UNDERSTANDING THE SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION:

A CASE STUDY FROM LIBERIA

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School

of Cornell University

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Professional Studies in Global Development

by

Garrett John Quade

December 2022
© 2022 Garrett John Quade

i
 ABSTRACT

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) was introduced to Liberia in 2012. Since then, it has been

widely promoted across the country to enhance rice productivity. This ecological methodology has

proven a viable alternative to conventional and traditional rice cultivation elsewhere in the world,

particularly among smallholder farmers, as the low-input, high-output production system increases

food security and income while conserving natural resources and relying less on agrochemicals.

There is a growing body of literature dedicated to SRI, but little is known about farmer experience

with this production system in Liberia. This paper explores farmer perceptions using qualitative

research methods and examines the challenges and opportunities for scaling up SRI in the Liberian

context. Results from this research indicate substantial benefits for farmers, as yield increases were

reported unanimously. However, low and partial comprehension of SRI principles and practices,

along with infrastructural barriers, limited the persistent adoption.

ii
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Garrett Quade was born and raised in the San Joaquin Valley of Central California. His childhood

upbringing in a small, rural community provided an early education on the interconnected nature

of food, people, and the environment, which continues to motivate his academic and professional

aspirations. Currently, Garrett is a graduate student in the Department of Global Development at

Cornell University, studying international agriculture and rural development, with ambitions of

fighting hunger, poverty, and climate change through agricultural interventions. His interests lie

at the intersection of agroecology, economic empowerment, food security, and natural resource

conservation, and he is particularly intrigued by the prospect of combining policy with practice to

advance innovative ideas for supporting smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa.

Garrett graduated with a bachelor of science in agricultural business from California State

University, Fresno in 2012. During his undergraduate career, he had the fortunate opportunity of

traveling to China with the Department of Agricultural Business, which afforded him a first-hand

look at the global food system and profoundly impacted his understanding of international affairs.

Prior to his studies at Cornell, Garrett served as a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer in the Oromia region

of Ethiopia, where he worked with smallholders farmers and youth groups to implement nutrition-

sensitive agriculture projects. Moreover, he holds years of applied knowledge in crop production,

specifically, with irrigation and fertility management and experience in agricultural commodities

marketing on domestic and international levels. This multidisciplinary background has equipped

Garrett with a comprehensive set of skills which enable him to critically engage in development

initiatives and collaborate with others through a spirit of participatory learning and co-creation.

iii
 To the smallholder farmers,

who toil in the fields to feed their families,

and whose work is often underappreciated,

this paper is dedicated to you.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research project would not have been possible without the help of numerous people and

organizations that encouraged the pursuit of this study and provided immense support throughout

the journey. It is with sincere gratitude that I extend thanks to my advisor, Dr. Terry Tucker. Thank

you for taking me under your wing during my time at Cornell, as your expertise guided me in every

phase of this investigation. Special thanks also go to everyone at the SRI International Network

and Resources Center (SRI-Rice) for your valuable input at the conceptualization of this project,

and for the volume of curated literature related to the System of Rice Intensification. Specifically,

I would like to thank Lucy Fisher, Dr. Erika Styger, Dr. Norman Uphoff, and Devon Jenkins for

your insightful conversations and collective, decades-long commitment to SRI around the world.

In addition, I am extremely grateful for the generous funding in support of this research provided

by the Department of Global Development in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the

Institute for African Development at the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies.

To the Community of Hope Agriculture Project, thank you for welcoming a stranger from

across the globe into your organization and providing the amazing opportunity to work alongside

one another. Principally, I would like to thank Reverend Robert S.M. Bimba for recognizing the

merit in this research and for your invitation to join the fight for rice self-sufficiency in Liberia. It

is with profound respect and admiration that I also thank my dear friend, Mr. Jerome K. Gbowee.

Traversing the countryside by motorcycle in the peak of rainy season was not a simple task, and

together, we experienced vehicle breakdowns, multiple flat tires, and many hours on the road, but

each day you displayed an unwavering commitment to reach farmers in the most remote areas and

learn of their needs. Jerome, thank you for the great conversations, your tireless work ethic, and

valued friendship – I could not have done my fieldwork without you.

v
 Moreover, I would like to thank and acknowledge all of my professors and classmates at

Cornell University, and the entire MPS Global Development cohort of 2022. My time in Ithaca

was filled with delightfully thoughtful discussions, lectures, seminars, and studies – all of which

converged in this project. Thank you for further stimulating my curiosity and passion to pursue

positive change in an ever-complicated world.

To my partner, Jordan, words alone cannot express how thankful I am for every day we are

together. Your brilliant words of encouragement push me to keep going when times get tough and

your commitment to personal development has made me a better man. You have been without a

doubt the most supportive person throughout this endeavor. Thank you for always being there for

me when I needed you the most; for listening to my concerns; for putting up with my late-night

brainstorming sessions; for reading and advising on countless drafts of this paper; and for being

my biggest supporter. I am eternally grateful for the many sacrifices you have made over the last

two years. Truly, you are my better half.

An abundance of recognition and appreciation are owed to my loving parents, Kurt and

Betsy Quade. Your guidance has allowed me to navigate the world with humility, integrity, and

respect for all gracing this planet. Mom, as an educator, you have inspired my values for advancing

knowledge in others and instilled in me the desire to become a lifelong learner. One’s education is

an everlasting gift and sharing it with others can help foster relationships and offer solutions for

sustainable peace. Dad, your wisdom laid the foundation for my understanding of environmentally

responsible farming which has put me on the path toward meaningful, rewarding, and increasingly

important work. Furthermore, you have always led by example in your service to others and your

selflessness is apparent on a daily basis. Thank you both for being my earliest and most formative

role models, and for the unconditional love, patience, and support you have given me.

vi
 Lastly, I wish to express thanks with the utmost gratitude to the farmers who participated

in this research. Your resolve and dedication to farming and family are the backbone of society,

and my intentions in this study are to share your voices with others to effect change for individuals,

communities, and the nation of Liberia. Through collective action rice self-sufficiency is possible

and your contributions to this research revealed that. It was my privilege to be welcomed into your

communities and learn from your experiences. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………ii
Biographical Sketch……………………………………………………………………………....iii
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………...iv
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………...…...v
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………..viii
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………..x
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………..xi

Introduction…………………………………………………………………….………………….1

PART I – Literature Review……………………………………………………………….4

Chapter 1: Rice Cultivation...……………………………………………………………………. 5
1.1 History at a Glance…………………………………………………………………….5
1.2 Conventional Practices and Current Challenges………………………………………6
1.2.1 Water and Irrigation……………………………………………………….6
1.2.2 Seeding and Transplanting…………………………………………...……7
1.2.3 Nitrogen Fertilizer…………………………………………………………8
1.2.4 Land-Use Change....…………………………………………………….....9
1.3 The Path Ahead………………………………………………………………………10

Chapter 2: The System of Rice Intensification…………………………………………………..12

2.1 Technological Adoption in Agriculture……………………………………………...12
2.2 Going Against the Grain……………………………………………………………..13
2.3 What Exactly is SRI?………………………………………………………………...15
2.4 Soil Health and SRI Practices………………………………………………………..17
2.4.1 Natural Soil Amendments…...….………………………………………..18
2.4.2 Early Transplanting…...……….………………………………………... 19
2.4.3 Wider Plant Spacing...………..…………………………………………..20
2.4.4 Intermittent Irrigation………....………………………………………….22
2.4.5 Mechanical Weeding.....…...….………………………………………….23
2.5 Implications for Further Research…………………………………………………...25

PART II – Primary Research…………………………………………………………….28

Chapter 3: Liberia………………………………………………………………………………..29
3.1 Justification…………………………………………………………………………..29
3.2 Social, Economic, and Political Considerations……………………………………..29
3.2.1 Demographic Dividend..….….…………..………….……..……….……29
3.2.2 Historical Context….…...….....….....……..……….…...………………..31
3.2.3 The National Staple..............….………………………….………………34
3.2.4 Rice Cultivation............………………………………………………….35
3.3 The Community of Hope Agriculture Project……………………………………….37

viii
Chapter 4: Study Design and Findings…………………………………………………………..40
4.1 Rationale……………………………………………………………………………..40
4.2 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………40
4.2.1 Study Parameters……………………………………………………...…42
4.2.2 Sampling…………………………………………………………………43
4.2.3 Data Collection…………………………………………………………..44
4.2.4 Data Management and Analysis…………………………………………46
4.2.5 Study Limitations........…………………………………………………...47
4.3 Study Findings……………………………………………………………………….49
4.3.1 How do farmers understand the SRI method?…………………………...49
4.3.2 Why do farmers adopt the SRI method?.………………………………...54
4.3.3 What types of support are most valued by farmers?……………………..57
4.4 Discussion……………………………………………………………………………62

PART III – Recommendations…………………………………………………………...67

Chapter 5: Policy…………………………………………………………………………………68
5.1 Summary……………………………………………………………………………..68
5.2 Recommendations for Policy Makers………………………………………………..69

Chapter 6: Practice……………………………………………………………………………….76
6.1 Summary……………………………………………………………………………..76
6.2 Recommendations for Development Practitioners…………………………………..77

Conclusion…….…………………………………………………………………………………85

References..…..…………………………………………………………………………………..87

Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………95
A. Focus Group Questionnaire………...……………………………………………….97
B. Semi-Structured Interview Questionnaire…...………...……………………………99

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: The SRI Conceptional Framework...……………………………………………….17

FIGURE 2: Comparison of Rice Plants in Indonesia…………………………………………....21

FIGURE 3: Comparison of Rice Plant Roots in India…………………………………………...23

FIGURE 4: Liberia Population by County………………………………………………………31

FIGURE 5: Total Cereal Production for Liberia………………………………………………...33

FIGURE 6: Map of Liberia with Study Locations………………………………………………41

FIGURE 7: Participant Comprehension of the SRI Method…………………………………….51

FIGURE 8: Participant Weed Control Methods…………………………………………………52

FIGURE 9: Participant Rice Cultivation Motivations…………………………………………...56

FIGURE 10: Participant Challenges with SRI Implementation…………………………………59

FIGURE 11: Participant Training Needs………………………………………………………...62

x
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: Weeding Intervals - Comparison of SRI and Conventional…………………………25

TABLE 2: Site Selection and Sampling…………………………………………………………44

TABLE 3: Participant Category and Data Collection Method…………………………………..50

xi
 INTRODUCTION

The global population will surpass 8 billion people by the end of this year (UN DESA, 2022), and

with unprecedented catastrophes recurring around the world due to climate change, increasing food

production is imperative for meeting the demands of all people and ensuring political stability. At

present, however, the global food and agriculture system is a leading contributor to greenhouse

gas emissions, natural resources exploitation, social marginalization, and civil unrests. Without

major systemic change, the drive to produce more food for a growing population will bring further

damage to the already compromised and fragile natural systems in which all life depends on.

To overcome the looming threats of chronic food insecurity and calamity, food system

actors and governments alike must prioritize more efficient, equitable, and ecological methods to

sustainably intensify agricultural production and eliminate its harmful externalities. Shifting the

paradigm from business-as-usual to a system that recognizes the urgent need for environmental

conservation, and therefore incentivizes land stewardship, will require action from individuals,

institutions, and the international community writ large. So far, efforts to secure commitments and

collaboration among global stakeholders have proved painstakingly slow. While such efforts are

critical, there is growing evidence that certain changes in agricultural practices can help advance

global environmental sustainability and climate change mitigation goals while bringing benefits to

the farmers who adopt them. Thus, improving soil health, protecting and conserving fresh water,

safeguarding biodiversity and natural resources, and refocusing the attention on how and where

food is grown should define the global agenda for agriculture in the 21st century. A vital early step

in this process is to identify game-changing innovations that already exist, increase understanding

of their potential for adoption and adaptation across diverse agro-ecosystems at scale, and evaluate

the benefits they provide – and to whom.

1
 This paper examines the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) – an innovative approach to

farming one of the most essential and widely cultivated food crops in the world. Originally

developed in the 1980s under drought conditions in Madagascar (Stoop et al., 2002), this method

has gained traction in many rice-producing countries over the years by increasing yields while

using fewer inputs such as land, seed, water, and agrochemicals (Styger et al., 2011). SRI is a cost-

effective production system, especially for small and limited resource farmers, and enhances the

resilience of rice plants in the face of extreme weather events through a combination of ecological

principles and agronomic practices (Thakur & Uphoff, 2017). In addition to greater capital and

resource productivity, SRI facilitates farmer adaptation across a spectrum of landscapes (Uphoff

et al., 2011) and reduces net greenhouse gas emissions per area cultivated (Kassam et al., 2011).

For these reasons, SRI has been termed climate-smart agriculture by the Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Bank, Oxfam, and others alike (Barrett et

al., 2021), and is currently being integrated into various commitments and nationally determined

contributions to mitigate the climate crisis.

The SRI methodology offers benefits that can improve livelihoods for individuals and

households in rural communities, as well as urban societies and ecosystems. An extensive literature

cites poverty reduction, improved food security, increased off-farm employment, a greater sense

of empowerment and agency among small, marginalized farmers, and conservation of natural

resources as among the most notable benefits claimed by SRI advocates and practicing farmers. In

addition, some governmental bodies have promoted SRI as a strategy for advancing national and

state economic development agendas. Despite rising in prominence over the decades, the benefits

of SRI have yet to be fully realized, and to achieve the optimum potential, an enabling environment

consisting of infrastructure and policy is necessary to scale up implementation.

2
 The proceedings in this paper explore the prospects of creating such an environment in the

West African country of Liberia. The subsequent chapters detail extensive research on the subject

and synthesize this information into three distinct sections. Part I comprises a volume of literature

pertaining to rice cultivation, highlighting the differences between conventional rice production

and the SRI methodology and laying the foundation for which this paper will build on. Part II

encompasses the primary research that was conducted with farmers in Liberia, demonstrating the

significance of this research and discussing the study design and key findings. Finally, Part III

offers a suite of recommendations for policy makers and development practitioners based on the

results of this study, and emphasizes mechanisms that can improve rice productivity in Liberia and

contribute to agriculture-led economic development.

Qualitative research methods were used in this investigation which seeks to answer three

exploratory questions: (1) How do farmers understand the SRI method? (2) Why do farmers adopt

the SRI method? And, (3) what types of support are most valued by farmers? Data were collected

through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions in Liberia that covered a range of

questions with regard to SRI and rice farming in the country, more broadly. Triangulation analysis

was done using questionnaire responses, participant comments, and observations which aided in

the examination of farmer perceptions and attitudes toward SRI. The main objective of this study

was to gain a better understanding of farmer experience with this production system to assess the

benefits it provides and identify potential barriers that limit farmer uptake in the country. The goal

of this paper is to amplify the voices of farmers to inform the decision-making process and address

poverty and food insecurity in Liberia through a holistic approach, one that fosters equitable and

sustainable outcomes for society and the environment.

3
PART I – LITERATURE REVIEW

4
 CHAPTER 1: RICE CULTIVATION

1.1 History at a Glance

Over the last 10,000 years agriculture has facilitated the establishment of civilizations around the

world (Montgomery, 2007). Early domestication of plants and animals led to organized production

of food, feed, fiber, fuel, and fertilizer, which transformed hunter-gathers into stationary farmers

and stimulated the rapid increase in human population (Fuller & Stevens, 2019). Agriculture is the

greatest factor to have contributed to mankind’s exponential growth, and it continues to support

the vast majority of livelihoods in developing countries (Castaneda et al., 2016). While hundreds

of crops are now cultivated on a regular basis, three remain critically important to global food

security: (1) maize, (2) rice, and (3) wheat. These three cereal grains have been grown for millennia

and currently supply more than 40% of the world’s daily caloric intake (FAO, 2018). Cereals are

a foundational element in modern-day agriculture and consumption, due to their adaptive capacity

in production, long-term storage life, versatility in food preparation, and dense concentrations of

carbohydrates and other essential nutrients.

Rice is arguably the most cherished of the big three cereals, as it is cultivated in over 100

countries and a favorite among farmers in Asia and Africa (Laborte et al., 2017). The grain is a

staple food for nearly half the world, with more than 3.5 billion people consuming it daily (Kritee

et al., 2018; USDA-ERS, 2022). Its popularity stems largely from two plant species that evolved

independently from one another with the help of environmental factors and human ingenuity in

different parts of the world. Oryza sativa – the most commonly known rice species – is believed

to have been domesticated along the lower Yangtze River basin in China between 8,000 and 9,000

years ago (Nakamura, 2010; Callaway, 2014), and has served as a fixture in the diet, culture, and

trade of the country ever since. Whereas, Oryza glaberrima – the lesser-known rice species – was

5
reportedly domesticated in the upper Niger River of West Africa around 3,000 years ago (Linares,

2002), and has supported diverse populations spanning from the Atlantic Coast of Senegal all the

way to Lake Chad in the interior of the continent (Nayar, 2010). To date, only two rice species

have been domesticated throughout the world, and while their origin stories vary by thousands of

miles and more than 5,000 years, the practices of early cultivation are strikingly similar and, in

many ways, influence how rice is produced in modern agriculture.

1.2 Conventional Practices and Current Challenges

Throughout this text, the term ‘conventional’ is used generally to define the most common

cultivation practices in modern-day rice production. These practices include: continuously flooded

irrigation, high plant density cultivation, and the use of agrochemical inputs for pest and fertility

management. While numerous production systems with various practices encompass modern rice

cultivation throughout the world, conventional will be used hereafter in this paper to reference

these practices.

1.2.1 Water and Irrigation

The most distinguishing feature of rice production is the large volume of water it demands

in comparison to other crops. Though cultivation is no longer confined to lands adjacent to surface

water sources, rice farmers now rely on extensive networks of canals and hydrological situations

to supply their fields with vast quantities of water to mimic the flooded environment in which the

crop evolved (Bouman et al., 2007; Nakamura, 2010). Lowland cultivation makes up nearly 90%

of modern-day rice-producing areas with both irrigated and rainfed production systems designed

to submerge plants in water throughout the growing season (Bouman et al., 2007). This age-old

practice is inspired by the notion that rice is an aquatic plant that requires saturated conditions to

thrive (Uphoff, 2003), and continuous flooding provides additional benefits to farmers by limiting

6
weed pressure and thus reducing labor requirements (Ismail et al., 2012). However, contrary to

popular belief, studies have found while rice plants are flood-tolerant, the crop actually performs

better and yields more grain with intermittent water applications (Ishfaq et al., 2020).

In recent decades, water-use efficiency in rice production has been a topic of increasing

debate due to competing interests for water around the world and worsening water scarcity (UN-

Water, 2021). Additionally, this conversation is gaining more political attention in light of the fact

worldwide rice cultivation generates roughly 500 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)

emissions per year (Adhya et al., 2014). Methane (CH₄) – a potent greenhouse gas that is more

than 25 times the global warming potential of CO2 – is produced in substantial quantities under

the anaerobic conditions of continuously flooded rice fields (Reddy et al., 2013). Current estimates

suggest that rice alone accounts for one-half of all crop-related greenhouse gas emissions, and rice

cultivation is responsible for approximately 2.5% of the overall anthropogenic warming effects

(Kritee et al., 2018). Implementing water-saving techniques in rice cultivation could therefore

yield benefits in the short-and long-term by: conserving essential water resources, increasing rice

productivity, and mitigating the impact on climate change (Thakur & Uphoff, 2017).

1.2.2 Seeding and Transplanting

The majority of rice producers worldwide are smallholder farmers (Chivenge et al., 2021),

and these farmers traditionally use one of two methods for planting rice fields: broadcasting seed

over cultivable land, or transplanting clumps of seedlings randomly, or in a narrow line, throughout

the field (FAO, 2016). In many rice-producing countries, rice is grown primarily for subsistence

purposes and farmers routinely use high rates of seed (60 to 80 kilograms per hectare) for sowing

and transplanting under the impression that more seed will return a greater yield at the end of the

season (IRRI, 2022a). This grave misconception drives intense competition between rice plants

7
for elements such as soil nutrients, solar radiation, and space to grow, and inhibits the crop’s ability

to fully develop and produce grain (Thakur & Uphoff, 2017). In addition, densely planted fields

are more challenging for farmers to manage and create ideal circumstances for pests and diseases

to wreak havoc. Paradoxically, heavy applications of seed in rice cultivation reduces the soil, plant,

and labor productivity, lowering overall production, and driving some farmers to rely on chemical

fertilizers for supplementing nutrients and pesticides for controlling pest populations. However,

agrochemical inputs increase the operational costs for rice farmers and can result in unintended

consequences (Pingali, 2012).

1.2.3 Nitrogen Fertilizer

Nitrogen (N) is the most common yield-limiting nutrient in rice production (Jiang et al.,

2004), prompting farmers to apply it in the form of chemical fertilizers such as Ammonium Sulfate,

Urea, or Diammonium Phosphate (IRRI, 2022b). These fertilizers are water soluble, highly mobile,

and routinely over-applied to guarantee N is abundantly available for crop uptake (Chivenge et al.,

2021). The excessive use of N fertilizer in rice cultivation creates substantial environmental risks

due to temporary or permanent losses from denitrification, volatilization, immobilization, and

leaching of N out of the root zone (Johnson et al., 2005). Globally, nitrogen-use efficiency in

agriculture is astoundingly low at 47%, meaning less than half of the 115 million tons of N applied

every year is effectively utilized, while the remaining 53% is destined to become an environmental

pollutant (Lassaletta et al., 2014). Consequently, agricultural soil management is the largest source

of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions (Del Grosso et al., 2022), posing unimaginable

threats to humanity as this long-lived greenhouse gas is more than 300 times the global warming

potential of CO2 over 100 years (Tian et al., 2020). Rice cultivation is the third largest consumer

of chemical fertilizer in the world, accounting for 16% of all N applications, and with a dismal

8
nitrogen-use efficiency well below the global average for agricultural production, rice production

is a leading contributor to N₂O emissions (Chivenge et al., 2021). Moreover, the lack of precision

in N fertilizer applications combined with flooded irrigation practices in conventional production

can pollute water sources through chemical runoff and leaching (Tayefeh et al., 2018). High

concentrations of N originating from rice fields regularly contaminate water bodies and contribute

to eutrophication (Leon & Kohyama, 2017) – a phenomenon currently endangering terrestrial and

aquatic life and diminishing global fish stocks by decreasing oxygen in the water (US EPA, 2013).

Furthermore, the careless use of N fertilizer deteriorates the physical, chemical, and biological

properties of agricultural soils, causing rice yields to decline over time through nutrient toxicity

and soil acidification (Srivastava et al., 2020).

1.2.4 Land-Use Change

With low crop productivity caused by high plant density and soil degradation stemming

from mismanaged water and fertilizer applications, a significant concern regarding conventional

rice cultivation is the conversion of land into agriculture, particularly in ecologically-sensitive

areas. Farmers growing rice year after year without appropriately rotating it with other crops can

mine essential plant nutrients from the soil, depleting soil fertility and rendering land unproductive

over time. Many smallholders in Asia and Africa struggle to earn a living from farming and most

cannot afford to address their declining crop yields by purchasing expensive chemical fertilizers.

Instead, a cheaper alternative is to clear new land for crop production and shift cultivation every

few years (Kamara et al., 2016). The so-called ‘slash-and-burn’ agricultural system has been

common in the tropics for centuries, but with growing populations extending into new territories

and the ever-increasing demand for food production, this practice is accelerating deforestation

beyond reforestation capabilities.

9
 Prevalent where arable land is sparsely available, slash-and-burn removes forested areas in

favor of agricultural production, which disrupts the ecological processes and functions that support

a healthy environment. This practice not only destroys natural habitats and threatens the existence

of biodiversity but it undermines the earth’s ability to sequester carbon while producing substantial

greenhouse gas emissions in the act of burning these carbon sinks. Studies have found significant

associations between rising rates of deforestation with the prevalence of food insecurity (Kumeh

et al., 2022), but the gains coming from this type of land-use change are often marginal at best and

short-lived (Tata Ngome et al., 2019). Meanwhile, the effects of land degradation and loss of these

natural resources are long-term and can result in irreversible outcomes that will inevitably impact

species, ecosystems, and the sustainability of rice production.

1.3 The Path Ahead

Rice is without a doubt one of the most important crops to feed the rapidly growing human

population, but the cultivation practices of yesterday surely cannot advance food security today

without sacrificing the prospects of tomorrow. While the issues discussed in this chapter are by no

means a complete list of concerns, nor do they fully summarize the magnitude of stress on earth

and its diverse inhabitants by staying the course, they intend to paint a compelling portrait as to

why a transformation in rice cultivation is necessary. Indeed, this cereal will play a crucial role in

shaping the future of the world with an increasing number of people depending on rice each day

for sustenance. However, conventional rice cultivation is pushing the planetary limits. At present,

rice farming utilizes around one-tenth of the world’s arable land, consumes roughly one-third of

its irrigation water, and accounts for more than one-seventh of the chemical fertilizer applications

(Kritee et al., 2018), all of which have profound impacts on soil degradation, natural resource

depletion, and increasing global temperatures. Therefore, it is critical for researchers, rice farmers,

10
development practitioners, policy makers, and industry leaders to come together and reexamine

the objectives for rice production and explore new avenues for cultivation that work in harmony

with natural systems to ensure long-term sustainability for future generations.

11
 CHAPTER 2: THE SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION

2.1 Technological Adoption in Agriculture

In his book, Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change, H.G. Barnett defines innovation as “any

thought, behavior, or thing that is new because it is qualitatively different from existing forms”

(pg. 7), and notes that innovations can garner adoption within a society of origin and diffuse

beyond their societal borders through various means (Barnett, 1953). Historically, agriculture

research and development (R&D) has relied on Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Theory, which

emphasizes the relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability of an

innovation to influence technological adoption among farmers (Rogers, 2003). This has primarily

been accomplished through public sector research and extension models such as the transfer-of-

technology (TOT) and the training and visit (T&V) system (Stoop et al., 2002) – wherein trained

scientists establish the research agenda, conduct experiments in controlled environments, and share

their findings with extensionists, who are responsible for disseminating this information to farmers

(Chambers & Jiggins, 1987). During the Green Revolution (1960s-1980s), this approach facilitated

incredible economic advancements and brought great societal relief for many developing countries

in Asia and Latin America, although, positive impacts were not ubiquitous, especially for those in

Africa (Evenson & Gollin, 2003).

Following the Green Revolution, agriculture R&D shifted away from the public sector and

substantially toward the private sector (Norton & Alwang, 2020), with the latter embracing the

TOT and T&V models while focusing on plant breeding programs, agrochemical inputs, genetic

engineering, and other technological innovations to advance agricultural production (Herring &

Paarlberg, 2016). Though privatization of R&D led to improvements in crop outputs, the factor

productivity in many places began to plateau or even decline as intensive monocropping exhausted

12
agricultural soils and increased production inputs such as high-yielding seed varieties, water, and

fertilizers were needed (Pingali & Heisey, 1999). Today, TOT and T&V remain fairly common in

agricultural development initiatives throughout the world, but the hierarchal structure and linear

flow of information in these models critically lacks farmer engagement, two-way communication,

and opportunities for user feedback. The approaches disregard indigenous agricultural knowledge

and capabilities and view farmers simply as the ‘patients’ of agricultural science with no room for

participation in the innovation process, and very little consideration is given to their heterogeneity

(Chambers & Jiggins, 1987). Consequently, the ‘prescriptions’ offered by scientists are ineffective

in diverse and variable contexts and thus undesirable, particularly among smallholders, who cannot

afford to gamble on the costly technologies being marketed (Stoop et al., 2002). This profit-driven

and technological focus has marginalized smallholder farmers and hampered efforts to raise crop

productivity in some of the most vulnerable places of the world. Furthermore, for those with the

means to adopt new technologies many discover a worsening dependence on external inputs which

can have increasing economic and environmental costs (Pingali, 2012).

2.2 Going Against the Grain

One innovation that has deviated from mainstream agriculture R&D is the System of Rice

Intensification (SRI), which was developed over a 20 year-period of observation and participatory

research in collaboration with rice farmers (Laulanı´e, 1993). Rather than a specific technology

promoted to farmers for rigid adoption, SRI offers farmers a suite of ecological principles and

recommended agronomic practices designed to raise rice productivity through a knowledge-based

management approach (Barrett et al., 2021). This methodology was born out of necessity during

the 1980s to address chronic food insecurity in the midst of prolonged drought in Madagascar

(Stoop et al., 2002). Since then, it has effectively spread to more than 60 countries in Asia, Africa,

13
and Latin America (SRI-Rice, 2018), benefitting an estimated 10 to 15 million farmers along the

way (Styger & Traoré, 2018). This wide-ranging uptake of SRI demonstrates the method’s relative

advantages over conventional practices; compatibility with local and national interests; lack of

complexity in learning; ease in trialing for farmers; and observable differences between existing

practices. Moreover, the implementation of SRI across diverse agroecological zones showcases its

adaptability and versatility (Uphoff, 2016).

Civil society organizations and the advancements in communication technologies, namely,

radio, mobile phones, and high-speed internet, have played tremendous roles in the dissemination

of SRI and the encouragement of farmers to become not just consumers of research but producers

as well (Styger & Traoré, 2018). While this knowledge-based methodology demands an inquisitive

mindset, regular observations, and keeping detailed records, the simple principles can inspire local

problem-solving and ultimately better farm management (Stoop et al., 2002). Farmer-to-farmer

extension and informal networks have also been instrumental in the rapid diffusion of SRI, as

innovative farmers and early adopters have the ability to share their knowledge easily and freely

with no special technology necessary to do so.

Contrary to the primary strategies of the Green Revolution that espoused new hybrid seed

varieties and agrochemical applications as the major drivers to increasing production (Thakur &

Uphoff, 2017), SRI seeks to maximize the potential of individual plants through a concept known

as the genotype and biophysical environment (G x E) interaction (Stoop et al., 2002). Hence, this

method can be implemented with any rice seed available to farmers, and it has proven successful

in irrigated cultivation as well as rainfed upland and lowland systems (Styger & Jenkins, 2014;

Uphoff, 2016). The unconventional and farmer-centered production system goes against the grain

14
of mainstream agriculture R&D and aims to increase rice productivity through efficiently utilizing

production factors such as water, seed, land, and labor (Zhao et al., 2009).

2.3 What Exactly is SRI?

SRI is a production system based on the alternative understanding of rice agroecology, and

using synergistic principles and practices it promotes better management of soil, crop, nutrients,

water, and pests (Kassam et al., 2011). According to Styger and Uphoff (2016), the core tenets of

SRI include four principles:

(1) Encouraging early and healthy plant establishment

(2) Minimizing competition among plants

(3) Building fertile soils well-endowed in organic matter and beneficial soil biota

(4) Managing water carefully to avoid flooding and crop stress

These principles remain fixed wherever rice is being grown and serve as the fundamentals for all

farmers to understand. The recommended SRI practices, on the other hand, are fluid, and provide

farmers a plethora of options that align with the principles to identify best management strategies,

according to the biophysical environment and individual capabilities.

For example, the majority of SRI farmers germinate rice seed in a garden-like nursery and

transplant viable seedlings between 8 and 15 days old in a lightly irrigated field (Stoop et al.,

2002). Others may choose to direct-seed their rice fields ahead of the rainy season after conducting

seed viability testing (Styger & Jenkins, 2014). Both practices ascribe to the same principle of

early and healthy plant establishment but depending on resource availability, local conditions, or

personal preferences one may be more suitable than the other (Styger & Traoré, 2018). A second

example could be given for wider plant spacing, a practice which follows the second principle of

minimizing competition among plants. The general rule is to plant single seedlings in a square grid

15
pattern using spacing of 25cm x 25cm (Laulanı´e, 1993; Stoop et al., 2002; Styger & Jenkins,

2014); however, as SRI spread to new environments with varying degrees of soil types and textures

farmers adapted this practice by planting seedlings at different widths, some using 20cm x 20cm,

30cm x 30cm, 40cm x 40cm, even going as wide as 50cm x 50cm (Uphoff, 2003; Ceesay et al.,

2006). One of the key motives of this production system is to empower rice farmers by equipping

them with new, yet similar practices that will complement existing knowledge and inspire on-farm

experimentation (Mishra et al., 2006).

These management adaptations demonstrate how farmers can – and do – contribute to

agricultural science and innovation, and further illustrate why they should not be reduced simply

to a homogenous group. It is imperative for agricultural researchers and practitioners to learn from

the unique experience and insight individual farmers possess and avoid the top-down or one-size

fits all approaches that are far too common in agriculture R&D. Instead, development professionals

must prioritize participatory research methods and listen to farmers, examine issues together, foster

collaboration in the innovation process, and develop appropriate strategies that address context-

specific challenges. Styger and Jenkins (2014) have developed a conceptual framework for SRI

implementation in West Africa (FIGURE 1), but this tool is applicable with a broader audience

and can be used by farmers, researchers, and development practitioners anywhere to stimulate

creativity and drive further innovations. The framework lists key recommended SRI practices

under the respective principle each applies to, and while this provides a comprehensive set of

practices, it should be noted this is by no means an exhaustive list.

16
 FIGURE 1: The SRI Conceptual Framework (Styger & Jenkins, 2014)

2.4 Soil Health and SRI Practices

Soil is the foundation for rice production. In fact, soil is the foundation for all terrestrial

life, as it supports the ecological functions and processes that sustain healthy plant, animal, and

human populations (Moebius-Clune et al., 2016). In rice cultivation, the physical and chemical

properties of a soil are the primary concerns of most conventional farmers, and more specifically,

the soil structure and availability of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and sulfur (S)

(Shrestha et al., 2020). These chemical elements are essential macronutrients for crop growth and

development (IRRI, 2022c), but they can be scarcely available where rice production takes place

year after year. Failure to rotate rice with other crops diminishes soil fertility over time, with N, P,

K, and S being extracted each growing season in the form of plant residue and grain at harvest.

17
Additionally, some rice farmers purposefully degrade the physical structure of soil through tillage

practices that create hardpan layers to prohibit water infiltration for enhanced puddling (Stoop et

al., 2002). This effectively destroys soil aggregation, exposes precious organic matter to rapid

decomposition and loss, and reduces soil nutrient availability and retention (Moebius-Clune et al.,

2016). Consequently, many conventional rice farmers use chemical fertilizers to address their crop

deficiencies. However, these inputs do not replenish soil nutrients rather than make them available

to rice plants for a short period of time. Moreover, the excessive applications of ammonium-based

fertilizers can pose significant soil management concerns by accumulating positively charged ions

in the soil, causing elemental toxicity and soil acidification (Srivastava et al., 2020).

2.4.1 Natural Soil Amendments

One of the most significant factors differentiating SRI from conventional rice production

is the emphasis this methodology places on building fertile soils that are well-endowed in organic

matter and beneficial soil biota (principle three). The basis for this fundamental principle is in the

recognition that organic matter plays an integral role in sustainable land management by mediating

the interrelated processes of the chemical, biological, and physical properties of a soil. Although

soil organic matter (SOM) makes up between roughly one and six percent of any given soil, even

marginal losses caused by routine soil disturbance can disrupt the soil’s ability to function properly

(Magdoff & van Es, 2021). Enriching SOM is therefore important for long-term rice production

and can be done in various ways, though ideally with the incorporation of locally available natural

soil amendments such as plant residues, animal manures, or composts (Styger & Jenkins, 2014).

Unlike chemical fertilizers applied strictly to feed rice plants, natural amendments nourish

both the soil and the crop by replenishing SOM which then serves as a source of carbon (C) and

energy for numerous microbes, animals, and plants living in the soil (Thies & Grossman, 2006).

18
These organisms, also called soil biota, are a vital piece of the SRI puzzle as they convert organic

forms of N, P, K, and S found in natural soil amendments into plant accessible nutrients (Thies &

Grossman, 2006). Soil biota are not only important for effective nutrient cycling and soil fertility

but they help suppress pests and pathogens as well, with a diversity of organisms in, on, and around

rice plants having the ability to biologically regulate undesirable populations (Uphoff et al., 2006).

Applying natural amendments stimulates the inner workings of this complex soil food web and

reduces the need for purchasing agrochemical inputs (Magdoff & van Es, 2021). This creates

twofold economic incentives for farmers by increasing crop yield and minimizing production costs

for chemical fertilizers and pesticides, which can be expensive and difficult to source, particularly

for smallholders who make up the bulk of rice producers worldwide (Tonini & Cabrera, 2011).

2.4.2 Early Transplanting

Along with enhanced chemical and biological properties, soil that is rich in organic matter

possesses greater aggregate stability and water holding capacity (Moebius-Clune et al., 2016).

These physical soil properties create a hospitable environment for rice plants, as a soil with good

aggregation acts like a sponge to prolong the availability of water and nutrients for crop uptake

(Magdoff & van Es, 2021). The SRI method exploits this relationship by establishing seedlings in

the field at a young age (principle one), giving plants a boost for healthy growth and development

in this nutrient-rich environment. Compared with conventional production, where seedlings are

transplanted anywhere between 20 and 60 days old (FAO, 2016), SRI recommends transplanting

rice at the two-leaf stage (8 to 15 days old) which maximizes nutrient absorption in the vegetative

stage and encourages plants to grow a greater number of productive tillers (Uphoff, 2003). This

extensive growth early in the season has various benefits for grain production and has also shown

to be an effective strategy for competing with weeds, as rice plants under SRI successfully shade

19
out weeds faster than those in conventional systems (Stoop et al., 2002). Moreover, researchers in

Benin have found that early transplanting with SRI can shorten the crop cycle by up to two weeks

(Gbenou et al., 2016), providing additional benefits to farmers for land preparation and cropping

calendars. This practice can also mitigate the potential harm to overall plant health, as mature roots

have yet to fully develop and therefore are less likely to get damaged during transplanting. This

enhances the plant’s ability to withstand biotic and abiotic stress throughout the growing season

and reduces its vulnerability to climate shocks (Styger & Jenkins, 2014).

2.4.3 Wider Plant Spacing

Improving crop resilience and productivity are key motives under the SRI method, as well

as increasing farmer income (Thakur & Uphoff, 2017). Each of the four SRI principles contribute

to these outcomes in one way or another, but minimizing competition among plants (principle two)

is uniquely suited to achieve them all. In conventional production, planting rice fields usually

involves using clumps of 3 to 4 seedlings transplanted together in random fashion or in a narrow

line 10cm to 20cm apart (Stoop et al., 2002; FAO, 2016), and in some instances, farmers heavily

broadcast seed over the soil (Nayar, 2010; Styger & Traoré, 2018; IRRI, 2022a). Under the SRI

method, the recommended practice is to transplant single seedlings per hole with 25cm between

one another using a square grid pattern (Laulanı´e, 1993). This substantially reduces seed usage,

cuts down production costs, and provides more space for mechanical weeding – a critical practice

that will be discussed in greater detail later on in this chapter.

In a multi-year study conducted in the Timbuktu region of Mali, researchers found that SRI

farmers could use as little as 6 kilograms of seed to plant one hectare of land – a reduction of 80

to 90% – and achieved higher incomes and yields per hectare as compared to traditonal practices

(Styger et al., 2011). While fewer seedlings might seem counterintuitive to increasing production,

20
reducing crop density limits competition between plants for soil nutrients, water, and light, which

translates to healthier plant growth above and belowground with a greater number of tillers per

square meter (Uphoff, 2003). Wider plant spacing also lowers the risk of pest and disease outbreak

as more space among plants helps reduce the spread in the field, and because plants are healthier

they are less susceptible to pathogens (Thakur & Uphoff, 2017).

Conventional SRI

FIGURE 2: Comparison of Rice Plants in Indonesia (SRI-Rice, 2008)

FIGURE 2 (above) showcases the difference in plant performance with wider spacing and

SRI principles (SRI-Rice, 2008). The photo displays a farmer holding two rice plants, each grown

from a single seed; in her right hand is a plant grown in high density conditions using conventional

practices and in her left hand is a plant grown under the SRI method with wider spacing. This side-

by-side comparison, although quite an extreme case, is an excellent example of the genotype and

21
environment (G x E) interaction, and the potential rice plants are capable of producing if the right

agronomic practices are applied.

2.4.4 Intermittent Irrigation

Rice plants have a unique ability to grow in a range of soils, climates, and hydrological

situations (Bouman et al., 2007), and using ecological principles and agronomic practices, the SRI

method aims to harness the genetic potential of the crop (Stoop et al., 2002). Managing water

carefully (principle four) is perhaps the most challenging aspect of SRI as it requires a substantial

effort in land leveling and field preparation for the uniform application of water. Though practices

associated with this principle can vary based on capital and resources, the general recommendation

is to keep soil moist by applying roughly 1cm to 2cm of water every week (Styger & Jenkins,

2014), opposed to the continuously flooded conditions found in conventional rice production. The

synergistic SRI principles and practices are meant to yield multidimensional benefits, and as noted

above, maintaining SOM improves soil aggregation and water holding capacity, which enhances

the water-use efficiency with fewer and lighter irrigation applications.

The controlled irrigation practice known as alternate wetting and drying (AWD) is widely

championed in conservation agriculture and is highly recommended for SRI farmers. AWD alone

can reduce water use in rice fields by 25 to 70% without compromising yield (Ishfaq et al., 2020),

and when combined with other SRI principles, increases in yield can be achieved (Ceesay et al.,

2006). Intermittent irrigation practices allow the soil to remain damp, yet aerobic, which enables

the flow of oxygen in the soil that is vital for root and shoot growth, particularly in the vegetative

stage (Lampayan et al., 2015). The advantage of SRI and AWD can be seen in FIGURE 3 (below),

which exhibits the root systems of two rice during the vegetative stage (Thiyagarajan et al., 2009).

The image was taken by researchers studying the effects of SRI at an agriculture experimental

22
station in India. In this picture, healthy and vigorous roots developed under SRI are contrasted

with the stunted roots suffering from necrosis due to hypoxic soil conditions found in continuously

flooded cultivation. This comparison of root systems presents a persuasive case for the benefits of

SRI in the vegetative stage – a critical time for enhancing root growth and productivity for overall

plant performance and reproduction.

Non-SRI - Flooded SRI - AWD

FIGURE 3: Comparison of Rice Plant Roots in India (Thiyagarajan et al., 2009)

2.4.5 Mechanical Weeding

Abiding by SRI principles enables rice farmers to increase crop performance; however, the

same mechanisms that boost rice productivity have the unfortunate consequence of increasing the

prevalence of undesired plants in the field. Similar to rice plants, grasses and weeds also benefit

from nutrient-rich soil, more light interception, and intermittent irrigation practices. Although not

a principle, per se, mechanical weeding is an SRI practice that is critically important. Regular

23
weeding using a rotary weeder, hand hoe, or other mechanical implements can provide myriad

benefits for SRI farmers as compared to hand weeding or conventional herbicides, primarily by

incorporating organic biomass into the soil, helping stimulate biological activity and aerating the

soil for healthier root growth and development (Veeraputhiran et al., 2014). The practice should

begin around 10 to 14 days after transplanting (Styger & Jenkins, 2014) and usually occurs three

to four times over the season (Stoop et al., 2002). While the start date and weeding frequency

usually depends on the rate at which weeds emerge in the field, managing weeds early will help

reduce competition with rice plants for nutrients, water, and light, and prohibit weed growth and

the dispersal of new seeds.

Weeds pose a larger problem for SRI farmers than for conventional rice farmers, given the

non-flooded conditions, and often increase labor requirements for farmers throughout the season.

Nevertheless, using a mechanical weeder can turn this additional labor cost into a benefit, as an

increase in yield is experienced with each mechanical weeding session (Thakur & Uphoff, 2017).

Researchers from Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in India quantified the impact of different

weeding intervals on rice yield and income, examining the benefits of a rotary weeder for both SRI

farmers and those using conventional best management practices in the Manimuthar sub basin of

the Tamil Nadu State (Veeraputhiran et al., 2014). This study found that farmers practicing SRI

not only outperformed conventional farmers in terms of yield per hectare, but they earned a higher

net income as well; meanwhile, the yield and income margins grew significantly with each

additional weeding session under SRI as compared with only marginal increases in conventional

production (Veeraputhiran et al., 2014). TABLE 1 (below) illustrates the results of this study in

greater detail, presenting the yield, income, and benefit-cost ratio achieved under different weeding

intervals for both SRI and conventional farmers. This research was conducted with farmers across

24
18 on-farm plots using a rotary weeder, and demonstrates the importance of mechanical weeding

in rice cultivation and its association with soil aeration and yield increases.

TABLE 1: Weeding Intervals - Comparison of SRI and Conventional

Number of Grain Yield (ton/ha) Net Income (x103/ha) Benefit-Cost Ratio

Rotary Weeding SRI Conventional SRI Conventional SRI Conventional
Four Times 7.05 5.68 43.10 27.35 2.56 1.93
Three Times 6.39 5.53 37.39 26.92 2.32 1.93
Two Times 5.72 5.27 30.83 23.98 2.10 1.83
One Time 5.09 5.35 25.59 25.60 2.01 1.91
Total/Mean 6.06 5.46 34.23 25.96 2.25 1.90

(Transcribed by author from Veeraputhiran et al., 2014)

2.5 Implications for Further Research

Across the board SRI promotes better management of land, labor, crop, and capital; and

through simple alterations to practices farmers can increase rice productivity and conserve vital

natural resources (Kassam et al., 2011). This cost-effective production system offers life-changing

possibilities for the 145 million households around the world that depend on rice cultivation for

their primary livelihood (Kritee et al., 2018) with the methodology contributing to greater yield

and income (Styger & Traoré, 2018). Moreover, transitioning away from conventional practices

and toward SRI can substantially reduce the alarming greenhouse gas emissions associated with

rice cultivation, namely, methane (produced under continuously flooded cultivation), nitrous oxide

(generated from excessive fertilizers applications), and carbon dioxide (embedded in fuel usage

and fertilizer manufacturing), thus providing a multitude of benefits to the planetary ecosystem in

which all life on earth depends on (Thakur & Uphoff, 2017).

While SRI presents numerous advantages over conventional production, this methodology

has not been immune to controversy, with criticisms coming from some scientists within the

agricultural research community, including some affiliated with the International Rice Research

25
Institute (IRRI) and the International Fertilizer Association (IFA). Skeptics have dismissed the

yield increases as advertised with SRI practices, alleging the results of research lacked empirical

evidence and questioning the rigors of data collection (Dobermann, 2004; Sheehy et al., 2004).

Some have cast SRI as a hoax, drawing the comparison to unidentified flying objects (UFOs) –

only using the acronym for “unconfirmed field observations” – while simultaneously expressing

their discontent over funding agencies supporting SRI initiatives opposed to “sound scientific

approaches” (Sinclair, 2004). Other opponents have suggested endogenous factors contributed to

the fantastic results in Madagascar and therefore these findings are not generalizable for other rice-

producing countries, yet curiously as the same time claiming the system is nothing more than “best

management practices” (McDonald et al., 2006). Though critiques of SRI have receded over the

years with new studies coming from a variety of countries and landscapes (Uphoff et al., 2011),

governments choosing to support SRI based on their own evaluations (Thakur & Uphoff, 2017),

and even IRRI stamping its approval of SRI as a greenhouse gas mitigation strategy (IRRI, 2022d),

some questions still remain.

The decreases in operating expenditures for inputs such as seed, water, and agrochemicals

under SRI are well documented (see e.g., Stoop et al., 2002; Uphoff et al., 2003a; Zhao et al., 2009;

Styger et al., 2011; Styger & Traoré, 2018), however, this production system is often viewed as

labor-intensive for farmers, prompting some social scientists to wonder if SRI is in fact ‘pro-poor’

(Graf & Oya, 2021). Labor is often a resource-poor farmer’s best asset, but a significant increase

in labor could force a shift in household labor allocation, and though higher incomes may be earned

with the SRI method, this shift could negatively affect the overall household well-being (Takahashi

& Barrett, 2014). Additionally, some studies have found that many farmers choose to discontinue

the SRI method after a certain point, or selectively adopt certain practices due to labor constraints

26
(see e.g., Moser & Barrett, 2003; Moser & Barrett, 2006; Arsil et al., 2019; Barrett et al., 2021).

These socio-economic factors have excited considerable debate over the true benefits of this

methodology as well as what practices exactly constitute SRI, given the number of options for

farmers to choose from.

There is a growing body of literature dedicated to SRI. At present more than 1,400 journal

articles have been archived in a searchable data base at Cornell University (SRI-Rice, 2022a).

However, further context-specific studies are needed to better understand the socio-economic

impacts of adoption. The next section of this paper aims to investigate some of these unanswered

questions, more specifically, how farmers comprehend the SRI method, what factors motivate

adoption of practices, and the types of support that are most valued by farmers who practice SRI.

This methodology is rooted in farmer-centered participatory research, and with over 60 countries

now implementing SRI, there are ample opportunities to learn from farmers who hold varying

degrees of experience with this system. The study detailed in the following section explores how

farmers in Liberia perceive the SRI method and what kind of benefits and barriers they experience

while implementing the alternative practices in rice cultivation.

27
PART II – PRIMARY RESEARCH

28
 CHAPTER 3: LIBERIA

3.1 Justification

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Liberia presents an intriguing case study for a variety

of reasons. First, rice plays an integral role in the Liberian society and economy as the staple food

for millions. Second, the agroecological conditions in Liberia are exceptional for rice cultivation,

yet the vast majority of rice consumed in the country is currently imported. Third, chronic poverty

and food insecurity are major impediments to economic development and disproportionately

burden those in rural communities and farming households. Finally, there is ongoing support for

the SRI methodology among local and international organizations in Liberia, providing a unique

opportunity to study how farmers perceive this production system and the impact it is having on

livelihoods. As a cost-effective strategy to increase rice production through better management of

resources and capital, SRI can help to address the multifaceted challenges that continue to stifle

economic growth in the country. The extensive knowledge held by farmers, along with Liberia’s

abundant natural resources and demographic dividend posit great potential for scaling up this

production system. In addition, the local and international organizations working to promote SRI

in the country can provide valuable input to better understand what has and has not worked in

capacity building and development projects.

3.2 Social, Economic, and Political Considerations

3.2.1 Demographic Dividend

Liberia is located on the Northern Atlantic Coast of Africa, situated between Sierra Leone,

Guinea, and Cote D’Ivoire in a region historically known as the ‘Rice Coast’ (Nayar, 2010). The

country is home to over five million people (World Bank, 2022) and is made up of 15 counties

29
(FIGURE 4). The annual population growth rate is 2.4% with the economically active population

(EAP) – 15 to 64 years old – increasing each year (World Bank, 2022). More than half the country

is considered part of the EAP and approximately 90% of Liberians are under the age of 35 (IFAD,

2019; World Bank, 2022). The capital city of Monrovia is located in Montserrado County and is

by far the most populated area of the country, holding about one-third of Liberia’s people (PAPD,

2018). Although an agrarian society, more than 50% of the population resides in urban areas

(PAPD, 2018; World Bank, 2022). Urbanization has been steadily increasing since the 1980s, due

primarily to underdeveloped infrastructure in rural areas and internal population displacement

caused by decades-long civil conflicts (Peterson, 2016; World Bank, 2022). While an urbanizing

population is an indicator of the structural transformation associated with economic development

(Timmer & Akkus, 2008), low agricultural productivity indicates the traditional agricultural-led

economic growth model does not apply (PAPD, 2018).

Liberia is currently among the least developed countries in the world, scoring 0.481 on the

Human Development Index (HDI) and ranking 178th out of the 191 countries and territories that

were surveyed (UNDP, 2022a). Specifically, the country lags behind in the access to knowledge

and a decent standard of living. Multidimensional poverty afflicts more than half of the population

while farming households and rural areas suffer at rates of more than 70% (LISGIS, 2017; PAPD,

2018; UNDP, 2022a). Ensuring education and employment opportunities are available for this

young and rapidly growing population is critical to sustaining social cohesion and improving the

economic standing of the country. Therefore, the current government has prioritized these issues

under their Pro-Poor Agenda for Prosperity and Development (PAPD), a five-year, four-pillar

development plan set for fiscal years 2018 through 2023 (PAPD, 2018). Raising the standard of

30
living for all Liberians is imperative for the country, especially when considering the political,

economic, and ethnic disparities that have fueled conflict in the past.

FIGURE 4: Liberia Population by County (Modified by author from PAPD, 2018)

3.2.2 Historical Context

The Republic of Liberia has a complicated history, one that is heavily entangled with the

United States, marginalization, and conflict (Vinck et al., 2011). Sixteen indigenous ethnic groups

comprise approximately 95% of the population, and many of whom have ancestral ties to the land

that dates back centuries (Peterson, 2016). The remaining 5% consists of Americo-Liberians, the

historic ruling class, and the descendants of formerly enslaved people from the United States and

Caribbean, who arrived in the modern-day country starting in 1822 (Peterson, 2016). After gaining

31
independence from the American Colonization Society in 1847, Americo-Liberians governed the

country under a one-party political system for 133 years and operated virtually a segregated society

that was modeled after the U.S. (Vinck et al., 2011). During this time ethnic groups and indigenous

people were excluded from serving in politics, restricted from owning land, and not officially

recognized as citizens of the nation until 1904 (Vinck et al., 2011).

With the capital city situated on the coast, and Americo-Liberians owning and occupying

land mainly along the coastline, little attention was paid to the hinterlands in much of the 20 th

century, which severely stunted economic development in the rural parts of the country (Vinck et

al., 2011). Instead, large-scale land concessions with foreign corporations were established, which

further removed indigenous people from their ancestral lands and concentrated wealth in the hands

of urban elites (Peterson, 2016; PAPD, 2018). The most noteworthy agreement came in 1926 when

the US-based Firestone Tire and Rubber Company laid claim to “over 4% of the territory for the

world’s largest rubber plantation” (Vinck et al., 2011). Lucrative land concessions and access to

ports stimulated the extractive industries and export-oriented economy, which experienced rapid

growth following World War II, and enabled the country to supply urban centers with imported

goods such as rice – the staple food (Monke, 1979).

Rice importation markedly increased between the 1960s and the mid-1970s, tallying an

estimated 22% of national consumption by 1976 (Monke, 1979). In 1979, over a growing concern

of dependence on imports for the country’s primary staple, the Minister of Agriculture proposed a

price hike for imported rice with the hopes of triggering an expansion in domestic production.

Instead, this proposal brought immense public backlash, stirring civil unrests and eventually chaos

in what were later referred to as the ‘1979 rice riots’ (Shor, 2012). This policy decision was widely

viewed as corruption for personal gain and ushered in a wave of politically motivated executions

32
and a coup d’état orchestrated by indigenous army sergeant Samuel Doe (Peterson, 2016). The

Americo-Liberian oligarchy came to an end with Doe’s presidency in 1980, but instability in the

country persisted for almost a decade under his inexperienced leadership and would serve as the

kindling to ignite the 14-year civil war (Vinck et al., 2011).

Between 1989 and 2003 the Liberian economy totally collapsed and more than a quarter-

million people were killed while opposing political factions vied for power (Gbowee, 2011). A

preeminent figure at this time was American educated Charles Taylor, who helped to violently

overthrow Samuel Doe in an armed rebellion in 1990 and took control of valuable resources in the

country’s interior until his presidential election in 1997 (Vinck et al., 2011). In addition to the

devastating toll on human life, massive urban migration occurred and one-third of the population

was internally displaced, with the majority of conflict taking place in rural areas (Gbowee, 2011).

During the civil war, the agriculture sector crumbled entirely and the production of cereal grains

plummeted (FIGURE 5) as households were looted, farmland was abandoned, livestock were

consumed, and what infrastructure had existed prior to the conflict was left in ruins (Peterson,

2016; Moore, 2017). The unconscionable war engulfed the whole of Liberia, sparing no one, and

obliterated any prospects for agricultural modernity and economic development, and in many ways

further bound Liberians to imported rice and poverty.

Civil War

FIGURE 5: Total Cereal Production for Liberia (Modified by author from FAOSTAT, 2022)

33
3.2.3 The National Staple

Liberians have an intimate relationship with rice; the grain is eaten with every meal of the

day and at times is the only source of daily calories. According to the United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP), Liberians consume over 133 kilograms of milled rice annually – a per capita

quantity greater than any other country in Africa (UNDP, 2022b). Rice makes up nearly 85% of

the country’s caloric intake (EAT, 2015) and on average it accounts for more than 22% of annual

household spending (PAPD, 2018). As the primary staple, supply of rice is vital to national food

security, but like many countries in West Africa consumption increasingly exceeds domestic rice

production (Soullier et al., 2020). Hence, importing rice is essential to meet the national demand,

and to ensure this small country of 5 million persons is an attractive market for rice exporters, the

government has limited trade barriers and maintains a duty-free import policy on the grain (EAT,

2015). National data shows imported rice accounting for almost two-thirds of the country’s total

rice consumption (PAPD, 2018), but this overreliance on international suppliers for primary staple

has led to manifold consequences for the people and government of Liberia (Soullier et al., 2020).

First and foremost, the price of rice in country is dictated by external market forces. Though

imports are meant to provide consumers – primarily those in urban areas – with some stability, the

current structure exposes them to global price volatility and leaves Liberians vulnerable to supply-

chain disruptions. Issues such as the global food crisis of 2008 (Arouna et al., 2021), the Ebola

outbreak in 2014 (Murphy et al., 2016), or the recent COVID-19 pandemic (Beckman et al., 2021)

directly impact the price of rice in the country and exacerbate hunger. Secondly, imports constrain

the national budget. In recent years, the government has expereinced an uptick in external debt,

rising from 11% to 22.7% of the GDP between 2012 and 2017, and under a business-as-usual

scenario this debt is expected to surpass 40% by 2023 (PAPD, 2018). The import bill for rice alone

34
costs the government of Liberia an estimated 200 million USD per annum (Sigman & Davis, 2017;

AfricaRice, 2020). Thirdly, imports hinder the competitiveness of domestic rice producers as grain

from the U.S., India, and China saturate local markets and lowers net return for Liberian farmers.

Consequently, between 2009 and 2019 the average annual growth of domestic rice production was

-1.3%. Conversely, the average annual growth of rice importation was +7.4%. Meanwhile, hunger

in Liberia increased by 3.2% over the same period of time (Soullier et al., 2020). This dependence

on imports for the staple food creates a confluence of adverse effects for economic development

by dis-incentivizing farmers to increase production, and inhibiting rice-related on-and off-farm

employment opportunities in post-harvest processing and value-chain activities. As a consequence,

Liberia’s population faces elevated risk of price shock, food insecurity, and poverty. Additionally,

the import policy poses a two-fold burden on the national budget with quantifiable costs for rice

purchases and more difficult to quantify opportunity costs of lost domestic production and income-

generation.

3.2.4 Rice Cultivation

While post-conflict Liberia is marred with infrastructural woes, increasing reliance on aid

and imports, and high rates of food insecurity, chronic poverty, and urbanization, the country holds

a wealth of natural resources and vast potential for agriculture-led economic development. Liberia

encompasses 9.8 million hectares of lush, green topography, of which some 47% is arable land

(Murphy et al., 2016). Moreover, it is home to immense biodiversity, rich and fertile soils, and

abundant annual precipitation, which present ideal circumstances for farmers to grow multiple

crops and harvests throughout the year (Moore, 2017). The agriculture sector is already a crucial

part of the economy, contributing up to 26% of the real GDP; however, the lion’s share comes

from cash crops destined for export markets such as rubber, palm oil, and cocoa (LISGIS, 2017;

35
PAPD, 2018). Indeed, over the half-last century, food crops have been much less of a priority for

commercial production, but the widening food deficit has stoked interests for self-sufficiency in

the national staple.

Prior to the 1960s, almost all rice consumed in Liberia was domestically produced (Monke,

1979). In fact, farmers have grown rice across this landscape for centuries with cultivation taking

place in each of the three major agroecological zones: the coastal plains, upland tropical forests,

and lowland tropical forests (Peterson, 2016). Today, rice is among the most widely cultivated

food crops in Liberia with around 74% of farming households producing it, although, mainly for

subsistence purposes (LISGIS, 2017). Despite a favorable climate and environment for raising

rice, production is stubbornly low – earning a meager national average of 1.26 metric tons per

hectare in 2016 (LISGIS, 2017). Over the past 4 decades Liberian farmers have experienced only

a marginal increase in yields, as indicated by the national average of 1.22 metric tons per hectare

achieved in 1976 (Monke, 1979). A multitude of factors have contributed to the stagnation in rice

production, but perhaps the most detrimental has been the traditional preference for upland rice

grown with shifting (slash-and-burn) cultivation practices. Uplands account for roughly 90% of

the total rice-producing area in Liberia with lowlands accounting for about 6% to 9% (Monke,

1979; Styger & Traoré, 2018). However, slash-and-burn cultivation is a key driver of deforestation,

and is depleting the essential natural resources, disrupting vital ecosystem services, and threatening

biodiversity in the country. Moreover, upland areas are highly susceptible to declining productivity

over time and unsustainable for cultivation due to topsoil loss and erosion. Lowlands, on the other

hand, are characterized by nutrient-rich topsoil accumulation and have significant advantages for

irrigated cultivation. Lowland areas make up around 6% (588,000 hectares) of Liberia’s total land

mass (Murphy et al., 2016) and, at present, they are seriously underutilized in rice production. That

36
said, lowland rice cultivation is not a novel concept for Liberian farmers as various investments

were made in lowland areas in the 1960s and 1970s (Monke, 1979), though projects were largely

abandoned after infrastructure fell into disrepair during the war (Moore, 2017). The International

Fund for Agricultural Development estimates 600,000 hectares of the country’s available arable

land is unused (IFAD, 2019) with much of that being in lowland areas. This alone could produce

enough rice to meet the national demand at a rate of 1.26 metric tons per hectare, but if coupled

with SRI, these areas have the potential for yields far beyond the current national average, which

can open the door for agriculture-mediated economic growth and livelihood diversification.

3.3 The Community of Hope Agriculture Project

One organization to have realized the untapped potential of the country’s lowlands is the

Community of Hope Agriculture Project (CHAP). This Liberian non-governmental organization,

led by Reverend Robert S.M. Bimba, has been a staunch proponent of lowland rehabilitation since

2008. CHAP’s mission is to create sustainable peace and prosperity in Liberia through agricultural

development programming, focusing its efforts primarily on farmer advisory services for lowland

rice cultivation and post-harvest processing. Over the years, CHAP has amassed an impressive

track record working with diverse actors from public sector institutions, private entities, civil

society groups, and international donors to improve livelihoods in rural and urban communities.

In 2012, CHAP began promoting SRI in the country using in-field trainings and demonstrations,

and since then, the organization has played a central role in the diffusion of this production system

throughout Liberia. This dedication led to CHAP being named the focal point for SRI in Liberia

during the 13-country SRI initiative under the West Africa Agriculture Productivity Program from

2014 to 2016 (Styger & Traoré, 2018); and their efforts have stopped there, as CHAP continues to

37
champion SRI with various stakeholders through capacity building projects, mass media advocacy,

and public outreach campaigns.

The organization is keenly aware of the multidimensional challenges Liberia is facing and

understands the importance of rice in the society and economy. Therefore, along with its mission

to improve domestic rice productivity and processing, CHAP is cultivating opportunities for youth

engagement in their programming and inspiring the next generation of Liberians to pursue rice

self-sufficiency. The organization views the country’s rich endowment of natural resources and its

demographic dividend as complementary assets that together can build a brighter future. In recent

years, CHAP has established a burgeoning internship program that brings together students and

graduates from local universities to gain hands-on learning experience with SRI. This program

equips young people with practical knowledge and entrepreneurial skills in agricultural production

and post-harvest activities such as processing and marketing. The goal is to provide education and

employment opportunities to the youth to help transition farmers in the country from subsistence

to commercial farming. This is done by creating prospects for young people to become field agents

and development practitioners and exciting them about the potential of agricultural development

while instilling the mindset of ‘farming as a business.’

CHAP holds a diverse portfolio of implemented programs and provides a growing network

of over 15,000 smallholder farmers with agricultural advisory services (SRI-Rice, 2022b). The

organization has worked with international institutions including Africare, AfricaRice, BRAC,

Cornell University, FAO, IFAD, JICA, USAID, and the World Bank, among others. Moreover, it

regularly participates in national dialogue and collaborates with governmental ministries to inform

decision-making with regard to agriculture in Liberia. CHAP is a highly influential stakeholder in

the national rice sector and its commitment to agriculture-led economic growth facilitated by an

38
expansion of lowland rice production and the transition to SRI management practices made it an

attractive partner for this case study. With years of experience implementing SRI projects, and a

robust network of farmers and field agents across the country, CHAP provided invaluable insights

into relevant history, socio-cultural and policy factors, program successes and challenges, and

logistical support for a series of farmer interviews and community focus group meetings.

39
 CHAPTER 4: STUDY DESIGN AND FINDINGS

4.1 Rationale

There is a strong affinity for rice in Liberia’s food culture, and the System of Rice Intensification

(SRI) was introduced nearly a decade ago to help raise domestic productivity. Since then, various

development initiatives have sought to scale up the production system in Liberia, however, no

studies to date have thoroughly investigated the impact it has on farming livelihoods in the country.

Consequently, very little is known about the perceptions and attitudes of rice farmers toward the

alternative practices in cultivation. The only data comes from other rice-producing countries in

West Africa, and given the diversity of farmers, farming systems, and agroecology of the region,

a close examination is needed to better understand farmer experience in this specific context. The

research in this chapter assesses how farmers comprehend the SRI method, what factors influence

the adoption of SRI practices, and identifies the primary barriers limiting farmer uptake. This case

study intends to fill the knowledge gap in the current SRI literature and shed new light on the

experience of Liberian farmers with this production system.

4.2 Methodology

Qualitative research methods were used in this study to collect data from farmers in six

counties across Liberia (FIGURE 6). Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions

were conducted with individual farmers as well as members of informal working groups, farming

associations, and registered cooperatives. Surveys and questionnaires enabled farmers to elaborate

in detail on the impacts of SRI, their cultivation practices, and what they perceive as the major

constraints of the methodology. Additionally, field observations and interviews with agricultural

extension agents provided a much-needed insight to better understand the current state of the rice

sector in Liberia. The overarching goal of this study is to inform decision-making in policy and

40
practice with regard to this production system moving forward, and this is done by exploring three

questions:

(1) How do farmers understand the SRI method?

(2) Why do farmers adopt the SRI method?

(3) What types of support are most valued by farmers?

The Community of Hope Agriculture Project (CHAP) served as a key informant in this study and

their field agents were critically essential for identifying communities and farmers with knowledge

of SRI and organizing meetings with local stakeholders. The primary data used in this study were

collected through in-person visits during the months of June and July 2022.

FIGURE 6: Map of Liberia with Study Locations (Created by author on Maps.me application)

41
4.2.1 Study Parameters

To answer the exploratory questions above, the study population was defined as farmers

with knowledge of SRI, and included adopters, dis-adopters, and non-adopters. The scope of this

study was determined in collaboration with CHAP extension agents, and the researcher utilized

the organization’s network of farmers to collect data. The following counties where SRI has been

promoted contributed to this study: Bomi, Grand Cape Mount, Lofa, Margibi, Montserrado, and

Nimba. Altogether, these six counties account for over 58% of Liberia’s domestic rice production,

with Nimba County being the largest contributor and Bomi County the smallest (LISGIS, 2017).

These counties were selected because of their importance to domestic rice production and the fact

they are home to communities with a range of access to resources, services, and infrastructure.

Some communities are relatively close to Monrovia and can be reached easily by commercial

transportation due to good road conditions. Hence, farmers in these areas have better market

linkages for seeds, equipment, inputs, and outputs. While other communities are much farther from

the capital city and accessible only by footpaths, motorcycles, or difficult roads that become

impassable during the rainy season, severely limiting farmer access to finance, markets, and

essential services.

This study primarily focuses on farmers engaged in lowland rice cultivation, though some

respondents also produced cassava, vegetables, and other crops, as well as perennial trees on the

uplands. There is a great deal of heterogeneity in the lowland production, with some farmers and

groups cultivating no more than one hectare of rice using limited tools, while others cultivate large

areas (some over 150 hectares) aided by power tillers and mechanized processing. Traditionally,

much of the rice grown in these areas is for household consumption with limited surplus being

sold at local markets for income generation. However, some larger scale farmers in the region have

42
more commercial-oriented operations. The objective in site identification was to include a diversity

of farm sizes, agroecological conditions, and socio-economic profiles in order to compile data

from an array of participants and gain a comprehensive understanding of farmer experience with

SRI in a variety of settings.

4.2.2 Sampling

Between June and July 2022, twenty-four communities were selected to participate in this

study and 125 farmers made contributions (TABLE 2). Because the study population needed to

possess knowledge of SRI, purposive sampling was done with the help of key informants that

could identify where communities had the prerequisite experience. These communities ranged in

population and geographic location, some within urban centers and others were in more isolated

rural areas. Naturally, this influenced the structure of farming among participants, as some were

individual farmers who could hire labor throughout the year, some were members of an informal

working group, some were organized as a community-based association, and some belonged to a

cooperative having substantial membership.

Prior to each community visit, local authorities and community leaders were given notice

so farmers could be recruited. Farmers were selected based on their knowledge of SRI and their

willingness to be participate in the study. While all farmers were involved in rice cultivation at the

time of data collection, actively practicing SRI was not required to participate. Furthermore, since

rice cultivation in Liberia includes labor inputs from both men and women it was essential to have

adequate representation and participation of women. This sampling criteria facilitated inclusive

dialogue in focus groups and the amalgamation of farmers in this study helped to increase the

reliability of findings.

43
TABLE 2: Site Selection and Sampling

County Community # Farmers Interviewed Data Collection

Bomi Levummah 9 FGD
Bomi Burphy Town 15 FGD
1
Bomi Klay 1 SSI
Bomi Tubmanburg 7 FGD
Grand Cape Mount Benda 7 FGD
2 Grand Cape Mount Gonelor 10 FGD
Grand Cape Mount Sanjamana 14 FGD
Lofa Mawoe Kama 1 SSI
Lofa Shelloe 1 SSI
Lofa Konduma 1 SSI
Lofa Kundu 3 SSI
Lofa Sayanin 1 SSI
3
Lofa Mayor River 1 SSI
Lofa Kelima Pombor 6 FGD
Lofa Konabeh Kormba 1 SSI
Lofa Keledu 1 SSI
Lofa Kpandu 1 SSI
4 Margibi Kollie Kaine 1 SSI
Montserrado Mount Barclay 1 SSI
5 Montserrado Fahnseh Town 12 FGD
Montserrado McGill Farm 12 FGD
Nimba Ganta 1 SSI
6 Nimba New Gbasselah 2 SSI
Nimba Gbedin 16 FGD
Total 6 24 125 FGD = 10 / SSI = 17
(Quade, 2022)

4.2.3 Data Collection

This study used qualitative research methods to collect data through in-person interactions

and observations, namely, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). These

methods were chosen to provide opportunities for participants to give in-depth accounts of their

experience, as participant narratives reveal nuanced insights rarely found through conventional

surveys and quantitative data analysis alone. Surveys were, however, useful for collecting general

44
information about agricultural production at each site, and to record farmer knowledge with regard

to SRI. Immediately prior to the start of data collection, questionnaires were field-tested with non-

participant farmers and CHAP extension agents to ensure cultural sensitivity and locally applicable

vernacular. While interviews and focus groups were conducted in English in all communities,

some local adaptations to questions were made to account for regional dialect. In total, 10 FGDs

(N = 108 total farmers) took place across five counties and 17 semi-structured interviews (N = 17

total farmers) were held in five counties. One designated CHAP extension agent accompanied the

researcher to all sites and helped in the facilitation of these sessions.

The decision of whether to conduct an interview or focus group depended on the number

of farmers that had been recruited with knowledge of SRI. Focus groups were arranged when six

or more farmers in one site could participate in a discussion, and these sessions generally lasted

between one and two hours. The questionnaire in focus groups consisted of 13 specific questions

and was designed exclusively to facilitate dialogue and explore farmer experience with SRI while

accumulating feedback from numerous perspectives (APPENDIX A). A few probing questions

were integrated into these sessions but used sparingly, only to encourage further discussion among

participants for the purpose of getting more detailed explanations in responses. This tool proved

effective for reaching either a consensus or disagreement, both of which informed the data

collected in other aspects of this study.

Semi-structured interviews, on the other hand, were conducted with individual farmers,

and captured robust data through an open-ended questionnaire. This data collection tool was

designed to elicit thoughtful and complex responses from single participants in a conversational

format. The survey was developed as a guideline with three primary topics comprising over 25

questions and follow-up probes (APPENDIX B). Rather than a predefined script to follow, the

45
researcher would ask questions based on the participant’s previous answers and moved freely

between topics and questions pertaining to farming practices, the SRI method, and social capital.

Though semi-structured interviews were limited to just one participant per session and were shorter

than focus groups, usually lasting between 30 minutes to one hour, this tool produced an immense

volume of data that supplemented knowledge gained elsewhere.

In addition to semi-structured interviews and FGDs, field visits and observations also

contributed to data collection. Most farmers were eager to show their rice fields after completing

an interview or focus groups to offer visual evidence with regard to the issues noted in discussions.

Comments made during these field visits often complemented the data and information gathered

during sessions, and illustrated a vivid picture of the farming conditions in Liberia and the major

challenges farmers face. Moreover, conversations with key informants and agricultural extension

agents further contributed to this study, and this additional layer of data created another vantage

point for analysis and enabled a deeper understanding of the Liberian rice sector as a whole.

4.2.4 Data Management and Analysis

All responses given by participant farmers were recorded in field notes during interviews

and focus groups. At the end of each day, the researcher consulted with the designated CHAP

extension agent and together they discussed takeaways from each session. The researcher then

reviewed the recordings to verify data and elaborate in more detail while the information was still

current. This process included making additional notes pertaining to the community and its access

to roads, services, equipment, basic infrastructure, and urban centers; and observations were also

noted with regard to participant attitudes, field visits, or any potential trends between communities.

These field notes were then transcribed into Microsoft Word documents, coded, and stored safely

in a password protected device.

46
 While conducting interviews and focus groups, common themes began to emerge across

communities. Early in data collection it became evident that participants experienced similar

successes and challenges with SRI and in rice farming, more broadly. In qualitative research this

recurring information is known as saturation – the point at which no new data are being found

and, regardless of the wide-range of groups or individual participants, the researcher can be

confident in developing categories for analysis, as nothing new is being learned with subsequent

interviews (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Saturation of some categories were largely consistent across

counties, districts, communities, and farmers, and revealed true needs in rice production for both

subsistence farmers and those more commercial-oriented.

Because this study used qualitative research, and the samples taken were relatively small,

Microsoft Excel was used for analysis of data. First, the questionnaires were input manually into

spreadsheets by the researcher; one for semi-structured interviews, one for focus groups, and one

with overlapping questions from both data collection methods. Second, simple categorizing of

responses was done to neatly organize the datasets for analysis. Third, frequency distributions and

bivariate analyses were run to examine common patterns in the data. Finally, triangulation analysis

was conducted by comparing the findings from data analysis with the comments of key informants

and field observations. The findings organized in this paper discuss the investigated and emergent

themes from this analysis.

4.2.5 Study Limitations

Although efforts were made to limit sampling bias, the timeline of data collection (June

and July) coincided with the peak of Liberia’s rainy season. This presented certain challenges for

transportation and hindered data collection in some parts of the country. While the six counties

sampled in this study were essential, as they represent a significant portion of the domestic rice

47
production and are home to a wide spectrum of rice farmers, bad road conditions due to inclement

weather rendered the southern and south eastern parts of Liberia inaccessible. Ideally, more time

and access would have allowed for more stratified sampling to collect data from all ten counties

where SRI had been promoted, but these limitations prohibited this from happening. Another

potential limitation with regard to sampling includes the number of farmers that were recruited in

each community. The total number of participants that contributed to this study varied from

community to community, and given the travel time and costs to get to and from these areas, the

decision to conduct semi-structured interviews or focus groups was determined largely at random

rather than systematically. Furthermore, community leaders were used for recruitment and it is

possible that some farmers with SRI experience may have been missed in the recruiting process or

were unable to participate when data collection took place.

In addition to limitations in sampling, the data collection methods employed in this study

were quite time-consuming, which limited the number of participants the researcher could meet

with each day. Though qualitative methods were chosen specifically to produce robust data that

would enhance the analysis of farmer experience with SRI, these methods required a substantial

review and write-up process after each community visit, which imposed time constraints on the

researcher. Moreover, findings from qualitative research typically have a high internal validity and

accuracy due to interpersonal data collection methods, but these findings are often viewed as less

reliable and generalizable as a result of a fewer participants. The saturation experienced in data

collection helps address this reliability concern and built confidence in the researcher regarding

the adequacy of sampling; however, the methods used still pose potential limitations.

Lastly, one cannot rule out the possible introduction of bias in focus group discussions and

semi-structured interviews. There is an unknown degree of influence or perceived power dynamics

48
in semi-structured interviews between the researcher and the participant. Likewise, in focus groups

the responses provided by an individual may be influenced by social dynamics or other participants

in the discussion. Though serious efforts were made in all facets of this research to eliminate the

introduction of bias, these issues must be considered.

4.3 Study Findings

The results presented in this section detail the investigated and emergent themes from

analysis of data collected through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. These

themes include farmer perceptions of SRI with regard to the methodology and its benefits, as well

as the challenges rice farmers face with implementation. Select quotes from interview and focus

group transcripts are used to support the patterns discovered in the larger dataset and to provide

further context to these issues. The findings from this analysis illustrate the importance of rice as

a primary source of food security and livelihood in Liberia and emphasize the major barriers to

raising rice production in the country.

4.3.1 How do farmers understand the SRI method?

Responses in semi-structured interviews and focus groups showed little to no variation in

farmer perceptions of the SRI method. Overwhelmingly, farmers in both sessions reported that

SRI increased their rice yields (100% of participants) but demanded more labor than traditional

cultivation practices (80% of participants). For many, the increase in yield influenced their belief

that SRI was a better way of producing rice compared to traditional practices, but for others the

increase in labor played a significant role in their decision to discontinue this production system.

Three labels were assigned to categorize the 125 farmer participants based on their SRI production

status at the time of data collection: (1) adopters, (2) dis-adopters, and (3) non-adopters. In total,

54 participants were persistent SRI farming practitioners, 57 participants had tried SRI in the past

49
but reverted to their previous practices, and 14 participants had theoretical SRI knowledge but no

practical experience implementing it. Accordingly, 43.2% of the overall participants in this study

were adopters, 45.6% were dis-adopters, and 11.2% were non-adopters (TABLE 3).

“With SRI you use less seed and get more yield. There is also better weed management
because of the spacing, but that does require more man power. Traditional [clump]
transplanting takes less time and less labor and you get less yield. SRI takes more time and
more labor and you get more yield. Land preparation is also different for SRI. Fields need
to be laid out well and you only transplant one seedling, and not [in] clumps.”
– Male farmer, SSI, Lofa County

TABLE 3: Participant Category and Data Collection Method

Adopter Dis-adopter Non-adopter Total

FGD 44 40.7% 52 48.1% 12 11.1% 108 100.0%
SSI 10 58.8% 5 29.4% 2 11.8% 17 100.0%
Total 54 43.2% 57 45.6% 14 11.2% 125 100.0%

(Quade, 2022)

While participants unanimously reported increases in yield with SRI, knowledge of this

production system varied substantially among data collection methods. Farmer knowledge of SRI

was evaluated based on the understanding of a minimum three out of the six main practices, which

included: (1) early establishment (8 to 15 days old) of seedlings, (2) transplanting single seedlings,

(3) using wider plant spacing, (4) controlling water carefully, (5) organic matter additions, and (6)

mechanical weeding. The collective knowledge of these six practices was relatively low, and the

participants in focus group scored lower on average than those in semi-structured interviews, as

indicated by the mean understanding of 3.4 and 4.0 out of six practices, respectively. However,

when disaggregating farmer knowledge on whether participants were adopters or dis-adopters, this

gap interestingly disappears, with both categories scoring a mean understanding of 3.5 practices.

50
The most commonly understood SRI practices included using wider plant spacing, controlling

water carefully, and transplanting single seedlings (FIGURE 7).

Main SRI Practices

FGD SSI Not Noted
OM Additions 3 122 125

Weeding 22 11 92 125

Water Control 108 17 125

Wider Spacing 108 17 125

Single Seedlings 92 11 22 125

Early Establishment 24 7 94 125

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Number of Participants

FIGURE 7: Participant Comprehension of the SRI Method (Quade, 2022)

The farmers surveyed in this study were asked to explain “How is SRI different than what

you were doing before?” to which a variety of responses were given, though generally the replies

combined elements pertaining to transplanting, managing water, and achieving higher yields. Later

in the sessions farmers were asked which of the SRI practices they believed result in greater yield.

Interestingly, the two most well-known practices were noted by participants equally. Wider plant

spacing was recognized to improve plant growth and increase grain production per plant, while

applying less water early in the season was understood to increase the number of tillers. The astute

observations demonstrated farmer comprehension of these individual practices and their relative

benefits, yet comprehensive knowledge of the production system as a whole and its synergistic

principles was lacking, and virtually absent in farmer understanding was the principle of building
51
soil fertility, with just three participants discussing organic matter additions and the integral role

of soil management in SRI.

Weed Control
108
100%
90%
Percentage of Participants

80% 13
70%
11
60%
50%
7
40%
30%
22
20% 3
10% 7 7 1
0
0%
Hand Weeding Weeder Hired Labor Herbicide Flooded

FGD Particiapants SSI Participants Total Participants (trend)

FIGURE 8: Participant Weed Control Methods (Quade, 2022)

Weed control using a mechanical weeder was another practice rarely mentioned and not

well understood. Although 36% of participants attested to experiencing more weeds with SRI, just

22 out of the 108 participants (20.4%) in focus groups had used a mechanical weeder in their rice

fields. While the infrequent use of a mechanical weeder was mainly due to limited access of this

equipment, of those 22 with access to a weeder 100% reported their preference for hand weeding.

Conversely, 11 out of the 17 participants (64.7%) in semi-structured interviews had access to a

mechanical weeder, eight of which reported a positive experience. The concept of using a

mechanical implement to manage weeds in rice fields was relatively unfamiliar among the

participants, or was unpopular due to the perception of this activity being more time-consuming
52
and requiring additional labor opposed to hand weeding. In both data collection methods, hand

weeding was the most frequently reported weed control strategy. It was brought up in some

combination of weed management practices by 100% of participants in focus groups and over

three-quarters of those in semi-structured interviews (FIGURE 8). Sadly, only one farmer out of

the 125 surveyed in this study embraced the use of a mechanical weeder and understood the diverse

benefits of soil aeration with regular weeding.

Additional labor associated with SRI was a key factor that influenced farmer perceptions

of this methodology. In focus groups, 79.2% of participants reported labor-intensive practices as

a challenge with SRI implementation, while 80% of those in semi-structured interviews noted

similar responses. According to participants in these sessions, the major labor-related burden was

land preparation, followed by transplanting and then weeding, as these activities were reported

64.8%, 36%, and 26.4% of the time, respectively. The majority of farmers in semi-structured

interviews cited land preparation as the biggest challenge (70.6%), while a smaller segment of

those interviewed noted problems in transplanting (41.2%). Though more than three-quarters of

the participants in semi-structured interviews had experience with rice transplanting prior to

learning SRI, the traditional method they used was much less calculated. Thus, farmers reportedly

spent more time and labor carefully handling seedlings and precisely measuring the width between

single plants during rice transplanting. Whereas those in focus groups primarily made the transition

to SRI from broadcasting cultivation, which requires much less management before planting and

throughout the growing season. Therefore, these farmers noted, in comparison to broadcasting,

SRI demanded more labor with regard to land preparation (63.9%), as well as transplanting

(35.2%) and weeding (29.6%).

53
 Labor-saving devices such as power tillers were observed in some of the market-oriented

sites which alleviated the drudgery in land preparation for a select few, although, farmers in these

locations typically perceived labor difficulties in transplanting and weeding, as a result of larger

production areas. Farmers growing rice primarily for subsistence purposes made up the bulk of

those burdened by land preparation, as they had less access to equipment and mechanization for

brushing and tilling the soil. Overall, 11 out of the 17 participants (64.7%) in semi-structured

interviews and 23 out of the 108 participants (21.3%) in focus groups had access to a power tiller,

but curiously issues in land preparation were reported at a lower rate in focus groups.

“The biggest challenge with SRI is land preparation. In the rainy season, the lowland soil
is heavy and difficult to plow; and only using hand tools makes it back-breaking work.
Machinery, like a power tiller, is needed for land preparation, or it’s not worth it.”
– Female farmer, FGD, Bomi County

4.3.2 Why do farmers adopt the SRI method?

Responses throughout semi-structured interviews and focus groups were quite revealing as

to why farmers chose to adopt the SRI methodology. The general consensus, regardless of the data

collection method, was that SRI produced more yield and required less seed than traditional

practices. The unequivocal reply to the question “What encouraged you to try SRI on your farm?”

was “To get more yield.”; and when a follow-up question was posed to participants asking if they

personally experienced a yield increase after switching to SRI, the unanimous answer was “Yes!”

Because farmers in this study grew rice predominantly for subsistence (100% of the participants

stated at least a portion of cultivated rice went towards household consumption) the underlying

motivation for trying this production system was to improve yields for increased food security.

The majority of participants (59.3%) in focus groups produced rice exclusively for household

consumption (FIGURE 9), and 82 out of the 96 farmers (85.4%) in focus groups with practical

54
SRI experience said they achieved increases in yield that surpassed household consumption needs.

Additionally, 42 participants (43.8%) noted their rice harvests more than doubled with SRI when

compared to traditional cultivation practices. Members of one farming association claimed their

yields went from 1.25 metric tons per hectare with broadcasting to 5 metric tons per hectare under

SRI (a 400% increase!) while using one-fifth the seed previously needed to plant one hectare of

land. For those in semi-structured interviews, 12 out of 15 participants (80%) with practical SRI

experience stated their yields increased beyond household consumption needs, and seven of these

participants (46.7%) noted their harvest more than doubled with SRI. In both sessions, farmers

also commented on how SRI provided opportunities to grow rice more than two times per year,

which further increased household food availability and the potential for income generation.

Moreover, all farmers in this study reported drastic reductions in seed usage, up to 90% by one

farmer’s recollection – going from 100kg per hectare with broadcasting to 10kg per hectare with

SRI.

“SRI is better than broadcasting because you plant less and you get more. It gives us rice
for consumption, seed for next season, and extra for [selling in] the market… We now have
more money to pay for our kids’ school fees.”
– Male farmer, FGD, Grand Cape Mount County

55
 Rice Cultivation
5.9%
Consumption and
11.8%
SSI Village Savings
64.7%
17.6%
Consumption, Sale,
and Seed

5.6%
Consumption and Sale
6.5%
FGD
28.7%
59.3%
Consumption

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

Percentage of Participants

FIGURE 9: Participant Rice Cultivation Motivations (Quade, 2022)

Farmers described the benefits they experienced with SRI in various ways. For instance,

one working group in Bomi County explained how improved rice productivity allowed them to

diversify their crop production. Adaptations in cropping systems were explained by 24 out of 95

participants (25.3%) in focus groups that struggled with storing, processing, and marketing their

surplus rice. For these farmers, SRI produced enough rice for household consumption and did so

with less land than broadcasting. This enabled them to plant and grow more high-value vegetable

crops for market, contributing to increased income and food security. Farmers in Nimba County

mentioned how greater yields attributed to SRI helped them fulfill a contractual agreement to

supply a school meal program, which benefit the entire community through income generation.

Across the six counties surveyed, 86.7% of participants in semi-structured interviews and 62.5%

of those in focus groups declared that SRI improved farm management and often commented on

how the production system led to better record-keeping and accounting of seed, labor, and yield.

This empowered many to transition from purely subsistence farming to ‘farming as a business.’

56
Aside from improved yield for increased food security and income, participants gave examples of

social benefits experienced with SRI such as farmer-to-farmer support networks in the absence of

formal extension services and some participants explained how SRI unified their community by

bringing farmers together as collective to accomplish tasks like land preparation, transplanting,

weeding, irrigating, and harvesting.

“There are opportunities for integrating rice with other crops such as vegetable on the
bunds, and it lets you produce several crops over the year. SRI also brings people together
to share ideas and it promotes better farm management. They say ‘your footsteps are the
fertilizer’ and that is true with SRI because you are always in the field.”
– Male farmer, SSI, Margibi County

4.3.3 What types of support are most valued by farmers?

The scope and population of this study provided an excellent opportunity to examine the

factors that hinder implementation of SRI in Liberia. In both semi-structured interviews and focus

groups, the question “What are the biggest challenges with SRI?” allowed farmers to explain the

major impediments they faced. These challenges primarily dealt with infrastructure in cultivation

and post-harvest that limited production as well as technical capacity and farmer comprehension

of the SRI method. Five prominent barriers emerged from farmer responses, which included: labor-

intensive practices, lack of technical support, water control, post-harvest storage and processing,

and marketing (FIGURE 10). Time and again these issues were brought up in discussions and

interviews, and expressed by adopters and dis-adopters alike.

As previously noted, increased labor demands influenced farmer perceptions of this

production system, making labor the second most reported challenge among participants in this

study. However, when looking closely at other responses from farmers that cited labor-intensive

practices as a challenge, bivariate analysis indicated 58.3% of those in semi-structured interviews

57
and 77.6% in focus groups faced other burdens in cultivation and post-harvest management. These

additional obstacles that participants faced could provide another explanation as to the factors that

influence dis-adoption. For instance, of the 46 dis-adopters in focus groups that noted labor as a

major barrier, 100% also reported insufficient storage while 78.3% experienced marketing

constraints. Because the majority of participants in focus groups grew rice solely for household

consumption, and SRI produced yields greater than household needs, many of these farmers

experienced new challenges in storing, processing, and marketing their surplus grain. As a result,

post-harvest activities were the biggest barriers discussed in focus groups, and emphasized by

adopters and dis-adopters at rates of 84.1% and 88.5% of the time, respectively. Participants in

focus groups regularly debated amongst themselves the trade-offs with labor and yield and the

challenges of selling rice in local markets. Many dis-adopters in focus groups described plentiful

opportunities for expanding their production area – if only they could sell their harvest at the end

of the season. Without strong market linkages the surplus rice generated with SRI, and the

additional labor expended to produce it, was ultimately “spoiled” due to limited or inadequate

storage and the inability to prevent post-harvest losses.

“Selling ‘country rice’ is a big challenge in the market. It’s difficult to compete with the
price of imported rice and many customers prefer the imported one over local rice.
Currently, we sell only one cup at a time, and sometimes a small bag. Frankly speaking,
we need more information on how to sell the local rice, so customers prefer ours over the
imports.”
– Male farmer, SSI, Nimba County

While labor, marketing, and post-harvest activities posed complex challenges for farmers

that often interact with one another, water control was the most pervasive challenge experienced

by all farmers in this study. Accordingly, 12 out of the 17 participants (70.6%) in semi-structured

interviews and 94 out of the 108 participants (87%) in focus groups reported issues with water

58
control. Because SRI has been promoted in Liberia’s lowland areas, farmers routinely struggle to

manage water during the rainy season (May through October) which coincides with the primary

rice growing season. In semi-structured interviews, 60% of adopters, 80% of dis-adopters, and

100% of non-adopters reported water management as a major barrier for SRI implementation; and

of those in focus groups, 95.5% of adopters, 76.9% of dis-adopters, 100% of non-adopters noted

similar constraints. The severity of this issue was illuminated during field observations at the time

of data collection. Dams and canals used for storing and distributing water for cultivation were

routinely broken as a result of abundant rainfall, leaving rice fields and lowland areas inundated

with water. Across all locations, farmers recognized water management as an essential part of the

SRI method, but a lack of infrastructure to support intermittent irrigation hampered their ability to

control water sufficiently.

Distribution of Major Challenges

FGD - Adopters

FGD- Dis-adopters

SSI - Adopters

SSI - Dis-adopters

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Labor Intensive Practices Limited Technical Support
Marketing Limitations Post-Harvest Processing and Storage
Water Control

FIGURE 10: Participant Challenges with SRI Implementation (Quade, 2022)

59
 Participants in semi-structured interviews were 1.7 times more likely than those in focus

groups to report challenges pertaining to cultivation (labor and water). Whereas, participants in

focus groups were 2.7 times more likely than those in semi-structured interviews to report issues

regarding post-harvest (storage and marketing). This was primarily due to the market integration

of these participants and their scale of rice production. Interestingly, one challenge consistently

reported, regardless of the data collection method, was the limited technical support farmers

received under the SRI method. Farmers in each of the six counties reportedly experienced new

challenges with this production system they had never faced under traditional transplanting or

broadcasting cultivation, and felt they needed regular technical support to overcome these issues.

However, farmers cited significant barriers to getting the help they required, mainly infrequent

visits from extension personnel and development practitioners. In focus groups, 63.9% of adopters

and 76.9% of dis-adopters referenced the lack of technical support as a major challenge to SRI

implementation. While participants in semi-structured interviews reported this issue to a lesser

extent, still 30% of adopters and 60% of dis-adopters noted insufficient technical support with

regard to SRI. Among those with practical SRI experience, limited technical support was reported

more with the dis-adopters than adopters, but the non-adopters ranked limited technical support as

a key impediment and one of the main reasons why they had not yet practiced SRI in their fields.

The final question posed to participants in semi-structured interviews and focus groups

asked how training on SRI could be improved. Universally, all farmers stated they needed more

opportunities for practical learning (100%). The majority of participants (71.2%) learned the SRI

methodology by establishing a community demonstration plot with the guidance of an extension

agent from the Community of Hope Agriculture Project (CHAP). For many, this was the only time

they received technical support pertaining to SRI, but due to hands-on learning, the participants

60
grasped most components of this production system with ease. However, because SRI involves

multiple principles and practices, there was a relatively low retention of all the components, and

comprehensive knowledge of the methodology was not well understood. Recognizing that more

opportunities for training was a critical need amongst farmers, a follow-up question was asked to

the participants regarding what, specifically, they would be interested in receiving more training

on. The five most requested topics included: equipment and labor-saving devices, land preparation,

water control, post-harvest activities and marketing, and weed management (FIGURE 11).

Training on water control ranked the highest among all topics, with 65.7% of focus groups

participants and 58.8% of semi-structured interview participants expressing their interest for more

training. Land preparation was the second most requested topic while post-harvest activities and

marketing was third. Analysis of these requests for additional training was consistent with field

observations and the data collected throughout this study. Water control was the main challenge

to SRI implementation experienced by participants, while labor-intensive practices – particularly

in land preparation – heavily influenced the perceptions of this production system, and the limited

access to post-harvest infrastructure and markets played major roles in their decision to continue

with SRI, or abandon it.

“To improve SRI in the field, you have to get knowledge from training. At least once, if not
twice a year, so you can remember all the steps and help others, too.”
– Male farmer, SSI, Lofa County

61
 Requests for Additional Training
80%
70.6%
70% 65.7%
Percentage of Participants

58.8%
60% 52.9%
50.0%
50% 45.4%
40.7% 41.2%
40%
31.5%
30% 23.5%
20%

10%

0%
Equipment Land Preparation Post-Harvest and Water Control Weed Management
Marketing

FGD SSI

FIGURE 11: Participant Training Needs (Quade, 2022)

Discussion 4.4

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) has impacted the livelihoods of Liberian farmers

in myriad ways. Data analysis shows a wide-range of benefits in terms of food security, income,

and social cohesion, but it also demonstrates complex barriers that rice farmers experience with

this production system. Labor-intensive practices such as land preparation, transplanting, and

weeding pose additional burdens for farmers and a substantial learning curve which influences

behavior change. Meanwhile, the development and maintenance of water control infrastructure

proved a formidable challenge for the majority of participants in this study. These alternative

cultivation practices, along with limited technical support to help navigate this uncharted territory,

pushed many farmers to discontinue the SRI method. For those that persevered through challenges

in cultivation, the increased yield exacerbated challenges related to inadequate storage capacity,

62
weak post-harvest management practices, and undependable markets for surplus rice. Roughly half

of the farmers with practical SRI experience in this study reported hurdles too large to justify

continuous adoption, while the other half indicated there is a way.

The qualitative methods used for primary data collection revealed interesting differences

between the participants in semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Generally, farmers that

contributed to focus group discussions were much less enthusiastic about SRI, as demonstrated by

a lower adoption rate, a lower score regarding SRI knowledge, and a higher prevalence of reported

challenges. Additionally, when compared to their counterparts in semi-structured interviews, those

in focus groups had less experience with improved rice cultivation. These participants were mainly

transitioning out of broadcasting cultivation and were still producing rice primarily for subsistence

purposes. Furthermore, while those in focus groups experienced rice yield increases that exceeded

household consumption needs at a higher rate than participants in semi-structured interviews, they

were almost three times more likely to report post-harvest and marketing constraints, regardless if

they were adopters or dis-adopters. On the other hand, those in semi-structured interviews were

generally more experienced farmers, with the majority producing rice for both consumption and

sale while holding a greater understanding of the SRI method and a higher propensity to try new

practices. Typically, the farmers in semi-structured interviews also had more access to equipment

such as mechanical weeders and power tillers as well as financial resources for hiring labor;

however, they were more likely than those in focus groups to report challenges with labor-intensive

practices and land preparation due to increased costs.

There were clear differences between the farmers in semi-structured interviews and those

in focus group discussions, but regardless of data collection methods, trends emerged from analysis

that highlighted the most significant opportunities and challenges for rice farmers in Liberia. The

63
main takeaway from this research is that dramatic improvements in food security and economic

development can be achieved with more support for SRI, specifically, with regard to technical

capacity building, water infrastructure, and post-harvest activities and marketing. Throughout the

study area participants holding practical SRI experience reported more yield when compared to

traditional management practice (irrespective of their method of establishment, i.e., transplanting

or broadcasting), and over 44% of these farmers claimed doubling (or more) their previous yields.

Enhanced productivity led to more grain for consumption, seed, and market, and in some cases the

diversification of crop production and livelihood opportunities, despite a relatively low and partial

comprehension of this methodology among respondents.

On average, the farmers in this study understood just 3.5 out of the six main SRI practices,

and a mere 2.4% understood the importance of building soil fertility with organic matter additions.

This ecological principle is crucial to the synergistic practices of SRI and provides enormous value

for the long-term sustainability of rice production, yet the principle was virtually absent in the

knowledge of participants. Elevating this principle in future trainings holds potential for further

benefits in soil health, crop productivity, and input cost savings. Regular trainings are critical for

practitioners to engage with farmers in the field, better understand the issues of priority concern,

and further advance farmer comprehension and capacity for testing and evaluating new practices.

Limited technical support was reported as a major challenge by more than 70% of the participants

in this study. Scaling SRI adoption within and beyond the study area will require greater support

and encouragement for farmers as they examine and test new management practices. There are

many proven strategies for doing so – often building upon collective learning and farmer-to-farmer

exchange of ideas and experience. Farmer capacity for adaptation and innovation around SRI

principles has been widely documented elsewhere in the world. Making enhancement of that

64
capacity a more explicit goal of the CHAP SRI program could result in a more prominent role for

farmers in adapting SRI practices to work in the biophysical, social, and market context described

in this study.

In addition to more frequent trainings on soil health and the SRI practices, farmers also

demonstrated a need for assistance with water control. While training on water management is

important, impacts will be limited without new investments in water infrastructure rehabilitation

and upgrades. In Foya District of Lofa County, private companies and civil society organizations

have come together to develop multiple reservoirs and irrigation schemes for farmers which has

transformed the productivity among SRI farmers in this area. As noted above, water control was

the most pervasive challenge farmers in Liberia experience with the implementation of SRI, and

as a result it was well understood that more training and assistance is required in this area overall.

However, more investments in the physical infrastructure for water control are a prerequisite to

broad revitalization of lowland areas for rice cultivation. Such investments hold potential for

dramatically increasing domestic rice production. The yield increases reported by farmers with

practical experience in SRI suggest very favorable cost-benefit ratios for investments that allow

for more effective water control.

Post-harvest processing, storage, and marketing were also among the biggest challenges

farmers face with SRI, and commonly discussed in focus groups and semi-structured interviews.

The lack of adequate storage frequently led to high rates of post-harvest loss, while limited

processing facilities throughout the country left most farmers with no alternative but to use a

mortar for milling their rice. Milling in this fashion is not only labor-intensive but increases broken

rice grains and the potential introduction of impurities. Locally grown and milled rice is thus often

viewed as inferior to imported rice. Direct market support in the form of contract buying and other

65
linkages between producers and processors are crucial for raising rice productivity in Liberia,

improving post-harvest handling and storage, and providing market access to regional farmers.

Also, as SRI boosts yields local mills can run more consistently throughout the year, creating new

opportunities for non-farm income and employment.

This investigation was conducted to answer three primary research questions: (1) How do

farmers understand the SRI method? (2) Why do farmers adopt the SRI method? and (3) What

types of support are most valued by farmers? The objective was to better understand SRI in Liberia

through an assessment of farmer experience with this production system to evaluate the benefits it

provides and identify the barriers that limit farmer uptake. This study intends to shed light on new

information regarding farmer perceptions and attitudes toward this methodology and hopefully

will lay the groundwork for future investigations in this field. While the goal of this paper is to

inform decision-making with respect to policy and practice, continued research on SRI is needed

in Liberia to explore the unanswered questions that arose throughout this investigation.

66
PART III - RECOMMENDATIONS

67
 CHAPTER 5: POLICY

5.1 Summary

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI), as demonstrated throughout this paper, affords myriad

benefits to Liberian farmers and households with substantial potential for the economy and society.

This innovative approach to rice cultivation not only enhances the production of Liberia’s primary

staple, thus reducing its dependence on rice imports, but creates vast opportunities for harnessing

the natural resources and demographic dividend of the country. Targeted government investment

in Liberia’s rice sector can remove some of the most important barriers to SRI adoption. The

resulting improvements in productivity can decrease food costs and directly lower the prevalence

of some forms of undernutrition in Liberia. Moreover, investing in this dynamic production system

can stimulate growth in income generating activities and livelihood diversification, presenting new

employment prospects for the youth and those economically disadvantaged. Increased rice yields

brought with SRI cultivation enable farmers to produce surplus grain, and with more infrastructure

in post-harvest storage and processing, this will positively impact trade and increase the demand

for service-oriented occupations. Therefore, it is vital for the Government of Liberia to support

food policy to improve rice productivity through SRI, as this can play a major role in ameliorating

poverty and hunger while contributing to the structural transformation for economic development

(Webb & Block, 2012).

In 2018, the Pro-Poor Agenda for Prosperity and Development (PAPD) was released, and

in this four-pillar plan the Government of Liberia emphasized increasing the standard of living for

all Liberians by: empowering the people, creating better economic opportunities, establishing trust

and sustainable peace, and maintaining transparency for accountable governance. The PAPD

offers detailed strategies for achieving a vision of national resilience by 2030. However, much of

68
the attention for agricultural investment in this plan is focused on cash crops destined for export

such as palm, rubber, and cocoa, and less consideration is paid to essential food crops such as rice.

Targeting investments for export-oriented cash crops opposed to food crops for domestic

consumption will ultimately have limited impact on food security and poverty reduction, which

are the two most daunting development challenges. Government investment in rice farmers and

SRI production, on the other hand, would directly address pillars one and two of the PAPD and

have indirect benefits on pillars three and four as well. The recommendations provided below were

guided by the experience of rice farmers who participated in this study and intend to complement

the Government of Liberia’s mission for rice self-sufficiency.

5.2 Recommendations for Policy Makers

1. Increase public sector investment for irrigation and water control infrastructure in

lowland rice cultivation. Water control is one of the four essential SRI principles and it

remains the primary barrier facing rice farmers throughout the country. Lowland areas in

Liberia are natural catchment basins for water and nutrients, offering superb advantages

for rice cultivation (and vegetables) compared to upland areas. Government investment in

lowland irrigation projects and water control infrastructure, such as dams and canals, can

significantly boost rice and agricultural productivity in the country, and empower farmers

to fully utilize the abundant rainfall Liberia receives throughout the year. Infrastructure for

water storage would create new possibilities for dry season farming and help reduce farmer

vulnerabilities to the impacts of climate change and variable weather patterns.

2. Establish a program that incentivizes rice farmer transition to SRI. SRI creates broad

economic, social, and environmental benefits in comparison to conventional and traditional

rice production systems, however, it requires additional labor in the initial seasons and

69
 there is a substantial learning curve for rice farmers. Establishing a program that provides

a monetary incentive for practicing SRI would encourage more rice farmers to make the

transition and continue implementing it, which would lead to long-term benefits for land

stewardship and agricultural sustainability. In addition, rice yield increases stemming from

SRI and more farmers cultivating rice under this production system would dramatically

raise domestic production, and create favorable market conditions for producers and

processors alike. More Liberian grain in the marketplace would allow domestic rice to be

more competitive with imported grain, and ultimately would help decrease the reliance on

imports, and alleviate the stress on the national budget.

3. Encourage more small and medium-scale infrastructure investments for post-harvest

aggregation centers and processing facilities. Farmers in Liberia are severely limited in

terms of where they can store and how they can process their rice. These limitations have

ultimately capped domestic rice production as the prospect of post-harvest loss heavily

influences cultivation decisions. Whether public or private sector investments are made,

there is a real demand for small and medium-sized warehousing and milling facilities

throughout the country. Using policy to create a suitable environment for investing in the

value-chain can increase farmer access to adequate storage and processing facilities, and

encourage more domestic rice production while generating non-farm employment. This

will contribute to food security and economic activities for the whole of Liberia, and would

be especially significant for rural communities and farming households, as individuals in

these areas suffer the highest rates of hunger and poverty in the country.

4. Expand the “Home-Grown School Feeding” Program. Rice farmers in Nimba County

that participated in this study attested to the benefits they experienced while acting as a

70
 supplier in this school meal project. The HGSF social protection program offers a range of

positive impacts for the country by connecting farmers with a guaranteed market before

harvest, improving food and nutrition security in school children, and incentivizing school

attendance for advanced educational outcomes. Unfortunately, a decline in this program

was reported between 2015 and 2018, with beneficiaries dropping from 500,000 to 300,000

students, respectively (PAPD, 2018). In the past, this program has been implemented with

large-scale farming cooperatives to procure sufficient rice supply for schools, but if grain

could be sourced from farmer aggregation centers such as those discussed in the third

recommendation (above) smallholders could easily participate in this program and help fill

any gaps in supply through collective action. Investing more in this program would yield

short-and long-term benefits for the economy and society, and encourage better health and

educational outcomes for children – the nation’s future.

5. Establish other direct market linkages for rice farmers with public sector institutions.

Similar to the “Home-Grown School Feeding” Program, creating direct market linkages

for rice farmers to supply other public sector institutions such as the national armed forces,

police academy, universities, hospitals, even prisons can yield substantial benefits. One of

the main challenges rice farmers faced in this study was in marketing their surplus grain.

This barrier often led to post-harvest losses for farmers. An arrangement to supply public

institutions, mediated by the government, can guarantee a market for domestic rice farmers

and reduce the burden farmers face at harvest while fulfilling a consistent demand often

supplied by imported rice. Imports have a tight grip on all aspects of the domestic rice

market, and to make real progress toward rice self-sufficiency, government interventions

are necessary to better support domestic producers. Moreover, this facilitation can send a

71
 message of good governance to all Liberians and help build trust in the public sector by

prioritizing the concerns of people over special interests.

6. Make micro-loans and grant funding more accessible and inclusive for all farmers,

farming associations, and youth organizations. Farmers understand the issues they are

facing better than anyone, and most farmers know the solutions to overcome these issues

but lack the financial resources to do so. Increasing access to micro-finance and grant

funding for all applicants regardless of age, asset ownership, land tenure, or farm size is

critical for empowering these individuals and providing them with the tools necessary to

take control of their lives – pillar one of the PAPD. This is especially important for youth

in the country, who represent the largest cohort in the population and are among the most

vulnerable to economic hardships and unemployment. Reducing these barriers to acquiring

financial resources is another step toward building trust in the citizens of Liberia and will

demonstrate an accountable and inclusive public sector – pillar four.

7. Increase the number of commercial banks throughout the country to help stimulate

agricultural production and processing. There are far too few commercial banks across

Liberia, which hinders private sector investment in agricultural production and processing

activities. Increasing the number of commercial banks throughout the country would

expand access to financial services for farmers, business people, and the general public,

and help to encourage more entrepreneurship in small-and medium-sized enterprises. This

type of private sector investment is needed to raise agricultural productivity and improve

access to resources for the most vulnerable people. Particularly in Lofa County, known as

one of the breadbaskets of the country, farmers expressed the need for more banks that

offer agricultural loans to enable them to invest in themselves and their farming operations.

72
 Lack of access to financial resources not only restricts farmers’ ability to purchase tools,

equipment, and production inputs, but it also limits the availability of dealers for these

materials, forcing farmers to travel great distances to find what they need. This reduces the

vast majority of farmers to subsistence or semi-subsistence production with only the

wealthiest farmers able to mobilize the time and financial resources to seek and acquire

productivity enhancing tools, equipment, and production inputs. To encourage investment

and inspire innovation in domestic agricultural production and food processing, financial

services must be available for all individuals across the country.

8. Develop and incentivize alternatives to shifting (slash-and-burn) cultivation. Liberia

is home to 42% of the remaining Upper Guinea Forest (PAPD, 2018), and deforestation is

threatening this rich ecosystem, as well as other forests in the country that are home to

countless biodiversity. Upland rice grown with shifting cultivation practices contributes to

this problem, and studies show this type of land-use change can have devastating effects

on the sustainability of agricultural production. Moreover, the research discussed in this

paper indicates that lowland rice cultivation in tandem with the SRI production system can

drastically outperform upland rice systems. Eliminating slash-and-burn cultivation in

Liberia will require a multi-phased approach that should include investments in education

and incentives for conservation. This could be in the form of community-based strategies

for land-use planning and management, forestry programs that reward land stewardship,

and extension and rural development initiatives that work with famers to transition out of

this cultivation practice. Integrating this recommendation with recommendation number

two (above) could provide two-fold benefits by increasing rice production and mitigating

73
 further deforestation. The intention here is not to punish farmers for traditional practices,

but rather provide them with resources and capital to make informed decisions.

9. Develop national marketing campaigns to encourage the consumption of Liberian

rice. The demand for domestic or ‘country rice’ is quite low in local markets as compared

to imported rice. This low demand creates difficulties for farmers and often dictates the

amount of land used for growing rice. One simple strategy to increasing local demand is to

educate consumers on the advantages of purchasing Liberian grown rice. Throughout the

world, advertising is used to influence consumer behavior and to support the ‘buy local’

movement. These advertisements tend to focus on the economic benefits and the multiplier

effect derived from supporting local farmers and businesses. Funding a national marketing

campaign could facilitate a change in consumer preferences in Liberia and inspire more

rice farmers to increase their production to keep up with demand. Using a multi-media

marketing campaign through radio, television, internet, billboards, and other forms of audio

and visual advertisements would ensure a wide audience could be reached, even in the most

remote areas. Some examples of marketing campaigns are to provide relevant statistics

with regard to buying and consuming Liberian rice, or running advertisements that feature

prominent athletes, celebrities, or politicians eating, enjoying, and promoting Liberian

grown rice.

10. Increase the number of public sector agricultural officers for technical capacity

building and human development. Throughout Liberia there is an expressed need for

more field level extension officers in agriculture. The ratio of public extension officers to

farmers is currently very low, limiting household and community access to the education

programs and advisory services public extension is charged with providing. While the

74
consequences for Liberia’s agricultural production and rural quality of life are not

documented in a comprehensive manner, numerous studies in other countries have

confirmed the positive returns to investments in public sector extension (Evenson, 2001).

District Agriculture Officers (DAOs) are responsible for covering large geographic areas

and often have limited resources for transportation and farmer visitation. Across all six

counties surveyed in this study, farmers expressed their sincere interest for more training

opportunities and visitation from fields agents, and among those who received consistent

advisory services the benefits were evident. Increasing the number of extension officers

and funding for transportation, equipment, and training programs hold significant potential

for helping farmers acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for resource-conserving

approaches to improve rice productivity. Revitalizing Liberia’s public sector agricultural

extension system will also provide new employment opportunities for recent graduates,

young men and women alike, from tertiary agricultural education programs.

75
 CHAPTER 6: PRACTICE

6.1 Summary

The Community of Hope Agriculture Project (CHAP) is the national champion for SRI in Liberia.

Strongly committed to national food security, rural prosperity, and economic development, the

organization helped enable this study in important ways. Key informant interviews with CHAP

leadership and staff helped inform the study design and execution. The organization also provided

invaluable assistance with transportation, organizing focus groups and interviews, and helping to

identify study participants representing diverse perspectives on and levels of experience with the

SRI method. The case study discussed in Chapter 4 of this paper utilized the extensive network of

farmers across the country participating in CHAP-sponsored SRI training and advisory services.

This network was vital to better understanding farmer experience with SRI in Liberia and enabled

the assessment of farmer perceptions and attitudes toward the alternative practices in cultivation.

Responses from study participants and data analysis revealed that farmers had technical training

and advisory service needs that were frequently going unmet. Additionally, given the state of

agricultural infrastructure in the country and the learning curve with this production system, having

access to knowledgeable technicians was imperative for sustained SRI adoption. More training

opportunities were often cited by farmers as a prerequisite for their successful application of SRI

practices, and farmers expressed a strong desire for more on-farm visitation from extension agents

and development practitioners to help them solve production and post-harvest challenges.

While the participants in this study were part of a broad network of rice farmers that receive

advisory services from CHAP, the recommendations for development practitioners presented here

are not exclusive to the organization, and should be considered by all development practitioners

promoting SRI in Liberia. These recommendations were informed through personal discussions

76
and interviews with farmers and aim to guide future training curricula and advisory services.

Scaling this ecological production system in Liberia can transform domestic rice production and

yield substantial positive outcomes for the economy and society, specifically regarding the national

food deficit, hunger, unemployment, poverty, and human development. However, while potential

benefits of this dynamic production system are significant, so are the barriers Liberian farmers

experience with SRI implementation. Therefore, much more attention from policy makers and

sustained engagement from development practitioners is needed to adequately support rice farmers

and advance long-lasting impact for the current and future generations of Liberians.

6.2 Recommendations for Development Practitioners

1. Expand training on water management and cropping calendars to avoid flooding. In

every county surveyed for this study, water control was the greatest challenge for farmers

using SRI. Lacking permanent water infrastructure to store and control water throughout

the year, farmers were left to their own ingenuity to create dams, center canals, peripheral

canals, and drainage. Many farmers found this to be a significant limitation to the SRI

method. Some noted that they had never gone to such lengths to battle the forces of the

rainy season under traditional cultivation practices. Providing better training on how to

create and manage locally appropriate water control infrastructure and protocols could

alleviate these challenges and position farmers for greater success with SRI. In addition to

developing stronger reservoirs and water storage with greater capacity, more training on

cropping calendars is needed to educate farmers on the appropriate time to transplant rice.

Because water control with SRI poses a major barrier for farmers in lowland cultivation,

planting seedlings well ahead of heavy rains can mitigate flooding during the vegetative

stage of crop growth. Water control is one of the fundamental components of the SRI

77
 methodology, and this principle entails substantial change in farmer production practices,

thus timely, practical, and sustained training is necessary to equip farmers with knowledge

to overcome new challenges.

2. Develop a practical training for improved soil management that focuses on organic

fertilizer production and application. Few study participants had received training on

soil management and organic soil amendments. Multiple farmers noted that chemical

fertilizers were prescribed to them when they first learned about SRI and they believed that

NPK and Urea were central components of this production system. Though chemical

fertilizer can be used in small amounts under SRI, the goal is to reduce the use of chemical

fertilizer by creating healthy soil conditions through organic resources. Building fertile soil

well-endowed in organic matter and beneficial soil biota is one of the foundational

principles of SRI (Styger & Uphoff, 2016), yet nearly all the farmers in this study lacked

this knowledge. Across the surveyed communities, organic resources were abundantly

present but farmers were unaware of how to turn these raw materials into a suitable product

for rice cultivation. Developing practical trainings for soil management, compost making,

manure applications, and crop residue incorporation will help empower farmers with

knowledge and skills for converting locally available resources into organic fertilizers. This

training is imperative for Liberian farmers moving forward as the rapidly increasing price

of chemical fertilizer puts it out of reach for many small farmers. In addition, the overuse

of commercial inputs is contributing to soil degradation and environmental pollution.

3. Incorporate more training in the use of weeders. Weeding was the third most labor-

intensive practice associated with SRI reported by participants in this study, and of the 125

farmers surveyed 121 of them stated they used hand weeding in some combination of weed

78
 control. Greater attention in SRI training is needed to build farmer capacity for weed

control using mechanical implements. Tools like hoes and weeders can help reduce the

labor exerted in the field and provide multiple soil benefits that lead to improved plant

growth and development. The “Garden Weasel” was used by 33 farmers and almost

everyone in this study had access to hoes or other mechanical implements, however, few

understood why mechanical weeding was the preferred weed control method under SRI.

One of the main criticisms of using the mechanical weeder was that it only worked when

the grass or weeds were small, and as weeds grew bigger the tool was less effective. This

is a perfect example of why more rigorous training on weeding is necessary, as allowing

grasses and weeds to grow increases the competition with rice plants for space, nutrients,

light, and water. Frequent weeding using a mechanical implement can help limit plant

competition and aerate the soil, and studies have shown increased weeding sessions will

increase rice yields and farmer income. It is recommended to use a mechanical weeder

three to four times per season under SRI, whereas most farmers in this study would weed

by hand just once or twice per season. Practitioners can also play a role in improving access

to weeders that have been tested and deemed useful by farmers, and help identify local

metal fabricators who can replicate and/or adapt tools popularized elsewhere.

4. Encourage farmer experimentation. A common trend revealed in farmer responses

during discussions and interviews was the lack of experimentation with different practices

and limited adaptation of the SRI method. Most participants followed the practices exactly

as they learned them, and many would abandon the production system if they were unable

to follow these practices. However, one of the unique aspects of this production system is

that farmers are not confined to a rigid set of instructions. Practitioners should provide a

79
 basket of recommended SRI practices to farmers and encourage them to experiment with

the idea not all will be applicable to every farmer. The four principles discussed in Chapter

2 are the only fixed criteria of this system and farmers should be encouraged to find the

practices that work best for them in their specific farming context. Reorienting training

with a focus on the underlying principles of SRI, and engaging farmers in brainstorming

and testing locally-appropriate practices consistent with those principles may improve

uptake of SRI, and stimulate a regional culture of experimentation and innovation with

benefits well beyond rice farming.

5. Establish community-based SRI technicians using lead farmers in every community.

Data analysis indicated that SRI adopters had a higher prevalence of knowledgeable ‘lead

farmers’ in their community compared to dis-adopters. Lead farmers share the knowledge

they possess with others in the community and often provide impromptu advisory services

in the absence of formal extension agents. Creating a community-based extension model

that utilizes lead farmers can help find solutions to challenges associated with SRI dis-

adoption. Well-prepared and supported lead farmers understand local issues, often enjoy

high levels of trust and respect among their neighbors, and can help build and leverage the

knowledge and networks of public extension and other development practitioners. In

comparison to an outside extension agent coming to the community and establishing a

demonstration plot for training and then leaving, when a lead farmer attends a training and

is tasked with returning to their community to establish a demonstration, there is a greater

understanding of the SRI principles and practices and more enthusiasm for this production

system among farmers. Investing in more lead farmer training in conjunction with

80
 demonstrations plots can help overcome important barriers to successful and sustained

transition to resource-conserving and yield-enhancing practices.

6. Increase lead farmer training opportunities to continue engagement and investment

in community-based technician model. Building off recommendation five (above), lead

farmers need continued opportunities to participate in training programs – at least once or

twice per year. SRI is much different than traditional rice management, bringing new

questions and challenges at all stages of testing and adoption. Backstopping farmer SRI

testing with well-prepared ‘lead farmers’ and timely training will help all farmers better

understand and successfully implement this production system. Over time, user input and

iteration in the training curricula as well as farmer experimentation protocols will bring

adaptations that fit the special biophysical and socio-economic circumstance of the locale.

It is imperative to value these lead farmers as key catalysts for knowledge exchange and

innovation and to therefore invest in their development and capacity. Regular opportunities

for training and modest financial compensation are recommended to enhance their ability

to serve in the community and bolster their commitment to the agroecological principles

for improved rice productivity.

7. Conduct annual community meetings to visit demonstration plots and learn from

farmer experiences. Throughout this study, farmers expressed their desire for more visits

from extension agents and development practitioners. In many cases, farmers claimed they

had not received any visitors on their farm in years. On more than one occasion, farmers

stated they gave up on SRI because they felt extension personnel gave up on them, and had

they been encouraged to continue through visitation and additional support they would still

be practicing. It is clear that SRI has been promoted with a wide network of farmers

81
 throughout the country but much more support needs to be made available to these farmers

beyond the initial training. Holding annual exchange visits for farmers in the network and

recognizing their work can inspire greater openness to new and sometimes unconventional

ideas and promote local innovation. Annual visits would also create a two-way learning

process by enabling field agents and practitioners to see the achievements and challenges

first-hand, providing opportunities for the development of new training curricula and new

ideas for broader on-farm testing.

8. Institute demand-driven extension and advisory services to fill the gaps pertaining to

the specific challenges. While improving training protocol for farmers and establishing

lead farmers as community-based technicians can advance knowledge of SRI and increase

adoption of this production system, some challenges farmers experience may still be too

difficult to overcome and thus will require more precise technical knowledge. Providing

demand-driven extension and advisory services can help address these more complex or

pervasive problems farmers face. This extension model has been used elsewhere in the world,

and typically serves larger farmers or cooperatives seeking assistance with issues such as irrigation

design, new cultivation techniques, or marketing strategies, but it is rapidly being used with small

farmers. One innovative way to deliver this kind of service would be to enlist the help of a champion

SRI farmer who possesses the desired skills being requested. For a small fee, paid by the requesting

individual or community, this champion farmer/technician would be dispatched to provide support

in the area they are seeking assistance with. This approach can stimulate innovation through farmer-

to-farmer engagement and can create additional income for SRI farmers by utilizing the skills they

have acquired.

9. Develop better training for post-harvest management and marketing. The SRI method

generated yield increases for all farmers in this study and roughly 85% of these farmers

82
 said their yields surpassed household consumption needs. This presented new challenges

in storing, processing, and marketing surplus grain; and unfortunately, due to insufficient

post-harvest management strategies it led to higher rates of spoilage. Although SRI training

tends to focus on capacity building and skill development for cultivation practices, more

training must be provided on marketing and post-harvest management to reduce losses and

increase income generating potential. Taking groups of farmers to nearby markets, talking

with sellers and buyers, and conducting a marketplace assessment would enable farmers to

better understand market demands. Furthermore, simple training with regard to processing,

grading, sorting, packaging, and selling can help rice farmers be more competitive with

imported rice in the market. There are various factors that influence consumer demand and

educating farmers on these factors can yield a substantial impact for income generation and

farmer profitability.

10. Improve training on land preparation, equipment use, and equipment maintenance.

Reducing the drudgery with SRI is critical to getting farmers to embrace this production

system. 80% of the participants in this study perceived SRI to be more labor-intensive than

traditional cultivation practices, and the number one activity that demanded more labor was

land preparation. A minority of the participants surveyed had access to a power tiller, which

substantially reduced the labor demand for land preparation; however, more education on

the use and maintenance of this equipment is needed to ensure it stays in working condition.

Power tillers enable farmers to brush and till the land with ease and reduce land preparation

time dramatically, but without thorough training on this equipment it can be damaged

easily, as was the case with multiple farmers in Lofa County. Therefore, more training must

be devoted on the proper ways to use a power tiller as well as the essential maintenance to

83
keep this piece of equipment functioning. Investing in technicians that can travel to farmers

and communities and provide this kind of education and training could prove helpful and

work in harmony with recommendation nine (above).

84
 CONCLUSION

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is a dynamic methodology for rice cultivation that builds

on ecological principles for sustainable and resilient agriculture. This production system utilizes a

comprehensive set of agronomic practices that enhance crop and capital productivity, and it has

demonstrated substantial yield, resource conservation, cost, and resilience benefits for smallholder

farmers. SRI holds potential for significantly increasing rice production in Liberia, and doing so

using practices that save water and reduce external inputs. Liberia’s climate, land characteristics,

and water resources are favorable for lowland rice cultivation with SRI, and the grain is already

among the most popular crops grown by farming households throughout the country. However, to

maintain farmer interest in this production system, additional support from policy makers and

development practitioners is needed. Some Liberian farmers have taken up this production system

with relative ease and many describe it as a superior method for growing rice, but the lack of basic

infrastructure and technical assistance, specifically with regard to water control and post-harvest

storage and milling, has limited wide-spread adoption of SRI.

For decades Liberia has depended on imported rice for its national consumption, but the

procurement of this grain will become increasingly difficult as demand for rice soars on the world

market while climate change continues to threaten production and trade. The global population is

not expected to peak until 2060, and with much of the growth taking place in sub-Saharan Africa

(Barrett et al., 2020) – a region embattled by food deficits – competition for imported rice is likely

to intensify moving forward. Therefore, high potential agri-food innovations such as the System

of Rice Intensification hold promise for mitigating food shortages and related political instability.

Public and private sector investments in infrastructure are essential to better support domestic rice

85
producers while policy and practice can help facilitate the progress toward rice self-sufficiency in

Liberia, and ultimately contribute to the structural transformation for economic development.

86
 REFERENCES

Adhya, T. K., Linquist, B., Searchinger, T., Wassmann, R., & Yan, X. (2014). Wetting and
Drying: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Saving Water from Rice Production.
Working Paper, Installment 8 of Creating a Sustainable Food Future. Washington, DC:
World Resources Institute. Retrieved from http://www.worldresourcesreport.org

AfricaRice. (2020). AfricaRice and Liberia solidify ties to build resilient rice-based food
systems. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Abidjan,
Côte d’Ivoire. Retrieved from https://www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/africarice-and-
liberia-solidify-ties-to-build-resilient-rice-based-food-systems/

Arouna, A., Fatognon, I. A., Saito, K., & Futakuchi, K. (2021). Moving toward rice self-
sufficiency in sub-Saharan Africa by 2030: Lessons learned from 10 years of the
Coalition for African Rice Development. World Development Perspectives, 21, 100291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2021.100291

Arsil, P., Sahirman, S., Ardiansyah, H., & Hidayat, H. (2019). The reasons for farmers not to
adopt System of Rice Intensification (SRI) as a sustainable agricultural practice: an
explorative study. IOP Conference Series. Earth and Environmental Science, 250,
012063. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/250/1/012063

Barnett, H. G. (1953). Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Barrett, C. B., Benton, T., Fanzo, J., Herrero, M., Nelson R. J., et al. (2020). Socio-technical
Innovation Bundles for Agri-food Systems Transformation, Report of the International
Expert Panel on Innovations to Build Sustainable, Equitable, Inclusive Food Value
Chains. Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability and Springer
Nature.

Barrett, C.B., Islam, A., Malek, A., Pakrashi, D., & Ruthbah, U. (2021). Experimental Evidence
on Adoption and Impact of the System of Rice Intensification. Applied Economics and
Policy Working Paper Series 309950, Cornell University, Department of Applied
Economics and Management. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.309950

Beckman, J., Baquedano, F., & Countryman, A. (2021). The impacts of COVID-19 on GDP,
food prices, and food security. Q Open, 1(1), qoab005.
https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoab005

Bouman, B. A. M., Humphreys, E., Tuong, T. P., & Barker, R. (2007). Rice and Water. In D. L.
Sparks (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy (Vol. 92, pp. 187–237). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(04)92004-4

Callaway, E. (2014). Domestication: The birth of rice. Nature, 514(7524), Article 7524.
https://doi.org/10.1038/514S58a

87
Castaneda, A., Doan, D., Newhouse, D., Nguyen, M.C., Uematsu, H., & Azevedo, J.P. (2016).
Who Are the Poor in the Developing World? Policy Research Working Paper; No. 7844.
Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25161

Ceesay, M., Reid, W. S., Fernandes, E. C. M., Uphoff, N. (2006). Effects of repeated soil wetting
and drying on lowland rice yield with system of rice intensification (SRI) methods.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 4(1), 5–14.

Chambers, R., & Jiggins, J. (1987). Agricultural research for resource-poor farmers Part I:
Transfer-of-technology and farming systems research. Agricultural Administration and
Extension, 27(1), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7475(87)90008-0

Chivenge, P., Sharma, S., Bunquin, M. A., & Hellin, J. (2021). Improving Nitrogen Use
Efficiency—A Key for Sustainable Rice Production Systems. Frontiers in Sustainable
Food Systems, 5. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.737412

Del Grosso, S. J., Ogle, S. M., Nevison, C., Gurung, R., Parton, W. J., et al. (2022). A gap in
nitrous oxide emission reporting complicates long-term climate mitigation. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(31), e2200354119.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2200354119

Dobermann, A. (2004). A critical assessment of the system of rice intensification (SRI).

Agricultural Systems, 79: 261-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(03)00087-8.

EAT. (2015). USAID, Enabling Agricultural Trade (EAT). Liberia Market Study for Selected
Agricultural Products. By Fintrac, Inc. Washington, DC: USAID.

Evenson, R.E. (2001). Economic Impacts of Agricultural Research and Extension. In: Gardner,
B.L. and Rausser, G., Eds., Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 1, (pp. 573-628)
Elsevier, Baltimore.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0072(01)10014-9

Evenson, R., & Gollin, D. (2003). Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The
Impact of International Agricultural Research, eds Evenson., R, Gollin, D. (pp. 7–38)
Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing.

FAO. (2016). Save and Grow: Maize, Rice and Wheat – A Guide to Sustainable Crop
Production. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome: pp. 44-47.

FAO. (2018). Once neglected, these traditional crops are our rising stars. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Retrieved from
https://www.fao.org/fao-stories/article/en/c/1154584/

88
FAO. (2022). FAOSTAT statistical database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#country/123

Fuller, D.Q., & Stevens, C.J. (2019). Between domestication and civilization: the role of
agriculture and arboriculture in the emergence of the first urban societies. Vegetation
History Archaeobotany, 28, 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-019-00727-4

Gbenou, P., Mitchell, A.M., Sedami, A. B., & Agossou, P. N. (2016). Farmer Evaluations of The
System of Rice Intensification (SRI) Compared with Conventional Rice Production in
Benin. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 12(30), 280.
https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n30p280

Gbowee, L. (2011). Mighty be our Powers: How Sisterhood, Prayer, and sex Changed a Nation
at war. New York: Beast Books.

Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Graf, S.L., & Oya, C. (2021). Is the system of rice intensification (SRI) pro poor? Labour, class
and technological change in West Africa. Agricultural Systems, 193, 103229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103229.

Herring, R., & Paarlber, R. (2016). The Political Economy of Biotechnology. Annual Review of
Resource Economics, 2016 8:1, 397-416.

IFAD. (2019). Republic of Liberia Smallholder Agriculture Transformation and Agribusiness

Revitalization Project. The International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome,
Italy. Retrieved from https://www.ifad.org/en/web/operations/-/project/2000001194

IRRI. (2022a). Rice Knowledge Bank - Step-by-Step Production: How to Plant Rice.
International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines. Retrieved from
http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/step-by-step-production/growth/planting

IRRI. (2022b). Rice Knowledge Bank - Nitrogen (N). International Rice Research Institute, Los
Baños, Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/training/fact-
sheets/nutrient-management/item/nitrogen

IRRI. (2022c). Rice Knowledge Bank - Deficiencies and Toxicities. International Rice Research
Institute, Los Baños, Philippines. Retrieved from
http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/training/fact-sheets/nutrient-
management/deficiencies-and-toxicities-fact-sheet

IRRI. (2022d). GHG Mitigation in Rice - System of Rice Intensification (SRI). International
Rice Research Institute, Hanoi, Vietnam. Retrieved from
https://ghgmitigation.irri.org/mitigation-technologies/system-of-rice-intensification-sri

89
Ishfaq, M., Farooq, M., Zulfiqar, U., Hussain, S., Akbar, N., Nawaz, A., & Anjum, S. A. (2020).
Alternate wetting and drying: A water-saving and ecofriendly rice production system.
Agricultural Water Management, 241, 106363.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106363

Ismail, A. M., Johnson, D. E., Ella, E. S., Vergara, G. V., & Baltazar, A. M. (2012). Adaptation
to flooding during emergence and seedling growth in rice and weeds, and implications for
crop establishment. AoB Plants, 2012, pls019. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/pls019

Jiang, L., Dai, T., Jiang, D., Cao, W., Gan, X., & Wei, S. (2004). Characterizing physiological
N-use efficiency as influenced by nitrogen management in three rice cultivars. Field
Crops Research, 88(2), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2004.01.023

Johnson, C., Albrecht, G., Ketterings, Q., Beckman, J., & Stockin, K. (2005). Nitrogen Basics -
The Nitrogen Cycle. Agronomy Fact Sheet Series: Fact Sheet 2. Cornell University
Cooperative Extension. Ithaca, NY.

Kamara, A., Vonu, O.S., Lansana, J. & Sesay, F.S. (2016). Extent of Reduction of the Fallow
Period and Its Impact on Upland Rice Production in the Nongowa Chiefdom of Kenema
District in Eastern Sierra Leone. Agricultural Sciences, 7, 805-812.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/as.2016.711073

Kassam, A., Stoop, W., & Uphoff, N. (2011). Review of SRI modifications in rice crop and
water management and research issues for making further improvements in agricultural
and water productivity. Paddy and Water Environment, 9(1), 163–180.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-011-0259-1

Kritee, K., Nair, D., Zavala-Araiza, D., Proville, J., Rudek, J., et al. (2018). High nitrous oxide
fluxes from rice indicate the need to manage water for both long- and short-term climate
impacts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 115(39), 9720–9725. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809276115

Kumeh, E. M., Bieling, C., & Birner, R. (2022). Food-security corridors: A crucial but missing
link in tackling deforestation in Southwestern Ghana. Land Use Policy, 112, 105862.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105862

Laborte, A. G., Gutierrez, M. A., Balanza, J. G., Saito, K., Zwart, S. J., et al. (2017). RiceAtlas, a
spatial database of global rice calendars and production. Scientific Data, 4, 170074.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.74

Lampayan, R.M., Samoy-Pascual, K.C., Sibayan, E.B., Ella, V.B., Jayag, O.P., Cabangon, R.J.,
& Bouman, B.A.M. (2015) Effects of alternate wetting and drying (AWD) threshold level
and plant seedling age on crop performance, water input, and water productivity of
transplanted rice in Central Luzon Philippines. Paddy and Water Environment, 13 (2015),
215-227, 10.1007/s10333-014-0423-5

90
Lassaletta, L., Billen, G., Grizzetti, B., Anglade, J., & Garnier, J. (2014). 50 year trends in
nitrogen use efficiency of world cropping systems: The relationship between yield and
nitrogen input to cropland. Environmental Research Letters, 9(10), 105011.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/105011

Laulanı´e, H. (1993). Technical presentation on the System of Rice Intensification, based on

Katayama’s tillering model. Unpublished paper, translated from French, available from
Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development, Ithaca, NY.

Leon, A., & Kohyama, K. (2017). Estimating nitrogen and phosphorus losses from lowland
paddy rice fields during cropping seasons and its application for life cycle assessment.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 164 (2017), 963-979.

Linares, O. F. (2002). African rice (Oryza glaberrima): History and Future potential.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
99(25), 16360-16365.

LISGIS. (2017). Agriculture Team: Liberia Poverty Assessment - Statistical Abstract

Agricultural Recall Survey 2016. Household Income Expenditure Survey (HIES). Liberia
Institute for Statistics and Geo-Information Services. Monrovia, Liberia.

Magdoff, F., & van Es, H. (2021). Building Soils for Better Crops: Ecological Management for
Healthy Soils, 4th Edition. Sustainable Agriculture Network handbook series; bk 10.
SARE. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Printing Services.

McDonald A.J., Hobbs P.R., & Riha S.J. (2006). Does the system of rice intensification
outperform conventional best management? A synopsis of the empirical record. Field
Crops Research, 96:1, 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2005.05.003.

Mishra, A., Whitten, M., Ketelaar, J.W., & Salokhe, V.M. (2006). The system of rice
intensification (SRI): A challenge for science, and an opportunity for farmer
empowerment towards sustainable agriculture. International Journal for Agricultural
Sustainability, 4: 193– 212.

Moebius-Clune, B.N., Moebius-Clune, D.J., Gugino, B.K., Idowu, O.J., Schindelbeck, R.R., et
al., (2016). Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health – The Cornell Framework, Edition
3.2, Cornell University, Geneva, NY.

Monke, E. (1979). Rice Policy in Liberia. Food Research Institute of Stanford University.
Stanford, CA. pnaan666 6980135/62 isn-31838

Montgomery, D. (2007). Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations. University of California Press:

Berkeley, CA

91
Moore, A. (2017). Agricultural Extension in Post-Conflict Liberia: Progress Made and Lessons
Learned. Building Agricultural Extension Capacity in Post-Conflict Settings. CAB
International: Oxfordshire, UK.

Moser, C., & Barrett, C. (2003). The disappointing disadoption dynamics of yield increasing,
low-external input technology: The case of SRI in Madagascar. Agricultural Systems,
76(3), 1085-1100.

Moser, C., & Barrett, C. (2006). The complex dynamics of smallholder technology adoption:
The case of SRI in Madagascar. Agricultural Economics 35, 376-388.

Murphy, E., Erickson, K., & Tubman, M. (2016). USAID Office of Food for Peace Food
Security Desk Review for Liberia, 2016–2020. Washington, DC: FHI 360/FANTA.

Nakamura, S. (2010). The origin of rice cultivation in the Lower Yangtze Region, China.
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 2(2), 107–113.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-010-0033-0

Nayar, N.M. (2010). The history and genetic transformation of the African rice, Oryza
glaberrima Steud. (Gramineae). Current Science Association, 99, 12, pp 1681-1689.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24073492.

Norton, G., & Alwang, J. (2020). Changes in Agricultural Extension and Implications for Farmer
Adoption of New Practices. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 42, 1, 8–20.
doi:10.1002/aepp.13008

PAPD. (2018). Republic of Liberia: Pro-Poor Agenda for Prosperity and Development 2018-
2023. Liberia Revenue Authority. Monrovia, Liberia. Retrieved from
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2021/01/07/Liberia-Poverty-Reduction-
and-Growth-Strategy-49996

Peterson, A. (2016). Liberia Landscape Analysis – Working Document. Champaign, University

of Illinois: Integrating Gender and Nutrition within Agricultural Extension Services.
USAID.

Pingali, P.L., & Heisey, P.W. (1999). Cereal Crop Productivity in Developing Countries.
CIMMYT Economics Paper 99-03. Mexico D.F.: CIMMYT.

Pingali, P. (2012). Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(31), 12302-12308

Reddy, P. V. L., Kim, K.-H., & Song, H. (2013). Emerging green chemical technologies for the
conversion of CH4 to value added products. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
24, 578–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.035

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edition, New York: Free Press.

92
Sheehy, J.E., Peng, S., Dobermann, A., Mitchell, P.L., Ferrer, A., et al. (2004). Fantastic yields
in the system of rice intensification: fact or fallacy? Field Crops Research, 88:1, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2003.12.006

Shor, J. (2012). Liberia’s Rough Road to Rice Production. The Yale Globalist. New Haven, CT:
Yale University. Retrieved from https://globalist.yale.edu/in-the-
magazine/theme/liberia%E2%80%99s-rough-road-to-rice-production/

Shrestha, J., Kandel, M., Subedi, S., & Shah, K.K. (2020). Role of Nutrients in Rice (Oryza
sativa L.): A Review. Agrica, 9, 53-62. DOI 10.5958/2394-448X.2020.00008.5

Sigman, V., & Davis, K. (2017). Liberia: Desk Study of Extension and Advisory Services.
USAID, Feed the Future DLEC Project.

Sinclair, T.R. (2004). Agronomic UFOs waste valuable scientific resources. Rice Today, 3:43.
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). Los Baños, Philippines.

Soullier, G., Demont, M., Arouna, A., Lançona, F., Mendez del Villare, P. (2020). The state of
rice value chain upgrading in West Africa. Global Food Security, 25, 100365.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100365

SRI-Rice. (2008). System of Rice Intensification in Indonesia. SRI International Network and
Resources Center, Cornell University. Ithaca, NY. Photo retrieved from
http://sri.cals.cornell.edu/photogallery/index.html

SRI-Rice. (2018). Global Adoption of SRI in 2018. SRI International Network and Resources
Center, Cornell University. Ithaca, NY. Retrieved from
http://sri.cals.cornell.edu/images/global/SRI_World_Map_2018.png

SRI-Rice. (2022a). Listing of over 1400 journal articles published on SRI. SRI International
Network and Resources Center, Cornell University. Ithaca, NY. Retrieved from
http://sri.cals.cornell.edu.proxy.library.cornell.edu/research/JournalArticles.html

SRI-Rice. (2022b). SRI Information by Country: Liberia. SRI International Network and
Resources Center, Cornell University. Ithaca, NY. Retrieved from
http://sri.cals.cornell.edu/countries/liberia/index.html

Srivastava, P., Balhara, M., & Giri, B. (2020). Soil Health in India: Past History and Future
Perspective. In: Giri, B. & Varma, A. (eds) Soil Health. Soil Biology, vol 59. Springer,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44364-1_1

Stoop, W. A., Uphoff, N., & Kassam, A. (2002). A review of agricultural research issues raised
by the system of rice intensification (SRI) from Madagascar: Opportunities for improving
farming systems for resource-poor farmers. Agricultural Systems, 71(3), 249–274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00070-1

93
Styger, E., Aboubacrine, G., Attaher, M.A., & Uphoff, N. (2011). The System of Rice
Intensification as a Sustainable Agricultural Innovation: Introducing, Adapting and
Scaling up a System of Rice Intensification Practices in the Timbuktu Region of Mali.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9:1, 67-75.
DOI: 10.3763/ijas.2010.0549

Styger, E., & Jenkins, D. (2014). Technical Manual for SRI in West Africa: Improving and
Scaling up the System of Rice Intensification in West Africa. Ithaca, NY: SRI-Rice.

Styger E., & Traoré, G. (2018). 50,000 Farmers in 13 Countries: Results from Scaling up the
System of Rice Intensification in West Africa; Achievements and Regional Perspectives
for SRI; SRI-WAAPP Project Summary Report, 2014-2016; West Africa Agriculture
Productivity Program (WAAPP). Dakar: West and Central Africa Council for
Agricultural Research and Development.

Styger, E., & N. Uphoff. (2016). The System of Rice Intensification: Revisiting Agronomy for a
Changing Climate. GACSA Practice Brief. Global Alliance for Climate-Smart
Agriculture. Rome: FAO.

Takahashi, K., & Barrett, C. (2014). The System of Rice Intensification and its impacts on
household income and child schooling: Evidence from rural Indonesia. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics, 96(1), 269-289.

Tata Ngome, P. I., Shackleton, C., Degrande, A., Nossi, E. J., & Ngome, F. (2019). Assessing
household food insecurity experience in the context of deforestation in Cameroon. Food
Policy, 84, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.02.003

Tayefeh, M., Sadeghi, S. M., Noorhosseini, S. A., Bacenetti, J., & Damalas, C. A. (2018).
Environmental impact of rice production based on nitrogen fertilizer use. Environmental
Science and Pollution Research, 25(16), 15885–15895.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1788-6

Thakur, A. K., & Uphoff, N. T. (2017). How the System of Rice Intensification Can Contribute
to Climate-Smart Agriculture. Agronomy Journal, 109(4), 1163–1182.
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2016.03.0162

Thies, J.E., & Grossman, J.M. (2006). The Soil Habitat and Soil Ecology. In: Uphoff, N., et al.
ed Thies, J.E. Biological Approaches to Sustainable Soil Systems. (pp. 59– 78). CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Thiyagarajan, T. M., Pandian, B. J., & Ranghaswami, M. V. (2009). Principles and practices of
SRI in Tamil Nadu. Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu: Water Technology Centre, Tamil Nadu
Agricultural University. pp. 1–44

94
Tian, H., Xu, R., Canadell, J. G., Thompson, R. L., Winiwarter, W., et al. (2020). A
comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks. Nature,
586(7828), 248–256. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2780-0

Timmer, C.P., & Akkus, S. (2008). The Structural Transformation as a Pathway out of Poverty:
Analytics, Empirics and Politics. Working Paper 150. Center for Global Development,
Washington, DC.

Tonini, A., & Cabrera, E. (2011). Globalizing rice research for a changing world (Technical
Bulletin No. 15). International Rice Research Institute. Los Baños, Philippines.

UN DESA. (2022). World Population Prospects. Summary of Results. United Nations

Department of Economic and Social Affairs. UN DESA/POP/2022/TR/ NO.3. New
York, USA.

UNDP. (2022a). Human Development Index - Country Report for Liberia. United Nations
Development Programme, New York City, NY. Retrieved from https://hdr.undp.org/data-
center/specific-country-data#/countries/LBR

UNDP. (2022b). UNDP grant recipient launches climate-smart commercial lowland seed rice.
United Nations Development Programme - Liberia. Monrovia, Liberia. Retrieved from
https://www.lr.undp.org/content/liberia/en/home/presscenter/articles

UN-Water. (2021). UN-Water Analytical Brief on Water Use Efficiency. Geneva, Switzerland:
UN. Retrieved from https://www.unwater.org/publications/un-water-analytical-brief-
water-use-efficiency

Uphoff, N. (2003). Higher yields with fewer external inputs? The System of Rice Intensification
and potential contribution to agricultural sustainability. International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability, 1, 38-50.

Uphoff, N., A. Ball, E. Fernandes, H. Herren, O. Husson, M. Laing, C. Palm, J. Pretty, P.

Sanchez, N. Sanginga & J. Thies, eds. (2006). Biological Approaches to Sustainable Soil
Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420017113

Uphoff, N. (2016). Developments in the system of rice intensification (SRI). Achieving

Sustainable Rice Cultivation, Vol. 2. Burleigh-Dodds, Cambridge, UK.

Uphoff, N., Kassam, A., & Harwood, R. (2011). SRI as a methodology for raising crop and
water productivity: productive adaptations in rice agronomy and irrigation water
management. Paddy and Water Environment 9, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-
010-0224-4

USDA-ERS. (2022). Rice Sector at a Glance. Economic Research Service of the United States
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/rice/rice-sector-at-a-glance/#Global

95
US EPA. (2013). The Effects: Dead Zones and Harmful Algal Blooms [Overviews and
Factsheets]. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/effects-dead-zones-
and-harmful-algal-blooms

Veeraputhiran, R., Balasubramanian, R., & Pandian, B.J. (2014). Effect of mechanical weeding
in System of Rice Intensification and its adoption. Indian Journal of Weed Science,
46(4): 383–385.

Vinck, P., Pham, P.N., & Kreutzer, T. (2011). Talking Peace: A Population-Based Survey on
Attitudes about Security, Dispute Resolution, and Post-Conflict Reconstruction in
Liberia. Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley.

Webb, P., & Block, S. (2012). Support for agriculture during economic transformation: Impacts
on poverty and undernutrition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
109(31), 12309–12314. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913334108

World Bank. (2022). The World Bank Data: Liberia. World Bank. Washington, DC.
Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/country/liberia

Zhao, L.M., L.H. Wu, Y.S. Li, X.H. Lu, D.F. Zhu, N. Uphoff. (2009). Influence of the system of
rice intensification on rice yield and nitrogen and water use efficiency with different N
application rates. Experimental Agriculture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK. 45: pp 275– 286. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479709007583

96
 APPENDIX

A: Focus Group Discussion Questionnaire

1. When and how did you learn about SRI?

a. Can I see a show of hands, how many attended an in-person training (formal) and
how many learned from another farmer (informal)?

2. What made you want to try SRI on your farm?

3. Have you seen increases in yield since switching to SRI?

a. Yields before and after?

4. How is SRI different from what you were doing before?

5. Have you tried experimenting with different SRI practices?

a. Which ones?

6. Which SRI practices do you believe result in more yields?

a. I have heard from other farmers that ___________ is a common practice. Is it

possible to try this practice here?

b. If no, why not?

7. What are the biggest challenges with SRI?

8. How do you control weeds?

a. How many times in one rice season do you weed?

9. Why do you think some farmers adopt SRI and other choose not to?

97
10. How are SRI farmers and conventional rice farmers different from each other?

11. What is the most important source of new agricultural ideas and information?
a. Ex. Family members, neighbors, extension agents, NGOs, input suppliers, radio,
mobile phone, internet, etc.

12. Would receiving farming information by mobile phone be helpful?

a. Yes, how?

b. No, why?

13. In what ways do you think trainings about SRI can be improved?

98
B. Semi-Structured Interview Questionnaire

General Farm Information

1. How long have you been farming rice in this area?

a. Besides rice, do you raise any livestock/animals or other crops?

2. How many acres (units) of land do you farm?

a. How much of it is in rice (rough percentage)?

3. What time of the year do the rains come? When do you plant rice?

a. How many times do you harvest rice in one year?

4. What do you do with rice harvested?

a. Eating/household consumption
b. Sale/market
c. Both

5. Is farming your only source of income? Other income sources?

6. Can you tell me about the labor/workforce on your farm?

a. In general, is it family/household members, or do you hire additional labor?

7. How would you describe the soil quality on your farm, is it fertile soil (good or bad)?

a. Have you noticed if the soil is changing over time?

b. Have you tested your soil? How?

c. Do you use any soil amendments/fertilizers? If yes, what kind?

99
System of Rice Intensification (SRI)

8. When and how did you learn about SRI?

a. Did you attend a training?

9. What made you want to try SRI on your farm?

a. Have you seen increases in your rice yield since switching to SRI?

i. What was your average harvest yield before SRI?

ii. What is your average harvest yield after SRI?

b. How long have you been growing rice with SRI?

10. How many seeds you have sown to plant with SRI (kg)?

11. How is SRI different from what you were doing before?

12. What practices do you use when doing SRI?

a. Have you tried different SRI practices?

13. In your experience, are there any practices that result in more yields?

a. I have heard from other farmers that ____________ practice is common in some
places. Have you tried this on your farm?

b. Is it possible to try this here? Why, or why not?

14. What are the biggest challenges with SRI for you?

15. What farming tools are you using (weeder, hoe, cutlass, etc.)?

a. How do you control weeds in your SRI fields?

100
 b. How many times do you weed in one rice season?

16. How do you manage water in your SRI fields?

a. Can you control water during the vegetative (early) phase?

b. Can you control water during the reproductive (late) phase?

17. Have you shared what you know about SRI with other people?
a. Ex. Family members, friends, neighbors, or others.

b. Have they tried SRI in their fields?

c. Do they still practice SRI?

Social Capital and Networks

18. What is the most important source of new agricultural ideas and information for you?

19. Besides CHAP, are there other agricultural organizations working in this area? Who?

a. How often do you receive advice from this/these organization(s)?

20. Do government extension agents provide you with agricultural services/advice?

a. Do government extension agents live in or around this area?

b. How often do you receive agricultural advice from government extension?

21. Do you ever work together (collectively) with other farmers in agricultural activities?
a. Ex. Land preparation, transplanting, weeding, harvesting, etc.?

b. What kind of farmer cooperation is most common?

22. Are there any organized farmer groups, associations, or cooperatives in this area?

101
 a. What kind of services do they provide to farmers?

b. Is there a fee to join these groups?

23. Are there any ‘lead farmers’ that serve as a resource for other farmers in this area?

24. Do you receive agricultural information or training materials through mobile phone
services?

a. Would getting information about farming sent to your mobile phone be helpful?

Final Question

25. What ways do you think SRI training can be improved?

102