Performance of the “Three Reductions, Three Gains” Program in the Context of Sustainable

Agricultural Development in Vietnam

ByTran Che Linh

 

Thesis Defense 

Examination Committee: Prof. Gopal B. Thapa (Chair-person) Dr. Soparth Pongquan (Member)

Prof. Ganesh P. Shivakoti (Member)

Asian Institute of Technology, ThailandSchool of Environment, Resources and Development

May, 2011 1

Background of the study

2001: Implementation 2004: A national agricultural program Around 90% of farmers’ participatory.

2

Using chemical fertilizers with quantities further than paddy needs Farmers rely on chemical fertilizers and plant protection chemicals Overuse input materials the increase of input costs

+ “Three Reductions” (3R): The reductions of seed ratesseed rates, fertilizer amountfertilizer amount, and frequency of pesticide sprayed.frequency of pesticide sprayed.+ “Three Gains” (3R): The gains of net- farm profitof net- farm profit, farmers’ health farmers’ health and soil qualitysoil quality

3R 3G3G

Statement problem

Objectives of the study: General objective: Analysis of the performance of the 3R3G program

3

#1 #1 To find out changes find out changes in the use of seed, fertilizer, and pesticide after farmers’ participation in the “3R3G” Program

#2 #2 To analyze factors influencing analyze factors influencing the use of seed, fertilizer, and pesticide

#3 #3 To find out the effects of the “3R3G” program find out the effects of the “3R3G” program on net farm-income, farmers’ health and soil quality

#4 #4 To suggest measures conducive improve measures conducive improve the effectiveness of the “3R3G” Program.

MethodologySelection of the study area

4

Chau Phu District

(The study area)

A map of An Giang Province A map of Vietnam

Dong Thap Province

Dong Thap Province

Can Tho Province

Kien Giang Province

12 communes in Chau Phu district selection of My Duc and Binh Long commune as a study area (due to highest % of farmers’ participation in the program).

Type of Research:Evaluation type: To compareTo compare The changes (before and after), The difference (recommended and actual)

Explanatory type: To find out fTo find out factors influencing

Data Analysis

5

T-test: testing the different changes before and after

The multiple regression analysis

Converted into dummy variables.

Multi-collinearity of independent variables found (with high collinearity (r > 0.70) (r > 0.70) excluded)

Independent variables with low degree of correlation each other were included in model

6

Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARD)

Sub Department of Plant Protection

Extension Center

Plant Protection Stations

Extension Stations

1 Agricultural Technician per commune

1 Agricultural Technician per commune

1 Farmer Associationper village

Province

District

12 Communes

7 Village

DemonstrationsFarmer Models

-Visiting field-Training farmers

Providing fund and technical equipments

Figure Institutional Arrangements for Implementation of the “3R3G” Program

Mechanism for the 3R3G program implementation

7

Process and method of program promotion

Awareness Creation-Application of media campaign method (Slogans, fosters, billboards, leaflets, radio broadcast)-Program supplement + “Killing Yellow Snails, and Rat”+ Line Seedling Drum (LSD) project+ “4 correct disciplines” + IPM

Knowledge and Skills TransferTraining courses (how to apply the 3R3G guideline, LSDs, seed treatment), Demonstrations, Field workshops.

Monitoring and Technical AssistanceDaily visiting the 3R3G field report

Findings of the thesisThrre Reductions: Seeds, Fertilizers, and Pesticides

1/ Seed1/ SeedThe change in the amount of seeds usedThe change in the amount of seeds used

8

Farmer Type

Before AfterChang

e

%change

s

T-Test (B&A)Mean

Std. Deviation

MeanStd.

Deviation

Small (n=48)

22.7 3.1 14.2 1.3 -8.5 -37.5 .000**

Large (n=44)

22.6 3.2 13.5 1.4 -9.1 -40.2 .000**

Average

22.65 3.15 13.85 1.35 -8.8 -38.8 .000**

T-Value .225 2.345Sig. .822 .021Source: Field Survey, 2010,Note: *Significant at 95% confident level; ** Significant at 99% confident levelFarmer types: Small farmers : <= 2.5 hectare, large farmers: > 2.5 hectares .

Table: Use of seed by type of farmers (kg/ 1000 m2)

Use of seeds as compared to the recommended amountUse of seeds as compared to the recommended amountTable: Recommended and actual amounts of seed applied by farmer

type

9

Farmer type

Recommended amount

Actual amount Difference (%)

WS-season

SA-season

WS-season

SA-season

WS-season

SA-season

Small 7 – 10 10 - 12 13.8 14.6 38.0 21.6

Large 7 – 10 10 – 12 13.2 13.9 32.0 15.8

Source: Filed survey, 2010 Note: WS: Winter_Spring, SA: Summer_AutumnThe difference was calculated based on upper limit of the recommended amount

14 Independent variables were initially selected 8 independent variables (X1, X2, X3, X4, X6, X9, X12 and X13)

with high collinearity (r > 0.70) and insignificant with dependent variable were excluded. 6 independent variables (X5, X7, X8, X10, X11 and X14) were included in the model.

10

Factors influencing the use of seed (Cont…) Factors influencing the use of seed (Cont…)

Mode R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate1 .872a .760 .757 .6832 .899b .808 .804 .6143 .908c .824 .818 .590a. Predictors: (Constant), Duration of experience (X5)b. Predictors: (Constant), Duration of experience (X5), Certified Seed (X7)c. Predictors: (Constant), Duration of experience (X5), Certified Seed (X7), Seed treatment (X10)

Table: Summary of the model

The first variable has the most explanatory power among these three variables. The F ratio of explanatory variables in the final model was found significant at 99% confidence level (p<0.01), the model were correct

11

Factors influencing the use of seed (Cont…) Factors influencing the use of seed (Cont…)

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta(Constant) 17.298 .187 92.675 .000Duration of experience -.318 .070 -.421 -4.536 .000Certified Seed -1.233 .252 -.437 -4.886 .000Seed treatment -.430 .150 -.148 -2.873 .005

a. Dependent Variable: Seed Amount

Table: Coefficients of independent variables included in the regression model# 3

-The duration of experience in 3R3G agriculture negatively influencing the amount of seed used. It decreased by about 0.42 unit with increase in the experience by one unit. -Two other variables negatively influenced the amount of seed used. -The use of seed decreased by 0.44 and 0.15 unit, respectively with the increase in use of these practices by one unit.

12

2/ Fertilizer2/ FertilizerThe change in the amount of fertilizers used The change in the amount of fertilizers used

FarmerType

Before AfterChang

e

%Chang

e

T-Test(B&A)Mean Std.

Deviation Mean Std.Deviation

Small 43.1 7.5 35.2 5.8 -7.9 -18.3 .000Large 47.0 10.3 34.6 7.4 -12.4 -26.4 .000Average 45.05 8.9 34.90 6.6 -10.1 -22.5 .000T-Value -2.0 .496Sig .043 .621

Table: Use of fertilizers by type of farmers

( kg/1000 m2)

13

Use of fertilizers as compared to the commended Use of fertilizers as compared to the commended amount amount

( kg/1000 m2)

Table: Recommended and actual amount of fertilizer applied by farmer types

Farmer type

Fertilizer

Recommended amount

Actual amount Difference (%)

WSSeason

SASeason

WSSeason

SASeason

WSSeason

SASeason

Small Nitrogen 12.0 10.0 14.0 12.9 +16.67 +29.00Phosphorus 3.0 3.0 10.3 10.3 +243.33 +243.33Potassium 3.0 5.0 6.2 7.5 +106.67 +50.00

Large Nitrogen 12.0 10.0 13.5 12.6 +12.50 +26.00Phosphorus 3.0 3.0 10.1 10.1 +236.67 +236.67Potassium 3.0 5.0 6.2 7.4 +106.67 +48.00

Source: Filed survey 2010Note: WS: Winter-Spring; SA: Summer Autumn-Season

13 Independent variables were initially selected 9 independent variables (X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X9, X10 and

X11) with high collinearity (r > 0.70) and insignificant with dependent variable were excluded. 4 independent variables (X7, X8, X12, and X13 ) were included in the model.

14

Table: Summary of the model

Factors influencing the use of fertilizersFactors influencing the use of fertilizers

Mode R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate1 .894a .800 .798 2.989172 .912b .832 .828 2.75620a. Predictors: (Constant), Soil quality (X12)b. Predictors: (Constant), Soil quality, Followed fertilizer guideline (X13)

15

Factors influencing the use of fertilizers (Cont…) Factors influencing the use of fertilizers (Cont…)

Table: Coefficients of independent variables included in the regression model# 2

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta(Constant) 51.080 .895 57.061 .000Soil quality -19.452 1.686 -.714 -11.539 .000Followed fertilizer guideline -3.658 .898 -.254 -4.106 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Fertilizer Amount after farmers’ participation in the program

-The perception of soil quality negatively influencing the amount of fertilizers used The amount of fertilizers applied decreased by about 0.71 unit with increase in the perception of soil quality by one unit. -Another variable negatively influenced the amount of fertilizers applied. The use of fertilizers decreased by 0.25 unit, with the increase in farmers’ following the 3R3G guidelines by one unit.

3/ Application of pesticides3/ Application of pesticides

16

Table: The pesticide application by type of farmers

(Frequency per Season)

Farmer type

Before After

Change%

changes

T-Test

(B&A)MeanStd.

DeviationMean

Std.

DeviationSmallLarge

5.4 1.0 2.8 1.1 -2.6 -48.1 .0005.6 1.0 2.3 1.2 -3.3 -58.9 .000

Average 5.50 1.00 2.55 1.15 -2.9 -53.6 .000T-Value between group

-1.113 2.264

Sig. .269 .026

17

Table 6.12 Compliance with the recommended frequency of pesticides used by type of farmers that pesticides should not be used before the first 40 days after sowing seed

Use of pesticides as compared to the recommended Use of pesticides as compared to the recommended applicationapplication

Farmer type

No application of pesticide before the first 40 days after sowing

f(%)

Small 29 60.4Large 30 68.2Source: Field Survey, 2010

18

16 Independent variables were initially selected 16 Independent variables were initially selected 9 independent variables (X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X13, X14

and X15) with high collinearity (r > 0.70) and insignificant with dependent variable were excluded. 7 independent variables (X7, X8, X9, X10, X11, X12 and X16 ) were included in the model.

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate1 .920a .847 .845 .456682 .943b .889 .887 .390833 .947c .896 .893 .38053a. Predictors: (Constant), Seed amount(X7)b. Predictors: (Constant), Seed amount(X7), Certified seed (X9)c. Predictors: (Constant), Seed amount, Certified seed , Seed treatment (X10)

Table 6.14 Model summary

6.9 Factors influencing the application of pesticides (Cont…) 6.9 Factors influencing the application of pesticides (Cont…)

19

Table: Coefficients of independent variables included in the regression model# 3

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta(Constant) -1.682 1.080 -1.557 .123Seed amount .419 .062 .500 6.775 .000Certified quality -1.004 .162 -.424 -6.178 .000Seed treatment -.244 .100 -.100 -2.426 .017a. Dependent Variable: Frequency of Pesticides sprayed

Factors influencing the application of pesticides (Cont…) Factors influencing the application of pesticides (Cont…)

Seed amount used (positively influencing) . The frequency of pesticides sprayed increased by about 0.50 unit with increase in the amount of seed used by one unit. Two other variables negatively influenced . In the case of use of certified seed and seed treatment, the frequency decreased by 0.42 and 0.10 unit, respectively with the increase in use of these practices by one unit.

Three Gains: Income, Health, and Soil Condition

1/ The gain in income1/ The gain in income

20

Data information computed was a mean index (number) of ten case studies of the 3R3G farmers deeply interviewed (a method for computing the mean index was explained in chapter 3, part of qualitative data analysis).

Mean holding size of small farmers = 1.3 hectaresMean holding size of large farmers = 2.74 hectares

(Average holding size of both small and large farmers = 2.02)

Small farmers <=2 hectaresLarge farmers >2 hectares

Table: Benefits and costs before and after participation in the 3R3G program

21

ItemsSmall farmers(n=5) <=2 ha

Large farmers(n=5) >2 ha

Change %change Change %change1/Land preparation by tractors 96.1 8.2 -8.7 -0.82/Seed amount2/Seed amount -307.3-307.3 -20.0-20.0 -285.4-285.4 -19.1-19.13/Fertilizers amount3/Fertilizers amount -1-1,,024024 -22.9-22.9 -1-1,,019019 -23.7-23.74/Leaf-Fertilizer-Spraying -7.5 -7.4 -16.4 -15.45/Pesticides5/Pesticides -1-1,,060688 -38.7-38.7 -1-1,,051051 -41.3-41.36/Water -183.9 -14.5 -200 -15.47/Labor -70 -7.2 -63.5 -6.48/Harvest -656.2 -15.6 -624.4 -15.39/ Other costs -46.1 -4.6 -52.5 -5.3a.Total cost -3267 -18.7 -3,321 -19.6Crop-productivity (Ton/ha) 0.2 3.4 0.2 3.4Yield (ton) 200 3.4 200 3.4Price (Million VN Dongs) 0.1 2.0 0.1 2.0b. Gross income 1,600 5.5 1,600 5.5c. Net-Income per ha (c-a) 4,866.8 42.3 4,921.1 40.8d.Profit/unit of investment (c/a) 0.49 75.0 0.54 75.2

(Cost and Income Million VN Dongs per hectare)

2/ The gain in Health2/ The gain in Health

22

Table: Index of farmers’ health

Health problem

Small (n=48) Large (n=44)Before After % change Before After % change

Eye irritation 0.45* 0.13* -71.1 0.42* 0.17* -59.5Skin irritation 0.73** 0.16** -78.1 0.69* 0.13** -81.2Respiration 0.44* 0.09* -79.5 0.38* 0.07* -81.6Headache 0.42* 0.09* -78.6 0.42* 0.06* -85.7Dizziness 0.41* 0.11* -73.2 0.42* 0.09* -78.6Fatigue 0.43* 0.08* -81.4 0.37* 0.07* -81.1

*t significant at 0.05/0.01 confident level The higher the index value, the more severe the health problem

3/ Gain in soil condition3/ Gain in soil condition

23

Farmers’ perception of soil quality

Table: Index of soil quality participation in the 3R3G program

Farmer type Index of Soil qualitySmall (n=48) .655Large (n=44) .647T Value .034Sig. .855

Source: Field Survey, 2010

Index: 0.00 = Not improvement; 0.33= little improvement; 0.66 = Moderate improvement; 1.00 = Significant improvement; The higher the index value, the higher the improvement

24

3/ Gain in soil condition (Cont…)3/ Gain in soil condition (Cont…)

Crop yieldTable: Crop yield before and after participation in the program

Farmer type

Before After

Changes%

changes

T-Test(B&A)Mean

Std. Deviation

MeanStd.

Deviation

Small 6.2 0.45 6.6 0.44 +0.4 +6.45 .000Large 6.1 0.48 6.5 0.40 +0.4 +6.55 .000Average 6.15 0.46 6.55 0.42 +0.4 +6.50 .000T-Value between group

.812 .374

Sig. .419 .709

(Ton/ha)

Source: Field Survey, 2010

Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation

25

Input/output components

Summary of +/- % changes

after farmers’ participation in the 3R3G program

Small farmers Large farmersSeed amount used -- - - - - Fertilizer amount used -- - -- -Frequency of pesticides sprayed -- - - - - Input costs -- - - - - Net income ++ ++++Profit per unit investment ++ ++Crop yield ++ + +

Table : Summary of changes after farmers’ participation in the 3R3G program

Source: Analysis results from previous chapters of the study NB: +/- Increased/decreased

++/-- Relatively more increased/decreased

26

Seed reduction

Fertilizer reduction

Pesticide sprayed

reduction

Net farm Income

Soil condition

Farmers' health

Sustainable agricultural development

Duration of experienceCertified seedCertified seedSeed treatmentSeed treatment

Soil qualityFollowed fertilizer guideline

Seed amount usedCertified seedCertified seedSeed treatmentSeed treatment

ConclusionConclusion

RecommendationsRecommendations

Encourage all of farmers using certified seeds, and applying line seedling drum for sowing seeds in practice the 3R3G farm

Providing with sufficient certified seed amount directly at farmers’ area

Training farmers on seed treatment or encourage farmers to use treated seeds.

Mobilizing and inviting groups of agricultural hired labors, small farmers and female farmers attending the 3R3G training courses

27

28

3R3R

3G3G

3R3R

Thank you very much!

29