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

1

Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development
_____________________________________________________________________
Milestone 9
Project Validation Report
Part 2

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

Contact Officer(s)

In Australia: Team Leader
Name:
Oleg Nicetic (til 2/07/10)
Robert Spooner-Hart (from 3/07/20)
Telephone:
+61245701329
Position:
Research Associate
Fax:
+61245701103
Organisation
University of Western Sydney
Email:
r.spooner-


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
Introduction
In this second part of Impact assessment study we present results of:
a) Before and after (B&A) surveys. In each province, 5 farmers and 2 trainers were
surveyed just after commencing their participation in FFS (June 2007) and 2 years after
completion of FFS (March-May 2010). Exact dates of surveys were presented in Table 1 in
Part 1 of the Impact assessment study submitted at the beginning of September 2010.
b) Informal discussions with key personnel involved in project. Informal discussions were
held with key PPD personnel involved in the project, including Mr Loc and Mr Duc and
directors or vice-directors of PPSD in provinces in period March-April 2010 and with Mr
Chien and Mr Cuong from SRPPC in May 2010. Discussions were also held with Dr Vo Mai
from VACVINA and Dr Tran Van Hai from Can Tho University in May 2010. Discussions
with Mr YR Cho from SK Energy were held in Seoul, South Korea in February 2010.
The results presented in this report are complementary to results presented in Part 1 of the
Impact assessment and provide quantitative justification to the conclusions drawn from focus
group discussions. The results clearly present change from the situation before project

intervention (in all Tables, the black numbers in brackets) and the situation two years after
the project intervention was completed (red numbers). Similar to Part 1, the results from the
13 provinces are grouped into 3 regions: a) “Mekong Delta” comprising 5 provinces from the
Mekong delta (Ben Tre, Tien Giang, Vinh Long, Dong Thap and Can Tho), b) “Northern
Central Provinces” comprising two provinces from Northern Central Vietnam: (Ha Tinh and
Nghe An) and two provinces south of Hanoi (Hoa Binh and Ha Tay) and c) “Northern
provinces” comprising provinces north of Hanoi (Phu Tho, Yen Bai, Tuyen Quang, and Ha
Giang).
All results from the impact assessment are presented together with results of baseline
study. In all tables values in red are findings of impact assessment and values in
brackets (typed in black) are values recorded in baseline study.

Material and Methods

1 Baseline survey of farmers and trainers


1.1 Survey of 5 randomly selected farmers

The surveys of farmers were conducted by trainers under the supervision of Mr Cuong in the
south and Mr Loc in the north. The survey took about 20 minutes for each farmer to complete
and the results are recorded in a 10 page form in Vietnamese (Appendix 1). Data were
summarised for each province and region and the results are presented in Tables 1-10.
Data for the source of planting material presented in Table 1 were weighted by multiplying
the number of respondents who obtained all their planting material from one source by 3, the
number who obtained most planting material from one source by 2 and the number who

3
obtained little planting material from one source by 1. The calculated score per category was
then divided by the maximum possible score per province to obtain a proportion.

Indices of perceived importance of pests and diseases shown by province in Table 2a and by
region in Table 2b were calculated by multiplying the number of respondents that perceived a
certain pest as very important by 2, important by 1 and not important by 0. The resulting
score was than divided by the number of respondents per province. Pests that scored an index
of 0 were deemed to be not important, an index of 0.1 - 0.5 marginally important, an index of
0.6 - 1.0 moderately important, 1.1 - 1.5 important and 1.6 - 2 very important. Data for the
pattern and frequency of sprays shown in Table 3a represent the percentage of respondents in
each category (i.e. preventative spray for insects, preventative spray for diseases and curative
spray) per province and region.
Indices of spray intensity applied for specific pests and diseases shown per province in Table
3b and per region in Table 3c were calculated by multiplying the number of respondents that
sprayed more than 3 times per year by 5, that sprayed occasionally (from 1-3 times) by 2 and
not sprayed at all by 0. The resulting score was then divided by the number of respondents
per province. Sprays were not applied for pests that scored an index of 0, few sprays were
applied by the minority of farmers for pests that scored 0.1-1, few sprays were applied by the
majority of farmers for pests that scored 1.1-2, frequent sprays were applied by minority of
farmers for pests that scored 2.1 and 3 and frequent sprays were applied by majority of
farmers for pests that scored more than 3.
The data shown for pest management activities, other than pesticide sprays, shown in Table 4
represents the percentage of farmers per province and region that practice a certain pest
management activity.
Data for record keeping presented in Table 5 were calculated by multiplying the number of
respondents that keep systematic record by 3, that keep occasional record by 2 and no record
at all by 0. The resulting score was then divided by the number of respondents per province.
No records were kept for (index 0), few farmers kept occasional records (index 0.1-0.5), few
farmers kept systematic records (index 0.6-1.5), the majority of farmers kept systematic
records (index 1.6-2.5), and all farmers kept records and the majority kept systematic records
(index 2.6-3.0).
Data for the level of use of protective clothing and other protective equipment during

pesticide application (as shown in Table 6) represents the percentage of farmers per province
and region using certain suitable protective equipment or clothing.
Data presented in Table 7 represents the percentage of farmers per province and region that
gave correct answers with regard to citricultural practices (shown in the category
“Understanding of best practice citriculture”), with regard to huanglongbing transmission and
control (shown in the category “Understanding of transmission and control of
huanglongbing”), with regard to pests and their management (shown in the category
“Understanding of pests and control methods”), with regard to pesticide impact on
environment and human health (shown in the category “Understanding of the impact of
pesticides on the environment and human health”), and the percentage of farmers that had
positive believes and attitudes towards certified planting material (shown in the category
“Positive believes and attitudes towards certified nurseries”).
Data presented in Table 8 represents the percentage of farmers in each province and region
that gave correct answers with regard to requirements of GAP (shown in the category
“Understand major requirements of GAP”), with regard to implementation issues of GAP
(shown in the category “Understanding of implementation issues”), and the percentage of
farmers that believe that implementation of GAP will give them economic benefits (shown in
the category “Belief in economic benefits”).

4
The index for the level of farmer skill that was assessed by the farmers themselves (self
assessment), presented per province in Table 9 and per region in Table 10, was calculated by
multiplying the number of farmers that stated they were able to apply certain skills
independently and confidently by 3, independently but without confidence by 2, with
assistance of another person by 1 and those that did not have a certain skill by 0. The total
score per province was divided by the total number of respondents in the province to get an
average score per province. The maximum score is 3. Scores of 2.5 and above indicate a high
level of confidence (over 80% of total score), scores of 1.5 and below indicate a lack of
confidence in the majority of farmers, while scores between 1.5 and 2.5 indicate that the
majority of farmers have confidence in their skills but many farmers still need improvement

in their skills to be confident.

1.2 Survey of trainers
Interviews with trainers were conducted by Mr Cuong in the south and Mr Loc in the north,
after farmer interviews were completed. The interviews took 15-20 minutes and results were
recorded in a 4 page form in Vietnamese (Appendix 2).

Data were summarised per province and region and results are presented in the Tables 11 to
13. Data for trainer beliefs and attitudes about GAP shown in Table 11 represent the number
of trainers per province that agreed with the presented statements.
The index for the level of trainer skill that were assessed by the trainers themselves (self
assessment), presented per province in Table 12 and per region in Table 13, was calculated
by multiplying the number of trainers that stated they were able to train farmers in certain
skills independently and confidently by 3, independently but without confidence by 2, have
knowledge of the skill but cannot train farmers by 1 and do not have knowledge about the
certain skill by 0. Total score per province was divided by the total number of respondents in
the province to get average score per province. The maximum score is 3. Scores of 2.5 and
above indicate a high level of confidence (over 80% of total score), scores of 1.5 and below
indicates a lack of confidence in the majority of trainers, while scores between 1.5 and 2.5
indicate that the majority of trainers have confidence in their skills but still many trainers
need improvement in their skills to be confident.
At the bottom of Table 12 and Table 13 the score of trainer’s knowledge test is shown. There
were 5 open ended knowledge questions (see Appendix 2). For each question the score was 0
for incorrect answers, 0.5 for partly correct answers and 1 for correct answers. Scores for two
trainers were added and presented in the tables.

2. Informal discussions with key personnel involved in project

Informal discussions were held with key personnel involved in project from PPD Mr Loc and
Mr Duc and directors or vice-directors of PPSD in provinces in period March to April 2010

and with Mr Chien, Mr Cuong from SRPPC in May 2010. Discussions were also held with
Dr Vo Mai from VACVINA and Dr Tran Van Hai from Can Tho University in May 2010.
Discussion with Mr YR Cho from SK Energy was held in Seoul, South Korea in February
2010. All discussions were moderated by Oleg Nicetic and followed a check list to make sure
all topics that included: impact of the project on their organisation, implementation issues
and views on GAP were covered. Notes of discussions were taken. In the results section only
the main conclusions are presented.

5
Results and discussions

1 Baseline of farmers and trainers

1.1 Survey of 5 randomly selected farmers

1.1.1 Dominant citrus species

There were no changes in species grown since baseline study in 2007 except for continuous
decline in number of orange trees in Mekong delta. Farmers from FFS in Can Tho province
replaced orange trees with rambutan. So still in the Mekong Delta mandarins (King and Tieu
varieties) are the dominant yielding varieties of citrus with pomelo plantings increasing and
becoming equal to mandarins (See Table 1 in Baseline study report). In Northern Central and
Northern provinces oranges are by far the most dominant species while in Ha Tay and Phu
Tho provinces pomelo variety Dien is equally as important as the orange varieties. However,
the yield of pomelo in these two provinces was low in last 3 years. No single reason for low
yield was established but low yield is probably due to a combination of factors: poor
pollination, wet and cold weather during flowering period, age of trees, inadequate
fertilisation and diseases.

1.1.2 Orchard layout and growth dynamic

There were no changes in orchard layout in comparison to the Baseline. For information
about the orchard see Table 2 in the Baseline report.

1.1.3 Dominant pests and diseases

Farmers’ ability to identifying pests and diseases significantly improved, and farmers are
now confident in distinguishing damage caused by pests from damage caused by diseases.
Overall farmers’ perception of the importance of pests and diseases slightly decreased.

In the Mekong Delta, farmers nominated psyllids (1.4 previously 1.80), mites (1.4 previously
1.3) and thrips (1.1 previously 1.0) as the major pests (Table 2b). Scale and mealybug
importance had the most significant drop from 1.6 to 1.0. Drop in the significance of psyllids
indicate farmers’ confidence in their ability to control psyllids and spread of citrus greening.
There were no significant changes in the perception of pest importance in the Northern
Central Provinces. Farmers nominated mites (1.5 previously 1.5), psyllids (1.3 previously
1.4) and leafminer (1.3 previously 1.5) as major pests. “Northern Provinces” is only region
where overall farmers’ perception of the importance of pests and diseases increased.
Leafminer importance decreased from 1.4 to 0.9 and changed its perceived status from being
the most important pest to being considered only moderately important. Now psyllid is
considered the most important pest (change from 0.5 to 1.6) followed by mites (1.4
previously 1.0). These results indicate the significant impact that training had on farmers in
Northern provinces, that resulted in better control of mites and psyllids. Mite damage that
was very noticeable in most orange orchards of the Northern Provinces is now reduced.

Citrus greening disease (huanglongbing) is still more noticeable in Nghe An and Ha Tinh
provinces than anywhere else and, as stated in Baseline study, there are several reasons for

6
this: first, in these provinces oranges are the major citrus crop and they are the most

susceptible variety of citrus to citrus greening disease; second, the average age of trees in the
orchards is much higher than in the Mekong delta where the orchard regeneration is well
planned and practised; and third is insufficient use of insecticides for control of psyllids.
FFSs concentrated on addressing the problem of insufficient protection against psyllids. In
the Northern Central Provinces there are 4 distinctive flushes but only one (the spring flush)
bears fruit. Farmers only concentrate on protecting the fruit-bearing flush while other flushes
are exposed to psyllids and citrus greening infection. This problem was addressed during
training of trainers and farmers and, as a result, the number of sprays that targeted psyllids
increased (index value Table 3c increased from 2.2 to 2.8) but it is still below the level
against leafminer (3.2). However, sprays against leafminer may reduce psyllids as well.

1.1.4 Pesticide use

Pesticides were generally not overused in the regions and provinces visited. The only
exception is Dong Thap province where many farmers use pesticides more than 20 times in a
season. In the Mekong delta 26% (previously36%) of surveyed farmers used frequent
preventative sprays against pests and 27% against diseases (previously 32%). This represent
moderate reduction in number of sprays but reduction in Northern Central Provinces was
more pronounced from 80% to 48% of farmers frequently applied preventative sprays against
pests (Table 3a). In Northern provinces the frequency of sprays overall remained unchanged
but a significant increase was recorded in Ha Giang province. The majority of farmers spray
pests after they have been detected in the orchard. A total of 85% (76% previously) of
farmers applied curative sprays in the Mekong delta, 55% (32%) more than 3 times and 30%
(44%) 1 - 3 times. In Northern Central Provinces 78% (100%) of farmers applied curative
sprays, 51% (70%) frequently and 26% (30%) occasionally. In Northern Provinces 95%
(65%) of farmers sprayed pesticides after pests were detected, 45% (45%) frequently and
50% (20%) occasionally. Theses results represent a significant improvement in use of
pesticides. Not just number of sprays were reduced but, based on results from group
discussions (Part 1 of Impact assessment), the timing of spraying and the type of pesticide
used were optimised. In our Baseline study it was stated that the number of sprays in

Northern Provinces needed to be increased for effective pest and disease control and the
impact assessment confirmed that this happened. Overall, the most frequently sprayed pest
was mites (3.2 previously 2.8) followed by leafminer (3.1 previously 2.9) (Table 3c).
Diseases (2.8 previously 2.3), psyllids (2.7 previously 2.09) and mealybugs and scales (2.3
previously 2.8) and were also frequently sprayed
.
As circumstances differ between regions a standard recommendation about the minimum
number of sprays necessary cannot be given for the whole of Vietnam. In areas where citrus
greening is present, each flush should be sprayed at least once to prevent spread of the
disease by the psyllid, which equates to 4 sprays in the North and about 6 sprays in the
Mekong Delta. It can assumed that a few more sprays are also necessary for control of mites,
so it could be estimated that 6 - 10 well timed sprays per year is the optimum number.
However, in some years and regions, up to 15 sprays could be justified. Application of over
15 sprays may be considered as overuse while over 20 sprays is certainly overuse. In areas
where citrus greening is not a problem the number of sprays can be reduced to 4-6.

.

7
1.1.5 Pest management activities other than pesticide

Overall, the vast majority of farmers (98% increased from 88%) conduct some kind of pest
monitoring activity and 86% (a significant increase from 58%) monitor for the presence of
beneficial arthropods (Table 4). These results are consistent throughout the regions, ranging
from 95-100% and 80-95% for monitoring of pests and beneficials, respectively. The
majority of farmers in Northern Central Provinces using baits for control of fruit fly (85%
increased from 40%) but only 23% of farmers used bait in the Mekong delta and a mere 5%
in Northern Provinces. Use of green (weaver) ants (Oecophylla smargdina) was reduced in
the Mekong Delta (30% down from 60% of farmers). However, this is partly a result of
farmers from Can Tho not being included as part of the impact assessment and farmers in

Dong Thap province no longer using green ants. Use of green ants in Northern Central
provinces was unchanged (20%) and a slight increase was recorded in Northern Provinces
(40% up from 30%). A high proportion of farmers (97% up from 89%) declared that they
removed unhealthy trees, with the proportion in the Mekong Delta raised from 76% to 100%.
A high proportion 93% (up from 81%) of farmers also claim that they prune flushes infested
with leafminer to prevent pest recurrence.

1.1.6 Record keeping and level of protective clothing use

Improved adoption of these two project objectives is the most visible and significant. Record
keeping changed from virtually no record keeping at all to records been kept by the majority
of farmers in all regions. Records of fertiliser purchases and application have risen overall
from 0.9 to 2.2 and 2.0 and 2.6 for Northern Provinces and Mekong delta, respectively.
Pesticide purchase records have risen from 0.5 to 2.2 and pesticide use recording has risen
from 0.4 to 2.2. Recording of yield and income from fruit has risen from 0.8 to 2.1 and from
1 to 2.2, respectively. Even recording of occurrence of pest and diseases (1.1 up from 0.3)
and major orchard activities (1.7 up from 0.2) are now being undertaken by many farmers.

Some kind of protective clothing is worn by the majority of farmers. Cloth covering the
mouth and nose, and hats were worn by more than 90% of farmers in all regions, long
sleeved shirts and trousers were worn by 90% of farmers in the two Northern regions and by
78% of farmers in the Mekong delta. Protective masks were worn by 42% of farmers (up
from only 10%). Use of water-resistant clothing, gum boots and water-resistant gloves also
significantly increased.

8
1.1.7 Farmers’ beliefs and attitudes about, and understanding of citriculture practices and
GAP

Farmers’ positive attitudes towards nursery material produced by government institutes

remained high and generally did not change much (Table 7). The most significant change
was in Tien Giang province where only 30% of farmers a had positive attitude towards
nursery material in the Baseline study, whereas after the project 80% of farmers had the view
that nursery planting material is important. That positive attitude was also transferred into
practice and now 80% of farmers in Tien Giang province have their trees sourced from
nurseries (increased from 50% recorded in the Baseline study). The highest overall positive
attitude occurred in Northern Central provinces, with 82% of farmers in Hoa Binh sourcing
all their planting material from nurseries. The survey questions about nursery trees were
chosen not only to test farmers’ attitude towards the nursery trees as such, but also to provide
an indication of their attitudes towards the interventions carried out by government institutes
(eg. SOFRI, NIPP). Analysed in that light, the results indicate a consistently high trust in the
northern part of Vietnam (not changed from baseline study) but results in the south were
more variable with Ben Tre province recording a decrease in trust (100% in the baseline
study to 60% now), whereas in Tien Giang it increased.

Overall, farmers showed satisfactory understanding (70% correct answers, increased from
67% in the Baseline study) of good practices in citriculture, such as use of fertilisers or
suitable planting density. The proportion of correct answers ranged from 65% (increased
from 58%) in Northern Vietnam to 73% in both the Mekong delta and Northern Central
Provinces. Farmers’ understanding of citrus greening (huanglongbing) transmission and
control was improved slightly (from 76% to 81% correct answers) and this improvement was
consistent across the regions. Understanding of pests and of effective pest control measures
that was relatively low (52%) increased substantially (to 65%). Significant increases in
farmer knowledge was recorded in Northern Central provinces (increase of 25%) and in
Northern Vietnam (increase of 28%) but not in the Mekong Delta, where the increase was
only 2%. A reasonably high general awareness of the negative impact of pesticides on the
environment and human health increased from 74% correct answers across the regions in
baseline study to 90% after the project. This awareness also translated in improved practices
such as disposal of pesticide containers, and increased use of protective clothing.

The understanding of some of the major requirements of GAP and of implementation issues
was relatively high in the baseline study (71% and 76% correct answers for major
requirements and implementation issues, respectively) but it was still significantly improved
across all regions reaching, 86% and 89% correct answers, respectively. However, the belief
that GAP certification will bring financial benefits to farmers slightly decreased from 90% to
80% in the Mekong delta, from 100% to 90% in Northern Central Provinces and from 85%
to 70%. However, overall it still remains high (80%).

1.1.8 Farmers self assessment of their skills

Farmers’ self assessment shows a very high level of farmer confidence in their skills to
perform most of the operations in citrus production (Tables 9 and 10). A high level of
confidence across all regions was recorded for pruning (2.8 increased from 2.7), recognising
of major stages of plant lifecycle (2.8 increased from 2.7), the ability to distinguish between
the symptoms of pests and diseases (2.7 increased from 2.6), recognising damage done by
major pests (2.8 increased from 2.6), preparation of pesticide solutions according to label

9
(remained unchanged at 2.9), calibration of sprayers (2.8 increased from 2.6), and storage of
pesticides according to manufacturer recommendations (2.7 increased from 2.6). Low overall
confidence of 1.5 that was recorded in the Baseline study for their ability to manipulate
flushing, flowering and growth decreased even further to 1.2. However, it should be noted
that FFS curriculum did not specifically target this topic. Production of compost and keeping
of accurate records were very important topics in FFS training and significant overall
increases in farmers’ confidence in their ability to produce compost (increase from 1.7 to 2.4)
and to keep accurate records (increase from 1.6 to 2.4) was recorded in the impact
assessment. In the Baseline study, farmers from the Mekong delta were very confident in
their skills (2.4) lacking skills and confidence only in production of compost (1.3), keeping
accurate records (1.2), calculation of profit (1.5) and budgeting for production needs (1.6).
After the project intervention, farmers’ confidence rose to very high level of 2.9 with a very

significant increase in confidence to competently produce compost (2.3 increased from 1.3),
keep accurate records (2.8 increased from 1.2), calculation of profit (2.6 increased from 1.5)
and budget for production needs (2.6 increased from 1.6). Farmers from Northern Central
provinces were the least confident farmers in the Baseline study, scoring 2.0, but they
increased their confidence in their abilities significantly during the project, reaching a score
of 2.7. They significantly increased their confidence in effective application of fertilisers (2.7
increased from 1.5), production of compost (2.6 increased from 1.60), recognising symptoms
of phytophthora (2.6 increased from 1.4), selecting correctly registered pesticides (2.7
increased from 1.6), and keeping accurate records (2.2 increased from 1.6). Confidence of
farmers in Northern Vietnam increased only marginally, from 2.2 to 2.3. However, in this
region there was a very significant difference between provinces with Ha Giang, Tuyen
Quang and Yen Bai recording a modest increase in farmer confidence, whereas in Phu Tho
farmers were less confident in their skills after the FFS.

Overall results show a significant increase in farmers’ confidence in their skills to perform all
major operations in the orchard except for manipulation of flushing, flowering and harvest
time. The majority of the farmers are now skilled and have higher confidence in their ability
to use their skills, which resulted in significant changes in their practices and improvements
in citrus production. Even though only two groups of farmers within the project timeframe
achieved GAP certification, the project developed a broad base of well skilled farmers with
awareness of GAP requirements, that will be able to achieve certification if market demand
for GAP certified citrus fruit grows.

1.1.9 Trainers knowledge, beliefs and attitudes about GAP

Trainers were asked 5 open answer questions to test their knowledge about GAP (the results
are presented at the bottom of Table 12) and they were asked to agree or disagree with 16
statements to evaluate their attitude and beliefs about GAP (the results are presented in Table
11). Results on trainers’ attitudes towards GAP remain almost unchanged after trainers’
participation in project but their knowledge about GAP significantly improved. Almost all

trainers believe that the main reason for introduction of GAP is to improve the health of
farmers and consumers (92% reduced from 100%), that GAP must link the environment and
farming (96% increased from 92%) and that GAP is an international standard for safe food
production recognized by most governments (96% increased from 92%). The majority of
trainers believe that GAP should be implemented by all farmers (69% reduced from 73%) but
there has been significant reduction in trainers’ belief that citrus fruit has to be GAP certified
to be exported (58% reduced from 69%). The response of trainers indicates that they still see
GAP as a government driven measure to protect human health and the environment which

10
should be implemented by the majority of farmers. These responses of trainers also indicate
they believe that GAP is prescribed by governments across the world. Trainers’ beliefs
reflect the situation in Viet Nam and even partly the situation in Asian countries where the
government is much more involved in implementation of GAP, although GAP was originally
developed by the European retailers and in Europe it is governed by the joint retailer and
producers’ governance boards and administered by independent certification agencies. It
seems that retailers do not play an important role in GAP administration or implementation
and this can have a detrimental impact on successful GAP adoption in Vietnam because
producers will not have significant economic benefits as result of GAP implementation. Even
though retailers are not directly involved in GAP implementation and they were not involved
in our project, a majority of trainers (62% reduced from 69%) still believe that retailers
should pay for the training of farmers because the retailers will benefit the most from GAP
implementation. The majority of the trainers believe that GLOBALG.A.P. standards are too
high for Vietnamese conditions (80% increased from 54%). Trainers’ understanding of GAP
requirement with regard to pesticide registration and use of pesticides significantly improved
and now 73% of trainers understand pesticide registration requirements (increased from
54%) and 88% of trainers demonstrated a good understanding of pesticide use according to
GAP requirements (increased from 54%).
Trainers have very high level of confidence in their understanding of major GAP
requirements and ability to train farmers in the implementation of GAP requirements (Table

12 and 13). Overall results of self-assessment in all regions shows that all trainers consider
themself skilled to train GAP and the majority believe that they can train with confidence.
The only areas of competency that showed a lack of trainer confidence (but only in Don Thap
and Phu Tho provinces) is the ability to explain all 12 requirements of GLOBALG.A.P. The
area where trainers from Northern provinces showed lack of confidence in the Baseline study
was in selection of pesticides that comply with GAP requirements (1.9) but significant
improvement was shown after their participation in project and now all trainers are confident
(90).
Results from the knowledge test indicate that the knowledge of trainers in the Mekong Delta
remained high (88% of correct answers, increased from 83%) and knowledge of trainers in
Northern Central Provinces (61% of correct answers, increased from 39%) and Northern
Provinces (69% of correct answers, increased from 49%) improved significantly. The most
significant increase in trainers’ knowledge was achieved in Yen Bai province where trainers
had only 30% correct answers in the Baseline study but 95% correct answers in the impact
assessment test. Only trainers from Ha Giang did not improve their knowledge, which
remained below 50%.

2 Project impact on key Vietnamese institutions


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

The interviewees’ concept of GAP has been broadened and enhanced. They all can see clear
connections between production, post-harvest management and markets. They can also see
the need for separation of the GAP requirements for domestic and export markets, where
Viet GAP sets standards for the domestic market while GLOBALG.A.P. is primarily for
export to European or other advanced countries. SOFRI have been taking an active role in
establishing certification bodies for VietGAP that are easily accessible to farmers.

2.2 Critical GAP elements

11

All respondents are in agreement that GAP implementation and certification for citrus should
be at a farmer group level, preferably with farmers forming formal cooperatives. For GAP to
be successfully implemented it is necessary to obtain support from all levels of government;
and good connections with local governments in many provinces were established during the
timeframe of the project. Introduction of VietGAP has been seen as highly positive step that
will enable wider implementation of GAP. In the Baseline study interviewees saw record
keeping as a key component of GAP that would be difficult to implement because of current
levels of farmer education and habitual opposition to record keeping. However, the results of
our project demonstrated the opposite, and this fact was acknowledged by most of the
respondents. The majority of respondents see lack of substantial and immediate economic
benefits for farmers who implement GAP as the major obstacle for wider GAP
implementation.

2.3 Role of FFS in GAP implementation

In Vietnam, there is already an existing infrastructure and framework for FFS that proved to
be excellent vehicle for implementation of key requirements of GAP; including IPM, record
keeping and OH&S. The ability of FFS to engage farmers in evidence-based decision
making rather than being told what to do was a key component for successful GAP
implementation.

2.4 Benefits to stakeholder organizations

The project provided a framework for changing farmers’ practices. Benefits to farmers as
major stakeholders in this project are presented in other parts of this report and in Part 1 of
impact assessment. Presented below are benefits to other stakeholders involved in the project.

This project built the capacity of the Plant Protection Department to take an active role in
GAP implementation and as a result of project activities the Head Office, Regional Centres
and Plant Protection Sub-Departments in participating provinces are now all sufficiently
skilled to lead and facilitate implementation of GAP throughout Vietnam. As result of PPD
staff activities, knowledge of farmers on GAP that was relatively high in the South has been
broadened and deepened. In the North, knowledge of GAP was much lower than in the
South; but as a result of the project it has now been significantly increased. Strategies should
now be developed to link PPD with industry and retailers to fully utilise this enhanced
capacity.

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

Can Tho University was also involved in the Training of Trainers and their technology on
use of compost with the addition of Trichoderma was widely implemented across all FFSs.
As a result of the implementation of this composting technology in this and the previous
project, Trichoderma is now widely use by citrus growers. As a result of these high demands,

12
Can Tho University have licensed An Giang Pesticide Company to produce Trichoderma on
a larger scale.

SOFRI established itself as a leader in the development of theoretical and implementation
concepts of GAP. Our project utilised the skills of SOFRI staff through them leading the
TOT and writing a manual for GAP implementation in citrus. However, the project provided
SOFRI the opportunity to reach and influence citrus farmers on a much broader scale and

provided funds to produce the GAP manual.

VAC VINA is a leader in cooperative movements in the Mekong Delta and they also have a
network of trainers to support cooperatives and farmers. This project enhanced their
knowledge and skills, and provided the opportunity for them to utilise those skills through
facilitating the implementation of GAP in Dong Thap province.

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


Note:
All results from impact assessment are presented together with results of
baseline study. In all tables values in red are findings of impact assessment
and values in brackets (typed in black) are value recorded in baseline
study.




13
Table 1: Source of planting material
Source of planting material (weighted proportion from each source)
Province
Nursery HLB tested Nursery uncertified Own farm Another farmer
Can Tho n/a (0.2) n/a (0.2) n/a (0.6) 0

Vinh Long 0.07 (0) 0.20 (0) 0.73 (0.75) 0 (0.25)
Ben Tre 0 (0.4) 0 (0) 0.67 (0) 0.33 (0.60)
Dong Thap 0 (0) 0 (0.2) 0.75 (0.4) 0.25 (0.4)
Tien Giang 0.07 (0.25) 0.73 (0.2) 0.13 (0.35) 0.07 (0.2)
Mekong Delta 0.035 (0.17) 0.23 (0.12) 0.57 (0.42) 0.16 (0.29)
Ha Tinh 0.13 (0.20) 0 (0.30) 0.47 (0.50) 0.40 (0)
Nghe An 0.20 (0.20) 0.20 (0.20) 0.47 (0.40) 0.13 (0.20)
Hoa Binh 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Ha Tay 0.25 (0.35) 0.17 (0.05) 0.17 (0.55) 0.41 (0.05)
Northern Central Prov. 0.40 (0.44) 0.09 (0.14) 0.28 (0.36) 0.24 (0.06)
Phu Tho 0 (0.30) 0 (0) 0.53 (0.50) 0.47 (0.2)
Yen Bai 0 (0.20) 0 (0) 0.67 (0.80) 0.33 (0)
Tuyen Quang 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.47 (0.70) 0.53 (0.30)
Ha Giang 0 (0.15) 0 (0) 0.73 (0.65) 0.27 (0.20)
Northern Vietnam 0 (0.16) 0 (0) 0.60 (0.66) 0.40 (0.18)
Overall 0.15 (0.26) 0.11 (0) 0.48 (0.48) 0.27 (0.18)


14
Table 2a: Index of perceived importance of pests and diseases shown per province
Province
Pest/disease
Can
Tho
Vinh
Long
Ben Tre Dong
Thap
Tien
Giang

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

Table 2b: Index of perceived importance of pests and diseases summarised for each regions
Region
Pest/disease
Mekong Delta Northern Central Provinces Northern Vietnam Overall
Scales and mealybugs 1.0 (1.6) 1.1 (1.2) 0.8 (0.9) 1.0 (1.3)
aphids 0.7( 0.8) 1.0 (1.2) 0.6 (0.9) 0.8 (0.9)
whitefly 0.3 (0.6) 0.7 (0.5) 0.7 (0.3) 0.6 (0.5)
psyllids 1.4 (1.8) 1.3 (1.4) 1.6 (0.5) 1.4 (1.2)

thrips 1.1 (1.0) 0.7 (0.6) 0.7 (0.6) 0.8 (0.7)
leafminer 0.8 (0.8) 1.3 (1.5) 0.9 (1.4) 1.0 (1.2)
caterpillar 0.7 (0.7) 1.0 (1.1) 1.2 (0.9) 1.0 (0.9)
fruit fly 0.5 (0.7) 1.0 (1.3) 1.3 (0.9) 0.9 (0.9)
mites
1.3 (1.3) 1.5 (1.5) 1.4 (1.0) 1.4 (1.2)
citrus greening
1.4 (1.4) 1.5 (1.4) 1.7 (1.2) 1.5 (1.3)
Canker
1.0 (1.2) 1.2 (1.3) 0.8 (1.0) 1.0 (1.2)
Overall
0.9 (1.1) 1.1 (1.2) 1.1 (0.9)
0=not important, 0.1-0.5 marginally important, 0.6-1.0 moderately important, 1.1-1.5 important, 1.6-2.0 very important

15
Table 3a: Pattern and frequency of sprays

Preventative spray for insects
(percentage of farmers applying)
Preventative spray for diseases
(percentage of farmers applying)
Sprays to control pests when
they appear
(percentage of farmers applying)
Province
Often >3pa Occasionally
1-3pa
Never Often >3pa Occasionally
1-3pa
Never Often >3pa Occasionally

1-3pa
Never
Can Tho n/a (0) n/a (40) n/a (60) n/a (0) n/a (40) n/a (60) n/a (60) n/a (40) n/a (0)
Vinh Long 60 (60) 40 (20) 0 (20) 20 (20) 80 (60) 0 (20) 60 (40) 40 (60) 0 (0)
Ben Tre 0 (20) 80 (0) 20 (80) 0 (20) 20 (0) 80 (80) 0 (0) 40 (60) 60 (40)
Dong Thap 25 (80) 50 (20) 25 (0) 50 (100) 50 (0) 0 (0) 100 (20) 0 (0) 0 (80)
Tien Giang 20 (20) 20 (0) 60 (80) 40 (20) 40 (0) 20 (80) 60 (40) 40 (60) 0 (0)
Mekong Delta
26 (36) 48 (16) 26 (48) 27 (32) 48 (20) 25 (48) 55 (32) 30 (44) 15 (24)
Ha Tinh 0 (60) 100 (40) 0 (0) 0 (0) 80 (100) 20 (0) 20 (40) 60 (60) 20 (0)
Nghe An 40 (100) 60 (0) 0 (0) 60 (60) 40 (40) 0 (0) 60 (80) 20 (20) 20 (0)
Hoa Binh 100 (60) 0 (40) 0 (0) 100 (80) 0 (20) 0 (0) 50 (80) 25 (20) 25 (0)
Ha Tay 50 (100) 25 (0) 25 (0) 50 (60) 25 (40) 25 (0) 75 (80) 0 (20) 25 (0)
Northern Central Vietnam
48 (80) 46 (20) 6 (0) 53 (50) 36 (50) 11 (0) 51 (70) 26 (30) 23 (0)
Phu Tho 20 (40) 80 (20) 0 (40) 0 (0) 80 (40) 20 (60) 0 (40) 100 (20) 0 (40)
Yen Bai 0 (20) 80 (0) 20 (80) 0 (20) 60 (0) 40 (80) 40 (20) 40 (0) 20 (80)
Tuyen Quang 60 (60) 40 (40) 0 (0 40 (40) 60 (60) 0 (0) 40 (60) 60 (20) 0 (20)
Ha Giang 80 (40) 20 (40) 0 (20) 60 (60) 40 (20) 0 (20) 100 (60) 0 (40) 0 (0)
Northern Vietnam
40 (40) 55 (25) 5 (35) 25 (30) 60 (30) 15 (40) 45 (45) 50 (20) 5 (35)
Overall 38 (52) 50 (20) 12 (27) 35 (37) 48 (33) 17 (29) 51 (49) 35 (31) 14 (20)


16
Table 3b: Index of spray intensity applied for specific pests and diseases
Index of spray intensity for each province
*

Sprays applied to control:

Can
Tho
Vinh
Long
Ben Tre Dong
Thap
Tien
Giang
Ha Tinh Nghe
An
Hoa
Binh
Ha Tay Phu Tho Yen Bai Tuyen
Quang
Ha
Giang
Scales and mealybugs n/a (3.8) 4.4 (2.6) 1.6 (2.0) 1.8 (5) 2.2 (2) 1.6 (2) 2.2 (2.8) 2.3 (2.2) 2.8 (3.2) 2.2 (3.3) 0.8 (0) 2.2 (1.5) 3.8 (3.4)
aphids n/a (2.8) 1.0 (1.6) 1.2 (1.3) 1.0 (2) 1.2 (1.6) 0.8 (1.6) 1.8 (1.8) 2.8 (3.2) 0.5 (1.6) 2.0 (3) 1.2 (0) 1.6 (1.5) 3.2 (2.4)
whitefly n/a (2.8) 3.0 (3.2) 0.4 (1.3) 2.5 (2) 1.2 (0.2) 0.8 (0.8) 1.8 (0.8) 2.8 (1.2) 1.0 (0.8) 2.0 (0.7) 0.4 (0) 2.8 (0.5) 2.2 (1.8)
psyllids n/a (3.8) 3.8 (2.2) 2.2 (0.7) 3.8 (5) 2.2 (2.8) 1.6 (1.2) 2.2 (4.4) 4.3 (3.2) 3.0 (2.2) 2.2 (2.3) 1.2 (0) 2.6 (1) 2.6 (1.4)
thrips n/a (3.4) 3.8 (2.2) 0.4 (1.3) 5.0 (5) 3.8 (1.2) 0.4 (0.8) 2.4 (1.8) 3.5 (1.8) 1.0 (1.8) 1.0 (1.3) 0.4 (0) 1.2 (1.5) 3.4 (1.4)
leafminer n/a (3.8) 3.8 (1.6) 2.2 (0.7) 3.5 (2) 3.4 (1.4) 2.0 (3.2) 3.8 (2.8) 2.8 (3.8) 4.3 (4.4) 1.8 (3) 1.6 (2) 2.6 (1.5) 5.0 (2.6)
caterpillar n/a (0.8) 2.8 (1.8) 0.2 (2.0) 1.8 (2) 0.8 (0) 1.6 (0.8) 1.8 (1.2) 1.0 (1.6) 2.3 (0.4) 1.6 (1.3) 1.2 (0) 0.8 (0.5) 2.2 (1.8)
fruit fly n/a (0.2) 3.4 (3.2) 0.8 (0.7) 1.8 (2) 0.8 (1) 1.6 (1.2) 2.2 (0.8) 3.0 (2.2) 1.0 (0.8) 1.6 (1.3) 0.4 (0) 0.4 (0.5) 2.2 (1.8)
mites n/a (3.4) 2.8 (1.6) 0.8 (0) 5.0 (5) 4.4 (2.8) 1.6 (2.2) 3.2 (3.4) 5.0 (5.0) 5.0 (4.4) 2.2 (4) 1.1 (0) 3.8 (0.5) 3.8 (1.4)
diseases n/a (2.2) 2.8 (1.6) 2.2 (0.7) 5.0 (5) 4.4 (3.2) 2.2 (2) 2.8 (3.8) 3.5 (4.4) 3.0 (1.6) 1.2 (2.3) 1.1 (5) 2.2 (1) 3.2 (3.2)
Overall n/a (2.7) 3.2 (2.2) 1.2 (1.1) 3.1 (3.7) 2.4 (1.6) 1.4 (1.6) 2.4 (2.4) 3.1 (2.9) 2.4 (2.1) 1.6 (2.3) 0.9 (0.7) 2.0 (1.0) 3.2 (2.1)
* 0 no spray, 0.1-1 few sprays applied by minority of farmers, 1.1-2 few sprays applied by majority of farmers, 2.1-3.0 frequent sprays applied by minority of farmers,
> 3 frequent sprays applied by majority of farmers

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

Pest/disease
Mekong Delta Northern Central Vietnam Northern North Vietnam Overall
Scales and mealybugs 2.5 (3.1) 2.2 (3.2) 2.3 (2.1) 2.3 (2.8)
aphids 1.1 (1.9) 1.5 (1.6) 2.0 (1.7) 1.5 (1.7)
whitefly 1.8 (1.9) 1.6 (0.8) 1.9 (0.8) 1.8 (1.2)
psyllids 3.0 (2.9) 2.8 (2.2) 2.2 (1.2) 2.7 (2.1)
thrips 3.3 (2.6) 1.8 (1.8) 1.5 (1.1) 2.2 (1.8)
leafminer
3.2 (1.9) 3.2 (4.4) 2.8 (2.3) 3.1 (2.9)
caterpillar
1.4 (1.3) 1.7 (0.4) 1.5 (0.9) 1.5 (0.9)
fruit fly
1.7 (1.4) 2.1 (0.8) 1.2 (0.9) 1.7 (1.0)
mites
3.3 (2.6) 3.7 (4.4) 2.7 (1.5) 3.2 (2.8)
diseases
3.6 (2.5) 2.9 (1.6) 1.9 (2.9) 2.8 (2.3)
Overall
2.5 (2.2) 2.4 (2.1) 2.0 (1.5) 2.3 (2.0)
* 0 no spray, 0.1-1 few sprays applied by minority of farmers, 1.1-2 few sprays applied by majority of farmers, 2.1-3.0 frequent sprays applied by minority of farmers,
> 3 frequent sprays applied by majority of farmers

17

Table 4: Pest management activities

Pest management activity (percentage of farmers practicing)
Province
Monitoring of
pests and
diseases
Monitoring of
natural enemies
of pest
Use of any type of
traps, baits,
yellow plates etc
Removal of
unhealthy trees
Use of green
ants
Pruning to remove
leafminer and
reduce disease
incidence
Can Tho n/a (100) n/a (60) n/a (0) n/a (100) n/a (80) n/a (60)
Vinh Long 100 (100) 80 (80) 40 (0) 100 (100) 60 (80) 100 (80)
Ben Tre 100 (60) 100 (60) 0 (40) 100 (40) 100 (60) 80 (60)
Dong Thap 100 (100) 100 (80) 50 (60) 100 (100) 0 (40) 100 (60)
Tien Giang 100 (60) 100 (60) 0 (20) 100 (40) 60 (40) 100 (80)
Mekong Delta
100 (84) 95 (68) 23 (24) 100 (76) 30 (60) 95 (68)
Ha Tinh 100 (80) 80 (60) 40 (0) 80 (100) 60 (40) 100 (100)
Nghe An 100 (100) 80 (60) 100 (20) 100 (100) 20 (40) 100 (80)
Hoa Binh 100 (100) 100 (60) 100 (80) 100 (80) 0 (0) 100 (100)
Ha Tay 100 (100) 75 (40) 100 (60) 100 (100) 0 (0) 100 (80)

Northern Central
Vietnam
100 (95) 84 (55) 85 (40) 95 (95) 20 (20) 100 (90)
Phu Tho 100 (80) 80 (40) 0 (0) 100 (100) 100 (40) 100 (80)
Yen Bai 100 (80) 80 (20) 0 (0) 100 (80) 40 (40) 80 (80)
Tuyen Quang 100 (100) 100 (100) 0 (20) 100 (100) 0 (20) 80 (100)
Ha Giang 80 (80) 60 (40) 20 (0) 80 (100) 20 (20) 80 (80)
Northern North Vietnam
95 (85) 80 (50) 5 (5) 95 (95) 40 (30) 85 (85)
Overall 98 (88) 86 (58) 38 (23) 97 (89) 30 (37) 93 (81)

18
Table 5: Index of record keeping

Record type
Province
Fertiliser
purchase
Fertiliser
application
Pesticide
purchase
Application
of
pesticide
Occurrence
of pest and
diseases
Pruning,
irrigation,

harvesting
Harvest
time and
volume
Income
from fruit
Can Tho n/a (0) n/a (0) n/a (0) n/a (0) n/a (0) n/a (0) n/a (0) n/a (0)
Vinh Long 2.2 (0) 2.2 (0) 2.2 (0) 2.6 (0) 0.6 (0) 0.6 (0) 1.8 (0.6) 2.4 (0)
Ben Tre 2.6 (0.6) 2.4 (0.6) 2.4 (0.6) 2.6 (0.6) 0.8 (0) 1.6 (0) 2.4 (0) 2.4 (0)
Dong Thap 3.0 (2.4) 3.0 (2.4) 3.0 (2.4) 2.5 (2.4) 1.5 (1.2) 2.3 (0) 2.3 (1.2) 3.0 (1.8)
Tien Giang 2.6 (0) 2.6 (0.2) 2.6 (0.2) 2.6 (0) 1.0 (0) 0.4 (0) 2.6 (0) 2.6 (0.2)
Mekong Delta
2.6 (0.6) 2.6 (0.6) 2.6 (0.6) 2.6 (0.6) 1.0 (0.2) 1.5 (0) 2.3 (0.4) 2.6 (0.4)
Ha Tinh 0.6 (0.6) 0 (0.8) 0.4 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 0.2 (0) 0.2 (0) 0.4 (0.4) 1.2 (0.8)
Nghe An 2.6 (2.4) 2.6 (1.8) 2.6 (0.8) 2.2 (0.2) 1.4 (0.2) 1.6 (0.6) 2.6 (2.4) 3.0 (1.8)
Hoa Binh 3.0 (3*) 2.8 (3*) 2.8 (3*) 2.8 (1.8*) 1.0 (1.8) 1.0 (1.2) 3.0 (2.4) 3.0 (2.4)
Ha Tay 2.3 (0) 2.3 (0.2) 2.3 (0) 2.3 (0) 2.3 (0.2) 2.3 (0) 2.3 (0.2) 2.3 (1)
Northern Central Vietnam
2.1 (1.5) 1.9 (1.5) 2.0 (0.8) 1.9 (0.6) 1.2 (0.6) 2.1 (0.5) 2.1 (1.4) 2.4 (1.8)
Phu Tho 1.8 (0.6) 1.8 (0.6) 1.8 (0) 1.8 (0) 1.8 (0.6) 1.8 (0.6) 1.8 (0.6) 1.8 (0.6)
Yen Bai 1.0 (0) 1.0 (0) 1.6 (0) 0.8 (0) 0.4 (0) 0.4 (0) 1.6 (0) 0.4 (0)
Tuyen Quang 3.0 (1.4) 3.0 (0.8) 3.0 (0) 3.0 (0) 0.6 (0) 1.2 (0) 2.4 (1.4) 2.4 (1.4)
Ha Giang 2.0 (0.6) 2.0 (0.6) 2.0 (0.6) 2.0 (0.6) 2.0 (0) 1.8 (0) 2.0 (1.2) 2.0 (1.2)
Northern North Vietnam
2.0 (0.7) 2.0 (0.5) 2.1 (0.2) 1.9 (0.2) 1.2 (0.2) 1.3 (0.2) 2.0 (0.8) 1.7 (0.8)
Overall 2.2 (0.9) 2.2 (0.9) 2.2 (0.5) 2.1 (0.4) 1.1 (0.3) 1.7 (0.2) 2.1 (0.8) 2.2 (1.0)
*
Includes computer record.
0 No records, 0.1-0.5 few farmers keep occasional records, 0.6-1.5 few farmers keeps systematic records, 1.6-2.5 majority of farmers keep systematic record,
2.6-3.0 all farmers keep record and majority keeps systematic record

19

Table 6: Level of use of protective clothing

Type of protective clothing (percentage of farmers using)
Province
Protective
mask
Cloth on
mouth and
nose
Long sleeve
shirt and
trousers
Water
resistant
protective
clothing
Gum boots Water
resistant
gloves
Hat
Can Tho n/a (0) n/a (100) n/a (40) n/a (20) n/a (20) n/a (20) n/a (60)
Vinh Long 80 (0) 100 (100) 80 (0) 60 (0) 80 (0) 80 (50) 100 (80)
Ben Tre 20 (0) 100 (75) 80 (62.5) 20 (37.5) 20 (0) 40 (25) 100 (75)
Dong Thap 25 (40) 75 (100) 50 (80) 75 (60) 50 (40) 75 (50) 100 (100)
Tien Giang 0 (0) 100 (100) 100 (80) 80 (60) 80 (0) 80 (0) 100 (60)
Mekong Delta 31 (8) 94 (95) 78 (53) 59 (36) 58 (12) 69 (29) 100 (75)

Ha Tinh 20 (0) 100 (100) 100 (60) 100 (100) 100 (60) 100 (60) 100 (100)
Nghe An 40 (20) 100 (90) 100 (80) 100 (70) 100 (60) 100 (50) 100 (90)
Hoa Binh 75 (20) 100 (100) 100 (100) 100 (90) 100 (100) 100 (100) 100 (100)
Ha Tay 50 (0) 100 (100) 75 (80) 75 (90) 75 (60) 100 (60) 100 (100)
Northern Central Vietnam 71 (10) 100 (98) 94 (80) 94 (88) 94 (70) 100 (68) 100 (98)
Phu Tho 0 (10) 100 (100) 100 (80) 100 (50) 80 (90) 80 (40) 100 (100)
Yen Bai 40 (0) 100 (80) 100 (100) 80 (50) 60 (40) 100 (60) 100 (80)
Tuyen Quang 0 (20) 100 (100) 100 (100) 100 (100) 100 (70) 80 (80) 100 (100)
Ha Giang 20 (20) 100 (90) 100 (60) 100 (90) 100 (50) 80 (30) 100 (90)
Northern North Vietnam 25 (13) 100 (93) 100 (85) 95 (73) 85 (63) 85 (53) 100 (93)
Overall 42 (10) 98 (95) 91 (73) 83 (65) 79 (48) 85 (50) 100 (88)

20

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

Percentage of farmers in each category
Province
Positive beliefs and
attitudes towards
certified nurseries
Understanding of best
practice citriculture
Understanding of
transmission and
control of
huanglongbing
Understanding of pests
and control methods
Understanding of the

impact of pesticides on
the environment and
human health
Can Tho n/a (100) n/a (60) n/a (87) n/a (55) n/a (93)
Vinh Long 80 (60) 80 (80) 80 (80) 55 (60) 87 (73)
Ben Tre 60 (100) 73 (47) 80 (80) 60 (65) 93 (80)
Dong Thap 75 (60) 67 (73) 92 (67) 56 (50) 75 (73)
Tien Giang 80 (30) 73 (73) 67 (47) 55 (50) 93 (93)
Mekong Delta 74 (70) 73 (67) 80 (72) 57 (56) 87 (82)
Ha Tinh 80 (90) 73 (73) 93 (60) 70 (45) 87 (80)
Nghe An 70 (90) 67 (67) 80 (100) 70 (55) 100 (80)
Hoa Binh 88 (100) 83 (73) 92 (87) 88 (50) 100 (67)
Ha Tay 88 (80) 67 (87) 58 (53) 69 (55) 83 (67)
Northern Central Vietnam 82 (90) 73 (75) 81 (75) 74 (51) 93 (74)
Phu Tho 100 (90) 60 (67) 80 (80) 85 (40) 80 (80)
Yen Bai 40 (80) 73 (53) 80 (87) 60 (60) 93 (73)
Tuyen Quang 70 (80) 67 (53) 73 (87) 60 (60) 93 (53)
Ha Giang 80 (70) 60 (60) 93 (67) 50 (40) 93 (60)
Northern North Vietnam 73 (80) 65 (58) 82 (80) 64 (50) 90 (67)
Overall 76 (80) 70 (67) 81 (76) 65 (52) 90 (74)



21

Table 8: Farmer beliefs and attitudes about, and understanding of GAP

Percentage of farmers
Province
Understanding of major

requirements of GAP
Understanding of
implementation issues
Belief in economic benefits
Can Tho n/a (67) n/a (50) n/a (80)
Vinh Long 93 (62) 90 (80) 60 (90)
Ben Tre 89 (56) 90 (80) 70 (80)
Dong Thap 83 (84) 89 (100) 89 (100)
Tien Giang 87 (53) 100 (60) 100 (100)
Mekong Delta 88 (64) 92 (74) 80 (90)
Ha Tinh 93 (71) 80 (90) 90 (100)
Nghe An 76 (71) 80 (50) 90 (100)
Hoa Binh 94 (78) 89 (80) 89 (100)
Ha Tay 75 (64) 89 (80) 89 (100)
Northern Central Vietnam 85 (71) 85 (75) 90 (100)
Phu Tho 73 (80) 70 (80) 80 (90)
Yen Bai 87 (69) 100 (70) 60 (70)
Tuyen Quang 93 (80) 90 (90) 70 (100)
Ha Giang 82 (76) 100 (80) 70 (80)
Northern North Vietnam 84 (76) 90 (80) 70 (85)
Overall 86 (71) 89 (76) 80 (92)


22
Table 9: Farmer self assessment of skills
Index of farmer’s self assessed competence for each province
Skill
Can Tho Vinh
Long
Ben Tre Dong

Thap
Tien
Giang
Ha Tinh Nghe An Hoa
Binh
Ha Tay Phu
Tho
Yen Bai Tuyen
Quang
Ha
Giang
Pruning n/a (3.0) 3.0 (2.4) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (2.6) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (2.4) 2.4 (2.2) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (2.4) 1.8 (2.4) 3.0 (2.6) 3.0 (3.0) 2.6 (2.6)
Recognise major stages of plant lifecycle
n/a (2.8) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (2.2) 3.0 (3.0) 2.6 (3.0)
3.0
(2.2)
2.8 (2.8) 3.0 (3.0) 2.8 (1.6) 1.8 (2.2) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (3.0) 2.6 (3.0)
Manipulate flushing, flowering and harvest time
n/a (2.8) 1.8 (2.8) 2.2 (2.6) 3.0 (2.6) 2.8 (2.4) 0.6 (08)
0
(0.4)
1.5 (2.0) 1.0 (0.6) 0.2 (1.2) 0.4 (0.8)
0.4
(0)
0.4 (1.2)
Effective application of fertiliser n/a (2.8) 2.8 (3.0) 2.8 (2.2) 3.0 (2.6) 2.6 (2.8) 2.4 (1.4) 2.6 (1.2) 3.0 (2.6) 2.8 (0.6) 1.8 (2.2) 0.8 (2.2) 2.6 (2.0) 2.6 (1.6)
Manage water levels in canals (South) or
irrigation (North)
n/a (3.0) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (2.6) 3.0 (2.8) 2.8 (3.0) 1.6 (0) 0.6 (0.4) 2.8 (3.0) 1.3 (0.8) 1.8 (1.0) 2.6 (2.2) 2.0 (2.2) 2.2 (0.8)
Production of compost n/a (1.2) 1.4 (0.4) 3.0 (0.6) 2.8 (3.0) 2.8 (1.2) 2.8 (1.2) 2.2 (0.8) 2.3 (3.0) 3.0 (1.4) 1.8 (1.8) 2.8 (2.4) 2.4 (1.8) 2.6 (2.4)

Distinguish between symptoms of disease and
insect damage
n/a (2.8) 2.4 (3.0) 2.8 (2.8) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (3.0) 2.8 (1.8) 3.0 (2.8) 3.0 (2.8) 2.5 (1.6) 1.8 (2.8) 2.6 (2.0) 2.8 (2.8) 2.6 (2.4)
Recognise damage caused by leafminer, mites,
aphids and thrips
n/a (2.4) 3.0 (3.0) 2.8 (2.8) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (2.6) 2.8 (2.4) 3.0 (2.8) 2.5 (2.8) 1.8 (3.0) 2.6 (1.6) 2.8 (2.4) 2.8 (1.8)
Recognise symptoms of phytophthora n/a (2.8) 2.4 (3.0) 3.0 (1.8) 2.8 (3.0) 2.8 (3.0) 2.8 (2.0) 2.4 (1.4) 3.0 (2.2) 2.3 (0) 1.2 (0.8) 2.6 (1.4) 2.2 (2.0) 2.0 (1.2)
Choose correctly registered pesticides for major
pests and diseases
n/a (2.8) 2.8 (2.4) 3.0 (1.4) 2.8 (3.0) 2.8 (2.2) 3.0 (1.6) 2.8 (1.4) 3.0 (2.6) 2.0 (0.8) 1.2 (1.4) 1.8 (2.0) 3.0 (2.6) 2.0 (1.2)
Prepare pesticide solutions at specified
concentrations
n/a (3.0) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (2.6) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (2.4) 2.8 (2.6) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (2.8) 1.8 (2.8) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (3.0) 2.6 (3.0)
Calibrate sprayer n/a (3.0) 3.0 (3.0) 2.8 (2.2) 3.0 (3.0) 2.8 (2.8) 3.0 (2.0) 2.6 (1.2) 3.0 (3.0) 2.5 (2.8) 1.8 (2.4) 2.8 (3.0) 3.0 (3.0) 2.6 (3.0)
Calculate dose of pesticide to be applied per tree n/a (3.0) 2.4 (2.6) 2.0 (1.0) 3.0 (2.8) 2.2 (1.2) 2.6 (1.8) 2.6 (2.0) 3.0 (2.8) 2.3 (1.2) 1.2 (0.6) 2.8 (2.6) 3.0 (2.4) 2.6 (2.6)
Use appropriate OH&S practices on farm n/a (1.8) 2.8 (2.8) 2.8 (2.8) 3.0 (2.8) 2.8 (3.0) 3.0 (2.8) 2.8 (1.6) 3.0 (2.8) 2.0 (1.4) 1.8 (2.2) 3.0 (2.2) 3.0 (3.0) 2.6 (1.8)
Store agrochemicals in accordance with
manufacturers recommendations
n/a (1.2) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (1.6) 2.3 (2.8) 2.8 (3.0) 3.0 (2.0) 3.0 (2.0) 3.0 (3.0) 2.3 (3.0) 1.8 (3.0) 3.0 (3.0) 3.0 (3.0) 2.6 (2.4)
Keep accurate records of activities on the farm
n/a (1.2) 2.4 (2.2) 3.0 (0.4) 3.0 (2.2)
2.8
(0)
2.0
(0.6)
2.8 (2.0) 3.0 (3.0) 0.8 (0.8) 1.0 (1.2) 2.6 (2.2) 3.0 (2.6) 2.6 (1.4)
Calculate net profit n/a (1.2) 2.4 (2.6) 3.0 (0.4) 3.0 (2.8) 2.4 (0.4) 3.0 (2.6) 2.6 (2.6) 3.0 (3.0) 2.3 (1.8) 1.2 (1.2) 2.8 (2.4) 3.0 (3.0) 2.6 (3.0)
Budget for next production cycle n/a (1.2) 2.4 (2.4) 2.6 (0.6) 3.0 (3.0) 2.4 (0.6) 2.8 (2.8) 2.8 (2.0) 3.0 (3.0) 2.3 (1.4) 1.2 (1.0) 3.0 (2.6) 3.0 (2.6) 2.6 (3.0)
Overall n/a 2.3 2.6 (2.6) 2.8 (1.9) 2.8 (2.8) 2.7 (2.3) 2.6 (1.8) 2.4 (18) 2.9 (2.8) 2.3 (1.5) 1.5 (1.8) 2.5 (2.3) 2.7 (2.5) 2.4 (2.1)

0 none of the farmers are skilled, 0.1-1 few farmers are skilled but the majority cannot perform independently, 1.1-2.0 majority of farmers are skilled but can not perform with confidence, 2.1-2.5 all
farmers are skilled but the majority can not perform with confidence, 2.6-2.9 all farmers are skilled and the majority can perform with confidence, 3 all farmers are skilled and can perform with
confidence

23
Table 10: Farmer self assessment of skills summarised for each region
Region
Pest/disease
Mekong Delta Northern Central Vietnam Northern Vietnam Overall
Pruning 3.0 (2.8) 2.9 (2.5) 2.6 (2.7) 2.8 (2.7)
Recognise major stages of plant lifecycle 2.9 (2.8) 2.9 (2.4) 2.6 (2.8) 2.8 (2.7)
Manipulate flushing, flowering and harvest time 2.5 (2.6) 0,8 (1.0) 0.4 (0.8) 1.2 (1.5)
Effective application of fertiliser 2.8 (2.7) 2.7 (1. 5) 2.0 (2.0) 2.5 (2.0)
Manage water levels in canals (South) or irrigation (North) 3.0 (2.9) 1.6 (1.1) 2.2 (1.6) 2.3 (1.8)
Production of compost 2.3 (1.3) 2.6 (1.6) 2.4 (2.1) 2.4 (1.7)
Distinguish between symptoms of disease and insect damage 2.8 (2.9) 2.8 (2.3) 2.5 (2.5) 2.7 (2.6)
Recognise damage caused by leafminer, mites, aphids and thrips 3.0 (2.8) 2.8 (2.7) 2.5 (2.2) 2.8 (2.6)
Recognise symptoms of phytophthora 2.8 (2.7) 2.6 (1.4) 2.0 (1.4) 2.5 (1.8)
Choose correctly registered pesticides for major pests and diseases 2.9 (2.4) 2.7 (1.6) 2.0 (1.8) 2.5 (1.9)
Prepare pesticide solutions at specified concentrations 3.0 (2.9) 3.0 (2.7) 2.6 (3.0) 2.9 (2.9)
Calibrate sprayer 2.9 (2.8) 2.8 (2.3) 2.6 (2.9) 2.8 (2.6)
Calculate dose of pesticide to be applied per tree 2.4 (2.1) 2.6 (2.0) 2.4 (2.1) 2.5 (2.0)
Use appropriate OH&S practices on farm 2.9 (2.6) 2.7 (2.2) 2.6 (2.3) 2.7 (2.4)
Store agrochemicals in accordance with manufacturers
recommendations
2.8 (2.3) 2.8 (2.5) 2.6 (2.9) 2.7 (2.6)
Keep accurate records of activities on the farm 2.8 (1.2) 2.2 (1.6) 2.3 (1.9) 2.4 (1.6)
Calculate net profit 2.7 (1.5) 2.7 (2.5) 2.4 (2.4) 2.6 (2.1)
Budget for next production cycle 2.6 (1.6) 2.7 (2.3) 2.5 (2.3) 2.6 (2.1)
Overall

2.9 (2.4) 2.7 (2.0) 2.3 (2.2) 2.6 (2.2)
0 none of the farmers are skilled, 0.1-1 few farmers are skilled but the majority of them cannot perform independently, 1.1-2.0 majority of farmers are skilled
but can not perform with confidence, 2.1-2.5 all farmers are skilled but the majority can not perform with confidence, 2.6-2.9 all farmers are skilled and the
majority can perform with confidence, 3 all farmers are skilled and can perform with confidence






24
Table 11: Trainers beliefs and attitudes about GAP
Number of trainers (out of 2) agreeing with each statement for each province
Statement
Can
Tho
Vinh
Long
Ben
Tre
Dong
Thap
Tien
Giang
Ha
Tinh
Nghe
An
Hoa
Binh

Ha
Tay
Phu
Tho
Yen
Bai
Tuyen
Quang
Ha
Giang
GAP is international standard for safe food production consistent across
the world and recognized by the most governments.
1 (2) 2 (2) 2 (1) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (1) 2 (2) 2 (2)
Citrus fruits can not be exported if farmers are not GAP certified.
2 (2) 1 (2) 0 (2) 1 (1) 1 (0) 2 (2) 2 (2) 1 (1) 1 (0) 0 (1) 1 (1) 1 (2) 2 (2)
EurepGAP requirements are set too high for Vietnamese circumstances so
Vietnam should develop its own GAP
1 (0) 2 (0) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (1) 2 (1) 2 (1) 2 (2) 2 (2) 0 (0) 2 (1) 0 (0)
There is no need for improving farmer education for GAP implementations
because export companies will give farmers clear guidelines how to
comply with GAP.
0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0)
GAP must link environment and farming.
2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (1) 2 (1) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 1 (2) 2 (2)
Supermarket chains like Metro should be paying for GAP training not
government because they will benefit the most from increased sale.
0 (1) 2 (2) 1 (1) 1 (0) 2 (2) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 1 (0) 0 (2) 2 (2)
I can recommend pesticide to be applied on citrus as long as it is
registered for use in rice.
0 (1) 1 (1) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (2) 0 (1) 1 (0) 2 (1) 1 (0) 0 (1) 0 (2)

GAP should be implemented by all farmers.
2 (1) 2 (2) 1 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (1) 0 (1) 1 (2) 1 (2) 2 (2)
Main reason to implement GAP is to improve human health that includes
farmers and consumers of agricultural products
2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 1 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (2) 1 (2) 2 (2)
Farmers can not keep proper record because most of them does not have
computer
0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1)
IPM is more important than GAP for majority of farmers so we should
concentrate on teaching IPM
0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (2) 1 (2) 0 (0) 2 (2) 2 (1) 0 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1)
GAP certification should be only sought by cooperatives and farmer
organization that have access to export market.
0 (2) 1 (0) 0 (2) 1 (1) 0 (1) 2 (1) 2 (2) 0 (2) 1 (0) 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) 1 (1)
Programs like ‘safe vegetable’ that concentrate on pesticide residues is
more appropriate for Vietnam than GAP
0 (1) 1 (2) 1 (1) 0 (1) 1 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 (1) 1 (2) 2 (1) 0 (1) 1 (0) 1 (0)
It is nearly impossible to make Vietnamese farmers to keep proper record
0 (1) 0 (2) 2 (2) 0 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 (1) 0 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1)
Farmer that sprays citrus 10 times a year but use pesticide according to
label and keep record is more likely to get GAP certification than farmer
who spray only 1 time per year but does not keep record.
1 (2) 2 (1) 1 (0) 2 (0) 2 (0) 2 (2) 2 (1) 2 (1) 1 (0) 2 (2) 2 (1) 2 (1) 2 (2)




25
Table 12: Trainers self assessment of skills
Index of trainer’s self assessed competence for each province

Skill
Can
Tho
Vinh
Long
Ben
Tre
Dong
Thap
Tien
Giang
Ha
Tinh
Nghe
An
Hoa
Binh
Ha
Tay
Phu
Tho
Yen
Bai
Tuyen
Quang
Ha
Giang
Demonstrate use of protective gears according to GAP requirements 3.0
(3.0)
3.0

(2.0)
3.0
(2.5)
2.0
(2.0)
3.0
(2.0)
2.5
(3.0)
3.0
(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
2.0
(2.0)
3.0
(1.5)
3.0
(1.5)
2.5
(3.0)
2.5
(2.5)
Select pesticide that will be acceptable for GAP 3.0
(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
2.5

(3.0)
3.0
(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(1.5)
3.0
(1.5)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(1.5)
Calculate dosage of pesticide per tree according to label 3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0

(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
Determine pre-harvest interval to meet GAP requirement 3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0

(3.0)
3.0
(2.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
Explain all 12 requirements of EurepGAP 3.0
(2.5)
2.0
(3.0)
2.5
(2.5)
1.5
(2.5)
3.0
(2.5)
2.5
(2.5)
3.0
(2.5)
3.0
(2.5)
2.0
(1.0)
0

(1.5)
2.5
(1.0)
2.5
(2.5)
2.0
(2.0)
Recommend measures to ensure that water use for irrigation is safe 3.0
(2.5)
2.5
(3.0)
1.5
(2.0)
1.0
(1.5)
3.0
(2.0)
3.0
(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
2.0
(2.0)
3.0
(1.5)
3.0
(2.0)
3.0

(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
Demonstrate production of safe compost from organic material at the
farm
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
2.5
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0

(3.0)
Explain to farmers and guide farmer to implement safe storage of the
pesticide
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
2.5
(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
Develop record keeping system that farmer can use to be able to

gain GAP certification
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
2.5
(3.0)
3.0
(2.5)
2.5
(2.5)
2.5
(3.0)
3.0
(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(2.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(2.5)
Demonstrate pesticide application that have minimal impact on
environment
3.0

(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
2.0
(1.5)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
2.5
(2.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
Explain and guide farmers in soil cultivation that would have minimal
negative impact on soil and would comply with GAP requirement
2.5
(3.0)
2.5

(3.0)
2.5
(3.0)
1.5
(2.5)
3.0
(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
2.5
(2.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(2.5)
2.5
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
Recommend planting materials to the farmer that meet GAP
requironment.
3.0
(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
2.5

(3.0)
2.5
(2.5)
3.0
(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(2.0)
3.0
(1.5)
3.0
(2.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(2.5)
Recommend management strategies to control Hoanglong bin 3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(2.0)
2.5
(3.0)
2.0
(3.0)
2.5

(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
2.5
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
2.5
(2.0)
3.0
(3.0)
2.5
(2.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
Conduct demonstration trials using IPM strategies including
monitoring and action thresholds
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
2.5

(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(3.0)
2.5
(2.0)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(2.5)
3.0
(3.0)
3.0
(2.5)
Overall self assessment index 3.0
(2.9)
2.9
(2.9)
2.7
(2.9)
2.3
(2.5)
2.9
(2.6)
2.9
(2.9)
3.0
(2.9)
3.0

(3.0)
2.6
(2.2)
2.8
(2.5)
2.9
(2.3)
2.9
(3.0)
2.9
(2.7)
Score out of 10 from a standardised assessment of knowledge on
GAP
9.5
(8.5)
9.0
(10)
8.0
(6.5)
8.5
(7.5)
9.0
(9.0)
6.0
(2.0)
6.0
(3.0)
6.5
(6.5)
6.0

(4.5)
6.0
(4.5)
9.5
(3.0)
8.0
(8.0)
4.0
(4.0)
0 none of the trainers are skilled, 0.1-1 few trainers are skilled but the majority cannot train with confidence, 1.1-2.0 majority of trainers are skilled but can not
train with confidence, 2.1-2.5 all trainers are skilled but the majority can not train with confidence, 2.6-2.9 all trainers are skilled and the majority can train with
confidence, 3 all trainers are skilled and can train with confidence