Báo cáo khoa học nông nghiệp " Introduction of the principles of GAP for citrus through implementation of citrus IPM using Farmer Field Schools - Milestone 9 Project Validation Report Part 2" doc

Data presented in Table 7 represents the percentage of farmers per province and region that gave correct answers with regard to citricultural practices shown in the category “Understandi

Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development

_

Milestone 9 Project Validation Report

Part 2

for citrus through implementation of citrus IPM using Farmer Field Schools

Development, Plant Protection Department

Elske van de Fliert

Reporting period

Contact Officer(s)

In Australia: Team Leader

Robert Spooner-Hart (from 3/07/20)

r.spooner-hart@uws.edu.au

In Australia: Administrative contact

In Vietnam

Introduction

In this second part of Impact assessment study we present results of:

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) Exact dates of surveys were presented in Table 1 in Part 1 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 1 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 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 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

1 Baseline survey of farmers and trainers

1.1 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 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 1 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

obtained little planting material from one source by 1 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 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 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 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 4 represents the percentage of farmers per province and region that practice a certain pest management activity

Data for record keeping presented in Table 5 were calculated by multiplying the number of respondents that keep systematic record by 3, that keep occasional record by 2 and no record

at all by 0 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 1 and those that did 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

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 4 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 1 and do not have knowledge about the certain skill by 0 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 3 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 5 open ended knowledge questions (see Appendix 2) For each question the score was 0 for incorrect answers, 0.5 for partly correct answers and 1 for correct answers Scores for two trainers were added and presented in the tables

2 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

1 Baseline of farmers and trainers

1.1 Survey of 5 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 1 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 3 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 2 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 4 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 3 times and 30% (44%) 1 - 3 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 1 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 4 sprays in the North and about 6 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 6 - 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

1 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 9 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 5 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 do 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%

2 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

All respondents are in agreement that GAP implementation and certification for citrus should

be at a farmer group level, preferably with farmers forming formal cooperatives For GAP to

be successfully implemented it is necessary to obtain support from all levels of government; and good connections with local governments in many provinces were established during the timeframe of the project Introduction of VietGAP has been seen as highly positive step that will enable wider implementation of GAP In the Baseline study interviewees saw record keeping as a key component of GAP that would be difficult to implement because of current levels of farmer education and habitual opposition to record keeping However, the results of our project demonstrated the opposite, and this fact was acknowledged by most of the

respondents The majority of respondents see lack of substantial and immediate economic benefits for farmers who implement GAP as the major obstacle for wider GAP

implementation

2.3 Role of FFS in GAP implementation

In Vietnam, there is already an existing infrastructure and framework for FFS that proved to

be excellent vehicle for implementation of key requirements of GAP; including IPM, record keeping and OH&S The ability of FFS to engage farmers in evidence-based decision

making rather than being told what to do was a key component for successful GAP

implementation

2.4 Benefits to stakeholder organizations

The project provided a framework for changing farmers’ practices Benefits to farmers as major stakeholders in this project are presented in other parts of this report and in Part 1 of impact assessment Presented below are benefits to other stakeholders involved in the project This project built the capacity of the Plant Protection Department to take an active role in GAP implementation and as a result of project activities the Head Office, Regional Centres and Plant Protection Sub-Departments in participating provinces are now all sufficiently skilled to lead and facilitate implementation of GAP throughout Vietnam As result of PPD staff activities, knowledge of farmers on GAP that was relatively high in the South has been broadened and deepened In the North, knowledge of GAP was much lower than in the South; but as a result of the project it has now been significantly increased Strategies should now be developed to link PPD with industry and retailers to fully utilise this enhanced

capacity

The Plant Protection Research Institute was not directly involved in the implementation of GAP but they used their existing knowledge in IPM to assist with Training of Trainers The project provided funds that enabled them to publish a field guide for management of citrus pest and diseases specific for the northern part of Vietnam The book was printed (5000 copies) and distributed through PPD network to provinces It provided very valuable

reference material for both trainers and farmers

Can Tho University was also involved in the Training of Trainers and their technology on

use of compost with the addition of Trichoderma was widely implemented across all FFSs

As a result of the implementation of this composting technology in this and the previous

project, Trichoderma is now widely use by citrus growers As a result of these high demands,

Can Tho University have licensed An Giang Pesticide Company to produce Trichoderma on

a 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 writing a manual for GAP implementation in citrus However, the project provided SOFRI the opportunity to reach and influence citrus farmers on a much broader scale and provided funds to produce the GAP manual

VAC VINA is a leader in cooperative movements in the Mekong Delta and they also have a network of trainers to support cooperatives and farmers This project enhanced their

knowledge and skills, and provided the opportunity for them to utilise those skills through facilitating the implementation of GAP in Dong Thap province

SPC produced the petroleum spray oil (SK Enspray 99) and was a very important partner in our previous project when use of oil in the Mekong Delta was increased significantly to the extent that it was used by most citrus farmers In this project, the expectation was that SPC would be able to provide product in the north However, because their network in the north was weak and they did not have high expectations for sales and therefore did not invest in developing additional support, they did not significantly expand their sales in the north

Note:

All results from 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 value recorded in baseline study

Table 1: Source of planting material

Source of planting material (weighted proportion from each source) Province

Table 2a: Index of perceived importance of pests and diseases shown per province

Province

Tho

Vinh Long

Ben Tre Dong

Thap

Tien Giang

Ha Tinh Nghe

An

Hoa Binh

Ha Tay Phu Tho Yen Bai Tuyen

Quang

Ha Giang Scales and mealybugs n/a 0.6 (2.0) 1.2 (2.0) 1.3 (1.6) 0.8 (1.2) 1.0 (1.2) 0.6 (0.8) 0.6 (1.0) 1.5 (1.8) 1.4 (1.0) 0.6 (0.4) 1.0 (0.8) 1.4 (1.4) aphids n/a 0.4 (1.0) 0.6 (0.2) 1.0 (1.0) 0.6 (0.6) 0.8 (0.8) 0.4 (1.2) 0.4 (1.4) 0.8 (1.2) 1.4 (0.8) 0.2 (0.2) 0.6 (1.2) 1.6 (1.4) whitefly n/a 0.4 (1.2) 0.6 (0.2) 0.3 (0.8 0 (0) 0.6 (0.4) 0.6 (0.6) 0.4 (0.4) 1.0 (0.6) 1.4 (0) 0.4 (0.2) 0 (0.4) 0.8 (0.6) psyllids n/a 1.0 (1.0) 1.6 (2.0) 1.5 (2.0) 1.6 (2.0) 2.0 (1.2) 1.6 (1.6) 1.0 (1.6) 1.8 (1.2) 1.6 (0.4) 0.4 (0.2) 1.4 (1.4) 1.6 (0) thrips n/a 0.6 (0.8) 0.4 (0.4) 2.0 (1.6) 1.2 (1.0) 0.6 (0) 0.6 (0.8) 0.6 (1.0) 0.8 (0.6) 0.8 (0.6) 0.4 (0) 0.2 (1.4) 1.2 (0.2) leafminer n/a 0.8 (0.2) 0.6 (1.2) 1.5 (1.4) 0.4 (0.4) 1.2 (1.6) 0.4 (1.2) 0.6 (1.6) 1.3 (1.4) 1.2 (1.0) 0.8 (1.4) 1.0 (1.6) 2.0 (1.4) caterpillar n/a 1.0 (1.2) 0.6 (0.2) 0.8 (1.2) 0.2 (0.2) 1.6 (1.2) 1.2 (1.2) 1.0 (1.4) 1.0 (0.6) 1.2 (0.6) 1.0 (1.2) 0.6 (1.0) 1.0 (0.8) fruit fly n/a 0.6 (0.8) 0.2 (0.6) 0.8 (0.8) 0.2 (0.6) 1.6 (1.6) 1.4 (1.0) 1.0 (1.2) 1.3 (1.2) 1.2 (0.8) 1.0 (1.0) 0.6 (1.0) 1.2 (0.6) mites n/a 1.0 (0.8) 0.6 (1.0) 2.0 (1.6) 1.6 (1.4) 1.6 (1.2) 0.8 (1.4) 1.0 (1.6) 2.0 (1.8) 1.6 (0.8) 0.6 (0.2) 1.8 (2.0) 1.8 (0.8) citrus greening n/a 1.2 (0.6) 1.6 (0.8) 1.0 (2.0) 1.6 (1.6) 2.0 (1.2) 1.8 (1.8) 1.0 (1.2) 1.8 (1.4) 1.6 (0.8) 0.8 (1.4) 1.8 (1.2) 1.8 (1.4) Canker n/a 0.8 (0.8) 0.8 (1.0) 1.5 (1.6) 1.0 (1.4) 0.8 (1.0) 0.6 (1.0) 0.4 (1.6) 1.3 (1.4) 1.4 (0.4) 0.8 (0.8) 0.8 (1.6) 1.6 (1.0) Overall n/a 0.8 (1.0) 0.8 (0.9 1.3 (1.4) 0.8 (1.0) 1.3 (1.0) 0.9 (1.2) 0.7 (1.3) 1.3 (1.2) 1.3 (0.7) 0.6 (0.6) 0.9 (1.2) 1.5 (0.9) 0=not important, 0.1-0.5 marginally important, 0.6-1.0 moderately important, 1.1-1.5 important, 1.6-2.0 very important

Table 2b: Index of perceived importance of pests and diseases summarised for each regions

Region Pest/disease

Mekong Delta Northern Central Provinces Northern Vietnam Overall

Table 3a: Pattern and frequency of sprays

Preventative spray for insects (percentage of farmers applying)

Preventative spray for diseases (percentage of farmers applying)

Sprays to control pests when they appear

(percentage of farmers applying) Province

Often >3pa Occasionally

Table 3b: Index of spray intensity applied for specific pests and diseases

Index of spray intensity for each province *Sprays applied to control: Can

Tho

Vinh Long

Ben Tre Dong

Thap

Tien Giang

Ha Tinh Nghe

An

Hoa Binh

Ha Tay Phu Tho Yen Bai Tuyen

Quang

Ha Giang Scales and mealybugs n/a (3.8) 4.4 (2.6) 1.6 (2.0) 1.8 (5) 2.2 (2) 1.6 (2) 2.2 (2.8) 2.3 (2.2) 2.8 (3.2) 2.2 (3.3) 0.8 (0) 2.2 (1.5) 3.8 (3.4) aphids n/a (2.8) 1.0 (1.6) 1.2 (1.3) 1.0 (2) 1.2 (1.6) 0.8 (1.6) 1.8 (1.8) 2.8 (3.2) 0.5 (1.6) 2.0 (3) 1.2 (0) 1.6 (1.5) 3.2 (2.4) whitefly n/a (2.8) 3.0 (3.2) 0.4 (1.3) 2.5 (2) 1.2 (0.2) 0.8 (0.8) 1.8 (0.8) 2.8 (1.2) 1.0 (0.8) 2.0 (0.7) 0.4 (0) 2.8 (0.5) 2.2 (1.8) psyllids n/a (3.8) 3.8 (2.2) 2.2 (0.7) 3.8 (5) 2.2 (2.8) 1.6 (1.2) 2.2 (4.4) 4.3 (3.2) 3.0 (2.2) 2.2 (2.3) 1.2 (0) 2.6 (1) 2.6 (1.4) thrips n/a (3.4) 3.8 (2.2) 0.4 (1.3) 5.0 (5) 3.8 (1.2) 0.4 (0.8) 2.4 (1.8) 3.5 (1.8) 1.0 (1.8) 1.0 (1.3) 0.4 (0) 1.2 (1.5) 3.4 (1.4) leafminer n/a (3.8) 3.8 (1.6) 2.2 (0.7) 3.5 (2) 3.4 (1.4) 2.0 (3.2) 3.8 (2.8) 2.8 (3.8) 4.3 (4.4) 1.8 (3) 1.6 (2) 2.6 (1.5) 5.0 (2.6) caterpillar n/a (0.8) 2.8 (1.8) 0.2 (2.0) 1.8 (2) 0.8 (0) 1.6 (0.8) 1.8 (1.2) 1.0 (1.6) 2.3 (0.4) 1.6 (1.3) 1.2 (0) 0.8 (0.5) 2.2 (1.8) fruit fly n/a (0.2) 3.4 (3.2) 0.8 (0.7) 1.8 (2) 0.8 (1) 1.6 (1.2) 2.2 (0.8) 3.0 (2.2) 1.0 (0.8) 1.6 (1.3) 0.4 (0) 0.4 (0.5) 2.2 (1.8) mites n/a (3.4) 2.8 (1.6) 0.8 (0) 5.0 (5) 4.4 (2.8) 1.6 (2.2) 3.2 (3.4) 5.0 (5.0) 5.0 (4.4) 2.2 (4) 1.1 (0) 3.8 (0.5) 3.8 (1.4) diseases n/a (2.2) 2.8 (1.6) 2.2 (0.7) 5.0 (5) 4.4 (3.2) 2.2 (2) 2.8 (3.8) 3.5 (4.4) 3.0 (1.6) 1.2 (2.3) 1.1 (5) 2.2 (1) 3.2 (3.2) Overall n/a (2.7) 3.2 (2.2) 1.2 (1.1) 3.1 (3.7) 2.4 (1.6) 1.4 (1.6) 2.4 (2.4) 3.1 (2.9) 2.4 (2.1) 1.6 (2.3) 0.9 (0.7) 2.0 (1.0) 3.2 (2.1)

* 0 no spray, 0.1-1 few sprays applied by minority of farmers, 1.1-2 few sprays applied by majority of farmers, 2.1-3.0 frequent sprays applied by minority of farmers,

> 3 frequent sprays applied by majority of farmers

Table 3c: Index of spray intensity applied for specific pests and diseases

Index of spray intensity for each region *Pest/disease

Mekong Delta Northern Central Vietnam Northern North Vietnam Overall

* 0 no spray, 0.1-1 few sprays applied by minority of farmers, 1.1-2 few sprays applied by majority of farmers, 2.1-3.0 frequent sprays applied by minority of farmers,

> 3 frequent sprays applied by majority of farmers

Table 4: Pest management activities

Pest management activity (percentage of farmers practicing) Province

Monitoring of pests and diseases

Monitoring of natural enemies

of pest

Use of any type of traps, baits, yellow plates etc

Removal of unhealthy trees

Use of green ants

Pruning to remove leafminer and reduce disease incidence

Table 5: Index of record keeping

Record type Province

Fertiliser purchase

Fertiliser application

Pesticide purchase

Application

of pesticide

Occurrence

of pest and diseases

Pruning, irrigation, harvesting

Harvest time and volume

Income from fruit

Includes computer record

0 No records, 0.1-0.5 few farmers keep occasional records, 0.6-1.5 few farmers keeps systematic records, 1.6-2.5 majority of farmers keep systematic record, 2.6-3.0 all farmers keep record and majority keeps systematic record

Table 6: Level of use of protective clothing

Type of protective clothing (percentage of farmers using) Province

Protective mask

Cloth on mouth and nose

Long sleeve shirt and trousers

Water resistant protective clothing

Gum boots Water

resistant gloves

Table 7: Farmer beliefs and attitudes about, and understanding of citriculture practices

Percentage of farmers in each category Province

Positive beliefs and attitudes towards certified nurseries

Understanding of best practice citriculture

Understanding of transmission and control of huanglongbing

Understanding of pests and control methods

Understanding of the impact of pesticides on the environment and human health