emergency food assistance project dry season... · 2014-07-28 · sometime spent their weekends to...
TRANSCRIPT
RksYge
sdækic© nig h
irBaØvtßú
* *
Emergency Food Assistance Project
Loan: 2455-CAM (SF), Grant: 0116-CAM (SF), TA: 7145-CAM
#17, St 75, Corner St 90, Sangkat Wat Phnom, Khan Daun Penh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Tel: (855) 23 430 716, Fax: (855) 23 430 719, Website: www.efap.org.kh
An Assessment of Seed and Fertilizer Distribution
December 2010
Pursat, Banteay Meanchey, Otdar Meanchey and Siem Reap
Dry Season 2009
KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA
Ministry of Economy and Finance
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Central Project Management Unit (CPMU) would like to thank all the Provincial Project
Management Unit (PPMU) staffs from Pursat, Banteay Meanchey, Otdar Meanchey and
Siem Reap who conducted the household interviews, entered the gathered data, and
sometime spent their weekends to complete this assignment.
Special thanks goes to all 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.
Table of Contents
Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………….. ii
Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………. iii
I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6
II. Project Description ............................................................................................................. 6
III. Research Methods ............................................................................................................ 6
A. Objective ....................................................................................................................................... 6
B. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 6
C. Survey Sample ............................................................................................................................ 7
D. Survey Limitation ......................................................................................................................... 7
IV. Research Findings ............................................................................................................ 7
A. Rice Seed ..................................................................................................................................... 7
2. Fertilizer ................................................................................................................................... 12
3. Rice yield ................................................................................................................................. 15
4. Farmer Trainings and Extension Services ......................................................................... 16
5. Overall Findings ..................................................................................................................... 17
V. Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 19
ii
Abbreviations
ADB Asian Development Bank AQIP Agriculture Quality Improvement Project BMC Banteay Meanchey Province CARDI Cambodian Agriculture Research and Development Institute CPMU Central Project Management Unit EFAP Emergency Food Assistance Project HHs Households MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries MEF Ministry of Economy and Finance OMC Otdar Meanchey Province PDA Provincial Department of Agriculture PPMU Provincial Project Management Unit PST Pursat Province RGC The Royal Government of Cambodia RRP Report and Recommendation of the President SR Siem Reap Province
iii
Executive Summary
This report is a consolidated report comprising of surveys and analysis conducted in two phases, baseline survey (at the beginning of the planting season) and post harvest survey (after the harvest of the rice crop). The objective of the study was to assess the impact of the rice seed and subsidized fertilizer distribution carried out for dry season 2009 on the livelihood of the project beneficiaries in general and on productivity of rice crop in particular.
Findings
The findings indicate that the number of farmers who planted dry season rice crop in the project target provinces of Pursat, Banteay Meanchey, Otdar Meanchey and Siem Reap has jumped up dramatically from 46.9 percent in 2008 to 92.3 percent in 2009. All the respondents, except few (22 respondents) from Otdar Meanchey and Banteay Meanchey, planted rice seed received from the project. The beneficiaries who did not use the rice seed reasoned that: i) there was no water; ii) kept for wet season planting; and iii) did not have enough labour for planting.
IR66 was found to be the common rice variety for the dry season rice crop production both in 2008 and 2009. But the number of respondents who used IR66 in 2008 was only 29.4 percent, while in 2009, it increased up to 92.3 percent. This might be due to the quality rice seed distribution carried out by the Project in these provinces. As reported, 88 percent of respondents rated the quality of rice seed provided by the project as of high quality (germination percentage reported was in between 70 to 100 percent).
The average quantity of rice seed used per hectare (seed rate) in 2008 dry season rice crop production in the four target provinces was 145 Kg, while in 2009, the seed rate used was only about 61 Kg per hectare. Moreover, for the plot of land that used the project supplied rice seed, the seed rate used was only 47 Kg per hectare.
The study found that the major source of rice seed in 2009 dry season rice crop production was the project supplied rice seed. Majority of respondents (92.3 percent) in the four provinces and all the respondents from Pursat and Siem Reap, used rice seed provided by the project. In contrast in 2008, the main sources of rice seed for these respondents were i) bought from other villagers (19.7 percent), and ii) kept from previous year's harvest (18.8 percent).
Even though the project tried to encourage farmers to adopt transplanting rather than broadcasting, a large number of respondents used broadcasting for their dry season rice crop production. The reasons provided for this were the unavailability of water and labour. However the study indicated an increase in the number of farmers (6.3 percent in 2008 to 25 percent in 2009) that practiced transplanting technique. Similarly the number of farmers that practiced broadcasting technique also increased from 40.3 percent in 2008 to 68 percent in 2009.
Nearly 40 percent of the respondents followed the planting techniques learned from the project for their dry season rice crop production in 2009, while in 2008, around one third of the respondents (31.6 percent) followed the traditional farming practices learnt from forefathers.
Due to the subsidized fertilizer, provided by the project to small and marginal beneficiary farmers, a dramatic increase in the ability of these farmers in getting access to chemical fertilizers for the dry season rice crop production was marked. In 2008, there were only
iv
around 30.1 percent of the total respondents that could afford use of fertilizer, while in 2009, the number of respondents that had access to fertilizer jumped to about 89.1 percent. The average quantity of DAP and Urea applied per hectare (fertilizer dose), in 2008, was 78 Kg and 100 Kg, respectively. The quantity of DAP used was less than the MAFF's standard recommendation (standard dose for Urea is between 50 to 100 Kg per hectare and DAP is between 100 to 150 Kg per hectare). In 2009, the average quantity of DAP and Urea applied per hectare was 92 Kg and 64 Kg, respectively which could still be considered as in accordance with the standards provided by MAFF. Similar to 2009, the application of both DAP and Urea in the plot of land that used project supplied rice seed was 113 Kg and 64 Kg, respectively.
The project had provided short training courses on the improved cultivation practices of rice crop to selected lead farmers. As required by the project, about 41.1 percent of the total respondents that had attended the farmers’ trainings passed on the gained knowledge to other family members or farmers. This led to quite a large number of respondents (58.9 percent) using the gained knowledge from the training for their dry season rice crop planting. Also, approximately 82.8 percent of the total respondents indicated their willingness to follow the knowledge gained from the trainings for the future rice crop production.
The results of the study showed that on an average paddy rice yield in four target provinces increased by 42.9 percent i.e. from 2,006 Kg per hectare in 2008 to 2,866 Kg per hectare in 2009. Similarly, the plot of land that used the rice seed and fertilizer supplied by the project marked an increase in the yield from 1,979 Kg per hectare in 2008 to 2,814 Kg per hectare in 2009. Thus, the paddy rice yield from the same plot of land was increased by 42.2 percent. This indicates that the distribution of rice seed and subsidized fertilizer coupled with the trainings and extension services provided by the project boosted the rice yield.
These paddy rice yields were well below the national average for dry season 2009 (4.031
tons/ha) reported by MAFF. The report issued by MAFF was the paddy rice yield at national level covering upland, plain, coastal, and Tonle Sap zones with the general agricultural inputs and conditions (including big land size; proper irrigation, inputs, and machinery facilities; and crop diversification). On the other hand, these four project target provinces are in the Tonle Sap region and the targeted beneficiaries are the small and marginal farmers with degraded land and insufficient irrigation facilities. Therefore, the ability of production and/or yield potential was very limited.
It was also found out that the number of beneficiaries who produced less than 500 Kg declined by 2.1 percent, from 8.1 percent in 2008 to 6 percent in 2009. Those respondents who got paddy rice yield of 500 Kg to less than 1,000 Kg remained the same while those who got 1,000 Kg or more increased by 35.2 percent. This is a significant increase if one takes into account the Project expected yield increase of about 10 percent only.
After getting the help from the project, majority of respondents (73 percent) exuded confidence of reducing the food gap. About 50.9 percent of respondents reported to be able to reduce the food gap by 1 to 3 months, 15.1 percent reported to be able to reduce the gap by 4 to 6 months and 7.0 percent reported to be able to reduce the gap by more than 6 months. About 77.2 percent of the respondents reported that their living standard would be better as i) they did not spend their own money to buy seed and fertilizer (17.9 percent); ii) they got increased rice crop production (7 percent); iii) they were able to increase income and thereby having higher living standard (22.8 percent); iv) they were able to save some
1 MAFF report dated 25 February 2010
v
money (2.8 percent); v) they were able to save enough rice for consumption (8.1 percent); vi) they were able to get out of poverty (6 percent); vii) they were able to buy some assets and animal (8.4 percent); and viii) they were able to repay debt (2.5 percent). On an average, more than half (60.4 percent) of the respondents indicated the ability to repay debt because of the increased paddy rice production.
At the end, nearly 41.1 percent of the respondents in these four project target provinces had suggested that the project should continue its rice seed and fertilizer support in the future.
6
I. Introduction
The Emergency Food Assistance Project (EFAP) had successfully completed the productivity enhancement support through the distribution of rice seed and subsidized fertilizer for dry season 2009 in four out of seven target provinces, Pursat, Banteay Meanchey, Otdar Meanchey and Siem Reap. In order to see the effectiveness of the inputs support to the small and marginal farmers in these said provinces, an assessment has been conducted. This assessment is to determine how and in what ways the participants have been benefited from the project supplied inputs support.
This assessment aimed at providing the project with dependable information and facts on the extent of improvement the inputs support activities have brought about to the lives of the targeted beneficiaries and to the villagers as a whole.
II. Project Description
The Royal Government of Cambodia has received a Loan and a Grant fund from Asian Development Bank (ADB) towards the cost of the Emergency Food Assistance Project (EFAP). The project is co-financed by the Royal Government of Cambodia. The overall goal of the project is to utilize existing effective delivery mechanisms and institutions, and enhance their capacity as appropriate to help the Government meet unexpected high expenditures for safety net programs for the poor and vulnerable affected by higher food, fuel, and agricultural input prices.
The project consists of three components: (i) compensatory consumption support comprising (a) food/cash distribution, and (b) food/cash-for-work program; (ii) productivity enhancement support; and (iii) capacity development for emergency response to the food crisis, and Project management.
The expected outputs are (i) increased availability of food to vulnerable households; (ii) supported input needs of smallholders and marginal farmers; and (iii) an operational national food security response system. The expected outcome is improved access to sufficient food by food-insecure Cambodians in the targeted provinces. The expected impact is reduced vulnerability of food-insecure households in Cambodia.
III. Research Methods
A. Objective
The objective of the study was to assess the impact of the rice seed and subsidized fertilizer distribution carried out for dry season 2009 on the livelihood of the project beneficiaries in general and on productivity of rice crop in particular.
B. Methodology
The study comprised of two key surveys, baseline survey and post harvest survey, that resulted in the compilation of the comprehensive report with relevant information on the impacts of the project supplied inputs support in Pursat, Banteay Meanchey, Otdar Meanchey and Siem Reap provinces.
As the sets of questionnaires used for the impact assessment survey for wet season 2009 in Kampong Thom and Kampong Chhnang provinces found to be effective, the project stuck with the same sets. These sets were prepared to gather information on households, livelihood activities, annual income, basic households expenditure, food gap, farming practices, land holding, production, etc. of beneficiary households. However, in order to keep
7
the analysis simple and put more emphasis on the effect of inputs support, data related to livelihood, income, and expenditure were not included in post harvest survey.
The PPMU staffs from the respective provinces were mobilized for the household surveys while Provincial Facilitators of these provinces coordinated the fieldwork and checked the filled up questionnaires to ensure that questionnaires were properly completed by the enumerators. 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 result of the pre-test, the interviewers were re-convened to better understand the questionnaires.
C. Survey Sample
To obtain a reasonable representation for data analysis, cluster-sampling method was adopted for the sample selection. Thirty (30) percent of the total villages were selected from the list of the targeted communes. Then ten (10) percent of the households in the list of “Beneficiaries for Subsidized Seed and Fertilizer” of the selected villages were randomly selected for interview. Thus 92 households from Pursat, 107 from Banteay Meanchey, 34 from Otdar Meanchey and 87 from Siem Reap provinces were interviewed for baseline survey. For the post harvest survey, the team stuck with the same households as for the baseline survey. Since some of the earlier interviewees had left their villages for planting wet season crop at distant places, the team was able to interview a total of 285 households out of 320 sampled households for the post harvest survey.
The data was entered into designed database by respective PPMU provincial staff with support from respective Provincial Facilitators. Data tabulation and data analysis were the responsibility of the National Sociologist/Community Facilitator. The report was edited and given shape by the Team Leader, EFAP. SPSS 12.0 software program was used to produce frequency and cross-tabulation for data analysis.
D. Survey Limitation
Both the surveys were carried out by the PPMU staffs who have limited expertise in carrying
out such activities. Of course, these staffs received a short training and actively participated
in the field test.
IV. Research Findings
A. Rice Seed
The Cambodian Agriculture Research and Development Institute (CARDI), is the leading agricultural research institute, which has recommended the project to distribute Sen Pidor (Aromatic rice) and IR66 varieties of rice seeds to the farmers. The rice varieties IR66 and Sen Pidor are popular and suitable for a number of geographical conditions because of their duration (cultivation period is less than 120 days) and photoperiod insensitivity (no restriction to flowering time).
AQIP, a private company with core business as the production and marketing of high quality rice seed of traditional and improved varieties, is the sole company that the project is able to contract with as it is identified by the Project document (RRP).
8
In November 2009, the project distributed only IR66 rice seeds to eligible farmers in the project targeted communes of Pursat, Banteay Meanchey, Otdar Meanchey and Siem Reap provinces for dry season rice crop production. This was done basing on the lessons learnt from the 2009 wet season distribution whereby Sen Pidor being an aromatic variety reportedly attracted insects and pests.
The study found out that the number of farmers who planted dry season rice crop in these project target provinces have almost doubled from 46.9 percent in 2008 to 92.3 percent in 2009. All the respondents in Pursat and Siem Reap cultivated dry season rice crop in 2009. This might be due to the free quality rice seed distributed by the Project.
Figure 1: Dry season rice crop cultivation
In comparison, in 2008, only 23.9 percent respondents from Pursat and 82.8 percent from Siem Reap cultivated dry season rice crop. The number of respondents who planted dry season rice crop in Otdar Meanchey and Banteay Meanchey showed a significant increase i.e. from 8.8 and 49.5 percent in 2008 to 94.1 and 81.3 percent in 2009, respectively. Those respondents (from Otdar Meanchey and Banteay Meanchey) who received the rice seed but did not cultivate reasoned that: i) there was no water (2.8 percent); ii) kept for wet season planting (2.5 percent); and iii) did not have enough labour for planting (2.5 percent).
Table 1: Dry season rice crop cultivation
Province
Dry Season 2008 Dry Season 2009
Total No. of Respondents
No. of Respondents Planted Dry Season Rice
Crop
Percentage (%)
Total No. of Respondents
No. of Respondents Planted Dry Season Rice
Crop
Percentage (%)
PST 92 22 23.9 68 68 100.0
BMC 107 53 49.5 107 87 81.3
OMC 34 3 8.8 34 32 94.1
SR 87 72 82.8 76 76 100.0
Total 320 150 46.9 285 263 92.3
Note: PS: Pursat, BMC: Banteay Meanchey, OMC: Otdar Meanchey, and SR: Siem Reap
Generally rice varieties differ according to season, region or location. However, the study found out that regardless of locations, IR66 followed by Sen Pidor were the most common
9
rice varieties used both in dry season 2008 and 2009. As mentioned earlier, since the number of farmers who planted dry season rice crop in 2008 was much less than in 2009, the number of farmers who used IR66 in 2008 was also correspondingly less than in 2009 (see Table 2).
Table 2: Rice varieties cultivated in dry season
Province
Number of Respondents Sowed IR66 and Sen Pidor in dry season 2008 (%)
Number of Respondents Sowed IR66 and Sen Pidor in dry season 2009 (%)
IR66 Sen Pidor IR66 Sen Pidor
PST 12.0 4.3 100.0 0.0
BMC 29.0 7.5 81.3 3.7
OMC 00.0 8.8 94.1 2.9
SR 59.8 10.3 100.0 0.0
Average 29.4 7.5 92.3 1.8
The quality of the project supplied rice seed seemed to be high as 19.6 percent of the respondents rated it as excellent (germination percentage reported was between 90 to 100 percent), 33.7 percent rated as very good (germination percentage reported was between 85 to less than 90 percent) and 34.7 percent rated as good (germination percentage reported was between 70 to less than 85 percent). Only 4.2 percent of respondents rated the project supplied rice seed as not quite good (germination percentage reported was less than 70 percent). This indicates that the rice seed provided by the project was of high quality.
Table 3: Rice seed quality rating
Province
Plot of land that used rice seed from other sources (HHs)
Plot of land that used rice seed from EFAP (HHs)
Excellent Very Good
Good Not
quite good
Total Excellent Very Good
Good Not
quite good
Total
PST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.1 36.8 11.8 7.4 100
BMC 0.9 0.0 7.5 2.8 12.1 0.0 20.6 54.2 6.5 81.3
OMC 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 14.7 2.9 5.9 85.3 0.0 94.1
SR 1.3 11.8 0.0 0.0 13.2 32.9 61.8 5.3 0.0 100
Average 1.1 3.2 4.6 1.1 9.8 19.6 33.7 34.7 4.2 92.3
The average quantity of rice seed used per hectare (seed rate) in 2008 dry season rice crop production in the four target provinces was 145 Kg, while in 2009, the seed rate used was about 61 Kg per hectare. Moreover, for the plot of land that used the project supplied rice seed, the seed rate used was only 47 Kg per hectare. This shows the effect of the leaflets and trainings on the improved cultivation practices that the project had provided to the beneficiary farmers.
10
Figure 2: Average quantity of rice seed per hectare (seed rate)
In dry season 2008, respondents in Banteay Meanchey used a higher seed rate than other provinces, i.e. 187 Kg per hectare, followed by Siem Reap (130 Kg per hectare), Pursat (114 Kg per hectare) and Otdar Meanchey (102 Kg per hectare). In contrast in dry season 2009, the seed rate used in Pursat, Banteay Meanchey and Siem Reap was 45 Kg, 63 Kg and 59 Kg per hectare, respectively. However, respondents in Otdar Meanchey found to be using a slightly higher seed rate i.e. 83 Kg per hectare. For the plot of land that used project supplied rice seed, beneficiaries in the four provinces used more or less the same seed rate i.e. around 46Kg per hectare (see Table 4).
Table 4: Average quantity of rice seed per hectare (seed rate)
Province Dry Season 2008
(Kg) Dry Season 2009
(Kg) Plot of land that used rice
seed from EFAP (Kg)
PST 114 45 45
BMC 187 63 46
OMC 102 83 46
SR 130 59 49
Average 145 61 47
In 2009, the main source for rice seed for the respondents was the project supplied rice seed with 92.3 percent respondents used the seed for their dry season rice crop cultivation. Besides this, there were only few respondents who used traditional rice seed for cultivation and that too in other plot of land in dry season 2009. This number is too small to compare with those who used rice seed provided by the project. The respondents in Pursat and Siem Reap provinces solely used rice seed provided by the project. In contrast in 2008, there were two important sources of rice seed that respondents used for their dry season rice crop cultivation i.e. buying seed from other villagers (19.7 percent) and keeping seed from the previous year's harvest (18.8 percent).
11
Table 5: Sources of rice seed
Sources of Rice Seed
Dry Season 2008 (%) Dry Season 2009 (%)
PS BMC OMC SR
Av
era
ge
PS BMC OMC SR
Av
era
ge
Received from EFAP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 81.3 94.1 100 92.3
Bought from the market 2.2 2.8 0 9.2 4.1 0 0.9 0 0 0.4
Bought from other
villagers 7.6 21.5 0 37.9 19.7 0 6.5 2.9 7.9 4.9
Bartered paddy for seed
with other villagers 1.1 1.9 0 9.2 3.4 0 0.9 5.9 0 1.1
Kept from last year crop 13.0 22.4 8.8 24.1 18.8 0 4.7 5.9 1.3 2.8
The Project, through the training of farmers and extension services, tried to encourage farmers to adopt transplanting rather than broadcasting technique, as it requires less quantity of rice seed, gives more space to plant to express its vigour, make available more nutrients to plants, and thereby increases production. However, as the availability of water and labour was limited and also the labour cost for transplanting is higher than broadcasting, a large number of respondents preferred broadcasting technique for their dry season production both in 2008 and 2009. As can be seen from the table below, in 2008 and 2009, there were only 6.3 and 25 percent of respondents practiced transplanting technique while 40.3 and 68 percent practiced broadcasting technique, respectively.
Table 6: Planting techniques
Province Dry Season 2008 (%) Dry Season 2009 (%)
Transplanting Broadcasting Transplanting Broadcasting
PST 13.0 9.8 35.3 64.7
BMC 1.9 47.7 4.7 76.6
OMC 8.8 0.0 64.7 29.4
SR 3.4 79.3 25.0 75.0
Average 6.3 40.3 25.0 68.0
It was interesting to note that, after the project had provided trainings on improved planting techniques of rice crop, nearly 40 percent of the respondents followed the planting techniques learned from the project for their dry season rice crop production in 2009. Among the four target provinces, most respondents (70.6 percent) from Otdar Meanchey practiced planting techniques learnt from the project, followed by Siem Reap (46.1 percent), Banteay Meanchey (31.8 percent) and Pursat (30.9 percent). Moreover, the respondents that followed planting techniques from the neighbours in between 2008 and 2009 jumped from 4.1 to 14.4 percent. This increment might be due to the requirement of the project whereby lead farmers who attended the trainings were required to pass on the gained knowledge to other beneficiary farmers/villagers.
In between 2008 and 2009, the respondents who learnt planting techniques from the agriculture extension officers decreased from 7.5 to 6.3 percent. There might be some
12
confusion on the part of the beneficiary farmers whether the project or agriculture officers provided the trainings.
On the other hand, even though the project had provided trainings to its target beneficiaries before planting season, still a large number of respondents (about 31.6 percent) adopted traditional farming practices learnt from forefathers. This indicates that some farmers might not want to change their practices unless they see the outcome by themselves. This also indicates the need for an extensive agriculture extension programme to generate farmers’ awareness.
Table 7: Sources of planting techniques knowledge
Province
Dry Season 2008 (%) Dry Season 2009 (%)
Tra
inin
g
pro
vid
ed
by
EF
AP
Ag
ricultu
re
exte
nsio
n
off
ice
rs
Pa
ren
ts/
Re
latives
Ne
igh
bo
urs
Tra
inin
g
pro
vid
ed
by
EF
AP
Ag
ricultu
re
exte
nsio
n
off
ice
rs
Pa
ren
ts/
Re
latives
Ne
igh
bo
urs
PST N/A 2.2 19.6 2.2 30.9 0.0 66.2 2.9
BMC N/A 16.8 25.2 7.5 31.8 16.8 18.7 14.0
OMC N/A 0.0 8.8 0.0 70.6 0.0 11.8 11.8
SR N/A 4.6 74.7 3.4 46.1 0.0 27.6 26.3
Average N/A 7.5 35.3 4.1 40.0 6.3 31.6 14.4
2. Fertilizer
The Central Project Management Unit (CPMU) has developed the guidelines for the distribution of rice seed and fertilizer to the beneficiary farmers in the project targeted communes with an emphasis on “the eligible beneficiaries who are willing to receive rice seed have the option to buy subsidized fertilizer, while those who decide not to take rice seed will not be eligible to buy subsidized fertilizer”. Therefore, among those who received rice seed from EFAP, 89.1 percent had also bought subsidized fertilizer from the project.
Between 2008 and 2009, a dramatic increase in the ability of small and marginal farmers in getting access to fertilizer for the dry season rice crop production was marked. In 2008, there were only around 30.1 percent of the total respondents that could afford use of fertilizer, while in 2009, the number of respondents that had access to fertilizer jumped to about 89.1 percent. This might be due to the project supplied subsidized fertilizer to beneficiary farmers.
Figure 3: Fertilizer application
13
The number of respondents having access to DAP and Urea jumped up from 31.3 and 37.8 percent in 2008 to 89.1 and 88.4 percent in 2009, respectively. The average quantity of DAP and Urea applied per hectare, in 2008, was 78 Kg and 100 Kg, respectively. The quantity of Urea used was within the MAFF's standard recommendation while the quantity of DAP was less than the standard recommendation (standard dose for Urea is between 50 to 100 Kg per hectare, and DAP is between 100 to 150 Kg per hectare). In 2009, the average quantity of DAP and Urea applied per hectare was 92 Kg and 64 Kg, respectively which could still be considered as in accordance with the standards provided by MAFF. Similar to 2009, the application of both DAP and Urea in the plot of land that used project supplied rice seed was 113 Kg and 64 Kg, respectively. This indicates the effects of the trainings and extension services provided by the project.
The project through the trainings had also encouraged farmers to use natural fertilizers. In between 2008 and 2009, a slight decrease in the utilization of natural fertilizer was marked. The reason attributed by the respondents was unavailability of the manure.
Table 8: Quantity of fertilizer
Province
Fertilizer
Application Dry Season 2008 (%) Dry Season 2009 (%)
Plot of land that used rice seed from EFAP
DAP UREA Manure DAP UREA Manure DAP UREA Manure
PST Percentage of
respondents (%) 41.3 58.7 18.5 88.2 86.8 0.0 88.2 86.8 0.0
Average QTY/ha (Kg) 90 87 0 55 63 0 106 63 0
BMC
Percentage of respondents (%)
44.9 52.3 3.7 81.3 81.3 8.4 81.3 81.3 8.4
Average QTY/ha (Kg) 76 113 735 114 67 301 116 63 267
OMC
Percentage of respondents (%)
35.3 14.7 8.8 94.1 94.1 11.8 94.1 94.1 11.8
Average QTY/ha (Kg) 0 0 0 105 54 422 117 61 656
SR Percentage of
respondents (%) 9.2 6.9 8.2 98.7 97.4 5.3 98.7 97.4 5.3
Average QTY/ha (Kg) 70 60 222 110 67 156 114 70 156
Average
Percentage of respondents (%)
33.1 37.8 9.7 89.1 88.4 6.0 89.1 88.4 6.0
Average QTY/ha (Kg) 78 100 471 92 64 308 113 64 333
In between 2008 and 2009, the means of obtaining fertilizer was quite different for farmers in target communes. In 2009, majority of respondents (88.8 percent) applied fertilizer received from the project whereas in 2008, the respondents obtained fertilizer either by paying cash (13.8 percent) or by buying on credit from other sources (13.1 percent). In 2009, the number of beneficiaries that used the above two means decreased dramatically to 1.1 and 2.1 percent respectively. The application of natural fertilizer was rarely found as its availability was reportedly very limited.
14
Table 9: Means of obtaining fertilizer
Province
Dry Season 2008 (%) Dry Season 2009 (%)
Bo
ug
ht o
n c
redit
fro
m E
FA
P
Bo
ug
ht b
y p
ayin
g
ca
sh
Bo
rro
we
d m
one
y
fro
m m
one
y le
nde
r
Bo
rro
we
d m
one
y
fro
m r
ela
tives
Bo
ug
ht o
n c
redit
fro
m o
the
r so
urc
es
Bo
rro
we
d M
one
y
fro
m IM
F
Ke
pt/
co
llecte
d
by o
ne
se
lf
Bo
ug
ht o
n c
redit
fro
m E
FA
P
Bo
ug
ht b
y p
ayin
g
ca
sh
Bo
rro
we
d m
one
y
fro
m m
one
y le
nde
r
Bo
rro
we
d m
one
y
fro
m r
ela
tives
Bo
ug
ht o
n c
redit
fro
m o
the
r so
urc
es
Bo
rro
we
d M
one
y
fro
m IM
F
Ke
pt/
co
llecte
d
by o
ne
se
lf
PST N/A 8.7 1.1 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 86.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
BMC N/A 14.0 1.9 2.8 28.0 0.0 0.0 81.3 1.9 0.0 1.9 4.7 0.0 2.8
OMC N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0
SR N/A 24.1 2.3 0.0 2.3 1.1 1.1 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Average N/A 13.8 1.6 0.9 13.1 0.3 0.3 88.8 1.1 0.0 1.1 2.1 0.0 1.1
Around 39.3 percent of the respondents reported that they gained knowledge on fertilizer use from the trainings provided by the project. Since quite a large number of farmers planted dry season rice crop in 2009 than 2008, the number of farmers that learned techniques of fertilizer use from different sources also increased. For instance, the farmers that learnt from agricultural extension officers, parents or relatives, and neighbours jumped from 5.9, 19.7 and 3.8 percent in 2008 to 6.7, 26.0 and 17.2 percent in 2009 respectively. The reason for this change might be due to the requirement of the project whereby the lead farmers who attended the trainings were required to pass on the gained knowledge to other beneficiary farmers/villagers.
Table 10: Sources of fertilizer knowledge
Province
Dry Season 2008 (%) Dry Season 2009 (%)
Tra
inin
g p
rovid
ed
by E
FA
P
Ag
ricultu
re
exte
nsio
n o
ffic
ers
Pa
ren
ts/
Rela
tive
s
Neig
hbo
urs
Fe
rtili
ze
r D
ea
lers
Tra
inin
g p
rovid
ed
by E
FA
P
Ag
ricultu
re
exte
nsio
n o
ffic
ers
Pa
ren
ts/
Rela
tive
s
Neig
hbo
urs
Fe
rtili
ze
r D
ea
lers
PST N/A 2.2 15.2 3.3 0.0 27.9 0.0 57.4 2.9 0.0
BMC N/A 14.0 29.9 1.9 1.9 31.8 16.8 15.9 16.8 0.0
OMC N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.6 0.0 8.8 17.6 0.0
SR N/A 2.3 19.5 8.0 1.1 47.4 1.3 19.7 30.3 1.3
Average N/A 5.9 19.7 3.8 0.9 39.3 6.7 26.0 17.2 0.4
15
3. Rice yield
Figure 4: Average rice yield (Kg/ha)
One could see from the Figure above and Table below, the average paddy rice yield in the
four target provinces increased by 42.9 percent i.e. from 2,006 Kg per hectare in 2008 to
2,866 Kg per hectare in 2009. Similarly, the plot of land that used the rice seed and fertilizer
supplied by the project marked an increase in the yield from 1,979 Kg per hectare in 2008 to
2,814 Kg per hectare in 2009. Thus the paddy rice yield from the same plot of land was
increased by 42.2 percent. This indicates the effectiveness of the project supplied rice seed
and fertilizer and corresponding trainings and extension services. Without the quality seed
and subsidized fertilizer support from the project, the yield of the dry season rice crop would
have been much less.
Table 11: Average rice yield
Province
Overall Plot of land that used rice seed from
EFAP
Dry Season
2008
Dry Season
2009 Increase in Yield
Dry Season
2008
Dry Season
2009 Increase in Yield
(Kg/ha) (Kg/ha) (Kg/ha) % (Kg/ha) (Kg/ha) (Kg/ha) %
PST 1,707 2,233 526 30.8% 1,726 2,233 507 29.4%
BMC 2,049 2,795 746 36.4% 1,991 2,907 916 46.0%
OMC 2,041 3,174 1,133 55.5% 2,187 3,214 1,027 47.0%
SR 2,052 2,866 814 39.7% 2,031 2,866 835 41.1%
Average 2,006 2,866 860 42.9% 1,979 2,814 835 42.2%
It was also noticed that the number of respondents who produced less than 500 Kg declined by 2.1 percent, from 8.1 percent in 2008 to 6 percent in 2009. Those respondents who got paddy rice yield of 500 Kg to less than 1,000 Kg remained the same while those who got 1,000 Kg or more increased by 35.2 percent. This is a significant increase if one takes into account the Project expected yield increase of about 10 percent only.
16
Table 12: Ranking of rice yields
Province
Dry Season 2008 (%) Dry Season 2009 (%)
<5
00
50
0-<
1,0
00
1,0
00
-
<2
,00
0
2,0
00
-
<3
,00
0
>/3
,000
<5
00
50
0-<
1,0
00
1,0
00
-
<2
,00
0
2,0
00
-
<3
,00
0
>/3
,000
PST 5.4 8.7 5.4 4.3 0.0 11.8 7.4 25.0 11.8 4.4
BMC 9.3 14.0 9.3 12.1 1.9 3.7 12.1 27.1 19.6 18.7
OMC 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.2 41.2 20.6
SR 11.5 11.5 35.6 12.6 11.5 6.6 21.1 31.6 27.6 11.8
Average 8.1 11.9 16.5 9.8 4.2 6.0 11.9 29.5 22.5 13.7
Even though the rice crop production marked a significant increase in between dry season 2008 and 2009, the production would have been much more had there been enough water and less disease and pest attack. As reported by the respondents, some of the factors that affected the rice crop production were, i) drought (32.2 percent); ii) unavailability of water (5.6 percent); iii) disease and pest attack (13.3 percent); and iv) not quite good quality rice seed (1.1 percent). Although the project had provided high quality rice seed and fertilizer, lack of water or irrigation facilities was the fundamental problem pointed out by the respondents.
Table 13: Reasons for decrease in dry season rice crop yield
Province Drought (%)
Water not available (%)
Disease and pest attack (%)
Quality of rice seed not good (%)
PST 55.9 4.4 1.5 0.0
BMC 25.2 9.3 29.0 1.9
OMC 44.1 0.0 14.7 0.0
SR 15.8 3.9 1.3 1.3
Average 32.2 5.6 13.3 1.1
4. Farmer Trainings and Extension Services
The Project document (RRP) requires the fertilizer to be sold to the farmers at a 50 percent discount and that farmers need to be educated first on fertilizer and nutrient management to get proper results. So, in conjunction with providing high quality rice seed and fertilizer, the project had also provided short training courses on the improved cultivation practices of rice crop to selected lead farmers. The lead farmers in turn were required to pass the gained knowledge to other beneficiaries or villagers, so that they would follow the learned techniques to get higher yield. The trainings were conducted by the Provincial Department of Agriculture (PDAs) in the project target communes.
About 41.1 percent of the total respondents that had attended the farmers’ trainings passed the gained knowledge to other family members or farmers. The PDA followed up the
17
trainings by visiting the rice fields and providing advice or corrective measures to the beneficiary farmers. During the seed and fertilizer distribution, the project also distributed leaflets detailing the improved cultivation practices of rice crop. This led to quite a large number of respondents (58.9 percent) using the gained knowledge for their dry season rice crop planting. About 62.1 percent respondents expressed that the trainings were effective and approximately 82.8 percent respondents indicated their willingness to follow the knowledge gained from the trainings for the future rice crop production.
Table 14:Farmer trainings and extension services
Province Passed
Knowledge to Other
Used Knowledge gained from
Trainings
Reported the Effectiveness of EFAP Trainings
Willingness to Follow Up the
Knowledge Gained from
Trainings
PST 30.9 42.6 42.6 77.9
BMC 36.4 42.1 43.9 74.8
OMC 67.6 76.5 76.5 85.3
SR 44.7 89.5 98.7 97.4
Average 41.1 58.9 62.1 82.8
5. Overall Findings
Being land poor (owning or leasing less than one hectare), most targeted farmers experienced rice shortage for some months due to the low productivity and production of rice crop. However, after getting the help from the project, majority of respondents (73 percent) exuded confidence of reducing the food gap. About 50.9 percent respondents reported to be able to reduce the food gap by 1 to 3 months, 15.1 percent reported to be able to reduce the gap by 4 to 6 months and 7.0 percent reported to be able to reduce the gap by more than 6 months.
Table 15: Reduction in food gap
Province Able to reduce
food gap
Reduced food gap from 1-3 months
Reduced food gap from 4-6 months
Reduced food gap
more than 6 months
EFAP Help to increase
living standard
Able to repay dept
PST 51.5 47.1 4.4 0 50.0 47.1
BMC 72.0 56.1 15.9 0 78.5 57.0
OMC 88.2 47.1 35.3 5.9 94.1 70.6
SR 86.8 48.7 14.5 23.7 92.1 72.4
Average 73.0 50.9 15.1 7.0 77.2 60.4
Even though there were some drought and pest attack, 77.2 percent of the total respondents reported that their living standard would be increased as i) they did not spend their own money to buy seed and fertilizer (17.9 percent); ii) they got increased rice crop production (7 percent); iii) they were able to increase income and thereby having higher living standard (22.8 percent); iv) they were able to save some money (2.8 percent); v) they were able to save enough rice for consumption (8.1 percent); vi) they were able to get out of poverty (6 percent); vii) they were able to buy some assets and animal (8.4 percent); and viii) they were able to repay debt (2.5 percent).
18
Table 16: Reasons for improvement in living standard P
rov
inc
e
Re
du
ce
sp
en
din
g m
on
ey
to b
uy
se
ed
an
d
fert
iliz
er
Inc
rea
se
ric
e
yie
ld
Inc
rea
se
in
co
me
,
ha
ve
hig
he
r
liv
ing
Sta
nd
ard
Ca
n s
ave
so
me
mo
ne
y
Ha
vin
g e
no
ug
h
ric
e
Ge
ttin
g o
ut
of
po
ve
rty
Bo
ug
ht
ass
ets
an
d a
nim
als
Be
ab
le t
o r
ep
ay
de
bt
PST 4.4 4.4 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.4 0.0
BMC 19.6 4.7 28.0 0.9 5.6 12.1 3.7 0.0
OMC 44.1 2.9 44.1 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0
SR 15.8 14.5 17.1 9.2 22.4 3.9 0.0 9.2
Average 17.9 7.0 22.8 2.8 8.1 6.0 8.4 2.5
As reported, about 60.4 percent of the total respondents indicated the ability of repaying their debt because of the increased paddy rice production. For those respondents who expressed their inability to repay debt reasoned that: i) rice crop was affected by drought (7 percent), ii) production was not enough for consumption (6.3 percent), iii) living standard is very low (1.4 percent), and rice crop destroyed by disease and pest attack (1.1 percent).
Table 17: The reasons for not being able to repay debt
Province Drought Not enough
rice for consumption
Low living standard
Disease and pest attack
Total
PST 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0
BMC 1.9 9.3 0.0 2.8 14.0
OMC 2.9 17.6 0.0 0.0 20.6
SR 0.0 2.6 5.3 0.0 7.9
Average 7.0 6.3 1.4 1.1 15.8
After utilizing the project supplied rice seed and fertilizer and getting an increased rice crop production, about one third of the respondents (35.1 percent) appreciated the quality of rice seed and fertilizer that helped them to produce more. Around 12.3 percent respondents told that EFAP helped them to reduce their poverty and around 41.1 percent respondents suggested that EFAP should continue its support to project targeted beneficiaries.
Table 18: Comments and suggestions
Province Cheap and good quality of rice
seed and fertilizer (%) Reduce poverty (%)
Suggest EFAP to continue (%)
PST 0.0 0.0 98.5
BMC 41.1 17.8 17.8
OMC 20.6 17.6 41.2
SR 64.5 13.2 22.4
Average 35.1 12.3 41.1
19
V. Conclusions
The results of 2009 dry season rice crop production showed around two-fold increase in paddy rice yield between 2008 and 2009. The average paddy rice yield of four target provinces increased by 42.9 percent i.e. from 2,006 Kg per hectare in 2008 to 2,866 Kg per hectare in 2009. Similarly, the plot of land that used the rice seed and fertilizer supplied by the project marked an increase in the yield from 1,979 Kg per hectare in 2008 to 2,814 Kg per hectare in 2009. Thus the paddy rice yield from the same plot of land was increased by 42.2 percent. It was also noticed that the number of beneficiaries who produced less than 500 Kg declined by 2.1 percent; those who got paddy rice yield of 500 Kg to less than 1,000 Kg remained the same; and those who got 1,000 Kg or more increased by 35.2 percent. This increment was the results of the high quality project supplied rice seed and subsidized fertilizer, the effectiveness of trainings and extension services, and the behavioural change in farmers that followed the trainings.
These paddy rice yields were well below the national average for dry season 2009 (4.03 tons/ha) reported by MAFF. The report issued by MAFF was the paddy rice yield at national level covering upland, plain, coastal, and Tonle Sap zones with the general agricultural inputs and conditions (including big land size; proper irrigation, inputs, and machinery facilities; and crop diversification). On the other hand, these four project targeted provinces are in the Tonle Sap region and the targeted beneficiaries are the small and marginal farmers with degraded land and insufficient irrigation facilities. Therefore, the ability of production and/or yield potential was limited.
After the increased production, majority of respondents (73 percent) exuded confidence of reducing the food gap. About 50.9 percent respondents reported to be able to reduce the food gap by 1 to 3 months, 15.1 percent reported to be able to reduce the gap by 4 to 6 months and 7.0 percent reported to be able to reduce the gap by more than 6 months. About 77.2 percent of the total respondents reported that their living standard would be better as they did not spend money to buy seed and fertilizer and they had increased income and thereby having higher living standard.
Finally almost 41.1 percent of respondents in these four project target provinces had suggested that the project should continue its rice seed and fertilizer support in the future.
20
For More Information on Emergency Food Assistance
Project (EFAP), contact
H.E. Vong Sandap
Deputy Secretary General
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 Natural Resources Management Specialist
Cambodia Resident Mission
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.