Madagascar and The Case of SRI

(Source: Mada Magazine)

This week’s post will be focused on Madagascar. The reason for choosing Madagascar is because I find that it is a country that is often overlooked when talking about Africa. Some developments have occurred over the past few decades which have the potential to improve the agriculture in Madagascar.

Madagascar is the 4th largest island in the world with a total population of 25 million. The GDP per capita (PPP) in 2017 was $1,600, ranking 218 out of 228 countries, and Madagascar’s poverty rate is one of the highest in Africa with 70.7% living below the international poverty line of $1.25/day (CIA, n/d). Food insecurity is a major issue in Madagascar, along with a general lack of basic services including electricity and water.

Around 70% of the total population are farmers with majority being smallholders who cultivate for subsistence. The most common crops are maize, rice and cassava which are cultivated by 72%, 89% and 91% of farmers respectively (Harvey et al, 2014). Additionally, farmers may choose to cultivate other crops such as sweet potatoes and bananas. Even though 89% of farmers in Madagascar harvest rice, a study undertaken by Harvey found that around 75% of households do not produce enough rice to last the entire year with a heightened food shortage during the ‘lean’ season from December to March (Harvey et al, 2014).

System of Rice Intensification

The system of rice intensification (SRI) was developed in Madagascar in the 1980s by a French priest who was working with farmers in Madagascar. Initial trials in Madagascar showed the potential that SRI had to improve rice cultivation as yields increased by 50-100% and water usage was reduced by around a half (Uphoff et al, 2002). Instead of using flood-based methods to grow rice, small amounts of water are used during the vegetation growth period – enough to keep the soil moist, but well drained (McHugh et al, 2002). The saved water can then be used in other day-to-day activities. There are 5 recommended practices to maximise the yield when using SRI (Moser et al, 2002a):

1. Early transplanting
2. The planting of singular seeds
3. Wide spacing
4. Frequent irrigation and good water control
5. Frequent weeding

No machinery required, local seed varieties can be used and minimal external inputs are involved so even the poorest of farmers would be able to use this method if desired. Fertilisers are not necessary in SRI which is a bonus as many farmers in Madagascar simply cannot afford to buy fertilisers (Moser et al, 2002b). Table 1 shows the differences between using SRI vs using the conventional method of flooding the field. Generally, the yield for all locations was almost double when using SRI. Given the farmers’ reliance on rice for both income and personal consumption, SRI would seem like an ideal solution for farmers in Madagascar.

Table 1 – Mean grain yield for conventional vs intensive practices (t ha-1 paddy rice)

(source: McHugh et al, 2002)

Low adoption, high disadoption 

Despite all the benefits SRI brings for farmers in Madagascar, the adoption of SRI methods has been low and the disadoption has been increasing, as seen in figure 1, which is the complete opposite of what was expected by NGOs who were promoting SRI. The proportion of households adopting SRI increased and peaked in 1998 but the proportion disadopting SRI increased throughout the 1990s.

Figure 1 – The evolution of SRI adoption

(Source: Moser et al, 2002b)

Intense labour effort is required when using SRI and for many farmers, they simply do not have the time during rice-growing season as they are busy working in other farmers’ land to make money for immediate consumption needs (Moser et al, 2002a). Since many of the farmers rely on immediate agricultural wages, they are unable to wait for SRI returns to materialise. As a result, the farmer’s opportunity cost of labour is too high to justify adopting SRI. Figure 2 shows the sources of income for households for the adopters, disadopters and non-adopters of SRI. Those who adopt SRI generally has a source of income which comes from non-rice growing season produce such as milk and potatoes or metal work. Disadopters are mainly those who have a salary or work in traditional crafts or trade. It is estimated that SRI uses 38-45% more labour than other methods (Moser et al, 2002b).

Figure 2 – Sources of income for households

(Source: Moser et al, 2002b)

Although SRI looks good and promising on paper, the application of it in day-to-day life is very different as there is a large opportunity cost of labour for farmers. Given the economic status of Madagascar, it is not surprising that a number of farmers have disadopted SRI and unfortunately, the Madagascan government has done little to try to help. In order for SRI to be successful in Madagascar, which I believe that it has the potential to be and has been in many other countries, something must be done about the farmers’ cash flow problem to allow SRI to succeed in Madagascar.