Several cost-benefit analyses provided insights into the main trade-offs between different agricultural systems. To compensate farmers for conserving and restoring ecosystem services of the floodplains, they received support to cover the costs of the transition to flood-based agriculture and resist pressures to convert additional low dyke areas into closed control zones with high dykes that would exclude the land from flooding. In some areas a hybrid model was used, with low dykes controlling the timing of flood arrival/recession to support double-cropping and flood-based cropping (instead of the traditional third rice crop). In the case of lotus farming systems, flood-based agriculture enabled diversification of activities, including fish raising, ecotourism and recreational opportunities.
A feasibility study revealed that several hundred thousand farmers and a number of downstream towns would benefit financially from flooding if seasonal flood-based agriculture were applied. In addition, cost-benefit analyses were carried out on the profitability of flood-based crops and the cropping system as a whole in comparison to mono-rice cropping.
In the future, value chains, especially for rice production, will need to be considered in more detail to support the new flood-based agriculture model and gain support from rice exporters. Consideration of the value chain would ensure the economic feasibility of the flood-based livlihood model and provide an incentive for its uptake. Through consultations and analysis of lessons learned, market access and a lack of value chain development were identified as the greatest challenges for scaling up flood-based agriculture. This is already taken into account in the design of a future Green Climate Fund project.