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 Vietnam

236 views

Published on

Dr. Nguyen Yen Thi Bich presented on 'Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) in Vietnam' 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 Vietnam

  1. 1. Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) in Vietnam Nguyen Thi Bich Yen Vietnam National University of Agriculture (CARES - VNUA) Hanoi, 24-25 April 2017
  2. 2. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Presentation contents • Objectives of MEL • Study sites, sample selection and farmer information • Results of Mel study – Changes in cropping practices – SRI related information – Cost and benefit of rice production – Farmer assessment of training course on SRI • Conclusion
  3. 3. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Objectives of the MEL • To evaluate the changes in farming practices among different groups of farmers due to effects of Farmers’ Participatory Action Research (FPAR); and • To analyze the patterns of change geographically and by social group
  4. 4. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Study sites Bac Giang province: • Yen The district • Lang Giang district • Luc Nam district Ha Tinh province • Can Loc district • Loc Ha district • Thach Ha district
  5. 5. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Sample size and number of surveys • Total 84 households for each province for each monitor – 42 FPAR farmers (joined in FFS; 14 for each district) – 21 non-FPAR farmers (same village with FPAR farmers; 7 for each district) – 21 control farmers (different village/commune with FPAR farmers; 7 for each district) • 5 monitors have been conducted during 3 rice crops for each province – Bac Giang: pre and post-summer 2015; pre and post summer 2016; and pre spring 2017 – Ha Tinh: pre and post-spring 2016; pre and post-summer 2016; and pre spring 2017
  6. 6. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies General information of the interviewed farmers Bac Giang Ha Tinh 78 86 49 47 47 30 40 50 60 70 0 20 40 60 80 100 Farmerage %farmers female male Age 86 78 82 48 51 54 30 40 50 60 70 0 20 40 60 80 100 FPAR non-FPAR control Farmerage %farmers
  7. 7. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies General information of the interviewed farmers Rice cultivated area (ha) FPAR non-FPAR control Bac Giang (summer crop 2016) Land holding 0.46±0.54 (41) 0.28±0.11 (22) 0.36±0.32 (21) Total area of rice cultivation 0.20±0.10 (41) 0.15±0.07 (22) 0.15±0.06 (21) SRI land area 0.19±0.07 (29) 0 0 Rented land for rice cultivation 0.12±0.09 (12) 0.08 ± 0.04 (7) 0.21±0.14 (6) Ha Tinh (spring crop 2016) Land holding 0.45±0.18 (43) 0.34±0.13(18) 0.37±0.13 (17) Total area of rice cultivation 0.31±0.18 (43) 0.24±0.12 (18) 0.29±0.15 (17) SRI land area 0.19±0.15 (28) 0 0 Rented land for rice cultivation 0.17±0.18 (22) 0.13±0.10 (10) 0.11±0.08 (6)
  8. 8. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practices– planting methods 60 62 52 63 55 48 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Transplanting Broadcasting Parachuting 83 86 100 88 78 94 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FPAR non-FPAR control FPAR non-FPAR control Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR Bac Giang summer crop 2015 %interviewedfarmers Ha Tinh spring crop 2016
  9. 9. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practice – Seed amount Province Planting method seed amount (kg/ha) Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR FPAR non- FPAR control FPAR non- FPAR control Bac Giang (summer crop 2015) Transplanting 25-50 100 100 100 100 100 100 Broadcasting Less than 25 13 25-50 100 100 100 80 100 100 50-100 7 Parachuting Less than 25 23 15 41 8 10 25-50 77 85 100 59 92 90 Ha Tinh (spring crop 2016) Transplanting Less than 25 3 8 6 25-50 40 17 24 51 21 6 50-100 54 83 48 38 71 75 100-150 3 29 3 7 13 Broadcasting 25-50 33 50 25 50-100 100 67 50 75 100
  10. 10. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practice – transplanting – seedling age 67 87 88 64 80 64 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 8 days 9-15 days 16-22 days 23-30 days 31-40 days 89 56 62 46 36 50 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FPAR non-FPAR control FPAR non-FPAR control Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR Bac Giang summer crop 2015 %interviewedfarmers Ha Tinh spring crop 2016
  11. 11. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practice – transplanting – planting density 43 29 71 46 53 50 33 50 24 43 33 43 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% more than 10 x 10 and less than 15 x 15 more than 15 x 15 and less than 20 x 20 more than 20 x 20 and less than 30 x 30 more than 30 x 30 random transplanting 80 78 81 64 71 44 9 0 5 33 29 44 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FPAR non-FPAR control FPAR non-FPAR control Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR Bac Giang summer crop 2015 %interviewedfarmers Ha Tinh spring crop 2016
  12. 12. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practice – transplanting – seedling per hill 17 13 41 36 13 43 23 47 24 7 47 21 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 >5 28 21 6 23 39 38 15 29 38 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FPAR non-FPAR control FPAR non-FPAR control Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR Bac Giang summer crop 2015 %interviewedfarmers Ha Tinh spring crop 2016
  13. 13. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practice – fertilizer –basal application Fertlizers Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR FPAR non-FPAR control FPAR non-FPAR control Bac Giang (summer crop 2015) NPK 60 67 62 70 73 43 Urea 33 38 14 22 32 33 Phosphous fertilizer 14 0 14 10 9 19 Murate of potash 7 5 0 5 5 5 Ha Tinh (spring crop 2016) NPK 62 86 71 70 67 53 Urea 40 29 62 40 41 40 Phosphous fertilizer 33 19 29 19 6 18 Murate of potash 0 5 5 2 0 6 % farmers
  14. 14. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practice – fertilizer –Basal application % farmers Application rate (kg/ha) Bac Giang (summer crop 2015) Ha Tinh (spring crop 2016) Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR FPA R non- FPAR control FPAR non- FPAR control FPAR non- FPAR control FPAR non- FPAR control NPK less than 50 4 51-75 8 11 7 3 76-100 11 13 101-125 7 3 8 126-150 8 7 8 7 13 11 6 more than 150 84 93 92 93 88 78 96 83 73 93 92 100 Urea less than 50 14 38 44 29 18 17 8 24 6 51-75 57 38 67 22 57 43 65 17 46 65 33 35 76-100 29 25 33 33 29 14 12 50 38 12 11 6 101-125 14 17 8 6 126-150 more than 150 6
  15. 15. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practice – fertilizer –top dressing application % farmers Appl. times Bac Giang (summer crop 2015) Ha Tinh (spring crop 2016) Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR FPAR non- FPAR control FPAR non- FPAR control FPAR non- FPAR control FPAR non- FPAR control NPK 0 40 29 29 41 36 33 63 70 60 81 56 71 1 43 67 62 37 50 52 38 25 35 19 44 6 2 14 5 10 22 14 10 0 5 5 24 3 2 5 Urea 0 5 14 5 2 14 5 5 10 5 2 12 1 29 48 24 34 55 38 14 7 11 6 2 52 24 57 51 23 48 83 67 71 70 67 76 3 14 14 14 10 9 10 12 24 10 21 22 6 4 2 Murate of potash 0 10 5 5 2 18 5 2 29 14 5 11 24 1 43 62 71 49 45 75 71 62 67 47 72 53 2 43 29 24 46 32 20 24 10 19 44 17 24 3 5 5 2 5 2 5
  16. 16. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practice – fertilizer –top dressing application Application amount (kg/ha) Bac Giang (summer crop 2015) Ha Tinh (spring crop 2016) Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR FPAR non- FPAR control FPAR non- FPAR control FPAR non- FPAR control FPAR non- FPAR control NPK less than 75 29 11 76-110 4 8 29 33 25 25 110-150 8 7 13 4 7 29 14 11 13 40 151-175 4 7 18 11 176-200 12 33 13 14 14 35 11 38 13 more than 200 76 60 73 84 79 50 18 57 22 38 50 60 Urea less than 75 18 50 20 23 32 15 3 15 11 76-110 18 17 5 31 47 30 33 32 15 40 33 20 110-150 43 11 50 23 5 40 33 37 35 29 17 33 151-175 13 11 20 10 10 10 5 10 14 11 7 176-200 3 5 5 13 21 10 17 17 20 more than 200 8 11 5 8 11 5 10 5 15 11 20 Murate of postash less than 75 5 5 5 17 41 47 28 22 19 31 76-110 11 10 20 11 17 11 41 40 50 41 63 46 110-150 50 20 60 45 28 50 10 7 11 27 13 0 151-175 13 15 26 17 11 5 6 7 6 15 176-200 8 35 10 8 17 6 8 more than 200 18 15 5 5 22 11 2 7 2 % farmers
  17. 17. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practice – fertilizer –organic fertilizer % farmers Items Bac Giang (summer crop 2015) Ha Tinh (spring crop 2016) Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR FPAR non- FPAR Contr.FPAR non- FPAR Contr. FPAR non- FPAR Contr. FPAR non- FPAR Contr. Applying or not yes 40 48 57 44 50 57 98 90 90 93 83 94 no 60 52 43 56 50 43 2 10 10 7 17 6 Application amount < 5t/ha 6 11 0 0 27 8 39 37 37 33 25 31 6-10 t/ha 81 22 83 94 64 75 54 53 63 60 50 50 >10t/ha 13 67 17 6 9 17 7 11 0 8 25 19
  18. 18. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practice – weed management % farmers weeding method Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR FPAR non-FPAR control FPAR non-FPAR control Bac Giang (summer crop 2015) Manual 5 5 7 9 Chemical 79 81 81 83 82 86 Both 17 19 14 10 9 14 Ha Tinh (spring crop 2016) Manual 17 10 19 24 11 12 Chemical 59 75 62 7 6 6 Both 24 15 14 69 83 71 None 5 12
  19. 19. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practice – weed management % farmers Times of weeding Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR FPAR non-FPAR control FPAR non-FPAR control Bac Giang (summer crop 2015) 1 time 68 81 76 90 86 81 2 times 29 19 19 5 14 10 3 times 2 5 5 10 Ha Tinh (spring crop 2016) None 27 38 38 12 1 time 54 29 33 21 11 2 times 20 29 14 60 67 82 3 times 5 10 19 22 6 more than 3 times 5
  20. 20. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practice – Irrigation management Field water management Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR FPAR non- FPAR control FPAR non- FPAR control Paddy field/soil condition during vegetative phase Intermittent wetting and drying 14 14 29 32 9 33 Kept wet for most of the vegetative phase 43 14 5 32 27 5 Kept standing water for most of the vegetative phase 33 62 62 29 59 62 Kept standing water for most of the vegetative period but water level was less compared to previous season 2 0 5 7 0 0 Completely dependent on rainfall so do not care about paddy field/soil condition 7 10 0 0 5 0 Standing water (in cm’s) is kept in your paddy field during reproductive phase Less than 3 46 35 48 30 24 29 4 to 6 37 60 48 65 52 65 More than 6 15 5 5 3 19 6 do no take care about water depth 2 0 0 2 5 0 Bac Giang (summer crop 2015) % farmers
  21. 21. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practice – Irrigation management Ha Tinh (spring crop 2016) % farmers Field water management Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR FPAR non- FPAR control FPAR non- FPAR control Paddy field/soil condition during vegetative phase Intermittent wetting and drying 19 43 24 53 6 38 Kept wet for most of the vegetative phase 33 14 10 19 28 6 Kept standing water for most of the vegetative phase 36 33 52 26 67 56 Kept standing water for most of the vegetative period but water level was less compared to previous season 12 10 14 2 0 0 Completely dependent on rainfall so do not care about paddy field/soil condition 0 0 0 Sanding water (in cm’s) is kept in your paddy field during reproductive phase Less than 3 24 19 10 16 11 13 4 to 6 38 43 33 37 28 25 More than 6 36 29 33 47 61 50 do no take care about water depth 2 10 24 0 0 13
  22. 22. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practice – Pesticide application Items Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR FPAR non-FPAR control FPAR non-FPAR control Applying pesticide 100 100 100 93 100 100 Applying pesticide at seedling stage 100 100 100 78 73 71 Applying pesticide at tillering stage 100 100 100 37 77 81 Applying pesticide at productive stage 100 100 100 95 91 86 How to decide applying pesticide Observe field condition (pest attack) 67 48 52 75 65 37 Take decision best on the previous season experience and apply as a part of precaution 33 52 48 8 20 42 others 17 15 21 Bac Giang (summer crop 2015) % farmers
  23. 23. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cropping practice – Pesticide application Ha Tinh (spring crop 2016) % farmers Items Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR FPAR non-FPAR control FPAR non-FPAR control Applying pesticide 95 100 86 60 78 88 Reasons for not applying pesticide Never apply because there is no pest problem in our field/in our area 50 0 13 0 100 Did not apply this season because there was no pest problem in field (SRI field) 50 100 88 100 0 Applying pesticide at seedling stage 38 38 43 21 11 29 Applying pesticide at tillering stage 64 62 67 28 44 47 Applying pesticide at productive stage 55 81 48 28 56 47 How to decide applying pesticide Observe field condition (pest attack) 90 95 69 74 79 67 Take decision best on the previous season experience and apply as a part of precaution 10 5 31 22 21 27 others 4 0 7
  24. 24. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies SRI relate information Items Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR FPAR non-FPAR control FPAR non-FPAR control % farmers applied SRI 31 5 71 % SRI area <10% 3 11-20% 21-30% 17 31-50% 7 51-75% 3 76-100% 100 100 69 SRI yield (ton/ha) 3.6-4.0 4 >4.0 100 100 96 Days to mature in SRI field Up to 120 days 100 100 100 Days to mature in non-SRI field Up to 120 days 100 95 92 83 100 100 121 to 135 days 5 8 17 Crop maturity in SRI field Matured earlier 100 100 62 no difference 38 Experience with SRI if tried raising more corps per year Easy to grow 100 100 62 No difference 38 Bac Giang (summer crop 2015) % farmers
  25. 25. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies SRI relate information Ha Tinh (spring crop 2016) % farmers Items Pre-PFAR Post-PFAR FPAR non-FPAR control FPAR non-FPAR control % farmers applied SRI 65 % SRI area <10% 4 11-20% 11 21-30% 11 31-50% 25 51-75% 7 76-100% 43 SRI yield (ton/ha) 3.6-4.0 4 >4.0 96 Days to mature in SRI field Up to 120 days 59 121 to 135 days 21 Days to mature in non-SRI field Up to 120 days 74 76 70 67 75 86 121 to 135 days 24 24 25 20 8 7 136 to 150 days 2 5 10 17 7 151 to 165 days 3 Crop maturity in SRI field Matured earlier 46 Maturity delayed 4 no difference 50 Experience with SRI if tried raising more corps per year Easy to grow No difference 100
  26. 26. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Cost and benefit in rice production Items Bac Giang Ha Tinh FPAR non-FPAR control FPAR non-FPAR control Input cost Seed (usd/ha) 34±35 30±6 31±6 87±50 64±22 74±31 Total labour (usd/ha) 750±250 955±333 1080±399 1130±260 1220±418 1357±410 Hired labour (usd/ha) 173±106 147±77 191±127 255±70 268±114 241±120 Fertilizer (usd/ha) 235±73 208±89 231±109 192±66 191±72 190±58 Pesticide (usd/ha) 54±74 49±21 69±44 29±19 34±25 65±89 Total input cost (total labour; usd/ha) 1071±282 1240±366 1411±390 1472±299 1480±371 1638±334 Total input cost (only hired labour; usd/ha) 489±138 431±127 522±173 561±86 560±144 616±178 Income Rice yield (ton/ha) 5.0±0.5 4.9±0.6 4.4±0.9 5.7±0.8 5.3±0.7 4.6±1.7 Rice price (usd/ton) 269±16 273±12 267±10 280±16 280±19 276±7.7 Total income (usd/ha) 1412±173 1368±213 1155±229 1583±225 1483±224 1263±457 Net income (total labour) 351±291 128±440 -256±386 197±383 -10.6±529 -266±528 Net income (only hired labour) 959±184 945±270 634±315 1102±179 917±317 816±331
  27. 27. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies FPAR farmers’ perception on impacts of SRI application Items Bac Giang Ha Tinh Increasing knowledge, skills and ability to handle the group as a result of training participation 100 98 Having some extra time from the rice farming 100 % extra time from rice farming Up to 10% 16 to 20 % 3 More than 25 % 98 100 Activities with extra time Agriculture 88 100 Husbandry 18 46 working as labour 0 0 Business/enterprise 3 22 Services 68 78 Leisure or social activities 20 22 Increasing level of collaborative relationships with local government, researchers, extension personnel and markets 98 98 Labour requirement if practicing SRI this season More labour 6 0 Less labour 94 100 % if less labour requirement Up to 10% 16 33 Up to 20% 16 13 Up to 30% 45 38 More than 30% 23 18 % farmers
  28. 28. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Assessment of SRI training course Items Very good Good Average Bac Giang facilitation of the sessions 10 85 5 Rating level of participants 28 70 2 Rating the usefulness of session conducted 18 80 2 timliness of the training 13 69 18 training methodology 15 85 duration of the training 8 77 15 attendance 18 77 5 Rating team work 10 85 5 Ha Tinh facilitation of the sessions 29 71 Rating level of participants 24 71 5 Rating the usefulness of session conducted 54 46 timliness of the training 39 59 2 training methodology 34 66 duration of the training 24 71 5 attendance 34 59 7 Rating team work 29 68 2 % farmers
  29. 29. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Impact of SRI practice in related to gender issues Items % farmers Women farmers adapt new techniques more than men 50 less than men 60 How increase the work load for women more than before 3 no difference from before 14 less than before 83
  30. 30. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Conclusion • Adopted some of SRI practices by FPAR farmers  Young seedlings, less seedlings per hill, and relatively low density (observed more in Bac Giang)  Reduction in using urea (times and amount); increase using NPK and potassium  Concerned about better water management in paddy fields (less water in the field during tillering stage)  Tended to reduce the use of pesticide (at vegetative stage) • Higher profit from rice production in FPAR group  Due to less use of labour and pesticide; and higher yield • Training courses were mainly rated at “very good” or “good” levels  But the training courses were organized at the time later than local rice crop calendar • Challenges for applying SRI practices  Less available manure fertilizer  High risk of pests (golden apple snail, plant hopper)  Difficulty in water management (must follow irrigation schedule at commune/district level)  Unfavorable weather conditions/land location (i.e. low temperature at planting time in spring crop; submergence at low lying fields)
  31. 31. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies Thank you for your attention!

×