Keywords

1.1 Agricultural Development and Rice Cultivation in Asia

Agricultural development in Asia has undergone multiple phases and has experienced a remarkable evolution that also advanced general economic development. The region has become a major agricultural producer in the world due to the Green Revolution in the second half of the twentieth century (Hazell 2009). In particular, its rice exports have become essential for today’s global food security (De Koninck and Rousseau 2013; OECD-FAO 2017). Asia is a net rice-exporting region accounting for 70% of the world’s rice exports, and Africa’s food security highly depends on Asia’s ability to maintain its agricultural exports (FAO 2014). South Asian (SA)and South East Asian (SEA) countries are considerable contributors to local, regional, and global food security (FAO 2014). Today, most Asian countries are at a transitional stage of agricultural development that follow relatively modern farming practices (Seck et al. 2012; Lagerqvist and Connell 2018). In general, a dual-household economy in which subsistence agriculture combined with other income-generating activities within or outside the agriculture sector has become the norm (Lim 2004; Lagerqvist and Connell 2018). Nevertheless, traditional lowland and upland rainfed rice farming supplies over 20% of global rice production and is mainly located in South and Southeast Asia with relatively low yields, little input use, and high seasonal variability (Seck et al. 2012; GRiSP 2013).

New challenges have emerged due to environmental, social, and economic imbalances across Asia. These limit agricultural growth and threaten rural livelihoods. The negative effects of fast agricultural and economic growth materialize in environmental degradation, lingering food insecurity, increased disparities, and marginalized peripheral regions (Pingali 2012). Rice farmers often use excessive amounts of agricultural inputs, such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, seeds, and water. Thus, they have a particularly large environmental footprint because their intensive farming practices affect the environment due to unsustainable natural resources use (Čuček et al. 2015; OEDC and FAO 2017). Consequently, rice farming contributes to environmental degradation in Asia and plays a significant role in emitting greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. Globally, rice accounts for about 11% of all anthropogenic methane emissions (IPCC 2013; Jiang et al. 2017). This poses a threat to human health, biodiversity, and global food security (Redfern et al. 2012).

1.2 The Green Revolution in Asia

Rice has been the preeminent crop in Asia for over 2,000 years. Traditional wet rice-farming practices were developed in southern China (Rigg 1991; GRiSP 2013). Since the late nineteenth century, agriculture in Asia has become industrialized due to land expansion and a significant rise in population (Boomgaard 2007). In the second half of the twentieth century, public investments, policy support, and research for modern agricultural development were initiated to transform global agriculture and avoid food shortages (De Koninck 2003; FAO 2004; GRiSP 2013). Between the 1950s and 1980s, the agricultural productivity of smallholder rice and wheat farmers in Asia and Latin America significantly increased due to a continuous process of change driven by an agricultural technology revolution known as the Green Revolution (Hazell 2009). New farming methods were introduced to developing countries through the implementation of agricultural modernization policies. In combination, these elements accelerated agricultural productivity growth and prevented millions of people from starving (Kaosa-ard and Rerkasem 1999; De Koninck 2003; FAO 2004).

A key element for the rise of the Green Revolution was the introduction of ‘improved’ crop varieties with a main focus on rice in Asia (FAO 2004; Hazell 2009). High-yielding varieties (HYVs) were developed with the aid of modern plant-breeding techniques starting in the 1950s (Kaosa-ard and Rerkasem 1999; De Koninck 2003; FAO 2004). These improved varieties were generally superior to traditional varieties. They had a higher yield potential, improved tolerance to pests and diseases, better adaptability to a broad range of latitudes, more insensitivity to the length of daylight, as well as faster responsiveness to fertilizer and irrigation (Kaosa-ard and Rerkasem 1999; Hazell 2009). Furthermore, the new varieties often required a shorter growth period. This made it possible to establish intensive cropping systems by increasing cropping ratios from one to at least two crops a year (GRiSP 2013). In most Asian countries, irrigated lowland rice cultivation became the standard (Hazell 2009; De Koninck 2003). HYVs were shown to reach 10 t/ha under ideal conditions in combination with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides (Hazell 2009; GRiSP 2013). This was a significant increase compared to the 2 t/ha average rice yields from local varieties (Kaosa-ard and Rerkasem 1999; Lim 2004; GRiSP 2013). Overall, in developing countries, rice yields rose by 109% between 1960 and 2000 with an average annual production increase of over 2% (FAO 2004; Rapsomanikis 2015).

In Asia particularly, agricultural production has grown twice as fast as the global average since 1960 (De Koninck and Rousseau 2013). This rapid growth over the past five decades has been an essential characteristic of Asia’s agricultural and economic evolution. Rural poverty has declined substantially and GDP per capita has grown strongly in Asia from the 1980s onwards (World Bank 2022). Furthermore, absolute poverty fell by 28% from 1975 to 1995, although the total population in the region grew by 60% over that same period (Fogel 2009; Hazell 2009). Reduced poverty resulted directly from increased farmer income due to higher outputs and improved profitability of smallholder farmers due to reduced prices of agricultural products. Indirectly, new employment opportunities in postharvest operations raised employee wages. Rapid rice production increases stimulated the demand and prices for land, labor, nonagricultural goods, and services (FAO 2004; Hazell 2009). Agricultural exports multiplied and countries’ export performance was strengthened (De Koninck and Rousseau 2013). Furthermore, modern agricultural production systems required far less human labor. Consequently, migration to favorable areas where employment opportunities were higher bolstered rural incomes. This created new off-farm activities and led to more diversification of rural economies. A significant surplus labor force benefited the industrial sector. The new industrial labor force then profited from the reduction in staple food prices and rising incomes from 1960 to the early 2000s. In this regard, lower food prices with increased income levels changed salary spending ratios. This allowed for higher spending capacity, particularly for the poor, and hence for rapid economic growth. In addition, the impact on nutrition due to an increase in per capita food supply met the needs of millions in Asia (Hazell 2009; Pingali 2012).

Without the modern technologies and practices of the Green Revolution, world food prices would have been 35–65% higher today. Moreover, it has been estimated that without the creation of the CGIAR centers and national and international breeding programs, total food production quantities in developing countries would have been almost 20% lower (Pingali 2012). As a whole, the positive economic effects of the Green Revolution were especially beneficial for the poor. They gained relatively more from the agricultural productivity growth and decreasing food prices because they spend a higher share of their income on food (Kaosa-ard and Rerkasem 1999; McKittrick 2012; Pingali 2012). Thus, agriculture has shown to be an engine of economic growth, particularly for the rural nonfarm economy (FAO 2004; Hazell 2009). Today, Asia is a major producer of grains for the world and holds a global rice production share of 90%. This is mainly because more than half of the global rice production is concentrated in China and India (OECD-FAO 2020).

1.3 Current Challenges for Sustainable Agricultural Development in Asia

The impact of the Green Revolution on the environment is seen twofold. On the one hand, it is regarded as the crucial element to have impeded the conversion of millions of hectares of land, particularly forests, for agricultural use worldwide. Thus, it curbed deforestation and saved natural habitats. On the other hand, the Green Revolution is seen as an environmental failure due to unprecedented levels of environmental degradation that it is accused of causing (McKittrick 2012; Pingali 2012). The main reasons for today’s environmental problems are (1) the extreme and inappropriate use of fertilizers and pesticides, (2) false irrigation practices that lead to high salinity degrees in soils, and (3) dropping groundwater levels because of bad irrigation practices (Rapsomanikis 2015). The improper management and overuse of modern inputs paired with a strong push in favor of cultivating rice as a monoculture have led to water and air pollution as well as soil nutrient depletion, desertification, biodiversity losses, and pest resistance (McKittrick 2012; Pingali 2012; Rapsomanikis 2015). Intensive irrigation and mechanization practices have reduced groundwater levels (Yu et al. 2021). This has accelerated soil degradation, such as loss of soil fertility, soil salinization and hardening as well as chemical runoff polluting soil and waterways resulting in yield decline (Yu et al. 2021). Consequently, this has led to severe environmental impacts beyond the areas cultivated in many regions of the world (McKittrick 2012; Pingali 2012; Rapsomanikis 2015) including impacts on biodiversity (Tilman et al. 2011). These issues have been intensified by inadequate extension services and institutional deficiencies. Furthermore, governmental policies have focused intensely on input pricing subsidies that made modern inputs cheap and encouraged excessive use (McKittrick 2012; Pingali 2012). Nevertheless, the environmental implications as such were not just caused by the technologies and practices introduced during the Green Revolution but also by a policy environment that promoted the excessive overuse of inputs (Hazell 2009; Pingali 2012).

Multiple risks concerning agriculture in Asia are expected to be tied to climate change and related extreme weather events. More frequent storms, droughts, flooding, and rising sea levels are significant threats to low-lying coastal areas. Coastal zones are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Four types of primary physical effects are of major concern in SA and SEA: saline water intrusion, drainage congestion, extreme events, and changes in coastal morphology (Alam and Sawhney 2019). With regard to rice cultivation, climate change is expected to have a significant impact on yields and cultivation practices. GRiSP simulations for the main rice-growing regions of Asia forecasted that for every 1 °C rise in mean temperature, yield decreases of 7–10% will occur. In addition, the issues of water scarcity and salinity in the low-lying coastal areas are increasing, intensely hitting the SEA rice sector which is highly dependent on water for irrigation. GRiSP estimates show that 15–20 Mha of irrigated rice cultivation areas will suffer some degree of water scarcity by 2025 (GRiSP 2013). Hence, to counteract the adverse effects of climate change, the agriculture sector must also direct its effort toward mitigating the risks. Current policy environments, especially in SA and SEA, have not yet considerably changed their adaptation responses due to many conflicts of interest related to short-term economic goals. This could potentially exacerbate the negative impacts of climate change in the region (OECD-FAO 2017; Alam and Sawhney 2019).

Still, agricultural productivity in Asia is projected to increase during the upcoming years. This optimistic forecast is due mainly to improved total-factor productivity (TFP) over the past decades. TFP is growth from factors other than additional land, labor, capital, and material inputs (fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) (FAO 2017). Between 2001 and 2013, 60% of output growth was achieved by TFP growth due to farmers enhancing allocative efficiency. Hence, most of the agricultural output rise has been due to factors other than the higher use of conventional inputs. This was achieved by, e.g., crop diversification and intensification. This includes irrigation infrastructure expansion and the use of improved seed varieties (OECD-FAO 2017, 2020). An example is planting drought-tolerant varieties. Drought is a major problem because it is the most widespread and damaging of all environmental stresses. Thus, promoting adapted varieties can improve productivity more sustainably due to a reduced need for irrigation (IRRI 2018a).

In SA and SEA, the relative weight of the agricultural sector has been declining (Barichello 2004). Agricultural growth has stagnated since the mid-1980s in contrast to national GDP increases. Returns on investment have been declining, and fertilizer and seed prices have increased significantly since the beginning of the 2000s (GRiSP 2013). As the main technologies from the Green Revolution are based on fossil fuels, farmers have become more vulnerable to external forces, particularly price hikes in the global oil market (Kaosa-ard and Rerkasem 1999; GRiSP 2013). Up until today, the agriculture sector remains the primary source of employment for the increasing population in Asia and the widening of income discrepancies between rural and urban areas in most Asian countries is ongoing. Regarding poverty reduction since the Green Revolution, an overall increase of 1% in crop productivity reduced the number of people living in poverty only by 0.48% (De Koninck and Rousseau 2013; Pingali 2012; Rigg et al. 2016). Although significant progress in terms of improving food security has been achieved since the 1990s, wide discrepancies between Asian countries remain (OECD-FAO 2017). Agriculture and food security policy efforts focus mostly on rice. Rice self-sufficiency is the primary emphasis in policymaking for most Asian countries. Importing countries (e.g., Indonesia, the Philippines) use strategies such as price support, trade barriers, and input subsidies to boost domestic production. Exporting countries (e.g., Thailand and Vietnam) use policies that directly intervene in export markets through taxes, bans, or licensing arrangements and keep back a certain quantity of rice production to assure their food security (OECD-FAO 2017). As a consequence of the distortion of rice prices, overall agricultural resource allocation is affected. Farmers are pushed to continue low-productivity rice farming and avoid profitable diversification of cultivation. This in turn limits the production of higher-value crops and higher agricultural incomes which can enhance agricultural development. Furthermore, the elevated price for staple foods may hamper the possibility for low-income households to afford enough food in general. Subsequently, this increases the current levels of food insecurity in vulnerable households and limits the opportunity for a healthy diet (OECD-FAO 2017).

1.4 Swiss Foreign Aid for Agricultural Development in Asia

1.4.1 Switzerland’s Efforts Toward Sustainable Development

The Swiss government has been actively involved in international development assistance for over 60 years. Since its beginnings in development assistance, Switzerland has remained focused on fighting poverty and providing humanitarian aid (Waldburger et al. 2012). Switzerland’s budget for official development assistance (ODA) aid has risen considerably over the decades (Holenstein 2010; Waldburger et al. 2012). Today, the Swiss government’s contribution to global development efforts is one of the highest in the world. It has risen from CHF 2.4 billion in 2010 to CHF 3.3 billion in 2020 (SDC 2021a). The central implementing entities are the SDC and the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (FDFA 2017). Globally, Switzerland ranks in 12th place in absolute numbers for development cooperation expenditures and 9th place in its ODA to gross national income (GNI) ratio (SDC 2023). In this regard, the Swiss development activities directly impact international foreign aid strategies and have significant implications for advancing sustainable development worldwide.

SDC’s current strategy focuses on alleviating poverty and promoting peace for sustainable development following the 2030 Agenda. It advances long-term solutions for enabling access to essential resources and services, namely employment, food, water, healthcare, and education (FDFA 2011; SDC 2019a, d). This is achieved by the SDC’s ‘Global Programmes’ which address five global challenges: climate change, food security, water management, health, and migration (SDC 2021b). Thereby, the country actively engages in large-scale, worldwide advancements for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. Through its ‘Global Programme Food Security,’ SDC seeks to improve production systems and rural services that favor the sustainable use of natural resources and fight hunger and malnutrition. By promoting sustainable agriculture, the aim is to provide a healthy and balanced diet to vulnerable and marginalized groups, preserve biodiversity, and secure constant food access to reach food security (SDC 2019c, d). The SDC works with multiple international, national, regional, and local institutions to ensure access to good-quality food in its priority regions. For example, it collaborates with CGIAR, a global association of 15 international agricultural research centers. There is a strong emphasis on increasing smallholder resilience with regard to the harmful effects of climate change. Improving adaptation to changing environmental conditions, specifically focusing on biodiversity, is a major focus. In this context, SDC works on six food and agriculture-related challenges (SDC 2019c, d): (1) access to food; (2) production, advisory services, and marketing for smallholder and family farming; (3) land rights; (4) biodiversity; (5) preventing desertification and soil erosion; and (6) food aid.

The largest number of smallholder farmers in the world is in Asia with around 420 million or 74% of small farms globally. The majority is located in China and India and 9% are in SEA (ca. 50 million) (Lowder et al. 2016; SDC 2019e). Smallholders in SA and SEA deal with multiple difficulties and threats to their livelihoods (Reardon and Timmer 2014; Rapsomanikis 2015; Lagerqvist and Connell 2018). The major challenge lies in the economic balance between fair commodity prices for smallholder farmers on the one side and achieving affordable prices for low-income populations on the other side (Reardon and Timmer 2014; Lagerqvist and Connell 2018). In this regard, SDC’s current strategy emphasizes that Asia is a critical region for expanding its long-term food security program strategy on planetary health and global environmental sustainability (SDC 2020f). Around 30% of SDC’s budget is directed toward Asia, especially countries in SA and SEA. Technical cooperation for sustainable development in agriculture and climate change adaptation strategies are set as the key responsibilities (SDC 2019b, 2020a, b). Activities include disseminating low carbon-emission technologies, reducing agricultural input use, creating farmer business models, and introducing crop insurance schemes (SDC 2017, 2018).

1.4.2 History and Evolution of the CORIGAP Project (2013–2023)

The SDC-funded CORIGAP project aimed to improve rice farmers’ livelihoods by promoting sustainable agriculture practices in six Asian countries (SDC 2020c). These were China, Indonesia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam. The project focused on reducing yield gaps and optimizing the productivity of lowland intensive rice cultivation to diminish farmers’ environmental footprint and improve food security, advance gender and youth equity, and alleviate poverty. It did so by supporting farmers to optimize productivity, resource use efficiency, and sustainability of irrigated rice production systems. The three main targets were to increase farmers’ rice yields by 10%, to raise their profitability by 20%, and to reach more than 500,000 farmers by 2022. Hence, the CORIGAP project addressing these issues was an important element in supporting the objectives of SDC’s ‘Global Programme Food Security’ (IRRI 2017a; SDC 2020a, b, c, d, e, f).

The CORIGAP project built on the success of the Irrigated Rice Research Consortium (IRRC) (1997–2012), which was managed by IRRI and funded by SDC. The focus of the IRRC was the natural resource management of lowland irrigated rice systems. It began in 1997 with two discipline-based work groups, one on nutrient management and the other on integrated pest management. In 2005, the IRRC expanded to include work groups on best practices for fertilizer use as well as pest, water, and postharvest management and included a country outreach program that was led by country partners. Palis et al. (2010a) provide a brief history of the IRRC and its evolution. Palis et al. (2010b) present case studies on the impact of the IRRC. An external assessment of the impact of Phases I to IV of the IRRC covered economic, agronomic, and social-extension aspects of the project (Rejesus et al. 2014). An estimated return on investment (benefit–cost ratio) across the four phases was in the vicinity of 4:1. In addition, the project demonstrated substantial impacts on national policymaking in the 10 partner countries from SA and SEA (Rejesus et al. 2014). CORIGAP evolved from this platform of adaptive and inclusive research and outreach with a strong focus on understanding the needs of farming communities in each region and then established research trials in farmers’ fields that addressed site-specific issues. In addition, CORIGAP used adoption-diffusion strategies to promote national policies on agricultural best management practices (BMP) adapted for each country in collaboration with country officials, regional leaders, and other development projects (IRRI 2017a; Flor et al. 2021). The project built on good agricultural practices that were environmentally sustainable and supported the development of science-based, quantitative tools and participatory methods. Multiple stakeholders, such as national agriculture departments, civil society groups, farmer cooperatives, the private sector associated with the rice value chain, and NGOs, partnered together (SDC 2020c). Based on the analysis of smallholder needs assessment, interventions to improve the management of lowland irrigated rice production were selected (Willett and Barroga 2016; Flor et al. 2016). CORIGAP’s first phase began in 2013 and lasted until 2016. The second phase started in 2017 and ended in March 2023 (IRRI 2014; SDC 2020c).

Closing rice yield gaps, increasing farmers’ incomes, providing evidence-based input into national policies on rice production, and improving environmental sustainability were the main projected outcomes. Yield gaps are the difference between the maximum potential yield and the actual farm yield (Rabbinge 1993; Lewandowski et al. 2018). Potential yield is only constrained by genotype and environment. The larger the gap between potential yield and actual farm yield, the higher the opportunity to improve farming practices to increase production quantities. In rice production systems, the economically attainable yield or exploitable yield is defined as 80% of the potential yield (Rabbinge 1993; Stuart et al. 2016). Exploitable yield is limited by the same factors as potential yield and additionally by agronomic practice, socioeconomic and institutional factors as well as access to inputs and technology (Stuart et al. 2016). To reduce yield gaps in rice production, concentrating on the gap between actual yield and exploitable yield is essential. In this regard, focusing on smallholder farmers is crucial. They produce most of the food consumed in the developing world and, specifically, rice in SA and SEA (Rapsomanikis 2015). However, productivity growth has been stagnating, particularly for small farms. There are multiple reasons for this current situation. One major factor is the suboptimal use of inputs. Also, insufficient adoption of best management practices and technologies slows the improvement of agricultural efficiency. Therefore, it is crucial to assist smallholders in adopting innovations to reduce their yield gap. Furthermore, enhancing labor productivity is of particular interest because it pushes food production and employment opportunities. Increased labor productivity through optimal technology use strengthens the demand for skilled labor and thus raises rural wages (Rapsomanikis 2015).

1.4.2.1 CORIGAP Phase 1: 2013–2016

The main objective of CORIGAP Phase 1 was to assess farmers’ agricultural practices. This gave a better understanding of rice yield gaps and their contribution to food security. Two key studies early in the project were those by Stuart et al. (2016) on yield gaps in rice production at a country level and by Devkota et al. (2019) on economic and environmental indicators of sustainable rice production. Findings from these studies set a platform for collaborative research in each of the six CORIGAP countries on closing yield gaps by targeting country-specific best practices for rice production that reduce negative environmental impacts including the carbon footprint of rice production (see Chapter 5, this book). Case studies highlighting the successful outcomes and impacts of CORIGAP are provided in this book.

Through strong in-country partnerships and tools, such as participatory methods (e.g., learning alliances and farmer-participatory research), CORIGAP fostered collaborations and outreach. Hence, in its first phase, the project was able to generate evidence on farming practices through an integrated approach to crop management and natural resource management. Furthermore, it guided dissemination strategies for sustainable rice production with the goal of reducing rice yield gaps. These achievements positively impacted national policy decisions in the CORIGAP countries (Willett and Barroga 2016).

The following activities were conducted in six irrigated rice granaries in Asia (SDC 2020c; IRRI 2020):

  • Assessment of needs and constraints of farmers and other stakeholders along the rice value chain in six rice granaries to create appropriate monitoring and evaluation systems for improved rice production by introducing innovations.

  • Development of a ‘field calculator,’ a computational framework to evaluate integrated, high-yielding and profitable rice production systems with minimum environmental footprint.

  • Use of adaptive research concepts to establish an iterative process between farmers, extension agents, and relevant rice value chain partners to test cropping systems and technologies in two major rice granaries by 2016 and in six granaries by 2020.

  • Development of mechanisms for outreach and scaling up of best management practices to be effectively used by 10,000 smallholder farmers in Vietnam, China, and Thailand. This includes farmer-participatory videos, business model development, and strengthening the market integration of farmers.

  • Improvement of national extension partners’ capacity and stakeholders’ abilities to use the developed tools and methodologies and increase knowledge on sustainable rice production to generate changes at the policy level.

In Table 1.1, the technologies introduced during the CORIGAP project in the six project countries are described. These technologies serve as tools for farmers to support their development toward more sustainable rice cultivation. Different technologies were recommended for each country as farmers have different needs and are at different levels agronomically. Furthermore, environmental conditions also determined the introduction of a technology to a specific region or not. Overall, alternate wetting and drying (AWD), drum seeder, and laser land leveler are the technologies that were introduced in most CORIGAP countries.

Table 1.1 Technologies and practices introduced and supported by the CORIGAP project
Full size table

In the following, the progress of CORIGAP Phase 1 is demonstrated year by year from 2013 to 2016.

2013. In the first year, progress in China and Vietnam was strongest due to the previous implementation of national policy programs during the IRRC Phase IV, namely three control technologies (3CT) in China and ‘One Must Do, Five Reductions’ (1M5R) program in Vietnam. A baseline survey and needs analysis in Guangdong Province was conducted interviewing a total of 248 households. Additionally, focus group discussions with 34 farmers in four villages took place. The results showed that rice farmers have the potential to increase their grain yield by reducing fertilizer input. In Vietnam, the adoption of 1M5R was already widespread as training in eight provinces of the Mekong River Delta had taken place during the IRRC Phase IV. In total, an estimated 240,000 farmers already implemented 1M5R in 2013. However, farmers were still dealing with several constraints including the need for improved market models for selling rice, inconsistent quality of seed, problems with straw management, and pest infestations. In Thailand, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka, data collection and training activities for local staff were the major outputs (IRRI 2014). Furthermore, the field calculator was developed as a decision support tool based on a program by Wageningen University for other crops (Wageningen University & Research 2012). For CORIGAP, the field calculator was developed and tested for rice using field data collected in Can Tho and An Giang Province in Vietnam. The field calculator summarizes data collected for rice production to indicate the environmental and economic impacts of different technological packages such as 1M5R (IRRI 2014).

2014. Continued progress in China, Vietnam, and Thailand was made. In China, research and outreach work on reducing water consumption and GHG emissions took place. Participatory demonstration trials for farmers and partners in three counties of Guangdong Province to promote 3CT and AWD were organized (IRRI 2015). Activities in Myanmar and Indonesia were aligned with national priorities for rice production. In addition, market chain studies through focus group discussions with multiple stakeholders were carried out in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam. Learning alliances, a network of multiple stakeholders to promote learning on innovative practices and technologies at the community level, were established in Myanmar and Vietnam (IRRI 2015, 2017a). Particularly in Vietnam, the field calculator was further refined by comparing three different management approaches, namely 1M5R, SFLF (Small Farm, Large Field), and regular farmers’ practice. Furthermore, business models for better management of rice straw were developed by the national partners to strengthen extension on market integration of mushroom production (IRRI 2015).

2015. The CORIGAP countries showed progress in identifying the causes of yield gaps. They continued to demonstrate the integration of technologies for reducing agricultural inputs. Field-tested interventions resulted in increased profitability mainly due to diminished input costs for farmers in Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, and China. Potential could be seen in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, where the balanced use of fertilizer remains a challenge. Further, CORIGAP was able to achieve community-level impacts through supportive activities, such as postharvest grain protection, learning alliances, and capacity-building activities as well as local and national policy support. In total, a network of 65 farmer groups was working with local partners to transfer research outcomes into community benefits. However, the progress of CORIGAP was uneven between the countries, particularly with regard to establishing integration of systems to support changes in on-farm practices. For example, China and Vietnam demonstrated higher rates of technology adoption and environmental improvements. In Vietnam, Myanmar, and Thailand, private-sector linkages were established of which some were impressively successful, for example in Myanmar, for dryer fabrication as well as setting up supply chains for laser leveling equipment in combination with providing training. These represent models that could be applied to sites in the countries that are less advanced (Willett and Barroga 2016).

2016. The results of the yield gap analysis in four CORIGAP countries demonstrated that the exploitable yield gaps ranged from 23 to 42% (1.4–3.8 t/ha) (IRRI 2017b; Stuart et al. 2016). With 37%, Myanmar had one of the highest yield gaps out of the CORIGAP countries and hence a great potential to increase yields through best management practices (IRRI 2017b; Stuart et al. 2016). The field calculator approach provided a fascinating comparison of the economic and environmental indicators of sustainable rice production across the six partner countries (Devkota et al. 2019). Linkages between farmers and markets that pay a premium for better quality rice and the adoption of best management practices were implemented through a learning alliance. This included the adoption of mechanized drying combined with inventory storage, the development of suitable business models for farmers, and exchange visits for farmers to premium markets. In addition, awareness at the private-sector level was created regarding the effect of grain quality on farmers’ practice during production and postharvest (IRRI 2017b). In China, the extension activities of 3CT through demonstration sites were the main activity. 3CT was showcased at 68 demonstration sites in Guangdong, Jiangxi, Guangxi, Hainan, and Zhejiang provinces. Furthermore, the findings of a gender study showed that there is a research gap regarding the state of gender equality in Southeast Asian agriculture (Akter et al. 2017). Regarding adaptive research strategies and multi-stakeholder learning alliances, efforts were intensified and the approaches in each country were aligned with national initiatives on food security. Overall, 125,000 households were reached during CORIGAP Phase 1 (IRRI 2017b).

1.4.2.2 CORIGAP-PRO (Phase 2): 2017–2020

In the second phase, the project focused on the intensified integration of country-specific best management practices to further reduce yield gaps. CORIGAP-Pro aimed to reach 500,000 smallholders in six granaries. Increases in yield (10%) and profits (20%) for 20,000 households in East and Southeast Asia were targeted by 2020 (SDC 2020e). Consequently, the priorities in Phase 2 were scaling out and scaling up the outcomes of Phase 1. The main activities included outreach to farmers and the private sector. Also, a key activity was regular updates to policymakers on the integration of sustainable management practices based on evidence-based findings of CORIGAP farmer-participatory field trials. The alignment of activities with national extension programs was crucial to guide national policy developments. Learning alliances and the inclusion of the private sector and NGOs helped foster this goal (Flor et al. 2017). At the end of this phase, the adoption of best management practices demonstrated environmental benefits, improved gender- and youth-positive developments, and provided opportunities for smallholders in the rice value chain (IRRI 2017a).

In Phase 2, the following activities were conducted in project countries (IRRI 2017a; SDC 2020e):

  • Increase the capacity of national extension partners and intensify public–private partnerships via learning alliances for strengthened linkages with the private sector for outreach purposes.

  • Adoption of a more integrated approach to mechanization to increase environmentally sustainable irrigated rice production in all CORIGAP countries.

  • Closer contact with policymakers to provide evidence-based recommendations on natural resource management in rice farming and assessment of strategies for inclusive value-chain upgrading.

  • Expansion of best management practices and technology-dissemination activities in Myanmar and Sri Lanka with the start of the field calculator.

  • Improvement of profits of smallholder farmers in a gender-inclusive manner.

2017. Large-scale diffusion of best management practices continued in Indonesia, China, and Vietnam. Overall, 379,000 smallholder farmers were reached in the CORIGAP countries. Additionally, more than 86,000 smallholders increased yields and profits by more than 10% on average. A survey was conducted in Indonesia and Myanmar to assess the influence of CORIGAP technology adoption on the income and spending power of smallholder families (IRRI 2018b; Connor and San 2021; Connor et al. 2021a, b). In China, the large-scale promotion of 3CT with the addition of AWD was expanded across seven provinces through training events for extension specialists and key farmers. In total, 5,399 new farmers were reached. 3CT was adopted by more than 200,000 farmers in Guangdong Province. Farmers increased grain yields by 11% and profits by 14%. In Vietnam, more than 51,000 farmers across eight provinces adopted 1M5R-recommended practices in addition to the 85,000 farmers reached during CORIGAP Phase 1. Field trials in Can Tho Province demonstrated that farmers who adopted the recommended practices and technologies had a mean profit increase ranging from 14 to 30%; however, there was no yield gain (Stuart et al. 2018). In Myanmar, activities included conducting multiple surveys on household farming data and on the financial benefits of those who adopted recommended practices as well as farmer interviews on livelihood changes. Learning alliance meetings and cross-site learning activities were conducted on topics such as mechanization of land preparation through laser land leveling. Two demonstrations were conducted to increase awareness of the benefits of this technology (IRRI 2018b).

2018. Progress in all six CORIGAP countries was strong. In total, 7,520 national extension partners were trained on the promotion, application, and management of best management practices. More than 600,000 farmers were reached and 118,000 farmers adopted recommended practices and technologies. An in-depth analysis of yield gaps in Vietnam, Thailand, and Myanmar revealed that they were mainly due to unsuitable management practices. Farmers’ rice variety selection was also shown to have an impact. The potential to close yield gaps by optimizing the sowing and planting dates was high. Consequently, the next step was to understand the importance of various factors toward the management of the yield gaps and to comprehend how socioeconomic aspects influence farmers’ management choices (Stuart et al. 2016; IRRI 2019).

In Thailand, in 2016–2018, new management practices plus existing national priorities for natural resource management of rice were promoted to farmers in the Central Plains under Cost Reduction Operating Principles (CROP). Farmer groups reduced costs by an average of 17% and increased income by an average of 79% (Stuart et al. 2018).

In Vietnam, a survey on farmers’ trust in institutions, perceptions of risks, acceptance of the methods, and knowledge about climate change regarding different rice-straw management options was conducted. The findings showed that farmers burned their rice straw although they perceived high risks, few benefits, and low levels of acceptance. However, farmers were aware of climate change, but their sustainable behavior depended on the acceptability, feasibility, and perceived benefits of the sustainable options for straw management (IRRI 2019; Connor et al. 2020a, b).

In China, outreach activities in Guangdong Province were supported by the World Bank project on nonpoint source pollution. More than 300,000 farmers participated in training and promotion events on 3CT, AWD, and conservation agriculture. Results of field trials on water use for rice cultivation showed a reduction of more than 20% and a substantial decline in methane emissions. Fertilizer rates dropped by 36%, pesticide use decreased by more than 50%, and yields increased by 8% after 4 years (IRRI 2019).

In Myanmar, survey results showed that farmers adopted various best management practices and technologies. They also experienced increased yields and higher incomes. In addition, interviews were conducted to investigate farmers’ perceived changes by adopting best management practices for rice farming. Farmers mentioned that their living conditions and livelihoods had improved and that they were able to expand their farm business as well as produce rice more sustainably (IRRI 2019; Connor and San 2021; Connor et al. 2021b).

2019. In total, more than 750,000 farmers had been reached since the beginning of the CORIGAP project in all six countries (IRRI 2020; SDC 2021c). Over 130,000 farmers adopted the recommended practices and technologies, and farmers increased rice yields and profits. Training events in China, Myanmar, and Vietnam were co-funded by World Bank projects that promoted best practices. This also enhanced CORIGAP’s outreach (IRRI 2020).

In China, the out-scaling was mostly achieved as part of a World Bank project. Overall, more than 300,000 farmers participated in activities promoting 3CT, AWD, and conservation agriculture. First evidence from farmers’ field diaries showed that those who adopted the technologies improved yields by more than 10% and profits by more than 13% compared to the standard farmer’s practice. Additionally, a survey on farmers’ perceptions of 3CT with 142 participants was conducted in three townships of Guangdong Province (IRRI 2020; Wehmeyer et al. 2020).

In Vietnam, the main CORIGAP activities took place in Can Tho Province. Continued extension activities of 1M5R were the main focus. This was achieved by working closely with the national partners on SFLF to better align farmers with traders and millers. The demonstration of farming techniques for mechanization of sowing, a field day that included a series of seminars with participants from the public authorities, the private sector, and many farmers, as well as technicians, were organized. The outreach of best management practices was further facilitated by the World Bank VnSAT project, which reported more than 800,000 beneficiaries, which included all people residing in a rural household. Additionally, a survey on farmers’ perceptions of 1M5R with 465 participants was conducted in the provinces of An Giang and Can Tho (IRRI 2020; Connor et al. 2020a).

In Myanmar (Htwe et al. 2021), Indonesia (Lorica et al. 2020), and Sri Lanka (Htwe et al. 2021; Jayasiri et al. 2022), there was strong progress on rodent, weed, and pesticide management, and during the life of the CORIGAP project, ecologically-based pest management was strongly promoted in these countries with a spill-over to Cambodia (Castilla et al. 2020; Stuart et al. 2020).

2020. The COVID-19 pandemic challenged the research activities. Planned documentation of some project outcomes and impacts was impeded. Furthermore, working directly with the research partners in the countries became impossible and some activities were subsequently delayed, especially field surveys. Work shifted to online meetings and webinars as a response to the challenge. The CORIGAP countries were affected differently by the pandemic. Hence, research opportunities were impacted differently in the project countries. In Vietnam, the situation was managed well, allowing for a continuation of most of the field activities. Activities in China and Myanmar were paused. New research addressing some of the effects of the crisis was initiated by CORIGAP. For example, a study on farmer inclusiveness in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and how it affects the rice value chain was launched. In Myanmar, the fragile political situation since February 2021 halted the project. In-country colleagues were unable to continue their research activities. Some activities planned for Myanmar including field surveys for designing pathways for the agroecological transition toward sustainable food systems were moved to Indonesia.

2021–2022. The final phase of the CORIGAP project consisted of a 2-year wind-down phase that documented the main outcomes and disseminated the key learnings of the project. This included sharing the lessons learned with policymakers and donors as well as aligning with national project leaders and stakeholders to support further scaling out of CORIGAP outputs beyond 2022. The main CORIGAP learnings were also integrated into the national programs of two associated project countries, the Philippines and Cambodia. Furthermore, opportunities were explored to transfer the key findings to other global regions, e.g., to Africa, by producing policy briefs to facilitate sustainable adoption at scale (IRRI 2022).

As of 2022, more than 780,000 farmers were reached through the CORIGAP project, and the project was successful in incentivizing farmers to adopt sustainable rice-farming practices and technologies long term. Mean yield and mean income increased by more than 10%. This demonstrates a considerable achievement of Swiss foreign aid. The lessons learned foster South-South cooperation and serve as a blueprint for successful long-term development assistance incorporating beneficiaries’ perspectives (SDC 2021c; IRRI 2022).

1.5 Overview of Chapters 2–7

The book is divided into seven chapters that provide a wide array of pathways to change for sustainable rice production in lowland irrigated rice-based agricultural systems. Each chapter focuses on a specific area of research and outreach that the CORIGAP project targeted. The aim is to provide not only a reflective process of actions and lessons learned but also to give detailed information to the readership on how to implement different activities.

Following the general overview of agricultural development in Asia and the historical development of the CORIGAP project in this chapter, Chap. 2 provides an introduction to the six CORIGAP countries (China, Indonesia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam). We focus on environmental, social, and economic challenges in lowland rice production. Therefore, several country-specific sustainable best management practices were introduced by the project including nutrient management, pest management, water management, and several postharvest technologies among other very specific practices. This chapter introduces each country and its respective challenges to rice production. It outlines cultivation practices, historical developments, and their impacts on opportunities for the development of the rice sector. This is accompanied by case studies from the CORIGAP activities that highlight the adoption of specific technologies and practices.

The case studies encompass:

  • The adoption of various best management practices in Myanmar and Thailand, especially postharvest technologies;

  • The outreach of ‘One Must Do, Five Reductions’ in Vietnam;

  • The development and implementation of the ‘Three controls technology’ and alternate wetting and drying (AWD) practices in China;

  • Rodent pest management in Indonesia and Myanmar;

  • The introduction and changes due to best management adoption in Myanmar; and

  • Water management (quality and quantity) and weed management in Sri Lanka.

Most of these case studies identified positive agronomic, social, and economic changes. The chapter concludes by harnessing the agricultural development strategies in each country.

Chapter 3 focuses on faunal biodiversity in rice-dominated wetlands as an essential contribution to sustainable lowland rice production. Rice agriculture provides wetlands and complex habitats supporting biodiversity. We set our sights beyond Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2, which focuses on ending hunger and achieving food security via the promotion of sustainable agriculture. Often agricultural scientists are so motivated to achieve food security that they pay insufficient attention to the need for a healthy and dynamic agroecosystem that promotes floral and faunal biodiversity. SDG 15 emphasizes the need to promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems and halt biodiversity loss. Given the high losses in global biodiversity, especially in tropical zones where most of the world’s rice is grown, we set our sights on achieving SDGs 2 and 15. We provide case studies on amphibians, bats, birds, and rodents living in and around irrigated rice cropping systems. We report on transdisciplinary studies supported by CORIGAP that included agronomic, sociological, ecological, biochemical, environmental physiological, and genetic studies. Most of these studies identified potential positive ecosystem services provided by wildlife, which can lead to more sustainable and healthier rice production landscapes. Chapter 3 concludes with recommendations for future research and development projects.

Chapter 4 describes innovations, technologies, and management practices for sustainable rice production. One of the major barriers to improving rice value chains in Asian countries is farmers’ lack of knowledge and their limited access to good and scale-appropriate technologies and practices. We review the main features, benefits, and potential barriers of technologies and practices that were developed and promoted under the CORIGAP project. These include:

  • ‘One Must Do, Five Reductions’ (1M5R);

  • Alternate wetting and drying (AWD);

  • Laser land leveling;

  • Mechanized crop establishment;

  • Nutrient management; ecological engineering; and

  • Sustainable postharvest management practices.

1M5R (1 M = certified Seed, 5R = reductions of seed rate, fertilizer, pesticide, water uses, and postharvest losses) was introduced in Vietnam in 2004 but until 2015 was only adopted at a low level. CORIGAP activities ramped up adoption on about 150,000 ha of rice production in the Mekong River Delta of Vietnam. AWD was promoted to optimize water management and reduce the time of standing water in the field. Laser land leveling and mechanized crop establishment were promoted to significantly increase agronomic use efficiency. Furthermore, best-postharvest management plays an important role in upgrading the rice value chain tailored to sustainability. Lessons learned from case studies in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand are also included.

Chapter 5 provides an overview of greenhouse gas-reducing technologies and practices. Rice production significantly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane (CH4) at various cropping stages. A major source of methane emissions is the decomposition of fertilizers and organic residues in flooded fields during the irrigation cycle. CORIGAP technologies and practices are mainly associated with closing yield gaps by increasing productivity and profitability but have been co-designed to address environmental challenges. Therefore, over the last decade, the CORIGAP interventions not only helped to reduce yield gaps substantially but also resulted in a significant reduction of the carbon footprint in rice production. We start with an in-depth synthesis of science-based evidence and knowledge on challenges and constraints to reducing the rice-carbon footprint in CORIGAP countries. Furthermore, life-cycle assessments outline the quantification of the carbon footprint in rice production. Case studies cover specific technologies including AWD, land-laser leveling, and residue management at postharvest stages. We harness the outcomes related to greenhouse gas emission reduction and provide specific recommendations that can be readily implemented in other countries. In order to apply such recommendations, partnerships are essential to successfully engage in outreach activities and to scale best management practices and technologies.

Chapter 6 focuses on partnerships and scaling of outreach. International agricultural research centers such as IRRI have been using multi-stakeholder learning platforms (MSPs), including learning alliances (LAs) and private partnerships, to support research activities that drive scientific innovations. LAs involve various stakeholders who represent different organizations and interests. These stakeholders organize, discuss, and generate learning in order to tackle specific technological, organizational, and institutional challenges and increase the adoption of best management practices. A key assumption is that establishing an LA accelerates communication processes that enable the spread of new knowledge and practices and promote sharing of the learning of varied stakeholders toward faster alignment with others. This would ultimately enable innovations. We consider multi-stakeholder learning platforms, in particular, the roles they portray and their expected contribution to rice-based innovation systems. Of specific interest are LAs and private partnerships. We consider the communication processes that have been documented and what can be expected from a process that enables learning and scaling within a network of stakeholders. We also disentangle existing gaps where more theoretical reflection is needed and the emerging opportunities for MSPs to drive meaningful impacts at scale for agricultural innovation systems. We provide specific examples such as the sociotechnical analysis of an LA for the adoption of flatbed dryers in Myanmar, the development of solar bubble dryers, and the scaling of laser leveling.

Chapter 7 assesses the inclusiveness of sustainable rice value chain upgrading to provide lessons for policymakers. Actors along rice value chains range from their willingness to adopt sustainable practices to their willingness to pay for them. The actual adoption is driven by incentives to reduce costs or increase yields apart from government policies or market demand for sustainably cultivated rice. We discuss how policymakers can overcome the challenges for these mechanisms to succeed and identify areas for future research. We review and evaluate the changes that have occurred in the different CORIGAP countries. A multi-method approach combining qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods is presented in conjunction with country-specific case studies that provide detailed information about the changes that have happened at different levels. We also provide a detailed breakdown of all the materials produced over time, the communication processes, and the lessons learned from implementing the evaluation methods. We finish the chapter by harnessing anecdotal evidence of how CORIGAP has influenced policymaking in different countries and make recommendations for future projects by outlining the lessons learned.