The Rice Dilemma: Climate change vs. Food Security

International & National Dimensions of Climate Strategies in the Context of UNFCCC M.Sc. Sustainable Resource Management Technische Universität München

Submitted on: March 11, 2023

Abstract

Under the premise that climate change and food security are closely interconnected factors, this paper explores how adaptive and mitigation strategies supporting sustainable rice production can offset climate impact while improving crop yields. The analysis considers the main challenges to rice cultivation and the role that international agencies, financial tools and governments play in promoting and supporting sustainable rice farming. The final section considers the CSA approach promoting sustainable rice farming systems, with case studies in Southeast Asia, a critical region for global rice supply.

Acronyms

ASEAN – Association of Southeast Asian Nations

AWD – Alternate Wet Dry

CGIAR – Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers

CH4 – Methane

CO2 – Carbon Dioxide

COP27 – 27th Conference of the Parties

CSA – Climate Smart Agriculture

CSV – Climate Smart Village

FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization

GHG – Greenhouse Gas

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IRRI – International Rice Research Institute

NAMA – National Appropriate Mitigation Actions

NDC – Nationally Determined Contribution

NGO – Non-Profit Organization

N2O – Nitrous Oxide

RIICE – Remote Sensing, for Information and Insurance for Crops in Emerging Economies

SAR – Species Area Relationship

SRI – System of Rice Intensification

SRP – Sustainable Rice Platform

UNFCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UV B – Ultraviolet B Radiation

INTRODUCTION

The past COP27 conferences in Sharm El-Sheikh (Egypt) highlighted the importance of agriculture for the future of the planet in the global response to climate change. With environmental conditions exerting undue pressure on food production, climate change and food security have become close interdependent factors and any attempt at improving production, availability and access needs to be framed considering both elements.

Certain crops because of their reach, nutritional value and ubiquity have more impact on food security. Rice is one such crop. It not only provides livelihoods to some of the poorest population segments in 114 countries but also feeds more than four billion people, delivering one fifth of the calories consumed worldwide (Wuthi- Arporn, 2009). Although rice is a key commodity and its cultivation ranks high on the development agenda, the approximately 160Mha of paddy fields annually producing 500 million tons of rice worldwide (Lau, 2017) do not suffice. Moreover, rice cultivation, as a big emitter of methane responsible for past and future radiative forcing and global warming (Ito et al., 2019), also exacerbates climate change.

In consequence, with world population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050 (Agarwal et al., 2016), increasing crop yields with sustainable agricultural systems is essential to meet future nutritional needs. However, improving productivity and resilience at the same time requires a major shift in the way land, water, soil nutrients and genetic resources are managed (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2013), combined with sound policies and financial mechanisms.

With the above context as backdrop, the lead question is: what is the best- suited approach to support rice production considering environmental changes and livelihoods? Analysis will center on Climate-Smart Agriculture as theoretical framework, focusing on Southeast Asia as a hotspot for the adoption of sustainable initiatives. The first section provides an overview of the cascading effects of climate change in food security, considering main challenges in current rice production. The second section highlights the role of international agencies, financing mechanisms and governments to address these challenges. The third section presents Climate Smart Agriculture as the most effective approach to achieve climate goals and commitments without undermining food supply, with examples in Southeast Asia.

SECTION 1

CLIMATE CHANGE AND FOOD PRODUCTION

Climate change deeply impacts agriculture and vice versa. Increases in CO2 concentration due to both anthropogenic activities and natural factors is the key process in greenhouse effect, accounting for approximately half the projected increase in mean surface temperature. Agricultural land use, with deforestation and continuous cropping systems, creates high fluxes of GHG emissions. Moreover, the increasing UV-B exposure due to ozone depletion in the stratosphere poses further threats (Geng, 2000). Figure 1, below, depicts the cascading effects that climate change has on the environment and from there into agricultural production, which in turn affects the economic and social spheres and brings up high risks on food availability. Thus, the need for closing yield gaps, improving productivity and incomes while promoting adaptation and mitigation measures that build resilience and help reducing greenhouse gases emissions.

Figure 1 – Schematic representation of the cascading effects of climate change impact on food Security and Nutrition

(Source: Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2015)

CHALLENGES TO RICE PRODUCTION

According to archaeobotanist Dorian Fuller, rice has contributed more than any other crop to population growth, urbanization and landscape transformation. He contends that because rice production requires greater landscape modification and supports bigger populations, deforestation and methane emissions might have been contributing factors to global climate change even before the industrial era. (Fuller & Weisshopf, 2011) In fact, the dramatic expansion of rice cropland into the natural ecosystem has brought a host of challenges, both for the environment and for humans.

Rice cultivation is one of the main culprits in GHG emissions, in particular of methane and nitrous oxide, which is aggravated by the use of fertilizers. Flooded soils block oxygen penetration and crate the ideal conditions for methane emitting bacteria. Estimates of global methane emissions from paddy soils range from 31 to 112 Tg/year, representing 19% of total emissions, while 11% of global agricultural nitrous oxide emissions come from rice fields (Win et al., 2020). The map below based on time-lapse satellite images representing methane concentration across the troposphere, reveals high concentrations in the rice growing areas of Southeast Asia.

Figure 2 – Time-lapse map of global methane emissions

(Source: Bloomberg, 2020)

Moreover, as rice is a water-intensive crop (3000 to 5000 litters are needed to produce just 1kg) yields decrease when water resources are scarce. Inappropriate water management practices and the use of fertilizers and biocides also contribute to greenhouse emissions and bring serious pollution and health problems. Salinization, as well as the presence of nitrates, arsenic and other toxic residual components can cause severe water contamination affecting human life. Also, irrigated fields are breeding ground for mosquitos and other creatures, (CGIAR, 2013) which can transmit parasites and other vector-borne diseases. Adopting water saving “alternate wetting and drying” techniques can help to increase yields and carbon sequestration, reducing GHG emissions (Ishfaq et al., 2020), so this is an important practice for rice- specific mitigation actions.

Rising temperatures and other climate change related extreme weather events exert additional stress on productivity. Thus the importance of biological controls and developing stress tolerant varieties to both abiotic (heat, drought, floods, soil) and biotic (pest, weeds, pathogens) factors. (Ijaz et al., 2021) So, promoting genetic diversity is crucial for optimal performance and yield improvement.

Farmers themselves also constitute a key issue. Only a small proportion of global rice production comes from modern farms with structured supply chains. Most rice growing occurs in fragmented, low-productivity, high-risk value chains. (Sustainable Rice Platform, 2022) Also migration to cities due to farmer’s lack of assets, land tenure security and market access further impacts production, so there must be economic incentives and technical support to convince them about the benefits of applying sustainable practices.

A final area of concern relates to consumption patterns and trade. Price fluctuations affect the poorest populations without purchasing power. Consumption is increasing faster than population growth, impacting self-sufficiency in many areas. Moreover, rice production is linked to social and political instability affecting many producing countries. This in combination with the reduction of cropland and yields because of environmental changes, as well as bans or restrictions on exports - as only a small percentage of rice production trades in international markets (Papademetriou, 2000) - also puts pressure on finding ways to meet demand in a stable and sustainable manner.

SECTION 2

INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES, FINANCIAL AID AND GOVERNMENTS

Compared to other crops, rice production is extremely fragmented, with capital flow constrained by low margins, high complexity and uncertain returns. Moreover, unsustainable practices continue to fuel climate change, while unfair value distribution deepens inequalities for small-scale producers (Segal & Minh, 2019). making it especially difficult for smallholders producing most of the world’s rice to absorb the costs and risks of adopting new practices and technologies.

International cooperation agencies developing guidelines, providing technical know-how and delivering financial aid, are a key factor to help farmers shift towards regenerative food systems to achieve an assured supply of sustainably produced rice. FAO, IRRI, CGIAR, SRP are just a few of the most salient. Their function is that of connecting public and private stakeholders, researchers, NGOs and international organizations (Crops and climate change impact briefs, 2022) supporting sustainable initiatives.

At the same time, promoting and implementing sustainable practices requires country level commitments through policy and institutions. The NDCs pledged by each country represent an attempt in this direction. However, in the original pledge, out of the ten largest rice producers, only Bangladesh, China, Myanmar, Pakistan and Vietnam mentioned rice. The updated version of November 2022 shows some progress with 36 out 164 countries including mitigation and adaptation actions in rice cultivation (CGIAR, 2022) but more needs to be done. The world map below indicates countries with rice cultivation measures in their NDCs.

Figure 3 – Map of countries including Rice Cultivation in Updated NDCs

(Modified Source: Trang et al., 2022)

SECTION 3

CSA APPROACH

Improving agricultural systems to ensure food security while reducing emissions is a challenging task that calls for a synergistic combination of measures (Springmann et al., 2018) simultaneously tackling three interconnected factors: increasing productivity and income, adapting to climate change and contributing to climate change mitigation (FAO, 2013). Moreover, although climate change is a global issue, impact varies according to location, requiring both a holistic vision and location-sensitive approach.

In response to these challenges, the CSA concept emerged in 2009 within the FAO as a context-specific approach to identify what works where, why and for whom, but with flexibility for scaling-up in a continual iteration and improvement loop (Neufeldt et al, 2016). The CSA framework is a long-term non-linear process therefore it has limitations when it comes to predict impact and outcomes in absolute terms regarding long-lasting transformational change (Collins-Sowah, 2018). However, because it is open-ended, it allows incorporating deviations from the original scheme with corrective measures (Neufeldt et al., 2015) while tracking appropriate indicators of success, in particular the potential for replication and expansion. In fact, scaling pathways can vary along the different stages of a project’s lifecycle. For instance, while at an early stage, knowledge sharing is most effective, at later stages, in order to sustain the impacts at scale, interventions can be incorporated into government policies as well as market-based strategies (Barbon et al., 2021). The diagram below represents a conceptual structure of how the CSA approach works.

Figure 4 – Conceptual Structure of Climate-Smart Agriculture Approach

(Source: Collins-Sowah, 2018)

RICE PRODUCTION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Southeast Asia’s ideal geographic conditions play an important role in global rice supply, with 26% of the world’s production and 40% of the export market share. (Yuan et al, 2022) The Green Revolution brought by new crop technologies between the 1960s and 1980s produced high yields and encouraged expansion. However, since the 1990s there has been a slowdown in production, even as most of the total crop area is dedicated to rice cultivation (Teng et al., 2016). Stagnated yields in combination to growing demand, land conversion to residential or industrial use, poor irrigation infrastructure and climate impact makes it imperative to improve resilience to environmental and social pressures. (Yuan et al., 2022)

The main challenges affecting the rice industry in the region are: land tenure security, access to finance, infrastructure development, extreme weather events and GHG emissions (FAO, 2022). In fact, the region has become a major area of concern in relation to climate change. Rain patterns and increased temperatures constitute a threat to the biological vulnerability of rice (Teng et al., 2016).

Rising temperatures and extreme weather events, such as heatwaves and storms reduce yields and impact people’s health and productivity. Uncertain rainfall, as well as drought, floods, and typhoons, also affect yields, especially during sowing and harvesting times (Segal & Minh, 2019). Moreover, studies based on satellite images reveal a considerable spike in methane emissions in areas where rice is cultivated (Hayashida et al., 2013) in particular during the monsoon season.

SCALING UP SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES: THAILAND AND VIETNAM

As the major producers and rice exporters in the region (and second and third in the world, respectively), suffering sever climate change pressures, Thailand and Vietnam have “more skin in the game” and have been more proactive in incorporating sustainable practices to their rice production.

Table 5 – Production and Exports of Rice in 2017, ranked based on percentage (from mil. tons)

Country	Production (%)	Country	Export (%)
China	30	India	26
India	23	Thailand	24
Indeonesia	8	Vietnam	14
Bangladesh	7	Pakistan	8
Vietnam	6	USA	7
Thailand	4	Myanmar	7
Myanmar	3	Cambodia	2

(Modified Source: Pongsrihadulchai, 2018)

Thailand’s economy with an average GDP of 7,000 USD/year is almost double that of Vietnam with 3,700 USD/year (OECD, 2021). It is also more export- oriented and less dependent on agriculture that represents a 20% of the exports with rice ranked second after rubber. Although rice production has fluctuated substantially in recent years, increase due to expansion of harvested areas has compensated the reduction in yields. With substantial surplus, Thailand has become a major exporter of high quality rice to developed countries. Vietnam too is a significant net exporter but mostly of lower grade rice geared to some Asian and African countries. The table below shows premium price for Thai rice, although the gap with Vietnam is narrowing.

Table 6 – Prices of Rice of Thailand and Vietnam between 2012-2017 and the difference between the two

Year	Thailand (US$)	Vietnam (US$)	Margin (US$)
2012	575	432	143
2013	517	362	155
2014	423	415	8
2015	386	358	28
2016	397	359	38
2017	398	373	25

(Modified Source: Pongsrihadulchai, 2018)

In fact, Vietnam with its young and growing population (70% of the population is under the age of 35) holds a competitive advantage to overcome Thailand in the near future. According to the World Bank, Vietnam’s population is expected to reach 120 million people by 2050. Meanwhile, Thailand’s birth rate has declined sharply in recent years – a quarter of the current Thai population of 70 million people will be over 60 years old by 2030. According to the International Monetary Fund, over the next two decades, the aging labour force will slow down Thailand’s economic growth. The maps and charts bellow, from the US Department of Agriculture, represent rice production by region and yields in both countries.

Figure 7 – Thailand and Vietnam Total Rice Production

(Source: USDA, 2023)

Regardless of differences, both countries have considerable potential to scale up production (ESG, 2022), incorporating improved rice varieties resistant to drought, salinity, and disease, as well as technological advances and science-based knowledge. At present, they host many projects involving application of CSA technologies and implementation of a Climate-Smart Village (CSV) approach, targeting communities through participatory research and evaluation (Aggarwal et al, 2018).

Thailand is among the most affected countries by climate change, with increasing temperatures and high risks for flooding. Rice-cultivated land takes about 60% of the cropland area, making it the fourth largest emitter of rice-related GHG and a top user of agrochemicals causing harmful effects on people and the soil (Chapman et al., 2021). As for Vietnam, rice production occupies up to 67% of cropland area. The country is considered a “natural disaster hotspot,” also ranking high in the list of vulnerability to climate change and climate hazards, with approximately, 100,000 hectares of coastal land in the Mekong Delta constantly threatened by increased water salinity as sea levels rise (Segal & Minh, 2019). Agriculture is the second largest source of GHG emissions (about 33% of total emissions) and the prolonged use of chemical fertilizers have resulted in serious land degradation.

A study by ASEAN to promote climate resilience in rice has identified important CSA practices with potential to limit the negative effects of climate change. For Thailand these include: crop calendar; AWD techniques and Remote sensing based Information and Insurance for Crops in Emerging Economies (RIICE) technology using a combination of species-area-relationship (SAR) remote sensing and crop modelling for government policy intervention and crop insurance programs. (Bacudo & Dallinger, 2020). The Thai Rice NAMA Project represents a big-scale CSA project for which the Ministry of Agriculture has selected 160,000 rice farms in the center of the country to introduce low-emissions farming techniques, with laser land-leveling and AWD techniques that reduce water consumption, as well as improved rice straw management and site-specific nutrient management (FAO, 2022), with the aim of further expanding SRP compliant rice farming practices all across the country.

Similarly, for Vietnam, alternate wetting and drying (AWD) technique; rice- shrimp farming and adjusting rice crop timing and using short-duration rice varieties, (Bacudo & Dallinger, 2020) have been applied with a low/medium adoption rate by small-scale farmers. In particular, shrimp rice farming in the Mekong River Delta and use of flood resistant varieties in the Red River Delta. The chart below describes adoption rates and impact of rice-related CSA practices in Vietnam two major rice producing areas.

Figure 8 – CSA Practices in Vietnam

(Source: Tam Ninh et al., 2017)

ASSESSING CSA: STAKEHOLDER INTEGRATION IS KEY TO SUCCESS

Climate Smart initiatives combine technological, institutional and policy solutions over a wide spectrum of sustainable development objectives, enabling farmers to adapt to challenges of climate change while maintaining and improving societal wellbeing (Barbon et al., 2021). In order to build the adaptive capacity of rural communities CSA practices are dependent on the integration among the activities of all relevant stakeholders.

CSA must include all the factors that are essential to building people’s resilience – the physical and technical aspects of farming and its economic, social, and environmental considerations as well (Barbon et al., 2021). Therefore, adaptation measures must not only be technically adequate and economically feasible, but they need to be accepted by farmers as well.

This cultural-psychological dimension cannot be underestimated. Farmers are key stakeholder; when it comes to adopting smart climate practices, their perceptions and behavior can have a major impact. It is important for scientists and policymakers to identify factors that affect farmer’s adoption of climate smart technology, as differences in awareness, resource endowments, objectives, preferences, and socio- economic backgrounds, might influence their willingness to adopt them (Ho, 2020).

Institutional support also must be directed towards encouraging farmers’ participation in adaptation practices. Areas of potential support might include: providing access to high-value markets; enabling attractive financial risk management tools; promoting information dissemination to increase knowledge and technical skills to take advantage of adaptation strategies, and lastly ensuring that livelihoods are protected through social safety net programs in case of severe weather events (Collins-Sowah, 2018).

These initiatives can be accomplished in multiple ways, as governments, the private sector, and development organizations each have their own strengths and roles to bring sustainable impact to the most vulnerable. Strategic partnerships are essential to move forward (Barbon et al., 2021). Governments can be instrumental by removing barriers in land policy, such as land consolidation or accumulation and land-use changes and input uses (i.e., water pricing). As for the private sector, it could help with increased investments in innovative technologies for agriculture, in particular relating to data collection, processing and dissemination of information, which in turn would also enhance the institutional capacity for monitoring, reporting and verification.

CONCLUSION

Much research has been done regarding adaptation and mitigation measures to adjust to climate change impacts and reduce vulnerability while supporting rural livelihoods and ensuring food security. However, because of economic, social, and environmental disparities, solutions to the problem have been elusive.

The CSA approach has been a fundamental “game changer” and has been applied with promising results. CSA acknowledges the increasing risks of climate change upon agriculture, as manifested by the growing frequency, intensity and uncertainties of climate related seasonal and long-term environmental changes, but at the same time recognizes that risks are not equally experienced across geographies and that agriculture itself is a substantial contributor to environmental problems.

Emphasis on location-specific responses that answer to the particular characteristics and needs of the local context brings consistency and represents one of CSA’s best qualities. Moreover, it is an inclusive concept, as these smart practices cover a wide range of activities from simple farm management and crop controls to more sophisticated landscape restoration and biodiversity conservation and further into strengthening know-how transfer with technical and financial tools that promote climate resilient agriculture. This enables application to small-scale and big projects alike. Finally, it has great flexibility with capacity for replication and scaling. Research in combination with trial and error shortens the learning curve, so best practices can be expanded while failed ones can be discarded, in a continuous improvement loop.

Even though many pilot projects have proved the CSA approach to be a useful way to respond to punctual climate change issues with “tailor-made” interventions, its main drawbacks reside in its limitations to address the global climate crisis and to uproot structural power imbalances that neglect farmer’s livelihoods.

Nevertheless, CSA still can be instrumental in helping policy makers to find suitable strategies both at national and international level to create an enabling environment for climate action with equitable values across the rice value chain, in particular for small-scale farmers. So far, CSA initiatives has been applied to short- term agricultural growth emphasising adaptation. Going forward it is necessary to give more attention to mitigation actions as well.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, P., Parida, S. K., Raghuvanshi, S., Kapoor, S., Khurana, P., Khurana, J. P., & Tyagi, A. K. (2016). Rice improvement through genome-based functional analysis and molecular breeding in India. Rice, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12284-015-0073-2

Bacudo, I. V., & Dallinger, J. (2020, February 20). CSA practices in ASEAN . ASEAN Climate Resilience Network. Retrieved February 28, 2023, from https://asean-crn.org/climate-smart- agriculture-csa-practices-in-asean/

Barbon, W. J., Punzalan, B., Wassmann, R., Vinh, B. L., Vidallo, R., Villanueva, J., Talsma, T., Bayot, R., & Gonsalves, J. (2021). (working paper). Scaling of Climate-Smart Agriculture via Climate-Smart Villages in Southeast Asia: Insights and Lessons from Vietnam, Laos, Philippines, Cambodia and Myanmar. Wageningen, Netherlands. Retrieved February 28, 2023, from https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/60773/b2c7187f-e5d4-4338- aed9-1f109250cc2c.pdf.

Bernabe, M. D., Voogd, S., Willoughby, R., Le, M., Wells-Dang, A., McGrath, J., & Maboloc, M. (2015). Harmless Harvest: How Sustainable Agriculture can help ASEAN Countries Adapt to Changing Climate. Oxfam. Retrieved March 1, 2023, from https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/harmless-harvest.

Bloomberg. (2020, October 21). Satellites put the world's biggest methane emitters on the map. JWN energy intelligence. Retrieved March 1, 2023, from https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2020/10/21/satellites-put-the-worlds-biggest-methane- emitters/

CGIAR. (2022). AICCRA at COP27: Innovation Essential for climate-smart future, but it's not enough. AICCRA (Accelerating Impacts of CGIAR Climate Research for Africa). Retrieved February 27, 2023, from https://aiccra.cgiar.org/aiccra-cop27-innovation-essential-climate-smart-future- its-not-enough

Chapman, A., Davies, W., Downey, C., Wilby, R. L., Dove, M. K., Johnston, J., Lang, Y., Casorla- Castillo, A., & Rodgers, C. (2021). (rep.). Climate Risk Country Profile - Thailand. Washington D.C., Virginia: World Bank Group. Retrieved March 4, 2023, from https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/15853- WB_Thailand%20Country%20Profile-WEB_0.pdf.

Collins-Sowah, P. A. (2018). (working paper). Theoretical Conceptions of Climate-Smart Agriculture (No. WP2018-02). Kiel: Econstor. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/201539/1/WP2018-02.pdf.

Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR). (2013). Rice Almanac - Source Book for One of the Most Important Economic Activities on Earth. International Rice Research Institute (4th ed.). Retrieved February 8, 2023, from http://books.irri.org/9789712203008_content.pdf.

Crops and climate change impact briefs. (2022). Climate-Smart Agriculture for More Sustainable, Resilient, and Equitable Food Systems. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb8030en

Food and Agriculture Organisation. (2013). (publication). FAO Success Stories on Climate-Smart Agriculture. Retrieved February 6, 2023, from https://www.fao.org/3/i3817e/i3817e.pdf.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). (2015). (rep.). Climate Change and Food Security: Risks and Responses. Retrieved February 15, 2023, from https://www.fao.org/3/i5188e/I5188E.pdf.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). (2022). Climate-smart agriculture for more sustainable, resilient and equitable food systems. Crops and Climate Change Impacts Briefs. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb8030en

Fuller, D. Q., & Weisskopf, A. (2011). The Early Rice Project: From domestication to global warming. Archaeology International, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/ai.1314

Geng, S. (2000). The Impact of Greenhouse Effects on Rice: A Review (Vol. 271). Davis, California: UC David Department of Agronomy and Range Science. Retrieved February 7, 2023, from http://www.mcc.cmu.ac.th/mccwwwthai/graduate/Agro723/Reading_Materials/Greenhouse_Ric e.pdf.

Hayashida, S., Ono, A., Yoshizaki, S., Frankenberg, C., Takeuchi, W., & Yan, X. (2013). Methane concentrations over Monsoon Asia as observed by SCIAMACHY: Signals of methane emission from rice cultivation. Remote Sensing of Environment, 139, 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.08.008

Ho, T. T. (2020). Economic Analysis on Climate Change Response and Rice Farmers' Behaviour in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam (dissertation). Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan. Retrieved March 1, 2023, from https://ritsumei.repo.nii.ac.jp/index.php?action=pages_view_main&active_action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=14042&item_no=1&attribute_id=20&file_no=2&page_id=13&block_id=21.Ijaz,

M., Shahzadi, R., U. Issayeva, A., Anwer Bukhari, S., & Mahmood-ur-Rahman. (2021). Introductory chapter: Recent advances in rice biotechnology for abiotic stress tolerance. Recent Advances in Rice Research. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94036

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

Ito, A., Tohjima, Y., Saito, T., Umezawa, T., Hajima, T., Hirata, R., Saito, M., & Terao, Y. (2019). Methane budget of East Asia, 1990–2015: A bottom-up evaluation. Science of The Total Environment, 676, 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.263

Lau, W. (2017, April 19). The Challenges of Rice Sustainability: the Increasing World’s Population and Climate Change [web log]. Retrieved February 5, 2023, from https://blogs.springeropen.com/springeropen/2017/04/19/challenges-rice-sustainability-increasing-worlds-population-climate-change/.

Neufeldt, H., Negra, C., Hancock, J., Foster, K., Nayak, D., & Singh, P. (2015). (working paper). Scaling up climate-smart agriculture: Lessons Learned from South Asia and Pathways for Success. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre. Retrieved February 24, 2023, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303346404_Scaling_up_climate- smart_agriculture_lessons_learned_from_South_Asia_and_pathways_for_success?enrichId=rgr eq-702dad50987efbd0a96eb276bd14a6cb- XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwMzM0NjQwNDtBUzozNjM0NzQ0NDMw OTYwNjVAMTQ2MzY3MDQ2ODMzMA%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publication CoverPdf.

OECD National Accounts. (2021). GDP (current US$) - Vietnam, Thailand, Philippines. Retrieved February 25, 2023, from

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=VN-TH-PH.

Papademetriou, M. K. (2000). Rice production in the Asia-Pacific region: issues and perspectives. Rice production in the Asia-Pacific region: Issues and perspectives - M.K. Papademetriou*. Retrieved February 10, 2023, from https://www.fao.org/3/X6905e/x6905e04.htm

Pongsrihadulchai, A. (2018). (publication). Thailand's Rice Industry and Current Policies towards High Value Rice Products. FFTC-AP. Retrieved 2023, from https://ap.fftc.org.tw/article/1297.

Segal, R., & Minh, L. N. (2019). Unfair Harvest: The State of Rice in Asia. https://doi.org/10.21201/2019.4184

Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B. L., Lassaletta, L., de Vries, W., Vermeulen, S. J., Herrero, M., Carlson, K. M., Jonell, M., Troell, M., DeClerck, F., Gordon, L. J., Zurayk, R., Scarborough, P., Rayner, M., Loken, B., Fanzo, J., ... Willett, W. (2018). Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature, 562(7728), 519–525. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0

Sustainable Rice Platform. (2022, November 30). Support smallholders for sustainable rice value chains. Support Smallholders for Sustainable Rice Value Chains. Retrieved February 25, 2023, from https://sustainablerice.org/support-smallholders-for-sustainable-rice-value-chains/

Tam Ninh, N., Roehrig, F., Grosjean, G., Nghia, T. D., & Mai, V. T. (2017). (rep.). Climate-Smart Agriculture in Viet Nam. Hanoi, Vietnam: International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/rest/bitstreams/155807/retrieve.

Teng, P. P. S., Caballero-Anthony, M., & Lassa, J. A. (2016). (rep.). the Future of Rice Security Under Climate Change (4th ed.). Singapore: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. Retrieved February 26, 2023, from https://www.zef.de/uploads/tx_zefportal/Publications/jlassa_download_NTS-Report4-July2016- ClimateChangeAndRice.pdf.

Trang, V. H., Nelson, K. M., Rose, S., Khatri-Chhetri, A., Wollenberg, E., & Sander, B. O. (2022). Map of Countries with reference to Rice Actions in new and updated NDCs. Rice Cultivation Ambition in the New and Updated nationally Determined Contributions: 2020-2022. map, Wageningen, Netherlands; Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security. Retrieved February 25, 2023, from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/116169/CCAFS%20Info%20Note%20Rice%2 02021%20NDCs.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2023, February 22). Vietnam Rice Area, Yield and Production. Retrieved February 25, 2023, from https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/countrysummary/Default.aspx?id=VM&crop=Rice

Win, E. P., Win, K. K., Bellingrath‐Kimura, S. D., & Oo, A. Z. (2020). Greenhouse gas emissions, grain yield and water productivity: A Paddy Rice Field case study based in Myanmar. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, 10(5), 884–897. https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.2011

Wuthi-Arporn, J. (2009). (rep.). Increasing Rice Production: Solution to the Global Food Crisis . Tokyo University of Agriculture (Nodai). Retrieved February 5, 2023, from https://www.nodai.ac.jp/cip/iss/english/9th_iss/fullpaper/1-2-2ku-jirawut.pdf.

Yuan, S., Stuart, A. M., Laborte, A. G., Rattalino Edreira, J. I., Dobermann, A., Kien, L. V., Thúy, L. T., Paothong, K., Traesang, P., Tint, K. M., San, S. S., Villafuerte, M. Q., Quicho, E. D., Pame, A. R., Then, R., Flor, R. J., Thon, N., Agus, F., Agustiani, N., ... Grassini, P. (2022). Southeast Asia must narrow down the yield gap to continue to be a major rice bowl. Nature Food, 3(3), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00477-z