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): Regional Trend

241 views

Published on

Dr. Suresh Lokhande presented on 'Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL): Regional Trend' 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): Regional Trend

  1. 1. MEL Learnings – Regional Perspective Suresh Lokhande Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand Regional Review and Planning Worshop, Hanoi, Vietnam, April 25, 2017
  2. 2. Acknowdgement Acknowledgement We would like to thank Dr. Paneerselvam for analysis of data and putting together MEL interim report. We appreciate his efforts.
  3. 3. Background and Data Objective To evaluate and learn about the pattern of regional change in SRI practices adaptation among different groups of farmers due to direct and indirect effects of Farmers’ Participatory Action Research (FPAR)
  4. 4. Background and Data Study Area and Year(s) of Data 10 rainfed and food insecure provinces Thailand: (2014 & 2015) Cambodia: (2014 & 2015) Vietnam: (2015) Laos: (2015)
  5. 5. Background and Data DATA (Respondents) A total of 623 households were interviewed from three groups of farmers across the 10 provinces in four countries. Cambodia:  98households were interviewed  48, 24 and 24 farmers from FPAR, non-FPAR and control groups respectively. Lao PDR:  275 households were interviewed  73, 117 and 85 farmers from FPAR, non-FPAR and control groups respectively. Thailand:  166 households were interviewed,  81 from FPAR, 43 from non-FPAR and 43 from control groups. Vietnam:  84 households were interviewed  42 from FPAR and 21 each from non-FPAR and control groups.
  6. 6. Background and Data Data Variables  General background– Gender, age, Landholding  Cropping practices: Sowing method, seed rate, seedling age, spacing, fertilizer source and use, planting density, weeding method and frequency, method of input use (seed and fertilizer), pesticide and herbicide  Water management  SRI related  Yield and Net returns
  7. 7. Background and Data Groups  FPAR group: Farmer participants of direct intervention of project  Non-FPAR (NFPAR) group: Farmers from same village/neighborhood where FPAR has been conducted but have not attended and followed project’s direct intervention but indirectly influenced by farmers who attended FPAR  Control group: Farmers with similar agro-ecological and socio-economical profile as that of FAPR group but have not been directly or indirectly influenced by project's intervention.
  8. 8. Background and Data SRI for MEL study Crop management practice Conventional practice (CM) SRI-Transition SRI-D Seedbed Wet seedbed with high seed rate Wet seedbed with less seeding rate Dry raised seedbed with less seed rate Seedling age > 30 days old 16-30 days 8-15 days (VT-19-8 d) Seed rate 100-150 kg/ha 20-30% less than CM 5-20 kg/ha Transplanting spacing Random/less than 10×10 cm 10×15 cm–19×19 cm 20x20 cm–30x30 cm Seedlings/hill 5-6 seedlings/hill 4-5 seedlings/hill 1-3 seedlings/hill Soil condition Flooded Relative aerobic soil Maintain aerobic condition Manure application <5 t/ha 6-9 t/ha >9 t/ha Weed management Chemical and manual With rotary hoe 1-2 times With rotary hoe more than 2 times
  9. 9. KEY FINDINGS GENERAL BACKGROUND OF THE RESPONDENTS AND LANDHOLDING
  10. 10. General background of the respondents and land holding Gender distribution and age of the respondents 49 46 49 52 50 48 47 50 48 42 42 43 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control Vietnam Thailand Combodia Laos Male Female Age Regional level: Female - 62% Male – 38% Age – 48 yrs.  More female participation – Step towards women empowerment  We are working with aging farmers
  11. 11. General background of the respondents and landholding Landholding Regional :  Unlike Thailand and Laos, Vietnam has small land holding per household (HH)  Cambodia is well above 1 ha/HH Average regional landholding/HH – 2.1 ha 0.37 0.41 0.38 3.8 3.6 3.56 1.12 1.28 1.23 3.5 3.14 3.1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control Vietnam Thailand Cambodia Laos Area,Ha
  12. 12. Background and Data Percent area under SRI (Cambodia & Thailand) Cambodia Thailand  In Cambodia, the area under SRI in 2015 was increased and male farmers (14%) practiced SRI in more than 50% of rice area though it was higher than female farmers practicing SRI in 2015  In Thailand, there is 11 % increase in SRI area cultivated by Male farmers, whereas, in case of female farmers the increase about 13% from 2014 to 2015 0 10 20 30 Male Female Male Female 2014 2015 14 11 23 24 Percent of SRI area among the gender and over the years
  13. 13. KEY FINDINGS CROPPING PRACTICES
  14. 14. Cropping practices Seedling raising methods in four countries among the groups SRI practice – Dry Seedbed  Cambodia and Laos and Thailand farmers tends wet/flooded seedbed  Vietnam farmers inclined towards seedling trays Dry Seedbed: FPAR- 15% [NFPAR- 29% and Control- 21%] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas %offarms Dry seedbed Wet/flooded seedbed Seedling tray
  15. 15. Cropping practices Seed rate in transplanting among the groups in four countries 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas %offarms < 25 kg/ha 25-50kg 50-100 100-150 >150 SRI practice: <25 kg/ha  Majority of Thailand farmers are using less seed rate compare to Vietnam and Cambodia  Laos FPAR farmers are making difference by going with less than 25 kg/ha seed rate (<25 kg/ha): FPAR- 49% [NFPAR- 28% and Control- 27%]
  16. 16. Cropping practices Seedling age SRI practice: 8-15 days  In general, Vietnam and Laos farmers preferred younger seedlings compare to Cambodia  Thai FPAR farmers are use younger seedlings compare to non-FPAR (with <8-15 days): FPAR: 24% [NFPAR- 20% and Control- 17%] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas %offarms 8 to 15 days 16 to 22 days 23 to 30 day 31 to 40 days >40 days
  17. 17. Cropping practices Spacing 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas %offarms More than 10 x10 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 SRI practice: 20x20 cm to 30x30 cm  At regional level and in all groups 29% farmers use spacing between 20x20 cm to 30x30 cm.  Whereas, 27% farmers planted rice with high plant density (lower than 20x20 cm) (with 20x20 to 30x30 spacing): FPAR: 40% [NFPAR-21% and Control- 25%]
  18. 18. Cropping practices Seedlings per hill 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas %offarms 1 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 >5 SRI practice: 1-3 seedlings/hill  In Vietnam, majority of farmers (FPAR, NFPAR and control) are using 1-3 seedlings/hill  In Cambodia, Thailand and Laos, we have more FPAR farmers using 1-3 seedlings/hill compare to NFAPR and control (1-3 seedlings/hill): FPAR: 45% [NFPAR-18% and Control- 27%]
  19. 19. Background and Data % of FPAR farmers adapting SRI practices Crop management practice Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos Regional Seedbed (Dry seedbed) 2.5 20 - 23 15 Seedling age (8-15 days) 20 3 65 44 24 Seed rate (<25 kg/ha) 40 20 - 88 49 Transplanting spacing (10x10cm to 20x20cm) 22 36 28 75 40 Seedlings/hill (1-3 seedlings/hill) 29 29 53 70 45
  20. 20. Background and Data % of Non-FPAR farmers adapting SRI practices Crop management practice Thailand Cambodia Vietnam Laos Regional Seedbed (Dry seedbed) 19 28 - 30 29 Seedling age (8-15 days) 7 2 - 3 20 Seed rate (<25 kg/ha) 50 20 - 13 27 Transplanting spacing (10x10cm to 20x20cm) 7 25 33 21 21 Seedlings/hill (1-3 seedlings/hill) 5 9 34 22 18
  21. 21. Background and Data Regional Adaption – FPAR and Non-FPAR farmers 15 24 49 40 45 29 20 27 21 18 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Seedbed Seedling age Seed rate Transplanting spacing Seedlings/hill %farms SRI- practices FPAR-Regional Non-FPAR Regional  Regionally we have more adaption reported in seed rate followed by seedlings/hill and transplanting spacing  Adaption of SRI practices by Neighborhood farmers (Non-FPAR) is good sign
  22. 22. Background and Data % Change in SRI practices from 2014 to 2015 (Cambodia & Thailand) 37 10 76 19 27 28 42 22 68 21 49 35 5 12 -8 2 22 7 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Transplanting Direct seeding Broadcasting Young seedling Wider spacing 1-3 seedling/hill Percent change on SRI practices from 2014 to 2015 in FPAR farmers 2014 2015 % change Cambodia Thailand  In Cambodia, there is increase in practicing SRI practices between 2014 & 2015. Single seedling (8%); Dry seedbed (7%); wider spacing (3%)  Similarly in Thailand, 22% increase in practicing wider spacing; 7% in placing 1-3 seedlings/hill
  23. 23. KEY FINDINGS Manure Application, Weed control and Water Management
  24. 24. Manure application Manure application 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas %offarms Yes No with Fertilizer SRI Rec.: > Apply Manure  In Vietnam, very few farmers reported about manure application  In Cambodia, Thailand and Laos, we have more farmers applying manure. YES: FPAR: 39 % [NFPAR- 37% and Control- 31%]
  25. 25. Manure application Amount of organic manure used 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas %offarms Less than 5t/ha 6-10t/ha more than 10t/ha SRI Rec.: >9 t/ha  In Cambodia and Laos, we have more farmer reported less amount of manure application  In Vietnam and Thailand, we have more amount of manure application reported. 6-10 t/ha: FPAR: 17% [NFPAR- 12% and Control- 23%]
  26. 26. Weed control Method of weed control 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas %farms Manual Chemical Both SRI Rec.: Manual (rotary hoe)  Cambodia and Laos are predominantly control weed by manual methods  In Vietnam farmers reported more of chemical control of weed Manual: FPAR: 50% [NFPAR- 40% and Control- 34%]
  27. 27. Weed control Number of weeding 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas % 1 time 2 times 3 times >3 times  In general at regional level, 46 % FPAR farmers reported 1 time weeding whereas, and 25% FPAR farmers reported 2 times weeding  In Vietnam, farmers predominantly reported 1 time weeding because of chemical control
  28. 28. Water management Water management at different crop stages 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control FPAR NFPAR Control Vietnam Thailand Combodia Loas %farms Intermittent wetting and drying Kept wet for most of the vegetative phase Kept standing water for most of the vegetative phase Kept standing water for most of the vegetative period but water level was less compared to previous season Completely dependent on rainfall so do not care about paddy field/soil condition  It is crucial to maintain aerobic conditions during vegetative phase  In general at regional level, 23 % FPAR farmers reported keeping soil wet during vegetative phase, whereas, about 28% FPAR farmers reported intermittent wetting and drying
  29. 29. Adoption Rate and Performance index Adoption rate: Adoption rate is the number of farmers adopting the new practices divided by total number of farmers and multiplied with 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2014 2015 Adoption rate Cambodia Thailand Performance index: is the yield from the adopting new practices (SRI) divided by yield from both adopting new practices and conventional practices (N-SRI and SRI) 24%
  30. 30. KEY FINDINGS YIELD AND COST BENIFITS
  31. 31. Yield, cost and benefits Yield (t/ha) 30 8 17 4 49 14 118 32 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 FPAR NFAPR FPAR NFAPR FPAR NFAPR FPAR NFAPR Vietnam Thailand Cambodia Laos Percentchangeinriceyieldw.r.t.controlgroup Percent change in rice yield (FPAR & NFPAR) w.r.t. control group
  32. 32. Yield, cost and benefits Net Return (US$/ha) 433 37 107 25 143 26 43 24 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 FPAR NFAPR FPAR NFAPR FPAR NFAPR FPAR NFAPR Vietnam Thailand Cambodia Laos Percentchangeinnetreturnw.r.t.controlgroup Percent change in net return (FPAR & NFPAR) w.r.t. control group
  33. 33. Rice Sufficiency Rice Sufficiency 3 9 7 4 1 5 6 6 3 6 5 2 9 5 88 81 92 79 86 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos Regional % Household rice sufficiency 6 months 8 months 10 months 12 months
  34. 34. Feedback from farmers Reasons for practicing SRI 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Cambodia Thailand Vietnam Laos Less seed requirement Less water requirement Higher Yield More drought resistant Less lodging Looks more vigorous Less pest and disease  62% Higher yield  60% Less seed requirement  54% Less water requirement 63 83 5960 52 45 57 100 18 45 83 45
  35. 35. Key conclusions Highlights/Learnings  There is evident that women’s participation (62% regionally) is higher than male (38%) which is evident of exploration of decision making and women empowerment  At regional level, FPAR famers are adapting SRI practices Seed rate (49%) > seedlings/hill (45%) > spacing (40%) > seedling age (20%)  At regional level, Non-FPAR famers are adapting SRI practices Dry seedbed (29%) > Seed rate (27%) > seedling age (24%) > spacing (21%)  37% FPAR farmers are applying manure which is good indicator for soil health in long term  Weed management was carried out manually (50% FPAR farmers at regional level) reported by farmers is tending towards less use of herbicide
  36. 36. Key conclusions Highlights/Learnings  There is substantial increase in reported rice yield and net income in FPAR compare to Non-FPAR farmers field.  Farmers are practicing SRI to achieve higher yield, less amount of seed requirement and less requirement of water
  37. 37. Thank you. Questions/comments

×