Social and cultural dimensions of rodent pest ... - Wiley Online Library

Integrative Zoology 2007; 2: 174-183

doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4877.2007.00057.x

REVIEW

Social and cultural dimensions of rodent pest management Florencia G. PALIS,1 Grant SINGLETON,1 Zenaida SUMALDE2 and Mahabub HOSSAIN1 1

International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines and 2University of the Philippines Los Baños, College, Laguna, Philippines

Abstract Rice production in Vietnam is threatened by rodent pests, with a significant increase in impact reported from 1990 through to the early 21st century. Pre-harvest rice losses are typically 5–10%, with losses of >20% occurring in some years in some regions. Farmers’ rodent control practices are generally reactive and rely essentially on chemical and physical methods. Ecologically-based rodent pest management (EBRM) was developed in the late 1990s to manage rodents in rice-based farming systems in Vietnam and other parts of South-East Asia. EBRM combines both cultural and physical rodent management practices such as synchrony of cropping, short 2-week rat campaigns at key periods in key habitats, increasing general hygiene around villages, and use of a community trap-barrier system. Although EBRM has been reported to be economically profitable, the successful adoption of this set of technologies requires community participation. In this paper we address issues relating to the adoption and sustainability of EBRM in lowland irrigated rice fields in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam. We particularly explore the social and cultural mechanisms involved in maintaining community participation to further understand the conditions under which EBRM works and does not work. Positive indications of sustained use of community-based EBRM include: a policy pronouncement from the prime minister directing the use of integrated rodent management; the use of existing cooperatives for developing community actions; budgetary allocation from provincial and local governments; diffusion of EBRM to provinces in the south and north that are not involved in farmer participatory field trials; and the adoption of EBRM by a non-governmental organization, World Vision Vietnam, in their area-development programs. Key words: community rodent management, cultural mechanisms, ecological rodent management, social mechanisms.

INTRODUCTION Rodents are historically mankind’s oldest competitor in acquiring and storing food. Generally perceived to be consistently outsmarting humans, they are considered to represent a major constraint in rice production, in both the pre-harvest and post-harvest stages of cultivation. Rodents are the most important pre-harvest pests in Indonesia for irrigated rice crops, and amongst the three most important in Vietnam (Singleton 2003). In Asia,

Correspondence: Florencia G. Palis, International Rice Research Institute, DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines. Email: [email protected]

174

pre-harvest yield losses of rice due to rats are estimated to be between 5 and 10%. A loss of 6% of Asian rice production amounts to approximately 36 million tonnes: enough rice to feed the 220 million people in Indonesia every year (Singleton 2003). The impacts in Africa and South America are of a similar magnitude (Stenseth et al. 2003). Rodent control is therefore vital in order to sustain food production, especially for rice (Oryza sativa L.), which is the staple food of approximately half of the world’s population (IRRI 1997). Farmers commonly rely on chemical and physical methods to control rodents, which are applied spontaneously, passively, and are ultimately less effective. An alternative paradigm to manage rodents in rice-based

©

2007 IRRI

Social dimensions to rodent management

farming systems in Asia is ecologically-based rodent pest management (EBRM; Singleton et al. 1999a). This requires a solid understanding of the ecology of the pest species and targeting of community actions at key times of the year in specific habitats when the rodent populations are most vulnerable. In lowland irrigated rice fields in Java, Indonesia, and the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, EBRM combines both cultural and physical rodent management practices such as: (i) ensuring synchrony of cropping (crops planted within 2 weeks of each other); (ii) implementing short 2-week rat campaigns at key periods (1 week prior to transplanting, or within 2 weeks of crop initiation) in focal habitats such as village gardens and the banks of main irrigation channels; (iii) reducing the width of irrigation banks in the fields to less than 30 cm to prevent nesting by rats; (iv) improving the general hygiene around villages and village gardens; (v) promoting synchronous fallow; and (vi) using a community trap-barrier system (CTBS) (Singleton et al. 2005; Brown et al. 2006). The CTBS entails the establishment of an early planted “trap crop” to lure rodents to the traps, which ideally should be planted approximately 3 weeks prior to the surrounding rice fields. The trap crop is usually 20 m × 20 m and is surrounded by a plastic barrier that has at least one multiple-capture live-trap along each side, with an entry point for rodents leading directly into the trap. These traps should then be monitored daily for trapped rodents. The CTBS provides a “halo effect,” reducing rodent damage in an area of 10–15 ha (Singleton et al. 1999b). One distinct advantage of the CTBS is that it does not use poison, although management and labor costs may be higher than for typical baiting systems. Past research suggests that EBRM, including use of the CTBS, can be economically profitable for farmers to use compared with their conventional rodent control practices, especially the use of rodenticides (Palis et al. 2003, 2004; Brown et al. 2006). The benefit–cost analysis (BCA) for EBRM and CTBS yielded a value greater than one, indicating a positive impact and financial benefits to farmers (Palis et al. 2003, 2004; Brown et al. 2006). The quantitative benefits that farmers derive from use of the CTBS and practice of EBRM are increased yield from reduced losses caused by rats, reduced use of toxic rodenticides, decreased use of plastic fences to protect the whole area, and decreased labor for conducting rodent control (Palis et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2006). Sensitivity analysis without subsidy also showed that the technology was still financially beneficial for farmers (Palis et al. 2004).

©

2007 IRRI

The successful implementation of EBRM with a CTBS component requires community participation. As such, the framework for understanding these technologies is to redefine EBRM as a common property resource (CPR). Common property exists where a group of users cooperate in the management and disbursement of the resource, and thus share in the benefits “stream.” EBRM with the CTBS is redefined as CPR created with the establishment of a system through shared resources in terms of costs, labor, and benefits (Morin et al. 2003). Shared costs include material costs for traps and plastic fences for a CTBS, and associated transaction costs, since time and effort in negotiation and carrying out of the operations and management are needed. Shared labor includes building fences, trapping, daily monitoring of rat traps, CTBS management and maintenance, and community rodent control actions. Shared benefits include low rat damage, higher yields, availability of rats as a protein source for animal feed or for human consumption, sale of rats in local markets as is the case in Vietnam, and reductions in health hazards due to the reduction in the use of rodenticides. In the CPR framework, the likelihood that a farmer will participate and continue to participate in community rodent control actions can be represented in four scenarios (Table 1). The likelihood that participants who receive benefits, assuming some level of technical efficiency or that the technology works, will remain within the CTBS system or continue participating in EBRM depends upon the degree of benefits received and the costs of participating in the rodent control activities. Farmers are more likely to participate if the benefits of participating in a collective action for community rodent control are greater than the cost and the method is economically advantageous relative to existing or other alternative technologies such as rodenticides, which are easy and convenient to use. Non-participants who receive

Table 1 Scenarios regarding the likelihood of a farmer participating and continuing to participate in community rodent control actions Outcome

Participation

No participation

Decides based on Received benefits

technical success, etc.

Did not receive

Likely to discontinue

benefits

participation

Free rider

No action

175

F. G. Palis et al.

benefits are called free riders, and these persons are likely to encourage participating farmers to continue the system. Participants who do not receive benefits are likely to discontinue their involvement. Successful (i.e. sustainable, remunerative) CPR systems are usually the result of “factors internal to the given group” (Ostrom 1990, p. 21). Some unsuccessful CPRs may be marred by the inability of members to communicate with each other or to develop trust in the institutions. This means that social capital (i.e. the features of social life, including networks, norms, and trust, which enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives [Putnam 2000]) was not developed. Also, factors “outside the domain of those affected,” such as lack of local autonomy to change the given institutional framework, can also have detrimental effects on effective CPRs (Ostrom 1990). Therefore, both internal and external factors are important in successful CPR. In this paper we address issues relating to the adoption and sustainability of EBRM in lowland irrigated rice fields in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam. We address the question of whether farmers will continue to apply EBRM strategies, including the CTBS, if these strategies are no longer subsidized by government or through donor funding. We particularly explore the social and cultural mechanisms involved in maintaining community participation to further understand the conditions under which EBRM works and does not work.

METHODOLOGY Scope and methodology of the projects Farmer participatory action research, including farmer surveys with regard to knowledge, attitudes, and practices (Sang et al. 2003), was conducted to refine and promote the CTBS and EBRM. Knowledge of these technologies was transferred through training and implementation on farmers’ fields at the village level with active partnerships, participation, and cooperation among farmers, village agricultural officers (part of the people’s committee for each village), national research institutions, and the regional, provincial, and district levels of government (see Morin et al. 2003; Brown et al. 2006). CTBS demonstrations were conducted in north, south-central, and south Vietnam. EBRM including the CTBS was conducted only in north Vietnam. The projects were implemented from 1998 to 2002 in north and south Vietnam, and from 2001 to 2002 in south-central Vietnam.

176

Northern Vietnam In northern Vietnam, there are three main crop seasons during the year, with two rice crops and one winter crop. Farmers primarily grow rice during the spring and summer seasons, but nearly all of them practice mixed cropping, mostly rice and vegetables. More than 20 vegetable crops such as tomato, squash, melons, onion, beans, and kohlrabi (cabbage turnip belonging to the crucifer family) are grown throughout the year. The winter crop is mostly vegetables. The average farm size is 0.3 ha (8.4 sao; 1 sao = 360 m2), and rice is normally grown on 0.19 ha (5.2 sao) and vegetables on 0.13 ha (3.6 sao). EBRM was conducted in Tien Phong village, Me Linh District, in Vinh Phuc Province (1999–2002). It was conducted in two sub-villages or hamlets (treatment sites) where CTBSs were established. Farmers were encouraged to practice field sanitation, synchronous land preparation, reduction of refuges around villages, and clean up after harvest. Two other hamlets represented control sites, where farmers were not influenced in their rodent control practices. A total of 10 CTBSs existed at the two treatment sites per season (see Brown et al. 2006 for details).

South-central Vietnam A total of 21 CTBSs were established and operated by farmers over three seasons (2001–2002) depending on the availability of rainfall and irrigation. Both treatment and control villages were located in Bac Binh District, Binh Thuan Province. The demonstration was supported by other activities such as (i) training of lead farmers and government extension staff in the operation of CTBSs; (ii) establishment of farmer groups to manage the CTBS sites, with savings and credit facilities through a cooperative to encourage the establishment of further CTBS sites; (iii) development of extension pamphlets and training designs; and (iv) establishment of network contacts for transferring the CTBS technology to other parts of Vietnam. No activity was undertaken in the control village.

Southern Vietnam In southern Vietnam, two or three rice crops are grown each year. Lan et al. (2003) described the cropping practices for both southern and south-central Vietnam, and documented the historic levels of rodent damage to rice crops in these regions. The participatory experiment had two treatments, with CTBSs and without CTBSs, in two provinces (Tien Giang and Soc Trang); the villages with and without CTBSs were 10 km apart (2001–2002). In each village, CTBSs were established at the hamlet level.

©

2007 IRRI


For each experimental hamlet, a region in the surrounding area approximately 2 km away was selected as a control site (no CTBS was introduced). A total of 24 CTBSs were established: 12 CTBSs were established in two districts of Tien Giang (Cai Be and Cai Lay) and another 12 CTBSs in two districts of Soc Trang (My Tu and Long Phu). Two other hamlets from each of the two provinces served as the control group. At all project sites, establishment of CTBSs at the treatment sites was financed by the project. These included materials for CTBSs such as fences, rat traps, seeds for planting trap crops, labor for pumping water because the trap crops were to be planted early, and labor for establishing the CTBS. Unlike in northern and south-central Vietnam, where labor for monitoring the traps was paid, the equity of farmers in southern Vietnam was in the form of labor, for example checking the rat traps daily and keeping records of the total number of rats caught. Farmers who had crops within the area protected (halo of protection) by a CTBS were responsible for maintaining and managing their CTBS.

Assessment of adoption of EBRM Five provinces, Vinh Phuc in north Vietnam, Binh Thuan in south-central Vietnam, and Soc Trang, Tien Giang, and Bac Lieu in south Vietnam, were visited for the assessment 1 year after the completion of demonstration projects in each region. All the provinces except for Bac Lieu, which is an extension province, were project pilot sites for farmer participatory research. In each province, focus group discussions among farmers in a treatment and control hamlet were conducted (Table 2). Information gathered included yield per ha, rice price, production cost, estimated yield loss from rats, and rodent management practices. Farmers’ perceptions and experiences with EBRM and use of the CTBS were elicited. All farmers were asked whether they would erect

their own CTBS even if no subsidy were to be provided. Information about government policy on rodent management and experience with EBRM and the CTBS was solicited from key persons at the national, provincial, and district governmental levels.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Common rodent control practices Farmers in Vietnam use a variety of control methods, ranging from chemicals, digging, and hunting with dogs, trapping, electrocution, and, particularly in the north, placing plastic barrier fences around entire crops (Sang et al. 2003; Tuan et al. 2003). Families are primarily responsible for their own rodent and pest management actions. Rodenticide poisoning and trapping were practiced individually, whereas digging and hunting were conducted arbitrarily by community groups, indicating that Vietnamese farmers would conduct collective actions for rodent control. The most popular traps were kill-traps (metal and wood mechanical traps) and sticky-traps. The former were preferred for use in the field and the latter for use in the house. The rodenticides commonly used were warfarin (Rat–K; an anticoagulant poison), zinc phosphide (an acute poison), and an agent manufactured in China, which is very toxic and whose active ingredient is not known. In the north, a plastic fence often encloses the whole area that is cropped to protect it from rats, at an average cost of 55 000 dong or US$3.50 for 1 sao (360 m2) per season. Many farmers hunted, using either sticks and/or dogs, around the borders of the fences at night.

Adoption of EBRM in northern Vietnam Community-based EBRM, which was introduced only in the north, has been adopted with remarkable enthusiasm. Farmers believe that controlling rats is most effec-

Table 2 Distribution of Vietnamese farmers involved in the 2003 focus-group discussions Province

Treatment group

Control group

Binh Thuan (plus 11 farmer leaders)

16 (2 women and 14 men)


Bac Lieu


10 men

Soc Trang


8 (1 woman and 9 men)

Tien Giang

9 men

6 men

Vinh Phuc


7 men

The Hung Yen (WV site) site involved 10 farmers, but there was no treatment or control site because the CTBS was yet to be introduced.

©

2007 IRRI

177

F. G. Palis et al.

tive if done at the same time at the community level. Farmers at the treatment sites continued to practice physical and cultural management of rodents 1 year after the project was finished, except for the CTBS. Farmers in the control villages also began to adopt community-based EBRM practices minus the CTBS towards the latter phase of the project. Thus, digging, hunting, and trapping were done at the same time in both treatment and control villages, although some farmers still practiced trapping individually. Between 1998 and 2002 there was a dramatic reduction in the number of farmers using plastic fences as an exclusion barrier in the study area, from 100% to around 30%. Likewise, the frequency of chemical rodenticide applications per cropping season decreased from three to one application, which is consistent with earlier findings (Brown et al. 2003; Tuan et al. 2003) and with the impact of community-based EBRM at the village level in Indonesia (Singleton et al. 2003). The community participation for rodent control in the villages in north Vietnam is attributed to the presence of a strong cooperative system among farmers. Farmer cooperatives are borne out of the traditional commune system, which is the key social capital in Vietnam. Tien Phong, a village under Me Linh District of Vinh Phuc Province, for example, has seven hamlets with seven cooperatives. Each cooperative has a security team in charge of crop protection in the village, including rodent control. The farmers pay 4000 dong every year for the security team, through the cooperative. The staff of the Plant Protection Station also provide support to the cooperative and the security team through pest forecasting, and mobilizing for a rat bounty campaign when necessary. Each household has a quota of 20 rats per season. The cooperative pays every household 200 dong per rat tail for every rat over the quota. The rat bounty campaign is part of the village mechanism for reducing the rat population and provides a platform for effective EBRM. A campaign is usually undertaken for 5 consecutive days and most household members participate. In addition, various community rodent control activities such as digging and trapping are conducted for 1 or 2 days at the same time at specific crop stages. The village leader announces these activities and representatives of each household participate. EBRM spread in the north because of a policy issued by the prime minister in 1998 (policy #09–1998/CT/TTG), directing all farmers to use EBRM and to organize groups for rodent control in each village and limit the use of rodenticides (Palis et al. 2004). This policy emerged from

178

previous research that focused on a strong understanding of the ecology of the pest species (Brown et al. 1999). In addition, EBRM was promoted through TV and radio during 1999 and 2000 and occasionally from then on. Farmers were encouraged to control rats early every season (before breeding), particularly at the tillering stage or 2 weeks after planting, and to use various physical and cultural methods in controlling them (Nguyen Van Tuat, personal communication). Farmers were taught the importance of concerted community action. Notably, before these projects, the national policy for rodent control emphasized the use of chemicals. Although the directive of the policy is at the national level, implementation depends on the capacity of the individual provinces. In Hai Phung Province, 200–300 million dong was allocated for rat control from 1998 to 2000 (Le Viet Cuong, Director, Plant Protection Department (PPD), Hai Phung Province, personal communication). Provincial staff with the PPD trained farmers on EBRM, including the CTBS, and instructed every village to undertake community action for rodent control. The people’s committee at the village level organized groups for rodent control, as instructed by the provincial people’s committee. World Vision Vietnam (a non-governmental organization) became involved in EBRM through a pilot project at Bac Binh in Binh Thuan Province (south-central Vietnam). The positive results led World Vision Vietnam to integrate EBRM into their 18 area development programs covering 12 provinces in Vietnam, mostly located in the north. EBRM adoption in the Vinh Phuc Province often did not include use of the CTBS because of a mixed cropping system of rice, vegetables, and ornamentals. Rice farms are scattered randomly amongst vegetable and ornamental plots, which discouraged farmers from establishing a CTBS by themselves. Also, considering their small farm size, use of a technology requiring a high level of investment was not appealing. Instead, the farmers undertook the other community-based EBRM practices such as synchrony of rice crop planting, coordinated rat campaigns at key times, and general crop and village hygiene (Brown et al. 2006).

CTBS adoption in southern and south-central Vietnam South-central Vietnam (Bac Binh, Binh Thuan) A rodent outbreak occurred in 2001 in Binh Thuan Province, as reported by farmers. Mean rat damage at that

©

2007 IRRI


time was 40% (ranging from 30 up to 100% on some farms). Rats caused very heavy damage to maize over a 4000-ha area in two districts (Le Anh Tuan, personal communication). Eleven farmer leaders in Bac Binh, Binh Thuan Province, in south-central Vietnam, reported that use of the CTBS decreased rodent impacts in the CTBS areas, whereas rodent impacts remained high in the non-CTBS areas. This perception was based on a low rat population at treatment sites despite a dramatic reduction in the use of rodenticides (from 100 to 10%), compared with the high rodenticide use (90%) among control farmers. Synchronous planting and field sanitation also were practiced in the CTBS areas although field sanitation was arbitrarily done in groups. The CTBS had a significant impact on populations of rodents not only in irrigated areas but also in rainfed areas (Aplin & Singleton 2002; Le Anh Tuan, personal communication).

South Vietnam Farmers in both the treatment and control villages perceived the CTBS to be an effective and safe method of controlling rats. In Tien Giang, seven out of 13 (three of six in Cai Be and four of seven in Cai Lay), or 54%, of the original CTBS farmers at the treatment sites were still using the CTBS in 2002 and 2003. In general, there was a decrease in their use of rodenticide, which confirms earlier findings (Palis et al. 2003). On the other hand, farmers from the control group mentioned that, although poisonous rodenticide was still used, there was also a decrease in its use in the control areas. In Cai Be and Cai Lay in Tien Giang Province, the CTBS was adopted by individual farmers whose farms had large rodent populations and whose farm size was greater than 1 ha. The average farm size of a Vietnamese farmer in these two districts is 0.5 ha. Unlike in Cai Be, where the trap-crop owners shoulder all the expenses, farmer adopters in Cai Lay receive a 50% subsidy from sub-PPDs (district level). Surrounding farmers helped the farmer adopters in establishment of the CTBS in both districts. The trap-crop owner, however, undertook daily monitoring of the trap crop, particularly the rat-traps, and maintenance of the fence. In Soc Trang, none of the farmers continued using the CTBS after completion of the project. Although the farmers were convinced of its effectiveness in reducing the rat population, they were constrained by the high cost of CTBS materials and the labor requirement. A CTBS costs 1.5 million dong and confers a halo of protection around 15–20 ha. On a per hectare basis, it will cost the

©

2007 IRRI

farmer only 75,000–100,000 dong. Farmers may not have realized this per hectare cost because they compute the cost on a per-CTBS basis, an indication that the concept of group sharing may not be well understood by the farmers. This misunderstanding could be minimized with the establishment of a cooperative or integrated pest management (IPM) club. In south Vietnam, the sub-PPD has already formed 76 IPM clubs. In one treatment hamlet in My Tu District, the former IPM club was converted into a cooperative in 2001, and membership was extended to non-IPM members. If the model of the Binh Thuan cooperative effort could be introduced to this cooperative, the likelihood that the CTBS will be adopted would increase. As an offshoot of the Tien Giang and Soc Trang CTBS experience, Bac Lieu Province adopted the CTBS. From 2000 to 2002, approximately 50 CTBS demonstration sites were established in the province. These sites were partially financed by the province at 1 million dong per CTBS for the cost of material inputs. From 2000 to 2002, the province of Bac Lieu spent 50 million dong for the promotion of the CTBS to farmers as an alternative technology to the use of rodenticides. By 2003, the province had reduced its allotment for rodenticide from 15–20 million dong to only 5 million dong. The 15 million dong difference was allotted for CTBS demonstrations. There are now 18 additional CTBS demonstrations in five villages of Vinh Loi District. For all these CTBS sites, the trap-crop owner was a volunteer and the PPD instructed 10 farmers to take turns in monitoring, without pay, throughout the cropping season. Farmers from the treatment group in Bac Lieu expressed their satisfaction with the effectiveness of the CTBS in reducing yield loss from rats. They signified their intention to form farmer groups to continue the CTBS on their own without waiting for financial support from the government. Members of the group will contribute equally to the establishment and management of the CTBS. In 2003, the provincial PPD introduced EBRM, which included the CTBS. According to the farmers, synchronized farming, one of the main community actions, would not be a problem because of the availability of irrigation facilities in the province. The promotion of EBRM in Bac Lieu in 2003 was in response to policy #09–1998/CT/TTG. Although the policy was released in 1998, implementation depends on the capacity of the province. In contrast, farmers in the control group still used rodenticides because, during the 2002–2003 cropping season, a chemical company, together with the plant protec-

179

F. G. Palis et al.

tion council of the village, announced the availability of free rodenticides for farmers. In 2003, however, no free rodenticide was provided and the farmers had to buy the chemicals. Many have said that they are now planning to use the CTBS, especially because the local PPD is allocating 1 million dong for the materials.

Factors enabling and constraining EBRM adoption Although farmers adopt the CTBS slowly, most of the components of EBRM have become an integral part of farmers’ practices in controlling rodents, particularly in the north, making EBRM technologies appropriate for farmer adoption. The strategic use of integrated community actions, and specific recommendations on when and where to conduct management practices based on the breeding ecology, population dynamics and habitat use of the major pest species (see Brown et al. 2006), provided this added value to farmers. Farmers believe that the CTBS is effective, but they are constrained by several factors, mainly technical, economic, social, cultural, and political (Table 3). Technical constraints include problems in establishing a small area for the early planted trap crops several weeks before the main crop is planted. This problem is more difficult especially if there is no synchrony of planting among the farmers and the irrigation system cannot provide enough water to the community at the same time. Another is the difficulty that occurs with harvesting/threshing rice from the trap crop, especially in bringing the thresher into the field with many standing rice crops around. Economic constraints include high investment costs in terms of the material cost for setting up a CTBS, including the trap crop; high labor requirements for establishing, maintaining, and monitoring the system; high transaction costs for establishing and running the system since it requires group action; and more pest occurrence in the trap crop, resulting in low yields in the trap crop. Social and cultural constraints include the presence of the “free-rider” and the farmers’ practice of undertaking individual rodent control action, particularly in south Vietnam. Like other technologies, there are catalytic or enabling factors for CTBS and EBRM adoption, including technical, economic, social, cultural, and political factors (Table 3). Monoculture rice farming enables farmers to conveniently set up a CTBS, and good irrigation facilities enable easier implementation of synchronized planting, which is a vital requirement for effective CTBSs. Economic factors that would facilitate CTBS adoption include: (i) profitability: the returns to using the technology

180

are likely to be higher in areas with large rodent populations; (ii) economy of scale: considering the high costs involved, large farm size for individual adoption is more likely, and some farmers with large land holdings have already started to use a modified and cheaper version of CTBSs in the south; and (iii) partial subsidy for small farmers: financial support is important, especially if there is no strong cooperative or association in the area. Where there is a strong cooperative, farmers’ association, or IPM club, the association may get a loan that is paid back by the farmers after harvest. Social factors that enable CTBS adoption include the presence of a strong cooperative, farmers’ association, or IPM club, and capacity building of these institutions. This is very important for both cost sharing and activities requiring group or community effort. A strong cooperative or association would reduce the likelihood of a free-rider problem. Capacity building to farmers’ cooperatives and associations would likewise strengthen the group sharing and community effort activities. Importantly, the political factor that favors CTBS and EBRM adoption is the prime minister’s policy pronouncement in 1998 (policy #09–1998/CT/TTG), directing all farmers to use EBRM and to organize groups for rodent control in villages. This national integrated rodent management policy resulted in a remarkably high level of adoption of EBRM, particularly in the north. Further enhancement of the spread of EBRM in Vietnam would include strict enforcement of the national policy on integrated rodent management at the provincial level. This necessitates the continuous provision of budget for these activities, including institutional education campaigns, promotion though mass media, technology demonstration, and capacity building for both farmers and plant protection staff at different administrative levels (provincial, district, and village) that emphasizes the importance of group effort in rodent management. Similarly, cooperation with local governments is a necessary ingredient for the mobilization of community rodent management activities.

Sustainability of EBRM practice Sustainability refers to the continuous practice of EBRM and the use of the CTBS after termination of the project and when needed, either with government support or through farmers’ own financing. (Occasionally farmers may not be motivated to use a CTBS, for example, when they perceive the rat population to be low. However, in these instances other EBRM practices are likely to suffice.) CTBS adoption and rate of adoption may be slow, but indicators for the sustainability of EBRM tech-

©

2007 IRRI


Table 3 Enabling and constraining factors for EBRM adoption Factor Technical

Enabling

Constraining

•

Monoculture farming

•

Difficulty in establishing an early planted trap crop

•

Good irrigation facilities

•

Difficulty in harvesting and threshing the rice from the trap crop

• Economic

•

•

More pests in the trap crop

Partial subsidy for small farmers

•

High investment costs for setting up a CTBS

Profitability: associated with areas with a serious

•

rodent problem and large farm size

• Social

Presence of a strong cooperative, farmers’

High labor requirements and transaction cost for CTBS maintenance

•

Low yield in the trap crop

•

Presence of free riders

•

Rodent control action is individually practiced,

association or IPM club •

Capacity building

•

Strong farmer leader

•

Non-governmental participation, e.g. by World Vision

Cultural

•

Rats used as food

•

Practice of synchronous cropping

•

Vietnamese culture of community cooperation

•

National policy on integrated rodent

Political

particularly in the south

•

Non-cooperation of local government

management •

Strict enforcement of the policy

•

Cooperation from local governments

•

Existing political culture and extension structures

•

Government budget allocation at the

•

provincial level

nologies include the following (Table 3): government policy on integrated rodent management; government budget allocation at the provincial level; non-government participation for example by World Vision; existing political culture and extension structures; and the Vietnamese culture of community cooperation. At the national level, the strongest indicator of sustained use of the CTBS and EBRM is the prime minister’s policy pronouncement on integrated rodent management. Furthermore, in response to this policy several provinces have allocated budget for more CTBS demonstration sites like Hai Phung and Bac Lieu. The involvement of non-governmental organizations such as World Vision could contribute to the sustainability of

©

2007 IRRI

EBRM and CTBSs. The positive results in Bac Binh led World Vision to incorporate community-based EBRM into their 18 area development programs covering 12 provinces in Vietnam. Also, considering the political culture and extension structures in Vietnam, adherence to government policy is relatively easily implemented. There is a strongly coordinated linkage between local political and extension institutions. Each administrative level has a people’s council and a people’s committee. The people’s councils represent the local authority of the state and are the top supervisory bodies at each level. They do not govern directly but instead elect and oversee people’s committees. The people’s committees are the executive bodies that carry out local administrative du-

181

F. G. Palis et al.

ties. Every people’s committee has an agricultural officer who is normally the head of farmers’ cooperatives. Likewise, PPD, which is responsible for extending crop protection technologies, has strong links with the people’s committees at the provincial, district, and village levels. Since PPD is responsible for recommending or endorsing policies regarding crop protection to the central authority, the flow in the dissemination process of the technology is efficient. Moreover, coordinated community action is the norm rather than a novel concept in Vietnam. The Chinese influence of Confucianism, which is viewed as both a philosophy of life and as a religion, emphasizes the importance of loyalty, respect for authority, and peacefulness (Quang 2003). Respect for social hierarchies is therefore basic to Vietnamese families and society. Values associated with family and community, where individual interest is subordinate, if not irrelevant, to the welfare of the whole group, are deemed important (Muoi 2002). The experience of collective farming in the past has provided a strong foundation for effective collective action. Although this is more profound in the north, the concept is gradually evolving in the south as a result of unification. Hence, lower-level authorities and the people will adhere to a directive coming from higher authorities. For rodent technology, the policy for integrated rodent management, which requires community action, can be implemented easily.

Concluding remarks Considering all the technical, economic, social, cultural, and political factors, EBRM technologies including the CTBS are appropriate for adoption. Although the CTBS faces slow adoption, there are some positive indications that would imply continuous or sustained use of EBRM technologies: (i) a policy pronouncement from the prime minister directing the use of integrated rodent management; (ii) existing infrastructure, for example, cooperatives for sustained implementation; (iii) budgetary allocation from provincial and local governments; (iv) a culture of community cooperation; (v) individual adoption by small farmers in areas with large rodent populations; (vi) individual adoption by farmers with relatively large farms; (vii) strong support by provincial governments in the south (e.g. Bac Lieu) and north (e.g. Hai Phung) that were not involved in the studies; and (8) the integration by World Vision, a non-governmental organization, of use of the CTBS and EBRM in their areadevelopment programs in Vietnam.

182

To sustain the positive gains from previous projects, activities are required to develop effective pathways for delivery of integrated EBRM to poor farmers in Vietnam and in rice-based lowland farming systems in Asia in general.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions of Mr. La Pham Lan, Mr. Ngoc, Dr. David Purnell (World Vision Vietnam), Prof. Tipp, Dr. Nguyen Van Tuan, Mr. Le Anh Tuan, Mr. Nguyen Phu Tuan, PPD staff, and Dr. Deborah Templeton. Much acknowledgement is due to the Vietnamese farmers who spent time talking with us and sharing with us their knowledge and experiences of rodent management. Dr. John Copland of the Australian Centre for Agricultural Research provided strong support for this and previous rodent projects in Vietnam. The project was funded by the Australian Centre for Agricultural Research.

REFERENCES Aplin KP, Singleton GR (2002). Enhancing Capacity in Rodent Management in the Mekong Delta Region Using Non-Chemical Methods. Final report to the Australian Agency for International Development, CARD Program. AusAID, Canberra. Brown PR, Hung NQ, Hung NM, van Wensveen M (1999). Population ecology and management of rodent pests in the Mekong River Delta, Vietnam. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Leirs H, Zhang Z, eds. Ecologically-Based Management of Rodent Pests. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, pp. 319–37. Brown PR, Tuan NP, Singleton GR, Tuat NV, Tan TQ, Hoa LT (2003). Impact of village-level rodent control practices on rodent populations and rice crops in Vietnam. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt DM, eds. Rats, Mice and People: Rodent Biology and Management. ACIAR Monograph 96. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, pp. 197–202. Brown PR, Tuan NP, Singleton GR et al. (2006). Ecologically-based management of rodents in the real world: application to a mixed agro-ecosystem in Vietnam. Ecological Applications 16, 2000–10. IRRI (1997). Rice Almanac, 2nd edn. International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines. Lan LP, Aplin KP, Hung NM et al. (2003). In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt DM, eds. Rats, Mice

©

2007 IRRI


and People: Rodent Biology and Management. ACIAR Monograph 96. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, pp. 301–3. Morin SR, Palis FG, Chien HV, Chi TN, Magsumbol M, Papag A (2003). A sociological perspective on the community trap-barrier system. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt DM, eds. Rats, Mice and People: Rodent Biology and Management. ACIAR Monograph 96. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, pp. 380–8. Muoi NV (2002). A Glimpse into Vietnam’s Culture. Nha Xuat Ban, Dai Hoc Gia TP, Ho Chi Minh City. Ostrom E (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, New York. Palis FG, Morin SR, Chien HV, Chi TN (2003). Socio-cultural and economic assessment of community trap-barrier system adoption in Southern Vietnam. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt DM, eds. Rats, Mice and People: Rodent Biology and Management. ACIAR Monograph 96. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, pp. 422–5. Palis FG, Sumalde Z, Hossain M (2004). Assessment of Rodent Control projects in Vietnam: Adoption and Impact. Impact Assessment Series No. 24. ACIAR, Australia, 64 pp. Putnam R (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster, New York. Quang ML (2003). Glimpses of Vietnam. Gioi Publishers, Hanoi. Sang PM, Huan NH, Escalada MM, Heong KL (2003). Farmers’ beliefs and practices in rat management in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt DM, eds. Rats, Mice and People: Rodent Biology and Management. ACIAR Monograph 96. Australian Centre for International Agricultural

©

2007 IRRI

Research, Canberra, pp. 426–30. Singleton GR (2003). Impacts of Rodents on Rice Production in Asia. IRRI Discussion Paper Series No. 45. International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines. Singleton GR, Leirs H, Hinds LA, Zhang Z (1999a). Ecologically-based management of rodent pests: re-evaluating our approach to an old problem. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Leirs H, Zhang Z, eds. Ecologically-Based Management of Rodent Pests. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, pp. 17–29. Singleton GR, Sudarmaji, Jumanta, Tan TQ, Hung QH (1999b). Physical control of rats in developing countries. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Leirs H, Zhang Z, eds. Ecologically-Based Management of Rodent Pests. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, pp. 178–98. Singleton GR, Sudarmaji, Tuan NP et al. (2003). Reduction in chemical use following integrated ecologically-based rodent management. International Rice Research Notes 28.2, 33–5. Singleton GR, Sudarmaji, Jacob J, Krebs CJ (2005). Integrated management to reduce rodent damage to lowland rice crops in Indonesia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 107, 75–82. Stenseth NC, Leirs H, Skonhoft A et al. (2003). Mice, rats, and people: the bio-economics of agricultural rodent pests. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1, 367–75. Tuan NP, Williams SJ, Brown PR et al. (2003). Farmers’ perceptions and practices in rat management in Vinh Phuc Province, northern Vietnam. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt DM, eds. Rats, Mice and People: Rodent Biology and Management. ACIAR Monograph 96. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, pp. 399–402.

183