TA No. 4756-CAM TONLE SAP LOWLAND STABILIZATION PROJECT

CAMBODIA

AGRICULTURAL COMPONENTPRELIMINARY REPORT

Receiver:

Asian Development Bank

December 2006

In cooperation with:

TA No. 4756-CAM TONLE SAP LOWLAND STABILIZATION PROJECT

CAMBODIA

AGRICULTURAL COMPONENTPRELIMINARY REPORT

Receiver:

Asian Development Bank

December 2006

In cooperation with:

Table of Contents SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 5 2. RATIONALE 5 3. AGRICULTURAL COMPONENT OPTIONS 12

3.1 LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT GROUPS (LIG) 13 3.1.1 Food production 16 3.1.2 Rice Bank 17 3.1.3 Family Income Generation 17 3.1.4 Group Income Generation 17 3.1.5 Farmer Training 17 3.1.6 Group Leader Training 17 3.1.7 Village Extension Worker (VEW) Training 18

3.2 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT (AIP) 18 3.2.1 On-farm Demonstrations 21 3.2.2 Farmer Field Schools (FFS) 27 3.2.3 Commune Farmer Field Day (“Commune Fair”) 29 3.2.4 On-going support 29 3.2.5 General Farmer Training and Extension 30 3.2.6 Natural Resource and Environment Management (NREM) 31

3.3 IMPROVEMENT TO AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS 32 3.3.1 Animal Health Programme 32 3.3.2 High Quality Fruit and Vegetable Production and Marketing 32 3.3.3 Support to Private Sector 33 3.3.4 Support for New Technologies 34

4. AGRICULTURAL MICRO-FINANCE 34 5. ORGANISATION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT 37

5.1 PROJECT STAFFING AND SUPPORT FOR IMPLEMENTATION 37 5.1.1 Provincial Level 37 5.1.2 District Level 37 5.1.3 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

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

List of Abbreviations ADB Asian Development Bank ADESS Agricultural Development Support to Seila AEA Agro Ecosystems Analysis AIP Agriculture Improvement Group ASDP Agricultural Sector Development Project AQIP Agricultural Quality Improvement Project CAAEPII Cambodia Australia Agricultural Extension Project, Phase Two CAEA Commune Agro Ecosystems Analysis CARDI Cambodia Agricultural Research & Development Institute CARERE Cambodia Reconstruction and rehabilitation Project CC Commune Council CDP Commune Development Plan CEW Commune Extension Worker DAE Department of Agricultural Extension DAO District Agricultural Office DAHP Department of Animal Health and Production DTST District Technical Support Team DWA Department of Women’s Affairs ECOSORN Economic and Social Re-launch of the Northwestern

Provinces FFS Farmer Field School FHH Female Headed Households FWUC Farmer Water User Community IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development LIG Livelihood Improvement Group MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries MEF Ministry of Economics and Finance MFI Micro Finance Institution MOE Ministry of Environment MOI Ministry of Interior MOP Ministry of Planning MOWA Ministry of Women’s Affairs MOWRAM Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology MPP Minimum Package Program (ADESS) MRC Mekong River Commission MRD Ministry of Rural Development NGO Non-Governmental Organization NPRS National Poverty Reduction Strategy NRDP Northwestern Rural Development Project NREM Natural Resource & Environmental Management NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product NWISP Northwest Irrigation Sector Project PDA Provincial Department of Agriculture PSP Production Startup Program (ADESS) PMU Project Management Unit PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PRDC Provincial Rural Development Committee

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

1

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

Sap basin are also exploited; iv) 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 27-28 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

2

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 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. 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

3

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

4

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-to-day 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.

5

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 2006. 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 2007. 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

zone exploit the resources of the Tonle Sap in times of hardship; ix) 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;

6

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).

7

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 inter-related 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.

8

Table 1. Main Issues Identified during the RRA Study (32 Villages)

Ranked Issues Number of

Villages

% of Villages

Comment

Water management - agriculture - rice

30 94% Canals, water gates, inlet-outlet, equipment, lakes

Roads & bridges - communications

28 87.5% Includes culvert problems

Health and hygiene 28 87.5% Toilets most often; health centers, medications

Wells, drinking water

26 81% Household supply - wells, pumps, water jars, filters

Seed, fertilizers and pest control, equipment

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

16 50% Need for non farming employment, skills

Improved fisheries management

12 37.5%

Food security 10 31%

Occupational training - farm related

9 28% Skills to use fertilizer, raise livestock, make natural fertilizer

Pond - vegetables, household, etc

6 19% Ponds for 2nd water source, dry season vegetables

Credit, Access to fair rates

6 19%

9

Table 2. Summary of AEA Problem Census (36 Communes) Problem/Issue No. of Times

Raised No. of Times 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

10

During a Stakeholder Workshop conducted in Phnom Penh on 27-28 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

productivity improvement Rice crops production 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

11

3. Support to suitable credit system for livelihood improvement;

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

4. Support to alternative income generation activities

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.

12

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) 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.

iv) 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.

13

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 Northwest1. 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 1997. UNDP/CARERE

D. Bishop. Project Formulation – Agricultural Development Support to SEILA. 2000. IFAD

14

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.

15

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

• 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

October

2. Farmer Training commences

• Curriculum decided based on problem census

• Why, what, when, where, who • Timetable for training, inputs and

activities

November

3

Compost making

• Training, inputs, construction of huts • Compost making • Group decides what vegetables to

grow

November

4 Chicken house

• Training, inputs for chicken house construction

• Chicken house constructed • Group decide where to buy chickens

December

5 Chicken raising

• Training, group leader and members purchase chickens

• Vaccination by VLA • Other chicken raising inputs provided

December

16

6 Home garden • Group decides what seed to buy • Training, bed making and fencing • Seed and other inputs provided

December

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

May June August – September October November - December

8 Fruit trees • Training, hole preparation and fence, seedlings provided and planting

August

9 Pigs • Training, inputs for pig pen, pen construction

• Purchase of pigs, vaccination by VLA • Other pig inputs provided

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: 3.1.1 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.

17

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)

3.1.3 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)

3.1.4 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.

3.1.5 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

3.1.6 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)

18

• 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

3.1.7 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.

Figure 1. Relationship between LIG and AIP groups

Target Commune CC, CEWs

Target Village VDC

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 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)

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

VILLAGE ORIENTATION MEETING

Review of Project Problem Census

Target District DTST

19

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

• Roles and responsibilities, management, facilitation skills, LIG activities, data collection, record keeping, book keeping, conduction meetings, conflict resolution, gender, democracy, human rights, etc

6 Group empowerment

• 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) 7 Monthly group

meetings • Agenda, minutes, problems and solutions, progress,

report from book keeper (facilitated by CEW, DTST)

8 Group self evaluation

• 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

9 Planning for year 2

• 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

Note: There may be more than 2 groups in each village 3.2.1 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.

3.2.1.1 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10m 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

Farmers to participate in final protocol decision. Local variations might include half fertilizer and half compost pre-plant.

3.2.1.2 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

22

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.

3.2.1.3 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 Clean water Container Feeder Creep cages for young chickens

Chicken house 3x3 m

Leucaena plot for Feed production 3mx2m

Compost Pit

23

3.2.1.4 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 Water tank

And nozzles Feed Trough

Leucaena Plot

3.2.1.5 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

25

• 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

Figure 6. Possible Layout for Integrated Farming System Demonstration

(Half-hectare schematic – not to scale) Rice production area Fish in Ditch surrounded by channel Year 2-ditch Perimeter Channel

Leucaena and tree legumes

Tree legumes Well l Compost pit Year round home garden Live fence (leucaena or gylercidia)

Dyke 5 m wide with ditch 2m wide and 2m deep Fruit trees Vegetables Cash crops

Pig pen Chicken House

Fish Pond

Family House

26

27

3.2.1.6 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

3.2.2 Farmer Field Schools (FFS) The methodology will involve firstly setting up the demonstrations, secondly farmer training using the demonstration sites as classrooms, and thirdly follow-up 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

production 2

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

28

High livestock mortality Animal health and vaccination

training 3

Low production of pigs and chickens

Improved animal feeding training, forage production

3

Lack of markets Training on marketing, gross margins, cash flow, business management

1

FFS field day To show other farmers the group achievements

1

Total training days 25 Example of part of training schedule (Example only – real schedule will depend on group decision) Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16Problem analysis

*

Rice * * * * Soil Fertility

*

Vegetable * Agro forestry

*

Cash crop * * Post harvest

*

Animal health

* * *

Animal production

* *

Marketing

1. In each commune there will be 4 FFS per year for 3 years – total 12 per commune

2. One master trainer will be selected per commune to act as trainer and facilitator. He will organise two FFS per week.

3. In addition to the master trainer the DTST and CEWs will assist in the training and particularly in the follow-up extension visits to farmers after the 1 day per week training.

4. Further specialist trainers will be hired from PDAFF, or other projects/NGOs as required.

5. At the end of each FFS a field day will be conducted.

29

3.2.3 Commune Farmer Field Day (“Commune Fair”)

• One village in each commune selected for annual field day, or “commune fair”

• Representatives from all FFS and LIG members would attend and any other neighbouring farmers (total about 300 people)

• Commune Council, District Governor and representatives of line agencies, NGOs invited

• Probably conducted at rice harvest time, with crop cuts undertaken to determine yields of the rice improvement demonstration

• Results of all demonstrations presented and discussed • Tasting of new rice varieties and new vegetable varieties • Local produce (including food processing) available for sale • Local traders and input suppliers (including seed and fertilizer

companies) invited to set up stalls • PDA, DoH, Education, Women’s Affairs and other departments would

also set up display areas • MFIs and other credit providers also in attendance.

3.2.4 On-going support Following the FFS the groups will still require support in terms of technology, capital and markets. 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 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 such as a fish hatchery, or provision of improved boars for the use of all members. Groups would 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 DTST and the CEWs would be responsible for group activities following the FFS. This would involve providing additional training, assisting in the development of group plans and their inclusion in the village and commune plans, and arranging contact with the local credit providers. 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), but members will also be required to make a contribution. The groups would have to have be fully organised with their rules and regulations in place before any capital would be provided. They would also need to have a definite plan of activities and income generation to ensure the sustainability of the group.

30

3.2.5 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. The TIPs currently available from DAE are shown in Table 4. TIP base costs have been included in Appendix 2. Table 6. Technology Implementation Procedures (TIPs)

TIP Subjects Topics Selected 1 Pig Production (4) Single Pig Fattening 2 Sow Management 3 Intensive pig management 4 Swine Fever 5 Cattle (4) Cattle Fattening 6 Haemorrhagic Septicaemia Vaccination 7 Foot and Mouth Disease Management 8 Fasciolosis Management 9 Chickens (3) Village Chick and Hen Management 10 Growers and Layers 11 Newcastle Disease Management 12 Ducks (1) Intensive Duck Management 13 Vegetables (1) Home Vegetable Gardening 14 Rice Production (4) Rice Soil Identification 15 Lowland Rice Variety Selection Irrigated and Recession Rice Growing 16 Rodent Control 17 Land Levelling 18 Fish Culture (4) Small Pond Production 19 Tilapia Seed Production 20 Rice Fish Culture Pagoda Fish Management 21 Forage/Fodder (2) Leucaena Management 22 Lowland Forage Management 23 Rice Post Harvest Seed Storage Protection Threshing Drying 24 Composting Compost Preparation 25 Cashews Cashew Orchard Management 26 Mushrooms Mushroom Spore Production

31

3.2.6 Natural Resource and Environment Management (NREM) Environment and also gender issues should be considered as cross cutting issues and should be carefully considered in the design and delivery of all farmer programs. Additional support for NREM may be beneficial as the project’s main aim is environmental protection of the TSBR. Any NREM initiatives would need to be planned and implemented in close cooperation with TSSLP. Some possible interventions are presented below:

3.2.6.1 Capacity building of Commune Councils. CCs still require capacity building from provincial technical support teams in demand driven NREM planning, implementation methods and tools. Content areas would include NREM awareness raising, land use mapping, strengthening livelihoods, sustainable community based natural resource management, water management, dispute management, identify when an EIA is necessary, feedback, and monitoring of NREM.

3.2.6.2 Commune “green fund” The project could finance an incentive scheme accessed by CCs, which is additional to their C/S Fund allocations and available once the CC plan has been certified as “NRE sensitive”. An allocation of $500 per target commune might be available for communes to implement their NREM plans. These are expected to include protection of fish habitats, control of illegal fishing methods, promotion of community fishponds, protection and management of existing degraded forest areas, village tree nurseries, tree planting on public land including schools and pagodas, monitoring of pesticide use, and other initiatives.

32

3.3 IMPROVEMENT TO AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS This sub-component would improve 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. 3.3.1 Animal Health Programme

3.3.1.1 Training of New Village Livestock Agents (VLAs) An aim will be to have one VLA for every village in the project target area. Already a considerable number of VLAs have been trained by ADESS. Additional VLAs will be trained using the Department of Animal Health and production (DAHP) training module.

• Basic training for about 200 VLAs • Follow-up on the job training in the villages • Start-up equipment and medicines • Women will be encouraged to become VLAs

3.3.1.2 Refresher Training for Existing VLAs In cooperation with DAHP, refresher training will be provided for all VLAs in the project area. Commune based vaccination programmes will be a major part of the training, including the extension skills required to create awareness of contagious diseases. High animal mortality due to the failure of farmers to vaccinate animals has been identified in both provinces as the major constraint to livestock production. Revolving funds will be provided to VLA associations to allow timely purchase of vaccines, and to ease the cash flow situation of VLAs (farmers often delay payment until after harvest).

• Refresher training (10 days) for existing VLAs • Formation of commune and/or district VLA associations • Provision of revolving funds for VLA associations • Commune-wide farmer extension and vaccination programmes in all

project communes 3.3.2 High Quality Fruit and Vegetable Production and Marketing

• Key farmers selected and trained in intensive market gardening aimed at quality production

33

• Training in business management in addition to technical • Demonstration plot of new varieties, improved husbandry, maximizing

returns per unit area • Post harvest storage, packaging and transport • Piloting of an improved market information system • Piloting of improved wholesale and retail marketing

3.3.3 Support to Private Sector

3.3.3.1 Improved Seed and New Variety Demonstrations for Seed Company

• Budget available to support improved seed and new variety demonstrations and field days to be conducted by AQIP Seed Company agents and sub-agents.

• About 1000 demonstration sites in 6 provinces over 3 years • Sub-agents become important part of the farmer extension system

3.3.3.2 Product Testing and Demonstrations for Fertilizer and Agro-chemical Dealers

• Awareness training for input suppliers • 1 dealer/shop per district selected for further training and to volunteer to

implement quality control procedures • Labels and product information provided in Khmer • Dealers receive technical training concerning fertilizer and

agrochemical use and would become informal “extension agents”.

3.3.3.3 Small enterprise development with farmer groups Through the AEAs and also the FFS, the potential for small enterprises will inevitably arise. They could include:

• Small feed mills to produce animal feed, • Community fish hatcheries, • Small scale food processing, • Chicken hatcheries (day-old chick production) • Cage fish production, • Improved bulls, boars for cross-breeding, • High quality handicrafts (bamboo and rattan)

Although difficult to define at this stage, provision will be made to provide a commune fund of $1000 to support these enterprises. The fund would be in the form of an interest free loan and would need to be fully repaid after 3 years. The re-paid loans would then be used in new communes.

34

3.3.3.4 Commercial Agro-industry Opportunities (in cooperation with ASDP)

Support for feasibility studies on potential agro-industries (e.g. Cashew). • Identification of potential agro-industries (AEAs) • Provincial working group formed (technical and commercial) • Consultant selected to undertake feasibility study • Action plan, financial proposal

3.3.4 Support for New Technologies The training and demonstration programmes will largely use simple proven technologies. The main task will be to increase the adoption rate through an intensive programme of demonstrations and training. However agricultural development and extension are dynamic processes, and technologies need to be modified or even changed to respond to new problems and new opportunities. The project will support the existing DAFF research stations in the two provinces to undertake specific trials that will respond to farmer needs. Examples of possible trials are:

• Flood/drought tolerant forage legumes • Trials with aromatic rice varieties • Vegetable variety trials • Agro-forestry • Short maturity cash crops including mung bean

Research stations would be invited to submit detailed proposals and budgets for research trials. Grants of up to $1000 could be made to fund successful proposals. 4. Agricultural Micro-Finance Experience has shown that there must be a very close relationship between agricultural development activities and the provision of rural credit. In ADESS and other projects, credit or micro-finance is a completely separate component implemented by a completely separate institution (RDB). A UNOPS Supervision Mission to ADESS on October 2004 found that the “overall performance of the credit component has not shown improvement. This is primarily due to, among others, the following reasons:

a. RDB has mainly concentrated on on-lending operations and has not pro-actively played the key role of promoting micro-finance best practices;

b. Overall capacity of RDP and the NGOs/MFIs are weak and their overall understanding and implementation of best practices in micro-credit is poor. This is especially the case for MFIs that are operating as ‘for-profit’ operators;

c. The component has no long-term strategy or vision; d. Coordination between the RDB and the PSU is weak and

micro-credit is perceived as a separate component of the ADESS project;

35

e. Coordination between the PDAFFs and the NGO/MFIs varies at the provincial and district level;

f. The products offered by the NGO/MFIs do not always adequately respond to the borrowers needs;

g. RDB has not been able to satisfactorily promote through its NGO/MFI network the mobilisation of savings as this is perceived to be difficult to implement in Cambodia;

h. The concept of group lending and group solidarity varies by operator, however, in general most operators are focusing on individual loans and also requiring collateral (such as land titles and so-called savings).

i. A number of MFIs (especially private operators) find that lending to ADESS clients is expensive and although they receive a concessional loan, it is still not sufficient.

The key lessons for future projects are: j. Formal and commercial channels are more suitable for

lending to advanced groups or borrowers; k. Village savings and credit programmes or other self-help

approaches are more appropriate for to the poorer borrowers who need to build capital, confidence, and assets prior to becoming borrowers (individually, as a group or as an association/apex body) from formal credit providers”.

In light of the poor performance of the ADESS credit component and the recommendations presented above there is a good opportunity for TSLSP to pilot a new approach to credit delivery. There needs to be an intermediate step between the revolving fund approach successfully used with the PSP groups and formal credit provided through MFIs. The Stakeholders must have a say in the management of their micro-finance and be part of the decision-making.

In the first year, TIPs are implemented and farmer groups are trained in a range of new and improved technologies depending on the needs identified in the CAEAs. Group strengthening also takes place with election of group leaders. In the second year these groups are eligible to apply for loans from a commune fund. A prerequisite would be the need for the group to have commenced a savings program.

One 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.

In year 2, following the successful implementation of TIPS, selection of the

36

managing MFI/NGO and. the establishment ant training of fund management committee, the fund for each commune would be set up. Funds would be deposited in an ACLEDA bank in each district, with each commune having a separate account.

The managing NGO/MFI would to provide training, monitoring, fund supervision, collection services and auditing. They would be under contract to the provincial PRDC to provide their services. They would come under the day-to-day supervision of the PDAFFs. In return for services rendered the NGO/MFI would receive a management fee.

37

5. ORGANISATION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT

5.1 PROJECT STAFFING AND SUPPORT FOR IMPLEMENTATION 5.1.1 Provincial Level 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 involved in the implementation of TSLSP have had considerable experience and also a high measure of success, during the implementation of the ADESS project. The implementing departments would be assisted in management and policy considerations by a coordinating committee possibly convened under the provincial PRDC, and chaired by the Provincial Governor. In the implementation of TSLSP, the PDA should endeavour to use a small number of well-trained and motivated staff working full time on project implementation and management. 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. 5.1.2 District Level At district level the District Technical Support Team (DTST) will implement the project activities. 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). This core team will be assisted by additional staff from Fisheries, Forestry and Environment Offices on a part time basis (service contract). While the DTST will coordinate the FSS programme, additional FSS training teams will be trained and work on a contract basis to do the actual training in the field. 5.1.3 Commune Level 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-to-day management. In addition to assisting the LIGs (20 per commune) the CEWs will also assist with the AIP farmer field schools, and also assist in the implementation of other general training and extension activities. The proposed implementation structure is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. TSLSP Agricultural Component - Implementation Structure

PDAFF Implementation

PTST

PRDC ExCom Management

MAFF Policy and

Coordination

DAE

DTST (7) District Coordinator

Agron (2) AH&P (2) Gender (1) Ext (1)

OAE

TSLSP TA

Contract staff Fisheries Forestry Environment

38

FSS Training teams

AIP Groups On-farm Demos FFS Field days Extension visits

Livelihood Improvement Groups Package of inputs Group revolving funds

CEWS (2 per

Commune)

Commune Council

39

APPENDIX 1. FIELD VISIT TO TSLSP PROJECT PROVINCES

1.1 Introduction A Study team consisting of two domestic consultants: agronomist and rural infrastructure engineer (Saintdona chea and Mom Sanoun) and an international consultant, Don Bishop, agro-ecosystem expert made a visit at six target provinces including Kampong Chhnang, Pursat, Battambong, Banteaymeanchey, Siemreap and Kompong Thom province, starting from 01st October to 13th October 2006. The schedule and detailed activities of the field visits of the study team appear as Annex 1. The main objectives of the field visits are comprised of (1) Collecting existing data related to agriculture and especially the data on commune agro-ecosystem analysis reports done by provincial extension officials in the target provinces, supported by Cambodia-Australia Agricultural target province,(2) Briefing the project of Tonle Sab Lowland Stabilization to Directors of Provincial Department of Agriculture, enabling them to indicate possible target areas within the province for TSLSP, and (3) Looking at the possible target areas proposed by the provincial department of Agriculture for TSLSP. This report is written for team leader of TSLSP and for documentation. 1.2 Field visits in the target provinces 1.2.1 Batteaymeanchey province On Monday 01st October 2006, the study team led by Don Bishop participated in debriefing session made by RRA team at the meeting room of Provincial Department of Water Resource and Meteorology in Banteaymeanchey province. In afternoon of the same day, the team also met Deputy Director of Provincial Department of Agriculture to brief on the objectives of TSLSP and to discuss about the possible target areas for TSLSP. The target districts and communes proposed by deputy director appear as annex 1. The team also met the chief of Provincial Agricultural Extension office to prepare a plan for field visits and to get commune agro-ecosystem analysis reports done by agricultural extension office. The communes where had been done agro-ecosystem analysis is in annex 3. On Tuesday 03rd Octorber 2006, The study team looked at Preash Netr Preah , Phnum Leab and Kouk Ballang communes in Preash Netr Preash and Monkul Borei districts . During the visits, the team conducted a short interview with the commune chiefs within the three communes and also talked to farmers. Preash Netr Presh commune Commune Chief: Mr. Hong Huye Main livelihoods: Rice farming, animal raising, fishing, mat making and migration. Farmers living in the four villages where is nearby Tonle Sap Lake

40

collect raw material for making mats , catch fishes and gather fuel fire wood from the natural lakes and other natural resources surrounding the Tonle Sap lake. Challenges: Soil fertility declining, rat problem, poor water management, 3 distribution canals damaged, 11 water gates to be constructed to diverse water into paddy fields, and only 300 hectares which is around 30 percentage of cultivatable land available in the areas was cultivated dry season rice due to inadequate water. Farmers will be able to cultivate dry season rice or recession rice on 1000 hectares, if the irrigation systems are rehabilitated. Phnum Leab commune Deputy Commune chief, Mr. Phok Reub Main livelihood activities: Rice farming (floating rice and dry season rice or recession rice), animal raising, selling labor, and fishing. The main income source of Farmers living in 5 villages namely Krobove, Kampong Sang, Tralok Tbong, Tralok lek and Tralok cheung, located nearby Tone Le Sap is fishing. They also harvest raw materials from the lake to make mats. Challenges: Drought, flood, rat problem, only few farmers could cultivate recession rice due to no water reservoir, dam across Romdul strem built in the Khmer regime was damaged due to flood, lack of animal draught power, illegal fishing, polluted water from Tonle Sap lake destroy rice crops, shortage of water for human and animals in the dry season since some wells dried out and wells in the villages located nearby the mountain have salty water. Kouk Balang commune: Commune chief: Mr. Meak Dom Main livelihood activities: Rice farming (wet and dry season rice), animal raising, field crop cultivation, sugar production, selling labor, and fishing. Challenges: Main canal is broken in neighboring commune (Banteay neang commune) which can’t bring water, distribution canals are also shallow, lack of working capital, lack of cropping know-how, drought, flood, and some farmers abandoned dry season rice cultivation due to inadequate water to irrigate. 1.2.2 Batdombong province On Wednesday 04th Octorber 2006, Study team met deputy director of Provincial Department of Agriculture to brief the objectives and discuss about the possible target areas for TSLSP. The districts and communes proposed by the deputy director for the study team to look at appear as annex 1. In Battombong province, the study team looked at four communes: Preak Kpob, Bansay Traeng, Ta Meun, and Ta Pung within three districts namely Aek Phnum, Thma Koul, and Moung Russei. Preak Kpob commune Deputy commune chief: Mr. Som Deum

41

Main livelihood activities: Rice farming (wet and dry season rice), animal raising, fishing is the main occupation of farmers living in two villages including Ou Kambot and Preak Snour where are nearby natural lakes located closed to Tonle Sab lake, jute growing, field crops such as water melon, corn, and cucumber, traditional fishing gear making and selling labor force. Challenges: Drought, flood, lack of floating rice varieties and seeds, creeks (Preak Snour and Preak Kambot) are getting shallow, rat problem, no water gate to store water for dry season crops, animal diseases, and lack of water use in dry season rice Bansay Treang commune Community Chief: Mr. San Tha Main livelihood activities: Rice farming, animal raising, selling labor, fishing, field crop cultivation such as taro, string bean, sweet potato, and other subsistent food crops. Challenges: Lack of cropping know-how, lack of chemical fertilize and pesticide application technique, broad leave weeds, Grass hoppers, one main canal damaged, some farmers abandoned pig raising due to the flow of cheaper price pig from Thailand. Ta Meun and Ta Pung communes Since the commune chief was not at office at the time that study team arrived, the study team accompanied by district agricultural extension officer went to the villages to talk with farmers living in the two communes. Based on the direct observation and talking with farmers, the socio-economic condition and farming activities of farmers living in both communes are similar. Poverty rate of the two communes are the highest among communes within Monkul Borei district (Agricultural Extension officer based in the district). The two communes share border by laterite road connecting to the paddy fields. Most people living in the two communes come from the refugee camp before the general election in Cambodia in 1993. Main livelihood activities: Rice farming (only wet season rice), animal raising, fishing, home gardens and selling labor outside the commune through migration. Around 50% of farmers migrate to sell labor at other districts and Cambodia-Thai border before and after crop cultivation in order to earn income. Challenges: No irrigation system, lack of floating rice varieties, rat problem, weed problem, lack of human labor force and animal draught power for farming, lack of working capital to invest in crop farming and animal production, shortage of water use in dry season rice as there are few wells in the communes.

42

1.2.3 Pursat province On Friday 6th October 2006, the study team met deputy director of Provincial Department of Agriculture in Pursat province to brief the objectives and discuss on the possible target districts and communes for TSLSP. The proposed target areas appear as annex 2. Since the is not enough time to see many proposed communes, the study team accompanied by the deputy director of provincial department of agriculture looked at only three communes consisting of Kaoh Chum, Sya and Sna Ansa located in Sampove Meas , Kandieng and Krakor districts. Kaoh Chum commune Commune Chief: Mr. Tet Someurn Main livelihood activities: Rice cultivation, animal raising, sugar palm production, selling labor, fishing, and home gardening. Challenges: Drought, flood, insects (grass hopper), rat problem, shortage of water use in dry season rice, lack of good rice seeds, most farmers have limited financial capital to invest in farming, and main canal and distribution canals are shallow. Sya commune Commune Chief: Mr. Hout Kimleng Main livelihood activities: Rice farming, animal raising, field crop cultivation, fishing, sugar palm production, and other supplementary income jobs such as selling labor for construction work, rice farming, etc. Challenges: Flood, drought, lack of working capital to invest in crop and animal enterprises, pest, rat problem, main canal broken, shallow distribution canals, lack cropping know-how, poor soil fertility, and poor condition of roads. Sna Ansa commune Commune Chief: Mr, Mouk Kaur The team didn’t see commune chief but the team members talked with farmers at fields. The study team went to examine the broken dam which is built by farmers to diverse water into paddy field. The creek is about 4 or 5 kilometers from Ansor Kdam village where is done RRA by TSLSP‘s RRA team led by Mr. Jonh Mckinnon. Main livelihood activities: Rice farming, selling labor, animal raising, mat making, fishing, souvenir object making, and sugar palm production. Challenges : Drought, medium and poor soil fertility, rice diseases, crabs, rice buck, food and mouth disease, Newcastle, lack of working capital to invest in farming, unable to cultivate rice crop on the land available in the community due to inadequate rain water, diversion dam built by farmers was damaged by rainwater from the mountain every year.

43

1.2.4 Kampong Chhnang province On Monday 9th October 2006, the study team continued to visit Kamapong Chhnang province. The team was given to see deputy director of Provincial Department of Agriculture and Chief of Agricultural extension office in the province. After highlighting the objectives of TSLSP, the deputy director and the extension office chief advised the study team to look at some districts and communes. The target districts and communes proposed by the Department of Agriculture appear as Annex 1. The study team was accompanied by the extension office chief and agricultural district chief to examine two communes namely Kampong Tralach and Anchanh Rung commune located in two different districts. Kampong Tralach commune Commune Chief: Mr. Prak Von Main livelihood activities: Rice farming (wet and dry season rice), animal raising, lotus growing, selling labor, fishing and off-farm employment (farm households send family members to work for garment factory in Kampong Chhnang province and Phnom Penh city). Challenges: Rat problem in rice farming especially for dry season rice, grass hopper, stem borrow, leaf folder, lack working capital to invest in animal and crop enterprises, drainage canal is shallow so that farmers could not cultivate dry season rice on the paddy fields surrounding the natural lakes on time, farmers have to buy rice seeds from the markets every year otherwise rice yields will be low. Anchanh Rung commune Main livelihood activities: Since the commune chief and other members of commune council were busy with registering people for the coming commune council election, the study team didn’t have a chance to talk to them. Based on the direct observation and talking to the farmers, the main livelihood activities of people living in Anchan Rung commune consist of Rice farming, animal raising, home gardening, fishing, and selling labor. Challenges: unable to cultivate crops in dry season due to lack of water, soil fertility is declining, some farmers go to the lakes located nearby the Tonle Sap lake to fish for family consumption, animal diseases such as food and mouth , Newcastle, and lung disease ( new disease has just occurred in the commune). 1.2.5 Siem Reab province On Wednesday 11th October 2006, the study team was given a chance to meet Director of Provincial Department of Agriculture and Chief of Agricultural Extension office to brief TSLSP’s objectives and to get AEA reports. The Director advised the study team to look at five possible target districts and some communes within those districts. The target areas proposed by the directors are in Annex 1.

44

After fishing discussion session, the study team accompanied by the chief of agricultural extension office and an agricultural officers appointed by the Director made a visit certain communes including Yeang, kantreang, and Ampil. Yeang commune Deputy commune Chief: Mr. Pel Porn Main livelihood activities : Rice farming ( only wet season rice), Home gardening, rice wine making, animal raising, selling labor to fishing lots in the dry season, and fishing for family consumption. Challenges : poor soil fertility, lack of water sources for dry season crops, crab problems, lack of capital to make micro-business, animal diseases including pest, Newcastle, food and mouth disease, lack of agronomic technique and pig raising technique, and lack of vocational skills. Kantreang commune Second deputy commune Chief: Mr. Thok Rith Main livelihood activities: Wet and Dry season rice farming, animal raising, sugar palm production, vegetable growing, fishing and selling labor. Challenges: Drought, flood, lack of cropping know-how, low input investment in rice farming due to limited financial capital, poor soil fertility, lack of water use in dry season, animal disease (food and mouth disease, Newcastle). Ampil commune Commune council member: Mr. Nob Kan Main livelihood activities: Rice farming (only wet season), sugar palm production (about 50% of people living in the commune), home gardening, selling labor for construction and other jobs, basket making (the trend of basket producing is going down due to declining raw materials in the community), fishing (most of people living in the commune go to fish at the Tonle sap lake in dry season for family consumption) , and animal raising. Challenges: declining soil fertility, some farmers stopped cultivate water melon due to poor soil fertility, main canal was broken every year, most farmers lack working capital to purchase inputs to invest in crop and animal enterprises, Drought, flood, and rat problem. 1.2.6 Kampong Thom province On Friday 13th October 2006, study team was allowed to meet Director of the provincial Department of Agriculture and chief of provincial agricultural extension office. Mr. Don Bishop briefed the purposes of study team and the objectives of TSLSP to the Director in order to enable him to select target areas for study team to look at. After the briefing session, the Director advised the study team to look at certain districts and communes where farmers have livelihood activities concerning natural resources from Tonle Sap Lake. The target areas proposed by the Director appear as Annex 1.

45

Since there is not enough time to look at all the communes recommended by the director, the study team examined only two communes : Sankor andTang Krasang located in two different districts namely Kampong Svay and Santuk . Sankor commune Commune council member: Mr. Ngem Chhang Main livelihood activities: Rice farming, animal raising, field crop cultivation (water melon), home gardening, palm leaf making, and fishing (fishing is the main income sources and foods for poor farmers living in 5 villages within the commune). Challenges: Flood, drought, rat problem, few farmers could cultivate dry season rice or recession rice due to no water storage, fishes cut rice plants, farmers lake farm yard manures for rice farming, low input investment in crop and animal enterprises due to limited financial capital, water melon diseases (curly leaf and branches), market constraints for water melon (farmers could not sometimes sell water melon at the harvesting time due to low market demand so farmers have to sell water melon out at low price to the middleman, meaning that farmers have to accept the price given by middleman). Tang Krasang commune Because commune chief was not at commune office (Saturday), the Study team talked to some farmers living in two villages namely Prampimakra and Tang krasang . Based on the observation, the main livelihood activities of people are fishing, rice cultivation and animal raising. Rice cultivation is not the promising livelihood activity as farmers most farmers grow floating rice relying on unpredictable water level from Tonle Sap Lake. Poverty rate of people living in the said villages is so poor. They exchange fishes with foods. Food security is the main concerns of farmers. The villages are flooded in wet season for around 2 or 3 months. 1.3 Concluding remarks The main livelihood activities of people living in the communes visited by the study team are mostly engaged in agriculture including rice farming, field crop cultivation, animal raising, fishing, and other supplement income activities such as handicraft making, selling labor inside and outside the community (migration). The main challenges in farming faced by farmers vary from commune to commune such as lack of cropping know-how, low input investment in crop and animal enterprises due to limited financial capital, drought, flood, animal diseases: food and mouth, Newcastle, and pest, rat problem, crab problem, insects, weeds, main canals damaged, shallow distribution canals, no water storage for dry season rice, market constraints for field crop (water melon), lake of good rice seeds and varieties, and shortage of water for home consumption and animals in dry season.

46

Since the target areas for TSLSP is not yet selected, the study team could not get detailed information regarding the agriculture from the communes visited. However, the study team considers that the visited communes where are not done RRA by TSLSP’s PRA team should include in the long list for final target area selection for TSLSP. The visited communes are as following: Batteymeanchey province Preah Netr Preah and Phnum Lieb located in Preah Netr Preah district Kouk Ballang in Mongkul Borei district Batombong province Ta Meun and Ta Pung commune located in Thma Koul district Ta Loas, Prey Touch and Kakaoh communes located in Moung Russei district Pursat province Sna Ansa , and Tnaot Chum communes located in krakor district Sya and Kandieng communes located in Kandieng district Kaoh Chum commune in Sampov Meas district Kampong Chhnang province Kampong Tralach and Chres communes located in Kampong Tralach district Anhchanh Rung, and Phsar communes located in Bariobour district Seim Reab province Yeang and Somraong Yea communes located in Puok district Kantreang, Roluos, and Mean Chey communes located in Prasat Bakong district Kampong Thom province Sankor and Damrei Slap communes located in Kampong Svay district Tang Krasang commune located in Santuk district

47

APPENDIX 2. TIP BASE COSTS Base Costs - DAE/CAAEP II Technology Implementation Procedures (TIPs)

Category Unit Unit cost Rice Variety

Selection (1)

Rice Soils Identification

(2)

Rodent Control -

TBS (3)

Compost (5)

Vegetable Home Garden

(6)

Lowland Forages

(9)

Forage - Leucaena

(10)

Land Leveling

(11)

Farmer group (a) farmer n/a 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Key Farmer Contribution (b)

items n/a labour paddy field

labour paddy soil

pit

labour paddy field rice crop

labour OM

materials

labour garden tools

labour garden tools

labour garden tools

labour paddy field rice crop

Demo Sites Inputs (c) materials Total value $150 $5 $170 $30 $120 $180 $180 $100

Farmer Group Training (d)

materials $1 per farmer

$30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30

Farmer Group Training (e) - snacks

events $1 per farmer

per event

$90 $30 $90 $60 $90 $90 $90 $90

Field day - snacks (f) 50 farmer

per event

$0.5 per day

$25 $0 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25

Field day - materials (g) events $10 $10 $0 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 DAO - DSA (h) - Training/Site Supervision

days 12 days @ $3.5

= $42

$42 3 days @ $3.5 = $10.5

$42 $42 $42 $42 $42 $42

DAO - Travel Alowance (i)

days $2 per day $24 $6 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24

SMS Field Monitoring (j)

visit 2 visits @ $10 =

$20

$20 $10 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20

Total cost $391 $92 $411 $241 $361 $421 $421 $341 Category Notes:

48

(a) a TIP training group of 30 farmers with two (2) key farmer demonstration sites per group (except 1 site for "multiple pig fattening" with 15 farmers) (b) Key Farmer contribution to demo might include the provision of farm land, poultry/livestock, tools/materials and demo site maintenance/labour (c) Base cost inputs for key farmer demo can include seed, fertiliser, livestock feedstuffs, shelter, tools, animal hire and water supplement (d) Farmer technoguides might include manuals, handouts, visual aids and posters as part of the TIP delivery process (e) all Farmer group training involves three (3) events of 1 day duration, except compost making = 2 events and soils identification = 1 event (f) Field day is a once only event, for half day, and may involve 40-60 neighbouring farmers (g) Field day materials include loud hailer, plastic sheets, displays (h) DAO - DSA includes 4 days on site selection/establishment/supervision, 6 days on training for three events, 2 days on field day (i) motorbike allowance is $2 per day for 12 days (j) PDA - SMS technical support and TIP training monitoring for two demo site visits TIP Notes (1. Rice variety) Inputs/site - rice seed (3 varieties AQIP) 10 kg= $15, fertiliser (urea + DAP)= $10, plot materials (pegs, tape, labels, scales) = $30 Demo site preparation and maintenance fee to farmer = $20. Total inputs/site = $75 therefore inputs for two sites = $150 Farmer contribution/ site - 400 m2 paddy field (8 plots), seed - traditional variety, nursey/field preparation, transplanting and crop care (2. Soil Identify) a one(1) day training event. Inputs include labour to dig/refill the soil pit = $5. Training materials include soil color chart and soil ID key Farmer contribution/ site - tools, labour and access to soil pit site (3. Rat control) Inputs/site include TBS materials (string, posts, plastic sheet, wire netting, record books) = $65. Water pump supplement = $10 Training materials - trap making = $10. Total = $85. Inputs for two sites = $170. Farmer contribe 25mx25m paddy field, rice crop, cropcare and labour (4.Rice Seed Storage) (5. Compost) Inputs/site include compost shlter materials $6, labour $5, compost materials (lime etc) $4. Total = $15/site. A two (2) day taraining event. Inputs for two sites = $15 @ 2 = $30. Farmer contribution/ site - compost pit, organic matter, tools, labour (6. Vegetable) Inputs/site include seed and seedlings $10, seedling trays $5, garden fencing $20, watercan/tools $10, nylon netting $5, compost/ferts $10 Inputs for two site = $60 @ 2 = $120. Farmer contribution/ site - 60 m2 garden, tools, water supply, compost/potting mix, labour

49

Single Pig Fattening

(12)

Multiple Pig

Fattening (13)

Single Breeding

Sow (14)

Vaccination Pig (SF)

(15)

Cattle Fattening

(16)

Vaccination Cattle (HS)

(17)

Vaccination Cattle (FMD) (18)

Hen & Chick Management

(19)

Broilers & Layers

(20)

Vaccination Poultry (ND) (21)

Farmer group (a)

30 15 30 1000 pigs/ commune

30 1000 cattle/ commune

1000 cattle/ commune

30 30 3000 birds/ commune

Key Farmer Contribution (b)

labour 1 piglet

7kg feeds

labour 6 piglet feeds

labour preg. sow

feeds

$0 labour 2 cattle

feed bins

$0 $0 labour hen/chick

VAHW

labour hen/chick

VAHW

$0

Demo Sites Inputs (c)

$90 $261 $112 $100 $123 $100 $100 $80 $280 $100

Farmer Group Training (d)

$30 $15 $30 $200 $30 $200 $200 $30 $30 $200

Farmer Group Training (e) - snacks

$90 $45 $90 $0 $90 $0 $0 $90 $90 $0

Field day - snacks (f)

$25 $25 $25 $0 $25 $0 $0 $25 $25 $0

Field day - materials (g)

$10 $10 $10 $400 $10 $250 $2,400 $10 $10 $150

DAO - DSA (h) - Training/Site Supervision

$42 $42 $42 50d = $175 10 VAHW

$42 50d = $175 10 VAHW

50d = $175 10 VAHW

$42 $42 50d = $175 10 VAHW

DAO - Travel Alowance (i)

$24 $24 $24 $100 $24 $100 $100 $24 $24 $100

SMS Field Monitoring (j)

$20 $20 $20 $40 DAO - AHP

$20 $40 DAO - AHP

$40 DAO - AHP

$20 $20 $40 DAO - AHP

Total cost $331 $442 $353 $1,015 $364 $865 $3,015 $321 $521 $765

50

TIP Notes:

(9.Lowland forages) Inputs/site include seed/cutings $25, plot fencing $30, draft hire $15, water supplement $10, compost/ferts $10 = total $90 Inputs for two site = $90 @ 2 = $180. Farmer contribution/ site - 400 m2 garden, tools, water supply, labour (10. Leucaena) Inputs/site include seed/cutings $25, plot fencing $30, draft hire $15, water supplement $10, compost/ferts $10 = total $90 Inputs for two site = $90 @ 2 = $180. Farmer contribution/ site - 400 m2 garden, tools, water supply, labour (11. Land Leveling) Inputs/site include Kuyon/draft animal hire for 2 days@$18 = $36, water pump $6, water tube level $5, labour $3. Total = $50. Inputs for two site = $50 @ 2 = $100. Farmer contribution/ site - 3 rai paddy field, tools, water supply, labour (12. Single pig fatten) Inputs/site include 30 kg feed concentrate $20, water/feed bins $7, scales/tape $5, medicine/vaccine $3, VAHW (10 visits @ $1) $10 Inputs/two site = $45 @ 2 = $90. Farmer contribution/ site - one 7 kg piglet - rice bran 80 kg - broken rice 50 kg - food garden and labour Feed high protein ration (1:1:1) for 80 days to reach 45 kg LW then feed traditional ration for 30 days to reach 60 kg LW (feed to appetite) (13. Multiple pig fatten) Inputs/site include 340 kg feed concentrate $205, water/feed bins $10, scales/tape $5, medicine/vaccine $20, VAHW (20 visits @ $1) $20 Inputs/one (1) site = $260. Farmer contribution - six @ 7 kg piglet - rice bran 518 kg - broken rice 518 kg - food garden and labour. One (1) site for 15 farmers Feed high protein ration (1:1:1) for 80 days to reach 45 kg LW then feed 1:2:2 for 70 days to reach 90 kg LW (feed to appetite) (Conc:BR;Bran) (14. Breeding sow) Inputs/site include 30 kg feed concentrate $20, water/feed bins $10, scales/tape $5, medicine and vaccine $15, VAHW (6 visit @ $1) $6 . Total = $56 Inputs/two site = $56 @ 2 = $112. Farmer contribution/ site - one pregnant sow - rice bran 60 kg - broken rice 60 kg - food garden and labour (15. Pig vacciate)Commune Vacc. program based on "coupon"system - all materials supplied. Inputs refer to 2 planning phase and 2 follow-up phase meetings. Farmer training materials include cold chain($50), leaflets($50), posters($50) and program info($50). DAO-OHP attends 4 meetings plus field Swine Fever vaccine =$400 (800 riel/dose x 2 dose x 1000 head). Vaccination completed by 10 VAHW in 5 days (16. Cattle fatten) Demo is "fattening" two cattle for slaughter, feeding fresh grass (ad lib) and protein concentrate for 60 days. weight gain = 750 gram/head/day Farmer contribution (one site) is two cattle > 200 kg each = 2 @ $190 = $380, feed bin, shelter and labour Demo inputs (one site) include 450 kg feed concentrate @ 700 riel = $80, fresh grass 1400 kg @ 100 riel = $40, medicine/vaccine $3 (total = $123) (16. Cattle fatten) Demo is "fattening" two cattle for slaughter, feeding fresh grass (ad lib) and protein concentrate for 60 days. weight gain = 750 gram/head/day Farmer contribution (one site) is two cattle > 200 kg each = 2 @ $190 = $380, feed bin, shelter and labour Demo inputs (one site) include 450 kg feed concentrate @ 700 riel = $80, fresh grass 1400 kg @ 100 riel = $40, medicine/vaccine $3 (total = $123)

51

Pond Fish Production

(24)

Tilapia Hatchery

Management (25)

Paddy Fish Management

(26)

30

labour

fish pond fish feed

$104

$30

$90

$25

$10 $42

$24

$20

$345 TIP Notes:

(17. Cattle vaccine - HS) Commune wide program based on "coupon"system - all materials supplied. Inputs refer to 2 planning phase and 2 follow-up phase meetings. Farmer training materials include cold chain($50), leaflets($50), posters($50) and program info($50). DAO-OHP attends 4 meetings plus field visit Haemorragic Septicaemia vaccine =$250 (500 riel/dose x 2 dose x 1000 head). Vaccination completed by 10 VAHW in 5 days (18. Cattle vaccine - FMD) Commune wide program based on "coupon"system - all materials supplied. Inputs refer to 2 planning phase and 2 follow-up phase meetings. Farmer training materials include cold chain($50), leaflets($50), posters($50) and program info($50). DAO-OHP attends 4 meetings plus field visit

52

Foot and Mouth vaccine =$2,400 (4,800 riel/dose x 2 dose x 1000 head). Vaccination completed by 10 VAHW in 5 days (19. Hen and chick) Inputs for one 45 day cycle include coup $5, netting $20, feeds $15 = $40. Inputs for 2sites = $80

Farmer contribution/site - one cycle of five hens plus cock giving 40 surviving chicks - food garden/labour - VAHW costs (20. Broilers) Inputs for one 120 day cycle include housing $100, feeds $1 per bird = $140. Inputs for 2sites = $280 Farmer contribution/site - 40 grower birds produced/vacc in "hen and chick" TIP - food garden/labour - VAHW costs (21. Poultry vaccine) Commune wide program based on "coupon"system - all materials supplied. Inputs refer to 2 planning phase and 2 follow-up phase meetings. Farmer training materials include cold chain($50), leaflets($50), posters($50) and program info($50). DAO-OHP attends 4 meetings plus field visit Newcastle disease vaccine =$150 (100 riel/dose x 2 dose x 3000 head). Vaccination completed by 10 VAHW in 5 days (22. Duck raising)

Non Tip Agricultural Projects Rice Growing F/trees Upland crop/systems Community VHAW

Upland

Rice (1)

FFS/IPM (2)

Short Course

(3)

Fruit tree (4)

Integrated Farming System

(5)

Grain/Oil/ Pulse Crops

(6)

Community Fisheries

(7)

Community Forestry

(8)

VAHW - new (9)

VAHW refresher course

(10)

VAHW Association

(11)

Farmer group (a) 30 30 30 30 30 30 300 300 10 10 20

Key Farmer Contribution (b)

labour rice field

labour rice/vege

field

labour demo site

labour orchard water

labour field

water

labour field

labour fish

resource

labour forest

resource

$0 $0 $0

Demo Sites Inputs (c)

$150 $400 $150 $200 $350 $150 $300 $300 $1,100 $400 $50

Farmer Group Training (d)

$30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $100 $100 $300 $100 $20

Farmer Group Training (e) - snacks

$90 $50 $100 $90 $90 $90 $200 $200 $1x60d x10 = $600

$1x10d x10 = $100

$1x10d x10 = $100

Field day - snacks (f)

$25 $25 $0 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 $0 $0 $0

Field day - materials (g)

$10 $10 $0 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $0 $0 $0

DAO - DSA (h) - Training/Site Supervision

$42 18day=$185 3 trainer

5day = $80 2 trainer

$42 $42 $42 $42 $42 90d = $315 1 trainers

$42 $42

DAO - Travel Alowance (i)

$24 $36 $20 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $100 $24 $24

53

SMS Field Monitoring (j)

$20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $40 $20 $20

Total cost $391 $756 $400 $441 $591 $391 $721 $721 $2,455 $686 $256

TIP Notes

(1. Upland Rice) Inputs/site - rice seed (3 varieties CARDI) 10 kg= $15, fertiliser (urea + DAP)= $10, plot materials (pegs, tape, labels, scales) = $30 Demo site preparation and maintenance fee to farmer = $20. Total inputs/site = $75 therefore inputs for two sites = $150 Farmer contribution/ site - 400 m2 rice field (8 plots), seed - traditional variety, field preparation and crop care (2. FFS/IPM) one crop cycle from planting to harvest. IPM involves biological, varietal and crop culture to reduce use of chemicals on rice and veges (3. Short course) - 5 day theory and/or practical course- examples are safe pesticide usage, power tiller O&M , farmer group strengthening, NREM/gender (4. Fruit tree) training on propagation, planting, manure/fertilizer, orchard maintenance, pruning on one (1) site Inputs include fruit tree seedlings, special nursery tools, water suply. Farmer contribution is orchard maintenance and labour (5. Integrated farming system) includes small scale fish pond, vegetables, fruit tree, pig, chicken and compost. Inputs are high cost over two seasons on one (1)site (6) oil crops include sesamae, sunflower and castor - grain includes corn, sorghum, pulse crops include peanut, mung bean, soy bean, cowpea Inputs/site - crop seed (2 varieties CARDI) 10 kg= $15, fertiliser (urea + DAP)= $10, plot materials (pegs, tape, labels, scales) = $30 Demo site preparation and maintenance fee to farmer = $20. Total inputs/site = $75 therefore inputs for two sites = $150 Farmer contribution/ site - 600 m2 upland field (6 plots), seed - traditional variety, field preparation and crop care (7) manage community fisheries resource aligned to DoFisheries guidelines (8) manage community forestry resource aligned to DoForestry guidelines (9. VAHW new)- theory 30 days plus 60 days follow up support. DAHP guigelines and modules (10. VAHW refresher) training 10 days - upgrade vet equipment (11. VAHW - Association) - Adopt APIP guidelines for VLA registration