Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development _ Milestone Project Validation Report Part Project Name Introduction of the principles of GAP for citrus through implementation of citrus IPM using Farmer Field Schools Vietnamese Institution Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Plant Protection Department Vietnamese Project Team Leader Mr Ngo Tien Dung Australian Organisation University of Western Sydney Australian Personnel Oleg Nicetic, Robert Spooner-Hart, Elske van de Fliert Date commenced March 2007 Completion date (original) February 2010 Completion date (revised) August 2010 Reporting period Contact Officer(s) In Australia: Team Leader Oleg Nicetic (til 2/07/10) Telephone: Robert Spooner-Hart (from 3/07/20) Research Associate Position: Fax: Organisation University of Western Sydney Email: Name: +61245701329 +61245701103 r.spoonerhart@uws.edu.au In Australia: Administrative contact Gar Jones Name: Director, Research Services Position: Organisation University of Western Sydney Telephone: Fax: Email: +6124736 0631 +6124736 0905 g.jones@uws.edu.au Telephone: Fax: Email: +84-4-5330778 +84-4-5330780 ipmppd@fpt.vn In Vietnam Mr Ngo Tien Dung Name: National IPM coordinator Position: Organisation Plant Protection Department Introduction In this second part of Impact assessment study we present results of: a) Before and after (B&A) surveys In each province, farmers and trainers were surveyed just after commencing their participation in FFS (June 2007) and years after completion of FFS (March-May 2010) Exact dates of surveys were presented in Table in Part of the Impact assessment study submitted at the beginning of September 2010 b) Informal discussions with key personnel involved in project Informal discussions were held with key PPD personnel involved in the project, including Mr Loc and Mr Duc and directors or vice-directors of PPSD in provinces in period March-April 2010 and with Mr Chien and Mr Cuong from SRPPC in May 2010 Discussions were also held with Dr Vo Mai from VACVINA and Dr Tran Van Hai from Can Tho University in May 2010 Discussions with Mr YR Cho from SK Energy were held in Seoul, South Korea in February 2010 The results presented in this report are complementary to results presented in Part of the Impact assessment and provide quantitative justification to the conclusions drawn from focus group discussions The results clearly present change from the situation before project intervention (in all Tables, the black numbers in brackets) and the situation two years after the project intervention was completed (red numbers) Similar to Part 1, the results from the 13 provinces are grouped into regions: a) “Mekong Delta” comprising provinces from the Mekong delta (Ben Tre, Tien Giang, Vinh Long, Dong Thap and Can Tho), b) “Northern Central Provinces” comprising two provinces from Northern Central Vietnam: (Ha Tinh and Nghe An) and two provinces south of Hanoi (Hoa Binh and Ha Tay) and c) “Northern provinces” comprising provinces north of Hanoi (Phu Tho, Yen Bai, Tuyen Quang, and Ha Giang) All results from the impact assessment are presented together with results of baseline study In all tables values in red are findings of impact assessment and values in brackets (typed in black) are values recorded in baseline study Material and Methods Baseline survey of farmers and trainers 1.1 Survey of 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 the results are recorded in a 10 page form in Vietnamese (Appendix 1) Data were summarised for each province and region and the results are presented in Tables 1-10 Data for the source of planting material presented in Table 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 and the number who obtained little planting material from one source by The calculated score per category was then divided by the maximum possible score per province to obtain a proportion Indices of perceived importance of pests and diseases shown by province in Table 2a and by region in Table 2b were calculated by multiplying the number of respondents that perceived a certain pest as very important by 2, important by and not important by The resulting score was than divided by the number of respondents per province Pests that scored an index of 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 - very important Data for the pattern and frequency of sprays shown in Table 3a 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 3b and per region in Table 3c were calculated by multiplying the number of respondents that sprayed more than times per year by 5, that sprayed occasionally (from 1-3 times) by and not sprayed at all by 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 and frequent sprays were applied by majority of farmers for pests that scored more than The data shown for pest management activities, other than pesticide sprays, shown in Table represents the percentage of farmers per province and region that practice a certain pest management activity Data for record keeping presented in Table were calculated by multiplying the number of respondents that keep systematic record by 3, that keep occasional record by and no record at all by The resulting score was then divided by the number of respondents per province No records were kept for (index 0), few farmers kept occasional records (index 0.1-0.5), few farmers kept systematic records (index 0.6-1.5), the majority of farmers kept systematic records (index 1.6-2.5), and all farmers kept records and the majority kept systematic records (index 2.6-3.0) Data for the level of use of protective clothing and other protective equipment during pesticide application (as shown in Table 6) represents the percentage of farmers per province and region using certain suitable protective equipment or clothing Data presented in Table represents the percentage of farmers per province and region that gave correct answers with regard to citricultural practices (shown in the category “Understanding of best practice citriculture”), with regard to huanglongbing transmission and control (shown in the category “Understanding of transmission and control of huanglongbing”), with regard to pests and their management (shown in the category “Understanding of pests and control methods”), with regard to pesticide impact on environment and human health (shown in the category “Understanding of the impact of pesticides on the environment and human health”), and the percentage of farmers that had positive believes and attitudes towards certified planting material (shown in the category “Positive believes and attitudes towards certified nurseries”) Data presented in Table represents the percentage of farmers in each province and region that gave correct answers with regard to requirements of GAP (shown in the category “Understand major requirements of GAP”), with 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 and per region in Table 10, 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 another person by and those that did not have a certain skill by 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 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 1.2 Survey of trainers Interviews with trainers were conducted by Mr Cuong in the south and Mr Loc in the north, after farmer interviews were completed The interviews took 15-20 minutes and results were recorded in a page form in Vietnamese (Appendix 2) Data were summarised per province and region and results are presented in the Tables 11 to 13 Data for trainer beliefs and attitudes about GAP shown in Table 11 represent the number of trainers per province that agreed with the presented statements The index for the level of trainer skill that were assessed by the trainers themselves (self assessment), presented per province in Table 12 and per region in Table 13, was calculated by multiplying the number of trainers that stated they were able to train farmers in certain skills independently and confidently by 3, independently but without confidence by 2, have knowledge of the skill but cannot train farmers by and not have knowledge about the certain skill by Total score per province was divided by the total number of respondents in the province to get average score per province The maximum score is Scores of 2.5 and above indicate a high level of confidence (over 80% of total score), scores of 1.5 and below indicates a lack of confidence in the majority of trainers, while scores between 1.5 and 2.5 indicate that the majority of trainers have confidence in their skills but still many trainers need improvement in their skills to be confident At the bottom of Table 12 and Table 13 the score of trainer’s knowledge test is shown There were open ended knowledge questions (see Appendix 2) For each question the score was for incorrect answers, 0.5 for partly correct answers and for correct answers Scores for two trainers were added and presented in the tables Informal discussions with key personnel involved in project Informal discussions were held with key personnel involved in project from PPD Mr Loc and Mr Duc and directors or vice-directors of PPSD in provinces in period March to April 2010 and with Mr Chien, Mr Cuong from SRPPC in May 2010 Discussions were also held with Dr Vo Mai from VACVINA and Dr Tran Van Hai from Can Tho University in May 2010 Discussion with Mr YR Cho from SK Energy was held in Seoul, South Korea in February 2010 All discussions were moderated by Oleg Nicetic and followed a check list to make sure all topics that included: impact of the project on their organisation, implementation issues and views on GAP were covered Notes of discussions were taken In the results section only the main conclusions are presented Results and discussions Baseline of farmers and trainers 1.1 Survey of randomly selected farmers 1.1.1 Dominant citrus species There were no changes in species grown since baseline study in 2007 except for continuous decline in number of orange trees in Mekong delta Farmers from FFS in Can Tho province replaced orange trees with rambutan So still in the Mekong Delta mandarins (King and Tieu varieties) are the dominant yielding varieties of citrus with pomelo plantings increasing and becoming equal to mandarins (See Table in Baseline study report) In Northern Central and Northern provinces oranges are by far the most dominant species while in Ha Tay and Phu Tho provinces pomelo variety Dien is equally as important as the orange varieties However, the yield of pomelo in these two provinces was low in last years No single reason for low yield was established but low yield is probably due to a combination of factors: poor pollination, wet and cold weather during flowering period, age of trees, inadequate fertilisation and diseases 1.1.2 Orchard layout and growth dynamic There were no changes in orchard layout in comparison to the Baseline For information about the orchard see Table in the Baseline report 1.1.3 Dominant pests and diseases Farmers’ ability to identifying pests and diseases significantly improved, and farmers are now confident in distinguishing damage caused by pests from damage caused by diseases Overall farmers’ perception of the importance of pests and diseases slightly decreased In the Mekong Delta, farmers nominated psyllids (1.4 previously 1.80), mites (1.4 previously 1.3) and thrips (1.1 previously 1.0) as the major pests (Table 2b) Scale and mealybug importance had the most significant drop from 1.6 to 1.0 Drop in the significance of psyllids indicate farmers’ confidence in their ability to control psyllids and spread of citrus greening There were no significant changes in the perception of pest importance in the Northern Central Provinces Farmers nominated mites (1.5 previously 1.5), psyllids (1.3 previously 1.4) and leafminer (1.3 previously 1.5) as major pests “Northern Provinces” is only region where overall farmers’ perception of the importance of pests and diseases increased Leafminer importance decreased from 1.4 to 0.9 and changed its perceived status from being the most important pest to being considered only moderately important Now psyllid is considered the most important pest (change from 0.5 to 1.6) followed by mites (1.4 previously 1.0) These results indicate the significant impact that training had on farmers in Northern provinces, that resulted in better control of mites and psyllids Mite damage that was very noticeable in most orange orchards of the Northern Provinces is now reduced Citrus greening disease (huanglongbing) is still more noticeable in Nghe An and Ha Tinh provinces than anywhere else and, as stated in Baseline study, there are several reasons for this: first, in these provinces oranges are the major citrus crop and they are the most susceptible variety of citrus to citrus greening disease; second, the average age of trees in the orchards is much higher than in the Mekong delta where the orchard regeneration is well planned and practised; and third is insufficient use of insecticides for control of psyllids FFSs concentrated on addressing the problem of insufficient protection against psyllids In the Northern Central Provinces there are distinctive flushes but only one (the spring flush) bears fruit Farmers only concentrate on protecting the fruit-bearing flush while other flushes are exposed to psyllids and citrus greening infection This problem was addressed during training of trainers and farmers and, as a result, the number of sprays that targeted psyllids increased (index value Table 3c increased from 2.2 to 2.8) but it is still below the level against leafminer (3.2) However, sprays against leafminer may reduce psyllids as well 1.1.4 Pesticide use Pesticides were generally not overused in the regions and provinces visited The only exception is Dong Thap province where many farmers use pesticides more than 20 times in a season In the Mekong delta 26% (previously36%) of surveyed farmers used frequent preventative sprays against pests and 27% against diseases (previously 32%) This represent moderate reduction in number of sprays but reduction in Northern Central Provinces was more pronounced from 80% to 48% of farmers frequently applied preventative sprays against pests (Table 3a) In Northern provinces the frequency of sprays overall remained unchanged but a significant increase was recorded in Ha Giang province The majority of farmers spray pests after they have been detected in the orchard A total of 85% (76% previously) of farmers applied curative sprays in the Mekong delta, 55% (32%) more than times and 30% (44%) - times In Northern Central Provinces 78% (100%) of farmers applied curative sprays, 51% (70%) frequently and 26% (30%) occasionally In Northern Provinces 95% (65%) of farmers sprayed pesticides after pests were detected, 45% (45%) frequently and 50% (20%) occasionally Theses results represent a significant improvement in use of pesticides Not just number of sprays were reduced but, based on results from group discussions (Part of Impact assessment), the timing of spraying and the type of pesticide used were optimised In our Baseline study it was stated that the number of sprays in Northern Provinces needed to be increased for effective pest and disease control and the impact assessment confirmed that this happened Overall, the most frequently sprayed pest was mites (3.2 previously 2.8) followed by leafminer (3.1 previously 2.9) (Table 3c) Diseases (2.8 previously 2.3), psyllids (2.7 previously 2.09) and mealybugs and scales (2.3 previously 2.8) and were also frequently sprayed As circumstances differ between regions a standard recommendation about the minimum number of sprays necessary cannot be given for the whole of Vietnam In areas where citrus greening is present, each flush should be sprayed at least once to prevent spread of the disease by the psyllid, which equates to sprays in the North and about sprays in the Mekong Delta It can assumed that a few more sprays are also necessary for control of mites, so it could be estimated that - 10 well timed sprays per year is the optimum number However, in some years and regions, up to 15 sprays could be justified Application of over 15 sprays may be considered as overuse while over 20 sprays is certainly overuse In areas where citrus greening is not a problem the number of sprays can be reduced to 4-6 1.1.5 Pest management activities other than pesticide Overall, the vast majority of farmers (98% increased from 88%) conduct some kind of pest monitoring activity and 86% (a significant increase from 58%) monitor for the presence of beneficial arthropods (Table 4) These results are consistent throughout the regions, ranging from 95-100% and 80-95% for monitoring of pests and beneficials, respectively The majority of farmers in Northern Central Provinces using baits for control of fruit fly (85% increased from 40%) but only 23% of farmers used bait in the Mekong delta and a mere 5% in Northern Provinces Use of green (weaver) ants (Oecophylla smargdina) was reduced in the Mekong Delta (30% down from 60% of farmers) However, this is partly a result of farmers from Can Tho not being included as part of the impact assessment and farmers in Dong Thap province no longer using green ants Use of green ants in Northern Central provinces was unchanged (20%) and a slight increase was recorded in Northern Provinces (40% up from 30%) A high proportion of farmers (97% up from 89%) declared that they removed unhealthy trees, with the proportion in the Mekong Delta raised from 76% to 100% A high proportion 93% (up from 81%) of farmers also claim that they prune flushes infested with leafminer to prevent pest recurrence 1.1.6 Record keeping and level of protective clothing use Improved adoption of these two project objectives is the most visible and significant Record keeping changed from virtually no record keeping at all to records been kept by the majority of farmers in all regions Records of fertiliser purchases and application have risen overall from 0.9 to 2.2 and 2.0 and 2.6 for Northern Provinces and Mekong delta, respectively Pesticide purchase records have risen from 0.5 to 2.2 and pesticide use recording has risen from 0.4 to 2.2 Recording of yield and income from fruit has risen from 0.8 to 2.1 and from to 2.2, respectively Even recording of occurrence of pest and diseases (1.1 up from 0.3) and major orchard activities (1.7 up from 0.2) are now being undertaken by many farmers Some kind of protective clothing is worn by the majority of farmers Cloth covering the mouth and nose, and hats were worn by more than 90% of farmers in all regions, long sleeved shirts and trousers were worn by 90% of farmers in the two Northern regions and by 78% of farmers in the Mekong delta Protective masks were worn by 42% of farmers (up from only 10%) Use of water-resistant clothing, gum boots and water-resistant gloves also significantly increased 1.1.7 Farmers’ beliefs and attitudes about, and understanding of citriculture practices and GAP Farmers’ positive attitudes towards nursery material produced by government institutes remained high and generally did not change much (Table 7) The most significant change was in Tien Giang province where only 30% of farmers a had positive attitude towards nursery material in the Baseline study, whereas after the project 80% of farmers had the view that nursery planting material is important That positive attitude was also transferred into practice and now 80% of farmers in Tien Giang province have their trees sourced from nurseries (increased from 50% recorded in the Baseline study) The highest overall positive attitude occurred in Northern Central provinces, with 82% of farmers in Hoa Binh sourcing all their planting material from nurseries The survey questions about nursery trees were chosen not only to test farmers’ attitude towards the nursery trees as such, but also to provide an indication of their attitudes towards the interventions carried out by government institutes (eg SOFRI, NIPP) Analysed in that light, the results indicate a consistently high trust in the northern part of Vietnam (not changed from baseline study) but results in the south were more variable with Ben Tre province recording a decrease in trust (100% in the baseline study to 60% now), whereas in Tien Giang it increased Overall, farmers showed satisfactory understanding (70% correct answers, increased from 67% in the Baseline study) of good practices in citriculture, such as use of fertilisers or suitable planting density The proportion of correct answers ranged from 65% (increased from 58%) in Northern Vietnam to 73% in both the Mekong delta and Northern Central Provinces Farmers’ understanding of citrus greening (huanglongbing) transmission and control was improved slightly (from 76% to 81% correct answers) and this improvement was consistent across the regions Understanding of pests and of effective pest control measures that was relatively low (52%) increased substantially (to 65%) Significant increases in farmer knowledge was recorded in Northern Central provinces (increase of 25%) and in Northern Vietnam (increase of 28%) but not in the Mekong Delta, where the increase was only 2% A reasonably high general awareness of the negative impact of pesticides on the environment and human health increased from 74% correct answers across the regions in baseline study to 90% after the project This awareness also translated in improved practices such as disposal of pesticide containers, and increased use of protective clothing The understanding of some of the major requirements of GAP and of implementation issues was relatively high in the baseline study (71% and 76% correct answers for major requirements and implementation issues, respectively) but it was still significantly improved across all regions reaching, 86% and 89% correct answers, respectively However, the belief that GAP certification will bring financial benefits to farmers slightly decreased from 90% to 80% in the Mekong delta, from 100% to 90% in Northern Central Provinces and from 85% to 70% However, overall it still remains high (80%) 1.1.8 Farmers self assessment of their skills Farmers’ self assessment shows a very high level of farmer confidence in their skills to perform most of the operations in citrus production (Tables and 10) A high level of confidence across all regions was recorded for pruning (2.8 increased from 2.7), recognising of major stages of plant lifecycle (2.8 increased from 2.7), the ability to distinguish between the symptoms of pests and diseases (2.7 increased from 2.6), recognising damage done by major pests (2.8 increased from 2.6), preparation of pesticide solutions according to label (remained unchanged at 2.9), calibration of sprayers (2.8 increased from 2.6), and storage of pesticides according to manufacturer recommendations (2.7 increased from 2.6) Low overall confidence of 1.5 that was recorded in the Baseline study for their ability to manipulate flushing, flowering and growth decreased even further to 1.2 However, it should be noted that FFS curriculum did not specifically target this topic Production of compost and keeping of accurate records were very important topics in FFS training and significant overall increases in farmers’ confidence in their ability to produce compost (increase from 1.7 to 2.4) and to keep accurate records (increase from 1.6 to 2.4) was recorded in the impact assessment In the Baseline study, farmers from the Mekong delta were very confident in their skills (2.4) lacking skills and confidence only in production of compost (1.3), keeping accurate records (1.2), calculation of profit (1.5) and budgeting for production needs (1.6) After the project intervention, farmers’ confidence rose to very high level of 2.9 with a very significant increase in confidence to competently produce compost (2.3 increased from 1.3), keep accurate records (2.8 increased from 1.2), calculation of profit (2.6 increased from 1.5) and budget for production needs (2.6 increased from 1.6) Farmers from Northern Central provinces were the least confident farmers in the Baseline study, scoring 2.0, but they increased their confidence in their abilities significantly during the project, reaching a score of 2.7 They significantly increased their confidence in effective application of fertilisers (2.7 increased from 1.5), production of compost (2.6 increased from 1.60), recognising symptoms of phytophthora (2.6 increased from 1.4), selecting correctly registered pesticides (2.7 increased from 1.6), and keeping accurate records (2.2 increased from 1.6) Confidence of farmers in Northern Vietnam increased only marginally, from 2.2 to 2.3 However, in this region there was a very significant difference between provinces with Ha Giang, Tuyen Quang and Yen Bai recording a modest increase in farmer confidence, whereas in Phu Tho farmers were less confident in their skills after the FFS Overall results show a significant increase in farmers’ confidence in their skills to perform all major operations in the orchard except for manipulation of flushing, flowering and harvest time The majority of the farmers are now skilled and have higher confidence in their ability to use their skills, which resulted in significant changes in their practices and improvements in citrus production Even though only two groups of farmers within the project timeframe achieved GAP certification, the project developed a broad base of well skilled farmers with awareness of GAP requirements, that will be able to achieve certification if market demand for GAP certified citrus fruit grows 1.1.9 Trainers knowledge, beliefs and attitudes about GAP Trainers were asked open answer questions to test their knowledge about GAP (the results are presented at the bottom of Table 12) and they were asked to agree or disagree with 16 statements to evaluate their attitude and beliefs about GAP (the results are presented in Table 11) Results on trainers’ attitudes towards GAP remain almost unchanged after trainers’ participation in project but their knowledge about GAP significantly improved Almost all trainers believe that the main reason for introduction of GAP is to improve the health of farmers and consumers (92% reduced from 100%), that GAP must link the environment and farming (96% increased from 92%) and that GAP is an international standard for safe food production recognized by most governments (96% increased from 92%) The majority of trainers believe that GAP should be implemented by all farmers (69% reduced from 73%) but there has been significant reduction in trainers’ belief that citrus fruit has to be GAP certified to be exported (58% reduced from 69%) The response of trainers indicates that they still see GAP as a government driven measure to protect human health and the environment which should be implemented by the majority of farmers These responses of trainers also indicate they believe that GAP is prescribed by governments across the world Trainers’ beliefs reflect the situation in Viet Nam and even partly the situation in Asian countries where the government is much more involved in implementation of GAP, although GAP was originally developed by the European retailers and in Europe it is governed by the joint retailer and producers’ governance boards and administered by independent certification agencies It seems that retailers not play an important role in GAP administration or implementation and this can have a detrimental impact on successful GAP adoption in Vietnam because producers will not have significant economic benefits as result of GAP implementation Even though retailers are not directly involved in GAP implementation and they were not involved in our project, a majority of trainers (62% reduced from 69%) still believe that retailers should pay for the training of farmers because the retailers will benefit the most from GAP implementation The majority of the trainers believe that GLOBALG.A.P standards are too high for Vietnamese conditions (80% increased from 54%) Trainers’ understanding of GAP requirement with regard to pesticide registration and use of pesticides significantly improved and now 73% of trainers understand pesticide registration requirements (increased from 54%) and 88% of trainers demonstrated a good understanding of pesticide use according to GAP requirements (increased from 54%) Trainers have very high level of confidence in their understanding of major GAP requirements and ability to train farmers in the implementation of GAP requirements (Table 12 and 13) Overall results of self-assessment in all regions shows that all trainers consider themself skilled to train GAP and the majority believe that they can train with confidence The only areas of competency that showed a lack of trainer confidence (but only in Don Thap and Phu Tho provinces) is the ability to explain all 12 requirements of GLOBALG.A.P The area where trainers from Northern provinces showed lack of confidence in the Baseline study was in selection of pesticides that comply with GAP requirements (1.9) but significant improvement was shown after their participation in project and now all trainers are confident (90) Results from the knowledge test indicate that the knowledge of trainers in the Mekong Delta remained high (88% of correct answers, increased from 83%) and knowledge of trainers in Northern Central Provinces (61% of correct answers, increased from 39%) and Northern Provinces (69% of correct answers, increased from 49%) improved significantly The most significant increase in trainers’ knowledge was achieved in Yen Bai province where trainers had only 30% correct answers in the Baseline study but 95% correct answers in the impact assessment test Only trainers from Ha Giang did not improve their knowledge, which remained below 50% Project impact on key Vietnamese institutions 2.1 Changes in interviewees’ conceptions about GAP since commencement of the project The interviewees’ concept of GAP has been broadened and enhanced They all can see clear connections between production, post-harvest management and markets They can also see the need for separation of the GAP requirements for domestic and export markets, where Viet GAP sets standards for the domestic market while GLOBALG.A.P is primarily for export to European or other advanced countries SOFRI have been taking an active role in establishing certification bodies for VietGAP that are easily accessible to farmers 2.2 Critical GAP elements 10 Appendix 1: Citrus IPM and GAP Impact Assessment 2010 Name of Respondent _ Date of Interview Village Interviewer _ District _ I Background Information Sex: 1) Male 2) Female What is your age? _ years How many years of schooling have you completed? years How many years have you been growing citrus? _ years What community organizations are you a member of? Who participates in the main tasks in the citrus orchard? Husband Wife Decision Execution Children Hired labor Decision Execution Pruning and crop care Soil management (cultivation and fertilizing) Irrigation Pest and disease monitoring Pesticide application Harvesting Marketing 27 II Practices Number of trees, planting grid, number of flushes and harvests: How many trees you have? Citrus species Young nonbearing trees (age of trees) Bearing trees (age of trees) Distance between trees X between rows mxm How many flushes per year Fruit bearing Total How many harvests per year 1,2,3, all year round Mandarins Pomelo Orange Lime Where did you get your planting material (please tick the boxes that apply to you)? Source All Most Few Nursery HLB tested Nursery uncertified Own farm Another farmer Other 28 What kind of fertiliser you use on your citrus trees? Number of applications per year Manure Compost Urea NPK Other mineral fertiliser Foliar fertiliser 10 How important are the following pests and diseases in your citrus orchard (tick the appropriate box)? Note: Respondent should answer only in regards to his own citrus orchard, not if he/she things that the pest is generally important or important on some other crops farmer has Pest/disease Very important Important Not important Don’t know Scales and mealybugs aphids whitefly psyllids thrips leafminer caterpillar fruit fly mites citrus greening Canker Other pests or diseases 29 11 How often you use pesticide to control the following pests in your orchard (tick the appropriate box)? Often (more Occasionally (1-3 Never than sprays per year) sprays/year) Preventative spray for insects Preventative spray for diseases Sprays to control pests when they appear: Scale and mealybugs Aphids Whitefly Psyllids Thrips Leafminer Caterpillar Fruit fly Mites Diseases 12 Did you use any of following IPM methods to improve control of pests and diseases in your orchard? Monitoring of pest and diseases yes no Monitoring of natural enemies of pest yes no Use of any type of traps, baits, yellow plates etc yes no Removal of unhealthy trees yes no Use of green ants yes no Pruning to remove leafminer and reduce disease incidence yes no 30 13 Pesticide use and spray application (Only record information that the respondent can clearly remember It is not expected that the respondent will remember all sprays) How many days/weeks/ months ago Name of pesticide Targeted pests/diseases (record the name of pest/disease) or preventative Spray application: motorized sprayer/ knapsack (record make and size of sprayer) Volume of spray per tree How long it Do you use contractor takes to to spray spraying orchard Last spray sprays ago sprays ago sprays ago 31 14 Do you have records for last 12 months of the following? Systematic Occasional Computer record in record in record notebook notebook No record Purchasing of fertilisers Application of fertilisers Purchasing of pesticide Application of pesticide Occurrence of pest and diseases Activities in the orchards like pruning, irrigation, harvesting Time of harvesting and quantity of harvested fruit Income from harvested fruits 15 Can you estimate how much you spent for following? Last weeks (VND) Last months (VND) Last year (VND) Pesticide Fertilisers Equipment Hired labor Other : 16 Can you estimate your profit from last year citrus production? _VND 32 17 Do you use any of following safety gear when applying pesticides? Always Occasionally Never Protective mask Cloth on mouth and nose Long sleeves shirt and trousers Water resistant protective clothing Gum boots Water resistant gloves Hat Other (name) III Beliefs/attitudes 18 Do you agree with following statements? Agree Disagree Not sure Certified nursery trees will give high yield Only certified nursery trees should be used to start new plantings Higher density planting will give higher yields Organic fertiliser is needed for healthy soil To achieve high yield I must apply foliar fertiliser Citrus cannot be grown in provinces where huanglongbing is present Huanglongbing is not a major problem if you use certified disease free nursery trees and you use good orchard management Citrus leaf miner cannot be controlled once damage on the leaves is visible Mites can only be controlled preventatively so miticide should be regularly sprayed The more insecticides that are used the higher the yield will be Pesticide spraying to control pests can harm your health Insecticide spraying can cause more pest problems Scale not need to be controlled because they not attack fruit To prevent HLB we have to control citrus psyllid On mature trees moderate level of leaf damage by leaf miner can be tolerated because damage to leaves does not reduce yield 33 19 Do you agree with following statements? Agree Disagree Not sure Farmers that comply with GAP can not use knapsack but only modern motorized sprayer Farmers that are certified to comply with GAP will get more profit for their fruit It is not important for GAP where pesticides are stored because that does not influence pesticide residues on fruit Only larger wealthier farmers can implement GAP Farmers cannot use pesticide if they want to get GAP certificate It is much easier for farmers to get GAP certificate if they are organized in cooperatives Farmers can use mineral fertiliser as part of GAP but they have to keep record of their use To meet GAP requirements farmers have to use certified planting material I cannot get GAP certification if I not have a computer to keep records The most important requirement of GAP is keeping good records of all farm practices Pre harvest interval varies for different pesticide so farmers have to find it on the label of each pesticide they use Water for irrigation can come from any source because it does not come on the fruit To get economic benefits of GAP farmers should sell their produce to GAP certified wholesaler 34 IV Self-assessment of skills 20 Indicate how confident are you in each of following skills? (tick appropriate box) Skill Cannot Level of skills Can with Can by Can by myself but myself with assistance confidence of more not experienced confident farmer Pruning citrus tree Recognize major stages in plant and fruit development like major flushing, flowering, fruit set etc Manipulate flushing, flowering and harvest time to optimize production Apply fertiliser at right time and right quantity Manage water level in canals (South) or provide adequate irrigation (North) to provide optimal growing conditions Produce your own compost from organic materials from your farm Distinguish between symptoms of disease and insect damage Recognize damage caused by leafminer, mites, aphids and thrips Recognize symptoms of phytophthora Chose correctly registered pesticides for control of major pest and diseases Prepare pesticide solution at concentration specified at the label Calibrate sprayer Calculate dose of pesticide to be applied per tree Determine and use appropriate OH@S practices on the farm Store agrochemicals in accordance to manufacturer instructions Keep accurate record of activities on the farm Calculate net profit Budget for next production cycle 35 V Communication Variables 21 Who taught you how to grow citrus? _ 22 If you need advice on citrus production, where can you get it? 23 Which of the following communication media are you exposed to? _ 1) Radio _ 2) TV _ 3) Video player _ Newspaper _ 5) Magazine _ 6) Other (specify) _ 24 Do you have your own computer? Yes no 25 Can you easily access public computer? Yes no 30 What are the best ways for farmers to learn about citrus production? 9Rank from to 3) _ 1) Poster _ 2) Leaflet _ 3) Radio broadcasts _ 4) Billboard _ 5) Demonstration plots _ 6) TV _ 7) Newspaper _ 8) Field training _9) Farmers’ meetings _10) Other (specify) 36 Appendix 2: Citrus GAP Impact assessment KAP Survey for trainers 2010 Name of Respondent _ Sub PPD District _ -I Background Information Sex: 1) Male 2) Female What is your age? _ years What are your _ qualifications? How many years of experience in plant protection you have? years In how many farmer field school training have you been involved? _ II Knowledge Please can you explain in no more than sentences what you think GAP concept is? 37 Can you name at least requirements of EurepGAP? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ How can you insure traceability of the agricultural product? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Tell us in no more than sentences what is in your opinion major difference between IPM and GAP _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 38 Can you tell us how farmer can get GAP certification? Is it necessary that farmers are members of cooperatives or some other farmer’s association to be able to gat GAP certification? _ 39 III Beliefs/attitudes Do you agree with following statements? Agree Disagree Not sure GAP is international standard for safe food production consistent across the world and recognized by the most governments Citrus fruits can not be exported if farmers are not GAP certified EurepGAP requirements are set too high for Vietnames circumstances so Vietnam should develop its own GAP There is no need for improving farmer education for GAP implementations because export companies will give farmers clear guidelines how to comply with GAP GAP must link environment and farming Supermarket chains like Metro should be paying for GAP training not government because they will benefit the most from increased sale I can recommend pesticide to be applied on citrus as long as it is registered for use in rice GAP should be implemented by all farmers Main reason to implement GAP is to improve human health that includes farmers and consumers of agricultural products Farmers can not keep proper record because most of them does not have computer IPM is more important than GAP for majority of farmers so we should concentrate on teaching IPM GAP certification should be only sought by cooperatives and farmer organization that have access to export market Programs like ‘safe vegetable’ that concentrate on pesticide residues is more appropriate for Vietnam than GAP It is nearly impossible to make Vietnamese farmers to keep proper record Farmer that spray citrus 10 times a year but use pesticide according to label and keep record is more likely to get GAP certification than farmer who spray only time per year but does not keep record 40 IV Self-assessment of skills Indicate how confident are you in each of following skills? (tick appropriate box) Skill Level of skills Can train Do not Have know awareness farmers but but can not not confident train farmers Can train farmers with confidence Demonstrate use of protective gears according to GAP requirements Select pesticide that will be acceptable for GAP Calculate dosage of pesticide per tree according to label Determine pre-harvest interval to meet GAP requirement Explain all 12 requirements of EurepGAP Recommend measures to ensure that water use for irrigation is safe Demonstrate production of safe compost from organic material at the farm Explain to farmers and guide farmer to implement safe storage of the pesticide Develop record keeping system that farmer can use to be able to gain GAP certification Demonstrate pesticide application that have minimal impact on environment Explain and guide farmers in soil cultivation that would have minimal negative impact on soil and would comply with GAP requirement Recommend planting materials to the farmer that meet GAP requironment Recommend management strategies to control Hoanglong bin Conduct demonstration trials using IPM strategies including monitoring and action thresholds 41 ... larger scale SOFRI established itself as a leader in the development of theoretical and implementation concepts of GAP Our project utilised the skills of SOFRI staff through them leading the TOT and... of beneficial arthropods (Table 4) These results are consistent throughout the regions, ranging from 9 5-1 00% and 8 0 -9 5% for monitoring of pests and beneficials, respectively The majority of farmers... Overall 2 .9 (2.4) 2.7 (2.0) 2.3 (2.2) 2.6 (2.2) none of the farmers are skilled, 0. 1-1 few farmers are skilled but the majority of them cannot perform independently, 1. 1-2 .0 majority of farmers