|
Home
News
Methodology
Advantages
Origins
Countries
Research
Articles
Extension
Info
CIIFAD
Report
Proceedings
Discussions
|
 |
Vietnam
Report *
Background
on Vietnam Report: Dr Whitten (MJW) visited Vietnam between
1-6 April to attend the Bi-annual IPM Planning Meeting of the
FAO Intercountry Program for Vegetable IPM on 1-2 April; to
visit SRI field activities in Hoa Binh and Hanoi provinces, and
to talk to staff of the National IPM Program about SRI activities
to date and those planned. He was joined by Mr Harry van der Wulp
(AGPP/FAO-HQ) at the workshop and the field visits. His comments
on SRI in Vietnam are based on the field visits (2004 spring season)
to Hanoi and Hoa Binh provinces, written reports on SRI activities
in three provinces (Hanoi, Hoa Binh and Thai Binh) for 2003 spring
(January-May) and summer (June-September) seasons. His comments
are also based on discussions with Mr Ng Quang Minh, DG of the Plant
Protection Department (PPD); Mr Dam Quoc Thu, Deputy DG of PPD;
Mr Dung, the National IPM coordinator; and Mr Le Tien Binh, IPM
coordinator, PPD; Dr Le Thi Thu Hoang, FAO National IPM Expert;
and Dr Elske van de Fliert, FAO Vegetable IPM Programme Development
Officer....
Section
5.2 Vietnam
Norman Uphoff first discussed SRI concepts with Elske van de Fliert,
FAOs Vegetable IPM Programme Development Officer in Vietnam, during
an UPWARD Conference in Beijing in September 2000. Elske agreed
to explore possibilities for assessing SRI within a UNDP project
in northern Vietnam. Separately, NU supplied literature on SRI to
Mr Bong, Vice-Minister for Agriculture, at Mr Bong's request in
2002. This followed a briefing for the Minister from Howie Bouis
of IFPR. Bouis had previously been briefed by NU during the International
Rice Conference in Beijing, September 2002 (this information was
provided by Norman Uphoff to MJW via email).
Mr Ngo Tien
Dung, the National IPM Coordinator in the Dept of Plant Protection,
first discussed SRI concepts with the National IPM trainers in 2002
following a series of discussions with Mr Jan Willem Ketelaar. These,
in turn, were triggered by the Lao-IRRI workshop on SRI in Vientianne,
Laos in April 2002. Mr Dung then coordinated SRI activities in Farmer
Clubs at 20 sites over three Provinces (Hanoi, Hoa Binh, and Thai
Binh) conducting SRI trials in the 2003 spring (January-May) and
summer (June-October) seasons.
Further trials
were conducted during the 2004 spring season in four provinces (Hanoi,
Hoa Binh, Thai Binh and Quang Nam. Sample reports on SRI trials
for spring and summer 2003 seasons for the provinces ofr Hanoi,
Hoa Binh and Thai Binh can be obtained from the FAO IPM office in
Bangkok (Vegetable-IPM@fao.org)).
Additional reports are available but these have not been translated
from Vietnamese into English. The three provincial reports are sufficient
to indicate the approach being used by farmer clubs to assess the
possible benefits from SRI under Vietnamese conditions.
In the three
provinces (Hanoi, Hoa Binh and Quang Nam), BUCAP (Biodiversity Use
and Conservation Asia Program - an activity financed by the Norwegian
Development Fund) funded one SRI site, while local funds were used
for a further three sites in these three provinces. DANIDA funded
four sites in Thai Binh province. During the 2004 summer season
it is expected that around 80 Farmer Clubs will conduct SRI trials
in Hoa Binh province. While external funds are greatly appreciated
by the Vietnamese Government, national and local funds invariably
underpin the bulk of farmer empowerment activities. This pattern
reflects the Government's strong and continuing commitment to activities
with enhance sustainable production by small scale farmers in Vietnam.
All SRI activities
in Vietnam to date have been coordinated by PPD under the supervision
of Mr Dung, and facilitated by IPM trainers from the PP sub-departments.
It is expected that this will be the principal mechanism whereby
SRI concepts are evaluated in Vietnam and adapted to local conditions.
Where current practices are improved as a result of farmer-led field
SRI studies these will be disseminated via the strong national IPM
trainer network, either into Farmer Club activities or incorporated
into the curricula for FFSs for new IPM recruits.
During this
mission, MJW visited SRI field sites on two occasions. Saturday,
April 3, a field visit was made with Harry van der Wulp (FAO, Rome)
to Hop Thanh commune, Ky Son District, Hoa Binh province where Farmer
Club activities, including SRI trials, were conducted by a Muong
tribal group. (The principal SRI sites in Hoa Binh could not be
reached because rain made the roads impassable). On Monday, MJW
visited Xoun Non commune, Dong Anh district, Hanoi province, with
IPM trainer for Hanoi PP subdepartment, Mr Hong Anh.
From a plant
production and protection perspective, the important conclusions
from farmer-conducted SRI trials to date include:
- Farmers have
shown that transplanting younger seedlings, more quickly with
less root disturbance, with greater spacings, leads to greater
tiller production, more grains per tiller and higher yield (per
100 m2 plot size
- Farmers have shown that transplanting younger seedlings, more
quickly with less root disturbance, with greater spacings, leads
to greater tiller production, more grains per tiller and higher
yield (per 100 m2 plot size)
- Later sowings are compensated by more rapidly growing plants,
so that harvest is not delayed
- Pest and disease incidence and severity are less, especially
root disease in the spring season crop
- Increased weed problems in those areas - but only in areas where
weeds are present
- Farmers respond quickly to the obvious advantages of sowing
less seed, and reduced labor during transplanting
- Water management was a problem but the farmers felt this was
a transition problem. Once farmers in an area see the benefits
of a new irrigation regime, they will be better placed to manage
their pattern of water usage. Already, the 2004 spring season
trials were arranged so that irrigation could be more easily managed.
From an extension/training perspective, the results to date clearly
demonstrate the benefits of farmers as experts; farmers who are capable
of understanding new ideas, and who are committed to exploring new
ways for growing a healthy crop more sustainably and more profitably.
The Vietnamese farmers were not driven by any particular ideology;
nor was there any obvious institutional demarcation issues that would
distract from sensible, objective, robust and rapid assessment of
the counter-intuitive ideas posed by SRI practices.
Just as the
FFS program in Vietnam spread rapidly between 1992 and 2001 such
that 84% of the communes in Vietnam had had at least one FFS by
2001, equally we can expect to see the impact of SRI ideas spreading
throughout Vietnam in the coming years. It is likely that SRI in
Vietnam will not take the form of some stand alone philosophy but,
instead, be appropriated by IPM farmers with facilitation by IPM
trainers, and integrated with other approaches to IPM/IPPM/INM/ICM.
During the 2003
spring season, the estimated number of FFSs on rice and vegetables
in Vietnam was around 2,000. Mr Dung indicated that any improvements
in rice production emerging from the SRI-driven activities would
quickly find their way into the curricula of the ongoing FFS program
which was essentially funded by the national government and local
funds - not external aid programs.
Mr Dung indicated
that the SRI-inspired farmer field studies during the 2004 summer
season would include two provinces from the south - Can Tho and
Soc Trang. Financial support for these southern activities will
come from DANIDA. Trainers from these southern provinces would discuss
the outcome of the SRI trials that have been conducted to date in
the north, especially with trainers from Hoa Binh and Ha Noi provinces.
SRI trials during
the 2004 summer season will engage some 80 Farmer Clubs in Hoa Binh
alone. Water management will be a major theme of the farmer club
activities in Hoa Binh during the 2004 summer season.
Clearly, it
will be important for FAO to follow up on the outcome of the projected
SRI activities for the 2004 summer season to determine the impact
that SRI concepts are having on how small scale rice farmers grow
their crops. What are the economic benefits of reducing seed from
3 kg/sao to 0.3 kg/sao with seed costing 4,000 dong/kg? What changes
to labor is required to manage crops and what are the social and
economic implications of these? What are the impacts, at local level,
of transplanting younger seedlings more widely spaced, on pest,
weed and disease management? What is the response with traditional
and improved varieties to increased fertilizer levels proposed (from
100-200 kg chicken manure with farmer practice to 300 kg/sao with
SRI)? Is this organic fertilizer available? Vietnamese farmers are
not so concerned about the ideology of organic versus mineral fertilizers
but they are concerned about the availability, logistics and economics
of a system that responds well to increased fertilizers.
Vietnamese IPM
farmers have shown the capacity to assess impact of planting younger
seedlings, more widely spaced and with less root damage, on disease
(e.g., reduced root death in seedlings in spring crops in the north),
on weed problems (which vary significantly from place to place)
and on insect herbivores. The farmers are prepared to experiment
with water management and manipulate very long standing traditional
patterns; and they are able to do so on an area wide basis which
will be necessary if significant changes to water management are
warranted.
The fact that
Vietnamese farmers and trainers are prepared to experiment with
novel growing options and also prepared to change traditional ways
where the evidence warrants this response, is a tribute to the National
IPM program and demonstrates the importance of farmers being experts
at growing their own crops. It also challenges the notion that the
preferred way to make life better for small-scale farmers is the
promotion of simple messages via the mass media, as advocated by
some researchers in IRRI.
The final results
for the 2004 spring season, and especially the 2004 summer season,
will give a surer indication as to the relevance of SRI concepts
for rice farmers in Vietnam. The capability and capacity exists
in Vietnam with the expertise and experience, in participatory learning
skills, in the PPD and the PP sub-departments at provincial level.
This complements the large number of farmer-trainers to assess,
adapt and adopt any good ideas contained within SRI thinking.
As with the
FFS IPM-driven program, Vietnam is sufficiently committed to farmer
empowerment that it will devote national funds to secure a positive
outcome from SRI studies. However, the journey will be quicker and
surer if additional external support is provided. Hence an excellent
case exists for FAO to secure funding for SRI-based activities in
Vietnam. These could be managed though the FAO Intercountry Program
on Vegetable IPM in S and SE Asia and allocated to the PPD for disbursement
to participating Farmer Clubs and the relevant PP sub-departments.
The one weakness
in Vietnam is the apparent absence of a strong linkage between the
countrys research community and the extension/farming community.
SRI, like IPM in the early 1990s, does raise many questions where
research input should prove valuable. SRI, like IPM, challenges
the "current wisdom" in many areas of plant production
and protection. These developments present good opportunities for
closer collaboration between farmers, trainers and researchers.
It would be
unfortunate if the rice research institutes in Vietnam adopt the
negative and polarized attitude towards SRI shown by some researchers
from the international research institutes (see the NATURE article,
March 25, 2004, referred to earlier). Perhaps collaboration between
farmers, trainers and the Food Crops Research Institute, located
some 60km from Hanoi in the middle of rice fields, and with a tradition
of farmer-orientation, might be encouraged to explore SRI concepts.
* abstracted from a separate
report by Norman Uphoff.
|