BPH light trap used by farmers
Focus group discussion with farmers in Tien Giang province, Vietnam
In November 2007, we carried out a small research and development activity (SRA) for the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) as a first step to developing an integrated management strategy for the brown planthopper (BPH)/virus problem in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. We conducted field visits, focus group discussions (FGD) with rice farmers in Tien Giang, Long An, Vinh Long and Nha Trang provinces, key informant interviews with policy makers and document review to explore farmer perceptions of viral diseases and their management. This information was needed to develop communication strategies to help farmers adapt and enable the Plant Protection Department to scale up the dissemination of these strategies.
Policy makers’ action on BPH/virus outbreak
The government budget for BPH/virus disease control in 2006 came up to a total of VND 105,758.50 million. Of this 55.2% was allocated for pesticides, 37.8% for destroying and removal of infected fields, which includes the subsidy for farmers. Only 7% was spent on extension and training activities.
Stakeholder concerns
|
Save rice crop |
Control BPH & virus |
Set new research priorities |
Set extension priorities |
Ensure food security, |
Maintain political stability |
Increase pesticide sales |
||
|
Policy makers – minister |
|
|
|
|
XXXX |
XXXX |
|
|
|
|
Policy makers – DG of PPD |
X | XX |
XXXX |
XXX | XX | ||
|
|
Extension directors |
X | XXX |
XXXX |
||||
|
|
Research directors |
X | XX | XXXX | X | |||
|
|
Extension staff |
XX | XXXX | X | ||||
|
|
Research scientists |
XX | XXXX | |||||
|
|
Farmers |
XXXX | XX | |||||
|
|
Pesticide companies |
XX | X | XXXX | ||||
A matrix showing stakeholder concerns about BPH/virus disease control illustrates that decisions on control are seen by various stakeholders differently (see table above). For the farmer, the concern is to save the crop, not having to spend too much doing it and get into financial loss. He has little concerns about research or extension priorities. As for researchers, they are more interested in research priorities that might provide solutions, but has less concern about extension. Extension wants the pest controlled over a large scale and would adopt what researchers might call “unscientific” methods. They would use methods that researchers might call less scientific but can work over a large scale. Pesticide companies aim to save the rice crop and control BPH/virus disease but the stronger drive to increase pesticide sales will dominate.
On the other hand, policy makers would like to ensure absolute control or seen to be doing a great deal to help farmers for the longer term goals of ensuring food security and maintaining political stability. Thus, immediate response like making emergency funds available will be an important decision.
What will be useful to optimize these decisions will be guidelines for utilizing the funds. Are funds to provide free pesticides for control effective? Are there better ways to optimize the funds such as allocating a larger share of the budget on extension and mass media? How can policy makers rationalize pesticide company influence in policy decisions – e.g., list of restricted pesticides, content of extension and training?
To read full scoping study report, click here …
