Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
SlideShare a Scribd company logo

The gap in GAPs: Some key lessons for uptake and policy

•
•
ILRI
ILRI

Poster by Lucila A. Lapar, Nguyen Thi Duong Nga, Nguyen Thi Thinh, Nguyen Thi Thu Huyen, Pham Van Hung, Fred Unger and Delia Grace presented at the North-West Vietnam Research Symposium 2017, Hanoi, Vietnam, 23–24 November 2017.

1 of 1
Download to read offline
Ma. Lucila A. Lapar1, Nguyen Thi Duong Nga2, Nguyen Thi Thinh1, Nguyen Thi Thu Huyen2, Pham Van Hung2, Fred Unger1, Delia Grace3 1International Livestock Research Institute, Regional Office for East and Southeast Asia, Hanoi, Vietnam 2Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi, Vietnam 3International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya INTRODUCTION RESEARCH APPROACH RESULTS DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) certification with quality labels as signals is a cen- tral component of modern consumer policy in developed agri-food market systems (Jahn et al 2005). In developing country settings where informal markets remain dom- inant preferred outlets for food, establishing credible GAP certification schemes pose institutional and policy challenges (Lapar and Tiongco 2011, Reardon and Farina 2002). Previous experience of GAPs in developing country settings has shown mixed results, mainly in horticulture (UNCTAD 2007; Schreinemachers et al., 2012; Ha et al. 2014; Montano et al., 2016). In Vietnam and for livestock, VietGAHP has been rolled out through a development project (LIFSAP). Important policy questions remain un- answered. Are GAPs such as VietGAHP effective? Are there sufficient incentives to en- gender adoption and compliance? Are these transferable and scalable? We investi- gate VietGAHP adoption and evaluate impacts using quantitative and qualitative indi- cators. The findings provide empirical evidence to guide strategies for uptake and scaling. • 40% of adopters had high compliance with VietGAHP practices. Feed and water practices had high levels of compliance by at least half of the adopters; only 1 in 10 adopters had high compliance with keeping records and waste management prac- tices. • Incidence of mortality was higher among non-adopters (1.3%) than adopters (0.7%), but similar with the control group (1.4%). • More non-adopters reported deaths in their pig herd (10 out of 40) as compared with adopters (2 out of 42), and the control (7 out of 30). • Fewer adopters reported having sick pigs (17 out of 42) as compared with non-adopters (26 out of 40), and the control (23 out of 30). • Adopters had shorter production cycle (a week shorter), higher productivity (13% higher liveweight per head), more pigssold (89% higher per household), and heavier pigs sold (10% heavier/head) (Table 1). • There were no significant differences in total production costs between adopters and non-adopters, although there were differences in input cost shares (Table 2). VietGAHP adopters use posters and other communication materials to increase awareness about compli- ance with good practices, such as biosecurity measures as shown above. Photo by VNUA. Focus group discussions in Nghe An. Photo by VNUA • Productivity gains from adoption are possible froma more streamlined version of VietGAHP that is less costly to implement and could encourage uptake by a wider, more economically diverse group of users. • Exposure via demonstration effects could facilitate scaling up. Non-adopters in exposed sites have been observed to apply practices that are affordable, easy to apply, and aligned with VietGAHP guidelines. • Peer-to-peer learning is an effective strategy to enhance capacity for uptake; capacity development of target users who could transition as trainors to potential adopters could be explored. • Producers recognize economic incentives from healthier pigs that are preferred by traders. Market incentives from consumer demand for VietGAHP pork in fresh pork markets remains to be tapped. • Future work will continue to explore credible market signals of VietGAHP that consumers trust and are willing to pay for, with complementary supporting insti- tutions to support uptake. • Identify exposed site (Dien Chau district) and non-exposed site (Hung Nguyen dis trict) in Nghe An Province, one of the project sites of LIFSAP (Livestock Competitive ness and Food Safety Project), and a study site of the Pig Risk project. • Semi-structured surveys on 112 pig raising households and focus group discus sions (FGDs, two in each commune, 10 men and 10 women) were implemented. 1(Good Animal Husbandry Practices), promulgated through Decision 1506 /QĐ-BNN-KHCN dated 15 May 2008. A revised set of guidelines based on the original VietGAHP but targeting household-based pig production was issued in 2011 (MARD 2011). VietGAHP includes 29 practices on which compliance for VietGAHP certification is being evaluated. 2Livestock Competitiveness and Food Safety Project, funded by the World Bank and implemented by MARD. Study sites in Nghe An province Exposed sites (Dien Chau District) Non-exposed site (Hung Nguyen District) Target respondents Adopters Non-adopters Control Semi-structured survey (pig raising households) 42 40 30 Focus group discussions Dien Tho commune: 10 men, 10 women Dien Trung commune: 10 men, 10 women Hung Phuc commune: 10 men, 10 women Indicator Adopter Non- adopter Remark Length of a cycle (days) 95.0 102.5 Shorter production cycle Kg liveweight/head produced 66.3 58.6 higher liveweight/head Ave. no. of pigs sold/HH 12.5 6.6 more pigs sold/hh Total liveweight pigs sold/HH 828.4 395.7 Higher volume sold Kg liveweight/head sold 66.3 60 heavier pig sold Selling price/kg liveweight 37.4 36 higher selling price VietGAHP exposed Non-exposed Unit Adopter Non-adopter Non-adopter All Breeding stock 000đ 489.94 554.22 596.25 541.37 Concentrate feed 000đ 195.20 375.80 110.74 237.08 Complete feed 000đ 1268.43 575.92 2135.70 1253.41 Rice bran 000đ 606.79 778.28 313.98 589.61 Maize bran 000đ 241.02 521.75 181.58 325.36 Other raw feed 000đ 33.63 63.67 61.00 51.69 Veterinary 000đ 43.30 29.55 26.27 33.83 Others 000đ 22.11 16.64 10.51 17.05 Total 000đ 2900.4 2915.8 3436.0 3049.4 Revenue 000đ 4554.7 4486.3 4804.8 4597.3 Profit 000đ 1654.3 1570.4 1368.8 1547.9 Table 1: Production metrics, comparison between adopters and non-adopters, exposed site Table 2: Production cost, revenues, and profit (calculated for 100kg gained weight) Notes: 1. Exchange rate: 1USD = 22,000 VND at the time of survey. 2. Production cost is cal- culated based on the latest production cycle. Source of data: ILRI-VNUA VietGAHP adoption survey, 2015. North-West Vietnam Research Symposium 2017 THE GAP IN GAPs: SOME KEY LESSONS FOR UPTAKE AND POLICY CGIAR RESEARCH PROGRAM ON Agriculture for Nutrition and Health CGIAR RESEARCH PROGRAM ON Livestock and Fish

More Related Content

The gap in GAPs: Some key lessons for uptake and policy

  • 1. Ma. Lucila A. Lapar1, Nguyen Thi Duong Nga2, Nguyen Thi Thinh1, Nguyen Thi Thu Huyen2, Pham Van Hung2, Fred Unger1, Delia Grace3 1International Livestock Research Institute, Regional Office for East and Southeast Asia, Hanoi, Vietnam 2Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi, Vietnam 3International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya INTRODUCTION RESEARCH APPROACH RESULTS DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) certification with quality labels as signals is a cen- tral component of modern consumer policy in developed agri-food market systems (Jahn et al 2005). In developing country settings where informal markets remain dom- inant preferred outlets for food, establishing credible GAP certification schemes pose institutional and policy challenges (Lapar and Tiongco 2011, Reardon and Farina 2002). Previous experience of GAPs in developing country settings has shown mixed results, mainly in horticulture (UNCTAD 2007; Schreinemachers et al., 2012; Ha et al. 2014; Montano et al., 2016). In Vietnam and for livestock, VietGAHP has been rolled out through a development project (LIFSAP). Important policy questions remain un- answered. Are GAPs such as VietGAHP effective? Are there sufficient incentives to en- gender adoption and compliance? Are these transferable and scalable? We investi- gate VietGAHP adoption and evaluate impacts using quantitative and qualitative indi- cators. The findings provide empirical evidence to guide strategies for uptake and scaling. • 40% of adopters had high compliance with VietGAHP practices. Feed and water practices had high levels of compliance by at least half of the adopters; only 1 in 10 adopters had high compliance with keeping records and waste management prac- tices. • Incidence of mortality was higher among non-adopters (1.3%) than adopters (0.7%), but similar with the control group (1.4%). • More non-adopters reported deaths in their pig herd (10 out of 40) as compared with adopters (2 out of 42), and the control (7 out of 30). • Fewer adopters reported having sick pigs (17 out of 42) as compared with non-adopters (26 out of 40), and the control (23 out of 30). • Adopters had shorter production cycle (a week shorter), higher productivity (13% higher liveweight per head), more pigssold (89% higher per household), and heavier pigs sold (10% heavier/head) (Table 1). • There were no significant differences in total production costs between adopters and non-adopters, although there were differences in input cost shares (Table 2). VietGAHP adopters use posters and other communication materials to increase awareness about compli- ance with good practices, such as biosecurity measures as shown above. Photo by VNUA. Focus group discussions in Nghe An. Photo by VNUA • Productivity gains from adoption are possible froma more streamlined version of VietGAHP that is less costly to implement and could encourage uptake by a wider, more economically diverse group of users. • Exposure via demonstration effects could facilitate scaling up. Non-adopters in exposed sites have been observed to apply practices that are affordable, easy to apply, and aligned with VietGAHP guidelines. • Peer-to-peer learning is an effective strategy to enhance capacity for uptake; capacity development of target users who could transition as trainors to potential adopters could be explored. • Producers recognize economic incentives from healthier pigs that are preferred by traders. Market incentives from consumer demand for VietGAHP pork in fresh pork markets remains to be tapped. • Future work will continue to explore credible market signals of VietGAHP that consumers trust and are willing to pay for, with complementary supporting insti- tutions to support uptake. • Identify exposed site (Dien Chau district) and non-exposed site (Hung Nguyen dis trict) in Nghe An Province, one of the project sites of LIFSAP (Livestock Competitive ness and Food Safety Project), and a study site of the Pig Risk project. • Semi-structured surveys on 112 pig raising households and focus group discus sions (FGDs, two in each commune, 10 men and 10 women) were implemented. 1(Good Animal Husbandry Practices), promulgated through Decision 1506 /QĐ-BNN-KHCN dated 15 May 2008. A revised set of guidelines based on the original VietGAHP but targeting household-based pig production was issued in 2011 (MARD 2011). VietGAHP includes 29 practices on which compliance for VietGAHP certification is being evaluated. 2Livestock Competitiveness and Food Safety Project, funded by the World Bank and implemented by MARD. Study sites in Nghe An province Exposed sites (Dien Chau District) Non-exposed site (Hung Nguyen District) Target respondents Adopters Non-adopters Control Semi-structured survey (pig raising households) 42 40 30 Focus group discussions Dien Tho commune: 10 men, 10 women Dien Trung commune: 10 men, 10 women Hung Phuc commune: 10 men, 10 women Indicator Adopter Non- adopter Remark Length of a cycle (days) 95.0 102.5 Shorter production cycle Kg liveweight/head produced 66.3 58.6 higher liveweight/head Ave. no. of pigs sold/HH 12.5 6.6 more pigs sold/hh Total liveweight pigs sold/HH 828.4 395.7 Higher volume sold Kg liveweight/head sold 66.3 60 heavier pig sold Selling price/kg liveweight 37.4 36 higher selling price VietGAHP exposed Non-exposed Unit Adopter Non-adopter Non-adopter All Breeding stock 000đ 489.94 554.22 596.25 541.37 Concentrate feed 000đ 195.20 375.80 110.74 237.08 Complete feed 000đ 1268.43 575.92 2135.70 1253.41 Rice bran 000đ 606.79 778.28 313.98 589.61 Maize bran 000đ 241.02 521.75 181.58 325.36 Other raw feed 000đ 33.63 63.67 61.00 51.69 Veterinary 000đ 43.30 29.55 26.27 33.83 Others 000đ 22.11 16.64 10.51 17.05 Total 000đ 2900.4 2915.8 3436.0 3049.4 Revenue 000đ 4554.7 4486.3 4804.8 4597.3 Profit 000đ 1654.3 1570.4 1368.8 1547.9 Table 1: Production metrics, comparison between adopters and non-adopters, exposed site Table 2: Production cost, revenues, and profit (calculated for 100kg gained weight) Notes: 1. Exchange rate: 1USD = 22,000 VND at the time of survey. 2. Production cost is cal- culated based on the latest production cycle. Source of data: ILRI-VNUA VietGAHP adoption survey, 2015. North-West Vietnam Research Symposium 2017 THE GAP IN GAPs: SOME KEY LESSONS FOR UPTAKE AND POLICY CGIAR RESEARCH PROGRAM ON Agriculture for Nutrition and Health CGIAR RESEARCH PROGRAM ON Livestock and Fish