Guess what it is??!! :)

Can you guess what it is when just looking at the two pics?

Personally, i think it looks like a place for rabbit :). Actually, it's a small-scale compost bin that i, with the support from a dear colleague, had made in my new rent house's backyard.

Materials: bricks, metal slips (we can use whatever the materials instead such as: recycled/ unused mental/plastic bins, pots, etc. To me, i want to find the sustainable materials, so brick is the most appropriate one (TO ME only ).

Measurement: 0.8m height; 0.6 width

Building time: half hour

Satisfied degree: 100% ;) :) :D

Expected outcomes: compost will be made after 4 weeks and enough for trees of the house and neighbors' gardens in the diameter of 10 m :P

For making compost, simply you just need a bin with some small holes, a cover lid and YEP materials for compost including brown and green materials.

Why do we need some holes? for oxygen, the process of composting need oxygen.
Why we need a cover lid? Composting  just takes place in dark environment.
What are brown and green materials?
      BROWN materials are some things coming in...BROWN :) : falling leaves, straw, dead branches, soil,....all brown DECAYing things.
      GREEN materials are things coming from "our kitchen"" : leftover, rot fruits, rice, bread, cheese, peel, egg shells, vegetables, etc

Note: decomposing process need oxygen and humidity, so leave some holes, weekly mixing and add a little bit of waste water if the materials look dry.

If there is a question of what is the easiest thing to do in this world? The answer will be compost!! :)

For me, these are some advantages when we make compost:

 + Automatically separating and classifying rubbish, which helps protect environment from not discharge plastic and toxic waste into env. (usually we use plastic bags to wrap waste and some will discharge into env.), and helps recycled work become easier.

+ Having free, organic "fertilizer" for the house' garden and there is a reason to knock on the handsome neighbor's house "I have some self-made compost for your beautiful orchid pots":D => Improving both health and mind :))

+ Having something to show guests whenever celebrate party at home :P

A corner of the backyard helps save the building materials (bricks) for the compost bin.
 A so called "dog door" was made to gradually withdraw compost out from the lowest layer of materials.

Processing, view from the top

Workshop on Climate Change Resilient Livelihood Study by CARE International

Reported by Nguyen Anh Dung (AD)

Can Tho, 5th of August 2013

CARE International in Vietnam (funded by AusAID), is currently implementing the Integrated Community-Based Adaptation in the Mekong (ICAM) project. The project will be implemented for 2.5 years in 5 communes in An Giang and Soc Trang provinces with the main objective to improve the resilience to climate change impacts of the most vulnerable communities , specifically landless and land-poor, ethnic minorities and women. A large component of the project focuses on support to climate resilient agricultural and non-agricultural livelihoods. The project supported a study to search for appropriate livelihood interventions. The workshop was to present initial findings of the study and to provide chances for feedbacks from local authorities and colleagues from other organisations such as Can Tho University, Red-cross, WWF, IUCN, GIZ, Oxfam, etc. Following are key points of their study:

Appropriate livelihood options under context of climate change adaptation consist of two criteria:

• Sustainable Livelihood Criteria
• Climate change Resilience Criteria

To fulfil each criterion, one livelihood option should be valued against different categories and aspects as in the following table:

Criteria	Categories	Aspects
Sustainable Livelihood	Economy	Market demand
		Market access
		Financial investment level
		Diversification (risk reduction)
		Skills and technology
	Institutional context	Law/regulation
		Fiscal barriers
	Cultural and social context	Community consensus
		Poor & poorest suitability
		Cross-cutting issues: gender and disability
Climate resilience	Impact on biodiversity/ ecosystem	Negative/positive impacts on resources?
	Climate change	Appropriate for existing/future climate
		Adaptability
		CO2 emission

The findings suggested several options after considering all above aspects. During the workshop, six livelihood options (mushroom growing, eel farming, floating garden, seaweed growing, sedge grass weaving, vertical garden) were used to demonstrate to participants by asking them going through two criteria and answering questions for all aspects.

From the discussion, it seems that seaweed cannot be grown in Soc Trang because of sea water quality, eel farming and mushroom growing can be promising if market demand is taken care and environmental issues are looked at. Floating and vertical gardens can provide small-scale livelihood but might not provide enough income for poor and landless people. The final report which will incorporate comments and ideas from stakeholders will be sent out to all participants soon.

Roundtable workshop on enabling climate change adaptation and mitigation at the local level

Climate change adaptation and mitigation policies and measures have to be implemented on the local level instead of only top-down, authoritarian approaches. Usually, successful implementation and enforcement measures promoting urban sustainability at the local level includes a focus on people-centred approaches and the creation of wide-ranging stakeholder coalitions. Obviously, this requires a lot of communication. In many cases this is based on trustful interaction between the state, (civil) society and in some case the corporate sector as well. In some cases even, the government even retreats to the role of an enabler only.

How can local action to climate change adaptation and mitigation be enabled and supported in the Vietnamese context? ‘Just Bottom-Up is not Enough!’ Part 2 - the roundtable workshop on July 16 at the University of Architect aimed at continuing the multi-stakeholder dialogue initiated in December 2012 during the final Megacity conference. By bringing together 12 representatives of academia, local government and civil society, the roundtable facilitated discussion about potential opportunities for the integration of top-down and bottom-up approaches.

 

Main results of the first workshop in December 2012 was summarised, namely potentials of people-centred approaches and obstacles for their implementation in the context of Vietnam. Theoretical input was given introducing the concept of governance and community-based adaptation. This was followed by input from participants, who reported about best-practice examples from their own working experience. Finally, a roundtable discussion was moderated to discuss ideas on strategies and measures required to effectively enable people-centred approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Some notes from the roundtable workshop

 

Governance

 

Governance is not the same like government and governance without government is possible. Governance is more than good governance.

Good governance (accountability, transparency, efficiency, participatory, egalitarian, better decision-making, rule of law, responsibility, civil society) vs. bad governance (in-transparency, nepotism, corruption, waste of resources, failed states, ‘cause of all evil’).

 

As an empirical phenomenon, governance promotes networks, soft steering, more cooperative, more stakeholders (state just one of many) and less hierarchical approaches. Implication for planning: general shift from technocratic towards more participatory planning approaches in Western countries. In the new planning culture, planning serves as mediation of interests between state and society (planning as communication).

 

Strengths of Bottom-Up approaches

- Bottom-up approaches are very practice-oriented and aim at achieving results in short periods of time. They are based on local realities, local socio-economic and environmental information that may also supplement data gained from research.

 

- Bottom-up approaches involve the local population as main stakeholders and do not only create practical results but also initiate a change of people’s awareness.

 

- Local level projects are based on local and community conditions and preferences and may therefore create tailor-made solutions.

 

- Community-Based Adaptation (CBA) in particular is an effective approach to raise awareness among communities and the local government and to mobilize collective action. CBA supports local adaptation strategies based on local resources and capacities and creates local ownership and supports the dissemination of local knowledge.

 

Weaknesses, Challenges & External Barriers of Bottom-Up approaches

 

- The impacts of bottom-up people-centred approaches are very small in comparison to top-down managed projects. Therefore, they are rarely recognised by authorities, hence, there is lack of official mechanisms, instruments and motivation to support these approaches

 

- As bottom-up approaches are rarely officially recognised or supported, there is lack of funding opportunities for local, small-scale, community-based projects. The instrument of Community Development Funds (CDF) has been introduced and tested in Vietnam, but not all communities have access to this funding instrument.

 

- Bottom-up approaches are dependent on the motivation and willingness of individuals, at the same time it may be hampered by personal interests as well as by corruption.

Recommendations on how to create an enabling environment for bottom-up approaches

- The role of civil society as a whole and of civil society organisations in particular has to be enhanced in order to more active engage in advocacy. An independent civil society as such shall create a political space between the state and the people that enables negotiation and real change from below.

 

- Tools and mechanisms have to be developed that promote (and implement) people-centred approaches in a transparent and structured approach.

 

- Bottom-up approaches need to be enabled through the top-down system and supportive policies. For example, retired government officials may engage in advocacy as they are familiar with the decision-making procedures and hierarchies.

 

- In order to replicate and out-scale successful micro-level projects, innovative ways of disseminating successful approaches and learning need to be developed and tested. Here, peer learning and the dissemination through mass and social media play an important role.

 

‘Theory Brief: Introduction about Governance’ by Dr. Michael Waibel (University of Hamburg)


’Summary of Results of the Workshop ‘Just Bottom-Up is not Enough’ Part 1’ by Ulrike Schinkel (BTU Cottbus)


'Pilot mangrove co-management in Soc Trang' by Pham Thuy Duong, GIZ Soc Trang (We were asked to use the workshop ppt template slides with guiding headlines for a structured approach)

’Community-Based Adaptation in Quy Nhon and Can Tho’ by Mr. Lê Quang Duật (Challenge to Change)


’Community-Based Adaptation in HCMC’ by Ulrike Schinkel (BTU Cottbus)


’Community-Based City Development Strategy’ by Ms. Lê Diệu Ánh (Cities Alliance & ACCA Programme)


’United Nations Human Settlements Programme in Vietnam’ by Ms. Đỗ Minh Huyền (UN-Habitat Vietnam)


’Approach of European Chamber of Commerce’ by Jan Rask Christensen (EuroCham, HCMC)


’Challenges for Urban Development in Vietnam’ by Walter Koditek (GIZ CIM, Vietnam Urban Development Agency)

***

Group photo

ADRA Symposium in Can Tho

SEA: REACTi Technical Innovation Workshop
4^th June, 2013 – Can Tho, Viet Nam
South East Asia: Regional Environmental Adaptation to Climate Change Training and Implementation Project

“Fostering proactive, not reactive resilience to climate change in Vietnam and Laos” was the slogan of the technical symposium held on 4-6 June in Can Tho. This regional technical symposium was one main component of the SEA: REACTi[*] Project funded by ADRA[**], with the aim to facilitate regional dialogue and future collaboration in community based climate change adaptation. The symposium consisted of 3 days, in which the first day served as an informative forum and the rest 2 days were reserved for participatory planning session, where community members from the selected project sites worked together to develop their own pilot interventions to address climate change vulnerabilities in their location.

We attended only the first day (June 4) of the technical symposium. On this first day, 14 topics were presented and discussed among over 80 participants from government, NGOs, research institutes and donor agencies such as ADB, World Bank, GIZ, Mekong ARCC, Mekong River Commission, Can Tho University, Winrock International, UN Women etc.

The time for action is NOW
“We need to stop scaring people with negative information and instead, empower communities with useful information which can be applied to build resiliency.”
~ Ian Wood, Winrock International [5]

Following are notes of some interesting messages and lessons learned from the presentations (the messages here do not include some technical topics, for more information and for your reference, all presentations are put on slideshare below)

• One principle for climate change adaptation is that it should be NO REGRETS, which means it should be still applicable whether there is climate change or not [1].

• A clear finding of the Mekong ARCC Study is that the Mekong Delta will see more extremes -wetter wet seasons, drier dry seasons, and higher temperatures [3].

• All crops and natural species thrive in a comfort zone where temperature, rainfall, and soil conditions create a favorable growing environment. When these conditions changes, the crops struggle or fail. Living outside traditional comfort zones will not mean immediate collapse of a crop or a natural system, but it does mean a decrease in its vibrancy and productivity. With increasing temperatures, rainfall and dry periods, identifying threshold markers that indicate when a comfort zone has been breached will aid decision makers in being proactive to minimize disasters [3].

• Diversity of ecological and agricultural systems should be promoted. Traditional farming approaches and natural systems serve as a buffer to a changing climate. Integrated farming systems – for example, farmers raising ducks and fish in rice paddies – rather than monocultures increase the resilience of both farmers and ecosystems [3].

• Non-climate drivers such as population growth, regional demographic changes, hydropower development, irrigation, forest exploitation and changes in land use can reduce climate resilience, exarcebate the impacts of climate change and should be taken into consideration by development planners [3].

• Incorprate scenario planning – the use and development of plausible stories of how the future might unfold is a powerful tool for decision makers [3].

• Climate change is more than an environmental issue. Adaptation is a development issue, not only an environmental issue.  Therefore, adaptation needs to be developed within sectors and even cross-cutting themes. [4].

• Climate change encompasses a broad spectrum of issues and sectors such as disaster risk reduction, water, natural resources, agriculture, transport, construction etc. The difficulty is prioritization of investment limited resources. Project selection is a complex process which needs to combine top-down priorities with bottom-up needs, ensuring consistency with a long-term vision and considering of package projects to create an integrated solution [5].

• Smart planning decisions today will avoid bigger problems later. For climate change mitigation, long-term land use planning and regulations should aim toward minimize loss of forest, both coastal and inland. Land use planning should allow green space in developing urban areas to reduce temperature effects and allow future use of land for renewable energy such as wind or solar power [5].

• Principles for mainstreaming climate change in land allocation, infrastructure and development: (i) Avoid hazard – Allocate land for development in low-risk areas; (ii) New development should not create new problems for other areas; (iii) Development should not add to the burden of emergency services. Minimum floor levels, ways of egress, contingency plans for emergency are needed [5].

• Multi-function shelter with provision for emergency equipment such as an electrical generator, back-up water supply tanks, communications receiver/transmitter can become the focal point for local response during emergencies. For example, a commune health clinic can acts as a shelter during emergencies, with priority for elderly or less mobile people [5].

• Climate change can seem scary, which can lead to inaction. People need to be alerted, but not alarmed. We need to stop scaring people with negative information and instead, empower communities with useful information which can be applied to build resiliency [5].

• Lessons learnt for planning, implementation & upscaling of demonstration projects of the Mekong Climate Change and Adaptation Initiative (CCAI): (i) Despite increasing adaptation project efforts, understanding and awareness of climate change and impacts remain low. Lack of awareness needs to be considered a potential source of maladaptation. Uncertainties and doubts on furture climate projection is another potential source of maladaptation; (ii) Successful projects should be based on key vulnerability analysis which leads to finding and enabling adaptive capacity; (iii) Engagement of stakeholders should be based on formal institutional arrangement. Stakeholder engagement platforms are consultation meetings/workshops and cooperation in assessment, analysis and field work activities. Community organisations and representatives should be consulted and invited to be field researchers [6].

• Agriculture in Vinh Chau is difficult due to saline intrusion and lack of freshwater for crops. Groundwater has been exploited exhaustedly. Therefore it is recommended to select plant type of upland crops with low water requirement and short growth time, such as mung beans instead of radishes. In addition, supplementary use of organic fertilizer, reduced use of chemical fertilizer can help crops to stand unusual heat and increase capacity to resist pets and diseases [9].

• Village women are vulnerable but need to be viewed in a wider context than just victims. UN Women’s project will increase training for local village women in flood preparation, first aid, swimming lessons, disaster risk reduction and management. UN Women has supported local women to be involved in decision making structures such as committees for storms and flood control [12].

• Save the Children takes a child-centred approach to building community resilience to the impacts of climate change. They work with and through children as agents of changes in their communities [13].

• People with disabilities (PWDs) are less able to access emergency support and difficult in reaching safe areas and accessing vital emergency information. Climate change adaptation plans should include the needs of people with disabilities through mapping them and assigning members of relief teams to specially take care of them and other vulnerable groups. People with disabilities should be assisted to build relationship with neighbours and communities so that they are not isolated. Accessibility standards for PWDs should be ensured in construction of infrastructure [14].

---

[*] SEA: REACTi - South East Asia: Regional Environmental Adaptation to Climate Change Training and Implementation Project, aiming to develop regional co-operation mechanisms and frameworks, at the provincial and district level, for the implementation of best practice community-based adaptation. Beside this regional technical symposium (4-6 June 2013), other main components of SEA: REACTi are two community based climate change adaptation pilot projects in Vietnam and Laos (July 2013 – February/March 2014) and a dissemination workshop (March/April 2013).

[**] ADRA Vietnam is part of the global Adventist Development and Relief Agency network over 120 countries, the humanitarian arm of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This is an NGO which has been active in Vietnam for more than 20 years, working on sustainable livelihoods, health, education, water and sanitation, climate change and disaster management.

14 Topics presented at the technical symposium on June 4, Can Tho

 

1. Can Tho & Mekong Delta - Climate change issues and challenges

by Mr. Nguyen Minh The, DONRE Can Tho

 

 

2. Climate risk management in Laos PDR

by Mr. Thavone Inthavong, Laos National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute

 

 

3. Mekong ARRC Climate change impact and adaptation study for lower Mekong basin

by Ms. Christy Owen, Mekong ARRC

 

 

4. ADB's support for adaptation in Vietnam 

by Ms. Lauren Sorkin, ADB Vietnam

 

 

 

5. Transferring national policy to practical action 

by Mr. Ian Wood, Winrock International

 

 

6.Climate change and adaptation in the LMB 

by Dr. Nguyen Huong Thuy Phan, MRC

 

 

 

7. Increasing the resilience of upland agricultural ecosystems to climate change 

by Dr. Terence Bolger, ADB Laos

 

 

8.1 Innovations in rice cultivation - Systems of rice intensification 

by Dr. Georg Deichert, GIZ PARA Tra Vinh

 

 

 

8.2 Innovations in rice cultivation - Alternate wetting and drying 

by Ms. Nguyen Thi Thanh Phuong, GIZ Bac Lieu

 

 

9. Pilot models of onion cultivation for adaptation to drought and salinity 

by Ms. Tran Thi Ngoc Huan, Cuu Long Rice Research Institute

 

 

10. Impacts of climate change on aquaculture and fisheries in the Mekong region 

by Dr. Luca Micciche, ICAFIS Vietnam

 

 

11. Real-time salinity monitoring systems in Can Tho and opportunities for expanding in the Mekong Delta 

by Dr. Nguyen Huy, ISET (Institute for Social and Environmental Transition, Vietnam)

 

 

12. Women in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in Vietnam

by Dr. Suzette Mitchell, UN Women

 

 

13. Save the Children - CCA program overview 

by Ms. Le Thi Bich Hang, Save the Children Vietnam

 

 

14. Inclusion of people with disabilities in climate change adaptation 

by Mr. Pham Tien Dung, ADRA Vietnam

 

Reference links

ADRA Vietnam http://www.adravietnam.org

Asian Development Bank http://www.adb.org

ISET Vietnam http://www.i-s-e-t.org/about-iset/asia/iset-in-vietnam

Mekong ARCC http://www.mekongarcc.net

Mekong River Commission http://www.mrcmekong.org

Save the Children http://www.savethechildren.org

SEA:REACTi project http://reacti-project.org

Winrock International http://www.winrock.org

 

Some publications on climate change resilience and adaptation

Building Climate Resilience in the Agriculture Sector of Asia and the Pacific

Flood Risk Management: A Strategic Approach

Investing in Resilience: Ensuring a Disaster-Resistant Future

Guidelines for Climate Proofing Investment in Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food Security

Guidelines for Climate Proofing Investment in the Transport Sector: Road Infrastructure Projects

Green Growth, Resources and Resilience: Environmental Sustainability in Asia and the Pacific

Sector Briefing on Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation

Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Adaptation, Water, Energy and Green Employment

Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction Education
 

Poverty alleviation and climate-smart agriculture - lessons learned from Tra Vinh

Tra Vinh is among the poorest provinces of Vietnam, located between the two largest arms of the Mekong River. While Mekong Delta is popular as one of the most agriculturally productive and intensively cultivated areas in Asia, the Vietnamese Mekong Delta was also identified as one of the most regions vulnerable to climate change. The population is already being affected by sea level rise, salinity intrusion, stronger and more frequent storms, floods, and changes in rainfall patterns. Thus, poverty alleviation together with building resilience and capacity for agricultural and food systems to adapt to climate change, and seeks opportunities to reduce and remove greenhouse gases (climate-smart agriculture) are main priority tasks here.

During the period of 2007-2013, GIZ and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) have supported the province tackling these issues through the Poverty Alleviation in Rural Areas and Improving Market Participation for the Poor (PARA/IMPP) cooperation project. The overall objective of this project is to contribute to sustainable improvement of income for the poor by enabling them to access to and participate in various markets in and outside the province. The PARA's support concentrates on the following approaches (Source: GIZ Tra Vinh):

•      Supporting commune, district and provincial authorities in local development planning.
•    Supporting a sustainable collective economy through strengthening the organization of collaborative groups and cooperatives.
•     Promoting small scale producers toward market-oriented agriculture along with other actors of respective value chains (e.g. by establishing market linkages).
•     Supporting climate change adaptation measures and pro-poor "Green Growth".
•     Job skill training, especially for poor unemployed people based on job skill requirements by the private sectors.
•     Facilitating Public-Private-Partnership (PPP), establishing a sustainable Pangasius supply chain through certification.

On January 16-17, 2013, the CCCEP cluster meeting was hold in Tra Vinh for joint learning and sharing the PARA project’s experiences. Participants came from 5 provinces (Kien Giang, An Giang, Ca Mau, Bac Lieu, Soc Trang) of the Climate Change and Coastal Ecosystems Program (CCCEP, 2011-2016, co-financed by Germany and Australia). The event included an excursion on Wednesday the 16th for participants to visit the system of rice intensification (SRI), the small-scale Pangasius farming and the shrimp-mangrove models. Then, on Thursday the 17th, an in-door meeting took place at Thanh Tra hotel, with presentations from GIZ Tra Vinh and their partners (DPI, DARD) as well as reflection and discussion about implications of relevant approaches for the up-scaling within CCCEP in the future.

System of Rice Intensification (SRI) - Achieving more with less

Rice production has a significant environmental footprint. Current practices promote genetic uniformity, which makes crops more vulnerable to pests and diseases. They are also wasteful of increasingly scarce and costly resources such as water and fossil fuels. Heavily fertilized, continuously flooded rice fields produce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Misuse of inorganic fertilizers and agrochemicals results in soil and water pollution. On the other hand, rice production will need to increase dramatically in the next decades to meet the demands of a growing population, not to mention the existing global food and nutrition deficits. Therefore, rethinking on current way of rice production is essential for ensuring present and future food security.

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) developed in the 1980s in Madagascar is perhaps one of the best innovative options available contributing to food security, farmers’ adaptability to climate change and environmental sustainability. With SRI, farmers are able to produce more rice, using less water, less agrochemical inputs and seeds. SRI practices and principles introduce some simple but effective changes in how rice can be grown:

• Seedlings are transplanted at much younger age (8-12 days old), [21-40 days old with conventional method].
• Only 1-2 seedlings per hill are carefully transplanted into soils, seedling rate of 5-7 kg/ha, [4-8 seedlings dumped and pressed into flooded soils with seedling rate of 50-75 kg/ha in conventional method, which results in closely competing seedlings].
• Plant seedlings at a distance of 25 cm or more in a square pattern, resulting in wider spacing and more exposing to sunlight for plants.
• Non-flooded aerobic soil conditions with intermittent irrigation (keep soils moist and aerated), [continuous flooding of paddy fields with 5-15 cm of water throughout the cycle in conventional method].
• Fertilize with compost (organic matter), add chemical fertilizer only if needed.
• Manual weeders can remove weeds and aerate the top soil at the same time. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices are encouraged, [in conventional method, pesticides and herbicides are widely applied, manual weeders cannot be used in randomly planted fields].
  

A new way of rice cultivation - more yields with less inputs
System of Rice Intensification (SRI) Principles (Source: World Bank Institute)

SRI plant and field in an area of Vietnam hit earlier in the season by a severe storm that caused the conventionally-grown rice to fall over (right) but did not affect SRI rice (left) due to its strong root system.  (Source: Earthlink, FAO 2006).

 
The benefits of SRI has been seen already in 40 countries throughout Asia, Africa and South America. Growing rice under aerobic conditions with SRI method enhances photosynthetic capacity and leads to larger, deeper, healthier roots and more productive plants than rice grown under continuously flooded condition. SRI practices also contribute to maintaining biodiversity in terms of soil biota as well as seeds. SRI method requires 80-90% fewer seeds due to much lower plant populations; 25-50% less water as the field is not continuous flooded; less cost per hectare as there is less need for purchased seeds, synthetic fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides. With regard to adaptation to and mitigation of climate change impacts, SRI practices can reduce methane gas emissions and nitrogen fertilizer use. SRI plants are generally more resistant to pests and diseases. Increased productivity in turns helps increasing farmers’ incomes.

SRI model in Tieu Can, Tra Vinh

We visited a farmer's household in Hung Hoa commune, Tieu Can district, Tra Vinh province whom received support from the PARA project for SRI model. 

According to the farmer, SRI considerably reduces inputs (seeds, fertilizers and pesticide) while requiring intensive labour in the field for transplanting and weeding/aeration. With SRI, the plants are stronger, less time needed to take care, and more resistant to environmental changes. By reducing nearly 95% of pesticide spraying, SRI creates healthier environment and thus healthier rice products. 

Responding on the question about flooding and water control in rainy season, the farmer said that there has been no serious flood in Tra Vinh so far, however there is another problem with salinity in the dry season. 

Sustainable Pangasius Supply Chain Program (SPSP) - Moving pangasius small-scale farmers towards certification

The rapid growth of the pangasius aquaculture industry has raised a number of environmental and social concerns. Excess waste can pollute the water and negatively affect plant and animal habitat. Feeding trash-fish to pangasius can cause unsustainable harvesting and water pollution. On the other hand, the inappropriate use of veterinary medicines and chemicals can have unintended consequences for the environment and human health, such as antibiotic resistance and unsafe products.

Sustainably produced aquacultural product is increasingly becoming the standard to get access to important market channels, such as supermarkets. The environmental aspects of pangasius, particularly in production, are receiving more and more attention. Certification and eco-labelling have become more and more indispensable for accessing international markets.

The SPSP is a Public-Private Partnership programme involving GIZ, IDH (Dutch Sustainable Trade Initiative), ANOVA Seafood company and WWF (development of standards for sustainable aquaculture), cooperating with the provincial People’s Committees to support farmers gaining access to global market. The programme was initiated in July, 2010 in Mekong Delta and has been implemented in some provinces such as Dong Thap, Tien Giang, Tra Vinh. The program’s objective is that “Farmers, processor and feed producers operating along the Pangasius supply chain in selected provinces of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta comply with internationally accepted and accredited certification schemes for sustainable production and sell certified Pangasius to European buyers.”

SPSP program is approved by Tra Vinh PPC since 2011 and has been implemented through the GIZ PARA project. The project aims to convince and raise awareness of farmers about Global G.A.P and ASC standards, which approach aspects such as environmental protection, animal health, product quality, safety, worker welfare and social responsibility etc... in order to get certification for exporting to EU.

Global G.A.P and ASC standards
(Source: Vietnam Seafood News)

The Global G.A.P (Global Partnership for Good Agricultural Practice or EURO G.A.P before 1997) standard is a “Business to Business” standard without logo, label, but just a code on the product. It is more considered as a food safety standard. The ASC (Aquaculture Stewardship Council) Standard was created by Pangasius Aquaculture Dialogues in 2007 and initiated by WWF and IDH. The ASC main version was published in August 2010. The ASC standard, similar to the MSC (Maritime Stewardship Council) is a “Business to Customer”standard and recognized by the customer with the respective ASC logo. In order to qualify for certification, a farm should successfully pass an external audit by an independent accredited certification body.

The certification is a “Visa” for small-scale production to the international market. However, certification is not cheap for Vietnamese farmers. Producing pangasius to meet the ASC standards means an investment of 50 million VND for each ha of pond, while prices of ASC qualified pangasius are often 0.2-0.3 USD per kg higher than the normal level. Therefore, group certification can help reduce certification cost in comparison with the individual certification cost. Moreover, share technical support within group can also enhances productivity and product quality.

What the project has done here are raising awareness and willingness to obtain certification, developing understanding for the standard criteria, selecting cooperating small holders, developing individual upgrading plans for each farmer according to the results of the GAP-analysis (GAP analysis against the requirements of the certification standards), implementing individual/group upgrading plans including record keeping, and developing a value chain by identifying possible actors and set up an internal control system (ICS) for group certification (on-going). From experiences of the Tra Vinh project, big gaps are the record keeping and management. On the other hand,  information on premium price is important for small scale farmers and this information should be given to the farmers from the beginning.

Mrs. Tim's Pangasius pond

We visited Mrs. Tran Thi Tim's household, one of the 9 small-scale Pangasius producers in Nhon Hoa village, Tan Hoa commune, Tieu Can district in Tra Vinh, who participating in the Sustainable Pangasius Supply Chain Program (SPSP). 

She has 2 ponds with total pond surface area of about 2200 square metter, production yield of about 50-55 tonnes/year, 50% of investment is loan from bank.

According to Mrs. Tim, applying regulations, standard results in healthier fish with less diseases.  But on the other hand, price of fish is changing all the time and not predictable, with uncertainty about premium price from certified fish. Current price is low and she found it is difficult to sell them with profit. More time is needed for daily monitoring and record. Another challenge for the farm is that from December until the rainy season each year, local authority closes the water gate to prevent the area from salt water intrusion, as this negatively affects the rice fields. However, that makes water cannot easily exchange for Pangasius. 

In changing from conventional farming to standardised ones, other farmers mentioned major challenge on management and finance. With old production practice, lots of fish are put in ponds for more productivity, while with standards, less fish are put in ponds leads to less productivity and farmers may get lost if they do not manage well. On the other hand, upgrading farm also requires investment cost to meet standards. Certification cost is too high for small-scale farmers & individual, thus without support, farmers cannot achieve it.

Despite all these challenge, the representative from the Cooperation Alliance believed Pangasius will develop, and towards sustainability as it is in line with provincial plan. After the end of the PARA project, Tra Vinh will keep contact with Can Tho university as well as other Public-Private-Partnership projects to support sustainable Pangasius farming in the province. With the certification, farmers can have easier and better market access.

Shrimp-mangrove farming model - A win-win solution

Shrimp farming in Tra Vinh

“In Vietnam, mangrove forests work like natural sea dykes and offer a front-line against storm surges. Their wide and knotty root systems protect against floods, salt water and erosion. They also regulate the local climate and water levels. But mangrove trees are being cut down at a rapid rate in the country. It's estimated that about half of Vietnam’s mangrove forests have been lost in the last decades. In recent years, the mangroves have fallen victim to shrimp farmers. Fueled by a global demand for shrimps, Vietnam, like many other countries in the region, has seen a boom in lucrative shrimp farming. It's estimated that land use for aquaculture has jumped ten-fold in the coastal regions of the Mekong in the past 15 years. The boom has brought lots of money and jobs to the region. But it's also had fatal consequences. Plant and animal life are losing their natural habitat, the ground is becoming more saline and in some places infertile, where antibiotics and chemicals from the shrimp processing plants have contaminated the ground water” (Samson, 2010).

That was the same with the situation in Tra Vinh. One of the main causes of mangrove deforestation in Tra Vinh province is intensive shrimp farming. Though industrial shrimp farming can bring high economic benefits at the beginning, they contain high environmental risk in the long-term. Moreover, if pests or diseases happen, there is high risk of losing all.

A model with mangrove conservation and organic shrimp farming at the same time has been emerged, reconciling shrimps and mangroves conflict. With this extensive shrimp farming, the area rates of mangroves and shrimp are approximately 60% and 40% respectively. Given these rates, mangroves can be maintained while the respective (farm) ecosystems are healthier, the shrimp quality is better, and farmers have lower input costs.

Basically no chemicals, no feed, with pond renovation and only feeding when shrimps at seedlings stage, these natural shrimps need less input while they are more resistant. The farmers have less risk compared to intensive shrimp farming, while organic shrimps get higher price in the market than industrial shrimps. Moreover, along with shrimp, farmers can also harvest fish, crab…  Therefore, farmers can earn more money while consumers can eat healthier, organic shrimps. Profits can then return back for mangrove forestry (PES - Payment for Ecosystem Services).

Since 2009, GIZ PARA project supported 3 households pilot in shrimp-mangrove model with activities such as training for DARD staff, forming a group of shrimp-mangrove model, training on management, technical skills as well as setting-up beneficial market linkages.

Low investment, stable income,
with shrimp-mangrove model farmers can earn money sustainably and environment is protected.

We visited a household with shrimp-mangrove model in Hiep Thanh commune, Duyen Hai district, Tra Vinh. [*It should be noted that the mangrove here is of production type and shrimp-mangrove model  applied behind the dyke. Because for Soc Trang, with mangrove in front of the dyke as protection forest type, it does not work that way].

His harvest is sold at local markets with a premium price due to large size and high quality of his shrimp. The price he gets per kg of products sold is on the average 9 USD higher than the price for conventionally farmed shrimp. 

According to the farmer, this extensive shrimp farming requires much lower investment in terms of inputs, time and labour than intensive shrimp farming. Though yields and profits are low, shrimp-mangrove farming carries no risk of crop loss.  

However, there is a challenge as his  farm shares water channels with surrounding intensive shrimp farms and waste water from these farms has negative effects on his shrimp ponds. All of the farmers here even joining the project, they apply both 2 types of intensive farming and shrimp-mangrove as back-up for each other.

Market-oriented Socio-Economic Development Planning (moSEDP) in Tra Vinh

Problem of conventional planning is that more often, the planning was made by district officials and it does not reflect the reality and the real need of the people in the communes. Market-oriented Socio-Economic Development Planning (moSEDP) is a bottom-up answer to conventional Development Planning with 3 main characteristics different: participation and empowerment, especially of the poor and landless people (1), market-orientation (2) and climate proofing (3).

Since 2008, the DPI of Tra Vinh has been developing the Market-oriented Socio-Economic Development Planning (moSEDP), a participatory version of SEDP. In 2010-2011, pilots of moSEDP have been conducted in IMMP/PARA communes. In 2012, it was replicated in the whole province.

           Grass root participation and empowerment

The participation of citizens was integrated into the planning process, ensuring that the investments will correspond to the needs of the grass root. The bottom-up process from Village to Commune to District levels gives citizens a voice. 

-Each village has at least 2 meetings with grass root people to do planning.

-People participating into planning meetings (max 25 per meeting): -men-women (as much balanced as possible), Khmer, poor (esp. the landless poor), private sector available in the village.

-Planning facilitators are local officials who have been trained in SEDP and facilitation skills to maximize people’s participation.

-Grass root people decide the investment through normally into three pillars: infrastructure construction, technical training including market linkage effort, women saving credit groups and other collective groups establishment and operation.

-After the final list of the most prioritized activities for the commune is identified, commune planning team discuss about the possible climate proofing solutions.

          Market-orientation - Value Chain Approach

On the other hand, fostering income generation activities to improve people's livelihood is the heart of a SEDP. While the conventional SEDP process foresees no explicit involvement of the private sector in the planning process, the DPI Tra Vinh has based moSEDP on the value chain approach, thereby oriented moSEDP towards the demands of the commodity market and business opportunities. [A value chain in agriculture can be described as a set of actors and activities that bring a basic agricultural product from production to final consumption, where at each stage value is added to the product. A value chain can involve input provision, production, processing, packaging, storage, transport and distribution].

After intensively raising awareness among partners and targets groups on the value chain approach, the project entered into value chain promotion through the local decentralized market-oriented planning process.



During the planning process, communities identify their economic development activities and earmark the commodity which should be developed through value chain upgrading. With involvement of the private sector, the selection includes a brief analysis of the value chain potential.

Promoting value chains seem to be the most promising approach to reduce the poverty rate. Well operating value chains foster economic growth as a necessary precondition for incomes to rise. In pro-poor value chains, it should be assured that the additional income generated actually benefits the poor, who are mostly represented in the primary producer group. PARA/IMPP initially identified 3 value chains for wider support that are rice, peanut and beef. For these three commodities province-wide value chain analyses were conducted and subsequent action plans developed. Project support concentrated on strengthening producer groups, improving techniques of primary production, and establishing business and market linkages.

From the experience gained so far, the following important aspects should be considered when working with value chains:

• Any value chain needs a “driver”and the project should not be a part of the value chain actors, but facilitating support services only.
• The pro-poor orientation has to be reflected regularly, especially in the view of the poor’s disadvantages of living in remote areas and potential marginalization with regard to access to services.
• A thorough value chain analysis with identification and quantification of each type of actor is crucial. Actors and service providers for the value chain should be clearly distinguished.

           Promoting Development of Collective Economy

Promoting individual farmer/producer working in collective group can help them participate better into commodity market as they can earn following benefits:

• Lower production costs since they can buy cheaper inputs at larger quantity
• Easier sales and better business deal since they can sell larger quantity collectively at increased quality homogeneity and have increased power of negotiation
• Higher possibility to enter longer term of business deal and relationship.

The above benefits eventually increase income of group members and hence reduce poverty. At the same time, larger scale of operation likely demands more business supportive service and labor which create more income generating activities for the poor, especially the landless ones.

IMPP and PARA project have been supporting Tra Vinh Cooperative Alliance, DARD and district and commune authorities in creating good environment and facility for collective economy development. Tra Vinh is one of the first provinces in Vietnam having full data inventory of all the collective groups and cooperatives in the province. The 5 year development strategy and action plan is in final stage of development. Enhancement coordination among governmental and civil institutions for better services and facilitation to CE development is especially addressed in the strategy and action plan.

Learning form Tra Vinh experiences showed that two most important success factors of the collective groups are benefits for the members (1) and strong leadership and devotion of the chief of the groups (2). Moreover, support on group management, production techniques and market linkages are the 3 main pillars of support all the groups need.

          Climate Proofing Tool - A systematic and long-term approach

The GIZ PARA project in Tra Vinh developed a "Climate Proofing Tool" in 2010. This tool is a means to prioritize development measures along value chains which are suitable for adaptation to and mitigation of climate change effects. From 2012, the Tra Vinh DPI, with assistance from the PARA project, integrated climate proofing into the planning process. [To "climate proof" a development plan could e.g mean to propose the formation of water-user groups and training of farmers on water-saving irrigation, climate-smart cultivation techniques, or to plan a trial on salt-resistant crop varieties].

Three main steps in the Climate Proofing Tool
(GIZ Climate Proofing Tool was adapted by the PARA project for local development planning, so that the identified adaptation measures could be integrated into the provincial moSEDP).

Table of Adaptation Needs
(Source: Climate Proofing Tool - GIZ Tra Vinh, 2010)

Lessons learned:

• Local level adaptation requires locally appropriate practices. Even simple agriculture and aquaculture practices can bring long-lasting positive adaptation effects. 
• It is essential for the effectiveness of Climate Proofing efforts to further improve the integration of Cliamte Proofing into moSEDP. 
• It is also important to strengthen the knowledge base and capacity of moSEDP facilitators in a systematic way in order to enable them to apply Climate Proofing during the moSEDP process.

Impacts of the renovated, demand-based moSEDP

For citizens, income of people increased from 20% to 50% due to  better public investment (bridges, roads, etc.) addressing difficulties of value chain actors, that leads to enhance business transaction; improved technical training; empowerment tremendously improved, people including women, ethnic and the poor set priority for public investment and services; high social benefits, better access to health centers and schools, village security is improved as the police have quicker access to the villages; additional job opportunities contribute to the reduction of “social evils”.

At admin level, attitude of officials towards people have changed extremely. Now they know much better what people need, and there is more accountability in relationship between people and local officials. Local authority (PPC, DPI, DoF) regard bottom-up processes as a necessity for sustainable planning. Central government is now reforming SEDP nation wide and incorporating the experiences from Tra Vinh into their reform process.

For private sector, recognition of local authority and people about private sector’s role in socio-economic development and poverty reduction (private sector does not only make money for their own benefit) has been improved; more dialogue between local authority and private sector.

Lessons learned:

• Generating ownership of local authority (DPI) from the start ensures higher probability and earlier institutionalization of the reform (including financing from public finance).
• Generating capacity for planning facilitators on both using planning templates and facilitation skills as well as putting the effective technical backstopping from higher admin levels in place are the key to producing quality plan.
• Raising enough capacity for village chiefs is the most crucial but also challenging.
• Local authorities’ accountability towards grass root people especially private sector regarding implementing what agreed in the approved SEDP is crucial to nurturing people’s and private sector’s participation.
• Announcement of budget ceiling on public investment at the village and communes can help to avoid “planning from nowhere”.
• Compromising all priorities from all the villages is a very challenging job of commune planning team.
• Integration of climate proofing tool into planning exercise only works after certain awareness and capacity on the tool built at the commune level.

References
Presentations and documents at the CCCEP Cluster meeting in Tra Vinh, January 16-17, 2013
Africare, Oxfam, WWF, 2010 - More Rice for People, More Water for the Planet - System of Rice Intensification

GIZ PARA Tra Vinh, 2012 - Climate Proofing Tool
Oxfam, 2011 - Simple but Effective - SRI and Innovative Agriculture
Samson, 2010 - Saving Vietnam's coasts with mangroves and organic shrimps

Photos of the excursion on January 16, 2013

Visiting the SRI model in Hung Hoa commune, Tieu Can district

 

Visiting the Pangasius farming in Tan Hoa commune, Tieu Can district

Visiting the shrimp-mangrove model in Hiep Thanh commune, Duyen Hai district

Visiting the concrete dyke at the coast

 

 Photos of the meeting and group discussions on January 17, 2013