TA No CAM TONLE SAP LOWLAND STABILIZATION PROJECT CAMBODIA

Transcription

1 TA No CAM TONLE SAP LOWLAND STABILIZATION PROJECT CAMBODIA AGRICULTURAL COMPONENT PRELIMINARY REPORT Receiver: Asian Development Bank December 2006 In cooperation with:

2 Table of Contents SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 5 2. RATIONALE 5 3. AGRICULTURAL COMPONENT OPTIONS LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT GROUPS (LIG) Food production Rice Bank Family Income Generation Group Income Generation Farmer Training Group Leader Training Village Extension Worker (VEW) Training AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT (AIP) On-farm Demonstrations Farmer Field Schools (FFS) Commune Farmer Field Day ( Commune Fair ) On-going support General Farmer Training and Extension Natural Resource and Environment Management (NREM) IMPROVEMENT TO AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS Animal Health Programme High Quality Fruit and Vegetable Production and Marketing Support to Private Sector Support for New Technologies AGRICULTURAL MICRO-FINANCE ORGANISATION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT STAFFING AND SUPPORT FOR IMPLEMENTATION Provincial Level District Level Commune Level 37 APPENDIX 1. FIELD VISIT TO TSLSP PROJECT PROVINCES 39 APPENDIX 2. TIP BASE COSTS 47 Table of Figures Figure 1. Relationship between LIG and AIP groups 19 Figure 2. Rice Improvement Demonstration Draft Protocol 21 Figure 3. Draft Design for Family Fishpond 22 Figure 4. Possible Layout of Chicken Demonstration 23 Figure 5. Possible Layout for Pig Demonstration 24 Figure 6. Possible Layout for Integrated Farming System Demonstration 26 Figure 7. TSLSP Agricultural Component - Implementation Structure 38

3 List of Tables Table 1. Main Issues Identified during the RRA Study (32 Villages) 8 Table 2. Summary of AEA Problem Census (36 Communes) 9 Table 3. Proposed Agricultural Activities Stakeholder Workshop 10 Table 4. Draft LIG Activity Schedule 15 Table 5. Group formation and empowerment steps 20 Table 6. Technology Implementation Procedures (TIPs) 30

4 List of Abbreviations ADB ADESS AEA AIP ASDP AQIP CAAEPII Two CAEA CARDI CARERE CC CDP CEW DAE DAO DAHP DTST DWA ECOSORN FFS FHH FWUC IFAD LIG MAFF MEF MFI MOE MOI MOP MOWA MOWRAM MPP MRC MRD NGO NPRS NRDP NREM NTFP NWISP PDA PSP PMU PRA PRDC Asian Development Bank Agricultural Development Support to Seila Agro Ecosystems Analysis Agriculture Improvement Group Agricultural Sector Development Project Agricultural Quality Improvement Project Cambodia Australia Agricultural Extension Project, Phase Commune Agro Ecosystems Analysis Cambodia Agricultural Research & Development Institute Cambodia Reconstruction and rehabilitation Project Commune Council Commune Development Plan Commune Extension Worker Department of Agricultural Extension District Agricultural Office Department of Animal Health and Production District Technical Support Team Department of Women s Affairs Economic and Social Re-launch of the Northwestern Provinces Farmer Field School Female Headed Households Farmer Water User Community International Fund for Agricultural Development Livelihood Improvement Group Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Ministry of Economics and Finance Micro Finance Institution Ministry of Environment Ministry of Interior Ministry of Planning Ministry of Women s Affairs Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology Minimum Package Program (ADESS) Mekong River Commission Ministry of Rural Development Non-Governmental Organization National Poverty Reduction Strategy Northwestern Rural Development Project Natural Resource & Environmental Management Non-Timber Forest Product Northwest Irrigation Sector Project Provincial Department of Agriculture Production Startup Program (ADESS) Project Management Unit Participatory Rural Appraisal Provincial Rural Development Committee

5 PSU PTST RDB RGC RPRP RRA SL STF TA TIP TSBR TSBRS TSEMP TSLSP TSSLP UNDP UNESCO UNOPS VDC VEW VLA WUG Project Support Unit (MAFF) Provincial Technical Support Team Rural Development Bank Royal Government of Cambodia Rural Poverty Reduction Project (Prey Veng & Svay Rieng) Rapid Rural Appraisal Sustainable Livelihoods Seila Task Force Technical Assistance Technology Implementation Procedure Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve Secretariat Tonle Sap Environmental Management Project Tonle Sap Lowland Stabilization Project Tonle Sap Sustainable Livelihoods Project UN Development Program U N Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UN Office for Project Services Village Development Committee Village Extension worker Village Livestock Agent Water User Group

6 SUMMARY Rationale. Thete is a strong rationale for the project to improve livelihoods in the lowland rice growing area around the Tonle Sap Lake because: i) this is the transition zone of the Tonle Sap Biosphere; ii) there is clear evidence that the poorest families in the transition zone exploit the resources of the Tonle Sap in times of hardship; iii) the resources of the highland forested areas surrounding the Tonle iv) Sap basin are also exploited; the lowland rain fed rice production area encompassing the transition zone is one of the main production regions for the whole of Cambodia; v) increases in rice production have generally improved food security, but the challenge now is to change from a subsistence economy to a cash economy, driven by agricultural diversification; vi) The dramatic increase in production experienced over the past decade has not been equitable, with the very poor remaining in a desperate situation. Experience from the recently completed IFAD-funded ADESS project shows that a group approach does work for very poor farmers. The ADESS Production Start-Up Program assisted about 13,000 extremely poor rural families to take the first step to break the poverty cycle. During a Stakeholder Workshop conducted in Phnom Penh on November 2006, provincial staff from all concerned departments discussed possible sub projects, including agriculture. This was very much a preliminary consultation to provide the TA team with some direction in which to proceed. The suggestions from the Workshop have been included in this description of possible Sub Projects. Sub Project Options. In consideration of the findings of the Agro Ecosystems Analysis and in light of the sub-project suggestions from the Stakeholder Workshop(27 November, 2006), there are five possible options for consideration: Option 1, a special group livelihoods program. The program would target the poorest families with limited land and capital, who are forced to exploit the lake. The program would also assist those who are disadvantaged including FHH and disabled. A package of inputs would be provided to enhance food and income generating opportunities, with the cost of inputs paid back to a group revolving fund; Option 2, a productivity improvement program for poor farmers with some resources but who lack technical knowledge. The objective would be to diversify agriculture and reduce the dependence on a single rice crop. On-farm demonstrations, farmer field schools and field days would assist in the technology transfer process. Specific problems, opportunities and key questions identified during the AEAs would serve as the starting point; Option 3, improved agricultural services to poor farmers including improved supply of quality inputs (seed, fertilizer, and veterinary supplies), animal health services from village vets, value adding opportunities, and improved marketing opportunities; Option 4, improved 1

7 access to credit, either through group revolving funds, savings and loan schemes or through MFIs, and Option 5, support for alternative income generating activities, including vocational training. Livelihood Improvement Groups. The Livelihoods Improvement Group (LIG) program would directly target poverty alleviation in the rain fed lowland rice zone surrounding the Tonle Sap Buffer zone. Each participating LIG farmer would receive a basic package of inputs (rice seed and fertilizer, compost making, vegetable seed, fruit trees, chickens and pigs). The package should be flexible to allow households with limited land to participate. Seed capital would also be provided for family and/or group income generating projects. Intensive training following a farmer field school approach would precede the provision of inputs. From day one of the program, it will be made clear that these inputs are not free. They are provided to allow very poor households to get a start in developing their lives. To have sustainable poverty reduction and livelihood improvement, the program must continue after the first year without further funding. This can be achieved by paying back the costs of inputs to a group revolving fund, owned and managed by the group. Inputs will only be provided in the first year, but an on-going training and support programme would continue for 3 years. Agricultural Improvement Groups. In addition to the LIG program, each village could also have an Agricultural Improvement Program (AIP) comprising on farm demonstrations, Farmer Field schools (FFS), extension and farmer training for the remaining farmers in the village. The type of demonstration and the content of the training programme will depend on the needs as expressed in the commune AEAs and the Commune Development Plan. Innovative farmers will be selected by the villagers to manage the demonstrations on their farms. Demonstrations would include rice variety and fertilizer demonstrations, pig raising, chicken raising, aquaculture and integrated farming systems. Each FFS would have 25 trainees with at least 50% being women. Twelve FFS could be conducted in each commune over a 4-year period. At the start of the FFS, the trainees would conduct problem analysis and decide on the curriculum and the training schedule. There would be a balance between rice, livestock, and other topics. Simple farm management principles would also be taught (gross margins, cash flow, farm plans and budgets). Each FFS would run for 24 weeks. The FFS program would be implemented by multidisciplinary teams of three trainers. There would be one master trainer per commune, with a service contract to conduct four FSS per year. The master trainer would be assisted by one member of the DTST and one CEW. Each team would conduct two FFS per week over a 24-week period. During the FFS quite strong bonds establish between participants. This group spirit should be maintained. Group leaders should be selected and a programme of on-going activities decided to capitalise on the lessons learnt and the ideas generated during the FFS. The group may decide to form a Farmers Association. Special interest groups (pig raising, intensive vegetables, group fishpond etc.) may be formed, with additional farmers joining. In some 2

8 cases marketing cooperatives may be formed in order to provide uniform quality and continuity of supply to the market. Groups may embark on income generating projects, be able to access credit from local MFIs. If irrigation is a priority, Water User Groups may be formed to manage the rehabilitation and maintenance of small-scale irrigation, and maintenance of tube wells. The project should support these on-going group activities with a small amount of seed capital for the on-going group activities (around $500 per group), General Farmer Training and Extension. The training of farmer groups through on-farm demos and FFS are seen as the principle extension methodology. However, there are times when a wider audience needs to be targeted. Therefore, a menu driven farmer-training program should also be available to address specific problems and potentials raised in the Commune AEAs. CAAEP and DAE have developed a number of TIPs that can be used for extension delivery, and other training programs have been developed by NGOs, DWA. Improvement to Agricultural Support Systems. This sub project iwould mprove the support provided to farmers from Government agencies and also the private sector. Services provided by the Government will always be limited by financial constraints and staff capacity. The project could support privatisation initiatives including expansion of the VLA programme. A market garden pilot could be implemented to produce and market high quality vegetables. Training will also be provided for selected district traders and input suppliers to improve quality of fertilizers and agro-chemicals being sold, and improved labelling, product information and technical advice. Finally, funds will be available for feasibility studies for potential agro-industries. This could include cashew nuts and oil seeds. This will support initiatives that might be identified by CAAEPII AEAs. Agricultural Credit. A suggested option would be to set up commune agricultural credit management committees, trained and empowered to supervise the credit on behalf of the farmer groups. The committee would have representatives from farmer groups and commune council. Staff from PDA and PRDC would act as facilitators and advisers. The committee would have an agreed mandate and set of rules. Also during the first year an NGO or MFI would be selected by tender to provide management services to the fund committee. The selected NGO/MFI would provide training to the fund management committee and also to the farmer groups. They would manage the fund on behalf of the stakeholders. They would not themselves own the funds. Project Staffing and Support for Implementation. TSLSP should avoid using parallel management mechanisms such as PIU and should follow the RGC s policies of decentralization and deconcentration. The concerned Government Department (PDA, DWA, PDRAM etc.) should have clear management and financial responsibility for their sub-components. This can be organized on an annual contract basis between the Executing Agency (MOWRAM, or MoI, or MEF), and the concerned Department. The six PDA s 3

9 involved in the implementation of TSLSP have had considerable experience and also a high measure of success, during the implementation of the ADESS project. A small Provincial Technical Support Team (PTST) comprising five or 6 PDA would provide the technical and management back-up to the principal implementers the District Technical Support Teams (DTST), based in the DOA of each of the project districts. There should be five to seven staff (depending on the number of target communes) responsible to the District Agriculture Chief. The positions of responsibility would be two Agronomy, 2 Animal Health, one Gender focal (seconded from DWA), and one Extension staff). The LIG groups will be supported by two Commune Extension Workers (CEWs), one female and one male per commune. They will be responsible to the District Agricultural Chief and the District Extension Officer for technical implementation. They will be responsible to the Commune Council for day-today management. In addition to assisting the the CEWs will also assist with the AIP farmer field schools, and also assist in the implementation of other general training and extension activities. 4

10 TONLE SAP LOWLAND STABILIZATION PROJECT (TSLSP) AGRICULTURAL COMPONENT PRELIMINARY REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION This paper presents preliminary options for an agricultural component for TSLSP. The primary reference source is the Tonle Sap Agro Ecosystems Study, completed in November This comprehensive document provides details of the resources of the basin, defines the TSLSP boundary, and should greatly assist the planning process for the design of the TSLSP Loan. The objective of this paper is to provide a first-draft discussion document rather than a final working paper, and requires critical evaluation by all stakeholders and in particular, the TA team. The final Agricultural Working Paper will be produced in January Why should there be an agricultural component? The development objective of TSLSP is: Improving the livelihoods of households inhabiting the lowland area from the outer limit of the TBSR buffer zone to the foothills of the upper watershed area. Most of the population of the lowland area surrounding the buffer zone is solely dependant on farming for their food and incomes. Improvement to the livelihoods of the rural poor will largely depend on improvements to agricultural production and diversification. This situation will not change in the fore-seeable future. Therefore, it is important that agriculture is productive, sustainable and environmentally sound. 2. RATIONALE There is a strong rationale for the project to improve livelihoods in the lowland rice growing area around the Tonle Sap Lake because: vii) this is the transition zone of the Tonle Sap Biosphere; viii) there is clear evidence that the poorest families in the transition ix) zone exploit the resources of the Tonle Sap in times of hardship; the resources of the highland forested areas surrounding the Tonle Sap basin are also exploited; x) the lowland rain fed rice production area encompassing the transition zone is one of the main production regions for the whole of Cambodia; xi) increases in rice production have generally improved food security, but the challenge now is to change from a subsistence economy to a cash economy, driven by agricultural diversification; 5

11 xii) The dramatic increase in production experienced over the past decade has not been equitable, with the very poor remaining in a desperate situation. Very poor farmers often do not benefit from mainstream agricultural extension programs. They do not have time to attend training because they are too busy coping with providing the day-to-day food needs of their families. They do not attend meetings and if they do, they are reluctant to speak out due to embarrassment of their situation and fear of ridicule. They are most likely to be illiterate, mentally or physically disabled or widowed. 1. Experience from the recently completed IFAD-funded ADESS project shows that a group approach does work for very poor farmers. The ADESS Production Start-Up Program assisted about 13,000 extremely poor rural families to take the first step to break the poverty cycle. The cost per household, excluding staff costs, was estimated at USD 125. The Project Completion Review Mission (July 2006), rated the performance of the PSP program, and in particular the group revolving funds, as highly satisfactory. Therefore, TSLSP should consider a two-pronged attack on poverty and stabilizing livelihoods in the lowland area. Firstly, a special Livelihoods Improvement program targeting the very poor and based on the success of the ADESS PSP, and secondly, an agricultural productivity program based on real needs identified through AEA, targeting the wider farming population. The proposed Livelihood Improvement Groups (LIGs) should be highly compatible and complimentary to the self-help groups proposed in the ADB sister project, the Tonle Sap Sustainable Livelihoods Project (TSSLP) that will target villages in the TSBR buffer zone. It should be possible for both projects to have a very similar beneficiary selection process, group management of funds, and facilitating assistance provided by commune extension workers. Project activities may overlap in some communes particularly where the shape of the communes is long and narrow and is partly in the buffer zone and predominantly in the lowland zone. Providing that methodologies are compatible, this should not pose a problem. There would be more chance of conflict if a minority of families receives support from TSSLP, but the majority of farmers in a commune are denied development assistance from TSLSP. 3. NEEDS ASSESSMENT During the PRA Study undertaken in September, 2006 the following major problems were identified by the participating villagers: Water management, roads & bridges, health and hygiene, wells & drinking water, Seed, fertilizers and pest control. (Refer Table 1 below). The first and fifth ranking issues relate to agriculture. The Agro Ecosystem Study (November, 2006), examined the problems and issues raised in 46 Commune AEAs conducted in the project area. The five top agricultural priorities are lack of irrigation system, need for improved varieties, insect pests, poor soil fertility and animal diseases (Refer Table 2). 6

12 These broad and inter-related issues were largely confirmed during meetings conducted in October 2006, with staff from the Provincial Departments of Agriculture (PDA) in all six provinces. Staff indicated that the project should have a focus on poverty alleviation and protection of natural resources (particularly protection of the inundated forest and native fish stocks). A report on field visits made to all provinces is presented in Appendix 1. The project should take particular note of the flood/drought situation and interrelated problems of food insecurity. Although some measures can be taken to improve drainage and access to water sources, most project activities must proceed within the constraints of flood and drought. This can be achieved by diversification to reduce the dependence on a single rice crop, increased livestock production (particularly pigs and chickens), increased food production from homestead gardens, protection of native fish stocks, and by increasing opportunities for off-farm income generation through vocational skills training. 7

13 Table 1. Main Issues Identified during the RRA Study (32 Villages) Ranked Issues Water management - agriculture - rice Roads & bridges - communications Number of Villages % of Villages Comment 30 94% Canals, water gates, inlet-outlet, equipment, lakes % Includes culvert problems Health and hygiene % Toilets most often; health centers, medications Wells, drinking water Seed, fertilizers and pest control, equipment 26 81% Household supply - wells, pumps, water jars, filters 21 66% Education - access 19 60% Buildings. Little mention of teachers Livestock activities 17 28% Semen, vet services, stock Off-farm income generating activities, training Improved fisheries management 16 50% Need for non farming employment, skills % Food security 10 31% Occupational training - farm related Pond - vegetables, household, etc Credit, Access to fair rates 9 28% Skills to use fertilizer, raise livestock, make natural fertilizer 6 19% Ponds for 2nd water source, dry season vegetables 6 19% 8

14 Table 2. Summary of AEA Problem Census (36 Communes) Problem/Issue No. of Times No. of Times Raised Main Problem Insect pests 29 4 Need improved rice variety 25 6 Poor soil fertility 24 4 Need improved rice technology 23 3 Lack of irrigation system 18 6 Animal diseases 17 2 Animal raising 17 2 Need draft animals 10 2 Improved animal breeds 10 Knowledge on pig raising 10 Knowledge on vegetable growing 10 Knowledge on fruit trees 8 Lack of capital 7 Illegal fishing 7 Modern compost making (EM) 6 No canal/dyke 5 1 Need chemical fertilizer 5 Clearing flooded forest 4 River bank erosion 4 Knowledge on cattle raising 4 Lack of pond or well 3 Fish stocks declining 3 1 Damage to canal and watergate 3 2 No water source 2 1 Drought 2 1 No road 2 Low rice yield 2 No market information 2 Need Village Livestock Agent 2 Aquaculture knowledge 2 Rats 2 Flooding 2 Shortage of food 2 Weed problem 1 Sandy soil has poor water holding 1 Flooding of rice from Tonle Sap 1 Floating rice variety 1 Technology for soybeans 1 Need credit 1 Clearing upland forest 1 Low prices 1 9

15 During a Stakeholder Workshop conducted in Phnom Penh on November 2006, provincial staff from all concerned departments discussed possible sub projects, including agriculture. This was very much a preliminary consultation to provide the TA team with some direction in which to proceed. A summary of the suggested agriculture sub project activities is presented in Table 3. Table 3. Proposed Agricultural Activities Stakeholder Workshop Main project activities Sub-project has proposed by participant 1.Support agriculture Rice crops production productivity improvement Vegetable production Fruit trees production Fish raising Animal raising Demonstration Farmer field school Farmer study tour (in local country) Water management (small scale) Repair irrigation system (pond, channels, water gate, water storage,...) Form farmer user community To straiten community Making pound for fish raising; Giving awareness on bad effect of pesticide use on human health and environment Water management Land levelling Land management Compost making ( EM) Agro-ecosystem Analysis Updating old commune agro-ecosystem analysis report Animals and poultry vaccination Poison Usage Integrated farming systems Fish ponds/aquaculture Farmer study tour (in local country) 2. Formation of farmer groups Instructing farmers how to form group Encouraging farmer to prepare statute and regulation for the group Selecting group leader and train him/her on management skills Establish agricultural development communities To build group revolving fund Commune fund integration To form farmer producer groups 10

16 3. Support to suitable credit system for livelihood improvement; 4. Support to alternative income generation activities To provide credit to poor farmers ( form farmer saving group and group loaning) To build group revolving fund Commune fund integration To build farmer rice bank and animal bank Vocational training on dress making, hair dress making, Food processing (packaging, sale to local market) Forming handicraft making group by using local resource such as rattan, Non Timber, special stone To provide training on life skills; Facilitate and build market information to farmer; Provision of marketing information to producers Provision of vocational training courses based on the needs of community The participants at the workshop have produced a comprehensive list of possibilities. The list provides a clear guide to the TA team. All the proposed activities need to be closely considered for inclusion in the future project. A preliminary assessment would indicate that there is nothing on the list that could not be done. 11

17 3. AGRICULTURAL COMPONENT OPTIONS In consideration of the needs assessment summarized above, and in light of the sub-project suggestions from the Stakeholder Workshop, there are five possible options for consideration. i) Option 1. A special group livelihoods program. The program would target the poorest families with limited land and capital, who are forced to exploit the lake. The program would also assist those who are disadvantaged including FHH and disabled. A package of inputs would be provided to enhance food and income generating opportunities, with the cost of inputs paid back to a group revolving fund. ii) Option 2. A productivity improvement program for poor farmers with some resources but who lack technical knowledge. The objective would be to diversify agriculture and reduce the dependence on a single rice crop. On-farm demonstrations, farmer field schools and field days would assist in the technology transfer process. Specific problems, opportunities and key questions identified during the AEAs would serve as the starting point. A wide-ranging menu of improved technology packages (including TIPs developed by CAAEP) would be available to meet the needs of the farmers. Agricultural productivity improvement would include improved water management including rehabilitation of canals and water gates, on-farm land levelling, holding ponds, ditch and dike land re-modelling and water management. iii) iv) Option 3. Improved agricultural services to poor farmers including improved supply of quality inputs (seed, fertilizer, and veterinary supplies), animal health services from village vets, value adding opportunities, and improved marketing opportunities. Whereas the first two options are based at commune level, Option 3 is seen as trans-commune; supporting farmers at district and/or provincial level. Option 4. Improved access to credit, either through group revolving funds, savings and loan schemes or through MFIs. v) Option 5..Support for alternative income generating activities, including vocational training. 12

18 3.1 LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT GROUPS (LIG) The Livelihoods Improvement Group (LIG) program would directly target poverty alleviation in the rain fed lowland rice zone surrounding the Tonle Sap Buffer zone. A group approach is proposed based on the lessons learnt from the MPP and PSP programs implemented by CARERE and ADESS projects in the Northwest 1. Following village orientation meetings and the conduct of problem census and wealth ranking exercises, groups of 25 volunteer women and men farmers would be chosen to participate in a 3-year programme. It is suggested that up to 20 LIG groups could be formed in each target commune, depending on the poverty situation. Each participating LIG farmer would receive a basic package of inputs (rice seed and fertilizer, compost making, vegetable seed, fruit trees, chickens and pigs). The package should be flexible to allow households with limited land to participate. Seed capital would also be provided for family and/or group income generating projects. Intensive training following a farmer field school approach would precede the provision of inputs. From day one of the program, it will be made clear that these inputs are not free. They are provided to allow very poor households to get a start in developing their lives. To have sustainable poverty reduction and livelihood improvement, the program must continue after the first year without further funding. This can be achieved by paying back the costs of inputs to a group revolving fund, owned and managed by the group. Inputs will only be provided in the first year, but an on-going training and support programme would continue for 3 years. The LIG program will provide a very different way of life for the participating households, by providing diversified food production and income generating opportunities on a year round basis. As well as introducing new technologies and skills, the program will be about changing attitudes. Considerable support will be required for successful implementation. Two (one male and one female) Commune Extension Workers (CEWs) should be selected to work in each commune. They may be existing staff from PDA or other departments such as Women s Affairs or Health. Recent high school or university graduates would also be encouraged to apply, with preference given to local youth. The CEWs will report to the commune councils and will receive technical support from the District Technical Support Teams (DTST), based at each District Agriculture Office. Each CEW will be responsible for five new groups per year for 2 years, and follow-up support for each group in the third year. The CEWs would receive comprehensive training during the first year of the project. They will each receive a living allowance of $50 per month and a motorcycle and operating costs. In addition to training, CEWs will undertake community awareness and group mobilization activities in the first year. 1 D. Bishop. Project Design - Minimum Package Program UNDP/CARERE D. Bishop. Project Formulation Agricultural Development Support to SEILA IFAD 13

19 Group activities will be managed by elected group leaders, deputies and bookkeepers (at least one must be female). NGOs will be contracted to provide group leader training and training for bookkeepers on revolving fund management and accounting. The NGOs will also undertake regular monitoring visits and on the job training. In year 2, Village Extension Workers (VEWs) will be selected by the group and they will be trained to take over the duties of the CEWs. They will form an important link between the LIG group, the VDC and the commune council. LIG will target the poorest farm families in the poorest villages. Men and women farmers will have equal opportunities. Male and female family members as well as children will all have opportunities to participate and benefit. The groups will be chosen by the village and VDC by wealth ranking, with special priority for: FHH and women with husbands absent for long periods working in Phnom Penh or Thailand. Disabled farmers including land mine victims Participants should volunteer to join the program, and agree to participate in all activities. Families with serious food shortages will be eligible to obtain support from the group rice bank. This will allow them to join group activities instead of working off-farm or foraging for daily food needs. Rice paid back to rice bank after harvest. Following group formation, a management committee would be elected by the group Group Leader, Deputy and Book Keeper (1 of the 3 to be a woman). The committee would receive intensive training on group management, implementation of activities, group data collection, record keeping and bookkeeping. Following the training, the group would decide their own rules and regulations with a copy going to the CC. The program must be sustainable. The cost of inputs should be paid back in cash or kind to the group s own revolving fund. Then the group can fund their own program in future years. This is a very important principle. At first group members will be worried about the risk of not being able to repay. As the program proceeds they gain more confidence and have a greater sense of ownership. There will always be some families who have shocks caused by natural disaster or personal problems (sickness, death etc). It is up to the group as a whole to decide how to handle these situations, and to make allowances for special cases. Although group maturity is important, it is also important to commence activities and achieve some early results. Then the program will pick up momentum as the participants see that things are really happening, promises are being kept, inputs and training provided. They are then motivated to participate fully in the program. Long periods spent on group formulation, empowerment, rules and regulations, planning etc., can actually have a negative effect if nothing actually happens. 14

20 The program can start with compost making (a good group activity) and home vegetables. Chicken raising could be next. In both cases members must construct the compost huts and chicken houses before they receive inputs of seed and chickens. The training program would also commence prior to any inputs being provided. This group approach to training lowers barriers and builds confidence. During the first training group members would decide their own curriculum, when inputs should be provided, and the time and place for training. For most families the rice demonstration is the most important activity. A successful start with the compost and chickens will prepare them well for the rice demo where a high level of commitment will be required for success. The preferred time to commence activities is in October. Activities such as compost, home gardens, chicken raising can commence during the cooler months up to April. After the rice harvest farmers also have more time for meetings and group activities. A possible schedule for the LIG activities is presented in Table 4. Table 4. Draft LIG Activity Schedule Step Activity Description Month 1 Rice bank Rules and regulations October Rice bank construction using local materials and small budget for cement and roof Group members provide contribution depending on their harvest Additional rice provided by project to enable full participation in LIG activities Repayments to be made after next harvest 2. Farmer Curriculum decided based on problem November Training census commences Why, what, when, where, who Timetable for training, inputs and 3 Compost making 4 Chicken house 5 Chicken raising activities Training, inputs, construction of huts Compost making Group decides what vegetables to grow Training, inputs for chicken house construction Chicken house constructed Group decide where to buy chickens Training, group leader and members purchase chickens Vaccination by VLA Other chicken raising inputs provided November December December 15

21 6 Home garden Group decides what seed to buy Training, bed making and fencing Seed and other inputs provided 7 Rice Demo Training on seed bed preparation, seed supplied Seed bed sown Training on soil fertility, fertilizer supplied, applied and transplanting completed Training on high yield, application of urea Group field day at harvest 8 Fruit trees Training, hole preparation and fence, seedlings provided and planting 9 Pigs Training, inputs for pig pen, pen construction Purchase of pigs, vaccination by VLA Other pig inputs provided December May June August September October November - December August October One of the main reasons that farmers are poor, is that they are in a cycle of debt. For example, they cannot produce enough rice and have to borrow 4 bags from a local trader. After harvest they have to pay back 8 bags. The total harvest is maybe 40 bags and this would be sufficient for the family. However, they now have to pay back the 8 bags and so next year they again have to borrow from the trader. This is the debt cycle. It is difficult because farmers do not want to tell you about their debt situation. Families should not be prevented from joining the LIG because of debt. CEWs must try to find out the cause of the debt and then develop a plan to reduce the debt and break the debt cycle. Each participating LIG farmer will receive a basic package of inputs (rice seed and fertilizer, compost making, vegetable seed, fruit trees, chickens and pigs). The package will be flexible to allow households with limited land to participate. Intensive training following a farmer field school approach will precede the provision of inputs. The proposed inputs for the LIG program are presented below: Food production (possible inputs, to be confirmed by real needs). Rice demonstration (0.5 Ha), improved seed, management, fertilizer Compost making, hut and tools Home vegetable garden, seed and tools Chicken production, 5 chickens Pig production, 1 piglet Fruit trees, 5 seedlings The cost of inputs will be paid back (in cash or kind) to a group revolving fund for future use by the group. 16

22 3.1.2 Rice Bank To allow rice deficient poor farmers to join in project activities Labour and local materials provided by the group Cement and roofing provided by the project 300kg of paddy provided Repayments made after harvest (and repayments of inputs in kind) Family Income Generation A small amount of seed capital (about $40/family) for small income generating projects including handicrafts, vegetable production, cash crops, pig or chicken raising, small business. Project proposal including gross margin and cash flow produced before budget provided Repayment of capital plus interest (rate decided by the group) Group Income Generation Lack of draught animals, and lack of water sources identified as a major problems during the RRA and the AEA surveys. Cattle banks are very difficult to manage, and cattle/buffalo are not cost effective Each group will have a budget of $1000, to undertake a project that will benefit the whole group (and the village). This would include a hand tractor, or tube wells and pumps, or land remodelling. Members will pay a fee for use to cover operating costs and depreciation Non members able to rent the tractor and/or the pump at a higher fee to generate income Management of the tractor, tube wells and pump and the collection of fees would be through the Pagoda committee, supervised by the monks Costs to be paid back over a 3-year period, and capital available for a further group Farmer Training Regular training programme conducted by the CEW assisted by the DTST. Group decides the curriculum and the schedule Subjects will include orientation training for LIG, compost making, home vegetable garden, rice production (3 times), fruit trees, chicken and pig raising, income generating projects, operation and maintenance of hand tractor Group meets about 16 times during the season Training provided before inputs are provided Follow-up on the job training by CEW Group Leader Training Training of trainers for CEW (contracted NGO or ex-adess staff) 10 day training for group leader, deputy and book keeper (at least 1 should be a woman) 17

23 Book keeping set provided (ledger book, calculator, stationary, etc) Revolving funds monitored by independent contractor (NGO or individual) Study tour to another district or province Village Extension Worker (VEW) Training 1 male and 1 female VEW chosen by the group in year 2 VEW takes over the duties of the CF 15 days intensive training (extension and technical) VEW kit Study tour to another province VEWs to receive part of the revolving fund interest payments 3.2 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT (AIP) In addition to the LIGs, each village could also have a program of demonstrations, extension and farmer training for the remaining farmers in the village. The type of demonstration and the content of the training programme will depend on the needs as expressed in the commune AEAs and the Commune Development Plan. Innovative farmers will be selected by the villagers to manage the demonstrations on their farms. Demonstrations would include rice variety and fertilizer demonstrations, pig raising, chicken raising, aquaculture and integrated farming systems. The farmers themselves would choose who would be demonstration farmers. Each demonstration would continue for at least 3 years. The program will be implemented by the District Technical Support Teams (DTSTs) assisted by the CEWs. While of direct benefit to the AIP groups, the main aim of the demonstrations will be to transfer improved technology to a wider audience. The aim will be to have at least 50 additional farmers visiting the demonstrations each year. The demonstrations will be used for field days, cross visits and farmer training using the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach. With five demonstration sites per village, there would be approximately 60 per commune, providing a high impact. The proposed group extension approach and the relationship between the LIG and AIP programs is shown in Figure 1.Group formation and empowerment steps are shown in Table 5. 18

24 Figure 1. Relationship between LIG and AIP groups Target Commune CC, CEWs Target District DTST Target Village VDC VILLAGE ORIENTATION MEETING Review of Project Problem Census LI Group 25 of very poorest families with very few resources and knowledge AIP GROUP 25 poor farmers with some resources but lacking knowledge and technology Group receives production inputs to improve food security and increase cash income. (rice seed, fertilizer, vegetable seed, fruit trees, pigs, chickens, compost). Cost of inputs paid back to group revolving fund Group selects 5 farmers to undertake on-farm demonstrations for rice, pigs, chickens, fish pond, integrated farming. Demonstrations used as classroom for weekly group FFS (24 weeks) 19

25 Table 5. Group formation and empowerment steps Step Activity Description 1 Village selection Village poverty ranking (commune database, WFP data, PRA, consultation with VDCs, CC 2 Village meeting Village orientation meeting Wealth ranking Problem census and analysis Agreement on family selection criteria 3 Farmer selection Presentation of wealth ranking result Selection of 25 LIG members Selection of 25 AIP members LIG and AIP objectives and activities 4 Group formation Group member registration, agreement to join LIG, and AIP Develop group vision, goal, objective Selection criteria for committee (group leader, deputy, book keeper) Elections for committee 5 Group leaders training 6 Group empowerment 7 Monthly group meetings 8 Group self evaluation 9 Planning for year 2 Roles and responsibilities, management, facilitation skills, LIG activities, data collection, record keeping, book keeping, conduction meetings, conflict resolution, gender, democracy, human rights, etc Group principles and rules/regulations Roles and responsibilities of group members and committee Group strategy Data collection, record keeping LIG Revolving fund management AIP access to credit as a group Activity work plan and schedule for group meetings (monthly or 2 weekly) Agenda, minutes, problems and solutions, progress, report from book keeper (facilitated by CEW, DTST) Simple PIA every 6 months to evaluate farmer selection, training, implementation, adoption of technologies, responsiveness of activities to needs/problems of the farmers, SWOT, effectiveness of support from CEW, DTST and other service providers, improvements that can be made, new ideas LIG capital situation (rice bank and cash), planned activities and budget, new activities, new members AIP group finances, development plan, access to credit Plan becomes part of CC planning process 20

26 Note: There may be more than 2 groups in each village On-farm Demonstrations There is considerable information available concerning demonstration protocols (from MAFF and CAAEP). The outline provided below is included only to give some idea of the overall scope Rice Improvement Demonstration 2 farmers (1 female and 1 male) selected by the village Training (3 days) provided on demonstration protocol, management and record keeping Budget for land preparation, seed, fertilizer, sign record book Figure 2. Rice Improvement Demonstration Draft Protocol m 6m Buffer Treatment 1. Farmers practice (traditional variety, farmer saved seed, no fertilizer, clump of 5-6 seedlings transplanted, seedlings over 2 months old, uneven land) Treatment 2. Improved variety 1, high quality seed, recommended practice, (CARDI), no fertilizer Treatment 3. Improved variety 1, high quality seed, recommended practice, recommended fertilizer (CARDI) Treatment 4. Improved variety 2, high quality seed, recommended practice (CARDI), no fertilizer Treatment 5. Improved variety 2, recommended practice, recommended fertilizer Treatment 6. Improved variety 3, high quality seed, recommended practice (CARDI), no fertilizer Treatment 7. Improved variety 3, recommended practice, recommended fertilizer 21

27 Farmers to participate in final protocol decision. Local variations might include half fertilizer and half compost pre-plant Aquaculture Demonstration 1 female or male farmer selected by the village Support for pond digging (10mx8mx3m) and channel to rice field Fingerlings Fertilizer and lime Fruit trees, vegetable seed Net to keep out predators, keep in fish during flood Sign and record book Training (3 days) on protocols, management, record keeping Farmer and the group involved in deciding the final design Figure 3. Draft Design for Family Fishpond 10x8x3m 2m Border with fruit trees/vegetables Family fishponds and larger scale community fishponds could be a successful strategy for TSLSP to increase the availability of protein in the diet, while reducing over fishing of the Tonle Sap. 22

28 Chicken Production Demonstration 1 woman farmer selected by the village Chicken house 3mx3m, local materials 20 Chickens, improved local breed Vaccines and remedies (voucher for local VLA) Creep cages (woven bamboo) for small chickens Compost bin Leucaena plot (2x3m) Small hanging scales Record books and sign board Training on protocol, management, record keeping (3 days) Feed 20kh of compound feed to add to local feed Farmer and group involved in deciding the final design Figure 4. Possible Layout of Chicken Demonstration Compost Pit Chicken house 3x3 m Leucaena plot for Feed production 3mx2m Clean water Container Feeder Creep cages for young chickens 23

29 Pig Production Demonstration 1 woman farmer chosen by the village Pig pen - cement, roofing) 3 Piglets (12kg) Feed, (60kg) Premix (3 bags) Vaccines and remedies (voucher for VLA) Leucaena plot (2x3m) Compost pit Automatic water nozzles, tubing and tank Measuring tape, record book and sign board Farmer training on protocol, management, animal health, nutrition, record keeping Farmer and AIP group involved in deciding final design Figure 5. Possible Layout for Pig Demonstration Pigpen, 3mx4m Compost pit Leucaena Plot Water tank And nozzles Feed Trough Integrated Farming Systems Demonstration Demonstration aims to maximize production per unit area. Follows the approach used by CEDEC and ADESS. The main feature is land remodelling with perimeter channel and internal ditches and dykes. 2 Farmers (1 woman and 1 man) chosen by the village Land remodelling, 0.5 ha, family labour plus food for work for poor neighbours Fish pond, and connecting channels, food for work Pig pen 3 Piglets Pig production inputs 24

30 Chicken house Chicken production inputs 10 Fruit trees Vegetable seed Maize, soybean, mung bean seed Forage legume seed 20 Tree legumes seedlings Compost pit Sign board, record book Farmer training on technology, management, record keeping (10 days) Farmers and the AIP group participate in final design and protocols 25

31 Figure 6. Possible Layout for Integrated Farming System Demonstration (Half-hectare schematic not to scale) Family House Tree legumes l Well Compost pit Year round home garden Live fence (leucaena or gylercidia) Chicken House Leucaena and tree legumes Fish Pond Pig pen Dyke 5 m wide with ditch 2m wide and 2m deep Fruit trees Vegetables Cash crops Rice production area surrounded by channel Year 2-ditch Fish in Ditch Perimeter Channel 26

32 Village-based Food Processing (in cooperation with DWA) The Department of Women s Affairs could be sub-contracted to implement this activity. The objective is to increase the marketing opportunities for fruit, vegetables and fish through simple but safe food processing techniques. Formation of Women s Groups Training on Food Processing Start-up Equipment and Materials Marketing and Value-adding Farmer Field Schools (FFS) The methodology will involve firstly setting up the demonstrations, secondly farmer training using the demonstration sites as classrooms, and thirdly followup extension visits to individual farmers and small informal groups for on the job training. Each FFS would have 25 trainees with at least 50% being women. Twelve FFS could be conducted in each commune over a 4-year period. At the start of the FFS, the trainees would conduct problem analysis and decide on the curriculum and the training schedule. There would be a balance between rice, livestock, and other topics. Simple farm management principles would also be taught (gross margins, cash flow, farm plans and budgets). Each FFS would run for 24 weeks. The FFS program would be implemented by multi-disciplinary teams of three trainers. There would be one master trainer per commune, with a service contract to conduct four FSS per year. The master trainer would be assisted by one member of the DTST and one CEW. Each team would conduct two FFS per week over a 24-week period. At the first training problem census and AEA data will be used to determine the training priorities and schedule for the remaining 24 weeks. Example of training curriculum (Example only real curriculum will depend on the group decision) Problem Training Days Problem analysis Training priorities and schedule 1 Low rice yields Rice production training 7 Low soil fertility Fertilizer use, compost making 1 Poor nutrition Home garden vegetable 2 production Lack of fuel wood Agro forestry training 1 Low income High value vegetable production 2 High post harvest losses Post harvest technology training 1 No fish production in village fish pond construction and aquaculture techniques 2 27