Báo cáo sự kiện: Introduction of the principles of GAP for citrus through implementation of citrus IPM using Farmer Field Schools (Milestone 2)

Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development ________________________________________________________________ Milestone 2 Baseline Study Report Project Name Vietnamese Institution Vietnamese Project Team Leader Australian Organisation Australian Personnel Date commenced Completion date (original) Completion date (revised) Reporting period Introduction of the principles of GAP for citrus through implementation of citrus IPM using Farmer Field Schools Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Plant Protection Department Mr Ngo Tien Dung University of Western Sydney Oleg Nicetic, Robert Spooner-Hart, Elske van de Flierd March 2007 February 2010 Contact Officer(s) In Australia: Team Leader Name: Position: Organisation Oleg Nicetic Research Associate University of Western Sydney Telephone: Fax: Email: +61245701329 +61245701103 o.nicetic@uws.edu.au In Australia: Administrative contact Name: Position: Organisation In Vietnam Name: Position: Organisation Gar Jones Director, Research Services University of Western Sydney Mr Ngo Tien Dung National IPM coordinator Plant Protection Department Telephone: Fax: Email: Telephone: Fax: Email: +6124736 0631 +6124736 0905 g.jones@uws.edu.au +84-4-5330778 +84-4-5330780 ipmppd@fpt.vn 1 Deliverables The agreed deliverable for this milestone is to update baselines available from the South and new baselines from North Vietnam of all stakeholders to obtain quantitative and qualitative measures to include: 1. Information on knowledge, skills attitudes and practices of PDD, SRPCC, NIPP, CU, SOFRI, VACVINA, VinaFruit and SPC on GAP and the integration of IPM into GAP. 2. Knowledge and skills on GAP/IPM of 15 Master Trainers, 90 Trainers and a representative sample of 2880 participating farmers 3. Current GAP/IPM practices of representative sample of participating farmers including production levels and financial analysis of costs and returns 4. Analysis of key markets for GAP/IPM compliant citrus and expected market demand and premiums 5. Identification of opportunities for project interventions to provide economic, social and environmental benefits to smallholders. Introduction This is the third AusAID CARD project that has been conducted on citrus in Vietnam. The first two projects had a major focus on IPM. Although this project retains IPM as a key component, the major focus is on GAP. When this project is completed in 2010 it will be very important to have an objective picture about what has been achieved by our intervention and the significant investment made by AusAID CARD into the Vietnamese citrus industry over the previous decade. In order to measure the impact of the FFSs and associated activities financed from our projects, a systematic impact assessment has been planned and budgeted as a part of the current project 037/06 VIE. Impact assessment was not carried out as the part of the first (pilot) CARD project that ran from 2001 to 2004 but it became an important part of the second project 036/04 VIE even though it was not initially planned or properly funded. The emphasis of the impact assessment conducted in 036/04 VIE was on the Knowledge Attitude and Practices (KAP) survey that was conducted pre- and post intervention. Nearly all farmers (more than 2000) participating in FFSs completed the survey. But as the project progressed and the project team learned more about impact assessment, the KAP survey was complemented with profiling of production practices in two villages in each province where FFSs were conducted. Profiling was done as part of a baseline study and included: planting, pruning and fertilizing practices, flushing and harvesting management, irrigation practices, pest and disease management and an estimate of net income per hectare. Interviews were also conducted with local pesticide suppliers. At the end of the project semi-structured interviews were conducted with at least 5 FFS participants per province. These additional assessments provide much greater rigor by allowing triangulation, but they were not budgeted in the project and were possible only because the Vietnamese partners showed great enthusiasm for the project and conducted all interviews without additional funds. At the end of the project all major stakeholders (other than farmers) completed a survey and 3 key project managers have written their observations of the project impact. The impact was presented disaggregated as economic, social and environmental impact. Economic benefits were compared with the cost of FFS. 2 The methodology for the impact assessment for the current project 037/06 VIE was developed as the result of the project management team (Mr Ngo Tien Dung, Mr Ho Van Chien, Mr L Q Quong and Oleg Nicetic) meeting in My Tho on 31/05/2007 and workshops held in Ha Noi on 26/09/07 and in My Tho on 30/09/07. The workshop in Ha Noi was attended by PPD staff, staff from Regional Plant Protection Centre 4 and trainers from Nghe An and Ha Tay provinces. The workshop in My Tho was attended by staff from the Southern Regional Plant Protection Centre and trainers from Tien Giang and Can Tho Provinces. Trainers that attended the workshops will be directly involved in the project impact assessment over next 2 years. Impact assessment will be done in two ways: at the beginning and at the end of the project (B&E) using similar methodology used in project 036/04 VIE and b) using continuing monitoring of two groups of farmers: FFS group and non-FFS group. B&E impact assessment will be performed in all 13 provinces included in the project. It is based on longitudinal comparison (i.e. before and after FFS intervention) of farmer’s attitudes towards GAP, change in practices used in citrus orchard management and change in the social and environmental situation. Data collected will be based on self-evaluation by farmers and other project stakeholders. A limitation of this method is that it can be biased and overstate benefits of the FFS. However, this limitation will be minimised by using large sample sizes and triangulation: KAP surveys, semi-structured interviews and field observations. The baseline study performed in June 2007 and presented in this report is an integral part of the B&E assessment. The baseline study will be repeated again in June 2008 for FFSs that started in 2008. Impact assessment with continuous monitoring is currently being undertaken with farmers that commenced FFS in 2008, in order to obtain reliable data on farmer inputs and outputs as well as orchard management practices. Monitoring commenced in February 2008 before the start of FFS and it will continue throughout 2008 and for one year after completion of FFS. However as it is not financially feasible to continuously monitor impact in all 13 provinces, the continuous monitoring is conducted only in 2 provinces in the South (Tien Giang and Can Tho) and 2 provinces in the North (Nghe An and Ha Tay). Two trainers in each of 4 provinces selected for continuous monitoring have the role of auditors of on-farm record keeping and they will perform regular observations in the orchard. Every farmer participant in impact assessment monitoring will be visited twice a month. In each province 2 groups of 10 farmers have been selected: (a) farmers attending FFS in 2008 and (b) farmers not participating in FFS as a control group. Trainers have been monitoring and reviewing farmer records of economic, social and environmental impact indicators. Final interviews with participating farmers will be conducted in November 2009 jointly with UWS and PPD staff. This report will present the findings of a baseline study undertaken from the 1st to 28th June 2007. This baseline will be used as the benchmark against which impact of the project will be assessed. The baseline study was undertaken by combining observations made in the field, interviews with farmers in the field, surveys of FFS participants, interviews and surveys of trainers, interviews with key project personnel and informal interviews with Directors of SubPPD and/or Directors of Provincial Agriculture Departments. 3 Material and Methods 3.1. Baseline of farmers and trainers In 2007, two FFS were conducted in each of 13 provinces (Table 1). These provinces have been grouped into 3 regions for the purposes of this baseline study. The regions are the Mekong Delta (Can Tho, Vinh Long, Ben Tre, Dong Thap, Tien Giang), Northern-Central Vietnam and 2 adjacent provinces that are south of Hanoi (Ha Tinh, Nghe An, Hoa Binh, Ha Tay,) and the third region includes provinces north of Hanoi (Phu Tho, Yen Bai, Tuyen Quang, Ha Giang). One of the two FFS in each province was randomly chosen to undertake the baseline study. During visits to the FFS selected for the baseline study, the following activities were undertaken: 3.1.1 visit the farmer who’s orchard was used as the teaching orchard for the FFS to observe the orchard, undertake an audit of compliance to GAP and interview the farmer 3.1.2 visit pesticide shop in the village where the FFS was held 3.1.3 survey 5 randomly selected farmers from the FFS 3.1.4 survey 2 trainers In the Mekong Delta the farmer who provides their orchard as the teaching orchard also provides their house as the meeting place for FFS, whereas in northern central and northern Vietnam, the FFS meetings are held in the village community centre. Interviews with farmers were conducted in the usual FFS meeting place. 3.1.1 Interview with farmers in the orchard Oleg Nicetic conducted all interviews through an interpreter. The key information sought was the size of the orchard, species planted, distance between trees, number of flushes per year, number of harvests and timing of those harvests, number of sprays applied, application method and pesticides used. This information was obtained by questioning the farmer, observing the orchard, pesticide storage area and pesticide disposal site. Trees were also inspected for pests and diseases. At the same time a quick audit of farmer compliance with EurepGAP requirements was conducted. Information was recorded on site using a 6 page form (Appendix 1). 3.1.2 Visit to pesticide shop After visiting orchards, the local pesticide shop was visited. The shop owner was interviewed by Oleg Nicetic through an interpreter. Information was sought on the 3 most commonly used insecticides and fungicides, and how the shop owner provided recommendations to the farmers. Information was recorded on site using the same form. 3.1.3 Survey of 5 randomly selected farmers The surveys of farmers were conducted by trainers under the supervision of Mr Cuong in the south and Mr Loc in the north. The survey took about 20 minutes for each farmer to complete and results were recorded in a 10 page form in Vietnamese (Appendix 2). Data were summarised per province and region and results are presented in the Tables 6 to 15. Data for the source of planting material presented in Table 6 were weighted by multiplying the number of respondents who obtained all their planting material from one source by 3, the number who obtained most planting material from one source by 2 and the number who 4 obtained little planting material from one source by 1. Calculated score per category was then divided by the maximal possible score per province to obtain a proportion. Indices of perceived importance of pests and diseases shown per province in Table 7a and per region in Table 7b were calculated by multiplying number of respondents that perceived a certain pest as very important by 2, important by 1 and not important by 0. The resulting score was than divided by the number of respondents per province. Pests that scored an index of 0 were deemed to be not important, an index of 0.1 - 0.5 marginally important, an index of 0.6 - 1.0 moderately important, 1.1 - 1.5 important and 1.6 - 2 very important. Data for the pattern and frequency of sprays shown in Table 8a represent the percentage of respondents in each category (i.e. preventative spray for insects, preventative spray for diseases and curative spray) per province and region. Indices of spray intensity applied for specific pests and diseases shown per province in Table 8b and per region in Table 8c were calculated by multiplying the number of respondents that sprayed more than 3 times per year by 5, that sprayed occasionally (from 1-3 times) by 2 and not sprayed at all by 0. The resulting score was then divided by the number of respondents per province. Sprays were not applied for pests that scored an index of 0, few sprays were applied by the minority of farmers for pests that scored 0.1-1, few sprays were applied by the majority of farmers for pests that scored 1.1-2, frequent sprays were applied by minority of farmers for pests that scored 2.1 and 3 and frequent sprays were applied by majority of farmers for pests that scored more than 3. The data shown for pest management activities, other than pesticide sprays, shown in Table 9 represents the percentage of farmers per province and region that practice a certain pest management activity. Data for level of use of protective clothing and other protective equipment during pesticide application shown in Table 11 represents the percentage of farmers per province and region using certain protective equipment or clothing. Data presented in Table 13 represents the percentage of farmers per province and region that gave correct answers in regard to requirements of GAP (shown in the category “Understand major requirements of GAP”), in regard to implementation issues of GAP (shown in the category “Understanding of implementation issues”) and the percentage of farmers that believe that implementation of GAP will give them economic benefits (shown in the category “Belief in economic benefits”). The index for the level of farmer skill that was assessed by the farmers themselves (self assessment), presented per province in Table 14 and per region in Table 15, was calculated by multiplying the number of farmers that stated they were able to apply certain skills independently and confidently by 3, independently but without confidence by 2, with assistance of other person by 1 and the number that do not have a certain skill by 0. The total score per province was divided by the total number of respondents in the province to get an average score per province. The maximum score is 3. Scores of 2.5 and above indicate a high level of confidence (over 80% of total score), scores of 1.5 and below indicate a lack of confidence in the majority of farmers, while scores between 1.5 and 2.5 indicate that the majority of farmers have confidence in their skills but many farmers still need improvement in their skills to be confident. 5 ... - tailieumienphi.vn