Báo cáo giai đoạn: Introduction of the principles of GAP for citrus through implementation of citrus IPM using Farmer Field Schools - Milestone 9 Project Validation and Impact Assessment (Report Part 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 Vietnamese Project Team Leader Australian Organisation Australian Personnel Date commenced Completion date (original) Completion date (revised) Protection Department Mr Ngo Tien Dung University of Western Sydney Oleg Nicetic, Robert Spooner-Hart, Elske van de Fliert March 2007 February 2010 August 2010 Contact Officer(s) In Australia: Team Leader Name: Position: Organisation Oleg Nicetic (til 2/07/10) Robert Spooner-Hart (from 3/07/20) Research Associate University of Western Sydney Telephone: Fax: Email: +61245701329 +61245701103 r.spooner-hart@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 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). 2 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. 3 Table 1: Location and time of focus group discussions Province District Village Year of FFS Date of focus group discussion Number Major crop of farmers Mekong delta Ben Tre Ben Tre Phu 2007 03/05/10 5 Pomelo City Nhuan Tien Cai Be Giang Vinh Binh Long Minh Dong Lai Vung Thap Can Tho Phong Dien My Loi A 2007 My Hoa 2007 Long Hau 2007 Nho 2007 07/05/10 5 04/05/10 5 06/05/10 5 05/05/10 5 King orange Pomelo Tieu mandarin Sweet orange (Rambutan now) Northern Central Vietnam Ha Tinh Nghe An Hoa Binh Ha Tay Huong Son Vu Quang Anh Son Nghia Dan Cao Phong Phuc Tho Chuong My Son 2007 Truong Son Tho 2008/9 Dinh Son 2007 Nghia 2008/9 Son Group 6 2007 Cao Phong Company Van Ha 2007 Xuan Mai 2008/9 29/04/10 5 29/04/10 4 28/04/10 5 28/04/10 5 27/04/10 5 26/04/10 4 26/04/10 4 Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Pomelo and oranges Pomelo Northern Vietnam Phu Tho Yen Bai Tuyen Quang Ha Giang Doan Que Lam 2007 Hung Doan Bang 2008/9 Hung Doan Yen Bai Dai Binh 2007 Van Thuong 2008/9 Chan Bang La Ham Yen Tan Yen 2007 Ham Yen Yen Phu 2008/9 Vi Viet Lam 2007 Xuyen Vi Trung 2008/9 Xuyen Thanh 24/03/10 5 Pomelo 24/03/10 4 Pomelo 25/03/10 5 Pomelo 25/03/10 5 Orange 27/03/10 5 Orange 26/03/10 4 Orange 26/03/10 5 Orange 26/03/10 3 Orange 4 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. 5 ... - tailieumienphi.vn