
18
0
20
40
60
80
100
2014 2015 2014 2015 2016 FPAR-1 2016 FPAR-2 2016 FPAR-3 2015 2015 (n=74)
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos
%farms
Seedbed rasing method over years in FPAR group farmers
Dry seedbed (% farms) Wet seedbed (% farms) Seedling Tray (% farms)
3.2.2 Seedbed raising method (Wet seedbed preferred)

15. CROP MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPLIED WITH
RESPECT TO SRI
3.2.3 Percent change in SRI practices from 2014 to 2016 in FPAR
farmers
0
20
40
60
80
Transplanting
Younger
seedlings
Wider
spacing
Seedlings per
hill
Change in practice over the
years in Thailand
2014 2015 2016
0
50
100
Transplanting
Younger
Seedlings
Wider Spacing
Seedlings per
hill
Change in practices over the
years in Cambodia
2014 2015 2016
0
50
100
Transplanting
Younger
Seedlings
Wider Spacing
Seedlings per hill
Change in practices over the years in
Vietnam
2015 2016 2017
 Fewer
seedlings/hil
l
 Wider
spacing

16. FPAR Non-FPAR
Young seedlings Wider spacing Lower no. of
seedlings/hill
Young seedlings Wider spacing Lower no. of
seedlings/hill
Thailand 47-28
(2014-16)
51-71
(2014-16)
66-71
(2014-16)
25-31
(2014-16)
25-29
(2014-16)
9-12
(2014-16)
Cambodia 4-8 (2014-16) 33-27
(2014-16)
54-78
(2014-16)
0-3%
(2014-16)
14-20
(2014-16)
31-39
(2014-16)
Vietnam 49-63
(2015-17)
37-34
(2015-17)
79-60
(2015-17)
55-61
(2015-17)
31-33
(2015-17)
52-47
(2015-17)
Laos 49
(2015)
74
(2015)
84
(2015)
3
(2015)
22
(2015)
24
(2015)
3.3.4. Percentage farmers in FPAR and Non FPAR groups
adopting SRI practices

17. ADAPTATION RESPONSE PATTERN
Cluster Profile Plots
1
SOILCONDITIO
SEEDAGE
SEEDRAISE
SPACING
SEEDPERHILL
2
SOILCONDITIO
SEEDAGE
SEEDRAISE
SPACING
SEEDPERHILL
SRI practices F ratio
Seedling/hill 7307.98
Spacing 412.39
Seedling raising
method
398.12
Seedling age 80.23
Aerobic soil
condition at least for
a week at vegetative
stage
0.358
Landholding is correlated
to the method of planting
Seedling/hill and spacing have the highest impact in
group formation than any other SRI principles

18. 3.3.5. Method of weed control
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control
Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas
%farms
Manual Chemical Both
SRI Rec.: Manual (rotary hoe)
 Cambodia and Laos
are predominantly
control weed by
manual methods
 In Vietnam farmers
reported more of
chemical control of
weed
Manual: FPAR: 50% [NFPAR- 40% and Control- 34%]

19. Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos
FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control
Year 2014 (n=80) (n=42) (n=41) ((n=232) (n=103) (n=38)
Manual 36 17 10 69 65 61
Chemical 38 55 66 18 25 24
Both 14 14 12 7 2 13
None 13 14 12 6 9 3
Year 2015 (n=110) (n=71) (n=71) (n=105) (n=77) (n=72) (n=83) (n=40) (n=38) (n=74) (n=117) (n=84)
Manual 50 36 21 75 64 61 16 10 5 70 60 54
Chemical 22 38 59 18 17 24 45 48 50 4 4 5
Both 15 5 5 1 8 13 40 43 39 0 3 0
None 13 21 15 6 12 3 0 0 5 26 33 42
Year 2016
Thailand Cambodia
FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR-1 FPAR-2 FPAR-3 NFPAR Control
(n= 104) (n=69) (n-69) (n=75) (n=77) (n=72) (n=73) (n=73)
Manual 56 37 24 73 71 69 83 60
Chemical 20 39 60 16 18 24 11 24
Both 12 7 8 5 7 4 3 8
None 12 17 8 5 4 3 3 8
3.3.6.THE PERCENT OF FARMS ADOPTING
VARIOUS METHODS OF WEED CONTROL
 In Thailand
manual
method of
weed control
has increased
in FPAR
groups
 Vietnam still
prefers
chemical
method
 Manual
method of
weed control
is being
practiced in
Cambodia and

20. 3.3.7.MANURE APPLICATION INCREASED
37
41
65
95
91
88
33
41 42
8
35
23
39
80 79 77
37
34
31
11
31
26
34
59 59
67
36 35 33
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2015 2016 2017 2015
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos
FPAR N-FPAR Control
 Application of
manure has been
increased in
Thailand
 Cambodia
remained same
 A slight increase in
Vietnam has been
seen

21. 3.3.8. PRODUCTIVITY INCREASED (PADDY
YIELD)
2.71
3.65
3.18
5.44
2.51
3.25
2.88
5.18
2.33
3.02
2.68
4.48
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Cambodia Thailand Laos Vietnam
Rice Yields (t/ha) (average of three years) in all four countries among
groups
FPAR NFPAR Control
In Cambodia, average yield
was 14% more than the
control
In Thailand it was 17% more
and in Vietnam it was 18%

22. 3.3.9.PROFITABILITY INCREASED (ON FARM
NET RETURN)
344.49
734.30
1053.00
164.96250.29
508.73
761.19
32.54
294.00
453.77
695.43
-339.92
-800.00
-600.00
-400.00
-200.00
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
1400.00
Cambodia Thailand Laos Vietnam
Average net return (average of three years) in all four countries among groups
FPAR NFPAR Control
The average gain
in Cambodia was
14%, in Thailand it
was 38%, in Laos
it was 33%
whereas in
Vietnam it was
three times
higher with
respect to Control

23. 3.3.10. LESS INORGANIC FERTILIZER USE IN
THAILAND AND VIETNAM
165 173 162
239
217
195
436
191 194
167
242 245 235
449
166 166 171
337
384
308
556
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2015
Cambodia Thailand Vietnam
Amountofinorganicfertilizer,kg/ha
Amount of inorganic fertilizer applied (kg/ha) among groups
FPAR N-FPAR Control

24. 3.3.11. LESS PESTICIDE USE IN THAILAND AND
VIETNAM
19
26
15
40
16
76
1
22
19
11
40
13
90
1
15
48
28
95
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2015 2015
Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos
%farms
Percent farmers applied pesticide among groups
FPAR N-FPAR Control

25. 3.3.12. RICE YIELD ACCORDING TO GENDER
3.7
3.4
3.6
3.4
2.8
2.6
3.1 3
5.6
4.1
3.9
2.19
3.6
3.3 3.2 3.2
2.9 2.9
5.0
3.7
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2014 2015 2016 Baseline 2014 2015 2016 Baseline 2015 Baseline 2015
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos
Riceyield,t/ha
Rice yield (t/ha) among the gender
Female Male
Women farmers reported higher yields

26. 3.3.13. NET PROFIT FROM PADDY ACCORDING
TO GENDER
960
1057 1060
187
395 321 370
526
230
72
1962
704
858
600
700
535
444
205
-567
1108
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2014 2015 2016 Baseline 2014 2015 2016 Baseline 2015 Baseline 2015
Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos
Netincome,US$/ha
Net income (US$/ha) among the gender
Female Male
Women reported higher net return

27. 3.3.13. EFFECTS ON CROP MATURITY
45
19
50
41
33
25
55
81
4 4
0
6
0 0 2
19
52
78
50
53
67
75
44
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2015 2015
Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos
%farms
SRI experience among FPAR farmer group
Matured earlier Maturity delayed No difference
No significant effects

28. ADAPTATION RESPONSE
0.30
0.72
0.27
1.32
0.20 0.15
0.27
1.52
0.30
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos
AreaunderSRI,ha
Area under SRI (ha/household)
2014 2015 2016
Average area under SRI per FPAR farmer
In Thailand it was 13%, (2014 - 46%)
In Cambodia, it was reduced from
0.3 ha to 0.27 in 2016.
In Vietnam, the area increased from
33% to 53,6% in 2017
Vietnam> Thailand> Cambodia >
Laos
53% > 46% > 32% > 7%
Area increasing under SRI

29. ADAPTATION RATE AND PERFORMANCE INDEX
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2014 2015 2016
Adoption rate (%)
Thailand Cambodia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2014 2015 2016
Adoption rate (%)
Thailand Cambodia
 No of farmers adopting the new practices /total no
of farmers who have received FPAR training
 In Thailand, it was 34% in 2014 which increased to
65% in 2016
 In Cambodia, it increased from 35.2% to 38%
 Average adoption rate was 51%
 In Vietnam 70% FPAR farmers applied SRI practices
after the training
Better chances for higher adoption

30. WOMEN PARTICIPATION IN DECISION
MAKING Cambodia Thailand Vietnam
FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control
n=109 n=81 n=39 n=110 n=38 n=37 n=84 n=40 n=38
Number of events/percentage/days where
women in the household participated in
decision making during last one year
Percentage of women contribution to decision
making
Number of days in a year women participated
in decision making
Number of events involving decision-making
that women participated out of 10 events
Household farming 100 100 92 6 5 6 8 8 8
Household use of the earned money 100 100 97 30 48 32 8 8 9
In any political event like local elections or
other pressure groups
96 87 89 6 1 2 7 7 6
Marriage/any other household events 99 98 95 22 26 21 7 8 8
Any other social events where women
participated in decision making
100 97 94 18 12 18 8 10 8
The women participation in decision making in
Cambodia was higher in FPAR group

31. PRODUCTIVITY GAINS AT FPAR TRAINING
SITES, FPAR FARMERS’ FIELDS WITH RESPECT
TO BASELINE
6.01
3.9
4.4 4.35
5.44
3.65
2.71
3.18
4.1
3.3
3
2.19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Vietnam Thailand Cambodia Laos
A. Paddy yield (t/ha)
FPAR-TS FPAR-MEL Baseline

32. PRODUCTIVITY GAINS AT FPAR TRAINING
SITES, FPAR FARMERS’ FIELDS WITH RESPECT
TO BASELINE
384
782
493.4
838
164.96
734.3
344.49
1053
72
187
426
704
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Vietnam Thailand Cambodia Laos
B. Net return estimated (US$/ha)
FPAR-TS FPAR-MEL Baseline

33. PRODUCTIVITY GAINS AT FPAR TRAINING
SITES, FPAR FARMERS’ FIELDS WITH RESPECT
TO BASELINE
2.2
0.24
0.61
1.06
2.16
0.28
1.91
4.08
1.9
-0.16
2.87
2.24
0.4
0.14
2.5 2.41
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Thailand Vietnam Cambodia Laos
Economic productivity (US$/ha)
Economic productivity FPAR-T Economic productivity FPAR-MEL
Economic productivity Control Economic productivity Baseline
 EP was higher
in Thailand and
Vietnam at
FPAR sites and
at FPAR-MEL
sites
 In Cambodia
the EP was
lowest at FPAR
training sites
and even at
FPAR-MEL sites

34. WHY FEWER SEEDLINGS/HILL AND WIDER
SPACING PRACTICES WERE ADOPTED
3
9 7 41 5 6 6 36 5 2
9 5
88
95
92
79
88
0
20
40
60
80
100
Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos Regional
%
Household rice sufficiency
6 months 8 months 10 months 12 months

35. EFFECTS OF PLANT SPACING
Higher yield and higher profit
with wider spacing

36. EFFECTS OF FEWER SEEDLINGS/HILL

37. ECONOMICS OF MECHANICAL VS.
HAND TRANSPLANTING Why
mechanization in
Thailand
No significant
difference in yield
Higher net return with
mechanical
transplantation
Higher paddy price for hand
transplanted rice

38. LABOUR AND FERTILIZER COSTS CONTRIBUTE
SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF COST OF
CULTIVATION
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
FPAR Control FPAR Control FPAR Control FPAR Control
Labour Fertilizer Seed Pesticide
Input costs (US$/ha)
Cambodia Laos Thailand Vietnam
Labour use
Cambodia = 53
Laos = 65
Vietnam = 123
Thailand = 40
Av labour cost in Vietnam, Cambodia and
Laos = 5 US$/man day
Av labour cost in Thailand = 8.5 US$/man
day
 Family labour (50%) has not been
accounted by Thai farmers
 In other three countries farmers are
not paying for the labours
Is labour costs are real or
virtual/just estimate?

39. CONCLUSION
This was evident that ‘SRI farmer’ are not applying 100% SRI as per SRI definition.
They have modified the practices according to their needs and adapted and applied
to suit their local conditions.
The common principles, which were the guiding force for adaptation were increase
yields, increase benefits, reduce cost of cultivation.
Even farmers have not applied the full principles of SRI, the SRI intervention has
increased the yields and net return in all four countries. The average increase in yield
reported was 7-18% whereas average net return reported was in the range of 15% to
three times.
Fewer seedlings/hill and wider spacing were the most preferred practices, if they
applied transplanting method for crop establishment, and wider spacing and fewer
seeds/hole if they apply direct seeding method.
The adoption response was based on the agronomic and economic performance of
the practices in the SRI fields and was linked with the input (labour, seeds, fertilizers)
and output (paddy price, incentive, where applicable)price policies of the countries.
This was visible in Thailand and Vietnam focused on reduction in input use (seeds,
chemicals and labour) through training intervention, whereas Cambodia and Laos’s
intervention was mixed, encouraging good practices such as SRI and also
encouraging application of increased dose of fertilizer, organic and inorganic

40. CONCLUSION
Though, Laos’ average fertilizer dose at FPAR sites were less compared to the
baseline survey, but this was due to the facts that many FPAR farmers did not apply
fertilizer at their SRI/FPAR sites, especially the sites located near to mountain areas.
adoption of SRI practices was more prominent at women farmer’s field. They have
not only reported better adoption of practices but also higher yields and higher net
returns. They have also reported less labour use. They stay at home so they are in
better position to take care of their fields with regular supervisions and so less field
maintenance costs (other costs).
Labour and fertilizer were the two main inputs where costs saving was significant, if
they tend to reduce the costs of cultivation such as in Thailand and Vietnam
In Thailand introduction of direct seeder was one of the approaches to reduce the
labour and seed use. A similar trend was followed in Cambodia in 2016 where more
than 50% farmers applied SRI with direct seeding.
further trainings on the production methods that conserve natural resources,
improve soil health and enhance ecosystem services would strengthen sustainability
of the production system and resilience capacity of the smallholder farmers

41. CONCLUSION
 Improved farmer’s connectivity to markets along with farmer compliance with market
standards would be required.
 Laos and Cambodian farmers apply less chemical fertilizers and more organic manures.
Both countries have good environment for organic rice/crop production, quality
production.
 Such intervention can be possible through development of farmer’s cooperatives and by
changing price policy for their quality produce.
 The SRI-LMB has already created informal farmer’s groups in 11 provinces across all four
countries by involving 30,000 farmers directly in the last five years. These groups can be
further strengthened to develop farmer’s cooperatives at district and province level and
also at the country level to accelerate the sustainable rice intensification along with
market development for smallholders.

42. Thank you.
Questions/comments