Báo cáo khoa học nông nghiệp " Introduction of the principles of GAP for citrus through implementation of citrus IPM using Farmer Field Schools - Milestone 2 Baseline Study Report " pdf

1

Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development
________________________________________________________________
Milestone 2
Baseline Study Report


Project Name Introduction of the principles of GAP for citrus
through implementation of citrus IPM using Farmer
Field Schools
Vietnamese Institution
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development,
Plant Protection Department
Vietnamese Project Team Leader
Mr Ngo Tien Dung
Australian Organisation
University of Western Sydney
Australian Personnel
Oleg Nicetic, Robert Spooner-Hart, Elske van de
Flierd
Date commenced
March 2007
Completion date (original)
February 2010
Completion date (revised)

Reporting period

Contact Officer(s)
In Australia: Team Leader
Name:
Oleg Nicetic
Telephone:
+61245701329
Position:
Research Associate
Fax:
+61245701103
Organisation
University of Western Sydney
Email:


In Australia: Administrative contact
Name:
Gar Jones
Telephone:
+6124736 0631
Position:
Director, Research Services
Fax:
+6124736 0905
Organisation
University of Western Sydney
Email:


In Vietnam

Name:
Mr Ngo Tien Dung
Telephone:
+84-4-5330778
Position:
National IPM coordinator
Fax:
+84-4-5330780
Organisation
Plant Protection Department
Email:


2
Deliverables
The agreed deliverable for this milestone is to update baselines available from the South and
new baselines from North Vietnam of all stakeholders to obtain quantitative and qualitative
measures to include:
1. Information on knowledge, skills attitudes and practices of PDD, SRPCC, NIPP, CU,
SOFRI, VACVINA, VinaFruit and SPC on GAP and the integration of IPM into GAP.
2. Knowledge and skills on GAP/IPM of 15 Master Trainers, 90 Trainers and a
representative sample of 2880 participating farmers
3. Current GAP/IPM practices of representative sample of participating farmers including
production levels and financial analysis of costs and returns
4. Analysis of key markets for GAP/IPM compliant citrus and expected market demand and
premiums
5. Identification of opportunities for project interventions to provide economic, social and
environmental benefits to smallholders.

Introduction

This is the third AusAID CARD project that has been conducted on citrus in Vietnam. The
first two projects had a major focus on IPM. Although this project retains IPM as a key
component, the major focus is on GAP. When this project is completed in 2010 it will be
very important to have an objective picture about what has been achieved by our intervention
and the significant investment made by AusAID CARD into the Vietnamese citrus industry
over the previous decade. In order to measure the impact of the FFSs and associated activities
financed from our projects, a systematic impact assessment has been planned and budgeted
as a part of the current project 037/06 VIE. Impact assessment was not carried out as the part
of the first (pilot) CARD project that ran from 2001 to 2004 but it became an important part
of the second project 036/04 VIE even though it was not initially planned or properly funded.
The emphasis of the impact assessment conducted in 036/04 VIE was on the Knowledge
Attitude and Practices (KAP) survey that was conducted pre- and post intervention. Nearly
all farmers (more than 2000) participating in FFSs completed the survey. But as the project
progressed and the project team learned more about impact assessment, the KAP survey was
complemented with profiling of production practices in two villages in each province where
FFSs were conducted. Profiling was done as part of a baseline study and included: planting,
pruning and fertilizing practices, flushing and harvesting management, irrigation practices,
pest and disease management and an estimate of net income per hectare. Interviews were also
conducted with local pesticide suppliers. At the end of the project semi-structured interviews
were conducted with at least 5 FFS participants per province. These additional assessments
provide much greater rigor by allowing triangulation, but they were not budgeted in the
project and were possible only because the Vietnamese partners showed great enthusiasm for
the project and conducted all interviews without additional funds. At the end of the project all
major stakeholders (other than farmers) completed a survey and 3 key project managers have
written their observations of the project impact. The impact was presented disaggregated as
economic, social and environmental impact. Economic benefits were compared with the cost
of FFS.

3
The methodology for the impact assessment for the current project 037/06 VIE was

developed as the result of 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 will be directly involved in the project impact
assessment over next 2 years.
Impact assessment will be done in two ways: at the beginning and at the end of the project
(B&E) using similar methodology used in project 036/04 VIE and b) using continuing
monitoring of two groups of farmers: FFS group and non-FFS group. B&E impact
assessment will be performed in all 13 provinces included in the project. It is based on
longitudinal comparison (i.e. before and after FFS intervention) of farmer’s attitudes towards
GAP, change in practices used in citrus orchard management and change in the social and
environmental situation. Data collected will be based on self-evaluation by farmers and other
project stakeholders. A limitation of this method is that it can be biased and overstate benefits
of the FFS. However, this limitation will be minimised by using large sample sizes and
triangulation: KAP surveys, semi-structured interviews and field observations.
The baseline study performed in June 2007 and presented in this report is an integral part of
the B&E assessment. The baseline study will be repeated again in June 2008 for FFSs that
started in 2008.
Impact assessment with continuous monitoring is currently being undertaken with farmers
that commenced FFS in 2008, in order to obtain reliable data on farmer inputs and outputs as
well as orchard management practices. Monitoring commenced in February 2008 before the
start of FFS and it will continue throughout 2008 and for one year after completion of FFS.
However as it is not financially feasible to continuously monitor impact in all 13 provinces,
the continuous monitoring is conducted only in 2 provinces in the South (Tien Giang and
Can Tho) and 2 provinces in the North (Nghe An and Ha Tay).
Two trainers in each of 4 provinces selected for continuous monitoring have the role of
auditors of on-farm record keeping and they will perform regular observations in the orchard.

Every farmer participant in impact assessment monitoring will be visited twice a month. In
each province 2 groups of 10 farmers have been selected: (a) farmers attending FFS in 2008
and (b) farmers not participating in FFS as a control group. Trainers have been monitoring
and reviewing farmer records of economic, social and environmental impact indicators. Final
interviews with participating farmers will be conducted in November 2009 jointly with UWS
and PPD staff.
This report will present the findings of a baseline study undertaken from the 1
st
to 28
th
June
2007. This baseline will be used as the benchmark against which impact of the project will be
assessed. The baseline study was undertaken by combining observations made in the field,
interviews with farmers in the field, surveys of FFS participants, interviews and surveys of
trainers, interviews with key project personnel and informal interviews with Directors of
SubPPD and/or Directors of Provincial Agriculture Departments.


4
Material and Methods

3.1. Baseline of farmers and trainers

In 2007, two FFS were conducted in each of 13 provinces (Table 1). These provinces have
been grouped into 3 regions for the purposes of this baseline study. The regions are the
Mekong Delta (Can Tho, Vinh Long, Ben Tre, Dong Thap, Tien Giang), Northern-Central
Vietnam and 2 adjacent provinces that are south of Hanoi (Ha Tinh, Nghe An, Hoa Binh, Ha
Tay,) and the third region includes provinces north of Hanoi (Phu Tho, Yen Bai, Tuyen
Quang, Ha Giang). One of the two FFS in each province was randomly chosen to undertake
the baseline study. During visits to the FFS selected for the baseline study, the following

activities were undertaken:
3.1.1 visit the farmer who’s orchard was used as the teaching orchard for the FFS to
observe the orchard, undertake an audit of compliance to GAP and interview the farmer
3.1.2 visit pesticide shop in the village where the FFS was held
3.1.3 survey 5 randomly selected farmers from the FFS
3.1.4 survey 2 trainers

In the Mekong Delta the farmer who provides their orchard as the teaching orchard also
provides their house as the meeting place for FFS, whereas in northern central and northern
Vietnam, the FFS meetings are held in the village community centre. Interviews with farmers
were conducted in the usual FFS meeting place.

3.1.1 Interview with farmers in the orchard
Oleg Nicetic conducted all interviews through an interpreter. The key information sought
was the size of the orchard, species planted, distance between trees, number of flushes per
year, number of harvests and timing of those harvests, number of sprays applied, application
method and pesticides used. This information was obtained by questioning the farmer,
observing the orchard, pesticide storage area and pesticide disposal site. Trees were also
inspected for pests and diseases. At the same time a quick audit of farmer compliance with
EurepGAP requirements was conducted. Information was recorded on site using a 6 page
form (Appendix 1).

3.1.2 Visit to pesticide shop
After visiting orchards, the local pesticide shop was visited. The shop owner was interviewed
by Oleg Nicetic through an interpreter. Information was sought on the 3 most commonly
used insecticides and fungicides, and how the shop owner provided recommendations to the
farmers. Information was recorded on site using the same form.

3.1.3 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 results were recorded in a 10 page form in Vietnamese (Appendix 2).
Data were summarised per province and region and results are presented in the Tables 6 to
15.
Data for the source of planting material presented in Table 6 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

5
obtained little planting material from one source by 1. Calculated score per category was then
divided by the maximal possible score per province to obtain a proportion.
Indices of perceived importance of pests and diseases shown per province in Table 7a and
per region in Table 7b were calculated by multiplying 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 8a 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
8b and per region in Table 8c 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 9

represents the percentage of farmers per province and region that practice a certain pest
management activity.
Data for level of use of protective clothing and other protective equipment during pesticide
application shown in Table 11 represents the percentage of farmers per province and region
using certain protective equipment or clothing.
Data presented in Table 13 represents the percentage of farmers per province and region that
gave correct answers in regard to requirements of GAP (shown in the category “Understand
major requirements of GAP”), in 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 14 and per region in Table 15, 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 other person by 1 and the number that do 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.







6

Table 1. Location of Farmer Field Schools (FFS) and major citrus type grown

Province District Village Latitude Longitude Altitude
(m)
Major crop
Mekong delta
Can Tho Phong
Dien
Nho 10º00’18”N 105º38’04”E 10 Sweet orange
(intercropping
with banana)
Vinh
Long
Binh
Minh
My Hoa 10º00’41”N 105º50’57”E 10 Pomelo
Ben Tre Ben Tre
City
Phu
Nhuan
10º13’11”N 106º22’32”E 7 Pomelo
Dong
Thap
Lai Vung Long Hau 10º17’19”N 105º36’56”E 4 Tieu
mandarin
Tien
Giang
Cai Be My Loi A 10º21’15”N 106º05’58”E 5 King orange
Northern Central Vietnam

Ha Tinh Huong
Son
Son
Truong
18º28’14”N 105º26’17”E 25 Orange
Nghe An Anh Son Dinh Son 19º01’41”N 104º38’09”E 50 Orange (Van
du)
Hoa Binh Cao
Phong
Group 6
Cao
Phong
Company
20º43’37”N 105º19’18”E 203 Orange
Ha Tay Phuc Tho Van Ha 21º08’58”N 105º37’12”E 23 Pomelo and
oranges
Northern Vietnam
Phu Tho Doan
Hung
Que Lam 21º39’38”N 105º05’13”E 52 Pomelo
Yen Bai Yen Bai Dai Binh 21º40’57”N 105º04’27”E 50 Pomelo and
sour orange
Tuyen
Quang
Ham Yen Tan Yen 22º03’22”N 105º02’40”E 200 Orange
Ha Giang Vi
Xuyen
Viet Lam 22º40’09”N 104º55’42”E 250 Orange

3.1.4 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 3).

Data were summarised per province and region and results are presented in the Tables 16 to
18. Data for trainer beliefs and attitudes about GAP shown in Table 16 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 17 and per region in Table 18, 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

7
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 17 and Table 18 the score of trainer’s knowledge test is shown. There
were 5 open ended knowledge questions (see Appendix 3). 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.


3.2 Baseline of key Vietnamese institutions

In November 2007 Dr Zina O’Leary (UWS) was invited to participate in review workshops
for CARD project 037/06VIE, as an independent reviewer. She conducted interviews with a

total of six key informants from the 26
th
November to the 2
nd
of December in order to explore
conceptions of good agricultural practice (GAP). The interviews were generally informal in
nature and conversational in style. Rather than following a set of standardized questions, the
interviews engaged the participants in conversation along particular themes related to the
knowledge, value and implementation of GAP in Vietnamese citrus farms. Stakeholders were
asked to reflect on the following six key themes:
1. their conceptions of GAP prior to the commencement of the project
2. whether or not those conceptions had changed since project commencement
3. what elements of GAP they feel are most critical in Vietnamese citrus production
4. what elements do they feel would be most readily transferable to farmers in ways
which could effectively modify practice
5. the role that farmer field schools can/ should have in the transfer of knowledge related
to GAP
6. the benefits of transfer for GAP knowledge to farmers for the stakeholder’s own
organization
Each interview ran for approximately 10-20 minutes. Interviews were recorded as a written
summary.

3.3 Analysis of key markets for GAP citrus fruits

Information about key markets for GAP citrus fruit was obtained from informal interviews
conducted with Provincial Agriculture Department Officials and Dr Vo Mai, the Vice
president of VacVina and until recently the president of VinaFruit.
The informal interviews were conducted with Directors of Sub Plant Protection Departments
and/or Directors of Provincial Agriculture Departments in each province. The focus of the
interviews was citrus production and comparisons between citrus production and other major

crops grown in the province. Data for total area of citrus and rice crops per province were
collected, as well as average income per hectare (see Table 19). Marketing of citrus and the
importance of GAP was also discussed.
In the interview with Dr Vo Mai also discussed current and prospective export markets for
Vietnamese citrus.


8
Results and discussion

4.1 Baseline of farmers and trainers

4.1.1 Interview with farmers in the orchard/4.1.3 Survey of 5 randomly
selected farmers

Results from interviews with farmers and farmers’ surveys are presented below and where
relevant they are discussed together.

4.1.1.1 Dominant citrus species

In the Mekong Delta mandarins (King and Tieu varieties) are the dominant yielding varieties
of citrus. Pomelo plantings are increasing and as the recently planted orchards reach bearing
age pomelo will surpass mandarins (Table 1). In Northern Central Vietnam and Hoa Binh
province oranges are by far the most dominant species while in Ha Tay province orange
variety Canh and pomelo variety Dien are equally important. In provinces North of Hanoi
oranges are the dominant species but the area of pomelo is increasing, especially in Phu Tho
province. It is interesting that in some orchards in Thuyen Quang and Ha Giang province
citrus are intercropped with tea. Intercropping model of tea and citrus should be further
investigated in 2008. It should be noted that every province has its own varieties, and some
of these varieties are performing better than others, but it does not seem that there is any

attempt to select the higher performing varieties and introduce them to other provinces.

4.1.1.2 Orchard layout and growth dynamic

In most provinces in the Mekong Delta mandarins and oranges are planted at higher densities
(1500 to 2000 trees per hectare) than in the North of Vietnam (400 to 660 trees per hectare).
There is less difference in the density of pomelo planted in the north (270 to 490 trees per
hectare) and south (330 to 500 trees per hectare) (Table 2). In the Mekong Delta there is a
clear orchard replacement plan with young trees being planted between existing mature trees.
In the north there is no planning and many visited orchards have passed their peak production
age. The exception is Ha Tay province where the many of orchards were young or just
reaching their peak production age, which is clearly reflected in the higher net income per
hectare (Table 2). The additional benefit of a tree replacement program is that in the
provinces where it is practiced, there are significantly less trees with visible symptoms of
huanglongbing.
In the north there are 3-4 clearly defined flushes of which only one bears fruit. In the south
there are 4-6 flushes but in many places there is continuous flushing, particularly in pomelo.
In the North there is only one harvest from October to December in Northern Central
Vietnam from November to January in provinces around Ha Noi, and from December to
January in the Far Northern part (Thuyen Quang and Ha Giang provinces). In the South, with
the exception of Dong Thap province, harvesting is all year round. In Dong Thap province
farmers manipulate the fruit bearing flush to produce only one harvest, at Tet.



9
4.1.1.3/ 4.1.3.1 Dominant pests and diseases

Farmers have great difficulty identifying pests and diseases, and in many cases are unable to
separate damage caused by pests or diseases. In most cases the farmers intervene when it is

too late to provide effective control of the causal agent. A typical example of late
intervention is with leafminer. Farmers also apply pesticides unnecessarily to visible pests
that do not cause economic damage. A typical example of this unnecessary application of
pesticides is with aphids.

In the Mekong Delta, farmers nominated psyllids (1.80), scale/mealybug (1.64) and mites
(1.28) as the major pests (Table 7b) while in Northern-Central Vietnam farmers nominated
mites (1.50), leafminer (1.45) and psyllids (1.40). In northern Vietnam leafminer (1.35) is
considered by far the most important pest. It is interesting that citrus greening (1.20) is
nominated as an important disease but psyllids (0.50) were considered to be an unimportant
pest in the farmers mind indicating that farmers do not understand the importance of psyllids
in the transmission of this disease. However there is lot of variation in farmers’ perception of
importance of specific pests between provinces within each region (Table 7a). Psyllids are
perceived as very important in all provinces of the Mekong delta except in Vinh Long where
psyllids are regarded as just moderately important. Pomelo is less susceptible to
huanglongbing and the dominance of pomelo in Vinh Long province is the most likely reason
for this difference in perception. Mealybugs scored very highly in most provinces of the
Mekong delta, reflecting the problem of mealybugs on roots. The exact taxonomy of the
mealybug species infesting citrus roots is still unknown and it appears that there has not been
much effort directed to solving the problem of mealybugs since it appeared as a pest a few
years ago. The mealybug populations increased after farmers regulated water levels in canals
to prevent flooding of the citrus trees. Mealybugs on roots were the major farmer concern in
our baseline study in 2005 but the level of farmer concern seems to have decreased over the
past 2 years, indicating that the pest does not cause serious damage.
In provinces that were included in previous CARD project (036/04 VIE) farmers’ perception
of the relative importance of leafminer in comparison to other pests changed from being very
important in the 2005 baseline study, to moderately important in this study. In provinces
where FFS were conducted for the first time in this project, leafminer scored highest or equal
highest score with another pest in 6 out of 7 provinces while leafminer was not ranked most
important alone or with another pest in any of the provinces included in the previous project.

This indicates that interventions of the previous CARD project may have extended beyond
the FFSs participants into the wider farming community since the farmers surveyed in this
project were not the same farmers that participated in 2005 and 2006 FFSs.
Mite damage is noticeable in every orchard of Northern Central Vietnam and in most orange
orchards of Northern Vietnam (project team observations and farmers’ statement during the
interviews- Table 3b) but hardly any mite damage was observed in the Mekong delta (Table
3a). The reason for mite damage is at least partly due to the overuse of synthetic pyrethroids
and partly due the incorrect timing of sprays in the north.
Citrus greening disease (huanglongbing) is more noticeable in Nghe An and Ha Tinh
provinces than anywhere else and there are several reasons for the greater prevalence. First in
these provinces oranges are the major citrus crop and they are the most susceptible variety of
citrus to citrus greening disease. Secondly the average age of trees in the orchard is much
higher than in the Mekong delta where the orchard regeneration is well planned and
practised. It is evident from interviews conducted with farmers in the North of Vietnam, that
farmers do not plan or budget for orchard regeneration and they maintain their trees long
after their production peak has passed. Farmers do not depreciate orchard value or include

10
the value of depreciation into the cost of production. With no funds in reserve for the
regeneration of the orchards and with the very limited credit facilities available to the farmers
it is hard to manage citrus greening in the most affected provinces of Northern Central
Vietnam. The third reason for the high incidence of citrus greening is insufficient use of
insecticides for control of psyllids. In Northern Central Vietnam there are 4 distinctive
flushes (Table 2) 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
the impact of this training on changes in farmer practice will be evaluated during this project.
It should be noted that Nghe An and Ha Tinh provinces have above average use of planting
material from certified nurseries but still have the highest incidence of citrus greening,
demonstrating that that use of disease free planting material without proper follow up

management strategies is not an effective way to reduce citrus greening.
Phytophthora was observed in every region and province visited and although it appears to be
as serious a problem as citrus greening, most farmers were not too concerned about the
disease. Unfortunately phytophthora was mistakenly not included in the survey
questionnaire, so we do not have score for it. Citrus canker is present in many orchards but it
only causes serious damage in a few. It was perceived as a very important disease in Dong
Thap, Hoa Binh and Tuyen Quang provinces. In most other provinces it was seen as an
important disease. From interviews with farmers and our own observations in most orchards
regular sprays with copper based fungicides keep citrus canker under control.

4.1.1.4/4.1.3.2 Pesticide use, storage and disposal of pesticide containers

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 (Table 2). In the Mekong delta 36% of surveyed farmers used frequent preventative
sprays against pests and 32% against diseases, while in Central Northern Vietnam 80% of
farmers frequently applied preventative sprays against pests and 50% against diseases (Table
8a). In Northern Vietnam 40% of farmers applied frequent preventative sprays against pests
and 30% against diseases. The majority of farmers spray pests after they have been detected
in the orchard. A total of 76% farmers applied curative sprays in the Mekong delta, 32%
more than 3 times and 44% 1 - 3 times. In Central Northern Vietnam all farmers (100%)
applied curative sprays, 70% frequently and 30% occasionally. In Northern Vietnam 65%
farmers sprayed pesticides after pests were detected, 45% frequently and 20% occasionally.
It is interesting to note that 35% of farmers surveyed in Northern Vietnam have never used
pesticides in their citrus orchard. Even though pesticides may not be overused, timing of
spraying and the type of pesticide used needs to be optimised. In Nghe An province the
number of sprays can be reduced if timing is optimised, but in Northern Vietnam the number
of sprays needs to be increased for effective pest and disease control. 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 psyllid, which equals
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. Overall, the most frequently sprayed pest was leafminer
(index 2.88) closely followed by mites (2.81) (Table 8c). Mealybugs and scales (2.78) and
psyllids (2.09) were also frequently sprayed. However, there were significant differences in

11
intensity of sprays applied for specific pests in different regions. In the Mekong Delta
mealybugs and scales were most frequently sprayed (3.08) followed by psyllids (2.90), while
in Central Northern Vietnam leafminer and mites were sprayed at the same frequency (4.40).
In Northern Vietnam leafminers were most frequently sprayed (2.28) followed by scales and
mealybugs (2.05).
Farmers predominantly used cheap products that were older generation pesticides (Table 3a
and 3b). Use of mineral oil was found to still be low which is disappointing considering the
investments made by Caltex, SK Corporation and previous ACIAR and CARD projects.
However, use of oil in the Mekong Delta is rising and has doubled in the last two years (30 T
in 2006 to 55 T in 2007). The main reason for low uptake of the use of oil is its low efficacy
due to poor application methods. The oil is mainly used for mite control and is usually mixed
with other miticides (mostly pyridaben). Farmers are very cautious when using oil due to
previous experiences with phytotoxcity, however the recommendations of current oil
producers are more cautious than before so there have been no major phytotoxcity problems
experienced since 2005.
Use of neonicotinoids is lower than other groups of insecticides, with thiamethoxam being
more frequently used than imidacloprid. One objective of this project is to replace the older
generation insecticides, which are not effective on psyllid and cause resurgences in mite
populations, with neonicotinoids. Therefore change in the proportional use of different
insecticide groups will be a useful indicator of changed practice as a result of this project.

This baseline study revealed that except for Dong Thap and Nghe An province, knapsack
sprayers are used by the vast majority of farmers (Table 3).
Pesticides are not stored in large quantity at the farms. Farmer usually only buy enough
pesticide for one or a few sprays at a time. Nevertheless, small quantities of pesticides were
found on every farm visited and they are not properly stored. They are usually kept in plastic
bags around the house, where they are not locked away and can be easily accessed by
children. Empty pesticide containers are usually disposed of at the farm in an open hole or
sometimes into a large container. Very often empty pesticide sachets and small bottles are
scattered throughout the orchard. In the Mekong Delta it is not unusual to see empty pesticide
containers thrown into the canals.

4.1.1.5/4.1.3.3 Pest management activities other than pesticide

Overall most farmers (88%) conduct some kind of pest monitoring and 57.7% monitor for
the presence of beneficial arthropods (Table 9). Results are consistent throughout the regions
raging from 84 to 95 and 50 to 68 for monitoring of pests and beneficials, respectively. Only
23% of farmers used some kind of trap or bait (raging from 5% in Northern Vietnam to 40%
in Northern Central Vietnam. Use of green (weaver) ants (Oecophylla smargdina) was high
in the Mekong Delta (60% of farmers) but it was much lower in Northern Central Vietnam
(20%) and Northern Vietnam (30%). A high proportion of farmers (87%) declared that they
remove unhealthy trees, with the proportion in the Mekong Delta (76%) being lower than in
other regions (95%). However our own observations were not entirely consistent with this
claim, possibly because the farmers' perception of what constitutes an unhealthy tree differs
from that of the project team. A high proportion (81%) of farmers also claim that they prune
flushes infested with leafminer to prevent pest reoccurrence. However timing of the
intervention is questionable because it seems to be carried out too late, after the pest has
already has developed.


12

4.1.1.6/ 4.2.3.4 Compliance with GAP requirements

There is virtually no compliance with EUREP (GLOBAL) GAP requirements in any of the
regions. However, for the purposes of this survey, farmers who were conducting some
components of the GAP requirements within each of the 12 major categories of GAP
requirements, were considered to “partly comply”. Although “partial compliance” is not
actually possible, it was used as an indicator of the GAP categories within which farmers can
reach compliance without major change in their general practices. For example most of the
farmers use organic fertilisers and practise some form of IPM so they are recorded to partly
comply (PC) in Table 4a and 4b under fertiliser use and crop protection. Results show non
compliance to be highest for product traceability and site history categories. In these
categories it is unrealistic for farmers to meet the GAP requirements because they would
need a complete change in the production and distribution chain, so we are not concentrating
on them within this project. The situation is similar for the post-harvest requirement. In
Vietnam there is no post-harvest management of citrus fruit such as washing, waxing and
packaging. Fruit are collected from the farmers by ‘middle men’ or in some cases in Northern
Central Vietnam the farmer sell directly to consumers at the farm or a nearby market. Some
cooperatives in the Mekong delta have their own shops where fruit are categorised and
branded with labels, but the amount of fruit sold that way is negligible. So in most cases in
Table 4a and 4b the post-harvest requirement is marked not applicable (N/A). Training of
trainers and farmers will concentrate on the crop protection requirements where farmers
already partly comply (Table 5a and 5b). Farmers are aware of the need to use registered
products and to comply with the withholding period. However farmers and PPSD staff do not
have a full understanding of the GAP requirement for a registered product. The GAP
requirement for a registered pesticide is that the pesticide is specifically registered for the
targeted crop (citrus in our case), while PPD staff described a registered product as a
pesticide registered for any crop in Vietnam that has not been placed on the list of banned
pesticides. Consequently if no specific pre-harvest interval was set for citrus (because the
product was not registered for citrus) then no compliance with this requirement is possible. It
is generally accepted that a 14 day pre-harvest withholding period is acceptable for any

pesticide. Compliance with the pre-harvest interval requirement is also very difficult in the
Mekong delta because of the practice of continuous harvesting throughout the year.
Compliance with the requirement for training in pesticide use is relatively high and
compliance with the requirement for use of safety gear is partially met in most cases (Table
11). In Northern Central Vietnam and Northern Vietnam use of protective clothing is higher
than in the Mekong Delta. In all regions the use of a cloth over the mouth and nose during
pesticide application is very high 95%. Use of long sleeved shirt and trousers varies from
52.5% in Mekong delta to 85% in Northern Vietnam. Use of water protective clothing, gum
boots and gloves is low in the Mekong Delta at 35.5%, 12% and 29% respectively. But it is
much higher in Northern Central Vietnam at 87.5%, 70% and 67.5% for clothing, boots and
gloves respectively. Even though the protective clothing used would not meet European
standards, it at least demonstrates that farmers take some measures to protect their health.
Most improvements are necessary in the categories of record keeping, particularly for spray
application, and pesticide storage and disposal. The level of record keeping of production
activities as well as inputs and outputs is very low (Table 10). Systematic recording by the
majority of farmers was only found in the 3 provinces of Dong Thap, Nghe An and Hoa
Binh. However, records focused more on the value of inputs and outputs than on pesticide
and fertiliser use. Farmers in Hoa Binh were the only ones that kept computer records. That
is because in Hoa Binh the farmers are organised in a cooperative that was previously a state
farm, and the cooperative has employed technical personnel to assist farmers.

13
All participants of FFSs were provided with record books that comply with EUREP GAP so
improvement in this are could be expected. Another area where major improvement could be
expected is soil management and fertiliser use. All FFSs will produce their own compost and
farmers will be encouraged to do that on their own farms.
The requirement for use of certified nursery material is very difficult to meet on the larger
scale because the production of certified nursery material is far below demand. From the
survey we conducted (Table 6) 17% of planting material came from certified nurseries in the
Mekong Delta, 44% in Northern Central Vietnam and 16% in Northern Vietnam. Even

though the proportion of nursery-originated citrus trees is low, farmers have a positive
attitude towards nursery planting material, that ranges from 70% farmers with a positive
attitude in Mekong delta to 90% in Northern Central Vietnam. However as GAP is likely to
only be implemented in selected cooperatives on limited area in the near future, then
Vietnamese institutes like SOFRI can supply sufficient certified citrus seedlings to meet the
needs of those cooperatives.
Overall the citrus industry in Vietnam is far from meeting EUREP GAP requirements. There
are many infrastructural changes (eg. sewage system and construction of packaging
warehouses) that need to be made before compliance with EUREP GAP could be possible.
Also improvements in the pesticide registration system need to be made so that appropriate
pesticides are registered for citrus. It appears that the difference between practices used in the
Vietnamese citrus industry and those required by EUREP GAP is too great for EUREP GAP
to be considered as a realistic model for widespread implementation of GAP in Vietnamese
citrus. A simpler model like VietGAP that can still ensure safer citrus products for consumers
and reduce environmental impacts appropriate for Vietnamese socio-economic and
environmental conditions could be a more viable option. The application of EUREP GAP
may be suitable for a limited number of cooperatives targeting export markets or the high end
of the Vietnamese market.

4.1.2.1 Pesticide sold in village ‘pesticide shops’

Pesticide shops in villages stock very limited range of pesticides, providing few choices to
the farmers. Often the shops have only one cupboard with a range of 5 to 10 different
insecticides or miticides and a similar number of fungicides and herbicides. In smaller
villages the pesticide shops also sell food articles and cigarettes. In the Northern part of
Vietnam some pesticide shops are run by district plant protection stations, which have the
advantage that the pesticide shop manager can also provide recommendations and through
their choice of stock they ultimately influence farmers’ pesticide use. However if pesticide
shops are run by the PPD there is the question of independence of extension officers from the
pesticide industry. Our survey showed a clear relationship between the pesticides used on the

farm and the pesticides sold in the local shop (Table 3a and 3b) demonstrating that the local
shop is the main point of agrochemical supply for farmers. Shops mainly stock cheap, older
generation pesticides and it is very difficult to distinguish how much that is because of
farmer demand for such products or because of shop owners’ lack of means and capacity to
market newer, better performing but more expensive pesticides. It can be concluded that the
impact of FFSs can be improved by finding ways to involve pesticide shop owners in the
facilitation of change in farmers’ usage from broad spectrum to more IPM compatible
pesticides.




14
4.1.3.5 Farmers beliefs and attitudes about, and understanding of
citriculture practices and GAP

Farmers showed positive attitudes towards nursery material that is mainly produced by
government institutes (Table 12). The lowest positive attitude was in the Mekong Delta
(70%) with the lowest positive attitude within this region occurring in Tien Giang province,
at only 30%. This is a very interesting finding because most of the nursery citrus trees are
produced in Tien Giang province. When interviewed, farmers in Tien Giang province
claimed that the nursery trees grew slower and yield was lower. There were no data available
to support or reject these claims. The highest positive attitude occurred in Northern Central
Vietnam at 90% with Northern North Vietnam region intermediate at 80%. The survey
questions about nursery trees were chosen not only to test attitude towards the nursery trees
as such, but also to provide an indication of the farmers’ attitudes towards the interventions
carried out by government institutes (eg. SOFRI, NIPP). Analysed in that light, results
indicate consistently high trust in the northern part of Vietnam while in the south results are
more variable.
Overall farmers showed satisfactory understanding (66.62% correct answers) of good

practices in citriculture such as use of fertiliser or suitable planting density. The proportion of
correct answers ranged from 58.25 in Northern North Vietnam to 66.60 % and 75% in
Mekong delta and Northern Central Vietnam respectively. Farmers understanding of citrus
greening (huanglongbing) transmission and control was good (75.82% correct answers)
across the regions. However, understanding of pests and effective pest control measures was
relatively low at 52.42%. The results in this category were very consistent between the
regions with Northern North Vietnam scoring 50%, Northern Central Vietnam 51.25% and
the Mekong Delta 56%. There is a reasonably high general awareness of the negative impact
of pesticides on environment and human health with average of 74.13% correct answers
across the regions.
There was a surprisingly high level of understanding of some of the major requirements of
GAP and of some implementation issues with farmers scoring 70.55% and 76.33% correct
answers respectively. Information about GAP is regularly provided in newspapers and there
is a high level of communication about this topic to the farmers by extension officers as well
as by NGOs. As a result farmers have very high expectations of GAP and expect that just
implementing GAP on their farms will bring them higher economic benefits. In our survey
90% farmers in Mekong delta, 100% farmers in Northern Central Vietnam and 85% farmers
in Northern North Vietnam believe that by implementing GAP alone their income will
increase.

4.1.3.6 Farmers self assessment of their skills

Farmers’ self assessment shows a high level of farmer confidence in their skills to perform
most of the operations in citrus production (Table 14 and 15). A high level of confidence
across all regions was recorded for pruning (2.65), recognising of major stages of plant
lifecycle (2.67), the ability to distinguish between the symptoms of pest and diseases (2.56),
recognising damage done by major pests (2.56), preparation of pesticide solutions according
to label (2.86), calibration of sprayers (2.63), and storage of pesticide according to
manufacturer recommendations (2.56). Low overall confidence was recorded only for the
ability to manipulate flushing, flowering and growth (1.46), produce compost (1.66) and

keeping of accurate records (1.55). Farmers from Mekong delta are very confident in their
skills (2.39) lacking skills and confidence only in production of compost (1.28), keeping

15
accurate records (1.20), calculation of profit (1.48) and budgeting for production needs
(1.56). Farmers from Northern Central Vietnam were the least confident farmers, scoring
(1.99). They lacked confidence in manipulating flushing, flowering and harvest time (0.95),
effective application of fertilisers (1.45), irrigation (1.05), production of compost (1.60),
recognising symptoms of phytophthora (1.82), selecting correctly registered pesticide (1.60),
and keeping accurate records (1.60). Confidence of farmers from Northern North Vietnam
was between the other two regions, with score of 2.18. They lack confidence in manipulating
flushing, flowering and harvest time (0.80), irrigation (1.55), the ability to recognise
symptoms of phytophthora (1.35) to selecting correctly registered pesticides (1.80) and
keeping accurate records (1.85).
Even though farmers have relatively high confidence in their skills our observations, farmers’
responses in the survey and the production results in terms of yield and income achieved
indicate that farmers’ skills still need to be improved in many areas including those where
farmers are confident in their existing skills. The results indicate overconfidence of farmers
in their skills and this can be an obstacle in their willingness to change their practises as
result of FFSs.

4.1.4.1 Trainers knowledge, beliefs and attitudes about GAP

Trainers were asked 5 open answer questions to test their knowledge about GAP (results are
presented on the bottom of Table 17) and they were asked to agree or disagree with 16
statements to evaluate their attitude and beliefs about GAP (results are presented in Table
16). Almost all trainers believe that the main reason for introduction of GAP is to improve
the health of farmers and consumers (100%), that GAP must link the environment and
farming (92%) and that GAP is an international standard for safe food production recognized
by most governments (92%). The majority of trainers believe that GAP should be

implemented by all farmers (73%) and that citrus fruit cannot be exported if farmers are not
GAP certified (69%). The response of trainers clearly indicates that they see GAP as a
government driven measure to protect human health and the environment which should be
implemented by all farmers. The responses of trainers also indicate they believe that GAP is
prescribed by governments across the world and implementation of GAP is necessary for
export. Trainer beliefs may 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. The attitude of trainers probably reflects the major
difference in the approach to GAP between Viet Nam and Europe, and this approach has
major implications for the implementation of GAP. If GAP is driven by government agencies
then the connection between retailers and producers is missing and the likelihood for
successful project implementation is reduced. It seems that trainers as well as farmers (see
4.1.3.5) are missing the central point of the concept of GAP which is that it is driven by the
retailers. However, a majority of trainers (69%) believe that retailers should pay for the
training of farmers because the retailers will benefit the most from GAP implementation.
About half of the trainers believe that EurepGAP standards are too high for Vietnamese
conditions (54%) and that a concept like ‘Safe vegetable’ production is better suited for Viet
Nam (46%). Only about half trainers understand GAP requirements in regards to pesticide
registration (54%) and use of pesticide (50%).
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
17 and 18). Overall results of self-assessment in all regions shows that all trainers consider

16
themself skilled to train GAP and the majority believe that they can train with confidence.
The only areas of competency that show a lack of trainer confidence are for trainers in
Northern North Vietnam where they are not confident in the explanation of 12 requirements
of GAP or selection of pesticides that comply with GAP requirements.

However results from the knowledge test indicate that only trainers in Mekong Delta and in
Hoa Binh and Tuyen Quang province in the North have a satisfactory level of knowledge
about GAP (with above 50% score), with excellent results scored by trainers in Vinh Long
(100%), Tien Giang (90%), Can Tho (85%) and Tuyen Quang (80%).

4.2 Baseline of key Vietnamese institutions

Summaries of interviews with leaders of the key Vietnamese institutions participating in the
project are given in Appendix 4. In this section the key findings of all interviews are
summarised.

4.2.1 Initial GAP conceptions

All interviewees have extensive experience with development and implementation of IPM.
For all of them GAP is an extension of IPM where IPM is still a major component. Most of
the interviewees have also been involved in the development of Viet GAP and they have
good knowledge of GAP principles. However they do not have experience with or define
method of GAP implementation.

4.2.2 Changes in interviewees’ conceptions about GAP since commencement of
the project

The interviewees’ concept of GAP has been broadened and enhanced. They can see the need
to connect production with 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 would set standards for the domestic market while Global GAP would provide
standards for the export market. The interviewees pointed out the need for establishing
certification bodies that will be easily accessible to the farmers. There is a strong ministerial
push towards GAP certification for export trade, which has resulted in many authorities,
institutions and agencies trying to meet certification requirements but there is a lack of

coordination and systematic approach.

4.2.3 Critical GAP elements

Nearly all respondents see a clear connection between GAP and cooperatives, with
cooperatives being a key element in GAP implementation and certification. Some
interviewees suggested that certification could be on cooperative level rather than for
individual farmers. For GAP to be successfully implemented it is necessary to get support
from all levels of government: central government through support in legislation and policies
and local government on an implementation level. Interviewees see record keeping as a key
component of GAP that will be difficult to implement because of current levels of farmer
education and habitual opposition to record keeping. If farmers can experience benefits from
record keeping in better planning of production and eventually reduction of costs and
increase of profit, then record keeping may be better accepted by farmers.

17

4.2.4 Readily transferable GAP elements

All respondents are in agreement that IPM is the element of GAP that is most readily
transferable to farmers and will give farmers a tangible range of benefits that includes
economic, social and environmental aspects. However, Mr Dung pointed out that all
elements of GAP are transferable to farmers if the GAP implementation is approached in a
step by step fashion and there is adequate follow-up.

4.2.5 Role of FFS in GAP implementation

In Vietnam there is already an existing infrastructure and framework for FFS that should be
capitalised on. The ability of FFS to engage farmers in evidence based decision making
rather than being told what to do may be a key for successful GAP implementation. All

respondents pointed out that FFS is an important first step towards the formation of
cooperatives that respondents see as the key for implementation of GAP.

4.2.6 Expected benefits to stakeholder’s organizations

The project is seen as a framework for changing farmer’s practices. It also addresses the core
businesses of PPD and allows PPD staff to extend their knowledge and get involved in the
farming community.

4.3 Analysis of key markets for GAP citrus fruit

The value of citrus in the Vietnamese domestic market is very high and there are no
incentives for Vietnamese farmers to concentrate on export. For oranges farmers can get at
the farm gate between 3.5 and 12 000 VND per kilogram, for mandarins the price can go
over 20,000 VND per kilogram and for pomelo from 5 - 12 000 VND per fruit. A
comparison between the income from rice and citrus shows that net returns from citrus is 3 -
6 times higher (Table 19). Detailed analysis of net profit from citrus is presented in Milestone
7 of the CARD project 036/04 VIE and it will be used as the baseline for this project. The
key finding of that analysis was that the mean net profit per hectare averaged over citrus
species and provinces was VND 78,620,000. However there were significant differences
between citrus species in the value of net return provided to the farmers with average returns
for mandarin of VND 100,000,000, pomelo VND 93,000,000 and oranges only VND
37,880,000. In the financial analysis component of project 036/04 it was not possible to
exactly document all inputs, particularly those of farmers’ labour, so in this project detailed
record of inputs and outputs have been collected since February 2008 and will be continually
collected until December 2009. The collection of input and output data has been organised in
4 provinces from 20 farmers per province and will be used for the profit analysis at the end of
the project.
Marketing of citrus fruit in all provinces is mainly through the ‘middle man’, who comes and
buys fruits at the farm. A very small percentage of the fruit is sold by the farmers in markets

in their local towns while farmers do not directly sell fruit at the markets of the major centres
(Hanoi, HCMC). Only in one FFS (in Vinh Long province) are farmers directly connected
with the supermarket (Metro) and a few FFSs have being conducted in cooperatives that have
their own cooperative retail posts (Vinh Long province). None of the fruit produced by

18
farmers participating in FFS undergo any post-harvest processing. There are no packing
houses in any of provinces that are involved in the project.
It is unlikely that this project or the introduction of GAP will have a major impact on export
of Vietnamese citrus without major infrastructural investments in post harvest treatment of
fruit. However it is likely that the citrus fruit produced by GAP certified farmers will get a
primum price by accessing the upper end of the domestic market (supermarkets, hotels and
restaurants). If import of citrus from Thailand and China increases as result of opening the
Vietnamese market, resulting in a drop in the price of citrus, then GAP-certified farmers
organised in cooperatives may be better positioned to survive such a market situation. More
detailed market analysis will be presented in the final impact assessment.

Conclusions
As results of the baseline study, the following opportunities for project interventions to
provide economic, social and environmental benefits to smallholders were identified:

1. The production and infrastructure in all surveyed provinces is far below the standards
required for Global GAP certification. To reflect that situation, the curriculum of FFS will
only focus on certain elements of GAP that are possible to implement in the timeframe of the
project, under the current economic and social environment. Requirements that will be
addressed in the FFS curriculum include: integrated pest and disease management, use of
appropriate occupational health and safety measures, pesticide storage and disposal of
pesticide containers, and record keeping. Record keeping is one of the major steps towards
GAP, so farmers are strongly encouraged to establish record keeping systems at their own
farm during the time they attend FFS, with the assumption that they will keep the adopted

recording system after completion of FFS.

2. The curriculum for TOT will include all principles and practices of GAP for the whole
value chain, including marketing aspects, to integrate production with post-harvest,
distribution and marketing. This will ensure that trainers will have sufficient capacity to be
able to assist farmers and cooperatives to implement GAP whenever the situation arises in
the future, to capitalise on the expected improvements in production and quality. To this end,
trainers will be strongly encouraged to discuss with farmers the advantages of cooperatives
and farmers groups in implementation of GAP.

3. The production of a GAP manual will provide trainers, government organisations and
farmers with the capacity to implement GAP when the time arises.

4. Two cooperatives with good potential to develop GAP have been identified, based on their
current production and knowledge levels, cooperative structure and local support. It is
envisaged that these groups will provide a model for implementation of GAP.

5. There needs to be a stronger link developed between the farmer groups implementing GAP
and the retail and wholesale markets that they will supply. However, this is beyond the scope
of the current project.


19
Table 2. Citriculture practices used at each FFS and net income

Province Planting
density of
citrus
(tree/ha)
Flushes per year Time of harvest Sprays per year

(Total /
insecticides
sprayed together
with fungicides)
Application
method
Net income per
ha (estimated by
grower)
Can Tho 600 4-5 All year 6/1 Knapsack 8L
(pressurised)
26,000,000
Vinh Long 500 4 major, All year 4/1 Motorized sprayer 100,000,000
Ben Tre 330 4 major (2 minor) All year 0 None 25,000,000
Dong Thap 1600 5 TET (Jan-Feb) 15/7 Motorized
sprayers
105,0000,000
Tien Giang 1600 4 major, 2 minor All year 8/4 Knapsack 8L
(pressurised)
80,000,000
Ha Thin 660 4 Oct-Dec 5/0 Knapsack 12 L
(pressurised)
37,000,000
Nghe An 500 4 Nov-Dec 8/2 Knapsack 8L
(pressurised)
60,000,000
Hoa Binh 450 4 Nov 6/3 Motorized 15,000,000
Ha Tay 500 (oranges)
490 (pomelo)
3-4 Nov-Dec (O)

Nov-Feb (P)
10/6 motorized 175,000,000 (O)
113,000,000 (P)
Phu Tho 350 farmer does not
know (3-4 ?)
Nov no spray no sprayer 20,000,000
Yen Bai 270
670
3 Nov-Dec 1 Knapsack 12L 6,000,000 (P)
13.000,000 (O)
Tuyen Quang 400 4 Nov-Dec 9/4 Motorized 53,000,000
Ha Giang 400 4 Dec-Jan 12/3 Motorized 60,000,000


20
Table 3 a. Major pests and diseases at each FFS and pesticides used for their control in Mekong Delta

Province Major pest/diseases
nominated by
farmers
Most commonly used
insecticide at the
property
Most commonly
used fungicide at
the property
Best selling insecticide
in local shop
Best selling
fungicide in local

shop
Can Tho leafminer/citrus
greening
alfa cypermethrin
abamectin
metalaxyl

alfa cypermethrin
thiamethoxam
abamectin
carbendazim
metalaxyl
copper
Vinh Long Mealy bugs in roots
/none
mineral oil
cypermethrin
deltamethrin
propiconazole abamectin
methidation
imidacloprid
metalaxyl
propiconazole

Ben Tre scale

None None imidacloprid
alfa cypermethrin
thiamethoxam

carbendazim
metalaxyl

Dong Thap mites/ canker profenofos
mineral oil
pyridaben


carbandezim pyridaben
profenofos
abamectin
carbendazim
kasugamycin
benomyl
Tien Giang leafminer, mites thiamethoxam
pyridaben
mineral oil
metalaxyl
copper
abamectin
thiamethoxam
pyridaben
carbendazim
mankozeb
metalaxyl



21
Table 3 b. Major pests and diseases at each FFS and pesticides used for their control in Northern Central Vietnam and

Northern Vietnam

Province Major
pest/diseases
nominated by
farmers
Most commonly used
insecticide at the property
Most commonly
used fungicide at
the property
Best selling insecticide in
local shop
Best selling
fungicide in local
shop
Ha Tinh Stem borer,
mites/none
thiamethoxam
lambdacyhalothrin
fenpyroximate
None thiamethoxam
lambdacyhalothrin
cypermethrin; fenobucarb
metalaxyl
copper
Nghe An mites, psyllids/
citrus greening
Propargite;pyridaben
fipronil

copper Fipronil; methidation
pyridaben

Copper; metalaxyl
fosetyl aluminium
Hoa Binh mites/canker fenobucarb
abamectin
copper mixed with
mineral oil
not visited not visited
Ha Tay mites, psyllids,
leafminer/canker
cypermethrin+Profenofos
abamectin
metalaxyl
copper;
difenoconazole
cypermethrin+Profenofos
abamectin; cypermethrin
copper
metalaxyl
Phu Tho scale none none not visited not visited
Yen Bai stink bug none for pomelo
once for sink bug
cypermethrin
none not visited not visited
Tuyen Quang mites/canker Abamectin; propargite
pyridaben
carbendazim

Pyridaben; propargite

metalaxyl
Ha Giang leafminer,
mites/canker
Acetamiprid; propargite
alpha-cypermethrin
profenofos
carbendazim
copper
methalaxyl
Acetamiprid; propargite
alpha-cypermethrin
profenofos
carbendazim
methalaxyl

22
Table 4a: Compliance with EURAP GAP requirements in Mekong delta
Requirement Can Tho Vinh Long Ben Tre Dong Thap Tien Giang
1. Traceability NC NC NC C NC
2. Record keeping NC PC NC PC NC
3. Variety and rootstock

NC NC NC NC NC
4. Site history and management NC NC NC NC NC
5. Soil and substrate management NC PC NC PC NC
6. Fertiliser usage NC PC NC PC PC
7. Irrigation NC PC NC C NC
8. Crop protection

(details in table 5)
NC PC NC PC NC
9. Harvesting

NC PC NC NC NC
10. Post harvest treatment N/A PC N/A PC N/A
11Workers health NC PC NC PC PC
12 Environmental issues NC PC NC PC PC
C= comply, PC= partly comply, NC= Not comply, N/A = the activity is not undertaken on the farm


23
Table 4b: Compliance with EURAP GAP requirements in Northern Central Vietnam and Northern Vietnam

Requirement Ha Thin Nghe An Hoa Binh Ha Tay Phu Tho Yan Bai Tuyen Quang Ha Giang
1. Traceability NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC
2. Record keeping NC NC PC NC NC NC PC PC
3. Variety and rootstock

NC NC C C NC NC NC NC
4. Site history and
management
PC NC NC NC NC NC NC PC
5. Soil and substrate
management
PC PC PC PC PC PC NC NC
6. Fertiliser usage PC PC PC PC C C PC PC
7. Irrigation N/A N/A PC PC N/A N/A PC N/A
8. Crop protection
(details in table 5)

PC PC PC PC N/A N/A PC PC
9. Harvesting

PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
10. Post harvest treatment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
11Workers health PC PC C C PC PC PC PC
12 Environmental issues PC PC PC PC C C PC PC
C= comply, PC= partly comply, NC= Not comply

24
Table 5a: Compliance with EURAP GAP requirement for crop protection practices Mekong delta and Northern Central
Vietnam
Requirement Can Tho Vinh Long Ben Tre Dong Thap Tien Giang
1. Minimum pesticide input
NC PC NC PC PC
2. Preventative IPM techniques
NC NC NC PC NC
3. Appropriate and officially registered pesticide only
1
NC PC NC C PC
4. Keep the list of product
NC PC NC PC NC
5. Training in pesticide use or advice from qualified
advisers
NC PC NC C NC
6. Record of use and calculation
NC PC NC PC NC
7. Safety and training
NC NC NC PC PC
8. Protective clothing

NC PC NC PC PC
9. Pre-harvest interval
2
NC PC NC PC PC
10. Residue checking
NC NC NC NC NC
11. Pesticide storage and disposal
NC PC NC NC NC
C= comply, PC= partly comply, NC= Not comply


25
Table 5b: Compliance with EURAP GAP requirement for crop protection practices in Northern Central Vietnam and
Northern Vietnam
Requirement Ha Tinh Nghe
An
Hoa Binh Ha Tay Phu Tho Yan Bai Tuyen
Quang
Ha
Giang
1. Minimum pesticide input
PC PC PC PC C C NC NC
2. Preventative IPM techniques
PC NC NC NC N/A N/A NC PC
3. Appropriate and officially registered
pesticide only
1
NC PC PC PC N/A N/A NC PC
4. Keep the list of product
NC NC PC NC N/A N/A PC PC

5. Training in pesticide use or advice
from qualified advisers
NC NC C PC N/A N/A NC NC
6. Record of use and calculation
NC NC PC NC N/A N/A NC NC
7Safety and training
NC PC PC PC N/A N/A NC NC
8. Protective clothing
PC PC C PC N/A N/A PC PC
9. Pre-harvest interval
2
C PC C PC N/A N/A C PC
10. Residue checking
NC NC NC NC N/A N/A NC NC
11. Pesticide storage and disposal
PC NC PC PC N/A N/A NC PC