Dr. Nguyen Yen Thi Bich presented on 'Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) in Vietnam' at Regional Review and Planning Workshop 2017, Hanoi, Vietnam

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Center for Agricultural Researches and Ecological Studies
Thank you for your attention!