Báo cáo khoa học nông nghiệp " Introduction of the principles of GAP for citrus through implementation of citrus IPM using Farmer Field Schools - Project Progress Report 5" doc

Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development

_____________________________________________________________________

Project Progress Report 5
April 2009 to June 2010
Project Name

037/06VIE_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

Date commenced

March 2007

Completion date (original)

August 2010

Completion date (revised)
Reporting period

April 2009 to June 2010

Contact Officer(s)
In Australia: Team Leader
Oleg Nicetic (til 2/07/10)
Telephone:
Robert Spooner-Hart (from 3/07/20)
Research Program Coordinator
Position:
Fax:
Organisation University of Western Sydney
Email:
Name:

+61245701329
+61245701103


In Australia: Administrative contact
Gar Jones
Name:

Director, Research Services
Position:
Organisation University of Western Sydney

Telephone:
Fax:
Email:

+6124736 0631
+6124736 0905


Telephone:
Fax:
Email:

+84-4-5330778
+84-4-5330780


In Vietnam
Mr Ngo Tien Dung
Name:
National IPM coordinator
Position:
Organisation Plant Protection Department

1

1. Project Abstract
The key objective of this project is to align the Vietnamese citrus industry with world standard
production practices and open opportunities for export markets. Adoption of sustainable integrated
pest management (IPM) aligned to principles of good agricultural practice (GAP) leads to both
economic and environmental benefits, and will enable Vietnamese citrus growers to be at the
forefront of production in the Asia-Pacific region. Production of export quarantine-compliant
citrus fruit with pesticide levels below international minimum residue levels (MRLs) as the result
of this project will open new market opportunities in the competitive export markets and will
enhance food safety for domestic consumption. The project is based on an interactive learning and
action research paradigm, and uses the farmer field school (FFS) model. Leading research
institutions from Southern and Northern Vietnam, together with extension officers from PPD and
farmer organisations including VACVINA and Farmers Union are working together to produce a
GAP procedures tailored to suit Vietnamese conditions. They are also work closely with the
farmers on validation of the GAP manual and providing training of trainers and farmers in IPM
and GAP through FFS. Project activities are conducted in 5 provinces in the Mekong delta and 8
provinces of Central and Northern Vietnam. The IPM component is based on practices developed
in project 036/04 VIE which have been adjusted in consultation with key personnel from Northern
Vietnam, to account for local conditions.

2. Executive Summary
All activities undertaken in the third year of the project resulted in successful completion of
all planned FFSs and application for certification of the farmer group in Dong Thap was
submitted.
Within the reporting period a total of 18 FFS in 8 provinces were completed with 660
farmers successfully completed the 2nd year of FFSs following curriculum developed for their
own situation. Farmers completed first year FFS in 2008 when they learned about the
principles of GAP including record keeping, IPM, understanding of citrus orchard ecosystem,
influence of pruning and tree density on yield and tree health, and understanding of the
influence of organic and mineral nutrients on soil health and citrus orchard productivity. In
this second year they applied the principles they learned in the first year to manage pest and

diseases and address nutrient deficiency specific for their orchards. This second year of
program resulted in significant practice change.
In Dong Thap province our project team headed by Dr Vo Mai worked with a group of 11
farmers from Long Hau village, Lai Vung district, with the aim of achieving VietGAP
certification. Technical support and training of farmers is provided by VACVina members
and extension officers from Lai Vung district Plant Protection Station. The Farmer Union and
local government have been providing great support including a subsidy towards the building
of toilets in the field. Application for VietGAP was submitted and the certification inspection
was carried out. The group complied with all VietGAP requirements except the group does
not have packaging facilities. The group applied and was granted funds to build packaging
facility building of which is currently in progress.

2


Project evaluation team collected all impact assessment data in April-May 2010.
The management structure that was improved after the first year of the project performed
very effectively resulting in on time implementation of all activities.

3. Introduction & Background
Citrus fruit is one of the major fruit crops in Vietnam (MARD 2004) and citrus production is
an important source of income for many Vietnamese farmers. However, productivity and
production of citrus in Vietnam is considerably lower than in Australia and major citrus
producing countries of the world such as Brazil and the USA. It has been stated by MARD
that “in general, citrus cultivation has not been significantly developed over the past few
years, largely because of the serious damage of pests and diseases, especially greening
disease (officially known as huanglongbing) and therefore studies on their control methods,
in combination with managing citrus plantations and using advanced and intensive
technology is a vital necessity” (MARD 2004).
The objectives of this project are to develop GAP production procedures for the Vietnamese

citrus industry that will be published as a handbook and to introduce GAP practices using the
FFS model. Through the FFS training program a national cadre of citrus IPM/GAP master
trainers and provincial level FFS facilitator teams will be established. The key methodologies
adopted are participatory based learning and action based research. The objective of both
techniques is to fully engage participants and allow them to direct the learning and research
to best meet their needs. A key component of this project is Training of Trainers and Master
Trainers in citrus GAP including IPM. Trainers will conduct FFSs in their provinces and
together with the trained farmers will become leaders in citrus production aligned to GAP.
Multiple outputs from FFS training have been demonstrated in previous CARD projects in
citrus. These include: farmer empowerment through increased knowledge of the agroecosystem; the conservation of biodiversity and protection of the environment through
reduced pesticide application as a result of improved knowledge of pests and diseases and
more effective control measures; increased food security through enhanced production; and
protection of the health of farming communities and consumers of fruit through reduced
pesticide use in fruit production. In addition to these outputs it is expected that this project
will establish a locally relevant GAP framework and begin the process of implementation of
these practices in citrus production. Implementation of GAP will open new market
opportunities in both the domestic and export markets.

4. Progress to Date
4.1 Implementation Highlights
The activities undertaken in the third year of the project have resulted in all objectives being
achieved and delivering outputs on time. The activities undertaken in this period are detailed
below.
4.1.1. Complition of FFFs

3


Successful implementation of the program for previous two years has resulted in 98 trainers
being effectively trained in citrus IPM and GAP. These trainers conducting FFS at 18

locations in 8 provinces in the northern part of Viet Nam (Table 1).
Table 1: Location of FFSs number of participants and gender ratio in 2009
Proportion of
Province
Number of FFS Number of
farmers trained female
participants
(%)
Ha Tinh
2
60
34
Nghe An
2
60
33
Hoa Binh
2
60
29
Ha Tay
2
60
28
Phu Tho
2+2*
120
39
Yen Bai
2

60
27
Tuyen Quang
2
60
19
Ha Giang
2
60
18
TOTAL
16+2
660
28.37
* Funded by local government
A total of 660 farmers have been trained in 2009 of which 28.37% were female (Table 1). It
should be noted that all participants in FFSs in 2009 participated in FFSs in 2008. However
while in 2008 they followed general curriculum framework addressing principles of IPM and
GAP and studying their own production situation, in 2009 FFSs concentrated on
implementation of practice change following curriculum specific for each province and
developed at the review workshop in November 2008 (see previous report). The second year
of FFS with the new curriculum was introduced after assessment of the first year of FFSs
showed very slow progress in farmers’ adoption of new practices. Assessment conducted
after the second year of FFSs showed significant improvement in most of assess FFSs.
Results of the impact assessment will be shown in Impact assessment report.
4.1.3. Implementation of GAP
Our first successful GAP implementation and certification was achieved in Vinh Long
province. In that province a total of 12 FFSs were conducted of which nine were financed by
AusAID CARD and three by the provincial government. At these FFSs 350 farmers were
trained of which 342 were male and 8 were female. As a result IPM is practiced on 140 ha

out of a total area of 240 ha of pomelo in the province. One of these FFSs was conducted for
26 members of My Hoa cooperative in Binh Minh district. Our project also supported
involvement of VACVINA for additional short farmer training on specific GAP issues. The
total area of pomelo grown by these farmers is 22 ha. The cooperative secured financial
support to implement GLOBALG.A.P. from the supermarket chain Metro in 2007 and on 19
September 2008 they were granted GLOBALG.A.P. certification by SGS Vietnam. The total
production of pomelo for the 12 month period from May 2007 to June 2008 was 970T. My
Hoa Cooperative exported 120 T of pomelo mainly to the Netherlands, Metro bought 50 T
and about 800 T was sold on the domestic market.
In an interview held with the cooperative’s vice-director in February 2009 we were told that
even though Metro provided substantial funds to be used for GLOBALG.A.P. certification
the supermarket chain did not commit to buy fruit from the cooperative. Funds were used to
hire consultants to provide additional one-to-one training and help farmers keep required

4


records, to subsidise costs of building infrastructure necessary for compliance with GAP
including pesticide storage facility and field toilets and the remainder of the funds were used
for the certification process itself. According to the interviewed vice-director and few farmermembers of My Hoa cooperative after certification process was completed and the
consultants’ support terminated, farmers have problems with record keeping on their own,
and cooperative and farmer-members did not have a significant increase in income as result
of GAP certification. We talked with a representative of the exporter to the Netherlands and
she said that GAP is not required for export and that Dutch importers perform their own
quality control checks including pesticide residue so GAP certification will not influence
export procedures or increase the price of exported pomelo. Since My Hoa cooperative is the
only citrus producer that received GAP certification probably the most beneficial aspect was
positive media coverage. The Vice-director of My Hoa Cooperative also expressed doubt that
the certification will be renewed after it expired.
In Dong Thap province our project team headed by Dr Vo Mai worked with a group of 11

farmers from Long Hau village, Lai Vung district, with the aim of achieving VietGAP
certification. Technical support and training of farmers is provided by VACVina members
and extension officers from Lai Vung district Plant Protection Station. The Farmer Union and
local government have been providing great support including a subsidy towards the building
of toilets in the field. Both local government and Farmer Union see GAP certification as a
very prestigious achievement because of the political support the accreditation scheme has
from the central and provincial government.
The approach to GAP implementation with the Long Hau village group is very different to
that in My Hoa. The Long Hau group has been implementing GAP in a much longer process
of learning and making adjustments in production and practices by themselves, under
guidance of VACVina consultants, but nothing has actually been done for farmers by the
consultants. This group of growers is much smaller then My Hoa with only 11 members
cultivating a total area of 3.45 ha. They are all neighbours with adjacent properties and the
initiative for GAP certification and leadership in implementation came from two members of
the group with the highest production and good connection with the market. The group
members sell their product at traditional markets just before the Vietnamese New Year
holiday (Tet) so they achieve a very high price with the average net profit per group member
being 70,000,000 VND or 226,470,000 VND/ha, which is 3 times above industry average. So
the group members are high achievers with the vision that VietGAP certification will
differentiate their product on the market and they hope to capitalise on that by getting a
higher price as a result of selling their product to supermarkets or/and on their own market
stall in Ho Chi Minh City clearly marked with the sign “Safe mandarins”.
Initial certification inspection was conducted and farmer group met all VietGAP requirement
except they do not have packaging facility. At the time of writing this report group is in
process of building the packaging facilities with funds provided by provincial government.
After the completion of packaging house it is expected that VietGAP certification will be
granted.
4.1.5. On farm record keeping system
On farm record keeping system was developed based on VietGAP requirements and consists
of very simple, cheap record book that was evaluated by farmers in the first year of FFS. The

record keeping books are now used by farmers few years after the completion of FFSs. In
some provinces extension services have reprinted the book and distributed them to farmers.
In focus group discussions conducted as part of impact assessment process acceptance of
record keeping was overwhelming with farmers recognising following advantages of record

5


keeping: awareness of input costs (53% of respondents), awareness of labour costs (33%),
awareness of income from fruit sale (44%), awareness of production profitability (85%),
awareness of fertiliser used so farmer can assess their effectiveness (30%), record help
farmers to predict pest occurrence (33%), awareness of used pesticide so farmer can assess
their effectiveness (49%). Other advantages of using records mentioned by few farmers was
selection of a cheaper pesticide shop (based on price recorded farmers became aware of
different in prices between shops). Detail findings from interviews are presented in Annex 1.
4.2 Capacity Building
The institutional capacity of the PPD to facilitate farmer participatory training is high and
this project is further enhancing that capacity by addressing capability gaps in relation to
specific knowledge about GAP. In the second year of the project trainers working with
farmers on implementation of elements of GAP related to IPM, farmers and environmental
safety, and record keeping. At the review workshop it became clear that trainers
understanding of GAP improved but there is still lot of conceptual confusion in
differentiation between IPM and GAP. At refresher TOTs the concept of GAP and potential
impacts of GAP implementation were studied and discussed. At the end of the TOT the GAP
implementation strategies were drafted.
Forming linkages between all stakeholders involved in the project is a critical component of
capacity building and all efforts are being made to build linkages between institutions in
Northern and Southern Vietnam. This project has successfully facilitated sharing of expertise
and knowledge related to GAP between stakeholders from Mekong delta, who have higher
levels of GAP knowledge and experience, and stakeholders from the Northern provinces with

less exposure to GAP. The very important linkage has been established between PPD staff
and non-government organisation VACVINA that now driving implementation of GAP.
Mr Nguyen Tuan Loc vice-director from PPD Regional Centre 4 who has been key person in
development and implementation of FFS curriculum in the North was commissioned by FAO
to develop FFS program on citrus in Nepal. FAO will also organise visit for researchers and
extension officers from Nepal to visit some of our project sites.
4.3 Training Programs
Training is a major component of this project and during 2007 it has been conducted at two
levels. At the trainers’ level 10 master trainers completed a 4 day workshop in Hanoi and a
total of 98 extension officers, mainly from PPD but some from ARD and NGOs, received
training in citrus IPM and GAP. These trainers then facilitated a total of 24 FFSs in their
local regions funded by CARD and an additional 17 FFSs funded by provincial government.
In 2008 trainers are facilitating further 57 FFSs.
At the farmers level training focussed on integrated crop management that included IPM,
plant nutrition and pruning. In regards to GAP training, the focus has been on record keeping.
At workshops in November 2007 and refresher TOTs in February-March 2008 it was
concluded that in Northern Vietnam the focus should remain on Integrated Crop
Management (ICM) and record keeping while in Mekong delta other elements of GAP may
be included in FFS curriculum.
Refresher TOTs were used for discussion about GAP principles and the ways GAP can be
implemented in Vietnam. Discussion focused particularly on the role of cooperatives in
implementation of GAP. Another important part of refresher TOTs was the identification of
pests and diseases in the orchard and practical exercises to calibrate knapsack and calculate
dose of pesticide applied. Participants also assessed spray coverage of citrus canopy. At the
6


end of refresher TOTs practical exercises for FFS orchards were designed and they have been
implemented over last 6 months.
At review workshop in November 2008 trainers have developed curriculum specific for their

provinces. In 2009 they successfully implemented 2 FFSs in each province following their
own curriculum. That marked the end of 3 years learning for trainers where in the first year
(cycle) they were thought by scientist and master trainers about citrus ICM and GAP which
they then implemented, then in the second year based on appraisal of farmers specific needs
in each FFS trainers modified implementation of curriculum putting more emphasis on
specific needs in each FFS (2nd learning cycle) and finely trainers develop curriculum for
their provinces.
4.4 Publicity
In Mekong delta television reporters have been invited to all major project events such as
meetings and the opening and closing of FFS. Vietnamese project team regularly participate
in program “Farmer’s bridge” on several local TV stations in Mekong delta. Unfortunately
there is no similar media coverage in the North.
On 29 May 2009, Oleg Nicetic was awarded a medal for his outstanding contribution to
agricultural and rural development by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in
Vietnam. The medal was officially presented to Oleg by Vice Minister of Agriculture, Dr Bui
Ba Bong, at a ceremony in Cao Lanh, Dong Thap province on 25 September 2009. This was
reported in newspapers and on VIETNet
Oleg Nicetic submitted 2 papers at 9th International Federation of System Farming (European
group) conference in Vienna 4-7/07/2010. First paper titled “From knowing it all to learning
to engage – experiences from Australian interventions in agricultural research and
development in Vietnam” points out some advantages of CARD approach to research for
development in comparison to ACIAR approach, second paper titled “Good Agricultural
Practice (GAP) as a vehicle for transformation to sustainable citrus production in the Mekong
Delta of Vietnam” describes our experiences in implementation of GAP and specificity of
GAP in Vietnam (both papers are presented in Annex 2).
4.4 Project Management
After adjustments made to management structure within the first year of the project and
reported in 2nd Six-monthly report project management worked efficiently in current
reporting period.
.

7


5. Report on Cross-Cutting Issues
5.1 Environment
The focus of FFS is to increase the farmers understanding of the ecosystem and the impact of
human influences on it. This approach has the potential to reduce the detrimental impacts of
human activities on the environment. The IPM strategies farmers learn and implementation
of GAP should result in improved ecosystem health. At this stage of the project it is too early
to detect any evidence of environmental improvement.
5.2 Gender and Social Issues
In the training of master trainers and trainers about 30% of the total number of trainers was
females. This proportion of males and females is reflective of the overall PPD trainer gender
balance. In the Mekong delta only 9% of trained farmers were woman and in Northern
Vietnam woman participation was 29%. This reflects the differences in traditional roles of
women between the regions.
All project activities are strongly supported by local government and farmer organisations
including the Farmers Union and The Women’s Union. Participants in FFS are encouraged to
actively engage with their local community and share knowledge acquired in FFS. From
previous CARD projects we have evidence that the FFS participants became the founders
and core members of farmer’s clubs and cooperatives and it can be anticipated that FFS
participants will become actively involved in dissemination of their newly acquired
information in this project as well.

6. Implementation Issues
6.1 Issues and Constraints
1. VietGAP certification required packaging house to be certified at the same time as citrus
field production. Even though our GAP group met all VietGAP requirements in production
of citrus they do not have packaging house so certification could not be granted.

2. Oleg Nicetic was offered full time position as project scientist on ACIAR project in NW
Vietnam which he accepted and from 1/08/2009 to 2/07/2010 he was on leave without pay
from UWS and on 2/07/10 he terminated his employment at UWS. However, ACIAR and
University of Queensland (Oleg’s new employer) agreed that Oleg will still continue with
activities in CARD citrus project. Oleg’s employment in NW Vietnam did not affect
implementation of CARD project activities and Oleg spent more than contracted number of
day in Vietnam but his full time employment with UQ resulted in delay in submission of
milestones.
6.2 Options
1. Farmers supported by VACVina applied for funds to provincial government and they were
awarded finance to build small packaging house. Completion of packaging house and award
of VietGAP certification is expected by the end of the year.
2. Robert Spooner-Hart took over leadership of citrus project from 2/07/2010 and will submit
all milestone according to new schedule: Progress reports (3 Milestones at the beginning of

8


August 2010), preliminary impact assessment and completion report by 31/08/10 and full
impact assessment by 30/09.

7. Next Critical Steps
The finalisation of packaging house and submission of all milestones.

8. Conclusion
Project team achieved significant improvement in capacity of trainers who are now able to
develop and implement their own curriculum. GAP implementation was successful and
results of our project have been presented on international conferences with papers printed in
peer reviewed proceedings. Success of 3 successive citrus projects was recognised by
awarding of MARD Medal to Oleg Nicetic.

9. Sign-Off
Prepared by Oleg Nicetic, Ngo Tien Dung and Ho Van
Chien, Nguyen Tuan Loc and Robert Spooner-Hart
Authorised by: Robert Spooner-Hart

Countersigned by: [Vietnamese Team Leader]
Date: 16 November 2007

9


Project Progress Against Proposed Objectives, Outputs, Activities And Inputs
Project Title: Introduction of the principles of GAP for citrus trough implementation of citrus IPM using Farm Field School
Vietnamese Implementing Institution: Plant Protection Department

Narrative
OBJECTIVES
1

Information Required

PROPOSAL
Performance Measures

Assumptions/Risks

To develop GAP manual for citrus that
includes IPM guidelines that are compliant
with GAP standards

GAP manual and IPM guidelines
compliant with GAP standards and
suitable for local conditions exist.

Low risk because of MARD
need to comply with APPPC
requirements. Study is also
aligned with
VACVINA/VinaFruit strategic
goals to develop export oriented
citrus industry hence proponents
will have high level of
institutional support.

2

To establish a national cadre of citrus
IPM/GAP master trainers and province
level FFS facilitator teams.

Training of master trainers at
national level conducted and
reported.
Training of trainers at regional
level conducted and reported.
Cadre of competent national
master trainers and provincial FFS
facilitators exist to champion GAP
principles and IPM aligned to GAP

in their region.

Enhanced capacity of farmers to implement
citrus IPM compliant with GAP standards

Citrus IPM/GAP FFS conducted.
Trained farmers knowledge on
citrus IPM and GAP increased.
Trained farmer implement IPM
aligned to GAP (commenced in

All objectives achieved

Low risk because high self
motivation of master trainers,
high level of institutional
support and for reasons stated in
2.1.

3

PROGRESS REPORT
Information Required

Low risk. See 2.1 and high level
of community and institutional
support to achieve the objective.

10

FFS participant orchards).
Reduced pesticide use.
Increased
food
safety
and
protection of health of farming
communities and consumer of
fruits.
4

Develop procedures/formats for compliance
with EUREPGAP/ASIAGAP in areas other
then IPM but related to IPM including onfarm recording system formats and
responsible/safe use, handling and storage
of pesticide and post-harvest handling.

Increased capacity of citrus
industry to implement GAP and be
prepared
for
new
market
conditions after Vietnam enter
WTO.
Increased capacity of GOs and
NGOs to assist small holders
transition to unprotected market
environment.

Increased capacity of VinaFruit to
facilities export of Vietnamese
citrus.

See 4.1 and high level of
community and institutional
support to achieve the objective.

5

Assess effectiveness of FFS for
implementation of IPM and GAP

Comprehensive analysis reported.

Low risk since methodology is
already developed in CARD
project 36/04 VIE.

6

Implementation of GAP in one of the
cooperatives in Mekong delta.

GAP implemented.

Medium because some elements
of GAP like use of certified
planting material cannot be
implemented in existing

orchards.

OUTPUTS
1.1

.
Baseline data are reported and published.
Baseline to include:
1) Information on knowledge, skills
attitudes and practices of PDD,
SRPCC, NIPP, CU, SOFRI,
VACVINA, VinaFruit and SPC on

Report on baseline study submitted
to GOs and NGOs. Press release
written.

Report peer reviewed by CARD
PMU. Feedback on report
requested from all stakeholders.
Results published in media.

Baseline study methodology was
developed and data collection was
performed in all 13 provinces. Data
were analysed and reported. Report
was accepted by PMU.

11

2)

3)

4)

5)

GAP and the integration of IPM into
GAP.
Knowledge and skills on GAP/IPM of
15 Master Trainers, 90 Trainers and a
representative sample of 2880
participating farmers
Current GAP/IPM practices of
representative sample of participating
farmers including production levels and
financial analysis of costs and returns
Analysis of key markets for GAP/IPM
compliant citrus and expected market
demand and premiums
Identification of opportunities for
project interventions to provide
economic, social and environmental
benefits to smallholders.

1.2

IPM guidelines aligned to GAP developed

and documented.

IPM strategies developed and
published in brochure and MARD
and VACVINA websites

Brochure and content
webpage peer reviewed
CARD PMU

of
by

2.1

10 master trainers (5 from Mekong delta
and 5 from North) competent in citrus IPM
aligned to GAP and GAP principles.

Master
trainers
successfully
conduct training of trainers and
monitor trainers involved in
conducting FFSs.

Competency will be assessed by
critical self-evaluation and by
key project research and
extension personnel.

IPM guidelines developed verified
by FFS participants and included
in book.

Training
completed.

was

successfully

12


2.2

90 trainers (30 in Mekong delta and 60 in
North of Vietnam) competent in citrus IPM
aligned to GAP.

Trainers successfully facilitate at
least one FFS within the course of
project.

Competency will be assessed by
critical self-evaluation and by
master trainers.

3.1

2880 farmers with improved capacity to
implement IPM aligned to GAP.

Farmers successfully graduate
from FFS. Implementation of IPM
program
aligned
to
GAP
commenced during the course of
FFS.

Competency will be assessed by
critical self-evaluation and by
trainers. Implementation of IPM
program aligned to GAP verified
through farmer record keeping.

First year of training successfully
completed by all 90 trainers.
Trainers completed first year of
FFS and commenced the second
year.
All (57) FFS planed for 2008
completed on time. All FFS
enrolled 30 participants what
means that 1710 farmers was
trained.
Dr Nguyen Van Hoa and his team

from SOFRI completed GAP
manual.

3.2

Publication of (1) GAP Handbook
incorporating IPM aligned handbook and
(2) Updated Pests and Diseases Field guide
for application in different agro-ecological
zones of Viet Nam

Books published and used as a
resource by farmers and GOs and
NGOs.

Feedback from stakeholders.

4.1

Procedures for compliance with
EUREPGAP/ASIAGAP including
responsible/safe use, handling and storage
of pesticide and post-harvest handling of
fruits developed and published.

Procedures published in the form
of manual. Concise version
published in industry press and on
VianFruit Website.

Published manual and webpage
peer reviewed by CARD PMU

Included in GAP manual. Manual
may be posted at webside if
decided by CARD PMU.

4.2

On farm record keeping system developed
and verified.

System developed and
implemented by FFS participants.

Survey to evaluate the system.

On farm recording formates were
developed and they have been used
by FFS participants.

13


5.1

Surveys and semi-structured interviews
conducted.
Economic benefits and the changes in
practices on farms that were included in

FFS in CARD project 036/04 VIE
documented and analysed.

Surveys conducted and analysed.
Findings that comprise 4 years of
assessments of FFS effectiveness
published.

Acceptance for publication by
high impact journal.

6.1

GAP certified pilot cooperative established.

GAP implemented in one of the
cooperatives in Mekong delta.

Certification granted or pending.

Hold stakeholder meeting to discuss
activities and roles of each of the
stakeholders in execution of activities in
relation to Objective 1.

Activities agreed tasks and
timeframes to complete tasks
accepted by all stakeholders.

Completed

1.1.2.

Conduct semi-structured interviews with
farmers, extension officers and wholesalers
in each of 13 provinces in regard to GAP
principles and current practices. Also
conduct interviews with exporters and
researchers in the Northern and Southern
parts of Vietnam.

Interviews conducted, results
recorded.

Completed

1.1.3.

Conduct survey of current practices in
relation to all 14 principles of GAP.

Survey analysed
Results reported.

1.1.4

Circulate results to MARD and
VACVINA/VinaFruit and other farmer and
exporter organisations. Write press releases.

Report on results of survey and
interviews written and peer
reviewed by CARD PMU.
Submitted to GOs and NGOs.
Press release written.

1.2.1

Develop draft IPM programs based on
CARD project 036/04 VIE with the addition
of all GAP principles related to IPM.

ACTIVITIES
1.1.1.

using

IPM strategies agreed
stakeholders

SPPS.

by

Completed

Completed

Completd

Completed

all

14


(Strategies will differ in the north and south
of Vietnam)
1.2.2.

1.2.3

2.1.1

2.1.2

2.1.3

2.2.1

Completed

Conduct training of trainers using draft IPM
programs (developed in 1.2.1). Programs
will be verified during the first year of FFSs
and refined at the review workshop at the
end of the first year of the project. Refined
programs will be verified during the second
year of the project.

IPM strategies verified by farmers,
extension officers and scientists.
Written feedback will be required
from trainers. Report on IPM
strategies peer reviewed by CARD
PMU.

Dissemination of IPM programs through
brochures distributed by GOs and NGOs.
Publish programs on MARD and
VACVINA websites.

Brochure printed; webpage on
citrus IPM incorporated in MARD
and VACVINA websites.

Completed

Hold stakeholder meeting to discuss
activities and roles of each of the
stakeholders in execution of activities in
relation to Objective 2.

Activities agreed tasks and
timeframes to complete tasks
accepted by all stakeholders.

Completed

Selection of trainers trained in previous
CARD project or FAO programs.

Trainers selected. Selection criteria
based on competency shown in
previous CARD/FAO projects,
GO/NGO ratio and sex ratio.

Conduct the training of master trainers

Selection of participants in TOT from
members of GO, NGOs and farmers trained
in previous CARD project.

Completd

Successful
completion.
Competency assessed by critical
self-evaluation and by key project
research and extension personnel.
Participants selected. Selection
criteria based on, GO/NGO ratio,
sex ratio and for farmers
competency shown in previous
CARD/FAO projects

Completed

Completed

The second year of TOT
completed.

15


2.2.2

3.1.1.

3.1.2

Conduct the training of trainers

Identification of districts and villages within
each of 13 participating provinces to be
targeted for the program. Selection of
farmers from all socio-economic groups.

FFS undertaken

Successful
completion.
Competency assessed by critical
self-evaluation and by master
trainer and key project research
and extension personnel.
Districts and villages identified.
Farmer meeting held in each

targeted district and village.
Participants of FFS come from
different socio-economic groups.
Women, ethnic minorities and
members of NGOs represented.
Farmers successfully graduated
from FFS. Competency assessed
by
trainers.
KAP
analysis
conducted.
Books
published
and
peer
reviewed by CARD PMU.

3.2.1

Writing of handbook and field guide
undertaken.

4.1.1

Hold stakeholder meeting to discuss
activities and roles of each of the
stakeholders in execution of activities in
relation to Objective 4.
Development of preliminary procedures for

compliance with EUREPGAP/ASIAGAP
including on-farm recording system formats
and responsible/safe use, handling and
storage of pesticide and post-harvest
handling of fruits.
Verification of preliminary procedures
developed in 4.1.2 through FFS

Preliminary procedures developed
and introduced to master trainers
and trainers.

Completd \
Completed.

Completed

Activities agreed, tasks and
timeframes to complete tasks
accepted by all stakeholders.

4.1.2

Completed

Completed.

4.1.3

Completed

Completed.
Completed.
Procedure tested by farmers and
feedback analyse at review
workshops.
Completed

16


Writing of verified procedures from 4.1.3
undertaken.
Development of preliminary on farm record
keeping system procedures for compliance
with EUREPGAP/ASIAGAP.

Procedure written in the form of
manual.
Preliminary on-farm record system
developed and introduced to
master trainers and trainers.

4.2.2

Verification of preliminary procedures
developed in 4.2.1 through FFS

On-farm record keeping system
tested by farmers.

4.2.3

Verified on farm record keeping system
from 4.2.2 designed.

System adopted by farmers who
completed FFS.

5.1.1

KAP survey and semi-structured interviews
conducted.

Preliminary analysis reported

5.2.1

Objective
measures
of
capacity
improvement in target beneficiaries
(Compared with baselines) including a)
information on knowledge, skills attitudes
and practices of PDD, SRPCC, NIPP, CU,
SOFRI, VACVINA, VinaFruit and SPC on
GAP and the integration of IMP into GAP
b) Knowledge and skills on GAP/IPM of 15
Master Trainers, 90 Trainers and a

representative sample of 2880 participating
farmers c) changed GAP/IPM practices of
representative sample of participating
farmers including production levels and
analysis of financial environmental and
social benefits to growers through adoption
of GAP/IPM practices.

Evaluation reported.

5.3.1

Write scientific paper on evaluation of FFS

Paper published.

6.1.1

Select a cooperative that will be pilot for
implementation of GAP in citrus

Cooperative
selected
agreement signed

4.1.4
4.2.1

Completed

Evaluation completed..

Completed

Completed
Completed

Completed.

Completed

and

Completed.

17


Completed
6.1.2

Establish relationship with the packaging
house that could be GAP certified

Relationship between packaging
house and cooperative established.

6.1.3

Develop GAP implementation plan.

Plane developed and accepted by
cooperative.

6.1.4

Implementation of GAP plan.

GAP implemented

6.1.5.

Certification sought

Certification granted or pending

18


Project Implementation Schedule
Activity

1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3.
2.1.1

2.1.2
2.1.3
2.2.1
2.2.2
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.2.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3.
4.1.4
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
5.1.1
5.2.1
5.3.1
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.1.4
6.1.5

Previous
reporting
period
OS
OS
OS
OS

OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
NS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
NS

Apr-Junr

Month of 2009 (Year 3) and 2010 (Year 3)

Jul-Sep
Oct-Dec
Jan-Mar
Apr-May

OS
OS

OS
OS

OS
OS

OS
OS

OS
OS

OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS

OS
OS
OS

OS
OS
OS

OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS

OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS

OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS

OS
OS

OS
OS

OS
OS

OS
OS

OS
OS

OS
OS
OS
OS

OS
OS

OS

OS

OS

OS

OS

OS

OS
OS

OS
OS

OS
OS

OS
OS

OS = Implemented according to project logframe schedule
BS = Implemented behind project logframe schedule
NS= Implementation not scheduled in reporting period
{ } Recommended adjustments to implementation schedule

19


List of Annexes
Annex 1: Evaluation of record keeping book use
Annex 2: Papers presented on 9th IFSA conference in Vienna 4-7/07/10

20


Annex 1: Evaluation of record keeping book use
Frequency of statements made by farmers from interview notes
Province

n

Find
record
keeping
useful

Will
continue
using
record
keeping

Know the
cost of
inputs

Tien Giang
Dong Thap
Vinh Long
Can Tho
Ben Tre

8
13
5
8
7

8
13
5
8
7

8
13
5
8
7

8
13
5
8
7

Know the
cost of
labour

13
8
7

Know the
income
received from
sale of fruit

Can calculate
the profit from
production

Know the
fertilisers used
and evaluate
effectiveness

8
13
5
8
7

8
13
5
8
7

8

7

Can predict
incidence of
pests

Know the
pesticides
used and
evaluate
effectiveness

Other

8

7

7

7 – select shop
where they get
the best price

Ha Tinh
Nghe An

10
10

10
10

8
5

Hoa Binh
Ha Tay
Phu Tho
Yen Bai
Tuyen
Quang
Ha Giang
TOTAL
Percentage
(%)

5
10
10
10
10

5
10

5

10
10

5*

5

5

5 - discontinued
growing citrus

10
115

10

10

10

6
10

5

5
10

5
5
7
5
10

5

5

10
6
10

5
5
6
10

10

10

10

5

5

5

5

5

10

111
97

110
96

61
53

38
33

51
44

98
85

35
30

38
33

5-Weather

56
49

* Not in such details

21

Annex 2: Papers presented on 9th IFSA conference in Vienna 4-7/07/10

From knowing it all to learning to engage – experiences
from Australian interventions in agricultural research and
development in Vietnam
Oleg Nicetica, Debbie Raeb and Elske van de Flierta
a

Centre for Communication and Social Change, School for Journalism and Communication,
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
b
SciEdSolutions, Sydney, Australia
Abstract: The Australian Assistance in Development organisation (AusAID) funded three
projects over the last ten years as part of the Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural
Development Program (CARD) with the initial objective to introduce Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) based on mineral spray oil into citrus production in Vietnam. This
objective later evolved from IPM to a broader Integrated Crop Management (ICM) approach
and eventually to the introduction of procedures for Good Agricultural Practice (GAP). In this
paper we discuss the evolution of the collaborative approaches in the consecutive projects,
departing from making Vietnamese researchers introduce a preconceived, externally
developed concept in their local socio-economic and natural environments, to gradually
facilitating the local partners to review potential innovations, test and adapt them, and develop
management systems that suit the local conditions. This process resulted in linkages and
interactions amongst local and international experts across disciplinary boundaries and
between local stakeholders themselves. The final outcome of 15 years of collaborative work
extended far beyond IPM, ICM and GAP resulting in the improved capacity of all stakeholders
including farmers, extension and technical personnel from government organisations, nongovernment organisations and private industry, scientists from research institutes and
universities and representatives of local governments to respond to the local specific needs of
farmers and the policy requirements of agricultural and rural development in Vietnam. The

major outcome for Australian researchers was the realisation that humans (farmers) with their
culture, habits and behaviours are a crucial part of the system in which our knowledge and
technologies are to be utilised.
Keywords: farmer field school, technology focused research, stakeholder focused research

Introduction
This paper describes the evolution of a series of Australian research and
development interventions in Vietnam from 1996 to 2010 in the citrus industry. It
analyses the change in approaches applied to research and extension that occurred
over time including:
• the change from technology focused to stakeholder focused;
• from wanting to change farmers to adapting technologies to suit farmers’
conditions and abilities;
• from wanting farmers to directly adopt technologies to enabling them to test,
adapt and internalise innovations;
• and from transplanting foreign concepts to moving beyond technology, identifying
and meeting farmers’ and other stakeholders’ needs.
The change in approaches was triggered by immediate experiences in the field,
through which the Australian experts learned from and with local experts and farmers

22


what did and did not work under Vietnamese conditions. These experiences initiated
a personal change for the first two authors of this paper in the way they go about
research and development. As this paper critically analyses the Australian team
members experiences and perceptions of the learning and changing processes it is
not co-authored by our Vietnamese colleagues. We highly appreciate the fact that
our Vietnamese partners had a significant impact on our projects, careers and lives
The paper is structured as a theatrical event in the hope to clearly and

chronologically capture the flow of activities, range of stakeholders and significance
of the evolution that happened over a 15-year period and across five projects. Firstly,
we introduce all stakeholders (Actors and Audience), then we described our
interventions (The Play), and finally we analysed the play.

The Actors
Australian actors
The Centre for Horticulture and Plant Sciences (CHAPS) of the University of Western
Sydney (UWS)-Hawkesbury was formed in 1998 with major research focus on plant
protection, post-harvest, and to a lesser extent, plant physiology. In 1999 CHAPS
was listed as one of the top 50 Australian research facilities in a survey
commissioned by the Federal Department of Industry, Science & Resources. Most
researchers associated with the centre were scientists who believed in the power of
reductionist science and their research was aimed at developing new technologies
that could be used in agricultural production. At the same time the Centre for Farming
Systems (CFS), also within UWS, was mainly comprised of scientists believing in a
farming system approach that followed the internationally recognised Hawkesbury
model (Bawden, 2005). In a sense, “hard science” was a key feature of the CHAPS
differentiation from CFS and a very important paradigm. At the time CHAPS was very
successful in applied research closely cooperating with private industry and attracting
funds from industry R&D bodies. CHAPS is today called the Centre for Plants and
the Environment, with a shifted focus from applied to more basic research. CFS
disappeared together with the Hawkesbury teaching model at UWS in early 2000s.
ACIAR, established in June 1982, is an Australian Government statutory authority
that operates as part of Australia's Aid Program within the portfolio of the Department
of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It contributes to the aid program objectives of
advancing Australia's national interests through poverty reduction and sustainable
development by funding agricultural research and development projects, which are
jointly carried out by scientists from Australia and partner countries (ACIAR, 2010).
ACIAR commissions research that will foster agricultural development in partner

countries and enhance the capacity of these countries to undertake agricultural
research. The projects that ACIAR funded in the 1990s and early 2000s had a major
focus on developing the research capacity of partner country research institutions.
Outputs from ACIAR projects could be defined as scientific knowledge, research
capacity and technology (Davis et al., 2008). Adoption of results by final users was
expected but usually not a great deal was done within the projects to enable and
facilitate adoption.
The Australian Assistance in Development organisation (AusAID) established a
program called Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) in the
late 1990s with the first round of projects awarded and commenced in 2000. CARD’s
mission is to support agriculture and rural development in Vietnam through the
application and adaptation of research, technology, skills and management practices
with a focus on smallholders (CARD, 2010). Another important CARD activity has
been to build capacity of the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural

23


Development to organise tenders for research projects, evaluate applications,
monitor project implementation and evaluate project impacts after completion. At the
end of 2010 the CARD program will be completed and ACIAR will broaden its role by
increasingly making adoption and development of scaling-up models an integrated
part of their projects.
Caltex Australia is an Australian petroleum company that produces the mineral spray
oil product, Caltex D-C-Tron Plus, and it was an industry partner in two ACIAR
projects in China and one project in Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam. Caltex Australia
developed the product used in research and development interventions and made
significant intellectual investements in the projects by developing logistics and
marketing strategies for oil sales. They also made substantial financial investments
with funds covering salaries of some CHAPS staff involved in projects. By the end of

the second ACIAR project Caltex withdrew its support to our group, ceased
investments in Asian markets and a few years after completion of the projects, D-CTron was not readily available in Asia. At the time of Caltex’s withdrawal SK Energy
(Republic of Korea) emerged on the scene and invested in registration of their high
quality mineral spray oil EnSpray99 in China, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines.
They became industry partners in the second and third CARD projects described in
this paper through their Vietnamese partner Saigon Pesticide Company (SPC).
Vietnamese actors
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) govern and administer the
majority of agricultural research and extension in Vietnam. In Northern and Central
Vietnam research is conducted by seven institutes that are members of the
Vietnamese Academy of Agricultural Science (VAAS) and in the South there are 2
major institutes that operate under MARD but independent of VAAS: Institute of
Agricultural Sciences for Southern Vietnam and Southern Fruit Research Institute
(SOFRI). In our projects we cooperated with the Plant Protection Research Institute
(member of VAAS) from Hanoi and with SOFRI from Mekong delta. Other important
contributors to agricultural research independent of MARD are universities and we
cooperated with Can Tho University
The structure of the extension system in Vietnam is rather complex being governed
by MARD on the national but by the Department of Agriculture and Rural
Development (DARD) on the provincial level. Provincial DARD is controlled by
Provincial People’s Committee and MARD. On the commune level, extension officers
are administered by their district extension/plant protection station and the commune
people’s committee (Nguyen et al., 2005). The very close connection between local
government and extension services had the consequence of local government
officials being actively involved in all CARD projects. The last link in the extension
chain are the “mass organisations” The Vietnamese use the term mass organisation
to collectively include Farmers Union, Womens Union and Youth Union that are
involved in organisation of most extension activities. Alongside the “mass
organisations” are farmers groups, clubs and cooperatives, which are more common
in the South of Vietnam than in the North. These more or less informal farmer

organisations actively seek and experiment with new technologies and are not just
passive receivers of extension products.
Complimentary to the government extension system is the extension provided by
farmers associations and input providers including pesticide, fertiliser and seed
companies. There is a high level of cooperation and integration between the
government and non-government extension systems so that government employed
extension officers are at the same time working as part of the input providers
extension and marketing system.

24


The largest Vietnamese gardening association- VACVINA is a local NGO established
in 1986 by a group of eminent scholars, agronomists and outstanding farmers. It is a
technical, economic and professional voluntary mass organization that promotes
sustainable agriculture and a small scale bio- intensive farming system where
gardening, fish rearing and animal husbandry are closely integrated (VAC
ecosystem). VACVINA endeavours to establish and promote strong relations with
local and international organizations that have the goal of humane and sustainable
development.
The Saigon Pesticide Company (SPC) from Ho Chi Minh City is one of the largest
Vietnamese pesticide companies. Their products are primarily off-licence older
generation pesticides formulated by SPC from cheap active ingredients acquired
mainly in China. The mineral spray oil EnSpray99 is a high quality mineral spray oil
with a higher price than many lower quality oils on the market and as such does not
fit with the rest of the SPC portfolio. EnSpray99 requires more sophisticated
marketing strategies and a higher level of technical support for the users than other
pesticides formulated by SPC. Consequently, SPC received financial and technical
support from SK Energy and technical support from our group to launch and market
mineral spray oils in Vietnam.

The Audience
Farmers have been major stakeholders in all our projects even though it took us
some time to realise that. However we will not call them actors in this paper since at
the beginning of our journey it would be fair to say they were just audience. As we
started to change with the progression of projects, we started to hear the farmers’
voices and by the end of the projects we were acting together in the same play. But
still we cannot call them actors since we are the ones that come and go as any other
troupe, while the farmers are staying bearing the consequences of the decisions they
made based on our play.
In Vietnam there are nearly sixty million farmers who account for 75% of the entire
Vietnamese population. The total land area under cultivation is about six million
hectares, which makes on average only about 1000 m2 of land available per person
dependent on income from agricultural production (FAO, 2004). Our own data show
that the average size of citrus orchards in the Mekong Delta is around 0.5 ha and in
Northern parts of Vietnam around 1 ha. However, income from citrus in the Mekong
Delta is higher so income per household does not differ much between the Northern
parts and Mekong delta. Most citrus producers rely on citrus as their main source of
income. They also produce rice and keep animals (poultry and pigs) mainly for their
own consumption. There is a high degree of specialisation in the varieties of citrus
grown within provinces in Vietnam, with farmers in Dong Thap almost exclusively
growing mandarins and farmers in Nhge An provinces almost exclusively growing
oranges. Pomelo is grown in a majority of provinces and the area planted has
increased in the last decade. Different varieties of citrus provide very different returns
to farmers. While the mean net profit averaged over citrus species and provinces was
VND 78,620,000/ha (1 € = 22,000 VND) farmers growing mandarins had the highest
average net return of VND 100,000,000/ha followed by pomelo growers with VND
93,330,000 while farmers growing oranges only had an average profit of VND
37,880,000. Not surprisingly, the highest profits of over 100,000,000 VND/ha were
recorded in Tien Giang and Dong Thap provinces where mandarins are

predominantly grown. Compared with rice, the net return from citrus is 3 to 6 times
higher. The above data also shows that citrus farmers have enough disposable
income to attract the attention of input providers.

25