1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Society for Community Development in Cambodia (SOFDEC) - Cambodia

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Local Agricultural Research and Extension Centre (LAREC) - Cambodia

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

09/09/2014

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

A water user group, led by a committee staff, decides about the distribution of the water during the dry season to plant dry season rice.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: During the Pol Pot regime, a dam was built to catch and store water from a temporary stream to irrigate rice during the dry season. The dam degraded over time, therefore it was repaired by a NGO to provide water for the cultivation of dry season rice. To manage it, a water user group was formed. The aim of this water user group is to have a fair distribution of the water hold by the dam among the farmers located downstream. The water user group is led by an elected committee staff of 5 members, who are the direct contact persons for the individual farmers and village chiefs, as well as for the provincial department of hydrology.

Methods: A former local NGO, PRASAC (now a microfinance institute), which repaired the dam and gates, organised a meeting with the three concerned villages to elect a committee responsible for the management of the water. The committee, consisting of a chief, a vice-chief, a secretary and an accounting, and two managers of the gates (each responsible for one gate) is responsible for the fair distribution of the water. The chief is the contact person for the village chiefs or the farmers themselves, who can request water. He is the contact person for the provincial department of hydrology as well.

Stages of implementation: The water user group was elected in 2002, when the dam was fixed. A short training was given to the committee which was then left on its own for the management. After tensions that occurred between farmers, the committee asked for advice in the provincial department of hydrology, which was passed off to CDRI (Cambodia Development Resource Institute), a local NGO. The CDRI conducted meetings and acted as a mediator, since then no tensions occurred anymore between water users as they introduced weekly schedules.

Role of stakeholders: The chief and vice chief are responsible for the distribution of the water. The two gate managers are controlling the gates.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

A fair distribution of water among the farmers, to produce rice during the dry season as well.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The approach was designed to avoid conflicts on the use of water resources, and to allow rice production during the dry season.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	none
planning	none
implementation	passive	The committee was elected, and acts until today.
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• SLM specialists alone

Explain:

The former NGO, PRASAC, fixed the dam that was constructed during the Pol Pot regime. The farmers had to be persuaded to plant dry season rice.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by SLM specialists alone (top-down). The NGO decided that the water user group should be managed that way, organised an election and the same staff works since then.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

Growing of dry season rice. The Provincial Dept. of Agriculture rented 100 ha and planted dry season rice. Since then the farmers plant it by themselves.

The staff was trained to work alone managing the water gates.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

In case the chief is confronted with a problem, he approaches the Provincial Department of Agriculture. The chief is then either redirected to a NGO or gets help by the Provincial Department of Agriculture.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The committee staff provides the water for free, the maintenance costs have to be financed by the provincial dept. of hydrology. PRASAC provided a financial reserve for the maintenance somewhere in the government, but neither the water user group chief nor the secretary/accountant know where this account is.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Water level is monitored daily by committee chief, data reported to provincial dept. of hydrology.
There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Weekly schedules were established to avoid conflicts between villages. CDRI was working as a mediator.
There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: national non-government (PRASAC): 100.0%; local community / land user(s) (Staff consists of volunteers )

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• infrastructure

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

Comments:

the water user group staff works for free.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

It is unclear what would happen if the dam needs maintenance but the provincial dept. of hydrology would not be willing to pay the maintenance costs.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Improved livelihoods, three times more rice production and water vegetables as well as fish during the whole year.
No pumps are needed.
Farmers help each other with the water. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Regular meetings. )

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
There is no money for maintenance activities.
Nobody wants to work as committee staff as they don’t get any salary for this work.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
No regular elections, nor bottom up improvements. Everything comes from outside.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information