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

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

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (7)

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

Similar to The gap in GAPs: Some key lessons for uptake and policy (20)

More from ILRI

More from ILRI (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

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