Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RksYge
sdækic© nig h
irBaØvtßú
* *
08 Fall
KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA
Ministry of Economy and Finance
Wet Season 2013
An Assessment of Seeds and Fertilizers Distribution
November 2014
#17, St 75, Corner St 90, SangkatWat Phnom, Khan Daun Penh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Tel: (855) 23 430 716, Fax: (855) 23 430 719, Website: www.efap.org.kh
Emergency Food Assistance Project- Additional Financing
Grant: 0302-CAM (EF)
Wet Season 2010
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Central Project Management Unit (CPMU) would like to thank all the Provincial Project Management Unit (PPMU) staffs from Banteay Meanchey, Otdar Meanchey, Siem Reap, Preah Vihear, Kampong Thom, Kampong Cham, Prey Veng, Svay Rieng, Kampong Speu and Takeo who conducted the household interviews, entered the gathered data, and on occasion had to give up their weekends to complete this assignment.
Special thanks goes to the project beneficiaries and local authorities from the project target communes in these provinces who gave their time to help the team understand how and in what way the distribution of inputs had helped them. Without their participation and interest, this study would have been impossible and meaningless.
ii
Abbreviations
ADB Asian Development Bank
BMC Banteay Meanchey Province
CPMU Central Project Management Unit
EFAP Emergency Food Assistance Project
EFAP-AF Emergency Food Assistance Project-Additional Financing
GDA General Directorate of Agriculture
KPC Kampong Cham Province
KPS Kampong Speu Province
KPT Kampong Thom Province
HH Household
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
OMC Otdar Meanchey Province
PPMU Provincial Project Management Unit
PVH Preah Vihear Province
PVG Prey Veng Province
RGC Royal Government of Cambodia
SRP Siem Reap Province
SVR Svay Rieng Province
TAK Takeo Province
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………...…………………i
Abbreviation ……………………………………………………..…………………………… ii
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... iv
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
II. Project Description .......................................................................................... 1
III. Survey Methods ............................................................................................... 2
1. Objective and Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 2 2. Sampling ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 3. Survey Limitation ............................................................................................................................................ 3
IV. Survey Findings ............................................................................................... 3
1. Household Composition .............................................................................................................................. 3 2. Rice Seed........................................................................................................................................................... 4 3. Fertilizers ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 4. Rice Yield ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 5. Vegetable Production ................................................................................................................................ 17 6. Capacity Development ............................................................................................................................. 18 7. Food Security ................................................................................................................................................ 21 8. Comments and suggestions of respondents ................................................................................. 22
V. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 22
iv
Executive Summary
Introduction
The Emergency Food Assistance Project-Additional Financing (EFAP-AF) successfully completed the distribution of subsidized rice seeds and fertilizers for wet season 2013 in ten target provinces (Banteay Meanchey, Otdar Meanchey, Siem Reap, Preah Vihear, Kampong Thom, Kampong Cham, Prey Veng, Svay Rieng, Kampong Speu and Takeo). In order to assess the extent to which these inputs support and training has resulted in increase in productivity and improving welfare of the beneficiaries, an assessment was planned and conducted. This assessment was designed to generate reliable data to enable the Project to examine the effectiveness of its inputs support activities.
Project Description
The intended impact of the Project is reduced vulnerability of food-insecure households in the target provinces and the intended outcome is improved access to sufficient and nutritious food by food insecure households. The expected outputs of the Project are to (i) increased availability and awareness of nutritious food and hygiene among the food-insecure households; (ii) increased access to improved agricultural inputs and technologies among food-insecure farmers and women; (iii) improved capacity to mainstream food security; and (iv) effective project implementation and management.
This assessment is concerned only with aspects of (i) and (ii) above, relating only to the 2013 wet season rice seeds and fertilizers subsidized sale and related training support meant to stimulate productivity of targeted farmers. Beneficiaries agreeing to purchase the subsidized inputs from the Project were pre-identified through Open Village Meetings.
Survey Methods
The basic approach was to collect information related to crop production from target households cultivating plots using Project inputs as well as plots where Project inputs were mostly not used, thus providing a basis for comparing ‘EFAP plots’ with ‘non-EFAP plots’ to determine impact. In addition, basic yield data available from before the Project also enabled using the ‘before-after’ approach to look at impact. Thus, combining the two types of data (‘before-after’ and ‘with-without’) it was possible to arrive at an estimated net impact of the Project.
A two-stage sampling procedure was adopted with 41% communes selected at the first stage based on probability proportional to size (PPS). At the second stage, a 15% households were selected randomly from the selected communes, except for communes with relatively fewer households. Total sample size taken was 1,440 households, which may be considered to be representative of the Project, of each province, and possibly even of each commune.
v
Survey Findings
Rice Seeds
The Department of Rice Crop, GDA provided graded rice seed of IR66 and Cholsa to support the demand of the project. The demand for rice seed was found to be high with around 93% of households buying the seeds. Around 62 % of households reported cultivating plots with non-project seeds(traditional/ high yielding/ high value rice seedvarieties). The seed rate (kg/ha) was similar for both project and non-project plots, and close to the official standard recommendation of the MAFF (i.e. around 105 kg vs recommended amount of 100 kg per ha).
The quality of the project-supplied rice seed was well-liked with 61.8% of the respondents rated it as excellent and 34.4% rated it as good. This compares with 32% respondents who rated non-project seeds as excellent and 58% who rated it as good, indicating that project-supplied rice seeds were of superior quality.
Planting Techniques
The Project, through the training of farmers and extension services, provided both transplanting and broadcasting techniques. It is noticed that, most (72.6 %) of respondents were found to practice broadcasting as against 27.4 % who chose transplanting when cultivating project-plots. However, for farmers using non-project seeds, the incidence of broadcasting was lower, with a figure of 42.2 %. The discrepancy between project and non-project plots in terms of planting technique is very likely due to the varietal differences, increment of yield and labor cost. Another factor could be the preference of farmers in different geographical areas in term of planting techniques.
Fertilizers
Among those who purchased rice seed, 96.7 % had also bought subsidized fertilizer from the project. A high percentage of beneficiaries from most provinces purchased subsidized fertilizers, except in PVH where only 39 % of respondents bought project-supplied fertilizers. The average quantity of DAP and Urea bought per household was 56 Kg and 87 Kg respectively. On average 68.4% respondents applied fertilizer in project plots while 54.3% respondents did so in non-project plots.
The number of respondents reporting application of DAP and Urea on project plots was significantly higher compared to non-project plots. The percentage of respondents who applied DAP and Urea in project plots were similar i.e. 68.4%, while for non-project plots, this was 51.2% and 52.3%, respectively.
In terms of quantity, average amount of DAP and Urea used in project-plots were 109 Kg and 157 Kg per hectare, respectively. On the other hand, the corresponding quantities for non-project plots were 76 Kg and 103 Kg per hectare, revealing a significant difference. Although fertilizer application between the two plots of land have significant difference, they are quite close to the official recommended dose. The standard dose for DAP is between 50 to 100 Kg per hectare, and that for Urea is between 100 to 150 Kg per hectare.
vi
Fertilizer outlays are significant for farmers, and while many are able to draw upon their savings to fund the purchases (over 70 %), others have to depend on borrowing money from relatives (25-30%) and some even borrow from moneylenders (around 7-8%). The figures are quite similar for project and non-project plots.
Rice Yield
Overall paddy rice yields increased by 22.8% on average, from 1,672 Kg per hectare in 2012 to 2,054 Kg per hectare in 2013. Interestingly, the project-plots averaged an increase of 27.5 % while for non-project plots, yields rose by 18.3%.Rice yield, in 2013, in the project-plots was 29.9 % higher than non-project plots. This indicates the effectiveness of the project supplied rice seed and fertilizer and corresponding trainings and extension services. Since some beneficiaries reported applying fertilizer bought from the project to their non project-plots also, it can be safely assumed that the average rice yield from the non-project plots would have been much less without the quality fertilizer, trainings and extension services provided by the project.
There has not been much change in the marketed surplus for non-Project plots between the year (marketed surplus of 30%). For project plots, the marketed surplus has grown significantly from around 31.5% to 39%. The percentage of households selling rice has expanded at a faster rate for ‘project rice’ (from 61% to 67%) compared to non-project rice (from 60% to 62%).
Vegetable Production
The average number of respondents who purchased vegetable seeds from the project was 44.6 %. However, only 29.3 % actually used the seeds to cultivate vegetables. There was a large variation in the province-wide distribution of these average figures with significant outliers encountered in KPC and especially KPT, which has pulled the average down.
Capacity Development
In conjunction with providing high quality rice/ vegetable seeds and fertilizer, the project also provided short training courses to selected (‘lead’) farmers in rice and vegetable cultivation. Around 39 % of respondents attended training and/or received training leaflets on various aspects of rice cultivation. For vegetable production, 26.8% of respondents participated in training and/or received leaflets in vegetable production. A significant number of trainees transmitted the knowledge gained to friends, family or other farmers (28%) while 35% said they actually practiced the knowledge gained during the wet season. Around 31.5% felt that the training was effective and helped improve production, while 40% respondents indicated their willingness to apply the knowledge gained in the future.
Food Security
Following project interventions, a majority of respondents (87 %) reported a reduction of the food gap on an average by 2 months except for SRP. In SRP food shortages, however, reported an increase from 3.29 to 3.46 months. The reasons are reportedly
vii
due to poor adoption rate of the improved seeds and techniques, and incidence of and because of severe flood in 2013 and pests.
Conclusion
Overall paddy rice recorded an average yield increase of 22.8%, from 1,672 Kg per hectare in 2012 to 2,054 Kg per hectare in 2013. The project-plots averaged an increase of 27.5 % while for non-project plots, yields rose by 18.3%. Again, the project-plots recorded 29.9 % higher yield than non-project plots. This indicates the effectiveness of the project supplied rice seed and fertilizer and corresponding trainings and extension services. Since some beneficiaries reported applying fertilizer bought from the project to their non project-plots also, it can be safely assumed that the average rice yield would have been much less without the quality fertilizer, trainings and extension services provided by the project. The findings point to a significant impact on rice yields of producers stemming from easier access to improved rice seeds and fertilizers, with net impact estimated at above 10% over the period 2012-13. This has resulted in a higher marketed quantity of rice, especially of IR 66.
Following project interventions, a majority of respondents (87 %) reported a reduction of the food gap on average by 2 months.
In the case of vegetable production, while around half of respondents obtained seeds, only a quarter reported cultivation. Nevertheless, the knowledge of new techniques of cultivation gained, was appreciated by the respondents, many of whom not only practiced the knowledge but also transferred it to friends and neighbors.
Given the overall positive impact in rice production, the likelihood of a significant improvement in vegetable production, and increased knowledge about improved cultivation, food security has definitely undergone improvement amongst target beneficiaries. It is not surprising to find that the vast majority of respondents expressed their willingness to participate in the project in the next season.
1
I. Introduction
The Emergency Food Assistance Project-Additional Financing (EFAP-AF) successfully completed the distribution of subsidized sale of rice seeds and fertilizers for wet season 2013 in the ten target provinces.1
In order to assess the extent to which input support and training has resulted in increase in productivity and improving food security and livelihoods of the beneficiaries, an assessment was planned and conducted. In particular, this assessment aimed at providing the project with dependable information and hard evidence on the effectiveness of its inputs support activities in terms of improving the lives of the targeted beneficiaries.
II. Project Description
The Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) approved a provisional allocation of $39.1 million grant to the Kingdom of Cambodia. The government, GAFSP Steering Committee and ADB agreed to utilize GAFSP-allocated $24.5 million as additional financing to the Emergency Food Assistance Project to implement the Cambodia GAFSP components 1: Raising Agricultural Productivity and Component 3: Reducing Risk and Vulnerability to: (1st) improve synergies and maximize the development impacts; (2nd) avoid duplication and the risk of exceeding the absorptive capacity of the institutions in charge of agriculture and food security investments; and (3rd) utilize the existing implementation structure to realize faster disbursement. The GAFSP component 1 and 3 include nutrition and diversified livelihood activities that include hygiene awareness, disaster preparedness and response in agriculture. The intended impact of the Project is reduced vulnerability of food-insecure households in the target provinces and the intended outcome is improved access to sufficient and nutritious food by food insecure households. The expected outputs of the Project are to (i) increased availability and awareness of nutritious food and hygiene among the food-insecure households; (ii) increased access to improved agricultural inputs and technologies among food-insecure farmers and women; (iii) improved capacity to mainstream food security; and (iv) effective project implementation and management. This assessment is concerned only with aspects of (i) and (ii) above, relating only to the 2013 wet season rice seeds and fertilizers subsidized sale and related training support meant to stimulate productivity of targeted farmers. Beneficiaries agreeing to purchase the subsidized inputs from the Project were pre-identified through Open Village Meetings.
1 These are Banteay Meanchey, Otdar Meanchey, Siem Reap, Preah Vihear, Kampong Thom, Kampong
Cham, Prey Veng, Svay Rieng, Kampong Speu and Takeo.
2
III. Survey Methods
1. Objective and Methodology
The objective of the study was to assess the impact of the subsidized rice/vegetable seeds and fertilizers, which was carried out in wet season 2013, on the livelihood of the project beneficiaries in general and on productivity of the rice crop in particular in the Project areas.
Similar assessments were carried out earlier for wet season 2009 and 2010 under the Project. The questionnaire developed at that time worked quite well and was thus also deployed for the current assessment with some minor changes and adjustments. The main focus of the questionnaire was to collect data on farming practices and production from two types of plots: i). plots of land where rice seed from EFAP were used, and (ii) plots of land where rice seed from other (non-EFAP) sources were used. Thus, it provided a basis for comparing ‘EFAP plots’ with ‘non-EFAP plots’ to examine impact. In addition, basic yield data available from before the Project also enabled using the ‘before-after’ approach to look at impact. Thus, combining the two types of data (‘before-after’ and ‘with-without’) it was possible to arrive at an estimated net impact of the Project.2
The PPMU staff from respective provinces were mobilized for the household surveys while Provincial Facilitators coordinated the fieldwork and checked the filled up questionnaires for accuracy and completeness. The interviewers (PPMU staffs and Provincial Facilitators) were trained on the administration of questionnaires by the National Sociologist/Community Facilitator. Also, the questionnaires were pre-tested in one commune in each of the provinces. After reviewing the results of the pre-test, the interviewers were re-convened to share their experience and better understand the questionnaires.
2. Sampling
It is desirable to have a representative sample of respondents drawn from the beneficiaries. It was decided that an attempt would be made to try and be representative not only for the whole project but also, at least, for each province. A two-stage sampling procedure was adopted with 41% communes selected at the first stage based on probability proportional to size (PPS). At the second stage, a 15% households were selected randomly from the selected communes, except for communes with relatively fewer households. To get the correct random household number, RANDOM.ORG was utilized. Thus, the total sample size of 1,440 households may be considered to be representative of the Project, of each province, and possibly even of each commune (with the exception of the few with rather low number of beneficiaries). Details of sample size may be seen in Table 1.
2 Given the difficulty of finding control households, control plots (non-Project plots) were used.
This has the drawback that many households report both Project and non-Project plots suggesting that there would be a degree of contamination from one to the other through use of some inputs or knowledge gained from the Project.
3
Table 1: Sample Size
No. Provinces Sample HH Percentage
1 PVH 100 7.1
2 OMC 100 7.1
3 BMC 99 7.0
4 SRP 120 8.5
5 KPT 98 7.0
6 KPC 106 7.5
7 SVR 209 14.8
8 PVG 227 16.1
9 KPS 228 16.2
10 TAK 122 8.7
Total 1409 100
3. Survey Limitation
The survey and data entry were carried out by relatively inexperienced PPMU staff. However, all staff received a short training and actively participated in the field test. Lack of experience could give rise to higher non-sampling error.
The surveyors were able to approach more than 60% of heads of households during the fielding of the questionnaire while in a third of cases the respondent was the spouse of the household head. Thus, the information gathered can be treated as the most reliable, as in almost 92 % of cases the respondent was either the head or his/her spouse (Table 2).
IV. Survey Findings
1. Household Composition
In general, there is not a big difference in household size by province, ranging from 4.6 to 5.1 members on average. Overall, the average size was 4.8 members per household with a low of 4.3 in SVR and a high of 5.7 in BMC (Table 2). Around 35% of the respondent households are female headed.
Table 2: Household Composition and Identity of Respondents
No. Provinces Average
HH Size
% of
FHH
Identity of Respondents (%)
Head of
Household
Spouse
Son
Daughter
Other
1 PVH 4.9 30 55 35 1 9 0
2 OMC 5.0 23 57 39 0 4 0
4
3 BMC 5.7 17.2 66.7 29.3 1 1 2
4 SRP 4.8 40.8 58.3 32.5 2.5 2.5 4.2
5 KPT 5.1 39.8 66.3 28.6 1 2 2
6 KPC 4.8 51.9 53.8 39.6 0.9 3.8 1.9
7 SVR 4.3 35.9 66.5 27.8 0 3.3 2.4
8 PVG 5.1 23.8 70.9 19.8 0.9 2.2 6.2
9 KPS 4.7 46.5 57 28.9 4 5.3 8.3
10 TAK 4.6 36.1 52.5 37.7 0.8 4.1 4.9
Average 4.8 34.9 61.3 30.3 0.8 3.7 3.9
2. Rice Seed
The Department of Rice Crop (DRC) of the General Directorate of Agriculture (GDA), the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) is one of the Implementing Agencies of EFAP-AF, and is responsible for contributing to output 2, namely"Increased Access to Improved Agricultural Inputs and Technology". The DRC has recommended that the project distribute IR66 and Cholsa varieties of rice seeds to the farmers for the reason that they are popular and they are listed among the ten rice seed varieties approved by RGC. Additionally, they are suitable for a number of agro-ecological conditions because of their short growing period (cultivation period is less than 120 days) and photoperiod insensitivity (no restriction to flowering time).
The Department has produced graded rice seed of IR66 and Cholsa to support the demand of the project. Due to the limited availability of Cholsa rice seed, and higher demand forIR66, the project sold much larger quantity ofIR66 seed compared to cholsa. Thus overwhelming majority (91.5%) of the beneficiaries used IR66,while there were only 8.5 %who chose Cholsa.
Rice Seed Purchase and Use. In terms of demand for rice seed,93 % of household on average purchased the seeds. However, not everyone who bought the seeds was found to actually use those seeds. Only 70% of households actually used the seeds for cultivation(Table 3)with PVG (90.3%) and BMC (86.9%) at the higher end while PVH (37%) and KPC (39.6%) at the lower.
Table 3: Rice Seed Purchase and Use
No. Provinces
HH bought
Rice Seed
(%)
HH Used
Rice Seed
(%)
Use of Rice Seed
Variety (%)
Rice
Seed
Rate
(Kg/ha) IR66 Cholsa
1 PVH 42 37 100 0 80
2 OMC 76 55 100 0 95
3 BMC 93.9 86.9 4.7 95.3 104
4 SRP 95 78.3 100 0 99
5 KPT 100 41.9 100 0 103
6 KPC 100 39.6 100 0 98
5
7 SVR 99.5 83.7 100 0 101
8 PVG 100 90.3 100 0 131
9 KPS 98.7 72.8 100 0 112
10 TAK 100 67.2 100 0 112
Total 93 70 91.5 8.5 104.8
Besides rice seeds purchased from the project, some beneficiaries reported using non-project rice seeds(traditional/ high yielding/ high value rice seedvarieties). Around 62.1 % of households reported cultivating plots with non-project seeds. These are generally seeds that were kept for cultivation from the previous year (around 59%) or alternatively, obtained from other villagers through barter (around 29%).Generally rice varieties differ according to season, region or location. As indicated in table below, Phka Roumduol and Red Rice (Srov Kraham) were popular (around 16% for both).
Seed Rate. In terms of rice seed use, the seed rate (kg/ha) was similar for both project and non-project seed, and close to the standard official recommendation of the MAFF (around 105 kg vs recommended amount of 100 kg per ha). There were some variations seen across Provinces. Thus, respondents in PVG used a higher seed rate than those of other provinces, i.e. 234 Kg per hectare, while in PVH the figure was much lower, at only 68 Kg per hectare (Table 4).
Table 4: Non-EFAP Rice Seeds
No
.
Pro
vin
ces
HH
Cu
ltiv
ate
d
non-E
FA
P R
ice
Se
ed
(%
)
The two most common sources of rice
seed
The most
common rice
varieties
Ric
e S
eed
Ra
te
(Kg
/ha
)
1st 2nd
Source % Source % Rice
Variety
%
1 PVH 80
Kept from
last year
crop
50 Battered
paddy with
other
villagers
33.8 Phka
Romdul
62.5 68
2 OMC 67
Kept from
last year
crop
59.7 Battered
paddy with
other
villagers
23.9 Phka
Romdul
34.3 81
3 BMC 7.1
Kept from
last year
crop
66.7 Bought
from other
villagers
16.7 Phka
Romdul
16.7 121
4 SRP 24.2
Kept from
last year
crop
41.4 Battered
paddy with
other
villagers
37.9 Phka
Romdul
55.2 110
6
5 KPT 68.4
Kept from
last year
crop
43.9 Bought
from other
villagers
36.4 Neang
Kong
25.4 133
6 KPC 75.5
Battered
paddy
with other
villagers
38.8 Bought
from other
villagers
36.3 IR 504 30 116
7 SVR 64.1
Kept from
last year
crop
83.1 Battered
paddy with
other
villagers
23.1 Krasang
Teab
52.2 93
8 PVG 49.8
Kept from
last year
crop
53.1 Battered
paddy with
other
villagers
24.8 IR 504 41.6 234
9 KPS 80.7
Kept from
last year
crop
68.5 Battered
paddy with
other
villagers
26.6 Red rice 32.6 87
10 TAK 94.3
Kept from
last year
crop
63.5 Battered
paddy with
other
villagers
35.7 Red rice 70.4 83
Total 62.1
Kept from
last year
crop
58.7 Battered
paddy with
other
villagers
28.6 Phka
Romduol
& Red
rice
16.1
&
16.2
103.8
7
Figure 1: Average quantity of rice seed per hectare (seed rate)
Rice Seed Quality Rating. The quality of the project supplied rice seed seemed to be high as 61.8 % of the respondents rated it as excellent (germination percentage reported was between 85 to 100 %) and 34.4 % rated it as good (germination percentage reported was between 65 to 84 %). Less than 1 % of respondents, rated the project supplied rice seed as poor and very poor (germination percentage less than 50 %). On the other hand, only around 32 % of respondents rated the quality of non-project rice seeds as excellent and 58 % rated it as good. This indicates that project-supplied rice seeds were of superior quality.
Table 5: Rice Seed Quality Rating
No. Provinc
es
Project Plots Non-Project Plots
Excell
ent
Goo
d
Fai
r
Poo
r
Very
poor
Exce
llent
Goo
d Fair
Poo
r
Very
poor
1 PVH 37.8 62.2 0 0 0 7.5 77.5 15 0 0
2 OMC 65.5 29.1 3.6 0 1.8 13.4 77.6 9 0 0
3 BMC 83.7 16.3 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
4 SRP 35.3 57.6 5.9 1.2 0 37 55.6 7.4 0 0
5 KPT 73.2 24.4 0 0 2.4 35.3 61.8 2.9 0 0
6 KPC 69 23.8 4.8 0 2.4 39.2 50.6 10.1 0 0
7 SVR 78.3 21.1 0.6 0 0 36.6 60.4 1.5 1.5 0
8 PVG 46.3 52.7 1 0 0 67 33 0 0 0
9 KPS 74.1 24.1 1.8 0 0 28.8 60.9 9.2 1.1 0
10 TAK 43.9 46.3 3.7 1.2 4.9 18.3 51.3 28.7 1.7 0
Average 61.8 35.4 1.8 0.2 0.7 31.8 58.1 9.4 0.7 0
104.8 Kg
103.8 Kg
Project rice seed
Other rice seed
8
Planting Techniques. The Project, through the training of farmers and extension services, provided both transplanting and broadcasting techniques. Farmers could use any technique that should be suitable for their rice crop and land conditions.
As a result of the survey, most (72.6 %) of respondents were found to practice broadcasting as against 27.4 % who chose transplanting when cultivating project-plots. On the other hand, for farmers using non-project seeds, the incidence of broadcasting was lower, with a figure of 42.2 %.The discrepancy between project and non-project plots in terms of planting technique is very likely due to the varietal differences, increment of yield and labor cost. Another factor could be the preference of farmers in different geographical areas in term of planting techniques. For instance, in PVH, KPS and TAK most farmers cultivated rice crop using transplanting technique for both project-plots 54.1%, 88% 62.2% and non-project plots 91.3% 100% and 93% respectively, while in BMC, KPT, SVR and PVG most farmers preferred broadcasting technique for cultivating rice crop in both project-plots 100%, 100%, 93.7% and 98% and non-project plots 100%, 91%, 77.6% and 75.5%.
Table 6: Planting Techniques
No. Provinces
Plots of land that used rice seed
from EFAP (%)
Plots of land that used rice seed
from other sources (%)
Transpla
nting
Broadcas
ting
SRI Transpla
nting
Broadcas
ting
SRI
1 PVH 51.4 48.6 0 91.3 12.5 0
2 OMC 9.1 90.9 1.8 41.8 59.7 6
3 BMC 0 100 0 0 100 0
4 SRP 31.8 69.3 0 51.7 48.3 3.4
5 KPT 0 100 2.4 13.4 91 6
6 KPC 16.7 83.3 0 58.8 48.8 0
7 SVR 8.6 93.7 0.6 28.4 77.6 0.7
8 PVG 0.5 98 1.5 25.5 75.5 0.9
9 KPS 88 12 0 100 0 0
10 TAK 62.2 41.5 0 93 8.7 0
Average 27.9 72.6 0.6 60.6 42.2 1.3
Sources of Planting Techniques Knowledge. Much of the knowledge acquired on planting techniques was obtained from non-Project sources, mainly parents or neighbours. For project plots, there was a significant presence of Project resources as well as official extension services (Table 7).
9
Table 7: Knowledge Sources for Planting Techniques N
o.
Pro
vin
ces
Plots of land that used rice seed from
EFAP (%)
Plots of land that used rice seed from
other sources (%)
Tra
inin
g
pro
vid
ed
by
EF
AP
Tra
inin
g
pro
vid
ed
by
oth
er
pro
jects
Pa
ren
ts
Ne
ighb
or
Ag
ricultu
ral
exte
nsio
n
agent
Tra
inin
g
pro
vid
ed
by
EF
AP
Tra
inin
g
pro
vid
ed
by
oth
er
pro
jects
Pa
ren
ts
Ne
ighb
or
Ag
ricultu
ral
exte
nsio
n
agent
1 PVH 50 5.3 73.7 10.5 36.8 23.8 11.3 77.5 23.8 36.3
2 OMC 40 23.6 100 40 16.4 46.3 29.9 97 83.6 20.9
3 BMC 0 2.3 48.8 40.7 17.4 28.6 0 42.9 28.6 0
4 SRP 2.2 3.2 86 44.1 17.2 6.5 3.2 74.2 35.5 12.9
5 KPT 35.9 38.5 46.2 23.1 38.5 13.2 23.5 60.3 26.5 25
6 KPC 39 4.9 48.8 24.4 17.1 2.5 6.3 85 27.5 6.3
7 SVR 41.3 34.9 34.9 39.5 49.4 12.8 22.6 35.3 51.1 36.1
8 PVG 0.5 14.1 93.7 2 6.3 1.8 10.7 90.2 1.8 12.5
9 KPS 27.1 2.4 89.8 15.7 4.2 16.3 3.3 92.4 17.9 3.3
10 TAK 8.5 2.4 85.4 26.8 3.7 0 2.6 93 23.5 2.6
Average 20.2 13.5 73.1 24.7 17.5 13 11.6 78.3 29.4 14.5
3. Fertilizers
Fertilizer Purchase and Application. A high proportion of respondents (over 96%) said they purchased project-supplied fertilizers, except in PVH where only 39 % of respondents bought project-supplied fertilizers. The average quantity of DAP and Urea bought per household was 56 Kg and 87 Kg respectively. The average respondents who applied fertilizer were 68.4 % for the project rice seed, and 54.3 % for the rice seed from other sources.
Table 8: Fertilizer Purchase and Application
No
.
Pro
vin
ces
HH
Bo
ug
ht
Fert
ilize
r (%
)
Average QTY of
Fertilizer Bought
per HH (Kg)
HH Applied Fertilizer (%)
DAP Urea
Plots of land that
used rice seed
from EFAP (%)
Plots of land that
used rice seed from
other sources (%)
1 PVH 39 72.44 108.33 35 35
2 OMC 76 91.78 136.18 55 42
3 BMC 93.9 82.53 123.66 85.9 7.1
4 SRP 91.7 62.61 93.28 69.9 18.3
5 KPT 99 68.3 105.4 40.8 59.2
6 KPC 100 51.9 81.1 39.6 74.5
10
7 SVR 99.5 49 75.12 82.8 62.2
8 PVG 100 56.06 85.79 88.5 42.7
9 KPS 96.9 35.18 60.52 72.8 80.3
10 TAK 100 44.7 71.52 66.4 92.6
Total 96.7 55.89 86.51 68.4 54.3
The number of respondents reporting use of DAP and Urea on project plots was significantly higher compared to non-project plots. The percentage of respondents who applied DAP and Urea in project plots were similar i.e. 68.4 %, while for non-project plots, this was 51.2% and 52.3 %, respectively (Table 9).
Fertilizer Dose. In terms of quantity, average amount of DAP and Urea used in project-plots were 109 Kg and 157 Kg per hectare, respectively. On the other hand, the corresponding quantities for non-project plots were 76 Kg and 103 Kg per hectare, revealing a significant difference. Although fertilizer application between the two plots of land have a significant difference, they are quite close to the officially recommended dose. The standard dose for DAP is between 50 to 100 Kg per hectare, and for Urea it is between 100 to 150 Kg per hectare.
Table 9: Quantity of Fertilizers
No. Provinces
Plots of land that used rice seed
from EFAP (%)
Plots of land that used rice seed
from other sources (%)
Urea DAP Manure/
compost Other Urea DAP
Manure/
compost Other
PVH
Percentage of
respondents (%) 35 35 3 0 22 20 23 1
Average Kg/ha 92.5 64.1 400 0 34.3 24.4 175 83.3
OMC
Percentage of
respondents (%) 55 55 0 0 34 28 2 13
Average Kg/ha 131.8 91.6 0 0 50.3 34.8 200 52.9
BMC
Percentage of
respondents (%) 86.9 86.9 0 0 7.1 7.1 0 0
Average Kg/ha 158.1 105.6 0 0 157.9 131.6 0 0
SRP
Percentage of
respondents (%) 76.7 75.8 6.6 8.3 16.7 17.5 8.3 15
Average Kg/ha 129.2 109.9 48 3.4 89.8 85.6 19 34.3
KPT
Percentage of
respondents (%) 40.8 40.8 9.2 1 59.2 59.2 17.3 1
Average Kg/ha 142 97 587 150 83.4 62.7 802 100
KPC
Percentage of
respondents (%) 38.7 39.6 12.3 0 72.6 72.6 40.6 1.8
Average Kg/ha 209.9 118.4 833 0 136.9 97.3 832 31.3
SVR Percentage of
respondents (%) 82.8 82.8 39.7 2.9 61.7 61.2 27.7 2
11
Average Kg/ha 156.2 104.4 406 233.3 114.5 87.7 197 80.8
PVG
Percentage of
respondents (%) 88.1 87.2 16.7 6.3 42.7 41.9 7.9 17.1
Average Kg/ha 237.6 168.8 1,023 220.8 147.7 115.3 354 142.1
KPS
Percentage of
respondents (%) 71.9 71.5 75.5 3.1 78.9 78.1 78.9 4.4
Average Kg/ha 148.7 95.9 1,384 237.9 135.2 83.4 1.093 207.8
TAK
Percentage of
respondents (%) 66.4 66.4 14 0 91 89.3 27.1 4
Average Kg/ha 157.3 106.3 595 0 129.1 85.7 534 61.9
Aver
age
Percentage of
respondents (%) 68.4 68.4 24.4 2.7 52.3 51.2 27.3 6.5
Average Kg/ha 157.5 109.4 855 127.8 103 75.8 585 83.2
Financing Fertilizer Purchase. Fertilizer outlays are significant for farmers, and while many are able to draw upon their savings to fund the purchases (over 70 %), others have to depend on borrowing money from relatives (25-30%) and some even borrow from moneylenders (around 7-8 %). The figures are quite similar for project and non-project plots (Table 10).
Table 10: Financing Fertilizer Purchase
No
.
Pro
vin
ces
Plots of land that used rice seed from
EFAP (%)
Plots of land that used rice seed from
other sources (%)
Bo
ug
ht
usin
g s
avin
g
Bo
rro
we
d m
one
y
from
re
latives
Bo
rro
we
d m
one
y
from
mo
ne
y le
nd
er
Bo
rro
we
d m
one
y
from
MF
I
Bo
ug
ht
on c
redit
from
re
taile
r
Oth
er
Bo
ug
ht
usin
g s
avin
g
Bo
rro
we
d m
one
y
from
re
latives
Bo
rro
we
d m
one
y
from
mo
ne
y le
nd
er
Bo
rro
we
d m
one
y
from
MF
I
Bo
ug
ht
on c
redit
from
re
taile
r
Oth
er
1 PVH 79.5 28.2 2.6 5.1 0 10.3 74.3 17.1 2.9 5.7 0 20
2 OMC 71.1 31.6 13.2 11.8 0 0 60.5 30.2 18.6 4.7 0 0
3 BMC 67.7 59.1 19.4 2.2 0 2.2 85.7 100 0 0 0 0
4 SRP 79.3 41.3 23.9 1.1 2.2 6.5 52.2 39.1 26.1 0 17.4 17.4
5 KPT 73.2 43.9 9.8 17.1 0 2.4 78.1 23.4 4.7 10.9 0 3.1
6 KPC 69 29 9 8 2 4 65.8 30.4 10.1 5.1 2.5 5.1
7 SVR 78.8 36.5 6.3 8.2 1.9 19.2 70.8 41.5 9.2 2.3 2.3 15.4
8 PVG 73.6 42.3 9.7 1.3 2.6 16.7 63.4 23.2 7.1 1.8 22.3 9.8
9 KPS 84.2 10 4.5 1.8 0 25.8 83.6 10.4 3.3 2.7 0.5 30.6
12
10 TAK 80.3 15.6 0 16.4 0.8 17.2 77 15.9 0 15 0.9 19.5
Average 76.7 31.8 8.9 6 1.2 14.2 72.9 24.2 6.6 5.3 4.6 16
4. Rice Yield
It can be seen from the figure below that overall paddy rice yields increased by 22.8 %
(average of all target provinces), from 1,672 Kg per hectare in 2012 to 2,054 Kg per
hectare in 2013. Interestingly, the plots of land that used the rice seed and fertilizer
supplied by the project had an average increase of 27.5 % i.e. from 1,866 Kg per
hectare in 2012 to 2,379 Kg per hectare in 2013. For the plots of land that used the rice
seed from other sources also marked a rise of yields by 18.3% i.e. from 1,548 Kg per
hectare in 2012 to 1,831 Kg per hectare in 2013. The average paddy rice yield, in 2013,
in the plots of land that used the rice seed and fertilizer supplied by the project was
around 29.9 % higher than the plots of land that used the rice seed from other sources.
This indicates the effectiveness of the project supplied rice seed and fertilizer and
corresponding trainings and extension services. Since some beneficiaries reported
applying fertilizer bought from the project to their non-project plots, it can be safely
assumed that the average paddy rice yield from the non-project plots would have been
much less without the quality fertilizer, trainings and extension services provided by the
project.This suggests that the overall yield increases attributable to project interventions
would be over 10 percent. In terms of value, this may be lower because the rice varieties
under consideration are not the same with non-project plots generally adopting higher
value traditional/high yielding crops.
Figure 2: Average Rice Yield
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
EFAP Plots Non-EFAP Plots Overall
1,866Kg
1,548Kg1,672Kg
2,379Kg
1,831Kg
2,054Kg
2012
2013
13
Table 11: Average Rice Yield N
o.
Pro
vin
ces
Plots of land that used rice seed
from EFAP
Plots of land that used rice seed
from other sources
Wet
Season
2012
Wet
Season
2013
Increase in
Yield
Wet
Season
2012
Wet
Season
2013
Increase in
Yield
(Kg/ha) (Kg/ha) (Kg/ha) % (Kg/ha) (Kg/ha) (Kg/ha) %
1 PVH 1,652 1,892 240 14.5 1,529 1,644 115 7.5
2 OMC 1,295 1,947 652 50.3 943 1,308 365 38.7
3 BMC 2,065 2,603 538 26.1 2,424 2,368 -56 -2.3
4 SRP 1,276 1,509 233 18.2 1,199 1,273 75 6.3
5 KPT 982 1,550 568 57.9 1,091 1,347 256 23.4
6 KPC 2,256 3,327 1,071 47.5 2,400 2,688 288 12
7 SVR 1,860 2,578 717 38.6 1,637 2,015 378 23.1
8 PVG 3,561 3,869 308 8.6 2,529 2,814 285 11.3
9 KPS 1,377 2,032 656 47.7 1,687 2,275 588 34.8
10 TAK 1,184 1,432 247 20.9 1,343 1,582 239 17.8
Average 1,866 2,379 513 27.5 1,548 1,831 283 18.3
Respondents attributed the improved yields in project-plots to availability of improved rice seeds and good quality fertilizer (38.8 and 12.2 % respectively). Likewise, for non-project plots, quite a number (19.2%) of respondents reported using good quality fertilizers from the project along with their seeds. It reflects contribution of the quality fertilizer from the project to the increment of rice yield of non-project plots. Thus, the net effect of the project interventions is likely to somewhat higher than the estimated 10 percent already noted.
Table 12: Reasons for Increase in Rice Yield
No
.
Pro
vin
ces
Plots of land that used rice seed
from EFAP (%)
Plots of land that used rice seed
from other sources (%)
Go
od
qu
alit
y s
eed fro
m
EF
AP
Go
od
qu
alit
y f
ert
ilize
rs
from
EF
AP
Pro
du
ction
te
chn
ique
s
kn
ow
ledg
e f
rom
EF
AP
Pro
du
ction
te
chn
ique
s
from
oth
er
so
urc
es
Ap
plie
d m
ore
fe
rtili
ze
r
Go
od
qu
alit
y o
f rice
se
ed
Go
od
qua
lity f
ert
ilize
rs
from
EF
AP
Pro
du
ction
te
chn
ique
s
kn
ow
ledg
e f
rom
EF
AP
Pro
du
ction
te
chn
ique
s
from
oth
er
so
urc
es
Ap
plie
d m
ore
fe
rtili
ze
r
1 PVH 9 18 0 0 3 17 14 8 2 2
14
2 OMC 34 5 0 0 0 26 11 4 0 0
3 BMC 41.4 15.2 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0
4 SRP 39.2 27.5 0.8 0 5 4.2 2.5 0 1.7 5
5 KPT 15.3 9.2 6.1 1 0 4.1 13.3 5.1 2 24.5
6 KPC 17.9 5.7 0 0 5.7 1.9 31.1 0 0.9 11.3
7 SVR 45 28.7 1 0 0 4.8 37.8 17.9 1.4 5.7
8 PVG 55.5 3.5 0.4 0 3.5 21.6 0.9 0.4 0 4.8
9 KPS 52.2 7.5 0.9 0 1.3 34.6 30.3 0.4 0 2.6
10 TAK 34.4 8.2 0 0 1.6 30.3 36.1 0 0.8 1.6
Average 38.8 12.8 0.9 0.1 2 16.3 19.2 1.8 0.8 5.3
Even though the rice crop production marked a significant increase in between wet season 2012 and 2013, the production would have been much more had there been enough water in some places and had there been no flood in some other places. As reported by the respondents, the two main factors that affected the rice crop production, for project-plots were, i) water related stress (drought) 7.8 percent and ii) flood 5.6 percent, and for non project-plots were i) drought 8.8 percent and ii) flood 4.3 percent. Although the project had provided high quality rice seed and fertilizer, natural disaster was the fundamental problem that affected their crop production. For instance, the flood in 2013 affected beneficiary households severely.
Table 13: Reasons for Decrease in Rice Yield
No
.
Pro
vin
ces
Plots of land that used rice seed from
EFAP (%)
Plots of land that used rice seed from
other sources (%)
Wa
ter
rela
ted
str
ess
Flo
od
Se
ed
qu
alit
y
Dis
ease
s/
pest
Tra
inin
g/
info
rmatio
n
Wa
ter
rela
ted
str
ess
Flo
od
Se
ed
qu
alit
y
Dis
ease
s/
pest
Tra
inin
g/
info
rmatio
n
1 PVH 1 3 0 2 0 4 15 2 5 0
2 OMC 7 12 0 0 0 13 5 0 0 1
3 BMC 2 20.2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0s
4 SRP 5 9.2 0 1.7 0 3.4 5 0 1.7 0
5 KPT 1 15.3 0 2 0 1 19.4 0 2 0
6 KPC 3.8 1.9 0.9 0.9 0 9.4 1.9 1.9 7.5 0
7 SVR 3.4 2.9 1 1.4 0.5 2.5 5.3 2.9 1.4 0.5
8 PVG 15.4 1.3 7.5 2.2 0 16.7 0 0.4 1.3 0
15
9 KPS 9.2 2.2 0 1.3 0 11.5 0 0 2.2 0
10 TAK 21.3 1.6 0 0.8 0 19.7 0.8 0 1.6 0
Average 7.8(n=
110)
5.6(n=
79)
1.4(
n=2
0)
1.3(n
=19)
0.1(n=
1)
8.8
(n=12
5)
4.3(n=
60)
0.9(
n=1
3)
2(n=
28)
0.3(n
=4)
Overall, there was more than half (50.8 %) of respondents retained project rice seed for the next season. The target provinces where more respondents found to have retained rice seeds for the next season were SVR (80.4%), KPS (66.2%), SRP (55.8%) and PVG (50.2%).
Figure 3: Retaining Rice Seed for the Next Season (%)
For project plots, 854 households (61%) reported producing rice in wet season 2012. This increased to 942 HH (67%) in 2013. Of those producing rice, significant proportions were sold in the market – 31.5% in 2012 and 39.2% in 2013. A large variation is seen across provinces with KPS, SVR and TAK reporting very low proportion of sales.
For non-project plots, the number of households reporting rice production was 847 (60%) and 873 (62%) for the wet season 2012 and 2013, respectively. The proportion is quite similar to what was found for the project plots. In terms of the sale percentage, this was similar for project and non-project plots in wet season 2012 – around 30% - but
29
47
22.2
55.8
38.2
28.3
80.4
50.2
66.2
48.4 50.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
16
diverged significantly in wet season 2013. The sale proportion rose to almost 39.2% in wet season 2013 for project plots – a difference of around 9% with non-project plots. This suggest that the IR-66 was more likely to be sold while the traditional rice was more likely to be consumed within the household (Tables 14& 15).
Table 14: Plots of land that used rice seed from EFAP
No
.
Pro
vin
ces
Total
HHs
Wet Season 2012 Wet Season 2013
Pro
du
ction
HH
Pro
du
ction
/
HH
(K
g)
QT
Y
Sa
le/H
H
(Kg
)
%
Sa
le/P
rod
u
ctio
n
Pro
du
ction
HH
Pro
du
ction
/
HH
(K
g)
QT
Y
Sa
le/H
H
(Kg
) %
Sa
le/P
rod
u
ctio
n
1 PVH 100 22 1,434 286 20 37 1,605 965 60
2 OMC 100 54 1,178 252 21 52 1,763 839 48
3 BMC 99 72 1,700 856 50 76 2,021 1,032 51
4 SRP 120 77 779 176 23 80 947 148 16
5 KPT 98 32 684 135 20 37 955 341 36
6 KPC 106 34 756 499 66 42 1,151 840 73
7 SVR 209 136 689 12 2 172 1,007 85 8
8 PVG 227 186 1,103 531 48 203 1,185 712 60
9 KPS 228 160 314 14 5 163 456 36 8
10 TAK 122 81 347 32 9 80 419 60 14
TOTAL/AVERAGE
1409 854 822.4 259.5 31.5 942 1046.4 411.2 39.2
Table 15: Plots of land that used rice seed from other sources
No
.
Pro
vin
ces
Total
HH
Wet Season 2012 Wet Season 2013
HH
Pro
du
ction
/HH
(K
g)
QT
Y S
ale
/HH
(K
g)
% S
ale
/Pro
ductio
n
HH
Pro
du
ction
/HH
(K
g)
QT
Y S
ale
/HH
(K
g)
% S
ale
/Pro
ductio
n
17
1 PVH 100 74 2,533 890 35 80 2,631 905 34
2 OMC 100 66 1,601 505 32 67 2,206 946 43
3 BMC 99 6 1,583 433 27 6 1,500 483 32
4 SRP 120 25 1,068 245 23 27 1,106 115 10
5 KPT 98 57 1,003 139 14 68 1,180 136 12
6 KPC 106 78 1,186 613 52 80 1,318 700 53
7 SVR 209 132 909 42 5 134 1,108 47 4
8 PVG 227 112 1,353 721 53 113 1,491 738 49
9 KPS 228 183 542 53 10 183 722 61 8
10 TAK 122 114 543 30 6 115 646 71 11
Total/Average 1,409 847 12,321 3671 29.7 873 13,908 4,202 30.2
5. Vegetable Production
The average number of respondents who purchased vegetable seeds from the project was 44.6 %. However, only 29.3 %actually used the seeds to cultivate vegetables. There was a large variation in the province-wide distribution of these average figures with high percentage buying and using vegetable seeds versus significant outliers encountered in KPC, and especially KPT, which has pulled the average down (Table 16). The high proportion of respondents reported have bought and grew vegetable seeds were found in PVH with 81% and 78 % respectively and in SVR with the order of 78% and 68.9%.
Table 16: Purchasing and Use of Vegetable Seeds
No. Provinces % HH Purchased
Vegetable Seeds
% HH Cultivated
Vegetable
1 PVH 81 78
2 OMC 44 26
3 BMC 27.3 16.2
4 SRP 25.8 16.7s
5 KPT 2 2
6 KPC 17.9 7.5
7 SVR 78 68.9
8 PVG 38.8 6.6
9 KPS 63.6 36.8
10 TAK 23.8 16.4
Average 44.6 29.3
Eight different vegetable seeds were provided (Table 17) of which the most popular was string bean, followed by eggplant, cucumber, glutinous corn, tomato, sweet corn and amaranthus with average Percentage of households ranging from 22.6 to 1.5. However,
18
the average has been adversely affected once again by a few outliers, namely in KPT, KPC, PVG and TAK.
Table 17: Vegetable Varieties Cultivated
No
Pro
vin
ces
Str
ing B
ean
Eg
gp
lant
Cu
cum
ber
Tom
ato
Am
ara
nth
us
Sw
eet
co
rn
Glu
tino
us
co
rn
1 PVH 48 35 26 8 3 48 44
2 OMC 13 6 6 4 3 5 18
3 BMC 12.1 11.1 9.1 4 2 3 7.1
4 SRP 14.2 8.3 10.8 7.5 1.7 2.5 5.8
5 KPT 1 2 2 0 1 2 1
6 KPC 3.8 2.8 0 0 1.9 0.9 1.9
7 SVR 63.2 59.3 45 24.9 0 16.7 18.7
8 PVG 4.8 3.5 0.4 0 0.4 0 0
9 KPS 30.3 27.2 7.5 10.5 2.6 4.8 10.5
10 TAK 9 7.4 2.5 1.6 0.8 3.3 11.5
Average 22.6 19.2 12 7.3 1.5 7.8 11.1
6. Capacity Development
In conjunction with providing high quality rice/ vegetable seeds and fertilizer, the project also provided short training courses to selected (‘lead’) farmers in rice and vegetable cultivation. The Department of Rice Crop (DRC) of the General Directorate of Agriculture (GDA), the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) was responsible for providing the training on rice while Department of Horticulture and Subsidiary Crops (DHSC) was responsible for providing training on vegetable production.
19
Figure 4: Attending Training - Receiving Leaflets on Rice Cultivation Techniques (%)
Figure 4 and Table 18 show that around 39 % of respondents attended training and/or received training leaflet on various aspects of rice cultivation: ‘rice cultivation techniques’ (36.3 %) followed by ‘soil preparation’ (28 %), ‘fertilizer application techniques’ (27.7 %), ‘water management’ (17.5 %), ‘pest and/or diseases prevention’ (17.2 %), ‘harvesting techniques’ (10.5 %) and ‘post harvest techniques’ (5.7 %).
Table 18: Rice Cultivation Knowledge
No
Pro
vin
ces
Ric
e
cu
ltiv
ation
Pe
st/
dis
ease
s
pre
ve
ntion
Po
st
harv
esting
techn
ique
So
il
pre
pa
ratio
n
Wa
ter
ma
na
ge
me
nt
Fert
ilize
r
app
lica
tion
Ha
rve
stin
g
techn
ique
1 PVH 52 23 3 29 28 30 8
2 OMC 54 6 4 27 23 32 28
3 BMC 10.1 4 0 8.1 7.1 6.1 1
4 SRP 28.3 6.7 3.3 24.2 5 22.5 5
5 KPT 41.8 40.8 4.1 54.1 31.6 46.9 7.1
6 KPC 22.6 5.7 0 6.6 3.8 19.8 3.8
7 SVR 72.2 34.4 14.8 58.9 34 45.9 19.1
8 PVG 5.3 2.2 0.4 1.8 0.9 3.1 0.4
9 KPS 35.1 23.2 11 33.3 24.1 34.2 19.3
10 TAK 44.3 20.5 6.6 32 15.6 38.5 7.4
Average 36.3 17.2 5.7 28 17.5 27.7 10.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
5754
13.1
29.2
61.2
24.5
73.2
5.7
36.4
47.5
39.2
PVH
OMC
BMC
SRP
KPT
KPC
SVR
PVG
KPS
TAK
Average
20
For vegetable production, 26.8% of respondents participated in training and/or received leaflets in vegetable production. The distribution by topic was as follows: ‘soil preparation’ (19.6%), ‘fertilizer application’ (15%), ‘water management’ (11.4%), ‘pest and diseases prevention’ (10.2%),‘harvesting’ (5.3%), and post harvesting technique (4.5%) – Table 19.
Figure 5: Attending Training - Receiving Leaflets on Vegetable Cultivation Techniques (%)
Table 19: Vegetable Cultivation Knowledge
No
Pro
vin
ces
Ve
ge
tab
le
cu
ltiv
ation
Pe
st/
dis
ease
s
pre
ve
ntion
Po
st
harv
esting
techn
ique
So
il
pre
pa
ratio
n
Wa
ter
ma
na
ge
me
nt
Fert
ilize
r
app
lica
tion
Ha
rve
stin
g
techn
ique
1 PVH 56 21 1 34 28 19 1
2 OMC 43 2 1 20 11 3 0
3 BMC 3 2 2 6.1 5.1 2 1
4 SRP 21.7 5 2.5 19.2 1.7 17.5 2.5
5 KPT 2 1 0 4.1 0 2 0
6 KPC 1.9 1.9 0 2.8 0 3.8 0
7 SVR 64.1 30.6 20.1 52.6 34.9 41.6 18.2
8 PVG 5.3 1.8 1.3 4 1.8 2.2 0.9
9 KPS 26.8 15.4 4.8 24.1 14.5 23.7 12.3
10 TAK 13.9 5.7 0.8 9.8 4.1 11.5 1.6
Average 25.3 10.2 4.5 19.6 11.4 15 5.3
60
45
6.1
23.3
4 6.6
64.1
5.7
27.2
4.8
26.8
PVH
OMC
BMC
SRP
KPT
KPC
SVR
PVG
KPS
TAK
Average
21
Significant number of trainees transmitted the knowledge gained to friends, family or other farmers (28%) while 35% said they actually practiced the knowledge gained during the wet season. Another 31.5 % felt that the training was effective and helped improve production, while 40% respondents indicated their willingness to follow the knowledge gained, in the future.
7. Food Security
Since the project target beneficiaries belong to the Poor 1 and Poor 2 category(defined for this particular activity, as owning or leasing less than one hectare of cultivable land), most respondents(91.3 %), experienced rice shortages for some months in a given year. In this respect, the most serious situation prevailed in Kampong Thom (99 %) and Otdar Meanchey (98 %) with an average shortage of 3.4 months.
However, following project interventions, a majority of respondents (87%) reported a reduction of the food gap on an average by 2 months (Table 20). Respondents from nine provinces reported having reduced food shortages. SRP province however, reported an increase in food shortage from 3.29 to 3.46 months. The reasons are reportedly due to not using the improved seeds (10.8 %), not following suggested techniques (6.7) and because of severe flood in 2013 and pests (2.5 %).
Table 20: Food Shortage
No. Provinces
HH Experienced Food Shortage
before EFAP
Reduction of Food Shortage
Reduced due to EFAP
% HH Period (month) % HH Period (month)
1 PVH 92 3.01 77 1.71
2 OMC 98 3.61 79 2.32
3 BMC 84.8 2.63 97 1.88
4 SRP 80 3.29 65.8 3.46
5 KPT 99 4.24 73.5 2.61
6 KPC 90.6 3.18 78.3 1.71
7 SVR 94.3 2.64 95.7 1.71
8 PVG 93.4 3.17 87.7 1.89
9 KPS 95.9 3.33 95.2 1.94
10 TAK 91.8 3.52 92.6 2.04
Average 91.3 3.4 87 2.03
Table 21: Willingness to Buy Project Inputs and Reasons
No. Provinces
% HH
willing to
buy
Improve
household
food
security
Improve
household
income
Subsidized
Other
1 PVH 94 42 26 76 23
2 OMC 83 10 10 83 36
3 BMC 96 24.2 18.2 82.8 1
22
4 SRP 85.8 33.3 14.2 81.7 20s
5 KPT 82.7 43.9 36.7 73.5 6.1
6 KPC 89.6 23.6 34.9 77.4 23.6
7 SVR 90.9 79.9 37.8 82.8 4.3
8 PVG 94.3 2.6 41.9 79.7 12.8
9 KPS 96.9 93 60.1 85.5 45.2
10 TAK 83.6 74.6 54.9 38.5 4.1
Average 90.7 46.8 37 77.3 18.5
8. Comments and suggestions of respondents
Some 36 % of respondents expressed satisfaction with the project and hoped that project funded activities would continue. Other, more specific responses are reported in table below.
Table 22: Comments and Suggestions
No Comments and suggestion %
1 Happy and request EFAP to continue the subsidized sale 36.3
2 The project’s price is cheaper than market 19.1
3 Reduce poverty 17.5
4 Good quality of seeds and fertilizers 8.0
5 Suggest to sell at a cheaper price 4.8
6 Project helps farmers to reduce expenditure on their production 4.7
7 Other 3.6
8 No idea, not answer 6.0
Total 100
V. Conclusion
Overall paddy rice recorded an average yield increase of 22.8%, from 1,672 Kg per hectare in 2012 to 2,054 Kg per hectare in 2013. The project-plots averaged an increase of 27.5 % while for non-project plots, yields rose by 18.3%. Again, the project-plots recorded 29.9 % higher yield than non-project plots. This indicates the effectiveness of the project supplied rice seed and fertilizer and corresponding trainings and extension services. Since some beneficiaries reported applying fertilizer bought from the project to their non project-plots also, it can be safely assumed that the average rice yield would have been much less without the quality fertilizer, trainings and extension services provided by the project. The findings point to a significant impact on rice yields of producers stemming from easier access to improved rice seeds and fertilizers, with net impact estimated at above 10% over the period 2012-13. This has resulted in a higher marketed quantity of rice, especially of IR 66.
23
Following project interventions, a majority of respondents (87 %) reported a reduction of the food gap on average by 2 months.
In the case of vegetable production, while around half of respondents obtained seeds, only a quarter actually applied these for cultivation. However, the knowledge of new techniques for rice and vegetable cultivation obtained, was appreciated by the respondents many of whom not only practiced the knowledge but also transferred it to friends and neighbors.
Given the overall positive impact in rice production, the likelihood of a significant improvement in vegetable production, and increased knowledge about improved cultivation, food security has definitely undergone improvement amongst target beneficiaries. It is not surprising to find that the vast majority of respondents expressed their willingness to participate in the project in the next season.
24
For More Information on Emergency Food Assistance Project (EFAP), contact
H.E. Vong Sandap Under Secretary of State Ministry of Economy and Finance and Project Director, EFAP Phnom Penh, CAMBODIA Telephone: (+855)23 430 716 Fax: (+855) 23 430 719 E-mail: [email protected] Ms. Nao Ikemoto Senior Project Specialist Asian Development Bank 29 Suramarit Blvd. (St. 268), Sangkat Chaktomuk Khan Daun Penh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +855 23 215805, 325806, 216417 Fax: +855 23 215807
This publication was prepared by the Central Project Management Unit (CPMU) of the Emergency Food Assistance Project. The content of this document has not been peer reviewed. The analyses and assessments contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Royal Government of Cambodia or ADB. The RGC or ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data collected for analytical purposes and included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use.
