Project Progress Report: Technical and economic feasibility of applying the Better Management Practices (BMP) to household aquaculture in Vietnam - MS 10 " pot

COMPARISON OF SHRIMP CULTURE TECHNICAL INDICATORS 3.1.1 Pond characteristics Table 1 presents the analysis results of the major shrimp pond characteristics pond area and pond depth of

COLLABORATION FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (CARD)

002/05 VIE

Technical and economic feasibility of applying the Better Management Practices (BMP) to household

aquaculture in Vietnam

MS 10: Project Validation Report

Technical, economic, environmental and social indicators analysis of

BMP and non-BMP households in North Center Vietnam

Nguyen Xuan Suc1*, Mai Van Ha1, Le Xan1

Elizabeth Petersen2, Virginia Mosk2 and Steven Schilizzi2

1 Research Institute for Aquaculture No 1 (RIA1), Tu Son, Bac Ninh

2 The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, NEDLANDS WA 6907

* Corresponding Author: nxsuc@yahoo.com , Ph/Fax: +84 4 38780407

- 2/2009 -

Acknowledgements

To complete this scientific report, the authors received a lot of supports from many persons and/or organizations, the authors would like to thank the following organizations and persons:

• Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD), which supported financial for this study

• The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 (Vietnam) and The University of Western Australia, which are the main project parties

• The Agriculture and Fisheries Extension Centers of Nghe An, Ha Tinh and Thua Thien Hue provinces, which are the project coordinated parties

• The units from Hung Hoa (Nghe An), Thach Ha (Ha Tinh) and Vinh Hung (Thua Thien Hue) communes, where project are implementing

• The demonstration farms and the households that are respondents of the survey, who were supplied the data for this study

List of abbreviations

BMP Better Management Practice

CARD Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development

HH or hh Household

MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

NAFIQUAVED National Fisheries Quality Assurance and Veterinary Directorate

Non-BMP Non Better Management Practice

Definitions

• BMP farmer is defined as farmer who was trained on BMP

• Non-BMP farmer is defined as farmer who was not trained on BMP

List of figures

Figure 1 Vietnamese provincial map indicating the location of the three project provinces 7

Figure 2 Diagram sketching project area in Hung Hoa - Nghe An province 22

Figure 3 Diagram sketching project area in Thach Ha – Ha Tinh province 25

Figure 4 Diagram sketching project area in Vinh Hung-Thua Thien Hue province 27

List of tables

Table 1: Pond characteristics 9

Table 2 Pond preparation indicators 10

Table 3: Seed sources 11

Table 4: Seed test and seed quality 12

Table 5: Seed stocking size and stocking density .13

Table 6: Water quality checking and shrimp disease testing 13

Table 7 Harvesting size and productivity 14

Table 8 Hire labor, fertilizers and lime costs 15

Table 9 Shrimp seed and feed cost 16

Table 10 Bio-product and chemical, energy and other costs 17

Table 11 Total cost, total income and benefit from shrimp aquaculture 18

Table 12 Benefit cost ratio (BCR) 19

Table 13 Prices of seed, feed and shrimp product .19

Table 14 Household income sources 21

Table 15: Level of environment parameters in Hung Hoa - Nghe An province 23

Table 16 Result of water and bottom soil parameters in Thach Ha - Ha Tinh province 26

Table 17 Result of water and bottom soil parameters in Vinh Hung – TT Hue province 28

Table 18 The social impact of shrimp culture development (total number of responses is 60 in each group, where 1 is most important) 29

Table 19 Influence of shrimp culture development on other production activities (total number of responses is 60 in each group, where 1 is most important) 30

Table 20 Influence of other activities on shrimp culture production (total number of responses is 60 in each group, where 1 is most important) 30

Table 21 The effect of shrimp culture on the environment (total number of responses is 60 in each group, where 1 is most important) 31

Table 22 The effect from the environment on shrimp culture (total number of responses is 60 in each group, where 1 is most important) 32

Table 23 Constraints to aquaculture/shrimp culture development (total number of responses is 60 in each group, where 1 is most important) 33

Table 24 BMP adoption rate of farmers of parameters of pond preparation 34

Table 25 BMP adoption rate of farmers of parameters of seed selection and stocking 36

Table 26 BMP adoption rate of farmers of parameters of pond water environment and disease management 37

Table 27 BMP adoption rate of farmers of parameters of harvesting and selling product 39

Table 28 BMP adoption rate of farmers of parameters of other issues 40

Table 29: Results of BMP and Non-BMP househould analysis 56

Table 30: Results of BMP and Non-BMP househould analysis (cont.) 57

Table 31: Results of BMP and Non-BMP househould analysis (cont.) 58

Table 32: Percentage of shrimp culture costs of BMP and Non-BMP household (%) 58

Table 33: Percentage of other indicators of BMP and Non-BMP households (%) 58

Table of contents

Acknowledgements 2

List of abbreviations 2

Definitions 2

List of figures 2

List of tables 3

Table of contents 4

I INTRODUCTION 6

II STUDY METHODOLOGY 7

2.1 Study location 7

2.2 Data collection 7

2.2.1 Socio-economic and technical data 7

2.2.2 Environmental data 8

2.3 Data analysis 8

III RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 9

3.1 COMPARISON OF SHRIMP CULTURE TECHNICAL INDICATORS 9

3.1.1 Pond characteristics 9

3.1.2 Pond preparation .9

3.1.3 Seed selection and seed stocking 11

3.1.3.1 Seed sources 11

3.1.3.2 Seed test and seed quality assessment 11

3.1.3.3 Seed stocking size and stocking density .12

3.1.4 Pond management 13

3.1.5 Shrimp harvesting size and productivity 14

3.2 COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC INDICATORS 15

3.2.1 Pond preparation cost 15

3.2.2 Shrimp seed and feed costs 15

3.2.3 Bio-product, chemical, energy and other costs 16

3.2.4 Total income, total cost and benefit 17

3.2.5 Benefit cost ratio .18

3.2.6 Comparison of price of seed, feed and shrimp product 19

3.2.7 Comparison of household income sources .20

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 22

3.3.1 In Nghe An province 22

3.3.1.1 Diagram of project shrimp culture area in Hung Hoa - Nghe An showing site of water samples collection 22

3.3.1.2 Results of water quality and bottom soil analysis in Hung Hoa - Nghe An 23

3.3.1.3 Issues to be considered for the project sustainability 24

3.3.2 In Ha Tinh province 25

3.3.2.1 Diagram of project shrimp culture area in Thach Ha - Ha Tinh showing site of water samples collection .25

3.3.2.2 Results of water quality and bottom soil analysis in Thach Ha - Ha Tinh .25

3.3.2.3 Issues to be considered for the project sustainability 27

3.3.3 Thua Thien Hue province 27

3.3.3.1 Diagram of project shrimp culture area in Vinh Hung - Thua Thien Hue showing site of water samples collection 27

3.3.3.2 Results of water quality and bottom soil analysis in Vinh Hung – TT Hue .28

3.3.3.3 Issues to be considered for the project sustainability 29

3.4 SOCIAL AND RELATED FACTORS IMPACT ANALYSIS 29

3.4.1 Social impact of shrimp culture development 29

3.4.2 Influence of shrimp culture development on other production activities 30

3.4.3 Influence of other activities on shrimp culture production 30

3.4.4 Effect of shrimp culture on the environment 31

3.4.5 Effect from the environment on shrimp culture 32

3.4.6 Constraints to shrimp culture development 32

3.5 ADOPTION RATE OF TRIAL FARMS AND FARMERS ATTENDED BMP TRAINING COURSES 33

3.5.1 Pond preparation 33

3.5.2 Seed selection and stocking 35

3.5.3 Pond environment and disease management 36

3.5.4 Harvesting and selling products .38

3.5.5 Other issues 39

IV CONCLUSION 41

4.1 Technical indicators 41

4.2 Economic indicators 42

4.3 Environmental indicators 43

4.4 Social and related indicators 44

4.5 BMP adoption rate of households 44

V APPENDISCES 47

5.1 Appendix 1: Questionnaire 1 47

5.2 Appendix 2: Questionnaire 2 52

5.3 Appendix 3: Results of data analysis 56

5.4 Appendix 4: BMP protocols 59

I INTRODUCTION

Household shrimp production is the predominant form of coastal aquaculture in Vietnam In

2006, approximately 459,000 tonnes of shrimp was produced comprising 12% of total fisheries production in Vietnam (USDAFAS 2007) Approximately 34% of shrimp production (158,000 tonnes) was exported at a value of USD 1.46 billion Shrimp production is increasing, with an average of 13% growth experienced each year from 2000 to 2006 (USDAFAS 2007)

In recent years, residues and contaminants have been detected in exported shrimp, with devastating results in markets In 2003, five consignments from Thua Thien-Hue province to the European Union were destroyed or returned because of the presence of residues, and a far larger quantity from all north central provinces were similarly treated in 2004 The loss of production, negative environmental and socio-economic impacts, and food safety concerns have provided impetus for the development and extension BMP for household shrimp farms BMPs have been used in many countries to implement the more general principles of responsible shrimp farming (FAO 2005) BMPs are voluntary and are becoming widely used as

an important strategy to enhance the marketability of aquaculture product

A number of projects have contributed to the development of practical BMPs for shrimp farming in Vietnam (e.g a DANIDA-funded and a NAFIQAVED) These projects have proposed specific BMPs and have conducted some small-scale testing of these BMPs Their findings have not yet been widely disseminated among producers and BMP implementation is still limited The benefits of applying BMP to household farms remain to be fully investigated However, experience in Thailand, India and Bangladesh has shown that small-scale farmers who applied BMPs made gains in efficiency, productivity and quality (SUMA, 2004)

This report is one output of a project jointly funded by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) and the Vietnam Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) through the Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development Programme

(CARD) The aim of the report is “to compare the results of BMPs’ farms with non-BMP

and Baseline data in 3 projects’ provinces in North Center Vietnam, include Nghe An, Ha Tinh and TT-Hue”

This report includes the study methodology (Section 2), Section 3 is the results and discussions which contains the sub-sections that comparison of technique indicators, economic indicators, environmental impacts, social impacts and adoption rates of trials and farmers attended BMP training sources The conclusion presents in Section 4 Report finishes with the appendices which are the semi-structure questionnaires, tables of detail data analysis results and BMP protocols (Section 5)

II STUDY METHODOLOGY

2.2.1 Socio-economic and technical data

Data of socio-economic and cultured techniques were collected though resources:

• Directly interview the shrimp households by using semi-structured questionnaires (see appendix 1 and 2), includes 2 groups of households that are BMP and non-BMP farmers

In each province, 40 households were interviewed for the results of shrimp production in

2008 (20 respondents for BMP and 20 respondents for non-BMP in each province)

• Data was collected from the diary shrimp record book of 9 core demonstration farms of the BMP project

• Data from the previous reports of the project such as the BMP protocols, the initial baseline and the farm trial results assessment

2.2.2 Environmental data

Data and information used in the report was investigated on late Oct and Dec 2008 It includes water (physico-chemical and biological) and sediment parameters In order to compare the impact of the project on shrimp culture environment, sampling points was same as previous time- initial assessment in 2006 (for more detail see Figs 1, 2, 3 and 4)

For the running water (river water as a supplying source) sample, a peristaltic pump of two heads was used to grasp water river sample for 30 minutes into a plastic bucket Then a final sample of 1 liter was taken from the well- mixing bucket

All samples were kept cool with ice or fixed with chemical(s), and analyzed immediately when reaching Labs

On-field measurements of water:

• pH: use a portable pH meter (YSI 52)

• Salinity: use of refract photo meter (Spec T2000)

• Dissolved Oxygen (DO): measured with an oxygen meter (YSI 52)

• Temperature (ToC): measured with a digital thermometer (Themo 100)

• Transparency (cm): measured with Sechi disk

Laboratory analysis: followed Standard Methods (APHA, 1998)

• Water sampling and analysis for: COD (mg/l), BOD (mg/l), Alkalinity (mg/l), Fe (mg/l),

PO43--P (mg/l), Total Ammonia Nitrogen-TAN (mg/l), Nitrite (mg/l), Sulfide (mg/l), Oil residual (mg/l)

• Bottom sediment: pH, C/N ratio and soil structure

• Biological indicator: Total Vibrio, Coliform

2.3 Data analysis

EXCEL software was used to analysis data The indicators used in this report include percentages, averages, min and max The issues to be addressed are:

• Comparison of technical indicators,

• Comparison of economic indicators,

• Assessment of termination environmental impacts,

• Assessment of social and related impacts, and

• Assessment of adoption rate of trials and farmers attended BMP training sources

III RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 COMPARISON OF SHRIMP CULTURE TECHNICAL

INDICATORS

3.1.1 Pond characteristics

Table 1 presents the analysis results of the major shrimp pond characteristics (pond area and pond depth) of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline of households in Nghe An, Ha Tinh and Thua Thien Hue provinces

In general, There was not a significant difference of area and depth of shrimp pond of 3 farm groups of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline data The highest average pond area data was in the non-BMP households (7,652 m2) and the smallest area was in the BMP farms (6,272 m2) Comparison among provinces, the pond area in TT-Hue was largest (8,205 m2) and smallest

in Nghe An province (6,099 m2) The pond depth fluctuates between 0.9 and 1.2 m The average of pond depth was 1.1 m Base on BMP protocol, the pond depth at least reaches at 1

m Therefore, the pond depth in 3 study provinces meet this guideline, accept the non-BMP household in Ha Tinh province (0.9 m)

Table 1: Pond characteristics

Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average

In this study, labour used to prepare and improve pond was hire labours (off-farm labors) farm labors were also used, but it was not include in this The amount of man-day increases

On-from 31 (BMP group) to 44 (non-BMP group) and 57 (Baseline group) To compare among provinces, Ha Tinh province used more labors than others (120 man day in Baseline households and 68 man-day in non-BMP farm) This indicates that ponds in Ha Tinh have not completed construction yet, so they spent more labors to prepare In addition, prepared pond labors of Baseline survey data was higher than others group It may be explained that, the baseline data were collected in 2005, after 3 years the pond system has been improved in study locations, so number of man-days was reduced by the time

Table 2 Pond preparation indicators

Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average

a significant differences of inorganic fertilizer amount among provinces, The highest of inorganic fertilizer was used in TT-Hue province, which was double higher of two other provinces of BMP and non-BMP group and 3 time higher of baseline farms

Lime was used to improve the quality of pond bottom and pH stability at preparation stage It

is clear that has not noticeable differences of amount of used lime of different farmers groups

On average, the amount of lime used for pond preparation reaches at 1.6 tonnes/ha It increased from 1.4 tonnes/ha of BMP to 1.5 tonnes/ha of non-BMP and 1.7 tonnes/ha of baseline households Comparison among provinces shows that TT-Hue seen to used the smallest amount of lime (1.3 tonnes/ha on average), in contrast, farmers in Ha Tinh used the

biggest of lime amount (1.7 tonnes/ha) The amount of lime used base on the pH of pond bottom, pond has low pH (alum soil) need to used more lime According to the BMP protocol, the amount of lime use for pond preparation was between 1 and 3 tonnes/ha Therefore, the quantity of lime which used by farmers in this study meet the guidelines

3.1.3 Seed selection and seed stocking

3.1.3.1 Seed sources

Seed were provided from two different sources that are inside province and outside province, the results present in Table 3 BMP and non-BMP groups share almost equally percentages of seed sources between inside and outside province in all 3 provinces However, baseline data show that the percentage of seed from inside province was double higher than from outside province in all 3 provinces

Table 3: Seed sources

Province Inside

province

Outside province

Inside province

Outside province

Inside province

Outside province

TT-Hue 37 63 30 79 17 83

3.1.3.2 Seed test and seed quality assessment

The results of seed test using PCR and the percentages of seed assessment before stocking are presented in Table 4 Shrimp seed was tested by using the PCR method in laboratories The analysis results show that there was a remarkable differences of proportion of shrimp seed test among groups of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline Almost of farmers of BMP group did shrimp seed test before stocking (92%) This was a result of project though campaign and partly financial support to projects’ farmers There was about approximately 40 percent of households of non-BMP and Baseline group tested seed quality by using PCR method Testing seed before stocking is a very important step in order to select free disease seed, especially WSD and MBV diseases However, there was a number of farms did not test seed because it costs some money (e.g the cost of a sample was 150 thousand VND) In addition, this technique is implemented in laboratories, so it takes time and not very available services

In general, the percentages of good, average and poor quality of seed assessment were 34%, 40% and 26%, respectively There was a half of BMP and non-BMP farmers think that seed quality was as average level (occupies about 47%), 26% of good seed quality and 28% of poor seed quality In the baseline group, 51% farmers assessed seed quality level of good, average and poor were 51, 26 and 21 percent, respectively So, more farmer of baseline assessed seed

quality was better than other groups It may explained that the quality of shrimp seed becomes poor with every passing day because the wild shrimp brood-stock scarceness This also is the consideration of fisheries experts and at currently there are some conducted project to improve shrimp brood-stock though domestication or importation

Table 4: Seed test and seed quality

Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average

3.1.3.3 Seed stocking size and stocking density

Table 5 presents shrimp seed stocking size and stocking density in different groups and provinces There was not significant differences of seed stocking sizes among 3 groups The stocking size of seed of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline was 25, 24 and 25 days of age, respectively However, comparison among provinces, TT-Hue stocked biggest shrimp seed, three time bigger than seed size in Nghe An and Ha Tinh Reason of this remarkable differences is because of farmers in TT-Hue stocked seed which was one month grow seedlings (P45), but Nghe An and Ha Tinh stocked directly P15 from hatcheries

For stocking densities, there was similar in stocking density between BMP and non-BMP group (15.9 compare to 15.7 shrimp/m2) However, data of baseline show the average stocking density of this group was only 8,9 shrim/m2, deeply lower than 2 other groups There was a noticeable differences of stocking density among provinces Especially in TT-Hue, stocking density was only about 7 individual/m2, more than 2 times lower than that of Nghe

An and Ha Tinh This due to shrimp farms in TT-Hue stocked bigger seed compare to Nghe

An and Ha Tinh (P45 compare to P15)

Table 5: Seed stocking size and stocking density

Indicators Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average

The proportion of households who tested shrimp diseases of different groups was significant differences The highest percentage of shrimp diseases testing farms occupies in BMP group (90%) However, this proportion of non-BMP and Baseline groups were 67% and 23%, respectively

Table 6: Water quality checking and shrimp disease testing

Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average

3.1.5 Shrimp harvesting size and productivity

The analysis results of shrimp harvesting sizes and productivities are presented in Table 8 Comparison among provinces, shrimp harvesting size of Nghe An in BMP group was biggest (23.7 g/shrimp on average) and smallest at Ha Tinh in non-BMP farmers (16.2 g/shrimp) The difference of two these mean was significant (about 32%) Comparison among groups, the average of harvesting size of BMP group was bigger than two other groups non-BMP and Baseline (20.4 compare to 18.2 and 17.1 g/shrimp) The differences of shrimp size among groups was not much, however this was a significant effected to total income because of shrimp prices Normally, big shrimp size is higher price For example, shrimp size at 30 g/individual in Nghe An has price of 100 thousand VND/ha At the same time, shrimp size at

25 g/individual has price of 80 thousand VND/kg

Table 7 Harvesting size and productivity

Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average

3.2 COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC INDICATORS

3.2.1 Pond preparation cost

Table 9 presents the hire labor cost, fertilizers and lime cost during pond preparation The hire labor cost of BMP, non-BMP groups were lower than that of Baseline in both values and percentages, however, the differences was not a significant Comparison among provinces, the value of hire labors cost of Nghe An province was nearly double higher than that of Ha Tinh and Thua Thien Hue (4.6 mil VND compare to 2.8 mil VND/ha) However, if comparison of percentage, hire cost of Nghe An was lower than that of Ha Tinh (6% compare to 8%) It was note that the hire cost of Ha Tinh in Baseline data occupies 17%, but in Nghe An and TT-Hue were only 3% and 6%, respectively

Table 8 Hire labor, fertilizers and lime costs

Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average

Nghe An 6,510 (6) 4,424 (6) 2,890 (5) 4,608 (6)

Ha Tinh 1,749 (4) 1,707 (4) 5,160 (17) 2,872 (8) TT-Hue 2,627 (3) 2,734 (5) 3,160 (5) 2,840 (4)

Hire labor cost

(‘000 VND/ha)

Average 3,629 (4) 2,955 (5) 3,740 (7) 3,441 (5)

Nghe An 3,143 (3) 3,652 (6) 1,540 (2) 2,778 (4)

Ha Tinh 1,366 (2) 1,280 (3) 1,340 (4) 1,329 (3) TT-Hue 2,973 (4) 1,920 (3) 1,140 (2) 2,011 (3)

Fertilizers and

lime cost (‘000

VND/ha)

Average 2,494 (3) 2,284 (4) 1,350 (2) 2,043 (3) Notice: Numbers in bracket ( ) show % compare to total cost

For fertilizer and lame costs, in general, the average of this cost was about 2 mil VND/ha and occupies 3% compare to total cost Comparison between BMP, non-BMP households with Baseline group, there was a noticeable differences of value this cost (2.5 and 2.3 compare to 1.3 mil VND/ha) However, comparison of percentage of fertilizers and lime costs shows not much differences among groups of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline (3%, 4% and 2%, respectively) And it was also not a significant differences among provinces in term of percentage of fertilizers and lime cost, fluctuation between 2 to 6%

3.2.2 Shrimp seed and feed costs

Shrimp seed and feed cost are presented in Table 10 Seed and feed cost, normally, occupy a biggest cost in shrimp aquaculture Seed cost, in general, on average, occupies 13% of total cost and value at 7.8 mil VND/ha There was not a significant differences of seed cost among

3 groups of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline (12%, 14% and 13%, respectively) The percentages of seed cost were also not much differences among provinces of Nghe An, Ha Tinh and TT-Hue Nghe An has the lowest of seed cost (9%), this cost occupies about 15% in two other provinces

Feed cost was the biggest compare to other costs in shrimp operation On average, feed cost occupies 61% of total cost and value at 38 mil VND/ha Comparison among groups of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline, the lowest of percentage of feed cost was in BMP group (57%) In contrast, in value of seed cost, Nghe An was highest (approximate 44 mil VND/ha) and lowest in baseline households (33.7 mil VND/ha) There was a remarkable differences of seed cost among provinces and fluctuation between 47 and 72% of total cost The percentage of feed cost depended on 2 major factors that were feed quality (or price) and feeding management In term of over feeding, it was not only misspend but also make water pollution

Table 9 Shrimp seed and feed cost

Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average

Nghe An 10,102 (9) 7,865 (11) 4,510 (7) 7,492 (9)

Ha Tinh 8,362 (15) 7,066 (15) 4,580 (15) 6,669 (15) TT-Hue 8,089 (12) 8,958 (15) 9,630 (15) 8,892 (14)

Feed cost

(‘000

VND/ha)

Average 43,937 (57) 36,047 (61) 33,690 (65) 37,891 (61) Notice: Numbers in bracket ( ) show % compare to total cost

3.2.3 Bio-product, chemical, energy and other costs

Values and percentages of bio-products, chemicals, energies and other costs are showed in Table 10 On average, cost of bio-product and chemical occupies 7% of total cost and value at approximately 5 mil VND/ha Non-BMP group has highest of this cost (9%), follow by BMP farmers (7%) and baseline data (5%) There was a significant differences of this cost of different provinces in both values and percentages The proportion of bio-products and chemicals costs of Nghe An, Ha Tinh and TT-Hue were 10%, 8% and 4% of total cost, respectively In value, this cost in Nghe An was four times and double higher than that of Nghe An and TT-Hue, respectively

Energies in shrimp aquaculture in this study was used for two major purposes that were pump and paddle-wheel operation Energy that was used to light ponds area was not much On average, energies cost was nearly 5 mil VND/ha and occupies about 7% of total cost There was a considerable differences of energies cost in both percentages and values of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline groups, which were 11%, 3% and 7%; and 9 mil., 2 mil., and 3,7 mil VND/ha, respectively Comparison among provinces, energies cost was also a significant differences in both value and percentages (fluctuation between 1 mil to 13.7 mil VND/ha and 2% to 13%)

Other costs, on average, occupy 6% of total cost and value at 2.5 mil VND/ha The fluctuation

of this cost was high in both value and percentages In value, it was fluctuated between 0.1 to

5 mil VND per ha, and highest in TT-Hue of BMP household at 5.4 mil VND/ha, and lowest

in Ha Tinh of Baseline data at 0.1 mil./ha In percentages, on average, it was shared between 2% to 5% Comparison of average values of other costs, there was a measurable differences among groups BMP, non-BMP and Baseline which were 4.2 mil., 2.2 mil., and 0.8 mil VND/ha

Table 10 Bio-product and chemical, energy and other costs

Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average

Nghe An 15,603 (14) 6,671 (10) 3,380 (5) 8,551 (10)

Ha Tinh 2,951 (5) 5,406 (11) 2,030 (7) 3,462 (8) TT-Hue 1,037 (2) 3,199 (6) 2,890 (4) 2,375 (4)

Other costs

(‘000

VND/ha)

Average 4,253 (6) 2,238 (4) 850 (2) 2,447 (4) Notice: Numbers in bracket ( ) show % compare to total cost

3.2.4 Total income, total cost and benefit

Table 12 presents the results of total cost, total income and benefit of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline groups in provinces of Nghe An, Ha Tinh and TT-Hue In this study, on-farm labors and opportunities costs were not counted in total cost

Fore benefit, general average benefit calculating for all groups at all provinces was about 20 mil VND/ha The fluctuation of benefit of different provinces in different group was very high and ranging between 0.6 to 53 mil/ VND/ha Comparison among groups of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline, there was a noticeable differences of benefit Benefit of BMP households was around double higher than that of non-BMP and baseline groups (30.8 compare to 13.8 and 16.4 mil VND/ha) On average, benefits from shrimp culture in Nghe An, Ha Tinh and TT-Hue were 32.6, 7.9 and 19.5 mil VND/ha, respectively In each province, fluctuation of benefit among groups was also big (Nghe An between 17.5 and 52.8, Ha Tinh between 0.6 and 14.4, TT-Hue between 16.4 and 24.3 mil VND/ha)

For total cost, the general average value of total cost for shrimp culture of study areas was 63

mil VND/ha The fluctuation of total cost value was between 30 and 112 mil VND/ha Comparison among groups of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline data shows that there was a considerable significant differences of total cost and average costs value were 78.7, 58.6 and 52.7 mil VND/ha, respectively Between provinces, the total cost was also much differences

On average, total cost of Nghe An, Ha tinh and TT-Hue were 81.5, 44 and 64 mil VND/ha, respectively The highest value of total cost was occupied in Nghe An of BMP group which was 112 mil VND/ha The smallest total cost value was in Ha Tinh of Baseline data (30 mil VND/ha)

For total income from shrimp aquaculture operation, the general average value of total income was reached at 84 mil VND/ha There was a big fluctuation of income of provinces which was between 31 and 165 mil VND/ha Comparison among groups, BMP farmers has highest income from shrimp (109.5 mil VND/ha), follow by non-BMP and Baseline groups (72.5 and

69 mil VND/ha) Comparison among provinces, the total income in Nghe An was double and 1.5 times higher than that of Ha Tinh and TT-Hue provinces, respectively Total income of BMP household in all of 3 provinces was highest compare to other groups However, total income of Baseline farms in Nghe An and TT-Hue was higher than that of non-BMP, but it was contrasted in Ha Tinh province

Table 11 Total cost, total income and benefit of shrimp aquaculture

Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average

3.2.5 Benefit cost ratio

Benefit cost ratio (BCR) is a very important indicator to assess the effect of shrimp aquaculture of households BCR is measured by ratio between total income and total cost Table 13 shows the BCR of different households groups (BMP, non-BMP and Baseline) in different provinces (Nghe An, Ha Tinh and TT-Hue)

In general average of BCR of all provinces was 1.3, it means that shrimp farms invest 1 VND, income 1.3 VND or benefit 0.3 VND Comparison among groups, the BMP farms have the highest BCR, which was 1.37 on average, follow by Baseline and non-BMP groups (1.29 and 1.23, respectively) There was a remarkable significant differences of BCR among provinces

in different groups and fluctuated between 1.02 and 1.47 The highest BCR was appeared in Nghe An province (1.29 on average) and lowest in Ha Tinh (1.30 on average)

Table 12 Benefit cost ratio (BCR)

3.2.6 Comparison of price of seed, feed and shrimp product

The price of input materials and output product is the important factors influent to the shrimp operation and income of shrimp households In this sub-section, price of some major input materials, which were occupied high proportion of total cost (seed, feed), and shrimp product price were compared among provinces and groups of farmers Table 13 presents the results of average value of price of seed, feed and shrimp product

Table 13 Prices of seed, feed and shrimp product

Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average

For price of shrimp seed, the general price of shrimp seed of study area was 80 VND/shrimp There was a not considerable differences of seed price among groups of BMP and non-BMP and Baseline The price of seed of Baseline was slightly higher than that of two other groups (87 compare to 72 and 80 VND/shrimp) It was reality that the price of shrimp seed in 2007 and 2008 was cheaper than previous years, but the decrease of seed was not much over time Comparison among provinces, the shrimp seed price of TT-Hue province was highest, approximate 3 times higher than that of other provinces This was due to the shrimp seed size

in TT-Hue was bigger (P45) than that of Nghe An and Ha Tinh provinces (P15)

For shrimp feed price, the average price of shrimp feed for all provinces of all groups was 16.5 thousand VND/kg Feed price of baseline data was significant higher than that of BMP and non-BMP groups, the difference of price was about 5 thousand VND/kg, equivalent to 28% The feed price was not much different among provinces Feed cost occupies about 61%

of total, so the increase of feed price over last 2 years was a negative effected to shrimp operation and income of shrimp households

For shrimp harvesting product price, the general average of shrimp product price was 64 thousand VND/kg, one thousand higher compare to Baseline data The BMP group had the highest shrimp product price which was 68 thousand VND/kg, and lowest price was at non-BMP group (62 thousand VND/kg) Normally, the bigger shrimp was sold with higher price, this was right in this case because the harvesting size of shrimp of BMP was bigger than that

of other groups The price of shrimp product in different provinces was not measurable differences, except shrimp product price of BMP farmers in Nghe An was much higher than that of other provinces In general, the increase of shrimp product price was not much compare to baseline data (about 1.5%) , however, the feed (main cost) was quickly increase (increase 28%) Therefore, this was a constraint of shrimp operation in Vietnam, in general and in projects’ areas, in particular

3.2.7 Comparison of household income sources

Table 14 shows the results of different income sources of households in the study areas The general average of total household income was approximately 68 mil VND/household The highest income of household was in BMP group (about 76 mil VND/household), follow by Non-BMP and Baseline groups

Shrimp aquaculture was the main occupation of households and making the highest of income which occupies 84.4% of total household income, fluctuation between 80 and 91% Income from other sources (such as salary, trade, etc) was the second place (occupies about 8.6%) Other income sources from rice culture, livestock, fish capture, processing and labor selling were very low compare to total income (occupies less than 5%)

Some activities was appeared in this province but no in others, for example, fish capture was found only in Nghe An or income from fisheries processing only in Nghe An and Ha Tinh In contrast, income from labor selling was only in TT-Hue Comparison among groups of BMP, Non-BMP and Baseline shows that there was not significant differences of all income sources

Table 14 Household income sources

2,213 (3.7)

2,255 (3.3)

1,224 (2.0)

1,265 (1.9)

198 (0.3)

144 (0.2)

138 (0.2)

210 (0.3)

1,333 (2.2)

895 (1.3)

Nghe An 5,381 6,049 6,952 6,127

Ha Tinh 4,820 6,742 7,624 6,395 TT-Hue 3,972 4,327 6,636 4,978

7,071 (11.8)

5,834 (8.6)

Nghe An 94,405 60,015 51,362 68,594

Ha Tinh 47,080 40,398 18,751 35,410 TT-Hue 62,158 67,066 73,662 67,629

47,928 (79.8)

57,211 (84.4)

Nghe An 104,627 73,488 64,678 80,931

Ha Tinh 56,042 52,943 31,121 46,701 TT-Hue 67,992 74,922 84,480 75,798

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

3.3.1 In Nghe An province

3.3.1.1 Diagram of project shrimp culture area in Hung Hoa - Nghe An showing site of water samples collection

Note: arrow indicates the way water goes

Figure 2 Diagram sketching project area in Hung Hoa - Nghe An province

3.3.1.2 Results of water quality and bottom soil analysis in Hung Hoa - Nghe An

The results of water environmental analysis of ponds and inlet, outlet and rivers samples in project and related sites in Nghe An is presented in Table 15

Table 15: Level of environment parameters in Hung Hoa - Nghe An province

Sampling site Parameter

Norm Input

water Effluent River Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3 Pond 4

Pond average

Soil structure Muddy

Muddy sand

muddy sand

muddy sand sandy mud -

Similarly, in discharge canal, water after pond culture was in between permitted norm for aquaculture discharge water In contrast, it is an a exception that higher DO level and biological indicator including Vibrio density (defined as a group of common disease- caused pathogen in brackish and marine water) and Coliform concentration (commonly-used bacterial indicator of sanitary quality of foods and water, being abundant in the feces of warm-blooded animals)

Discharged water with low DO level, on the one hand, could cause surrounding environment a bad effect And, on the other hand, low DO would increase the toxicity of NO2 and H2S All above, a simple solution for the shortcoming is to apply oxygenation prior to discharge

Unlike inside pond, bottom sediment quality was better in quality Most of the pond bottom experienced muddy sand structure- favoring a good condition for water from leaching and balanced nutrient budget The finding is different from the 2006 result mentioning sandy mud The average C/N ratio was 5.8 (close to optimal value of 6) enabling organic decomposition and mineralization

Acidity of bottom soil was almost neutral (pH = 6.7), while it was more acidic two year ago (5.3) More acidic environment is serious for aquaculture, as re-dissolution of heavy mental causing shrimp’s health problem will take place in such a condition

3.3.1.3 Issues to be considered for the project sustainability

It cannot be denied that over 2-year implementation positive impact on environment quality from the project has been significant However for sustainability of BMP protocol application

following issues needs further continuation of consideration:

• Renovating and isolating water supply and discharge canal system

• Keeping water environment monitoring and warning work done regularly, a close attention

to oil pollution for opposite port

• Strengthening the awareness of responsible application of chemicals and antibiotic It is critically important for product traceability and quality

• Dealing with further pollution from Vinh city, and possible noise coming from full operation of nearby road (connecting Vinh to Cua Lo- tourist city)

3.3.2 In Ha Tinh province

3.3.2.1 Diagram of project shrimp culture area in Thach Ha - Ha Tinh showing site of water samples collection

Figure 3 Diagram sketching project area in Thach Ha – Ha Tinh province

3.3.2.2 Results of water quality and bottom soil analysis in Thach Ha - Ha Tinh

In a large scale the shrimp culture area does not a have a separated system for input and out water canal The issue does not come up with the requirement of BMP application Additional existing systems of canals undergo poor condition for long time without renovation leading to low water level in ponds Therefore, it was foreseen that BMB introduction would not be effective

However, data in Table 16 demonstrates that, apart from a slightly high bacteria density, all water parameters in ponds met the standard for shrimp culture Among shrimp ponds, environment quality was not a great deal

Pond bottom quality similar to in Nghe An province has been considerably enriched meeting quality norm for shrimp production In the previous study, most of pond bottom experienced sandy resulting poor nutrient budget and water holding capacity And water level in ponds fluctuated remarkably accordingly over culture period, this shortcoming is also attributed by poor management of canal system

Coliform concentration in water was vaguely higher than that of other two investigated provinces Being closer to residence area and suffering a number of pollution including wastes from village market and animals would be a practical accuse

Table 16 Result of water and bottom soil parameters in Thach Ha - Ha Tinh province

Sampling site Parameter

Norm Input

water

Eff- luent River Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3 Pond 4

Pond average

Soil structure Muddy

Sandy mud

Muddy sand

Muddy sand

Sandy mud -

Total Vibrio (CFU) <103/ml 1.9*104 1.8*10 5 1.7*105 1.1*103 1.9*104 1.6*102 1.6*103 1.5*10 3

Coliform (CFU) - 1.4*104 1.6*10 5 1.5*106 1.8*103 1.7*103 1.7*103 1.3*104 1.6*10 4

3.3.2.3 Issues to be considered for the project sustainability

It is risky that water source for shrimp culture area is seriously affected by poor water from village markets It can be either oil, organic matter, animal wastes

Like in Nghe An more consideration need putting on management of water supplying and effluent system in this area Improving and consolidating the knowledge on BMP application Farmers also need to be trained that successful shrimp farming can only come from

community- based responsibility- promoting involvement role of larger number of shrimp farmers in environment and disease management

3.3.3 Thua Thien Hue province

3.3.3.1 Diagram of project shrimp culture area in Vinh Hung - Thua Thien Hue showing site of water samples collection

Figure 4 Diagram sketching project area in Vinh Hung-Thua Thien Hue province

3.3.3.2 Results of water quality and bottom soil analysis in Vinh Hung – TT Hue

Unlike Nghe An and Ha Tinh, Hue is recently endeavoring a well- invested infrastructure bringing a promising future for shrimp culture All aquaculture- related management is undertaken by local authority at commune level Importantly a model of community- based management and involvement as well as decentralization policy has been undergoing effectively All are contributing to the success of shrimp production in the area

Table 17 Result of water and bottom soil parameters in Vinh Hung – TT Hue province

Sampling site Parameter

Norm Input

water

Eff- luent Lagoon Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3 Pond 4

Pond average

Soil structure Muddy

Sand - -

Sandy mud

Sandy mud

Muddy sand

Muddy mud

Sandy mud -

On the contrary, bottom quality factors were totally dissimilar when compared inside and outside pond More suitable level was recorded in ponds

Like in Nghe An and Ha Tinh water quality in pond was much better in ponds More pollution was observed in canal system, and in the lagoon indicating via concentration of DO, H2S and

NO2.

3.3.3.3 Issues to be considered for the project sustainability

Although, there have been an improvement in water quality and disease controlling in project – supported ponds, culture area is still in danger of pollution from routine activities of poor fishermen living totally on lagoon resource It was a clear evidence from the initial assessment that water tend to be more polluted (higher level of BOB, COD, and TAN) toward residence area

To be sustainable, apart from making use of well- invested infrastructure as well as already good community- based management approach, followings need further focus and more attention:

• Strict management policies on post-larvae production stations It is important for better controlling of disease from the origin

• More consolidation and strengthening on environment protection awareness of all communes

• Encouraging inter-inspection activities in every aspect of aquaculture

• Strictly following drawn regulations and policies via timely applying fair reward and punishment

3.4 SOCIAL AND RELATED FACTORS IMPACT ANALYSIS

This sub-section is to analysis of factors influencing and being influenced by shrimp culture of two groups of BMP and Non-BMP The data that present in below Tables are the number of respondents which total is 60 in each group and the important range is between 1 and 3

3.4.1 Social impact of shrimp culture development

The results of the social impact of shrimp culture development is presented in Table 18, which five positive and four negative impacts The most important impact of shrimp culture is increase income for households, follow by associated with development of local infrastructure and increase employment of both BMP and Non-BMP groups Otherwise, the most negative of shrimp development is increase in social and land use conflicts Reduces local traditional jobs

is also a negative impact, but this is not a very important issue

Table 18 The social impact of shrimp culture development (total number of responses is

60 in each group, where 1 is most important)

BMP Non-BMP Ranking

ssociated with development of local infrastructure 37 11 9 31 8 0 ssociated with development of other activities 12 19 29 2 24 10

creases in social and land use conflicts 14 0 0 18 2 3

3.4.2 Influence of shrimp culture development on other production activities

The influence of shrimp aquaculture development on other production activities is presented

in Table 19 The most important impact of shrimp development to other activities is to provide cash as capital for other activities The most negative impact is reduces production areas of other activities

Table 19 Influence of shrimp culture development on other production activities (total

number of responses is 60 in each group, where 1 is most important)

BMP Non-BMP Ranking

rovides cash as capital for other activities 41 5 9 34 10 8

ompetes with other activities in feed/fertilizer use 0 6 7 3 6 0

3.4.3 Influence of other activities on shrimp culture production

Table 20 shows the results of impact of other activities on shrimp aquaculture with three positive and six negative indicators The important influence is to use earned cash from shrimp aquaculture for investment of other activities This is confirmed by almost farmers of both BMP and non-BMP groups In contrary, shrimp culture is negative influenced by other activities The most negative impact is reduce time and labors which spend for shrimp culture

However, there was less than 50% of households in both BMP and non-BMP farmers certified this issues

Table 20 Influence of other activities on shrimp culture production (total number of

responses is 60 in each group, where 1 is most important)

BMP Non-BMP Ranking

e Other sing earned cash from shrimp culture for investment 48 6 4 32 8 6 0 0 0 1 0 4

Reducing production area of shrimp culture 2 0 4 0 0 1

3.4.4 Effect of shrimp culture on the environment

Survey respondent were asked to rank two positive and four negative effects of shrimp culture

on the environment, the results is showed in Table 21 The most important positive effect was the reduction in natural catch and fishing This is to increase the bio-diversity due to reduce the pressure of natural fishing

The most important negative effect of shrimp culture on the environment were to increase water pollution and reduce bio-diversity It is the fact that shrimp culture discharge waste water and mud to environment, if it is not to process this is a potential pollution sources Beside the positive impact of shrimp culture to increase bio-diversity due to reduction of natural catch, it was also reduce the bio-diversity because of reduction of natural water surface areas where is the residence of wild fisheries

Table 21 The effect of shrimp culture on the environment (total number of responses is

60 in each group, where 1 is most important)