Who are the Users?

Best practice guidelines developed during the project are currently being used by households in Cambodia and Northeast Thailand where community members continue to implement management practices agreed during LRUG meetings to enhance SRS productivity in their farming systems. Management activities put into practice include; deepening ponds, creating pathways between water bodies, maintenance of wild and stocked broodstock by avoiding total harvest and pond drainage, stocking of fish from captured in rice fields into ponds, and stocking of hatchery seed. These activities facilitate migration of wild and stocked SRS between seasonally interconnected water bodies (rice fields, trap ponds, household ponds and perennial water sources), enhances stocks by creating refugia and other suitable habitat which encourage recruitment and survival, and allows for staggered harvesting, thereby extending the period over which they can be consumed. Pesticide use in these systems is also reduced to encourage the survival of animals in them. The interconnectedness of rice field/wetland ecosystems means that collective management is an extremely important if productivity is to be enhanced as part of this process since individual actions will create little impact. However, flooded rice fields are treated as common property resources meaning that non-participating community members are able to benefit from access to them. Farmers and communities with access to small managed areas of water, day labourers and their families, low-income purchasers and consumers with limited access to wider fish markets all benefited from management. Poorer households rely significantly more on SRS than better off households.

Where the outputs have been used:

Outputs are currently being employed by end users (farmers and other community members with access to interconnected water bodies) in Northeast Thailand, lowland Cambodia and drought prone and one flood prone area in Bangladesh. Disseminated knowledge products are being used institutionally in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam. And information has also been distributed to relevant institutions in India, Indonesia and Lao PDR. Out of all the target countries, dissemination in Bangladesh was the most advanced due to good relationships with supporting institutions in the country. Institutions and organisations in the country are already aware of the importance of non-stocked aquatic animals and receptive to further information dissemination. CARE - Sri Lanka has adopted approaches to irrigation system management developed during AFGRP research in their programme planning for implementation across the country.

Scale of Current Use:

In Cambodia six villages, four in Svay Rieng province and two in Takeo province were targeted during the intervention. An additional six neighbouring villages in each province have since implemented similar management practices having observed their efficacy. Local resource user groups in all of these communities operate with the support of the Department of Fisheries. This amounts to use by 2435 households in Cambodia in a total of 18 villages. An NGO, Catholic Relief Services (CRS), has adopted the LRUG model as an effective tool for other forms of community based natural resource management in several locations. The five villages in Thailand where LRUGs were established continue to implement their management decisions, although the groups stopped meeting when institutional facilitation ceased. Dissemination of materials highlighting the significance of SRS and advocating management techniques which enhance their production continues. In Bangladesh and Cambodia, fisheries officials support this dissemination by directly involving their staff in the production of materials, and extension messages in Thailand and Cambodia have been altered to take into account the importance of SRS.

Policy and Institutional Structures, and Key Components for Success:

The participation of multiple stakeholders in the project (i.e. policy makers, teachers, field extension workers, farmers, officers from agriculture and fisheries departments, NGOs and donors) and their key role in production of extension and dissemination materials has assisted greatly in their uptake and adoption. For instance dissemination activities in Cambodia were successful in part due to the involvement of the Director General of the Department of Fisheries who, in addition to supporting the production and distribution of dissemination materials, was also involved in their editing and translation. In the SE Asian sites LRUGs were the key platform from which promotion and adoption took place. Provincial fisheries stations operated by the Thai Department of Fisheries (DOF) operate projects for the promotion of rice-fish culture using approaches similar to the local resource user group model and overlap between the two has proven helpful. The decentralisation of power for natural resource management to the sub-district level which has occurred in Thailand in recent years is advantageous because it increases the flexibility of local government officials. As a result some Thai DOF officers have adopted participatory approaches to extension. In Vietnam government officials lack the autonomy to implement approaches such as these unless they are centrally sanctioned. Promoting resource management through LRUGs is effective in building local capacity at the grassroots level because it facilitates the establishment of informal institutions through farmer cooperation. Management of enhanced fisheries in Sri Lanka was implemented through the indigenous local institutions, 'death donation societies' that existed in each village. Because of their long history, broad membership, and regular meetings these proved an ideal conduit through which communal management could take place.

---

Lessons Learned and Uptake Pathways

Promotion of Outputs:

The Department of Fisheries in Cambodia currently acts as a facilitator for LRUGs managing SRS and the LRUG model has been adopted in Cambodia for promotion by CRS. Dissemination materials are being promoted in the seven Asian countries listed above by the Support to Regional Aquatic Resources Management programme (an FAO, NACA and DFID partnership). These materials have been used to raise awareness of the importance of SRS among relevant institutions and policy making bodies in selected provinces of each country. Promotion has been nationwide in Bangladesh and Cambodia. Promotion of irrigation system management approaches by CARE - Sri Lanka based the results of AFGRP research has been implemented although it is not presently known on what scale.

Potential Barriers Preventing Adoption of Outputs:

Lack of institutional ability to support existing LRUGs and form new ones has prevented their continuation in Thailand and limited the scale of uptake in Cambodia. Institutional emphasis on commercial aquatic animal production in Vietnam runs contrary to promotion of management of SRS for largely subsistence purposes, although the policy makers from the Ministry of Fisheries Aquaculture for Poverty Alleviation Strategy (SAPA) have expressed interest in further development of the concept given sufficient funding. In drier areas of Cambodia and NE Thailand a prolonged period of drought led to the cessation of two LRUGs. Neither marketing nor infrastructure issues pose a significant barrier to adoption of communal SRS and stock enhancement techniques since inputs (e.g. wild fry) are sourced locally from public water bodies and as the majority of consumption is of a subsistence nature.

How to Overcome Barriers to Adoption of Outputs:

Limited institutional capacity at the provincial and district level is the major barrier to adoption of short-crop aquatic production techniques at present. Increased awareness amongst high level policy makers in fisheries departments regarding the importance of and benefits derived from SRS and their high potential for integration into farmer managed aquatic systems could lead to more widespread promotion of this knowledge in the field. Training and increased support for government extension staff and NGO workers in LRUG facilitation and participatory extension techniques would increase the scope and impact of community based management techniques.

Lessons Learned:

Cambodia and Bangladesh offer the best examples of positive impact on poor people. This is because greater awareness of the benefits associated with SRS has been achieved in these countries than elsewhere in the region. High level fisheries staff have taken on board and endorsed promotional messages here and this information ahs filtered down to local level extension officials and NGO workers. The involvement of and international coordinator (STREAM) has facilitated the dissemination of information internationally through its networking capabilities. It has also proven critical for any interventions to be appropriately targeted. Uncritical targeting and inappropriate development risks poor or negative impacts. This is critical in the context of common property resources where a broadening of focus from household to community is required to predict who might benefit and lose. Because of the fundamental role of inland fisheries in rural livelihood security, equitable distribution should be prioritised above macro-level economic growth. Conventional efforts to promote aquaculture in seasonal water-bodies have focused on technical innovations, i.e. identifying what species of fish to stock, how to produce the required fingerlings and the optimal stocking strategies. Unfortunately, such efforts have not been sustainable nor delivered benefits to the poorest groups. As both SRS management and fisheries enhancement as piloted in Sri Lanka are strongly pro-poor development tools they are most effectively applied to these social groups.

---

Impacts on Poverty

Poverty Impact Studies: 

No formal poverty impact studies have taken place to date, but a final technical report, dissemination impact assessment and two PhD theses have all documented the impacts of LRUGs on livelihoods

How the Poor have Benefited (including gender and other poverty groups):

Positive livelihood impacts have been recorded in the four countries where SRS trials took place. In terms of natural capital, yields of aquatic animals were improved in each. This was also the case for financial capital, with a corresponding increase in earned income and reduced expenditure on food in each country. Physical capital increased for similar reasons due to more efficient water use and conservation, and improvements made to farmers' systems (e.g. deepening of trap ponds). Human capital was enhanced because farmers and consumed more aquatic animals, increased their knowledge of how to culture stocked fish and manage wild species together and learned group management techniques. Social learning was a key element of both projects resulting in enhancements of capital among LRUG members and small-tank communities which led to improved relationships. In Cambodia and Thailand harvested SRS were shared with other community members. In general the greatest benefits were derived trough improvements to human and social assets

In the three SE Asian countries LRUG members were the major beneficiaries. Community members who did not participate in the groups also obtained some benefits since the increasing abundance of aquatic animals was not spatially limited to the systems of group members. Qualitative surveys of 120 participants in Bangladesh indicated the potential of SRS to reduce gender disparity in fish consumption. Deliberate inclusion of SRS in aquaculture also expands niche benefits for non-pond owners and vulnerable professional groups such as fishers during the 'lean season' since fish from ponds are available during dry months when SRS from open access waters are less plentiful. SRS also play an important role in producing social capital in Bangladesh where they are often offered as gifts to neighbours and relatives.  Small fish from aquaculture systems are also frequently part of payment in kind for workers or are sold at low prices, thereby contributing to the livelihoods of poor non-fish farmers in rural and urban areas. In Sri Lanka, the poorest, most marginalised communities were found to gain more from stock enhancement of tanks than richer communities, and so practiced communal management more effectively. Within individual communities, the poorest households were found to consume the greatest quantities of fish stocked during trials.

As research findings trialled through interventions to promote SRS production and enhance tank fisheries were of an experimental nature absolute numbers of people impacted are relatively small at present, and exact number are not known. 2435 households in Cambodia in a total of 18 villages currently manage SRS through LRUGs. In Bangladesh year round participatory trials in which entry of wild SRS into carp ponds was encouraged were carried out with 29 farmers. 108 households participated in trials in Thailand and Vietnam. Six communities participated in stock enhancement activities in Sri Lanka

In Bangladesh SRS yields more than doubled with no measurable negative impact on carp production. Furthermore, SRS accounted for 24% of total household fish consumed from trial ponds. In the three SE Asian countries it was not possible to disaggregate consumption of purchased fish or those harvested in open water bodies from that of SRS since they were often of the same species. However, LRUG members in all three countries reported increased yields from their systems.  Variability between sites in Sri Lanka makes it difficult to provide an overall measure of increases in production and consumption of fish resulting from stock enhancement. However, to give an example, of the type of impact achievable, 65% of fish consumption among poor households in one village was derived from a tank which had previously contained no fish.

---

Environmental Impact

Direct and Indirect Environmental Benefits:

The major environmental benefit associated with enhanced management of SRS is the increased abundance of wild aquatic animals in farmers managed systems. Unsustainable practices such as total harvest of trap ponds are discouraged in favour of brood stock maintenance. Stocks of juvenile fish were also protected, and in some cases captured and restocked in nearby water bodies to enhance production. Pesticide application was reduced in order to improve the productivity and biodiversity of rice fields and surrounding ecosystems. Habitat improvements such as the deepening of trap ponds, opening up of corridors between the different components of wetland systems and habitat creation. In Cambodia indiscriminate harvesting practices such as electrofishing and trapping of migrating fish with certain fishing gears have been banned. This complements proactive management by LRUGS, and reduced harvest by these methods is compensated for by the higher yields obtained from farmer managed systems. The total amount of SRS consumed over the year is strongly correlated with diversity of SRS species consumed and emphasising the significance of maintaining biodiversity.

Adverse Environmental Impacts:

There are no recorded adverse environmental impacts.

Coping with the Effects of Climate Change, or Risk from Natural Disasters:

Enhanced management of SRS extends the period over which they can be harvested. In traditional systems the bulk of fishing/capture activities are highly seasonal. Consumption is highest during the late wet and dry seasons. Management practices instituted by LRUGs such as conservation of brood fish mean that stocks are maintained throughout the year and harvesting is staggered. This makes beneficiaries more resilient to food shortages then they would otherwise be. Preservation of fish from these systems by basic processing (e.g. drying, fermenting) also enhances food security in the face of climatic events (e.g. drought, flooding).