Los ítems que no tengan ficha técnica no serán considerados para la evaluación, y tampoco

Our results show substantially higher rates of agrochemical use for rice production in the triple rice cropping system, particularly in combination with old high dikes, compared to areas with new high dikes and low dikes (Figure 4.3). However, in both triple rice systems, agrochemical application rates rose over time. Compared to the low-dike farming system, mean fertilizer use was 30% higher on average in the new high-dike farming system, corresponding to an extra 100-200 kg.ha-1 _{per crop. Fertilizer use rose even further in the old high-dike farming system, in which} some 90% more fertilizer was applied, corresponding to an extra 300-500 kg.ha-1 _{per crop. Mean} pesticide use increased by 5% in the new high-dike system, corresponding to an extra 4-12 bottles.ha-1 _{per crop. It then rose further to a 39% increase in the old high-dike farming system,} corresponding to an extra 16-25 bottles.ha-1 _{per crop. Thus, after a new high dike was built, farmers} spent 54% to 87% more annually on fertilizer than farmers in the low-dike areas. Some 15 years after high dikes were built, farmers spent 133% to 234% more on fertilizer than their low-dike counterparts (Table 4.3). Annual pesticide use rose by 62% in the new high-dike farming system, climbing further to a 118% increase in the old high-dike farming system.

Of the three rice crops in the triple cropping system, the largest increase in agrochemical application occurred in the first crop. Overall, expenditures for agrochemicals rose over years in the high-dike areas. However, fertilizer and pesticide applications varied by location. Farmers in Phu An commune, An Giang Province, used the greatest amounts of fertilizer for each crop. Interestingly, agrochemical use was generally lower in Dong Thap Province than in An Giang Province.

Pumping and other production costs were also higher in the triple rice systems (Table 4.3). Pumping costs in the high-dike systems were double those in the low-dike systems. This was due to the greater expense of the required high-capacity pumps, the fact that pumping was needed

more often and the higher volumes of water that had to be pumped out of the fields over a higher head (generally 3-4 m) during the flood season. More time and labor was also required, for land preparation, seeding and transplanting. The lower triple rice production costs found in My Hoa are due to the exclusion of transplanting and spraying costs from the IUCN (2015) data (Table 4.3).

Figure 4.3 Fertilizer and pesticide use for rice production in the low dike and high dike areas

Although production costs were higher in areas with new high dikes, triple rice farmers still made greater profit overall, thanks to the sale of the third crop, compared to farmers cultivating two rice crops with low dikes (Table 4.3). However, triple rice farmers’ profits diminished over time. Profit from rice production in first four years of triple cropping was 57%-68% higher than in the low- dike double crop systems; some 15 years later, triple rice profits were still higher, but less so: 6%- 13%. Some farmers in the low-dike areas earned more than their counterparts in the old high-dike

Chapter 4

75 areas. For example, the 2014 survey showed that profits from triple rice production in the new high-dike system were 13% higher than those in double rice production, but the old high dike system was associated with lower profits (-16%). In the extreme case of low yields and high production costs, as in Phu Binh in 2014, profits fell by almost half (-45%). In general, the higher production costs ate away at the extra profits gained from triple rice farming as the years progressed.

The three-year contributions that farmers paid for high-dike development varied by location and construction year. Payments also depended on the design capacity of the dike (length, height and width) and farm size. According to the 2016 survey and data, farmers paid US $452 ha-1 _{on average} over three years in O Long Vy (an old high-dike area), whereas they paid $1,009 ha-1 _{over three} years in Thanh My Tay (a new high-dike area) (Figure 4.4). Three farmers in O Long Vy indicated much higher payments than the others. In the new high-dike system of Thanh My Tay, farmers reported similar payments for high-dike construction. In the 2014 survey, farmers in Phu An reported having paid $480 ha-1 _{over three years, and in Phu Binh they reported paying $700 ha}-1_. These payments can be considered high, as the added profit earned from triple rice production was $1,066 ha-1 _{over three years.}

Figure 4.5 Annual profit from triple rice production and rice selling prices compared to yields (above) and selling price of successive crops (below), data from 2014 survey in Phu Binh commune

Earnings from rice production are very sensitive to farm gate prices, which vary according to the type of rice cultivated (short-grain, long-grain or Japonica), the season, the year and yields (Figure 4.5). Particularly for triple rice production, farm earnings are also dependent on production costs. After deducting expenditures for pumping and agrochemicals, we found triple rice production delivered only very small increases in profit (comparing double rice with triple rice). Moreover, this already minimal profit margin diminished over time (comparing production in the first years after high-dike completion to production 15 years later). This is illustrated by the data collected in Phu Binh. In years when the rice market price was low, annual profit from triple rice was

Chapter 4

77 sometimes less than the average annual profit from double rice production (30.0-43.9 million VND versus 44.0 million VND, Figure 4.5 and Table 4.3).

The 2016 data also indicate higher profits for farmers cultivating Japonica rice compared to those producing short-grain and long-grain varieties (US $2,400 versus $1,500). This is because Japonica commands a higher selling price and produces greater yields. The annex presents analogous findings for the other communes.