Department of Fisheries (DOF) Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Kompong Chhnang

Department for International Development (DFID)

Proceedings of the Workshop on Analysing Livelihoods

of Fishers and Farmers

25-29 September 2001 Kompong Chhnang, Cambodia

Phnom Penh, Cambodia 2 October 2001

i

Contents Acronyms ii

Background 1

Pre-workshop Planning 1

Day One 1

Opening Remarks 1 Objectives and Schedule 3 Expectations 4 Review Outcomes and Follow-up Actions from Phnom Penh Workshop 4 Review Provincial LHA Workplans from Phnom Penh Workshop 5 Review LHA Framework 5 Assess PRA Tools and Link with LHA Framework 6 Area Selection for PRA 10

Day Two 11

Role-playing and Practicing PRA Tools 11 Field Practice Final Preparation

14

Day Three 14

Field Practice: LHA in Community

14

Day Four 14

Review of LHA in Community 14 SCALE Presentation 18 Review and Revise Provincial LHA Workplans

19

Day Five 20

Presentation of Provincial Workplans 21 Workshop Evaluation 22 Closing

22

Appendices

1. Participants 25 2. Objectives 26 3. Schedule 27 4. Expectations 28 5. Outcomes and Follow-up Actions from Phnom Penh Workshop 29 6. Draft Workplan from Phnom Penh Workshop 30 7. Livelihood Analysis (LHA) Framework 31 8. LHA Report Format 32 9. Kandal Workplan and Budget 33

10. Kompong Chhnang Workplan and Budget 34 11. Kratie Workplan and Budget 35 12. Evaluation 36

ii

Acronyms ARMP Aquatic Resources Management Programme

CFD Community Fisheries Development

DFID Department for International Development (UK)

DOAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

DOF Department of Fisheries

DOWA Department of Women’s Affairs

INGO international nongovernmental organisation

IO international organisation

LHA livelihoods analysis

MRC Mekong River Commission

NGO nongovernmental organisation

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

STREAM Support to Regional Aquatic Resources Management

1

Background This Workshop on Analysing Livelihoods of Fishers and Farmers was held in Kompong Chhnang from 25-29 September 2001. It was in follow-up to the Workshop on Understanding Fisher and Farmer Livelihoods for Planning Support, held in Phnom Penh in January-February 2001. These workshops are part of an ongoing series of activities that will inform the development of the Community Fisheries Development (CFD) Office of the Department of Fisheries (DOF), and changes in the fisheries law as it affects poor users of aquatic resources. The participants (Appendix 1) in the workshops include those who will make up the livelihoods analysis (LHA) teams from Kandal, Kompong Chhnang and Kratie provinces, DOF staff from Phnom Penh and staff of the NGO SCALE. The provincial teams are drawn from the provincial Departments of Fisheries and Women’s Affairs (DOWA).

Pre-workshop Planning During the week of 10 September, Bill Savage, workshop facilitator, worked with members of the organising team from DOF Phnom Penh to plan and prepare for the workshop. They were assisted in Kompong Chhnang by officers and staff of the DOAFF Kompong Chhnang.

Day One1 Opening Remarks The DFID-ARMP Manager, Dr. Graham Haylor, welcomed the participants to Kompong Chhnang, eight months on from our workshop in Phnom Penh, and thanked the Director of DOAFF and the Provincial Governor for attending the opening, and the DOAFF for hosting our workshop. The Director of DOF, Mr. Nao Thouk, gave a speech (see box) and His Excellency Mr. Su Pirin, Governor of Kompong Chhnang Province, opened the workshop (see box).

1 From this point on, headings in the report correspond to activities in the workshop schedule (Appendix 3).

2

Speech of Mr. Nao Thouk, Director of DOF Esteemed and honourable guests, His Excellency the Governor, Dr. Graham Haylor, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. First of all, on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, I would like to warmly welcome all of you present, especially the Governor, for joining the opening ceremony of this workshop, which makes this ceremony exciting. Let me take this opportunity to express the deepest thanks for the honourable guests, ladies and gentlemen and representatives of different organisations for participating in this workshop. Today, we are proud that the DOF, in cooperation with DFID, organised this second Workshop on Analysing Livelihoods of Fishers and Farmers. This will be held over five days in order to go further to assess the livelihoods of people in local communities by using different methods which will be developed during this workshop. The fisheries sector contributes an important source for the daily lives of our people, especially poor people living in remote and rural areas. Cambodian people eat fish every day in large quantities compared to others in the region. On average, per capita fish consumption is 30-40 kg annually, but if we only focus on people around the Great Lake and living along the Mekong River, the average consumption rises to 76 kg. This amount exceeds the minimum requirement level which the MRC has estimated to be 49.5 kg. Additionally, the fisheries sector provides a lot of employment to farmers. Therefore, this evidence shows that the fishery sector is an important source of provision for the livelihoods of Cambodian people. However, the importance of this sector is not well understood. The law formulated to manage the sector is not appropriate or sustainable and the resource does not provide sufficient benefits to poor people. I hope that this workshop will contribute important knowledge where this is currently lacking. In order to be effectively implemented, government policy in the fisheries sector is being reformed. The result of this workshop will be an important input for this process and for poverty alleviation of Cambodian people. Before I end my speech, once again I would like to thank DFID, which is represented by Dr. Graham Haylor, for their contribution and support to the new work of the DOF, and in implementing reforms in government policy in the fisheries sector. On this occasion I would also like to express my thanks to the Kompong Chhnang authorities as well as the Department of Agriculture for providing support in order for this workshop to take place. I wish His Excellency, and ladies and gentlemen, that you have a good time and enjoy the workshop with more fruitful results than we expect. Thank you.

3

Speech of His Excellency, Mr. Su Pirin, Govenor of Kompong Chhnang Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my thanks that DOF and DFID are making such efforts to organise this workshop and for selecting Kompong Chhnang province. Looking at the title of the workshop, this is very much in harmony with the government policy reforms currently ongoing. That reform involves administrative reform, i.e., the transfer of power from the government to the people via decentralisation, and transfer of financial capital to people via reform in the access rights to the fishery. The government has cut the fishing lots auctioned to commercial interests by 56%, releasing these for the people. The most productive fishing areas were formerly exploited by a small group of rich people who leased the lots. There were a lot of negative events and conflicts as a result of this. Now we want people to manage the resource. As governor, I have power but I want to transfer this to the people. I have heard that some people want to return to the system of lot leasing but this will not happen. It is important for DOF with DFID support to analyse the livelihoods of poor resource users. The purpose of DFID, DOF and the provincial government is poverty alleviation. We still have 44% of the fishery operated as fishing lots. The administration of this is still under review. The flooded forest is an important habitat and it is important for us to maintain this. We should also allow local communities to manage this resource. Fish protein is important for the body, more so than pork or beef which give us “crazy beef and pork syndrome”. We are very pleased to have help from DFID for this. If we work together, fish together and collect aquatic resources together, we can grow rich together. For example, everyone should have the same right to use a drag net. Objectives and Schedule The facilitator, Bill Savage, then presented the workshop objectives (Appendix 2). The workshop built upon and developed the livelihood analysis (LHA) framework developed by the teams earlier in the year. The goal of this workshop was the same as the one in January-February, but the purpose was to practice and carry out livelihoods analysis using PRA tools and to develop provincial workplans, which DFID and the DOF would use as a basis to plan and fund the work. One of the ambitious outputs of the workshop series will be a package of materials about the process and practice of doing LHA using PRA tools, including a manual, CD-ROM and web-based materials, all of which will draw upon the outcomes and outputs of the workshop series. The workshop would focus on outcomes (i.e., results) and outputs (i.e., products). Key outcomes would be a deeper understanding of the LHA framework and of the PRA tools that can be used to derive information. A set of PRA tools has been drafted by Mr. Heng Da and Mr. Laibuta Misheck of SCALE to support this. We will practice these tools through role-playing as researchers, farmers and fishers. We will talk about how we use the tools and what we learn from their use. An output of the workshop will be a revised version of the tools based on our experience of their first use. An important feature of our workshop is that on

4

Thursday we will be visiting a community in Kompong Chhnang to carry out a practice livelihood analysis. The workshop schedule (Appendix 3) was introduced. We will be reviewing the outputs of the Phnom Penh workshop: follow-up actions, draft provincial workplans, and the LHA framework; assessing the PRA tools; linking the LHA framework and PRA tools; role-playing their use and practicing them during our visit to a community. This would be followed by a review of the livelihood analysis in the community, and a review and revision of workplans for livelihood analysis in Kandal, Kompong Chhnang and Kratie. Participants were referred to the binder and asked to read through the proceedings of the last workshop to remember what we did. It was stressed that different stakeholders have different perspectives, and that different terms also affected our understandings and perspectives. We remembered that we had developed a better understanding of the information required as a result of the last workshop. This workshop would help us to understand more about implementation. Expectations It was also stressed that the organising team had set the objectives of the workshop, but that participants’ objectives for the workshop were also important. Participants were asked to write down one expectation they had of this week. These were collected and redistributed, with each person reading out another’s expectation. The expectations were then translated into English (and Khmer in some cases) and categorised (Appendix 4). Review Outcomes and Follow-up Actions from Phnom Penh Workshop2

Follow-up Action Review

DFID/DFID meeting to discuss proposed workplan and implementation

Several meetings have taken place about support from DFID to the DOF through the STREAM initiative.

Sign cooperation agreement between MOWA and MOAFF

Not yet done. To be followed up by Mr. Ing Kim Leang, Chief of Fisheries Office, Kompong Chhnang.

Sign cooperation agreement between DOF/DFID

Planned for next month using outcomes of this workshop.

Set up provincial steering committee

Not yet done.

Prepare DOF and DOWA training support

This workshop is part of this process. Additional training needs should be included in the workplans.

Pilot approach

This will be integrated into provincial workplans.

SCALE to implement baseline studies

This has been completed.

SCALE to share results, process and lesson learning

The results will be shared this week. The PRA tools that we will be using come from work piloted by SCALE.

2 Appendix 5

5

Review Provincial LHA Workplans from Phnom Penh Workshop Participants were reminded of the workplan from the Phnom Penh workshop (Appendix 6). We remembered that this draft was general as we were not sure what work we would be doing. It is more like an explanation of different roles. The detailed workplans to be produced at the end of this workshop would have detailed timeframes and budgets. These would be coordinated by the DOF in Phnom Penh. Participants were informed that a significant change has gone on in the DOF since last February, and that this livelihoods work now has a home within the DOF in the newly established Community Fisheries Development (CFD) Office, of which Mr. Ly Vuthy is the Chief. Mr. Vuthy is committed to making sure that other DOF offices are involved as appropriate, that there is coordination between Phnom Penh and the provinces, that there is close collaboration with colleagues from SCALE, and that there is good cooperation between the DOF and DOWA. The role of the central DOF was also to include provision of methods and resources. The provincial chiefs from DOF and DOWA would help to set up steering committees. We agreed to come back to this when we prepare the workplans. They also said they could help to hold provincial LHA training courses. This workshop is one element of that; other necessary training should be included in the workplans. It was stressed that for several reasons we decided to have this workshop in Kompong Chhnang but others might be in Kandal or Kratie. The provincial chiefs were also to help with selecting communities with whom to conduct livelihoods analysis. Chiefs were asked if this selection procedure had taken place yet. Kandal, Kompong Chhnang and Kratie said they had selected areas and it was agreed that these and the selection criteria would be discussed on the afternoon of Day One. The livelihoods analysis teams themselves would be participating in training and planning (of which this workshop is a part) and then analyses would be carried out, with logistical, financial, training and material support. The details of this support will need to be worked into the workplan schedule and budget. Review LHA Framework Participants were reminded of the key output from the Phnom Penh workshop: the LHA framework (Appendix 7) that they had developed. This had been derived by answering the question: “What do we need to know to understand people’s livelihoods?” The framework comprised five different categories of resources and the kind of information we could collect about each of these, a second large category called “ways in which people are vulnerable” and a third large category called “what influences people’s livelihoods” and the types of information in these categories that we might collect. A final category was “what do people want?” It was stressed that one of the reasons we are doing livelihoods analysis is to identify how the changes in the law and in the administration of the fishery can and should influence people’s livelihoods (e.g., 56% of fishing lots have been rescinded this year by the national government and made available for community management). In a number of areas, community fisheries management is now happening and already affecting people’s lives.

6

We have a good basic framework for understanding people’s livelihoods; our categories are complete but the specific information that we may collect is not yet complete. So an important task for the workshop is to carefully read the categories and information details and note anything you think is missing. This afternoon and tomorrow we can begin collecting and adding information to our framework. Assess PRA Tools and Link with LHA Framework Participant’s attention was drawn to the handout containing descriptions of 11 PRA tools. These are simple tool descriptions that focus on the procedure for using the tools. They are adapted from materials provided by SCALE. (The tool descriptions were revised and expanded based on the experience of their use during the workshop, and comprise a separate output of the workshop.) The 11 tools are:

1. Social Map 2. Historical Timeline 3. Transect Walk 4. Wealth Ranking 5. Trendline 6. Venn Diagram 7. Seasonal Calendar 8. Mobility Map 9. Problem Ranking and Analysis

10. Strength Analysis 11. Action Plan

The workshop was split into six mixed working groups to review the tools, with representatives from the provincial teams, DOF and SCALE.

Group Tools 1 1, 8 2 2, 5 3 3, 7 4 4, 9 5 10, 11 6 6

For each tool, the groups considered the objectives, if the tool description was clear or unclear, the materials required and the information categories for which the tool would be useful. The groups presented this back to the plenary as summarised in the table on the following pages.

7

Tool Objectives Clarity of

Procedure Materials Information to

be Collected3 1. Social map learning from

people, developing relationships, can explain participatory approach; having a social map makes it easier to communicate, a tool for sharing information

not clear how to deal with people who migrate (may be used in association with a mobility map)

pen, paper, markers, flip chart, leaves, stones, seeds

activities in the village, natural and infrastructure resources; population; use with other tools like wealth ranking

2. Historical Timeline

know about historical events and problems

title not clear (word for historical is history); new Khmer name?

disasters, availability of resources over time

3. Transect Walk need to clarify name in Khmer?; need to add: cooperate with village chief to select 4-5 people; to get many points of view; need to select people with knowledge and experience

4. Wealth Ranking

understand wealth status and identify vulnerable groups; working with villagers to see how they view wealth and poverty in their community; develop a checklist for assessing wealth or well-being for each location (e.g., number of female pigs)

need to explain clearly why we do this

paper, pen, whiteboard pen, notebook, scissors

financial resources, access to natural resources, natural disasters, human resources

3 Linking the tool with the information and categories of the LHA framework

8

Tool Objectives Clarity of

Procedure Materials Information to

be Collected 5. Trendline show changes in

resources and their availability, infrastructure, laws and customs, over time

title is clear; reflects changing issues from one generation to the next; the tool is well described

paper, pen, notebook, leaves, stones

availability and access to resources, aquatic resources4, natural resources, human resources; disasters; key events in history which people remember as dividers on a timeline; factors influencing people’s vulnerability (e.g., population increase, illness, size of production, externalities)

6. Venn Diagram understand the relationships among stakeholders in the village

not clear, what size of paper to use, title?

paper, pen, whiteboard pen, scissors, ruler, pencil, notebook

the relationships between (government) institutions and villagers; the social capital and other resources that people have; factors influencing livelihoods

7. Seasonal Calendar

understand range of activities and timing of these across the year

title in Khmer?; this is a commonly used tool

seasonality of labour needs, stability of rains, seasonality of rain and cropping (planting, harvest, wet and dry season crops)

8. Mobility Map understand mobility, e.g., relationships and sharing between villages

title not so clear; need to prepare checklist or not?

movements between one village and another, roles of women and men, markets or produce, migration, might combine with seasonal calendar

4 This livelihoods analysis is being done with the turning over of fishing lots for common access, to understand people’s views of access before and after the change.

9

Tool Objectives Clarity of

Procedure Materials Information to

be Collected 9. Problem Ranking and Analysis

rank the important problems faced by people

listing problems is clear but selection and ranking process not clear

whiteboard, paper identify and prioritise problems; information about external influences, laws, authorities, business people, credit

10. Strength Analysis

know occupations5 and activities and the results and outputs of these; use wealth ranking together with this tool; understand what are the successful livelihoods strategies in a community

not so clear how occupation is important: what criteria? Is it about rice planting or migrating to work in Phnom Penh

human resources, almost all information from the framework

11. Action Plan assess village action plans (in conjunction with other tools)

new to participants but this should be useful for allowing people to express their ideas

paper, pen, ruler needs of people in a clear plan (people in communities already have plans)

Comments Related to Tools The need for a telephone to keep in touch with the office from the field was discussed, as was the use of questionnaires in PRA. People said they wanted to be prepared; they would be ashamed to go back again and again to ask for more information. Some people said it’s good to ask questions and to go with people about their work and ask questions as you walk or work together. It was discussed that participatory methods are a new way of understanding how people live by learning from them. PRA could be seen as more like conversation than a questionnaire survey. It was suggested that this shift in attitude was perhaps the most difficult aspect of learning PRA. It was suggested that a checklist is a good mechanism to be organised but not to do a questionnaire (i.e., we should have a clear idea about the topics we want to discuss). It was discussed that it is necessary to select the right people who have knowledge and experience. Some people drink a lot: we should not select them. We should ask only a few people; otherwise we may get too many points of view and will not get the right answer; it

5 The key issue here is “what are the strategies that people use?” Comparing occupation is not the issue in strength analysis: it is the activities and the results that form the strategies for livelihoods. For example, if the occupation of a person is rice farmer, then researchers may expect the rice farmer to only farm rice; perhaps 20-30 years ago that was true. Today people have many activities to achieve a successful livelihood.

10

was pointed out that there are few wrong or right answers. Should researchers suggest solutions to people’s problems when they are doing livelihood analysis? Wealth and well-being were discussed, in terms of understanding wealth according to the local context. This will vary from community to community. The definition of well-being in Khmer was described as complex. It was discussed that developing criteria for wealth ranking needed some time in each village (a tool to be used later during the LHA). It was reported that people in Cambodia ask why you want to know about their wealth. Are we ranking households or individuals? We want to know the wealth of each family in order to rank them but this is based on local criteria discussed with community members. It was stressed that for all the tools, we are interested in the experiences of women and men and girls and boys. The issue of separating “communities” into groups that you classify as rich or poor is not a good way to operate. However, we do wish to know the experiences of poor people and of richer people. At the last workshop, there was discussion about the word trend. A word equivalent to change is used to describe trend here. Trend refers to the change from one time period to another. In strength analysis, the occupation featured strongly instead of strengths. The example of fishing with electricity was mentioned; this may be something they can do but is not good. Or people culture fish but use hundreds of gill nets to capture fish to use as feed. It was stressed that we have to start where people are in their thinking and their livelihoods strategy; our role is to find out what people do and also try to understand why they do it. Action plans: are they for us or for villagers? They help us to reflect upon the relationship between LHA and what support agencies can offer. Area Selection for LHA A discussion was held to determine whether areas had yet been selected for the livelihoods analysis, and the criteria that had been used:

Province Area Selection Criteria Kandal Saang • a fishing lot has been returned to the community

• road is good Kompong Chhnang Kompong Tralach • a fishing lot has been returned to the community

• three types for people present: fishers, small business traders and farmers

• provincial DOF already working with the community Kratie Pray Kampi • a fishing lot has been returned to the community

• has fresh water dolphin in dry season Te Kong Veal • a fishing lot has been returned to the community

• near to office Arranging the Field Practice Kompong Tralach in Kompong Chhnang was selected for field practice because a fishing lot has been returned to the community, three types of people are present (fishers, small business

11

traders and farmers), and the provincial DOF is already working with the community. It takes time to arrange to visit people by water in the wet season. We need to go by boat. We need to meet with the village committee, as some people will discuss with this committee and some will speak to others in the community. Kompong Chhnang staff will arrange the visit tomorrow for us on Thursday. On Wednesday afternoon, they will brief the group on the field practice.

Day Two Role-playing and Practicing PRA Tools The same six groups prepared role-plays to see how the tools could be used. Each group then performed their role-play and comments and questions were elicited from the participants. (Specific tips are italicised.) It was emphasised that the first group had the most difficult task. 1. Social Map Demonstrated the need for preparation and discussion about what will be done. When they met with community members, they made sure they did the appropriate introductions. The purpose was explained as the researchers needing help to get information about the village. This group showed that they were going to be quite participatory: the villagers took the pen and did the work (Who is holding the pen?). At the end of the role-play, one of the villagers showed on the map where he lived, so the researchers asked how much land he had and his occupation. This was a good example of asking questions as they arise, not in a pre-planned “questionnaire format”. One of the villagers said, “I have a low education and I want to know why you are here”. Villagers may well ask why we are in their village and what are the benefits of us being there. In this case, the researchers were honest and said “we cannot give you any benefits today but the information we learn about your lives will help us to plan support”. When the purpose of making the map was explained, the researchers said they wanted to know about the geographical position of the village and where it was located. But it is important for us all to think about what all the reasons are, and what we want to learn from making a map together. The point was raised about discussion using the map to elaborate the information and being clear about the sort of information we want to show on the map. It was stressed that doing a map together is a good way to build relationships and to orientate the researchers within the community. There needs to be some time for trust to develop between the researchers and the villagers. (It would not be a good idea to begin with a wealth ranking which is more contentious). A map is a useful resource to perhaps plan or take on a transect walk. It can also be useful to prepare maps with separate groups which would then reflect their different emphases.

12

2. Historical Timeline The role-play was a good example of the beginning of learning about a village history. Beginning with simple personal questions can be good. One researcher asked a question that was too general and caused some confusion: “what did the village do in each reign?”. Then the question “what changes have you seen in the village from reign to reign?” This elicited a lot of historical data about type of schools, infrastructure developments and so on. One of the changes was asked about by the researcher: “when did the road become good, like it is today?” Making such a statement shows you have noticed the road and are saying something positive about the community. Building on lines of questioning can be good. It is good practice to use open questions, which elicit new information, rather than mostly closed questions which often elicit the answer yes or no. 3. Transect Walk One of the most interesting characteristics of a transect walk is that people walking and talking and looking at the natural surroundings is a normal thing to do. At the outset the researcher asked about the flooding which was a good seasonally-relevant start. Giving clear and specific information (e.g., land types, different types of animals, any problems they might see) about the reason for the walk is good. The researcher asked “can we take a walk across the village?” and one of the villagers said “are you not afraid to walk across the water?” and the researcher said no. Researchers if invited should do what villagers do, go where they go and share their food. 4. Wealth Ranking The introduction described wealth ranking as being interested in the level of living of people in the village. The group quickly suggested meeting the person who has the information and the statistics. The researchers do not give criteria for rich, medium and poor at first. Rather they asked villagers to put people into groups depending on what they think. One villager said “don’t put me in the rich group otherwise I won’t get any benefits”. Then there was a suggestion that maybe we shouldn’t use the word rich at all. There was some disagreement about where people should be placed in the ranking. One person said “they are not rich; they have a big house but no money”, another said “no, they are not poor; they have a small house but a lot of food to eat”. These are the beginnings of criteria that come from the community. This helps us to begin to understand the difference between wealth and well-being. By using a number of tools we can build as complete a picture as possible of life in a community. We should take account of people deliberately allocating themselves or others into erroneous wealth groups, by triangulating information from a range of sources and by observation. 5. Trendline You might have a trend line for each category (e.g., forestry, education, village size). Historical timelines and trendlines are felt to be quite similar in practice.

13

6. Venn Diagram This tool looks at relationships. The first step is the facilitator would draw a circle for the village, and explain the purpose of using a Venn diagram: to know the relationships with others outside the village and the important relationships in the village. It uses three types of paper: large paper to show the important institutional or people relationships, the smaller less important and the smallest to show least important links. The community members write down the important institutions and people on the papers (these might include, for example, school, police, clinic). Those groups who cannot write can use symbols. It is important to discuss the diagram and understand why people have placed things the way they have. 7. Seasonal Calendar First ask about cropping throughout the year, and formulate the calendar. It may also include festivals, lean periods and migration. The tool has been used with seeds and 1 to 5 seeds used to score importance or intensity. 8. Mobility Map Links in with wealth ranking; it looks like the opposite of a Venn diagram in its perspective: looking out, not in. A checklist can be helpful. It can relate to markets, to who goes where and does what. 9. Problem Ranking and Analysis Call people together. There should be a recorder and facilitator. Ask what problems there are in the community. Many answers are elicited. These are put on pieces of paper. There are two methods: pair-wise comparisons and voting to identify the most serious problems that might need support. 10. Strength Analysis This tool identifies occupations and strategies that people think are their strengths. 11. Action Plan In the context of fishing lots being rescinded, we ask “do you want to join in community fisheries management?”; we provide training, we ask them to formulate a management plan, and we ask them to elect a management group. We are using these tools to have a better understanding of the community and the livelihoods of community members so that when we arrive at a planning exercise like the action plan we can work with the community so that they can decide how the fishery should be managed. Tomorrow we will be trying these tools in the community, so we have a lot of thinking and planning to do. When we go to the field we will work in the provincial groups. The central DOF and the SCALE colleagues will join the teams and add support.

14

Field Practice Final Preparation We will visit fishing lot 19 which has been handed back to two communes with eight villages. People’s livelihoods here depend on natural resources. The DOF has been working with six villages in this area in relation to fisheries management development. This area is currently flooded so we will meet people at the pagoda. This area is selected because there are three groups: Chinese, Vietnamese and Cham, including fishers and small traders. The village is rich in natural resources but the people are poor. The location is 35 km from Kompong Chhnang by road; then we will reach the village by boat. The three provincial teams then spent time discussing the tools they would try and making plans for the field practice.

Day Three Field Practice: LHA in Community After travelling by bus and boat to the village, we arrived at a pagoda where many villagers had gathered to work with us on practicing the PRA tools. This was the only high and dry place in the village, which meant that villagers were not actually near their homes. The time at the pagoda began with the village group sitting on one side of a pavilion and the workshop participants on the other. The village head and Mr. Vuthy discussed the purpose of the field practice and how to divide up the large groups into smaller working groups. After some time, three smaller groups went to different locations at the pagoda site to work with the three provincial teams. We all ate lunch together and then continued working in the afternoon before returning to Kompong Chhnang town at about 3 p.m.

Day Four Review of LHA in Community The groups were the three provincial teams with central DOF and SCALE members joining the teams. Groups were asked which tools they had used:

Social Map Kandal Historical Timeline None Transect Walk None Wealth Ranking None Trendline Kratie and Kompong Chhnang Venn Diagram Kompong Chhnang Seasonal Calendar Kratie Mobility Map Kompong Chhnang Problem Ranking And Analysis Kandal Strength Analysis None Action Plan None

15

The groups were asked to prepare a presentation based around three questions:

• What did you learn about livelihoods in the community that is important in fisheries management?

• What do you think about the tool you used? • What would you do differently about the way you were working yesterday?

The various groups were given time to discuss and prepare what they thought they wanted to say about what they did the previous day. The sequence of presentation was according to the order of the tools as in the table below.

Tool Lessons Learnt about Livelihoods

Thoughts Likely Improvements

Social Map (Kandal)

Good internal communication in the community; livelihoods involve occupation, natural and human resources; future difficulties; what is needed for livelihoods; location of livelihoods

This tool relates to other tools; can be compared with analysis of other information, like wealth ranking; easy to use with the community as we are the facilitator; difficult to use if there is no community participation

Facilitator should have real map (to cross-check); takes a long time which interferes with villagers’ work; draw first on the ground, then transfer to paper

Problem Ranking and Analysis (Kandal)

Found out the main problems and reasons, e.g., cut trees to grow lotus

Need more involvement from people; important to find out issues to make plans

Facilitators were not clear about ranking

Trendline 1 (Kratie)

Population increase; changing fish production; forest destruction; fishing gear use; over-fishing, dry rice production

Helps know livelihoods trends, events, seasonal crops, boundary management

Difficulties with short time, not a close relationship with villagers, few people involved; not enough information (no elderly people); identified only one location with possible differences in others; need to have a quiet, private place to work

Seasonal Calendar (Kratie)

Dry rice, fishing, fish culture, credit scheme, rice bank, disease

Helped to learn about human and natural resources, influences like fisheries law and credit; easy to get information

Select an appropriate time so that people’s work is not affected; should invite all people

Trendline 2 (Kompong Chhnang)

Vulnerability factors; trends in productivity, economics, events like disasters, politics (from work group to family work)

Easy to get information from people

The diagrams should be drawn by the facilitator

Venn Diagram (Kompong Chhnang)

Laws; public authorities (police, fisheries, village, commune and district leaders), relationship with other villages

Easy to get information; clear and fast

People had some difficulty writing and drawing the diagram.

Mobility Map (Kompong Chhnang)

Financial resources; income and expenses for farm and credit; kind of production; social, cultural, religious and communication activities

Easy to collect and share information

16

Comments Social Map (Kandal) When talking about what was learnt about livelihoods, the group talked about occupation, resources, assets, difficulties and what they did. When did you get this information? Before or during? Both. The tool was practiced and at the same time able to get a lot of information. Interesting to note lots of information was gained without using a questionnaire. We can see how it is possible to learn while working with people. From observation, the groups were well facilitated and actively participated in the work. This was quite a surprise to the teams. Many activities were going on at the same time, drawing while some researchers involved the inactive participants to discuss and gather information. There is a need to analyse the needs and the situation to be able to respond appropriately. Gathering and use of local materials was astonishing. It was a surprise that everybody knew the type of roofs for all the community members. This is an eye-opener on how people perceive their houses. This would be a good indicator for wealth ranking in this community. Relationships were gradually built and people opened up, an example of taking time and building trust as a basis for cooperation. On the use of technical maps while doing PRA in the field, the questions would be when to use them, and for what purpose and for whose needs? Remember the idea is to learn about the community from the people’s perspectives. It was noted that people have different perspectives of an area from their own point of view. This may also be an indicator of mobility and many people actually move within areas that may be different from the government boundaries. Realities may be different from the thoughts of outsiders and the question is whether we want to learn the real situation or what we think should be real. Problem Ranking and Analysis (Kandal) The participants were encouraged not to worry so much about the understanding of the ranking tools as these are the more difficult to understand. The importance was to learn and relate to the people rather than the outcome of the tool. The team linked the tool to formulation of the action plan, which was good. It was good to note that no team was involved in making an action plan because this was a practice session and there was nothing to plan. The teams were reminded that on Day Five they would be formulating workplans and they may want to consider indicating specific areas where they need more training. Ranking tools could be one of them. Trendline 1 (Kratie) The team was worried at first about the correct use of the tool but after starting, the information about many trends was able to flow well. Fixing of dates and years makes the responses less forthcoming than when you leave it open for the villagers to draw trends with less restrictions on years. The main question was on who decided on the different changes to be drawn? The team did this. It was noted that the villagers can be asked to first talk about the different changes they

17

have experienced in the village, which can be a good indicator of various changes to discuss. People use different time periods, hence the people need to map out their own time periods which can be formatted to a different time period later if necessary. It is alright if units for the y-axis were not used because we want to consider the trends, not the numbers. We want to learn what the villagers’ understandings of the trends might be. These rough trends can later be compared with secondary data for better understanding. The group had already considered relationships among these trends. This consideration was commendable because this is the beginning of understanding the processes of livelihoods. The group began to relate trends and activities in the village and also the relationships of these to the seasonal calendar. The team started to understand livelihoods and how the community fisheries is managed, which is the ultimate goal of this work. Points noted were management was taking place in and outside the village, and conflicts were involved. These are the main issues of concern. Difficulties were encountered on how to facilitate the groups as far as dealing with two villages and the location. These issues are learnt through experience and are difficult to teach formally. The final point was the most interesting: the village head came and joined the group when doing the trendline and participated well. His own initiative or an invitation? In the morning he was having a nice chat alone with his peers. An outsider’s interpretation might be: In the morning he was monitoring to see that all was OK and in the afternoon he realised that we were there to learn and have a long relationship with the village and decided to join one of the groups. But for the observer to ascertain this, he would have to discuss with the village head. He said he was happy to understand that we had come to practice and said that he learned a lot about managing community fisheries even though he didn’t expect to learn anything. There was a clear indication of the build-up in trust from morning to evening, hence more participation. Seasonal Calendar (Kratie) The Kratie team invited the “floor” to make comments on the tool. A question about what being busy meant was raised: whether it refers to the people being busy with the activity or the occurrence of the activity or the need for the activity, e.g., money borrowing. It was agreed that both aspects may score a high vote and hence the consideration depends on the issue in question. A need to understand the community’s time units has already been seen. What is the first month in Cambodia? June was identified as the first month in this village according to the Khmer lunar calendar. Lunar and conventional calendars were discussed. The group began to understand which people had specialised knowledge among the villagers by using this tool. A reminder of the livelihoods categories was made. Disease was an example of vulnerability. Money borrowing comes under the third category of influences. We began to think of how to link the tools to the different categories of livelihoods. It was noted how important location can be, because many people were worried about their children and houses. This would not have arisen if the location of the PRA field practice was within the village.

18

Trendline 2 (Kompong Chhnang) Who were the informants? Villagers. Who contributed the most: the village head or the people? It was clear that all people contributed as a result of good facilitation. This was a good use of one tool for different purposes, e.g., influences on agricultural activities were discussed. This showed that different types of information which are not expected can come out. However, this does not matter as long as the information is useful. Different tools have different purposes. The tools are for the researchers use and the villagers don’t care what the tool is used for. The villagers need to understand the purpose of the tool but not necessarily the details of it. Venn Diagram (Kompong Chhnang) The tool was practiced in two groups of women and men, for which the results were different. Participants wondered why women differed from men on the importance of livelihoods strategies in the village. The purpose of Venn diagrams is to show institutional relationships. There is a need to consider a broad definition of institutions. Fishing is not an institution but the Department of Fisheries is. Some institutions are formal while others are informal, e.g., midwives. It was recognised that often informal institutions are more important to communities than formal ones. This tool is important for the category of influences. Villagers said that all these institutions are related, hence the need to consider this when working with villagers. Development workers may consider one institution as more important depending on their interests, but to villagers this institution is just a small part of the whole. The group gave a good indication of gender disagreggation and it was now clear that men and women have different perceptions of their lives. Mobility Map (Kompong Chhnang) From this tool, many activities can be learned and linked to information from other tools like the Venn diagram. Not much relationship was seen with government institutions. The tool gave a rounded picture of the life of the family. Many case studies could lead to an understanding of how communities work together. This an example of a tool which makes it easy to give the pen to villagers. Thanks were given to the Kompong Chhnang team for arranging the field practice. SCALE Presentation Mr. Heng Da of SCALE was invited to give a PowerPoint presentation of a baseline survey the team did in Kompong Speue using various PRA tools. Several comments were made before the presentation. Yesterday was a good day working in the community. This was made possible by the Kompong Chnnang team that worked hard to ensure the exercise was a success. A big thanks was accorded for this. The workshop was also quietly facilitated by the SCALE team which made it more successful. One of the wider aims of this initiative is to increase the cooperation between the government, NGOS and gender groups and this relationship will be continued in future.

19

Participants were encouraged to think of one question as they watched the presentation: why did we decide to show the presentation at the end and not at the beginning of the workshop? The presentation was of Boeng Chram Kang Tboung Village, Preah Nipean Commune, Kong Pesie District, Kompong Speue Province. DFID sponsored the study. The village location was shown on maps; the various PRA tools used were displayed; and the outcomes of the findings. The linkage with GIS-derived information was shown in terms of augmenting the information from the PRA tools. This can be done when such equipment is available. This enables use of maps from the Department of Geography and better data management. The presentation showed a step-wise presentation of the tools in the order of their application, starting with the social map (which is used to gather information about the village and to know and build relationships with the villagers), up to the action plans which are derived from information from the other tools. GIS is an expensive method but there are cheaper ways to augment the data, e.g., use of simple cameras instead of digital ones. Why did we decide to see the presentation now and not at the beginning of the workshop?

• If somebody explains a movie before you see it, there will be no need to watch keenly because you think you already know.

• Need to practice before seeing. • Need to create our own new knowledge as a team. • If we saw it at the beginning, people would think that computers and other equipment

were necessary to do PRA. • People would be able to recognise the tools and their outcomes after learning and

practising. • This is a good example of knowledge from experience: experience before knowledge

or knowledge coming from experience. Review and Revise Provincial LHA Workplans It was noted that there were four tasks to accomplish:

• Workplan • Budget • Report format • LHA framework

The first two go together. They will be used as the basis for discussion and negotiation between the provincial teams, DOF and DFID. Workplan The workplan from the first workshop was a statement of roles rather than a workplan, because up to now, it was not clear what the work in the field might be. The teams were to make the workplans as specific as possible for each of the provincial teams. We discussed on Tuesday the follow-up actions from the previous workshop which need to considered and incorporated into the new workplans. These were:

20

• The need to have a cooperation agreement between the Ministries of Agriculture and Women’s Affairs. Mr. Leang from Kompong Chhnang volunteered to follow up. Since this is a central and provincial level initiative, he will need to coordinate with Mr. Vuthy.

• The need to have an agreement between the DOF and DFID. Mr. Vuthy will go to Bangkok to work this out with Dr. Graham.

• There was a suggestion to include the setting up of provincial steering committees. • Training needs in specific areas should be specified. • Beginning work in the community means that you are piloting the work within these

communities. • The workplan should indicate what is needed to carry out the work of livelihoods

analysis in the communities. Budget The budget should correspond to the activities in the workplan. Therefore the workplan needs to be developed before the budget and the budget has to be as complete and realistic as possible. Report Format The report is important because this is a national activity as reflected in the workshop title. What will be learned in the provinces will be put together by the government to improve the management of the community fisheries. After the learning experiences in the provinces, it was agreed that it will be possible to expand and share the learning experiences with other provinces just as SCALE has shared its experiences in this workshop. Therefore each provincial group is to propose a report format which would be discussed and combined into one agreed format on Day Five. LHA Framework From the last workshop, the groups felt comfortable about the completeness of the categories of the livelihoods framework but they felt that the specific information on the right was not complete. We agreed that the information which was collected in the field covers a much wider area than indicated in the framework. The various teams are to make these additions for presentation on Day Five. It was agreed that the tasks should be divided among the members of each group and people should volunteer to do what they are good at. The members from SCALE could help to complete the livelihoods framework.

Day Five The workshop was joined by the DOF Deputy Director, Mr. Sam Nuov, and the Kompong Chhnang Director of DOAFF, Mr. Chhout Sothon.

21

Presentation of Provincial Workplans The groups were first invited to say what they were proposing for the report format. This would be followed by the framework update, the workplans and budgets. Report Format The Kandal team started the presentation. Each of the proposals would be combined into a common format which would be included in the workshop proceedings (Appendix 8). What is the report about? PRA tools and livelihoods. What is the most important contents of the report? Remember that the tools are not the end but the means to an end, hence the tools are being used to understanding community livelihoods. If you have 11 tools and are reporting the results of using the tools, this is like raw data. Methodology and tool descriptions are necessary report sections, but not the results of the PRA tools. Therefore, we should be reporting the results of what? A lot of time was spent to develop the framework which helps us to understand livelihoods; to do that, we have to use some tools. In research, there is a step where you take the raw data collected using the tools and then bring the data together and the livelihoods analysis teams will meet and discuss this data and begin to analyse it. When we use PRA tools we are dealing with qualitative data. Analysis of qualitative data is descriptive. The analysis is a description of what we learnt. We have a good structure to start a discussion of the data: what resources are in the village? specifically what human, financial, social, natural and physical resources? what did we learn about people’s vulnerability and the influences of institutions? The last category is what people want. The difference between results of PRA tools and results of livelihoods analysis should be clear. Participants contemplated on this by asking for specific examples. Various examples were derived from the work done in the field practice. The tools are not important in themselves, but what we learn from them is. Villagers are interested in the results they will gain from the study rather than the tools used. Conclusions about what? What we learned about people’s livelihoods in the community. The DOF Deputy Director said that the conclusions should concern the needs of people and the needs for the government or development agencies to act to improve their livelihoods. Conclusion has two meanings: first, to finish, hence to summarise by writing the main points. This is not what is required in this report. The other is much deeper and means what we have interpreted or what we have learned. These are the kinds of conclusions we want in this report. There should be a section on conclusions and another on recommendations. The purpose of this work is to plan under the community fisheries initiative. In the recommendations, we have to give advice about management of community fisheries. To whom? Central DOF and therefore the Ministry, provincial departments, district and commune. We should also consider recommendations to the Ministry of Women’s Affairs.

22

LHA Framework More information to be included in the livelihoods categories was invited. Each group indicated changes which would be incorporated into the draft LHA framework (Appendix 7). Workplans and Budgets Each of the provincial teams proposed their draft workplans and budgets, which would be used for further discussion and development: Kandal (Appendix 9), Kompong Chhnang (Appendix 10) and Kratie (Appendix 11). The proposals were quite broad and should considered over medium- and long-term periods. We need to consider what we can do in the short term. In the same way that we increased learning and experience of PRA in a step-by-step way, the same step-wise approach is applicable here: consider the activities required at first, thus the level of resources and the level of activity. It is good that community management activities were considered by the Kandal team, since this is the overall reason we are doing this work. We will need to consider how the activities fit together with the resources needed. The proposed workplans and budgets will be taken as the basis for discussion between DFID and DOF. The relationships among DFID, DOF, the three provinces, DOWA and SCALE is expected to be long term. Workshop Evaluation Participants’ responses to evaluation questions are presented in Appendix 12. Closing Bill Savage, the workshop facilitator, had the following to say in his closing remarks (box on next page):

23

Thanks to the Director of Agriculture of Kompong Chnnang and the Deputy Director of the Fisheries Department. It is especially good that these distinguished guests were able to join the workshop for a large part of the day. It is difficult to summarise the wide range of learning experiences in the workshop. I would like to highlight a few needs for building capacities. The serious activities began in an abstract way in the first workshop. We moved from thinking about working in communities with people to learning about their livelihoods. We started by reviewing the framework developed together in the first workshop. We have begun developing relationships among the people involved in the workshops. We have more understanding about relationships at various levels and organisations, among people from other countries, men and women, and people in the villages and those privileged to live elsewhere. The study of PRA tools started at an abstract level. We thought of them as words on paper. We followed the words and did role-plays, but it wasn’t until Thursday after the field practice, that we began to understand that they can come to life and be used for livelihoods study in the community. We thought about who is the teacher and who is the learner. We realised that we are students when we work in the field. The people themselves know best about themselves. Sharing of knowledge was also seen during the visit in the village, where people like the village head appreciated the learning and the opportunity for interactions with various people and fisheries officers. The field yielded sophisticated data and results. We saw a PowerPoint presentation from SCALE using high technology which enabled us to understand the tools more. We can imagine one day when the fisheries groups at various levels will develop to this high level of understanding of how people live in communities. Finally, we had proposals of workplans and budgets. I want to restate that DFID is keen on long-term relationships among the stakeholders in this initiative. The level of participation was incredibly good and rewarding. A teacher cannot teach without students, but students can learn without a teacher. The same applies to facilitators and participants. Thanks to all the participants, organisers, the SCALE team, Mr. Vuthy and the provincial organisers, the Director in Kompomg Chnnang for being the host at such short notice, and the Deputy Director for the continued support of the DOF in Phnom Penh. The Director of Agriculture in Kompong Chnnang, Mr. Chhout Sothon, briefly thanked the participants, organisers and DOF. The final speech was by the Deputy Director of DOF Phnom Penh, Mr. Sam Nuov (box on next page).

24

Speech of Mr. Sam Nuov, DOF Deputy Director Mr. Chhout Sothon, Director of Kompong Chhnang Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Mr. Bill Savage, workshop facilitator and representative of DFID-ARMP, National and international honourable guests, Ladies and gentlemen, First of all, on behalf of the DOF and on my own behalf, I would like to thank all of you for participating very actively in this five-day workshop with fruitful results. I would also like to thank the Kompong Chhnang authorities who provided the venue and warmly hosted this workshop; and also Mr. Bill, who has facilitated very hard to bring a good result for this workshop; and DFID, which has supported the workshop. As you know, Cambodia is an agricultural country. The majority of the population depends on the agriculture sector including farming and fishing. This workshop is an important event and useful in understanding and analysing the livelihoods of fishers and farmers. I remember that the first workshop held in Phnom Penh came up with a general framework for this. This second workshop is in harmony with the government policy on administrative reform which aims to decentralise governance to village levels. This will be conducted widely in the country as soon as next year. The fisheries sector is also being reformed. The government decided to release some fishing lots for local people to organise community fisheries in order to fully participate in fisheries management, conservation and sustainable use of the fisheries resource. Therefore, it is important for us to properly understand people’s needs and livelihoods so that we can properly plan in order to improve their livelihoods and ensure long-term food security. I hope that the participants, ladies and gentlemen, will bring back the knowledge and experience from this workshop to disseminate and apply to work in the community. Once again, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your full participation in the workshop. I would like to thank DFID for supporting the workshop as well as the capacity of the new Community Fisheries Development Office, which will implement work in helping livelihoods through community fisheries co-management. I would like to declare the Workshop on Analysing Livelihoods of Fishers and Farmers closed. Thank you.

25

Appendix 1 Participants

1 Mr. Deap Poline Fisheries Officer DOF Phnom Penh 2 Mr. Mam Bunly Fisheries Officer DOF Phnom Penh 3 Mr. Pech Bunna Fisheries Officer DOF Phnom Penh 4 Mr. Ung Rachana Fisheries Officer DOF Phnom Penh 5 Ms. Prach Sokunty Fisheries Officer DOF Phnom Penh 6 Ms. Ung Solekhena Fisheries Officer DOF Phnom Penh 7 Ms. Bun Puthy Deputy Director DOWA Kandal 8 Ms. Lay Bophal Officer DOWA Kandal 9 Mr. Kleang Van Thoul Chief of Fisheries Office DOF Kandal

10 Mr. Chourp Samnang Fisheries Officer DOF Kandal 11 Mr. Ouch Sokhon Fisheries Officer DOF Kandal 12 Ms. Oeur Hour Sotheary Fisheries Officer DOF Kandal 13 Ms. Ker Chanmony Director DOWA Kompong Chhnang 14 Ms. Hang Thadara Staff DOWA Kompong Chhnang 15 Mr. Ing Kim Leang Chief of Fisheries Office DOF Kompong Chhnang 16 Mr. Uy Sophea Fisheries Officer DOF Kompong Chhnang 17 Mr. Hou Bona Fisheries Officer DOF Kompong Chhnang 18 Ms. Mey Chanthou Planning Officer DOAFF Kompong Chhnang 19 Ms. Sa Chan Heang Director DOWA Kratie 20 Ms. Som Sakou Deputy Director DOWA Kratie 21 Mr. Sean Kin Vice-Chief of Fisheries Office DOF Kratie 22 Mr. Vin Bunna Fisheries Officer DOF Kratie 23 Mr. Meas Niren Fisheries Officer DOF Kratie 24 Ms. Tan Someth Bunwhat Fisheries Officer DOF Kratie 25 Mr. Heng Da Team Leader SCALE 26 Mr. Hang Bona Staff SCALE 27 Mr. Hun Chinda Staff SCALE 28 Ms. Ork Somony Staff SCALE 29 Ms. Yi Chan Theary Staff SCALE 30 Mr. Laibuta Misheck Sustainable Livelihoods Advisor SCALE 31 Ms. Selena Whitehead Country Director VSO Cambodia

Organising Team

32 Mr. Graham Haylor Programme Manager DFID-ARMP 33 Mr. Bill Savage Facilitator DFID-ARMP 34 Ms. Reby Cajilig Administrator DFID-ARMP 35 Mr. Ly Vuthy Chief of CFD Office DOF Phnom Penh 36 Mr. Chhoun Kim Chhea Vice-Chief of CFD Office DOF Phnom Penh 37 Mr. Cheam Pea Fisheries Officer DOF Phnom Penh 38 Ms. Dy Meoun Nary Fisheries Office DOF Phnom Penh 39 Mr. Prack Leang Hour Fisheries Office DOF Kompong Chhnang

26

Appendix 2 Objectives

Goal Understand and describe the livelihoods of poor people who

manage aquatic resources for planning support, and monitoring and evaluating impact

Purpose 1. Practice, carry out and review the livelihoods analysis (LHA) framework using PRA tools

2. Develop provincial workplans for LHA

3. Determine content for LHA manual and multimedia

materials

Outcomes 1. Understanding of the LHA framework

2. Understanding and development of PRA tools for LHA

3. Familiarity with PRA tools through role-playing and practice

4. Experience of carrying out LHA through field visit and

review

5. Development of provincial LHA workplans

6. Providing of content for LHA manual and multimedia materials

Outputs 1. Workshop proceedings

2. Provincial LHA workplans

3. Revised PRA handbook

4. Content for LHA manual and multimedia materials

27

Appendix 3 Schedule

Tuesday 25 September

Wednesday 26 September

Thursday 27 September

Friday 28 September

Saturday 29 September

Mor

ning

• Registration • Opening

remarks Director DOF

• Objectives and Schedule

• Expectations

• Review Outcomes and Follow-up Actions, and Provincial LHA Workplans from first workshop

• Review LHA Framework

• Role-

playing and practicing PRA tools

• Field

practice: LHA in community

• Review of

LHA in community

• Presentation

of Provincial LHA Workplans

• Workshop

evaluation • Closing

Lunch

Aft

erno

on

• Assess PRA

tools

• Link LHA framework and PRA tools

• Area

selection for LHA

• Role-play

and practice feedback

• Field

practice final preparation

• Field

practice: LHA in community

• Meeting for

feedback to community and verification

• SCALE

presentation • Review and

revise Provincial LHA Workplans

28

Appendix 4 Expectations

What are your expectations of this workshop? • Gain different ideas from different groups in the workshop

• Cooperate with farmers and fishers • Understand why farmers are poor if we have such a lot of resources • Understand livelihoods and the problems and needs of fishers and farmers by the PRA

tools (5)

• Help the process of LHA go forward step by step and be successful • Get experience and understand methods for analysing livelihoods of farmers and fishers

(6)

• Have the PRA tools to practice in the field • Learn about application of PRA tools at the village level • Know how to collect information and do PRA (2) • Get ideas and feedback to improve PRA

• Get success to directly implement livelihoods analysis in the local area with a clear plan

(2)

• Gain a clear workplan and budget for each province to implement the work and analyse the livelihoods of farmers and fishers (4)

Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate number of persons with this expectation

29

Appendix 5 Outcomes and Follow-up Actions from Phnom Penh Workshop

Outcomes • A better understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives (different departments,

men-women, poor-less poor, Khmer speakers-English speakers) • A better understanding of the type of information required and how to

organise it (a draft workplan and a draft LHA framework to which all have been able to contribute)

Follow-up Actions • DOF/DFID meeting (February?) to discuss proposed workplan and

implementation • Sign a cooperation agreement between MOWA/MAFF • Sign an agreement (MOU) between DOF/DFID • Set up provincial level Steering Committee • Prepare DOF/DOWA training support • Pilot approach • SCALE: implement baseline study in Kompong Speu with support from

DFID/KINSA/NZODA (March-August) • SCALE to share results, process and lesson learning

30

Appendix 6 Draft Workplan from Phnom Penh Workshop

Central DOF • Advise on provincial workplans (including timing

and location) • Coordinate links with other departments and local

administration • Identify the “way of working” and resources for

understanding livelihoods

Provincial Chiefs of DOF and DOWA

• Set up steering committee (DOWA, DOF (chair), LHA team leader, provincial governor?): meet monthly?

• Hold provincial training and planning workshop for LHA methods (requires logistical, financial, transport and materials support)

• With LHA Teams, develop process to select communities for analysis; hold introductory seminar to inform the why, what and how of LHA

Kandal, Kompong Chhnang and Kratie LHA Teams

• Participate in training and planning workshop for LHA methods (local study tour where LHA is being conducted)

• Require logistical, financial, transport and materials support (it should be taken into account that Kratie is more remote)

• Prepare and carry out workplan (including selecting locations, introductory seminar, information collection, feedback and discussion, reporting)

31

Appendix 7 Livelihoods Analysis (LHA) Framework

Category Information RESOURCES THAT PEOPLE HAVE Human Skills, labour, education, health, techniques

(including extension work), personal characteristics, experience

Infrastructure Household assets (e.g., transportation/vehicles), materials, transportation, roads, marketing

Natural

Forests, water, land, environment, climate, fish, aquatic

Social Traditions, habits, customs, religion, communication, family situation

Financial Household income, credit, type of products and production, financial assets

WAYS IN WHICH PEOPLE ARE VULNERABLE

Changes in: means of production, pesticide and herbicide use, population, economics, politics, medicine use Events: disasters, disease Seasonality: migration, price, production

WHAT INFLUENCES PEOPLE'S LIVELIHOODS

Laws Public sector: local authorities, military, government institutions Private sector: small businesses Levels at which decisions are made Community-based management (joint or direct) Extension services and information flow

WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT?

Note: Information in italics was added to the framework as a result of learning during the workshop.

32

Appendix 8 LHA Report Format

1. Introduction

1.1. Purpose of the LHA 1.2. Research Plan 1.3. Methodology: Process and Tools

2. Research Results

2.1. Description of the Community

2.2. Livelihoods Analysis

2.2.1. Resources

• Human Resources • Infrastructure Resources • Natural Resources • Social Resources • Financial Resources

2.2.2. Vulnerability

2.2.3. Influences

3. Conclusions about Livelihoods 4. Recommendations for Community Fisheries Management

4.1. To Government 4.2. To Province 4.3. To District 4.4. To Village 4.5. To NGOs 4.6. To INGOs and IOs 4.7. About the LHA Process

33

Appendix 9 Kandal Workplan and Budget

Workplan • Establish working group for project implementation: team leader (provincial DOF),

deputy (provincial DOWA), coordinator (DOF), LHA teams • Select area: four fishing communities • Training in facilitation and computers • Carry out PRA: four villages in 60 days; daily expenses (gasoline, meals,

accommodation, boat rental) • Establish community fisheries management:

ο Disseminate information about community fisheries ο Select the group of people ο Set up election committee ο Draw map of the fishing lot ο Determine status of laws and regulations (15 days) ο Planning (15 days) ο Training for members of committee and sub-committees (management and

administration: 3 days) ο Select one official to coordinate with authorities ο Make arrangements between community fisheries management and DOF

• Follow-up implementation: ο Problem solving ο Planning and implementation ο Status of law implementation ο Agreement implementation ο Evaluation

Budget • Make working group • Select area • Training (facilitation and computer skills) • PRA practice • Establish community fisheries management • Mobilisation and promotion • Making action plan • Office supplies: lap-top computer, printer, scanner, diskettes, digital camera, LCD

projector, screen, pens, markers, whiteboards, paper, notebooks • Transportation: two motorcycles (one each for DOF and DOWA)

34

Appendix 10 Kompong Chhnang Workplan and Budget

Workplan • Make provincial work committee: chair (DOF), deputy (DOWA), team members • Select area (two teams for eight villages; monthly meetings) • Training: PRA, computers, communication, planning, English • PRA practice: five days for each village for two teams; review information and report (5

days); PRA supplies Budget • Training • Materials • Allowance • Insurance

35

Appendix 11 Kratie Workplan and Budget

Workplan

Activity Persons Materials Time Location Make committee DOF, DOWA Pen, notebook,

paper Two days Provincial

departments Set up teams DOF, DOWA Pen, notebook, map Provincial

departments PRA learning NGO and teacher Documents, paper

and pens Province

Select area Village leader, team One week per village

Villages

Meet with village leaders

Village leader, team One week per village

Villages

Get budget Team and NGO Motorcycle, computer, camera, paper and pens

Three days DOF, DOWA

PRA practice Villagers, team Flip-charts, pens Three weeks per village

Village, provincial departments

Reporting Team and NGO Paper, pens and pencils

One week Provincial departments

Planning practice Team Paper, pens and map

Village

Budget • Paper • Pens, pencils, markers • Flip-charts

• Motorcycles • Boat and driver

• Computer • Camera • Generator and gasoline

• Salary • Per diem

• Maps

• Tables, chairs

36

Appendix 12 Evaluation

1. How much have we achieved the objectives of the workshop and met your own expectations? • Fully achieved the objectives and met my expectations (5) • Understand about livelihoods of fishers and farmers • Understand the livelihoods framework • Understand livelihoods analysis and using PRA tools (6) • Gained good method for practicing the tools in the field • Expect that we will be able to get good information from people in villages • Workplan and budgets started, but incomplete (3) • Achieved about 70% 2. What do you think about the workshop methods and activities? • Very active; participants exchanged experiences with each other through discussion, and

especially through the PRA field practice (3) • Participants used their own knowledge in the activities • Allowed participants to remember follow-up activities • Easy to understand the workshop process and methods (3) • Helped to learn about and understand livelihoods of fishers and farmers (2) • Appropriate combination of theory and practice • Helped to understand how to collect information and how to report to the community • Methods and activities were detailed and related to each other; appropriate content; useful (2) • The methods were a surprise: implemented the PRA tools and then showed the SCALE

presentation • Learned by doing through group discussion • Too much work in too little time 3. How do you feel about your own participation and contributions? • Interested in workshop objectives that helped to learn about the needs of fishers and farmers • Good feeling and interested, including implementation and relationships • Happy to participate in all activities and enjoyed the workshop (10) • Contributed importance of livelihoods in community fisheries and working with farmers • By learning the tools, participants worked and discussed together to practice in the field (2) • Exchanged experiences with each province and SCALE (2) • Tried to improve all activities to do LHA • Gained knowledge for myself in implementing work (3) • Felt that the workshop was successful • Easy to establish community fisheries and help people understand about it • Pleased to see the active organisers of the workshop • Pleased that DFID is supporting Cambodians • Interested in SCALE’s approach and want to implement it in future • Wanted to learn and to contribute ideas • Helped build our capacity with many new methods for analysing livelihoods • Friendly atmosphere • At times boring, and at other times interesting

37

4. What is the most important thing you learned this week? • Livelihoods of fishers and farmers in the village (3) • Livelihoods analysis (6) • Livelihoods analysis framework (2) • Clear relationship between LHA and PRA • Theory and practice of PRA (5) • PRA tools (10) • Practical experience in the village (7) • How to collect information in the field to identify problems and people’s needs (6) • The results of PRA are not the end of livelihoods analysis • Preparing a workplan (6) • Report format (3) • Developing relationships with people • New methods from other provinces • Workshop framework and activities, and facilitation method (2) • Group discussion 5. Anything else? • Should have more training (continuous) for participants with DFID support (e.g., PRA,

computers, English, planning), and also for community members and officers (on data collection and problem identification) (10)

• Time was sufficient • Participants should be more disciplined during the workshop • Workshop methods, activities and tasks should be explained more clearly • Should be longer (6) • Should have more field practice to help make clear the theory • Field practice should be 2-3 days in more than one location (3) • Should have equipment and materials for field practice in the community • Should have cooperation between provinces and central DOF and DOWA • Provide the workshop output documents to the participants • Need clear PRA tool descriptions • Objectives need to be more clear • Need to be more clear about how to implement the LHA framework and workplans • Per diems should be higher (4) • Should pay for all meals • Implement the livelihoods analysis activities as soon as possible (4) • How long will DFID support this work? • Should have a study tour • Should have games in the workshop • Have future workshops in other provinces • Follow up on the policy reform Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of people making the same statement.