Report training need assessment final EN 1 - SCAN...

Report on the Training Need Assessment of the Vietnamese coffee producers – October 2013 1

Report

TRAINING NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF VIETNAMESE COFFEE FARMERS

Conducted by: Le Hong Van Solidaridad Representative in Vietnam

In the framework of the project “Increasing knowledge of producers in Vietnam on sustainable standards”

October 2013


Table of contents

I. Background – The need for the assessment II. Methodologies used in the assessment

1) Objectives of the training need assessment 2) Contents of the assessment 3) Target groups for the survey and assessment 4) Methodologies for survey and analysis

III. The outcomes and findings of the survey and assessment 1) Characteristics of the surveyed farmer sample groups

a. Total number of samples, sex, groups and locations b. Status of participation in sustainable production groups c. Status of participation in training courses d. Production characteristics of surveyed groups.

2) The outcomes of assessment of farmer training needs a. The training contents under the producers’ and the trainers’ perspectives b. The outcomes of the training need assessment with the farmers.

3) The outcomes of the survey conducted within the trainers and staff on the farmers’ training needs. a. Characteristics of the survey sample amongst project managers, trainers, and

agriculture extension staff (hereby called Trainers) b. General assessment of the Trainers on the farmers’ training needs c. General assessment of the Trainers on the priorities of the training contents

4) The assessment outcomes on the appropriate training methods a. Duration of a training course b. Modes to conduct a training course c. Types of appropriate training materials

5) The assessment outcomes on the affordability of the farmers for the training and technical materials a. Affordability for the training materials b. Affordability for the training courses

IV. Conclusions V. Some recommendations List of tables List of charts


I. Background – The requirement to conduct the training needs assessment

Vietnam coffee production has made a long step forward to becoming the second

largest coffee exporter in the world. Coffee production has reached its peak in the period from early 1990s up to now, with the total land area for coffee from 100,000 ha to 622,000 ha by now. (See Chart 1. Coffee production by year). The land area for coffee has been stable at 500,000 ha since 1999 and has grown significantly in the recent years. Most of the farmers have over 15 years of experience in coffee production. The average yield nation-‐wide has continuously increased from 0,7 ton/ha to more than 2 tons/ha or even 2,6 tons/ha in recent years which has proven that Vietnamese coffee growers have attained considerably good experience in coffee production. The average coffee yield in Vietnam is amongst the highest in the world, which not only illustrates good farming practice and progress in coffee production but also presents some potential risks in farming practice that focuses more on intensive cultivation which leads to lack of sustainability. Agriculture experts have acknowledged this issue but the majority of coffee growers do not realize the risks in these unsustainable farming practices. This issue needs to be analyzed in a scientific manner as well as through the transfer of knowledge to the farmers towards long-‐term, effective and sustainable development of coffee production in Vietnam.

Chart 1. Vietnam coffee areas by year

Unit: 000 hecta.


Chart 2: Comparision of Vietnam coffee areas and production by year

Unit:: 000 hecta & 000 tons

Table 1. Vietnam coffee area, production and average productivity

Year Area (000 ha)

Production (000 ton)

Average productivities

ton/ha 1990 119 83 0.70 21991 115 78 0.68 1992 104 140 1.35 1993 101 181 1.79 1994 124 212 1.71 1995 186 236 1.27 1996 254 342 1.35 1997 340 415 1.22 1998 371 418 1.13 1999 478 698 1.46 2000 562 896 1.59 2001 565 788 1.39 2002 522 693 1.33 2003 510 914 1.79 2004 497 850 1.71 2005 483.6 752.1 1.56


2006 489 853 1.74 2007 489 915.8 1.87 2008 500.2 1055.8 2.11 2009 507.2 1057.5 2.08 2010 511.9 1100.5 2.15 2011 543.9 1296.5 2.38 2012 614.5 1595.4 2.60 2013 622.1

Source: Nat. Statistics (1990 – 2010), Vicofa (2011-‐2012), MARD (2013)

The Vietnamese coffee growers are generally considered well-‐experienced in coffee production. However, the lives of the coffee growers have not been improved significantly, due to the fact that they suffer very high risks in terms of the climate, pests and deseases, the production environment and market conditions. In the entire coffee chain, the added value of the famers’ production remains the lowest. This reaffirms that the farmers’ production efficiency is not high. And more significant improvements need to be done in the farming practices for them to be able to cope with the changes in the production environment, in the climate and in the market conditions to achieve better and more sustainable outcomes. The farmers themselves have been aware of this as when was asked about suggestions for training in terms of all production knowledge, only 19% of respondents think it is not necessary but 81% think that it is necessary or very necessary for them to receive more training. (See table 3).

Recently coffee production has achieved significant scientific developments in the farming process, seeds, in research to bring scientific application to production and in building a system of highly skilled specialists in the field. However, there is still a big gap between the technical knowledge achieved and the transfer of knowledge to the farmers. The agriculture extension system has reached out to the commune level, but the capacity and efficiency remain low. The reasons for these short-‐comings lie not only in the limited financial resources but also in the capacity of the agriculture extension staff and in the methods to transfer knowledge to the farmers. Many efforts have been made to develop technical training materials for the coffee producers. However, most of these training materials are more academic and lack of direct practical application to the training exercise for the farmers. In addition, the printing cost of the training materials is high, which limits the farmers’ access to training. At present, there are many training materials developed by research institutes and programs/projects. However, there is no set of materials that can meet the requirements of the agriculture extension staff in order to be used in the training courses for the farmers. Based on the currently available materials, the agriculture extensions staffs have do prepare the training outline for each training session covering a specific content. The staffs are not equipped with necessary


training tools like audio-‐visual equipment and the tools to conduct training need assessments. The agriculture extension staffs do not have sufficient capability to prepare training outline with a specific timeframe and a precise content by themselves. They need to be supported, with better module-‐based training materials. The training materials for the farmers are not practical while the printing cost is too high and the training content is too broad and academic. The farmers cannot afford to buy the materials and there is not enough funding to subsidize the distribution of training materials to a big number of beneficiaries. Therefore, it is necessary to have the training materials which are short and precise, visible and easy to use to reach out to majority of the farmers at lowest price and at the same time provide them with the most practical knowledge they need.

At present the farmers use traditional farming practices, which they have learnt by themselves. These traditional farming practices have many weaknesses including excessive use of supplies and fertilizers, over-‐use or unbalanced use of fertilizer, over-‐ irrigation or improper irrigation, cut off shade trees, wrong or excessive use of crop protection products, unripe harvesting and wrong way of processing which affect quantity and quality of coffee. According to the general assessments of the producers as well as the coffee experts, there are a lot to be improved in the farming processes in order to increase productivity and move toward sustainable production.

Improving the transfer of technical advances to the majority of the farmers is the key in enhancing the knowledge and skills of the farmers. It does not only lie on the organization of training courses for the farmers as currently implemented by programs/projects. There is a need to change the approach by making the content more appropriate and meet the training needs of the farmers. That means that the training content should include issues that bring about socio-‐economic or environmental benefits to the farmers. The training methodology, from the training materials to the organization of the courses, should be practical and suitable for the farmers to absorb, to make sure that the training not only equips the farmers with knowledge but also helps change their behavior. The current training and technical transfer activities in programs/projects have yet to meet this requirement.

Efforts have been made to provide support to the training courses for the farmers,

however, most of the farmers have not had access to this kind of support. It is important to improve training methodologies, to make the training more effective to enable the farmers to have access to training and technical support. If depending on the government agriculture system alone, then the objective of conducting training on a bigger scale to reach out to the majority of the farmers will not be feasible. Therefore, it is necessary to build a broad network of producers and farmers, who possess good


farming experiences, advanced technical knowledge and training skills so that they can be bridges to transfer scientific advances to the farmers.

There are sustainable agricultural production movements towards international

certification such as UTZ Certified (Utz), Rain Forest Alliance (RA), 4C and Fair Trade. At the moment about 5% to 10% of the coffee growing households participate in these certifications. This is a good start for expanding sustainable coffee production network, toward greater coverage in terms of production areas and the number of producers. However, this program needs sufficient time in order to bring about real impact on moving toward sustainable production. This program needs to be supported and accompanied with measures that help the farmers change their farming practices. One of these measures is training on demand and monitoring implementation.

The project entitled “Improving knowledge of the Vietnamese coffee producers toward sustainable standards” by SCAN, sponsored by SECO, is a small project, which aims to provide technical support to coffee producers in sustainable production based on sustainable certification. The project has a small scale that enables piloting new approaches, providing technical support based on the practical demand of the producers, helping them to improve production and move toward sustainable production based on international standards. With this approach, before the project commences, we conduct this assessment to identify the training needs of the farmers. The results of this training needs assessment will be used to develop plans on activities and methodologies such as the development of a set of training materials that meet the training needs of the farmers as well as collaboration with other partners to conduct needs-‐based training courses for the farmers.

II. Methodology used for the assessment

1. Objectives of the training needs assessment

This training needs assessment aims to identify issues in sustainable coffee production that the coffee growers want to receive in training according to their order of priority. The assessment is based on the comments on the areas of priority, from the coffee growers, agriculture extension staff, as well as the managers of sustainable production projects.

The priorities in this training needs assessment will be used as a basis to develop

training materials for the farmers, in order to meet their prioritized needs and gradually finalize all the related training materials within the limited budget of the project.


2. Assessment contents

The training contents included in this assessment cover major areas as follows:

• The agriculture farming practices; • The issues relating to sustainable production certification, including four

(4) main certificates: Utz Ceritified, Rain Forest Aliance, 4C and Fair trade. • The social, environmental and labor safety issues in coffee production. • The issues on farm economics management and household groups linkages.

In addition, the assessment also examines the training modes, and the training

materials that the producers want as well as their affordability to pay for the training courses and training materials.

The survey also looks at characteristics of the target groups in order to compare

and analyse the training needs of the different target groups.

3. Survey targets

A survey was conducted with two main target groups: • Coffee producers – 305 survey samples • Agriculture extension staff, trainers and managers of sustainable production

projects (hereby called Trainers). This target group would provide comments on the training needs of the farmers from the trainers’ perspective -‐ 50 survey samples.

Samples were selected randomly in the coffee growing provinces including: Dak

lak, Lam Dong, Gia Lai, Kon Tum, Dak nông. The farmer target group composed both those who have and have not participated in certified sustainable production projects. The Community Development Centre (or CDC in short) was the organization that conducted intervews with these 355 survey samples.

4. Methodology for survey and analysis In survey questionnaires, there were questions on the elements concerning the

training needs, which were later used as the basis for analysis, such as: productivity, land area, age of the farm, the number of training courses attended in the last two years, and whether the person surveyed has ever participated in types of household groups, including certified groups, and which type of groups they are a member of.


There are three levels of assessment for each training need:

• The training content is very necessary – “Very necessary” • The training content is necessary – “Necessary” • The training content is not necessary – “Not necessary”.

The method of assessment and analysis is based on the need identified by the

majority of the respondents, in comparision to all the answers of “Very necessary”, “Necessary” and “Not necessary” for each training content. This method helps identify the level of priority of the training contents in the survey.

An analysis is made by comparing the training needs of the different farmer

groups including those who have and have not participated in certification projects in the last two years. A comparision is also made between the farmer groups achieving high productivity and the low productivity groups, and between the farmers and the trainer groups.

The analysis would draw conclusions on the training needs in priority order, under

different perspectives of the different target groups, based on which SCAN members would analyze and make recommendations on the priority issues in developing training materials for the farmers. The results of the analysis would also enable the partners in developing their training plans to match the training needs of the farmers.

III. The survey results and key findings

1. Characteristics of the surveyed farmers groups

a. Population, gender, types of groups and location The total survey sample covered 355 people including two main groups: 305

coffee farmers and 50 agriculture extension staff and project staff who have provided training to the farmers (hereby called Trainers). They were selected at a random basis in five provinces of Dak Lak, Dak Nong, Lam Dong, Gia Lai và Kontum. 22% of the respondents were women. See a detailed breakdown of the respondents in Table 2 and the surveyed districts in table 3.


Table 2: Characteristics of survey samples

No. Province

Total number of samples surveyed

Gender Survey target groups

Male Female Trainer Farmer

1 Đăk Lăk 176 149 27 25 151 2 Đăk Nông 39 33 6 0 39 3 Lâm Đồng 91 61 30 7 84 4 Gia Lai 20 16 4 9 11 5 Kon Tum 29 19 10 9 20

Total: 355 278 77 50 305


Table 3. Survey districts

b. Participation of the farmers in sustainable production groups

Out of 305 farmers surveyed, 134 households have participated in one or more

certification or self-‐managed farmer groups, cooperative farmer groups or cooperatives (equivalent to 44%) and 161 have not participated in any type of group (accounting for 56%). There were many households that participated in a few of the groups concurrently. The largest number was 65 households, who were part of both Utz and 4C. Particularly, there were 4 households that participated in all three certification groups of Utz, RA and

Province District Number of samples of

farmers surveyed

Number of trainers surveyed

Đăk Lăk

Buôn ma Thuột 20 3 Buôn Hồ 92 4 Ea Hleo 5 6 Ea Kar 3

Krong Buk 3 4 Krong Năng 4 4 Krong nô 12 Krong Pak 11 1

Lak 2 Cư Kuin 1 Cư Mgar 11 1

Khuyến nông tỉnh 1

Đăk Nông

Dak Lấp 3 Dak Mil 14 Dak Song 8 Gia Nghĩa 1

Lâm Đồng

Bảo Lâm 81 7 Bảo Lộc 1 Di Linh 1 Lâm Hà 1

Gia Lai

Chư Sê 10 Cư Jut 1 Ia Grai 1 2 Dak Đoa 4 Chu Prong 3

Kon Tum Dak Ha 20 7 Khuyến nông tỉnh 2


4C. (See table 4.)

Table 4. Small holder groups surveyed

Group type Number of small holders Utz Certified Group 87 Rain Forest Alliance Group 10 4C Group 119 Fair Trade Group 0 Self-‐managed groups, cooperatives 9 Farmers not involved in any form of farmer group

161

Farmers in both Utz & 4C groups 65 Farmers in both Utz & RA 3 Farmers in Utz, 4C & RA 4 Farmers in both 4C & a cooperative 2 Farmers in Utz, 4C & a cooperative 3 Farmers in Utz & a cooperative 1

c. Participation in training courses It was found that in the past two years, the households that participated in

certification groups had a higher average of attendance in training courses than the households that did not participate in the groups, 3.57 times/household and 1.48, respectively. This finding illustrates the benefit of participation in the groups that enable the farmers to have more access to training courses. Table 5. Training status of groups already in and not involved in certification groups

(number of times being trained in the past 2 years)

Group type Number of small holders

Total number of training times

Average traing time w/small holder

Utz 87 298 3.43 RA 10 66 6.60 4C 119 395 3.32

Cooperative 9 45 5 Farmer not involved in any

farmer group 161 238 1.48

Farmer involved in either of 2251 804 3.57 1 Many households are members of a few groups concurrently


the following groups: (Utz, 4C, RA, cooperative)

For more information about the participation in the training courses by the

households in certification groups, see tables 6, 7 and 8 below. The tables show the breakdown of participation in training courses under Utz, 4C, and RA. However, these figures are for reference only because the survey sample was not very big and they were selected randomly.

Table 6. Training status of farmers involved in Utz groups

Training frequency in the past 2 years

Number of farmers

%

Zero 11 12.6 1 16 18.4 2 17 19.5 3 18 20.7 4 6 6.9 5 5 5.7

6-‐16 14 16.1 Total 87 100

Table 7. Training status of farmers involved in 4C groups

Training frequency in the

past 2 years Number of farmers %

Zero 10 8.4 1 18 15.1 2 29 24.4 3 26 21.8 4 12 10.1 5 10 8.4

6-‐16 14 11.8 Total 119 100

Table 8. Training status of farmers involved in RA groups

Training frequency in the past 2

years Number of farmers

Zero 0 5 5


6 1 10 3 15 1

Total 10

In a small number of ten (10) people who participated in RA, seven of them participated in many certification projects concurrently, therefore the number of times participating in training courses was relatively high.

Since the survey did not focus on the providers of the past training courses, there was no information about the sources that provided training to the farmers. However, most of the certification projects have placed big emphasises on training, therefore the members of the projects mainly benefited from the training activities of the certification projects. In addition, other government-‐funded projects on agriculture extension or vocational training run by the Department of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs, also provide training courses to the farmers. On the other hand, it was found out that a high percentage of the farmers in the survey have not participated in any training courses in the past two years. (See table 9. Percentage of the households who have and have not participated in training in the last two years).

Table 9. Ratio of surveyed small holders being trained in the last 2 years

Small holders % Number of small holders that were not trained in the past 2 years

102 33 %

Number of small holders trained in the past 2 years

203 67 %

Total 305 100 %

d. Characteristics of the surveyed population.

• Average land area of the households surveyed: 1.45 ha/ household. • Average yield of the households surveyed: 3.155 tons/ha, which is higher than the

nation-‐wide average. • The highest yield achieved: 5.5tons/ ha.

In terms of the average yield (in the last two years), the households that participated

in training courses achieved higher yield than the households that did not. One interesting point is that it seems the more training one receives, the higher the yield achieved. This shows the important benefit of the training in helping achieve higher yield.


Table 10. Average productivity of small holders in relation to training participation

Small holder groups Average

productivity ton/ha

Average productivity of groups that were not trained in the last 2 years 2.97 Average productivity of total small holders surveyed in the last 2 years 3.16 Average productivity of groups trained in the last 2 years 3.21 Average productivity of groups trained more than 3 times in the last 2 years 3.45 Average productivity of groups trained more than 4 times in the last 2 years 3.55 Average productivity of groups trained more than 5 times in the last 2 years 3.69 Average productivity of groups trained more than 6 times in the last 2 years 3.79

Table 11. Average productivity of certification groups

Certification groups Average

productivity ton/ha

Average productivity of Utz groups 2.99 Average productivity of small holders not involved in any group 3.03 Average productivity of 4C groups 3.27 Average productivity of RA groups 3.42

The average yield by the surveyed households in certification groups is recorded in a random manner. There are no questions on the reasons why, therefore, these are not included in the report. This information is for reference only. However, there is a surprise that improvement on the yield seems to depend on the training courses but not on the participation in certification groups (the average yield of groups under UTZ project was lower than the total average). This finding is verified in other surveys as well.


2. Survey results of the farmers on their training needs

a. The training contents surveyed in the groups of Farmers and Trainers. The training contents for the farmers and the trainers are similar, including the main

areas as follows: • The farming practices; • The issues relating to sustainable production certification, with four main

certificates of Utz Ceritified, Rain Forest Aliance, 4C and Fair trade. • The social, environmental and labor safety issues in coffee production. • The issues relating to the farm economic management and household group

linkage.

However, there are three additional topics in the survey for the trainers: • The tracebility issue; • The training on organization of an internal monitoring system; • The social considerations relating to certification.

Specifically, the training contents in the survey with the farmers include (in particular

order of the codes in the charts)

Table 12. Training contents to be surveyed with farmers

N1 Balanced fertilization and soil nutrition improvement N2 Compost production from coffee pulp N3 Soil erosion control and soil cover N4 Soil preparation and soil protection N5 Effective irrigation N6 Pruning and shaping N7 Pest and desease control, chemicals and bio-‐pesticides utilization N8 Grafting and re-‐planting N9 Tree shading and advantages of shading, methods of mix cropping. N10 Coffee cultivation measures for climate change adaptation. N11 Harvesting and processing measures in households for quality and

production efficiency improvement and food safety. N12 Waste water management from wet processing. N13 Environment protection measures (field sanitation, water resources

protection and nature and wild life protection). N14 Labour security, hygiene and first aid measures.


N15 Learning on minimum wage, working time, child labour, community health.

N16 Household economy, measures for farmer income improvement from coffee plantation, household production planning and production record keeping by the households.

N17 Guidance on farmer group operation and advantages of paticipating in farmer groups, such as a voluntary group or cooperative

N18 Guidance on Utz Certified participation N19 Guidance on 4C participation N20 Guidance on RA participation N21 Guidance on Fair trade participation

The contents surveyed with the trainers are as follows. (The codes used in the

chart are in the same order)

Table 13. Training contents to be surveyed with trainers

C1 Balanced fertilization and soil nutrition improvement C2 Compost production from coffee pulp C3 Soil erosion control and soil cover C4 Soil preparation and soil protection C5 Effective irrigation C6 Pruning and shaping C7 Pests and deseases control, chemicals and bio-‐pesticides utilization C8 Grafting and re-‐planting C9 Tree shading and advantages of shading, methods of mix croping. C10 Measures in coffee cultivation for climate change adaptation. C11 Measures of harvest and processing at household for quality and

production efficiency improvement and food safety. C12 Waste water management from wet processing. C13 Measures for environment protection (field sanitary, water resources

protection and nature and wild life protection). C14 Measures for labour security, hygiene and first aids. C15 Learning on minimum wage, working time, child labour, community health. C16 Household economy, measures for farmer income improvement from

coffee plantation, household production planning and production record keeping by households.

C17 Guidance on farmer group operation and advantages of paticipating in farmer groups, like voluntary group, cooperative


C18 Guidance on Utz Certified participation C19 Guidance on 4C participation C20 Guidance on RA participation C21 Guidance on Fair trade participation C22 Implementation of tracebility C23 Independent inspection, internal inspection – Internal Control system

organization (ICS). C24 Guidance on social standards compliance in sustainable certification

implementation. There is a blank space in the questionnaire for the respondents to add in the content they want, however, no recommendations on other training content is recorded.

b. The results of the survey with the farmers For each content surveyed, the repondents provide assessment on three levels:

• “Very necessary” to be trained • “Necessary” to be trained • “Not necessary” to be trained

There are two criteria for evaluating the level of priority of the training contents as follows:

• The total number of answers for “ Very necessary” • The total number of answers for “Necessary”

Chart 3 below shows the level of concern on the training courses. In the total number of answers for all the contents, only 19% of respondents reply “Not necessary” while 81% consider “Very necessary” and “Necessary” to be trained. However, the level of urgency in “Very necessary” only accounts for 21%, focusing on a few main issues, while 60% of of the respondents think that training is “Necessary”.


Chart 3. Overview of training needs

Table 14. Overview of farmer opinions on training needs

Training contents surveyed

Very necessary Necessary Not

necessary

Total opinions surveyed

N1 106 170 28 304 N2 105 170 30 305 N3 61 181 63 305 N4 49 205 50 304 N5 46 190 50 286 N6 108 155 35 298 N7 192 110 3 305 N8 122 158 21 301 N9 47 205 52 304 N10 41 186 78 305 N11 58 184 63 305 N12 9 130 164 303 N13 25 211 68 304 N14 45 193 67 305 N15 24 164 117 305 N16 68 173 64 305 N17 24 185 96 305

N18 62 222 20 304


N19 62 220 22 304 N20 47 212 43 302 N21 48 188 64 300

Total 1349 3812 1198 6359 Ratio over total surveyed opinions

21 60 19 100

Farmers’ assessment on the level of priority of the training contents:

The level of priority identified as “Very necessary” and “Necessary” for each training content is illustrated in the Chart No 4 below.

Chart 4. Priority order of training contents based on surveyed opinions of “very necessary” + “necessary”


According to Chart 4, the 10 contents in priority order are:

Table 15. 10 training contents of top priority order according to surveyed opinions of

“very necessary” + “necessary”

The priority order of the training contetnts identified based on the criteria “Very necessary) is illustrated in the Chart 5 below. There is a comparison of the total number of “Very necessary” and “Necessary” in chart 5. Chart 5. Priority order of training contents according to surveyed opinions of “very

necessary”

Order of priority Code Training contents

1 N7 Pests and deseases control, chemicals and bio-‐pesticides utilization

2 N18 Guidance on Utz Certified participation 3 N19 Guidance on 4C participation 4 N8 Grafting and re-‐planting 5 N1 Balanced fertilization and soil nutrition improvement 6 N2 Compost production from coffee pulp 7 N6 Pruning and shaping 8 N20 Guidance on RA participation 9 N4 Soil preparation and soil protection

10 N9 Tree shading and advantages of shading, mixed cropping methods.


Table 16. 10 training contents of top priority order according to surveyed opinions of “very necessary”



2 N8 Grafting and re-‐planting 3 N6 Pruning and shaping 4 N1 Balanced fertilization and soil nutrition improvement 5 N2 Compost production from coffee pulp

6 N16 Household economy, measures for farmer income improvement from coffee plantation, household production planning and production record keeping by households.

7 N18 Guidance on Utz Certified participation 8 N19 Guidance on 4C participation 9 N3 Soil erosion control and soil cover

10 N11 Measures of harvest and processing at household for quality and production efficiency improvement and food safety.

Based on the farmers’ assessment on the level of priority, we have come up with

a list of 10 training contents in priority order as follows:

Table 17. Top 10 priority contents under the opinions of the farmers Order of priority Code Training contents


2 N8 Grafting and re-‐planting 3 N1 Balanced fertilization and soil nutrition improvement 4 N6 Pruning and shaping 5 N2 Compost production from coffee pulp 6 N18 Guidance on Utz Certified participation 7 N19 Guidance on 4C participation

8 N16 Household economy, measures for farmer income improvement from coffee plantation, household


production planning and production record keeping by households.

9 N20 Guidance on RA participation

10 N9 Tree shading and advantages of shading, methods of mix cropping.

The table above shows that the contents coded N7, N8, N1 are in top 5 of both types of priority. Contents N6 and N2 are in the top 7 in both types. Similarly, contents coded N18 and N19 are in the top 8 of both types. Five training contents of N7, N8, N1, N6 and N2 are the special contents that many respondents consider “very necessary” and also are the content in “Necessary” list.

Assessment of priority level of the training contents in UTZ certification groups.

Chart 6: Priority training content in the Utz farmer groups


The six training contents in the highest priority order for UTZ certification groups include:

Table 18. Priority training contents in Utz farmer groups



2 N8 Grafting and re-‐planting 3 N18 Guidance on Utz Certified participation 4 N19 Guidance on 4C participation 5 N2 Compost production from coffee pulp 6 N6 Pruning and shaping

Assessment of priority level of the training contents in 4C certification groups.

Chart 7: Priority training contents in 4C farmer groups


The six training contents in priority order identified by 4C farmer certification groups are:

Table 19. Priority training content in 4C farmer groups


1 N7 Pest and desease control, chemicals and bio-‐pesticides utilization

2 N8 Grafting and re-‐planting 3 N6 Pruning and shaping 4 N2 Compost production from coffee pulp 5 N1 Balanced fertilization and soil nutrition improvement 6 N18 Guidance on Utz Certified participation

There is no assessment on priority level of the training contents for RA

certification groups since the sample size is too small (only 10 households). Therefore there is no priority order identified for these groups.

Assessments on priority order amongst groups that have and have not

participated in training in the last two years.

Chart 8. Priority training content of the farmers who participated in training

!"#$ #%&$ #%#$ #''$ #'($#)'$ #)'$ #))$

#&'$ #&)$ #&*$ #&!$ #&#$ #&"$ #(%$ #()$#+'$ #+'$

#*!$

##'$

'+$

"$

("$

#""$

#("$

!""$

!("$

,)$ ,#'$ ,#%$ ,!$ ,'$ ,#$ ,&$ ,!"$ ,+$ ,%$ ,!#$ ,*$ ,##$ ,($ ,#+$ ,$#*$ ,#&$ ,$#"$ ,#)$ ,$#($ ,$#!$

!"#$%&'($)*+$,-+$.&$/0'$,12+$'134$'5'($%6'$)7$,184$(#8$)*+$,-+$$

-./0$1234$56/7$086$9:;/<$=$<>?4$:;/9$:7@$4A/0$/B8$CD/0$5E@$4F@$


Chart 9. Priority training content of the farmers who have not participated in training in the last 2 years

!!"!#"

!$" !%"&!" &'" &(" &)" &$" &$" &*" '!" '&" ''" ''" ''" '#" ')" '$"

#!"

()"

+"

%+"

)+"

#+"

&+"

*++"

*%+"

,'" ,*" ,&" ,*#" ,*!" ,*&" ,%" ,)" ,#" ,!" ,%+" ,**" ,$" ,*)" ,"*$" ,"*+" ,*'" ,(" ,%*" ,"*(" ,"*%"

!"#$%&'($)*+$,-+$.&$/0'$,12+$'134$'5'($%6'$71.8$,184$(#8$)*+$,-+$$

-./0"1234"56/7"086"9:;/<"="<>?4":;/9":7@"4A/0"/B8"CD/0"5E@"4F@" In general, the priority levels identified by the different target groups (Utz 4C, groups that have and have not participated in training courses in the last two years) are quite similar and compartible, since they are all included in the top 10 priorities (See table 17). The two contents of N7 (Pesticide Control) and N8 (Grafting and Replanting) are always the top two in priority order accross all the target groups, which are followed by other contents like Fertilizer Use, Soil nutrition improvement (N1), Pruning and Shaping (N6) and UTZ certification (N18) and 4C (N19).

3. Survey results of the Staff and Trainers on the farmers’ training needs.

a. The characteristics of the project managers, trainers and agriculture extension staff (in short called Trainers)

The survey sample included 50 trainers in four provinces of Dak Lak (25 people), Lam Dong (7 people), Gia Lai (9 people) and Kon tum (9 people).

The trainers who participated in this survey have had experience as trainers and

project managers. Out of the total, 20 people have had less than two years experience, 12 people have worked for 2-‐5 years and 18 people have more than 5 years of work


experience. These trainers also participated in many training courses in the past two years on

good farming practice (28 people participated), on certification issues (39 people) and 30 people attended training on agriculture extension methods. The total number of training courses that participated in the last two years was quite high.

b. General assessment of the trainers on the farmers’ training needs

In general, the trainers have given higher priority on the training needs of the farmers more than the farmers have done for themselves. While 19% of the farmers identify some contents as “not necessary”, only 4% of the trainers have agreed with that for the same contents. The priority level of “Very neccessary” identified by the trainers is also higher as compared to that of the farmers, 38% and 19 % respectively. (see Charts No 3 and No 10).

Chart 10. General opinions of trainers on farmers’ traning needs

c. Assessment of the trainers on the priority level of the training contents

In terms of the training contents in the survey for the trainers, contents coded C1 – C21 were similar to the contents N1 – N21 in the survey with the farmers. There were three additional training contents for the trainers (coded as C22, C23, and C24) on Tracebility, Certification Audit and the Social Criteria (See table No12 and 13).


Chart 11. Trainers’ opinions on priority level of training issues

In Chart 9, the trainers have had similar assessment on the priority levels as “Very necessary” and “Necessary” for all the training contents except C12 (on waste water management in wet processing since dry processing is mainly used for Vietnam coffee). The level of priority is illustrated in items marked “Very necessary”, in which the top 10 training priorities are:

Table 20. 10 most priority training contents according to traners’ opinions

No. Content code Training contents

1 C7 Pests and deseases control, chemicals and bio-‐pesticides utilization

2 C8 Grafting and re-‐planting 3 C1 Balanced fertilization and soil nutrition improvement 4 C14 Measures for labour security, hygiene and first aids. 5 C2 Compost production from coffee pulp


6 C3 Soil erosion control and soil cover

7 C6 Pruning and shaping

8 C18 Guidance on Utz Certified participation

9 C16

Household economy, measures for farmer income improvement from coffee plantation, household production planning and production record keeping by households.

10 C19 Guidance on 4C participation

10 C20 Guidance on RA participation

There is a similarity between the prioritized contents identified by both the farmers and the trainers. Nine out of 10 priority contents identified by the trainers are also in the list of top 10 priorities of the farmers. Particularly, both trainers and farmers have listed three contents of C7/D7/ Prevention of Pertiside, C8/N8/Grafting and Replanting and C1/N1/Fertilizing, Soil Nutrition Management as the top 3 priorities. There are differences in the priority lists identified by the farmers and the trainers. The trainers have considered C3/Erotion Prevention, C14/Labor safety and First Aid important while the farmers want to learn more about Shading Trees.

4. Survey results on suitable training methods

a. Duration for a training course The survey questionnaires include the following options:

1) 1 training course contains a half a day session for 1 issue of concern and conducted a few times in a year;

2) 1 training course 1 day long for 1 issue of concern and conducted a few times in a year;

3) Training on a content appropriate to the current farming season;

4) 1 training course lasting a few days for all the issues of concern.

5) Other methods suggested by the farmers

No recommendations on other methods (5).


Chart 12. Farmers’ and trainers’ opinions on training time of each training section

Farmer Trainer

The farmers selected the duration of training as a half-‐day session for one content and conducted a few times in a year (1) and training based on the current farming season (3). It is a practical request, but requires regular training with locally available resources (especially in terms of trainers). On the other hand, the trainers identify that a training course can last from one half-‐a-‐day session to one day on one content and can be repeated within a year for other contents. The trainers and the farmers have quite similar views on this issue.

b. Methods to conduct training

The survey includes the following options:

(1) Classroom discussion followed by practice;

(2) Discussion and practice right in a coffee farm;

(3) Combination of training in community meetings;

(4) Provision of guidance directly to each household at its own farm;


Chart 13. Opinions of farmers and trainers on training oraganization modes

Farmer Trainer

The majority of the trainers and the farmers selected the method of combining training with practice right at the farm. However, there is a difference that the farmers do not want to combine training with other forms of community meetings. On the other hand, the trainers support this idea. Most of the farmers prefer the option whereby advice is given directly to each household but the trainers do not like this method.

c. Appropariate forms of training materials

In terms of the training materials, there are three options for the famers to select:

(1) A4 Flyer or A3 posters with precise instructions and colorful images.

(2) Guide books with detailed instructions and coloful illustrations.

(3) A Guide video.

The survey results are:


Chart 14. Farmers’ opinions on training material types

For the farmers, all three forms of appropriate training materials include: Flyer, guidebook with colorful illustrations and a guide Video. The trainers have three selections of appropriate forms of training materials for the trainers and the farmers: (1) The appropriate form of training material for the farmers are A4 flyer with colorful images while the appropriate form of training materials for the trainers is A3 or A2 posters/flipchart with concise text instruction and colourful images, together with accompanying guidebooks. (2) Guidebook with detailed instructions and coloful illustrations for the farmers and self -‐prepared training tools by the trainers?

(3) A Guide Video for the farmers and training materials/tools self-‐prepared by the trainers.

The survey results are:


Chart 15. Trainers’ opinions on training material types

Most of the trainers prefer two forms of training materials including ready-‐made materials for both trainers and the farmers -‐ option (1), and basic training materials, based on which the trainers can prepare training materials for the farmers – option (2). However, the farmers want the training materials to be visible, with colorful images or a video. Therefore, the form that the trainers pick as self-‐prepared training materials may not be able to meet the farmers’ needs for visible and collorul training materials.

5. Findings on affordability of the farmers for the training courses and technical training materials

a. Affordability for the training materials

The survey questionnaires include the following options on farmers’ affordability for

the training materials:

(1) Cannot afford, want to be provided for free;

(2) Can afford, at around 10.000 đ for a material;




(6) Can afford, at around 100.000 đ for a material

And the opinions of the trainers and farmers on this are:


Chart 16. Affordability to pay for technical materials

Farmer’s opinion Trainer’s opinion

The charts show that the majority of the farmers (69%) are not ready to pay for the training materials but wanted to be given the material free of charge while only 31% are ready but pay, at a low rate. Most of them accept the rate of 10.000 vnd to 20.000 vnd for one training material.

On the other hand, the trainers have a different view on the farmers’ affordability. 42% of the trainers think that the farmers want to receive training materials for free and 58% think that the farmers could afford to pay. However, the trainers agree that the rate that the farmers are ready to pay is only about 10.000vnd to 20.000vnd for a material. However, the above assessments made by both the trainers and the farmers show a change in mindset that people begin to think that they have to pay for the advanced knowledge that they receive, in contrary to the old mindset that training should be provided for free and worse, they receive money in order to attend training courses.

b. Affordability for the training courses

The question put forward in this survey is whether the farmers wish to pay for the technical training, if the fee is reasonable, or they want to go for training free of charge.

(1) Can afford to pay,


(2) Cannot afford to pay.

Chart 17. Affordability to pay for training

Farmer’s opinion Trainer’s opinion

There is a similarity in the responses in terms of affordability. The majority (more than 30%) is not ready to pay for the training courses (65% for the farmers and 54% for the trainers). However, the survey shows a positive trend while a relatively signicifant percentage of farmers (35%) say that they could pay for the training. The trainers are more optimistic about this, with 46% think that the farmers could afford to pay for the training.

IV. CONCLUSION There are some conclusions drawn from this survey as follows:

1) The survey findings reflect the reality that the coffee farmers have had long term experience in coffee production. They do have wishes and needs for training but these needs are not critical but remain at necessary level only. The farmers want to receive training on most of the contents, except a few of the contents which they do not think are practical such as waste water management in wet processing (because dry processing is mainly used in Viet Nam), social issues like working hours, minimum wage, health care for the workers (while the farmers in Viet Nam normally work at a household scale). In addition, the organization of household groups is not a big


concern for the farmers (maybe because the farmers do not fully understand the benefits of household groups, while in reality, it has proven very important at the moment because working in groups helps the farmers increase productivity and their status in the market).

2) However, the majority of the farmers identify their great needs in some subjects on good farming practice in order to increase productivity and cope with the challenges caused by climate change and environment degradation. The subjects of their interest are:

a. 2/3 of the farmers (192 out of 305 respondents) view the Control of pesticides as very important, because it involves both curbing climate change and increasing productivity.

b. As far as Grafting and replanting is concerned, over 30% of the farmers consider it very necessary and the remaining viewed it necessary. This issue is concerning climate change and change in the production environment.

c. Soil and tree nutrition, fertilizing, including bio-‐fertilizer production are also of great concern as more than 30% of the farmers consider Very necessary and the remaining farmers view the issues necessary because these involve productivity.

d. Similarly, on pruning and shaping, 30% of the farmers consider Very neccessary while the remaining say that they need more training on these issues. These are difficult farming skills that directly affect production efficiency and productivity.

These findings show that even though farmers have had production experiences, they still have concern about the issues that help raise productivity and cut cost but ensure high efficiency. The farmers also face many challenges caused by the effects of the changes in production environment and climate change for which they need more support (pests and deseases, replanting).

3) The farmers want to have access to new things, therefore, the issue of sustainable certification is one of the new contents that most of the farmers want to know more about, even though not many farmers consider it necessary. More than half of the people interviewed were not invloved in a certification process but they still want to learn more about it.

4) The contents in priority list for training are similar. There is no big difference between the different target groups such as groups that were and were not involved in a certification process, and groups that have or have not participated in any training courses. The assessments of priority level for different training contents made by the


trainers are quite similar with those of the farmers. Most of the contents in the list of top 10 priorities identified by the farmers are also in the list of top 10 made by the trainers.

5) As far as the duration and methods of training are concerned, both the farmers and trainers want a training activity that lasts for a day or less, on a particular topic. And training can be organized again during the year or matched with the seasonal activities. This is practical for the farmers. However, the local capacity to conduct training needs to be improved to be able to meet this requirement. Training needing to be accompanied with practice is also a common view.

6) On the training materials, both farmers and trainers want the materials to be practical, visible, with colorful images and well-‐designed and per-‐module contents that correspond to each training topic. The training materials need to be made readily available for the farmers and the trainers. On the other hand, the video guide, and images in the training materials need to be colorful but at the same time should not be too expensive for the farmers to be able to pay.

7) In terms of the affordability of the training materials, most of the farmers could not afford or do not want to pay for the materials. Only some of them can afford to pay but only at the rate from 10,000vnd to 20,000vnd per material. Therefore, the development of training materials based on the needs of the farmers but at the same time at a low cost is extremely important.

8) The affordability for both the training materials and the training courses is actually the same. Most of the respondents want it free of charge. However, there is a positive trend that some of them (about 30%) say they could pay at a reasonable price. This is a good start, moving towards socialization of all the knowledge transfer and training activities, whereby the beneficiaries will make a contribution.

V. Some recommendations

1-‐ The training materials for the farmers should be developed per module, with suitable content and duration, either one day or half day for one topic.

2-‐ Developing training materials should be based on the priority order and on the available financial resources. When there is sufficient budget, the training materials should cover all the coffee-‐related issues as the demands are always there, be it big or small.


3-‐ The training activities should be conducted regularly during the year, with module-‐based courses, for half a day or a full day. Therefore, it is necessary to build up the local capacity at the hamlet or commune levels, with the trainers who are either the active farmers or agriculture extension staff.

4-‐ It is necessary to conduct a training needs assessment on the target groups before organizing a training course. It is to ensure that the training will only focus on what the farmers want to learn but not to repeat what they already know, given the fact the farmers have had certain knowledge and experience before the training. However, there should be guidance on how to design and conduct a simple and effective training needs assessment on a small group of farmers.

5-‐ A system of trainers needs to be developed locally, which includes not only the trainers in the agriculture extension system or the trainers of the sustainable projects, in order to meet the training needs of all the coffee farmers.

6-‐ The topic of certification needs to be introduced not only within the certification projects but also introduced to those who have not participated in these projects. It is because the farmers are interested in this topic and once they understand it, they are motivated to participate.

7-‐ It is proposed to include all the guidance on training needs assessment in the training materials for the trainers based on module/session.

8-‐ Different channels need to be used to enable the farmers to have access to the technical materials at a low cost such as websites.


List of Tables

Table 1. Vietnam coffee area, production and average productivities Table 2. Characteristics of survey samples Table 3. Survey districts Table 4. Surveyed groups of small holders Table 5. Training status of groups already and not involved in certification groups Table 6. Training status of farmers involved in Utz groups Bảng 7. Training status of farmers involved in 4C groups Bảng 8. Training status of farmers involved in RA groups Table 9. Ratio of surveyed small holders being trained in last 2 years Table 10. Average productivities of small holders in relation to training participation Table 11. Average productivities of certification groups Table 12. Training contents to be surveyed with farmers Table 13. Training contents to be surveyed with trainers Table 14. Overview of farmer opinions on training needs Table 15. 10 training contents of top priority order according to surveyed opinions of “very necessary” + “necessary” Table 16. 10 training contents of top priority order according to surveyed opinions of “very necessary” Table 17. Top 10 prioty contents under opinions of farmers Table 18. Priority training contents in Utz farmer groups Table 19. Priority training content in in 4C farmer groups Table 20. 10 most priority training contents according to traners’ opinions


List of Charts

Chart 1. Vietnam coffee areas by years Chart 2: Comparision of Vietnam coffee areas and production by years Chart 3. Overview of training needs Chart 4. Priority order of training contents based on surveyed opinions of “very necessary” + “necessary” Chart 5. Priority order of training contents according to surveyed opinions of “very necessary” Chart 6: Priority training content in the Utz farmer groups Chart 7: Priority training contents in 4C farmer groups Chart 8. Priority training content of the farmers who participated in training Chart 9. Priority training content of the farmers who has not participated in training in last 2 years Chart 10. General opinions of trainers on farmers’ traning need. Chart 11. Trainers’ opinions on priority level of training issues Chart 12. Farmers’ and trainers’ opinions on training time of each training section Chart 13. Opinions of farmers and trainers on training oraganization modes Chart 14. Farmers’ opinions on training material types Chart 15. Trainers’ opinions on training material types Chart 16. Affordability to pay for technical materials Chart 17. Affordability to pay for training

Date post:	04-Jul-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vanthuan
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Report training need assessment final EN 1 - SCAN...

Documents