Pesticide is reduced, and farmer is happy with rice yield and input saving

MAIN-PHOTO_Farmer-practice-field-640×360

GIZ / Croplife International’s Integrated Pest Management project: The success story in the first season, Dong Thap Province, Vietnam

Mr. Nguyen Van Yen, a rice farmer in Truong Xuan Village, Thap Muoi District, Dong Thap province in Vietnam, shared his experiences after attending a three-month training of GIZ/ Croplife International’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the Winter/Spring Season 2015-2016.

Mr. Nguyen Van Yen, a rice farmer in Vietnam

“Pesticide application must be based on rice field ecology and pest injury levels,” said Mr. Van Yen. “During the training, the trainers taught us about the ecological cycles and how to make the exact field decisions at every rice stage. Because of this, I could save money during the recent production through reduced applications of pesticides and fungicides in my rice field.”

The “Integrated Pest Management” project under the implementations of the Sub Plant Protection Department and the Southern Regional Plant Protection Center of Plant Protection Department consists of two main activities. First is a Training of Trainers (ToT) and second is a Direct Farmer Training in the Winter Spring Season 2015-2016. The Trainings of the Trainers were earlier completed last year where 39 plant protection staffs got trained in IPM technical knowledge and application skills. These specialists will serve as Master Trainers for both the training of farmers and retailers during the next rice growing seasons. The projects strengthens knowledge and skills of government extension staffs, farmers and pesticide retailers on IPM, and help them to make better decisions for the responsible and safe use of pesticides.

The first Direct Farmer Training started in November 2015 to January 2016, for testing the training contents developed during the formation of Master Trainers. The training curriculum for farmers is based on 12 modules corresponding to the rice growth stages (Table 1). The first group of 210 farmers were trained in 12 weekly lessons during the rice cropping season.

Table 1: Farmer training modules were developed to be delivered in weekly lessons over the rice cropping season:

No.	Module
1	Introduction: Rice Eco-Systems
2	Agricultural Inputs: their Responsible and Economic Use
3	Introduction to IPM and Plant Protection Measures at Seedling Stage
4	How to be an effective rice doctor?
5	Importance of Natural Enemies: IPM Decision Making during Tillering Stages
6	Understanding Pesticides and their Labels: A Buyer’s Guide
7	Responsible Pesticide Use: Maximum Tillering Stage
8	Pesticide Application and Calibration
9	Decision Making during Panicle Initiation to Flowering Stages
10	Pesticide Management
11	Decision Making during Milky to Ripening Stages: Avoiding Residues
12	Pesticide Transport, Storage, Handling, First Aid and Conclusion

To support farmers’ training, one IPM demonstration field plot (1000 m2 to 5000 m2) with ecology engineering model, healthy seed, and nutrient and water management was also introduced to the farmers.

Mr. Van Yen says he is very happy with the rice yield and input saving after the end of this pilot season and will apply his new knowledge and skills in Integrated Pest Management model in the next cropping season and transfer it to other farmers.

At the end of this three-month training, Mr. Van Yen reduced the times for pesticides spraying and found that he got higher net income in the Winter/Spring season 2015-2016. The calculation in Table 2 shows the results of his IPM demonstration field.

At the Farmer Field Day, he shared his opinions to other farmers, local authorities and associations: “I am very happy with the rice yield and input saving. I will continue to apply Integrated Pest Management model in the next season and transfer my knowledge and skills to other farmers”.

GIZ / Croplife International together with Plant Protection Department will continuously conduct the trainings to over 1,000 farmers at the Summer Autumn and the Autumn Winter seasons in 2016.

**Table 2**: Farm Benefit Analysis of IPM Demonstration Plot (Area: 1ha / crop cycle), Thap Muoi District, Dong Thap Province-Winter Spring Season 10/2015-1/2016

Source: Sub Plant Protection Department, Dong Thap, 1/2016

By ASEAN Sustainable Agrifood Systems Team, Vietnam

31/10/201610/07/2017

Integrated pest management in rice demonstrates promising results in Vietnam

Demo plots using integrated pest management (IPM) practice in Dong Yen Commune in Kien Giang Province, Vietnam showed rice crops grew better while farmers saved more from a reduction of chemical use.

Farmers in Dong Yen Commune grew rice in a demo field using integrated pest management in a comparision with a farmer’s convention practice.

The summer growing season in Vietnam recently brought about 1000 farmers in three provinces of Hau Giang, Dong Thap and Kien Giang to a six-month GIZ/ Croplife International’s IPM training for safe and sustainable agriculture environment.

Set up by GIZ and co-funded by Croplife International, the programme expects additional 4000 farmers to be trained indirectly through “farmer to farmer” knowledge exchange with an involvement of specialists of the Plant Protection Department (PPD) at provincial and district levels, extension services and farmer organizations. The programme runs from July 2015 to December 2017.

Thirty-four groups of farmers in the three provinces of the Mekong Delta met on a weekly basis during March to September 2016 to exchange experiences on IPM and plant protection related issues through a specific training module guided by PPD technical staff as the Master Trainers. For demonstration purposes, each farmer group established two experimental fields: one with IPM measures and another with farmer’s conventional plant protections.

At the end of the planting season, the lesson learnt was collected and summarized and the results of both IPM demonstration and farmers’ practice fields were analyzed.

Sample results in Dong Yen commune in Kien Giang Province are presented as below.

Organizing farmer group

Farmers: Thirty active farmers (28 males and 2 females) who were interested in new agricultural production technologies were selected to participate as a directly trained farmer group. The group consisted of a leader and a deputy and was divided into four smaller sub-groups for discussion on farmer field school activities.
Master trainers: Two master trainers who earlier participated in Training of Trainers on IPM at the Southern Regional Plant Protection Center (SRPPC) took care of the group.

Activities

Every week two master trainers organized IPM training classes including field survey, rice eco-system analysis, evaluating the development of rice crop as well as emerging pests to prepare suitable control decisions. The training classes were organized through the 12-week of the rice growing season.

Sowing preparation:

Land preparation: Clean the field, leveling, GAS (Golden Apple Snail) control.
Sowing preparation: Seeds were soaked for 24 hours and put in heap for 36 hours before sowing.
Two DAS (Day After Sowing) spraying pre-germinate herbicide

Monitoring Indicators

Rice crop was monitored during 21, 35, 49 and 63 DAS. In each field, four plots were selected 50x50cm) and data was taken from these four plots.

Plant height: Count from soil surface to top of the rice plant (tip of the leaf or panicle). Five plants per plot were randomly selected for data.
Number of tillers: Count number of tillers with at least three leafs.
Root length: Three plants were selected in each plot. Roots were cleaned and measured (unit: cm)
The population of main pests and their natural enemies were counted in both IPM demonstration and farmer practice fields.
Disease level was evaluated both in demonstration and farmer practice field.

Results

Seed

Both IPM demonstration and farmer practice fields used OM6976 rice variety.

IP demo: 120 kg/ha
Farmer practice: 170 kg/ha

IPM demonstration is saving 50kg of certified seed per ha compared to farmer practice. (In comparison with usual farmers’ practice, the seed rate was reduced at the demonstration plot. Achieving the same yield of 7.5 t/ha, this cultivation practice reduced the production costs significantly and contributes to a higher farmers’ income.

Fertilizer

Table 1. Applied fertilizer for IPM demo and FP field (kg/ha)

DAS	IPM Demo			Farmer Practice
DAS	Urea	DAP	Kali	Urea	DAP	Kali
15	40	70	–	50	70	–
25	50	50	–	70	60	–
42	70	–	40	70	–	50
Total	160	120	40	190	130	50
Nutrients:	95,2 N – 55,2P₂O₅–24 K₂O			110.4 N – 59,8 P₂O₅– 30 K₂O

According to Table 1, nutrients in IPM demo were more balanced and suitable for the demand of the crops in each growing stage. The seed rate in IPM demo was lower than farmer practice (FP), and the applied fertilizer was also lower. IPM demo saved 15.2 kg N, 4.6 kg P₂O₅, and 6 kg K₂O per ha compared to farmer practice.

Pesticide application

Observation from pesticide application (see Table 2):

IPM demo: Low seed rate and balanced fertilization according to crop stages facilitated a healthy crop from the beginning of the season. Moreover, insecticide was not applied during the first 40 days, and as a result, natural enemies were conserved. Consequently, the application of insecticide was not necessary during the whole rice growing season. For disease control, four applications were used, including two applications for sheath rot at 56 and 63 DAS (appearance of disease), and two preventive applications for neck blast and grain discoloration at flowering stage.

Time (DAS)	Pest/disease	IPM demo applications		FP applications
Time (DAS)	Pest/disease	Name	Dosage	Name	Dosage
3	Weed	Sirus 10WG	0,2	Sirus 10WG	0,2
7	Weed	Co 2,4D 500DD	0,2	Co 2,4D 500DD	0,2
42	BPH	–		Chess 50WG	0,3
47	Sheath rot	Validacin 5L Anvil 5sc	0,7 L 1 L	Validacin 5L Anvil 5sc	0,7 L 1 L
59	Sheath rot	Validacin 5L Anvil 5sc	0,7 L 1 L	Validacin 5L Anvil 5sc	0,7 L 1 L
63	Leaf folder Blast grain discoloration BLB	Tilt Super 300 EC Visen 20SC	0,3	Indosuper 150SC Chubeca 1.8 SL	0,3 0,3
73	BPH	—		Chess 50WG	0,3
77	Rice Blast Grain discoloration	Tilt Super 300 EC	0,3	Tilt Super 300 EC	0,3

Table 2: Pesticide application, name, dosage, and time

Farmer practice: High seed rate and excessive nitrogen application made pest and disease developing faster. Moreover, the farmer relied on chemicals for insect control especially in the early crop stage. As a result, the population of natural enemies decreased, and insect pest population developed faster. Finally, in the farmer practice field insecticides were applied three times and fungicides were applied four times for combating pests and diseases.

Result: IPM demonstration reduced three applications of insecticides compared to farmer practice.

Farmers in Dong Yen Commune learn about integrated pest managment for safe and sustainable agriculture environment.

Agronomic Indicators

Number of Tillers (tillers/m²)

In FP field, a higher seed rate was applied so they get a higher number of tillers. Tiller density reached the highest number at 35 DAS. Weaker tillers which could not compete for nutrients and light with others became ineffective and had low yields. At the end, the number of panicles in IPM demo and FP was nearly similar. It was found that the low seed rate did not affect the rice yield but contributed to saving farm inputs and expenses.

Root length (cm)

IPM demo applied better land preparation and water management at the early crop stage; as a result, the root system developed better, so root length is higher than FP, which protects the plant from lodging.

Pest and Diseases Indicators

* Brown Plant Hoppers (BPH)

Insect Pest and Natural Enemies’ Population in IPM Demo

Insect Pest and Natural Enemies’ Population in FP

IPM demo: Low seed rate, no insecticide application, balanced fertilization, protection of natural enemies; as a result, BPH population could not develop.

FP field: High seed rate and high nitrogen application facilitated BPH population development. At 42 DAS, a new generation of BPH hatched. As a result, farmers needed to spray against BPH. At 63 DAS, leaf folder appeared so the farmer needed to apply insecticide for controlling the leaf folder. At 70 DAS a second generation of BPH hatched and the farmer had to spray once more against BPH. In total, three insecticide applications were used in the FP field.

Conclusion: Growing a healthy crop and conserve natural enemies would prevent a BPH outbreak in the late crop stage. As a result, reducing chemical applications contribute to lower farm input expenses, avoid pesticide residues and protect the environment.

* Natural Enemies

Table 3: Natural enemies’ (NE) population in IPM demo and FP field; Units/m2

Day after sowing	Spider		Water bug		Mirid bug
Day after sowing	IPM	FP	IPM	FP	IPM	FP
28 DAS	1	3	—	—	2	5
35 DAS	10	7	5	8	9	9
42 DAS	16	16	10	12	12	15
49 DAS	20	11	17	9	20	4
56 DAS	24	10	35	10	23	9
63 DAS	23	12	25	8	21	4
70 DAS	17	8	20	4	19	4
77 DAS	18	3	—	—	15	5
84 DAS	12	5	—	—	10	7

Observation: In the early crop stage up to 42 DAS NE population in IPM demo and FP field was similar. However, at 42 DAS farmer applied insecticide to control BPH and, consequently, the NE population reduced significantly. In IPM demo insecticide was not applied; as a result, the NE population was higher.

Diseases

During the rice eco system analysis sheath rot disease was found in both IPM demo and FP demo so two chemical applications were used.

Thirty farmers in Dong Yen met on a weekly basis to exchang experiences on plan protection and intergrated pest managment practices.

Yield calculation

Table 4: Projected Yield of IPM demo and FP

Field

Panicle/m²

Fertile spikelet/ panicle

Grain weight

1000 (g)

Yield (kg/ha)

IPM Demo

555

7.50

613

7.50

According to Table 4, IPM demo had a lower number of panicles compared to FP field. The reason is IPM demo used a lower seed rate, which leads to a lower number of tillers and panicles. However, in IPM demo there was a higher number of fertile spikelet per panicle than in the farmer practice field. Under good farming practice, a balanced fertilization and pest and disease control, and a higher number of fertile spikelet was recorded. As a result, IPM demo and FP field expect the same yield.

Gross margin calculation (see Table 5)

– IPM demo expected the same yield as FP. The revenue from both fields would be 36,750,000 VND/ha. Gross margin of IPM demo would be 25,780,000 VND/ha (1028 EUR), and FP field would be 23,709,000 VND/ha (945 EUR).

– Farm expense of IPM demo was 10,970,000 VND/ha, and of FP field is 13,041,000 VND/ha, so IPM demo saved 2,071,000 VND/ha compared to FP (83 EUR).

– Conclusion: At the IPM demo, the gross margin is 2,071,000 VND/ha higher than at the FP.

Table 5: Farm Expenses and Gross Margin Calculation

No	Description	IPM demo		FP				Diff.
		Amount	Cost	Amount		Cost
1	Rice seed	120 Kg	1.560.000	170Kg		2.210.000		+650.000
2	Land preparation	1 ha	1.000.000	1 ha		1.000.000		–
3	Fertilizer	320 Kg	2.750.000	370 Kg		3.158.000		+408.000
4	Pesticide	1 ha	1.560.000	1 ha		2.363.000		+803.000
5	Other cost	1 ha	2.000.000	1 ha		2.210.000		+210.000
6	Harvesting	1 ha	2.000.000	1 ha		2.000.000		–
7	*Farm expense*		*10.970.000*			*13.041.000*		*+2.071.000*
8	Yield (kg/ha)		7.5			7.5
	Paddy price	4.900 VND/kg
9	*Revenue (VND)*		*36.750.000*		*36.750.000*
10	Grossmargin (VND)		25.780.000		23.709.000		*+2.071.000*

Conclusions

Directly trained farmers improved their knowledge in farm management, especially safe and sustainable agriculture, reduced chemical applications, and conserved NE. As the result, environment pollution was reduced, farmers’ health was less affected, and product quality was enhanced.
Leaf cutting of 25 per cent and 50 per cent of leafs in 21, 42 and 63 DAS showed that leaf folder may not damage the rice yield. Farmers were convinced on avoiding defoliator pesticide applications.
IPM application in the early crop stage will reduce the number of spraying.

A wide range of pests affects rice cultivation in South East Asia including Vietnam. In the recent years outbreaks of pests as brown and white-backed plant-hoppers caused by poor agronomic practices such as asynchronous planting, poor choice of variety and, particularly, misuse of pesticides have been reported.

Vietnam continues to face a challenge of an overuse and misuse of pesticides with a need to optimize pesticide treatments and eliminate unnecessary pesticide applications. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is widely considered as most appropriate to prevent crop losses through insects, diseases, weeds, rodents and others. Relevant stakeholders in crop protection including farmers and various associates in the pesticide supply chain have a common interest in maintaining the sustainability of effective pest management including the responsible and safe use of pesticides.

[wpdm_package id=’8223′]

By ASEAN Sustainable Agrifood Systems Vietnam team

04/10/201604/08/2017

From mango orchards to consumers: Value chain analysis makes sure we all get our juicy bits

Vietnamese participants learned how they were linked in a value chain of mango to understand their roles and relations in developing mango production in Vietnam.

Mongo farmers, collectors, processors, cooperative members and government representatives together learn to analyse the value chain of mango in Vietnam.

Twenty actors in the value chain of mango participating in a one-day workshop “Value Chain Analysis of Mango” in Dong Thap Province included farmers, collectors, processors, cooperative members and also some government representatives.

At the workshop, the ‘Link Methodology’, based on the GIZ value links approach, was applied with the aim of getting a participatory understanding of the value chain, the business model that the different actors follow, and the degree of inclusiveness of the small-scale farmers within the value chain. To be inclusive, all actors in the value chain must be equally treated.

The participants were introduced to ‘Mapping the Value Chain’, a technique for the value chain analysis to allow participants to discuss together all the activities taking place from the mango orchard to the final consumer. From this activity, the participants were able to visualize the macro context of the mango market, understand the structure of the value chain, and identify where in the chain they involved in and interlinked. Through an open dialogue the participants expressed their concerns as followings:

“We don’t know what the customers need and we do not know what to do or change.”

“There are many persons buying mango and everyone is requesting different product characteristics. If we follow only one, we run the risk of not being able to sell all the products and then not being able to sell the remaining to somebody else.”

Through mapping of the value chain, the participants discuss all the activities taking place from the mango orchard to the final consumer.

During the workshop, the participants formed four groups according to the type of stakeholder they belonged to: farmers, collectors, farmers’ members of a cooperative, and management board personnel of the cooperatives. The groups created a detailed description of all the links, activities and actors involved in their businesses allowing specifying where to focus intervention efforts that would leverage other links in the value chain.

At the end, the participants filled scorecards with statements that measure the level of inclusiveness among the actors’ relationship. This exercise helped farmers to understand their current situation and identify possibilities of improving their negotiation power with reference to other actors such as collectors. The activity helped them to realize that all actors were working on their own and had no coordination to strengthen their businesses.

Here were some reflections from the farmers:

“One problem is that we do not have contacts with anybody else but with collectors.”

“The only thing we discuss with the collectors is the prices, nothing else.”

“We do not believe in cooperatives.”

“We do not understand why the purchasing price of the cooperative is the same as the collector.”

And, the statement from one collector who participated in the workshop was following:

“I must frequently call the farmers and pay some money in advance to ensure that they will sell to me and not to another collector.”

The workshop results provided an understanding of the mango value chain which in turn would allow tailoring future interventions for a stronger integration and improvement of the relations between the different actors.

The workshop took place in Tinh Thoi Commune, Cao Lanh City on 2 June 2016.

[wpdm_package id=’1162′]

By ASEAN Sustainable Agrofood Systems Vietnam Team

25/05/201607/08/2017

‘Integrated Pest Management Training for Retailers’ makes responsible pesticides business

Retailer training is one part of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) training courses in Viet Nam in promoting safe and sustainable agriculture environment which is the collaboration between the Sub Plan Protection Departments and GIZ from 2015 to 2017, and co-funded by Croplife International.

In the line of project, a minimum of 300 retailers in three provinces of Hau Giang, Kien Giang and Dong Thap would be trained in 2016 to August 2017 by Master Trainers, who are Sub Plant Protection staff members attending the ‘Training of Trainers (ToT)’ at the Southern Regional Plant Protection Center in February 2016, also organised as part of the project.

In the recent four-day training for retailers held between 14-15 and 22-23 March 2016, 130 retailers from the three provinces attended the course. In the eight-module course (see table), the master trainers engaged the participants in the contexts of farmer’s rice production and discussion on “how to identify good advice for farmers as responsible application of pesticides”. The retailers received the IPM training certificates delivered by the Directors of Sub Plant Protection Departments and the Southern Regional Plant Protection at the end of the four-day training.

No.	Training modules
1	Introduction to responsible pesticide use
2	Understanding pesticide products and their labels: giving the best advice to customers
3	Pesticide application, equipment and calibration
4	How to be an effective crop doctor
5	Issues with pesticides
6	Transportation and storage of pesticides
7	Maximizing the safe use of pesticides and PPE
8	Better pesticide handling, first aid and conclusion

Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Thuy, the Deputy Director of Hau Giang Sub Plant Protection Department, also one of the Master Trainers said: “The training helps retailers to get updates on IPM knowledge, to make responsible business of pesticides and guide them how to become doctors for plants.

“More benefits for their business will also be gained through providing good advice and consultation to their clients,” she said.

Ms. Thuy also suggested that the retailers should regularly visit farmer’s fields after the training. As a matter of fact, they can give good idea for farmers to make better decision at their rice fields.

Mr. Ho Ngoc Liem, an agricultural retailer in Long Binh Village, Long My Town, Hau Giang Province, one of the participants said: “The IPM training course provides updates on new knowledge, and approach on pesticide application via different active ingredients relating to insect resistance management. I am confident in the knowledge transferred by the IPM project and the master trainers and will use these experiences and knowledges for my business after completing the training course”.

Mr. Le Quoc Cuong, Director of the Southern Plant Protection Center under Plant Protection Department said he strongly supported retailers to apply the IPM knowledge and transfer to farmers.

“IPM and responsible pesticide application are one of the best ways to sustain retailer’s business,” he said.

GIZ/Croplife International IPM project will continue supporting the trainings to over 150 retailers during until September 2016.

By ASEAN Sustainable Agrifood Systems Team, Vietnam

15/12/201507/08/2017

Training of Trainers on Integrated Pest Management in Tien Giang, Vietnam

Sustainable agriculture development is the main strategy for the Government of Vietnam. The Vietnam Government have been supporting the national project “Strategy for Agriculture and Rural Development 2011-2020” as well as improvement of farmer livelihood through technical investment, production technologies and market orientation. At ASEAN level, Vietnam has been participating in implementing the ASEAN Integrated Food Security (AIFS) Framework which contribute to its national strategy in addressing sustainable rice production.

ASEAN Sustainable Agrifood Systems (ASEAN SAS) collaborates with Vietnam Plant Protection Department to ensure sustainable rice cultivation. One of the project’s main focuses is Integrated Pest Management and Biological Control.

In collaboration with Croplife International, GIZ and Southern Regional Plant Protection Center, the courses on ‘training of trainers on Integrated Pest Management’ for local Sub Plant Protection Department staff were conducted in three provinces in Dong Thap, Hau Giang and Kien Giang.

These provinces contain large rice area at the Mekong Delta Region in Vietnam. The training course emphasizes on Integrated Pest Management practice under new tendency of rice cultivation at farmer and regional scale. It consists of 12 technical modules for Integrated Pest Management designed by experts from Croplife International, Southern Regional Plant Protection Center and Cuu Long Delta Rice Research Institute. The 12 technical modules presented various stages of rice growing from seedling, development, growing and ripening focusing on rice ecosystem analysis, farming technology, main pests and diseases management, pesticide application and spaying techniques, personal protective equipment and farmer’s decision making for spaying chemical.

By ASEAN Sustainable Agrifood Systems Team, VietnamThe trainings were conducted at the Southern Regional Plant Protection Center, Long Dinh Village, Chau Thanh District, Tien Giang Province on 5-11 October and 9-13 November 2015 with an aim to update Integrated Pest Management technical knowledge and improve the facilitation skills of trainers. Thirty-nine trainers (23% women) selected by Sub Plant Protection Department provinces and districts attended the course. The participants learned to improve training tools, teaching methods as adult education and participatory and personal skills. When they go back to the project areas, they will carry out training courses for farmers at their provinces according to 12 technical modules. It is expected that trainers will transfer the new concepts to core farmers for their rice cultivation as well as project activities in the future. Furthermore, trainers will become a key resource for farmer training in the next period of the project.

13/11/201508/08/2017

Partnership project to promote organic value chain in Vietnam

A strategic alliance between German organic companies and private-sector actors in Vietnam, so called Organic Value Chain Partnership (OVCP), is soon to be set up with the mandate of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) – Sector Project “Agricultural Trade and Agricultural Value Chains”. Its aim is to realize multi-year projects promoting different organic value chains in Vietnam.

In the context of growing organic markets in Europe as well as developing and emerging countries, the organic sector in Germany is becoming increasingly interested in sourcing from the BMZ partner country Vietnam. These private-sector actors have a need for reliable, sustainable and certified sources of production. Promoting organic value chains including the trade of these products in Europe can contribute to income growth, promotion of employment, sustainable management of natural resources, local value added as well as improved food safety and quality.

As part of the project initialization, GIZ – Sector Project “Agricultural Trade and Agricultural Value Chains”, with support from the ASEAN Sustainable Agrifood Systems (ASEAN SAS) project in Vietnam recently conducted two market studies on the Vietnamese organic sector and one German organic company visiting tour from July to October 2015 in the south of Vietnam. The objective of these activities is to get a reliable assessment of the current conditions of the organic sector in Vietnam and to identify potential entry points for value chain development in the sector.

organic coconut intercroping with cocoa orchard

The next steps concerning OVCP in Vietnam include:

Follow-up possibility discussion with German organic companies about which impressions they got during the mission within their companies then report back to the Sector Project where they see the most interesting opportunities for a project.
Based on their feedback, the Sector Project will prioritize and decide which projects will be developed further. By mid-November, project concepts will be sketched which will define what are the specific roles, responsibilities and inputs of both the private partners and GIZ will look like. This should then provide a good basis for further discussions with the local partners.

The aim is to get the final permission for the Strategic Alliance from BMZ until the end of this year (2015) and beginning of next year in order to being able to start with the implementation of the project(s) early 2016.

24/09/201508/08/2017

Farmers and pesticide retailers to get trained in integrated pest management in Vietnam

CropLife International and GIZ recently agreed on carrying through a training programme for farmers and pesticide retailers called “Promotion of Integrated Pest Management to address plant hopper outbreaks in Rice”. ASEAN Sustainable Agrifood Systems (ASEAN SAS) is implementing this project in the context of the Better Rice Initiative Asia (BRIA) together with Vietnam’s Plant Protection Department (PPD), the Southern Regional Plant Protection Center (SRPPC), and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) in three provinces. At least 15,000 farmers and 300 pesticide retailers will be trained in agro-ecological practices and the effective use and safe application of pesticides.

From left: Mr. Raghavan Sampathkumar, Stewardship Director of Croplife Asia; Mr. Le Tien Phong, Interpreter; Keith Jones, Stewardship Director of Croplife International; Ambros Dotzer, Head of Component/ Regional Coordinator ASEAN SAS; and Ms. Do Thi Thanh Huyen, Senior Project Officer ASEAN SAS Vietnam.

In Vietnam, farmers are rarely applying natural, mechanical and biological control methods, and rely heavily on the use of chemical pesticides which results in high productions costs due to unnecessary expenses and unsafe practices. For developing new training modules for farmers and retailers, ASEAN SAS cooperates with the Can Tho University and the Cuu Long Delta Rice Research Institute (CLLRI). The training modules address the protection of natural enemies of pests, the accurate diagnosis of problems, definition of action thresholds and consequent decision making on the choice of appropriate products that are registered for control of plant-hoppers (and/or other rice pests), in order to avoid problems of resistance and resurgence.

In September 2015, a “Project Partners Meeting” was held at the SRPPC in Tien Giang province, together with the provincial representatives of PPD and DARD of three provinces involved in the project. Keith Jones, Stewardship Director of Croplife International, and Raghavan Sampathkumar, Stewardship Director of Croplife Asia, assisted at this meeting. Provincial partners showed their commitment by announcing financial contributions to the project. In this regard, the impact of the project would be multiplied and the contents of the training would become part of the working agenda of the partner institutions.

In the beginning of October this year, the first phase of the project will start with the Training of Trainers. Thirty-nine staff from the partner institutions in the three provinces have been selected to get trained and afterwards assuming the function of Master trainers, who will train both groups of smallholder farmers and retailers during the whole project period. The project will be accompanied by an awareness campaign at community, districts and provincial levels, involving schools and agricultural colleges as well.

Participants at the “Project Partners Meeting” in Tien Giang province

10/04/201509/08/2017

Rice Plant-Hopper Management in Dong Thap Province

Survey to develop training for farmers on integrated pest management

A pilot project soon to be established in Dong Thap province, Vietnam will assist Vietnamese farmers to tackle one of the country’s major threats to rice production, Brown Plant Hopper infestation. However, a survey to improve the ‘know-how’ in integrated pest management is firstly needed to design the right training for the farmers. This is to be conducted by the ASEAN Sustainable Agrifood Systems project, a module under an ASEAN-German Programme on response to Climate Change in Agriculture and Forestry (GAP-CC) and CropLife International.

Dong Thap province is the third largest rice growing region in the Mekong delta with 523,800 hectares of cultivated area. Three harvests per year require a very intensive cultivation, with high inputs of fertilizers and pesticides. In the past years, yields per hectare have been steadily increasing, reaching an average of 6.3 ton per hectares, which is above the national average of about 5 tons per hectares.

Intensive rice cultivation entails also increasing production costs, often caused by the high usage of seeds, fertilizers and chemical pesticides above the usual levels. Studies have shown that the overuse of chemical inputs can even have an adverse effect, leading to a decline of yields. Therefore it is of utmost importance to identify the optimum of the application of seeds and chemical inputs.

According to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, there are “inadequacies in pesticide advertising and labelling, while many farmers still continue to ignore basic instructions on their use”.

In Vietnam’s Dong Thap province, “Brown Plant Hopper” infestation and the following transmission of viruses is one of the major threats to rice production. Losses can be 100 per cent, if uncontrolled. Actually, the situation is under control, by light traps and the application of biological pesticides among others. Nevertheless, future outbreaks are possible as the insect is migrating fast over long distances. Because of its nature, infestation occurs at the whole growing area, which requires a strategy of including farmers’ communities, suppliers of agricultural inputs, and district and province authorities as well.

In general terms, the causes of the outbreaks include poor agronomic practices, poor choice of variety and, once an infestation is established, misuse of pesticides. The implementation of integrated pest management practices has proved unsustainable, since consistent messages have not been continually provided by all groups. Specifically the misuse or even illegal use of broad-spectrum, neuro-toxic insecticides needs to be addressed.

This requires not only the effective training of farmers, but also pesticide retailers who are a major source of pest management advice. According to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, there are “inadequacies in pesticide advertising and labelling, while many farmers still continue to ignore basic instructions on their use”. Training of retailers, which should be an integral part of government certification, would help to address this.

It is therefore proposed that the demonstration project be established in Dong Thap province, working with several villages where plant-hopper outbreaks are an issue, that will train farmers in integrated pest management including the responsible use of pesticides and the use of alternatives, including non-neuro-toxic and biocontrol agents, along with their integration and to train pesticide retailers in also integrated pest management, responsible pesticide use and responsible promotion of products. The aim will be to set up a programme, where training messages are re-enforced by the local retailers, as well as other local partners such as the extension services and farmer organisations.

Other elements such as landscape engineering will be included in the information package presented to farmers; this will include how this can be used to encourage and maintain natural enemies, as well as possible negative impacts such as impacts on rat population. Farmers will be informed about such tools and techniques, but it will be their choice as to whether they adopt such approaches.

In general, even though the focus of the programme is management of plant-hopper attacks, in common with all integrated pest management programmes other pests that threaten the rice crop will be appropriately managed.

Preparatory Survey

GIZ by its ASEAN Sustainable Agrifood Systems or in short SAS project and CropLife International agreed upon the conduction of a survey in Dong Thap province, Vietnam. This should be understood as a measure for the preparation of a wider capacity development programme. Plant Protection Department, its respective structures on national, provincial and local levels, and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development of Dong Thap province will actively take part in the development of the activities. After the survey has been concluded, and conclusions and recommendations have been analyzed, the envisaged capacity development programme will be carried through.

27/04/201311/08/2017

3rd Project Partner Meeting in Hanoi, Vietnam from 22 May 2013

On May 22, 2013, ASEAN Biocontrol organized the 3rd Project Partner Meeting at Sofitel Plaza, Hanoi with support from the Plant Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Vietnam. The purpose of the meeting, which was hosted by the Plant Protection Department, was to share an overview of project achievements and challenges, progress on the development of regional guidelines on BCA application, trade and use and the preliminary results of the Project Progress Review including the proposed project set-up of the second phase (2014–2017).

It also sought strategic guidance from the 3rd Steering Committee Meeting, which followed the Project Partner Meeting. ASEAN Biocontrol also held back-to-back meetings of the two Regional BCA (biocontrol agents) Expert Groups at the same venue. The Regional BCA Expert Group on Application met from May 19-21 to discuss the development of the regional guideline on BCA application and share country experiences and scientific evidence in plant protection with biological control.

Sequentially, the meeting of Regional BCA Expert Group on Regulation was organized from May 23-25. The experts held active discussions on botanical pest control products and the minimum requirements for the regional guideline on BCA regulation.