Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) in Cambodia

283 views

Published on

Dr. Chuong Sophal presented on 'Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) in Cambodia' at Regional Review and Planning Workshop 2017, Hanoi, Vietnam

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) in Cambodia

  1. 1. Sustaining and Enhancing the Momentum for Innovation and Learning around the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in the Lower Mekong River Basin (SRI-LMB)
  2. 2. Outline: 1- Introduction 2- Objective 3- Project Involved 4- Research Methodology 5- Result 6- Some Observations 7- conclusion
  3. 3. • Cambodia is a country in Lower Mekong River Basin (LMB) and economic of population depend on agriculture • Rice production technique is still challenged by small-scale Cambodian Farmers, • An average rice yield was still moderated (< 3 t/ha) in compare with neighbored countries ( 4 to 5 t/ha ), • SRI is an appropriated technique contributed to increase rice yield, • SRI has been promoted into its National Development Plan by MAFF since 2006, • FFS is an appropriated method to disseminate new technology to farmers. 1.Introduction
  4. 4. 2.Objective • To understanding the pattern of change among different group of farmer due to direct and indirect effects of farmer’s Participatory Action Research (FPAR) • Evaluate the SRI adaptation of FPAR by FFS, • Identify the main limitations of SRI adaption, • Evaluate the FFS efficiency
  5. 5. Takeo Province Kampong Speu Province Kampot Province 1. Ms. Sous Sreynom 2. Ms. Nob Sreynoch 3. Mr. Pak Pov 1. Ms. Sal Chantheara 2. Mr. Nou Vitou 3. Mr. Mann Sokun 1. Mr. Mean Heng 2. Ms. Seng Nayhiek 3. Mr. Phang Thai 3.Projet involved • Assoc.Prof. Chuong Sophal National researcher • Mr. Tuy Chantrea Research assistant • Local Monitors:
  6. 6. 4. Research methodology • Survey was used as main method for the research: - Survey was conducted in January 2017 - 3 provinces and 3 districts per province were selected to study the SRI adaptation, • 120 farmers were selected in each province within 3 districts: Province Sample or farmer Takeo 120 Kampong Speu 120 Kampot 120
  7. 7. • In each district, Farmers were divided as FPAR, Non- FPAR and control 4. Research methodology Group Number of farmers surveyed in each Province FPAR FPAR1 24 72FPAR2 24 FPAR3 24 Non-FPAR 24 Control 24 Total 120
  8. 8. • Studied Areas
  9. 9. 5. Result
  10. 10. 5.1- Farmer’s Household Situation Diagram 1: Agricultural Labours of Farmer Household Diagram 1 shows 60% of farmers household ( FPAR, Non-FPAR and Control) have 1 to 2 persons, 37% of them have 3 to 5 persons and only 3% of them have more than 5 persons involved in agricultural activities. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 1-2pers 3-5pers >5pers Percent Agricultural Labours of Farmer' Household FPAR NFPAR Control
  11. 11. Diagram 2: Rice field holding(ha) of Farmer’s Household Mostly farmers in studied areas have rice field less than 1ha. 20 to 23% of them have rice field from 1.1 to 2ha and small amount farmers ( 3% ) have more than 2ha of rice field. Mostly FPAR farmers (38%) have rice field from 0.51 to 1ha, 33% of them have rice field less than 0.5ha, 23% have 1.1 to 2ha and 3% family have rice field areas more than 2ha. 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 0.1 to 0.5 0.51 to 1.0 1.1 to 2.0 > 2 ha Percent Agricultural Land of Farmer's Household FPAR N-FPAR Control
  12. 12. 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 More Lady Not different More Men Percent Gender of FPAR Diagram 3: Gender of farmer participatory action research Diagram 3 shows 65% of FFS participated more lady while 28% of FFS were not different between man and women. However around 5% of FFS participated more men than women.
  13. 13. Diagram 4: Rain fall situation Diagram 4 presents the farmer evaluation of rain fall in last year 2016. Mostly of them mentioned the rain fall in 2016 was normal and less than normal. Only 2% indicated that more rain in 2016. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Normal Less than normal More than normal More rain Percent 5.2 Climate condition FPAR NFPAR Control
  14. 14. Diagram 5: Rice planting technique of farmer Diagram 5 show mostly farmers ( FPAR, Non- FPAR and control ) from 44 to 64% applied direct seeding ( dry seed broadcasting) to grow rice followed by transplant technique which were 32 to 40% and small amount of farmers from 2 to 15% used broadcasting with wet seed. 5.3 Rice Production Technique 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 Transplanting Direct Seedling Broadcasting Percent Sowing Technique FPAR NFPAR Control
  15. 15. Diagram 6: Seedbed preparation Diagram 6 present wet or flooded seedbed were mostly used by farmers of each farmers group to produce rice seedling. However around 6% of FPAR, 4% of Non- FPAR and 2% of control farmers used dry seedbed. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 Dry seedbed Wet/flooded seedbed Growing in seedling tray Percent Seedling raising method FPAR NFPAR Control
  16. 16. Diagram 7: Land preparation technique Diagram 7 present 87% of FPAR, and 81% of Non- FPAR and control farmers ploughed rice field 2 times before rice seeding. Around 10% of each group of farmer ploughed 3 times the fields and small amount of Non- FPAR (6%) and control farmers(4%) ploughed only one time. 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 1 time 2 times 3 times Percent Rice field preparation technique FPAR NFPAR Control
  17. 17. Diagram 8: Seed rate for transplanting technique Diagram 8 illustrate 23% of FPAR used seed rate by transplanting from 25 to 50Kg/ha,10% used seed rate from 51 to 100 Kg/ha, 5% applied seed rate less than 25Kg/ha and only 1% of them used seed rate from 101 to 150Kg/ha. In contrast mostly of Non-FPAR and Control used seed rate from 51 to 100Kg/ha, 11 to 12% used seed rate from 25 to 50Kg/ha, around 10% used seed less than 25Kg/ha and 2% of Control farmers used seed from 101 to 150Kg/ha. 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Less than 25kg 25-50kg 51-100kg 101-150kg more than 150kg Percent Seed rate for transplanting FPAR NFPAR Control
  18. 18. Diagram 9: Seed rate for Direct seeding technique Diagram 9 present 27 to 44% of three farmer groups ( FPAR, Non-FPAR and Control) used seed rate by direct seeding from 51 to 100Kg/ha, 7 to 17% used seed rate from 101 to 150 Kg/ha, 6 to 12% applied from 25 to 50Kg/ha and small amount of them from 1 to 5% used seed rate more than 150Kg/ha. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 Less than 25kg 25-50kg 51-100kg 101-150kg More than 150kg Percent Seed rate for Direct seedling FPAR NFPAR Control
  19. 19. Diagram 10: Seed rate for Broadcasting technique Diagram 10 shows mostly FPAR and Non-FPAR applied seed rate from 51 to 100Kg/ha followed by 25 to 50Kg/ha and small amount of them ( less than 2%) used seed more than 150Kg/ha , while all most Control farmers applied seed more than 150Kg/ha by broadcasting (wet seed) technique. 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 25-50kg 51-100kg 101-150kg More than 150kg Percent Seed rate for Broadcasting FPAR NFPAR Control
  20. 20. Diagram 11: Basal Fertilizer application Around 62 to 75% of farmers of three different group used organic fertilizer more than 150Kg/ha as basal application. 10 to 18% of farmers used chemical fertilizers ( NPK, Urea, DAP ) less than 50kg/ha and 2 to 10% of farmers used chemical fertilizer more than 50 to 100kg/ha. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 Lessthan50kg 51-75kg 76-100kg 101-125kg 126-150kg Morethan150kg Lessthan50kg 51-75kg 76-100kg 101-125kg 126-150kg Morethan150kg Lessthan50kg 51-75kg 76-100kg 126-150kg Morethan150kg Lessthan50kg 76-100kg 101-125kg 126-150kg Morethan150kg NPK Urea DAP Other Percent Basal Fertilizer Application FPAR NFPAR Control
  21. 21. Diagram 12: Source of Organic fertilizer Diagram 12 present 63 to 82% of three farmer groups ( FPAR, Non-FPAR and Control) used own organic fertilizer. Only 2% of them bough organic fertilizer from market and other source. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Home-made Market Other Percent Source of Organic Fertilizer FPAR Non-FPAR Control
  22. 22. Diagram 13: Top dress fertilizer application 28 to 40% of three different group farmer( FPAR, Non-FPAR and control ) applied Urea less than 75kg/ha as top dress, while 10 to 20% of them used DAP and NPK. 17 to 28% of three group farmers applied Urea from 76 to 110 Kg/ha, while 5 to 12% of them used DAP and NPK. Only 3 to 10% used chemical fertilizers more than 111Kg/ha. FPAR used less chemical fertilizer in compare with other two studied groups. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 Lessthan75kg 76-110kg 111-150kg 151-175kg 176-200kg Morethan200kg Lessthan75kg 76-110kg 111-150kg 151-175kg 176-200kg Morethan200kg Lessthan75kg 76-110kg 111-150kg 151-175kg 176-200kg 111-150kg 176-200kg Morethan200kg NPK Urea DAP Other Percent Top dressing fertilizer application FPAR NFPAR Control
  23. 23. Diagram 14: Transplanting Method Diagram 14 presents mostly farmers of three studied groups (FPAR, Non- FPAR, Control) used conventional technique ( un-straight line ) by transplanting. Around 12% of FPAR, 2% of Non- FPAR and 4% of Control farmers applied with straight line by transplanting. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 straight Conventional Percent Transplanting method FPAR NFPAR Control
  24. 24. Diagram 15: Seedling age Diagram 15 shows 11 and 13% of FPAR used seedling age from 16 to 22days and from 23 to 30days respectively, while around 5% of Non-FPAR and Control used seedling from 16 to 22days and 11 to 12% of them used seedling from 23 to 30days of seedling age. Only 4% of FPAR used more than 40days seedling, however 11% of Non-FPAR used it. 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 8 days 9-15days 16-22days 23-30day 31-40days > 40 days Percent Seedling Age for Transplanting FPAR NFPAR Control
  25. 25. 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 1-2 seedlings 2-3 seedlings 3-4 seedlings 4-5 seedlings > 5 seedling Percent Number of Seedling per Hill FPAR NFPAR Control Diagram 16: Number of seedling per hill Diagram 16 illustrates 29% and 9% of FPAR used 1 to 3 and 4 to 5 seedling per hill respectively. However 12% and 27% of Non- FPAR used 1 to 3 seedling and 4 to more than 5 seedling per hill respectively, while 18% of Control farmer applied 2 to 3 seedling and 14% of them used 4 to 5 seedling per hill.
  26. 26. Diagram 17 : Rice transplant spacing of farmer Diagram 17 shows mostly of three studied groups farmers applied transplant spacing from 15X15 to 20X20. The spacing less than 10x10 was used by Non-FPAR and Control more than FPAR famer, while the rice spacing from more than 10X10 to 15X15 and more than 20X20 to 30X30 were applied by FPAR more than Non-FPAR and Control farmer. The spacing from more than 30X30 were applied by small amount (2%) by all three studed groups(FPAR, Non-FPAR and Control). 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 < 10 x 10 >10 x10 and <15 x 15 >15 x 15 and<20 x 20 >20 x 20 and <30 x 30 >30 x 30 Percent Rice transplant spacing FPAR NFPAR Control
  27. 27. Diagram 18: Weed control application Diagram 18 reveille the weed control practice of farmer. It shows that mostly(60 to 81%) of three studied groups farmer (FPAR, Non-FPAR and control) applied mechanical weed control. However 10 to 22% of them used chemical method and other 1 to 8% combined both chemical and mechanical method and as well non weed control practice respectively. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 Manual Chemical Both None Percent Weed Control Method FPAR NFPAR Control
  28. 28. Diagram 19: Irrigation practice Diagram 19 presents more than 50% of three studied groups farmer (FPAR, Non-FPAR and Control) did not used irrigation for rice production in rainy season. Especially less than 30% of control farmer and 48% of FPAR and Non- FPAR applied irrigation for their rice fields. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 Yes No Percent Irrigation Practice FPAR NFPAR Control
  29. 29. Diagram 20: Frequency of irrigation Diagram 20 presents mostly farmers from 12 to 22% applied irrigation 1 to 2 and 3 to 4 times and only 2 to 8 % of them applied irrigation more than 5times in their rice fields. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 1-2 times 3-4 times More than 5 times Percent Frequency of Irrigaiton FPAR NFPAR Control
  30. 30. Diagram 21: Expenditure of Rice production Diagram 21 illustrates mostly farmer ( 35 to 41%)of three studied group (FPAR, Non-FPAR and Control) expended 301 to 400$/ha, while 25 to 28% of them paid more than 400$/ha. However, small amount of farmer from 14 to 18% expended less than 250$/ha. In general the FPAR expended the production lower than Non- FPAR and Control farmer. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 Less than 250$ 251-300$ 301$-400$ >400$ Percent Rice Production Expenditure ($) FPAR Non-FPAR Control
  31. 31. Diagram 22: Rice Yield(t/ha) Diagram 22 shows the Non-FPAR and Control farmers got rice yield less than 2t and 2.1 to 2.5t/ha more than FPAR farmer. In contrast the FPAR farmers got rice yield from 2.6 to more than 4tons per ha more than Non-FPAR and Control farmer. In general, the FPAR farmer got more rice yield than Non-FPAR and Control farmer. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 <= 2tons 2.1 to 2.5t 2.6 to 3 t 3.1 to 3.5 t 3.6 to 4 t > 4 tons Percent Rice Yield (t/ha) FPAR N-FPAR Control
  32. 32. Diagram 23: Constrain of SRI adaptation Diagram 23 presents the constrain of SRI adaptation of FPAR farmer. 40% and 25% of them identified the lack of labour and lack of water are the main constrain of SRI technique adaptation. However, 8% of FPAR farmer explained that SRI is difficult to apply. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 No labor No water Difficult Lack variety Just train Percent Constrain of SRI Adaptation
  33. 33. Diagram 24: Farmer suggestion Diagram 24 shows four farmer suggestions. High price rice and low cost of chemical material were suggested by mostly farmer followed by water access New technique in crop production and new variety. 0 10 20 30 40 New tech High price rice, Low cost Chemical Water Access New Variety Percent Farmer Suggestion FPAR N-FPAR Control
  34. 34. 6. Some Observations 1- The agricultural labour of household farmer is low ( 1 to 2 persons per family), therefore it is not enough labour to apply SRI technique. 2-The direct seeding is more applied by all three groups of farmer. 3- However, it found most of SRI criteria like the number of seedling per hill, seedling age, transplant spacing, fertilizer application and weed control were better applied by FPAR farmers, that show the FFS approach is appropriated to disseminate the new technique to farmers.
  35. 35. 4-The water source to access irrigation system is not enough in studied areas. 5-The lack of labour and water shortage are main constrain of SRI application. 6-It seem lower expenditure for rice production applied by FPAR than by Non-FPAR and Control farmer. 7- However, the rice yield was higher by FPAR application than by those of Non-FPAR and Control. 8- High price rice and water access for agriculture are crucial suggestion of farmer.
  36. 36. - FFS is an appropriated approach to disseminate SRI technique to farmer. - FPAR are applied rice production technique better than Non-FPAR and Control farmer. - Rice yield is increased by SRI technique application. - SRI technique is applicable if water access, enough labor and agricultural equipments are available. - Climate is strongly affected on SRI adaptation. - External factors like high price rice generate the motivation of farmer to adapt SRI technique. 7-Conclusion
  37. 37. 8.Activities of survey
  38. 38. 8.Activities of survey

×