1 Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development _____________________________________________________________________ Milestone 9 Project Validation and Impact Assessment Report Part 1 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 Contact Officer(s) In Australia: Team Leader Name: Oleg Nicetic (til 2/07/10) Robert Spooner-Hart (from 3/07/20) Telephone: +61245701329 Position: Research Associate Fax: +61245701103 Organisation University of Western Sydney Email: r.spooner- hart@uws.edu.au In Australia: Administrative contact Name: Gar Jones Telephone: +6124736 0631 Position: Director, Research Services Fax: +6124736 0905 Organisation University of Western Sydney Email: g.jones@uws.edu.au In Vietnam Name: Mr Ngo Tien Dung Telephone: +84-4-5330778 Position: National IPM coordinator Fax: +84-4-5330780 Organisation Plant Protection Department Email: ipmppd@fpt.vn 2 Introduction Methodology for the impact assessment of project 037/06 VIE was developed in 2007 at 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 were directly involved in the project impact assessment over past 2 years. Impact assessment was done using three different methods: a) Before and after (B&A) surveys. In each province, 5 farmers and 2 trainers were surveyed just after commencing their participation in FFS (June 2007) and 2 years after completion of FFS (March-May 2010). b) Continuous monitoring of two groups of farmers. FFS group and non-FFS group in two northern provinces (Nghe An and Ha Tay) and two provinces from Mekong delta (Tien Giang and Can Tho). Continuous monitoring was conducted from January 2008 to December 2009 in Northern provinces and from January 2008 to June 2010 in the Mekong delta. c) Semi-structured focus discussion groups with farmers. Focus groups were conducted with farmers participating in 2007 and 2008/9 FFSs in 8 Northern provinces and farmers participating in 2007 FFSs in the Mekong delta. Focus group discussion was complimented with field visits to farmers’ orchards and assessment of their compliance with GAP requirements, and analysis of key markets for GAP fruit. This report only presents the findings of focus group discussions and assessment of compliance with GAP requirements. These findings give very good insight into farmers’ perceived benefits from the project (economic, social and environmental) and a more objective picture of practice change implemented in the orchards since focus group discussion results were cross-checked with field observations and farmer records. Data presented for compliance with GAP requirements are the result of discussions with farmers, their trainers and from field inspections. Compliance was assessed against criteria outlined in the GAP manual developed as a part of our project, which was based on GLOBALG.A.P. For easier presentation, results from 13 provinces where activities of our project were conducted are grouped into 3 regions: a) “Mekong Delta” comprising 5 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 2 provinces that are south of Hanoi (Hoa Binh and Ha Tay) and c) “Northern provinces” comprising provinces north of Hanoi (Phu Tho, Yen Bai, Tuyen Quang, Ha Giang). 3 Material and Methods 1 Focus group discussion Focus group discussions were conducted from 24 to 27 March in Northern Provinces, from 26 to 29 April 2010 in Northern Central Vietnam and from 3 to 7 May 2010 in Mekong delta (Table 1). In Northern provinces 2 focus group discussions were held in each province: one focus group discussion with 5 farmers that graduated from FFSs in 2007 (1 growing season FFSs) and other with 5 farmers that graduated from 2008/2009 FFSs (2 growing season FFS). In Mekong delta only one focus group discussion was conducted with 5 farmers that graduated from FFSs in 2007. Focus group discussions in Mekong delta were held in a house of one of the farmers while in the 8 Northern provinces discussions were mainly held in community centres. Discussions were facilitated in Northern Provinces by Oleg Nicetic and Mr Nguyen Tuan Loc, Vice-director of PPD Regional Centre 4 in Vinh City and by Oleg Nicetic and Mr Le Quoc Cuong Vice-director of PPD Southern Regional Plant Protection Centre in My Tho. On average, discussions lasted just over one hour. Facilitators made every effort to involve all farmers present in discussions, but in most cases 1-2 farmers would take a clear lead giving most of the opinions. Facilitators however confirm all conclusions recorded in Appendix 1 with all participants. Farmers were only given topics (i.e. practice change, economic, social, environmental benefits and record keeping) with no prompts or sub- questions. Implications of this method are that we can be reasonably confident that what farmers mentioned really did happen, but we cannot know if farmers did not mention certain changes of practice because they didn’t see them as important or if there was no change in practice at all. Consequently responses are recorded in Tables 2 to 13 as “yes” if farmers mentioned changes in a specific category i.e. pruning, fertiliser use, reduction in number of pesticide, increase in yield, reduction in inputs etc. and “not stated” if farmer did not mention any change in that category. Exceptions are two questions that were specifically asked: a) “Do you still keep records?” and b) “Did you introduce weaver ants?”, so answers were recorded as “yes” or “no” in those two categories. Questions related to record keeping recorded in Table 14 were individually asked of each farmer so the results can be expressed as percentages of the total number of respondents. Any claim related to practice change that could not be confirmed in the orchard or confirmed by farmers’ or trainers’ records was not recorded in Appendix 1. Major social benefits claimed were also checked e.g. existence of farmer clubs/cooperatives, promotion of FFS members to community leading positions. It was much more difficult to confirm farmers’ statements in relation to economic, environmental and social benefits. For example a number of respondents reported significant increases in yield and income, but it is not possible to establish what proportion of that increased yield and income is due to changed management practices and how much is due to yearly variation in yield and prices. For environmental impact most of the farmer reported increase in number of beneficial organisms being present in their orchards. However, as part of the FFS training involved identification of pests, diseases and beneficial organisms, it is impossible to distinguish if the perceived increases were a consequence of an actual increase in beneficial organisms, or an increased ability of respondents to recognise beneficial organisms. 4 Table 1: Location and time of focus group discussions Province District Village Year of FFS Date of focus group discussion Number of farmers Major crop Mekong delta Ben Tre Ben Tre City Phu Nhuan 2007 03/05/10 5 Pomelo Tien Giang Cai Be My Loi A 2007 07/05/10 5 King orange Vinh Long Binh Minh My Hoa 2007 04/05/10 5 Pomelo Dong Thap Lai Vung Long Hau 2007 06/05/10 5 Tieu mandarin Can Tho Phong Dien Nho 2007 05/05/10 5 Sweet orange (Rambutan now) Northern Central Vietnam Huong Son Son Truong 2007 29/04/10 5 Orange Ha Tinh Vu Quang Son Tho 2008/9 29/04/10 4 Orange Anh Son Dinh Son 2007 28/04/10 5 Orange Nghe An Nghia Dan Nghia Son 2008/9 28/04/10 5 Orange Hoa Binh Cao Phong Group 6 Cao Phong Company 2007 27/04/10 5 Orange Ha Tay Phuc Tho Van Ha 2007 26/04/10 4 Pomelo and oranges Chuong My Xuan Mai 2008/9 26/04/10 4 Pomelo Northern Vietnam Phu Tho Doan Hung Que Lam 2007 24/03/10 5 Pomelo Doan Hung Bang Doan 2008/9 24/03/10 4 Pomelo Yen Bai Yen Bai Dai Binh 2007 25/03/10 5 Pomelo Van Chan Thuong Bang La 2008/9 25/03/10 5 Orange Tuyen Quang Ham Yen Tan Yen 2007 27/03/10 5 Orange Ham Yen Yen Phu 2008/9 26/03/10 4 Orange Ha Giang Vi Xuyen Viet Lam 2007 26/03/10 5 Orange Vi Xuyen Trung Thanh 2008/9 26/03/10 3 Orange 5 It may be assumed that contributing all positive economic and environmental effects recorded in this project impact assessment solely to the farmers’ participation in FFS is likely to result in an overestimation of the benefits of FFS and our project but it can be assumed that while participation in FFSs does not contribute all of the benefits, it does at least partly contribute to the reported yield income increases and profitability increases as well as in improved environment. 2 Compliance with GAP requirements Data presented for compliance with GAP requirements are the result of discussions with farmers and their trainers during focus group discussions and field inspections by the impact assessment team after discussions. In a few cases inspections were done in mid 2009. Compliance was assessed against criteria in the GAP manual developed as a part of our project and hence represents compliance with GLOBALG.A.P. Assessments were recorded in a form (Appendix 2). 3 Analysis of key markets for GAP citrus fruit Information about key markets for GAP citrus fruit was obtained from informal interviews with the Vice-Director of My Hoa Cooperative and 5 of the farmer members. Information was also sourced from Provincial Agriculture Department Officials and Dr Vo Mai, the Vice President of VacVina. 6 Results and discussion 1. Change of practices 1.1 Northern Central provinces 1.1.1. FFS conducted in 2007 (1 season FFS) Farmers participating in focus group discussions in 3 Northern Central provinces stated that after participating in FFSs they monitor presence of pests and diseases because they are now confident in their ability to identify them (Table 2). Farmers also understand importance of recognising the right stage of citrus development (bud burst) for successful preventative control of citrus leaf miner and citrus psylla. Monitoring resulted in significant reduction of pesticide sprays used: in Hoa Binh province for example pesticide sprays were reduced from 12 sprays to 5-6 sprays. Use of PSO increased in all 3 provinces. Reduction in herbicide use and swing towards more IPM compatible pesticide was also recorded. Increase in use of organic fertiliser, mainly home prepared mixtures of manure and other organic material, was recorded in all provinces. The timing of fertiliser applications changed from once after harvest to more frequent applications mainly twice a year (4 times a year in Ha Tay). Improvement in pruning was stated in all 3 provinces Farmers in Nghe An province had to discontinue citrus production and start production of grasses for cow feed to support development of dairy industry in the province so they did not talk about practice change during focus group discussion. 1.1.2. FFS conducted in 2008/9 (2 season FFS) Changes of practices for 2 season FFSs were similar to changes recorded for 1 season FFSs. Farmer monitor presence of pest and diseases and they are now confident in their ability to identify them. They also understand importance of applying pesticide at the right stage of citrus development (bud burst) for successful preventative control of citrus leaf miner and citrus psylla. Monitoring resulted in significant reduction of pesticide sprays used in Nghe An province from 10-12 sprays to 6-7 sprays. In Ha Tay and Ha Tinh provinces use of pesticide was low before the start of FFS and no reduction of pesticide use were stated by farmers. However in both of these provinces reductions of herbicide use were stated. Increase in use of organic fertiliser, mainly home prepared mixture of manure and other organic material, was recorded in Ha Tinh and Ha Tay provinces and increase of foliar fertiliser use was recorded in Nghe An province. The timing of fertiliser application changed from once after harvest to more frequent applications mainly twice a year (4 times a year in Ha Tay). Improvement in pruning was stated in all provinces except Ha Tinh. Farmers in Hoa Binh province were on an excursion to visit historic sites from the liberation war so they could not participate in the impact assessment. 7 1.2 Northern provinces 1.2.1. FFS conducted in 2007 (1 season FFS) Farmers participating in focus group discussions in 4 Northern provinces stated that after participating in FFSs they can recognise major pest and diseases and they practice regular monitoring in their orchard (Table 3). They also understand the importance of applying pesticides at the right stage of citrus development (bud burst) for successful preventative control of citrus leaf miner and citrus psylla. Monitoring resulted in significant reduction of pesticide sprays used in Yen Bai province from 8-10 sprays to a few (exact number not stated by farmers) and in Tuyen Quang province from 8-10 sprays to 3-5. In Phu Tho province farmers stated a reduction of pesticide use but they did not specify the number of sprays. In Ha Giang the number of pesticide sprays increased from 4-5 to 6-7. Increased number of sprays is due to increased use of miticides that resulted in significant improvement in fruit quality. Use of PSO increased in all provinces except Yen Bai. Increase in use of organic fertiliser, mainly manure, was recorded in all provinces except Ha Giang. The timing of fertiliser application changed from once after harvest to twice a year was recorded in Phu Tho and Tuyen Quang. Improvement in pruning was stated by farmers in all provinces 1.2.2. FFS conducted in 2008/9 (2 season FFS) Changes of practices for 2 season FFSs were similar to changes recorded for season 1 FFSs. Farmers monitor the presence of pest and diseases and they are now confident in their ability to identify them. They also understand the importance of recognising the right stage of citrus development (bud burst) for successful preventative control of citrus leaf miner and citrus psylla. Monitoring resulted in significant reduction of pesticide sprays used in Tuyen Quang province from 8-10 sprays to 3-5 sprays. In Yen Bai province farmers significantly reduced pesticide use, not by reducing the number of sprays but by discontinuing the practice of mixing many pesticides together. In Phu Tho province reduction of pesticide use was not stated but it was low and it remains low. Similar to 2007, the FFS in Ha Giang increased use of pesticide. Before the FFS, farmers used no or very few pesticide sprays. Increase in use of manure was recorded in Tuyen Quang and Ha Giang provinces and increase in foliar fertiliser use was recorded in all provinces except Tuyen Quang. The method of application of fertilizers changed from once after harvest to twice a year (3 times per year in Yen Bai). Improvement in pruning was stated in all provinces. 1.3. Mekong delta Farmers participating in focus group discussions in all 5 provinces from Mekong delta stated that after participating in FFSs they are now confident in identification of major pests and diseases (Table 4). Before they apply pesticide they monitor for presence of pests and diseases or the right stage of citrus development (bud burst for preventative control of citrus leaf miner and citrus psylla). This resulted in significant reduction of pesticide sprays used. In Dong Tap province, which had the highest use of pesticides, the number of sprays was reduced from over 30 to 15-20. In Tien Giang province sprays were reduced from over 15 to 8-12. In Ben Tre province the interviewed farmers practically stopped using broad spectrum pesticides and pests and diseases were managed with PSO, Trichoderma and weaver ants. 8 Use of compost was recorded in all provinces, while the method of application of fertilizers changed in Ben Tre and Tien Giang to include more frequent applications at a lower dose. Improvement in pruning was stated in all provinces except Vinh Long. In Can Tho province farmers were found to have very poor orange orchards with little earning potential in the 2007 baseline study. After the FFS farmers introduced cultivation of rambutan and only one out of the 5 farmers was still growing oranges. The newly established rambutan orchards had their first harvest and provided good return. 2. Economic impact 2.1 Northern Central provinces 2.1.1. FFS conducted in 2007 (1 season FFS) In Ha Tinh and Ha Tay farmers stated increase in yield and quality of fruit (Table 5). In Ha Tinh farmers also stated increase in price of their products. In Nghe An and Hoa Binh farmers stated increase in profitability of their production. In Hoa Binh farmers claimed increase in income from 20-30,000,000 VND before FFS to 70,000,000 after FFS. 2.1.2. FFS conducted in 2008/9 (2 season FFS) In Ha Tinh farmers stated an increase in yield. In Nghe An and Ha Tay farmers stated increase in profitability of their production. In Nghe An farmers claimed increase in income from 20-30,000,000 VND before FFS to 50,000,000 after FFS. Farmers from Hoa Binh did not participate in focus group discussions. 2.2 Northern provinces 2.2.1. FFS conducted in 2007 (1 season FFS) In Phu Tho and Yen Bai farmers stated reduction in input costs (Table 6). In Tuyen Quang farmers stated reduction in input costs and increase in profitability of their production and in Ha Giang farmers stated increased quality of fruit and increase in profitability. 2.1.2. FFS conducted in 2008/9 (2 season FFS) In Phu Tho farmers stated reduction in input costs. In Yen Bai and Tuyen Quang farmers stated improvement in all categories: reduction in input costs, increased yield, increased quality of fruits and higher profitability of production. In Ha Giang farmers stated increased yield and quality of fruits. 2.3. Mekong delta In Ben Tre and Vinh Long farmers stated improvement in all categories: reduction in input costs, slight increase in yield, increased quality of fruits and higher profitability of production (Table 7). In Tien Giang and Dong Thap farmers stated a reduction of input costs, increased quality of fruit and higher profitability. In Can Tho farmers introduced production of rambutan, resulting in significant increase in profitability in comparison to previously grown oranges. 9 3. Social impacts 3.1 Northern Central provinces 3.1.1. FFS conducted in 2007 (1 season FFS) In Ha Tinh and Hoa Binh farmers stated increase in sharing of knowledge and experiences, and increase in social activities and better relationships in the community as result of FFSs. They also claimed increase in their confidence and self-esteem (Table 8). In Nghe An farmers stated increase in sharing of knowledge and experiences, and increase in social activities and better relationships in community. In Ha Tay, participants of FFS claimed improved social standing in their community. 3.1.2. FFS conducted in 2008/9 (2 season FFS) In Ha Tinh farmers stated an increase in sharing of knowledge and experiences with other community members and increase in their standing in the community. In Nghe An, participants of FFS claimed improved social standing. In Ha Tay farmers stated an increase in sharing of knowledge and experiences, and increase in social activities and better relationships in the community as result of FFSs. They also claimed increase in their confidence and self-esteem as well as improved social standing in their community. 3.2 Northern provinces 3.2.1. FFS conducted in 2007 (1 season FFS) In Phu Tho farmers stated an increase in sharing of knowledge and experiences with other community members, increase in social activities and increase in their standing in the community (Table 9). In Yen Bai and Tuyen Quang farmers stated an increase in shearing of knowledge and experiences with other community members, increase in social activities and better relationship in community. These resulted in formation of farmers’ club in Tuyen Quang province and farmers’ plan to brand their oranges. In Ha Giang farmers stated an increase sharing of knowledge and experiences and increase of their standing in the community. One participant in the FFS became the hamlet leader. 3.2.2. FFS conducted in 2008/9 (2 season FFS) In Phu Tho farmers stated an increase in sharing of knowledge and experiences with other community members, increase in social activities and increase in their standing in the community In Yen Bai farmers stated an increase in sharing of knowledge and experiences with other community members. They also increased their self-esteem and confidence resulting in their higher standing in the community. Farmers formed a club and looking at possibilities of forming a cooperative. In Ha Giang farmers stated an increase in sharing of knowledge and experiences, and increase in social activities and better relationships in the community as result of FFSs. They also claimed increase in their confidence and self-esteem as well as improved social standing in their community. 10 3.3. Mekong delta In all 5 provinces in the Mekong delta farmers claimed an increase in sharing of knowledge and experiences, and increase in social activities and better relationships in the community as result of FFSs. They also claimed increase in their confidence and self-esteem. In all provinces, except Vinh Long, FFS participants stated an improvement in their social standing in the community. In Ben Tre and Tien Giang provinces FFS instigated formation of social clubs and in Vinh Long province FFS increased activities in the existing cooperative. In Ben Tre the farmers’ club will buy a computer that will be used to access agricultural extension material. 4. Environmental impacts 4.1 Northern Central provinces 4.1.1. FFS conducted in 2007 (1 season FFS) In all provinces farmers reported increase in the number of beneficial arthropods in their orchards (Table 11). In Ha Tinh and Hoa Binh farmers also introduced weaver ants. In Hoa Binh farmers claimed an increase in the number of birds. 4.1.2. FFS conducted in 2008/9 (2 season FFS) In all provinces farmers reported increase in the number of beneficial arthropods in orchards. In Ha Tinh farmers also introduced weaver ants. In Nghe An and Ha Tay provinces farmers collect and burn pesticide packaging resulting in reduced pollution in orchards. 4.2 Northern provinces 4.2.1. FFS conducted in 2007 (1 season FFS) In all provinces except Ha Giang farmers reported increase in numbers of beneficial arthropods in their orchards (Table 12). There were no other environmental benefits stated and there were no introductions of weaver ants. 4.2.2. FFS conducted in 2008/9 (2 season FFS) In all provinces farmers reported increase in numbers of beneficial arthropods in their orchards (Table 12). Weaver ants are present in orchards in Tuyen Quang and Ha Giang but farmers did not introduce them or encouraging their development. Before FFS in Ha Giang farmer used to kill weaver ants because they regarded them as pests. There were no other environmental benefits stated. 3.3. Mekong delta In all provinces farmers reported increase in numbers of beneficial arthropods in their orchards (Table 13). Weaver ants were introduced in all orchards. Farmers from all provinces except from Dong Thap claimed increase in abundance of fish in canals. In Ben Tre, Tien Giang and Vinh Long provinces farmers collect and burn pesticide packaging resulting in reduced pollution in orchards. In Tien Giang and Dong Thap farmers reported improvement [...]... resources for GAP implementation: GAP manual, reference material for farmers and trainers (books and brochures) and on-farm record keeping system Project also developed a 13 significant pool of trained farmer that will be able to implement GAP and gain GAP certification, if market requirements for the GAP- certified citrus fruit grows and farmers can get a premium price by accessing the upper end of the domestic... post-harvest processing There are no packing houses in any of provinces that are involved in the project This lack of post-harvest facilities is the major reason why it is unlikely that, after completion of our project, there will be widespread introduction of GAP that will have an impact on export of Vietnamese citrus The main outcome of our project in regard to GAP implementation is development of. .. comply in the area of plant protection, fertiliser use and record keeping For the purposes of this survey, farmers who complied with some components of the GAP requirements within each of the 12 major categories of GAP were considered to “partly comply” Although “partial compliance” is not an official category in GAP certification, it was used as an indicator of the GAP categories within which farmers... representative of the exporter to the Netherlands and she said that GAP is not required for export and that the Dutch importers perform their own quality control checks, including pesticide residue assessment, so GAP certification did not increase the price paid for exported pomelo It seems that the most beneficial aspect of GAP certification for My Hoa cooperative has been the positive media coverage, since the. .. were used for the certification process itself According to the interviewed vicedirector and a few farmer- members of My Hoa cooperative, after the certification process was completed and the consultants’ support was terminated, the farmers had problems with record keeping on their own, and neither the cooperative nor the farmer- members had any significant increase in income as result of GAP certification... socio-economic realities However, VietGAP is still a better option for a Vietnamese citrus industry mainly concentrated on domestic marketing The implementation of GLOBALG.A.P is only suitable for a limited number of cooperatives targeting export markets 4.3 Analysis of key markets for GAP citrus fruit The value of citrus in the Vietnamese domestic market is very high and there are no incentives for. .. returns from citrus are 3 - 6 times higher (Table 19) In the Mekong delta, the price of pomelo and mandarin is stable but the price of oranges in the Northern provinces fluctuates more because of the high fluctuation in yields from year to year that is a characteristic of oranges Farmers do not know how to reduce the number of overloaded fruits in high production years to escape the price plunge and to regulate... leased land to farmers) and Ha Tay (small scale pomelo production) farmers used certified planting material 11 Crop protection is marked as PC even though most of the farmers practice IPM after FFSs, but they do not comply with requirement of using only pesticides registered for citrus Farmers are aware of the need to use registered products and to comply with the withholding period However farmers and. .. initiation for next year’s crop For example, in Tuyen Quang province in 2008 the yield was between 2 5-4 0 kg/tree and the price for kg of oranges was about VND 2,000; whereas, in 20 09 the yield was only 5-1 0 kg per tree and price was about VND 10,000/kg Marketing of citrus fruit in all provinces is mainly through a ‘middle man’, who comes and buys fruits at the farm A very small percentage of the fruit...in their own health as result of the reduced number of pesticide sprays and changing from more toxic to IPM- compatible pesticides 5 On-farm record keeping system The on-farm record keeping system was developed based on VietGAP requirements and consists of a very simple and cheap record book that was evaluated by farmers in the first year of FFSs The record keeping books are now used by farmers . 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,. assessment of their compliance with GAP requirements, and analysis of key markets for GAP fruit. This report only presents the findings of focus group discussions and assessment of compliance with GAP. recorded for season 1 FFSs. Farmers monitor the presence of pest and diseases and they are now confident in their ability to identify them. They also understand the importance of recognising the