Rural Development Program Kampot

RURAL DEVELOPMENT in KAMPOT PROVINCE,
CAMBODIA
REPORT
on the
PROGRAM OF WORKS
implemented on behalf of
APHEDA-Union Aid Abroad
Aug 2000 to Aug 2001
A component of the AusAID supported program
ADULT EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR
POOR RURAL AND URBAN COMMUNITIES
1999-2001
Prepared for
APHEDA-Union Aid Abroad, Cambodia
By
Brian Lund
Principal Consultant
Lund & Associates

RURAL DEVELOPMENT in KAMPOT PROVINCE, CAMBODIA
REPORT on the PROGRAM OF WORKS 2000 - 2001
Prepared by Lund & Associates page 2 of 43

Contents
1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................4
2 Program in General............................................................................................................4
2.1 Terms of Reference.....................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Education and Training..........................................................................................4
2.1.2 Project Co-ordination.............................................................................................4
2.2 Implementation.............................................................................................................5
2.3 Summary of achievements...........................................................................................5
3 Aquaculture Extension........................................................................................................6
3.1 Aims.............................................................................................................................7
3.2 Implementation.............................................................................................................7
3.3 Program implementation..............................................................................................7
3.3.1 Pond Digging 2001................................................................................................7
3.3.2 Pond rearing (fingerlings to harvest) 2001.............................................................9
3.3.3 Pond rearing (fingerlings to harvest) 2000...........................................................10
3.3.4 Farmer Fish Stations 2001...................................................................................11
3.3.5 Overall program to 2001......................................................................................14
3.4 Recommendations.....................................................................................................15
3.4.1 General................................................................................................................15
3.4.2 Pond digging program.........................................................................................16
3.4.3 Pond Rearing.......................................................................................................16
3.4.4 Community ponds / Fish refuge...........................................................................16
3.4.5 Farmer Fish Stations...........................................................................................17
4 Aquaculture Production....................................................................................................18
4.1 Implementation...........................................................................................................19
4.1.1 Production targets 2001.......................................................................................19
4.2 Achievements.............................................................................................................20
4.3 Future direction..........................................................................................................21
4.3.1 Market development............................................................................................21
4.3.2 Management & operations...................................................................................22
4.3.3 Development of training facility............................................................................23
4.4.1 Revise support.....................................................................................................23
4.4.2 APHEDA as a client.............................................................................................23
4.4.3 Target groups for training....................................................................................24
5 Agriculture Extension IPM.................................................................................................25
5.1 Aims...........................................................................................................................26
5.2 Implementation...........................................................................................................26
6 Agriculture Extension WID................................................................................................30
6.1 Background................................................................................................................31
6.2 Implementation...........................................................................................................31
6.2.1 Home vegetable gardens.....................................................................................32
6.2.2 Small nursery - Tree growing...............................................................................32
6.2.3 Site Planning.......................................................................................................33
6.2.4 Site construction & orchard establishment...........................................................33
6.3 Pilot program..............................................................................................................34
7 HIV/AIDS Awareness........................................................................................................36
7.1 Background................................................................................................................36
7.2 Implementation ..........................................................................................................36
8 Community Forestry.........................................................................................................38
8.1 Background................................................................................................................38
8.2 Implementation...........................................................................................................38

9 File references..................................................................................................................40
1 Introduction
• This report provides a summary of the program of works undertaken by Lund &
Associates on behalf of APHEDA, Union Aid Abroad in 2000 –2001.
• The program of works being the Rural Development component of the AusAID
supported APHEDA program ADULT EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR POOR
RURAL AND URBAN COMMUNITIES1999-2001
• The report is designed to give a general outline of the program of works,
implementation and results
• The report is cross-referenced with many documents originating from the program of
works in order to provide additional detail where needed. These documents can be
accessed by hyperlink (CD copy) or by reference to the file path provided.
• All other documents originating from the program of works have also been filed on
the CD copy and can be accessed by desktop navigation. This is intended to
provide:
o Complete detail of the program of works
o Easy access to data and documents of value to future projects and reports.
2 Program in General
2.1 Terms of Reference
• Taken from job description provided by APHEDA Union Aid Abroad.
2.1.1 Education and Training
• Develop and undertake appropriate training of trainers (ToT) program in
Permaculture design techniques for selected farmer representatives and Agricultural
Department staff.
• To advise and assist the ToT group to develop and implement appropriate
Permaculture training for farmers within existing fish farming and integrated Pest
Management farmer training programs.
• Assist to develop appropriate programs of field follow-up for farmers in the program
2.1.2 Project Co-ordination
• Develop the capacity building program of the Kampot provincial fish station at
Chhouk, through advices and support to areas such as management, long term
planning and training needs.
• Monitor APHEDA’s program of co-operation with the Kampot Department of
Agriculture
• Liaise with government and other authorities concerning the project area outlined
including issues of sustainability for the fish station

• Liaise with relevant NGO’s NGO Coordination Committees, IO’s and donor bodies in
related agricultural areas including identification of additional funding sources.
• Administrative and Reporting functions
2.2 Implementation
• The program was implemented by
o Brian Lund, Principal Consultant, Lund & Associates engaged as
Agricultural Advisor to APHEDA
• Program assistance was provided by
o Tep Sary, Project Officer, APHEDA based in Kampot
o Staff of the APHEDA Office in Phnom Penh
2.3 Summary of achievements
• Developed a program of integrated agriculture and domestic aquaculture projects for
the 2000-2001 season. Endorsed and implemented by program Partners1
• Clarified role of Chhouk Fish Station (CFS) as a provider of fish seed to the local
domestic market and as potential training centre. Providing managerial direction and
support with a view to improving production capacity and quality, developing a
wholesale/retail network and achieving financial self-sustainability.
• Strengthened domestic aquaculture extension program (268 participants), through
support of extension team, promotion of group extension techniques, revision of past
program, introduction of Farmer Fish Stations (FFS) as a target group,
• Supported continued development of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Farmer
Field Schools as a vehicle for farmer training, information sharing and community
development. (180 participants).
• Developed a new integrated agriculture program to operate from WID Centres. The
program to target young women attending the Centres. (Potential participation 320
pa). Included training of trainers, establishment of demonstrations and on-site
resources, pilot implementation.
• Improved the mechanism for co-operation with partners.
o Program and budget development, project management experience and
technical skills transfer.
o Introduction of Salary Support agreements2
and job descriptions for staff from
Partner organisations.
o Reporting and financial procedures
• Provided assistance in advancing Community Forestry Program. An initiative of
APHEDA and KamDAFF.

3 Aquaculture Extension

3.1 Aims
• The program included 3 components in 2001
• To train 200 farmers to Pond Rear fingerlings to harvest, (~60 day old to market
size). This was accomplished through a 4-day training program that was
complimented by the supply of 200 fingerlings free to trainee farmers plus follow-up
farm visits throughout the first season. The component also included follow-up
support and evaluation of 155 farmers that received this training in 2000
• To provide additional support to 100 poorer families which do not have ponds. This
component included training in pond digging technique as well as in-kind support
through a food-for-rice program. The rice being recompense for income generation
foregone whilst the families dig ponds3
. These families would be amongst the 200
trained to rear fingerlings to harvest.
• To train 10 farmers to rear fry to fingerlings (15 days to ~60 days old). These farmers
would then purchase fry from CFS at a wholesale price, rear them and retail to the
wider community4
.
3.2 Implementation
• An aquaculture extension project was developed for the 2000-2001 season. It was
designed over several days of consultation with the extension staff. This was
presented in the form of an agreement and endorsed by the KamDAFF. Program
components on file5
• The team included6
o Sor Sorin Extension Team Leader
o King Sophanny Extension Officer
o Pheum Phalla Extension Officer
o Sim Vanhieng Liaison Officer
• The extension staff was primarily responsible for implementing the program as
described whilst the Liaison Officer was responsible for encouraging cohesion within
the overall program, particularly between extension and production components 7
.
• Coordination of the program was maintained through regular communications and
meetings8
. In addition staff where required to provide monthly reports9
3.3 Program implementation
3.3.1 Pond Digging 2001
• 101 farmers were selected for the pond-digging program10
. With the intention of
including these farmers in the rearing pond training, (fingerling to harvest) once their
ponds were complete.

Pond digging – participants in 2001.
Category Number
Women 69
Men 31
- Widowed families - 11
- Handicapped families - 10
- Dang Tung WID
Centre
- 1
Total trainees 101
Distribution of farmers selected for pond digging
• WFP agreed to provide rice to 27 of the participating farmers living in WFP target
villages and IFAD/GTZ agreed to provide rice to the remaining 74 farmers. This was
a commitment of between 300 to 400 kg of rice per farmer calculated in lieu of
income earning potential forgone whilst digging.
• The DAFF team and WFP staff undertook an initial site assessment of the selected
sites (ensuring appropriateness) and then collective agreements where signed
including Commune and District Chief representation.
• Farmers where trained in Feb in pond digging technique. Pond digging and
monitoring commenced. However, a particularly wet period in March11
caused
localized flooding that prevented farmers from completing their ponds. A collective
decision involving the extension team and farmer representatives was made to
postpone the program and resume next season. In hindsight, the wet period was
followed by an extended dry period that would have allowed the farmers to complete
their ponds.
• Further negotiation with WFP in Aug resulted in their preparedness to resume their
initial in-kind commitment but for all the 101 farmers as long as the ponds where
completed in the current calendar year. At the time of this report there was some
concern that the farmers would not be able to achieve this and that the support
would be forfeit.

Value to the community
Average pond size 120 m2
Total pond area 12,120 m2
Average rice allocation 300kg Total rice allocation 30,300 kg
Average value
@ 1,000reil/kg
300,000 reil
$USD 76
Total value
@101 farmers
30,300,000 reil
$USD 7, 769
3.3.2 Pond rearing (fingerlings to harvest) 2001
• The selection of farmers for the Pond Rearing program and identification of 13 group
leaders was made in April12
. (This involved some re-selection as a consequence of
the pond digging farmers postponing their projects).
Pond Rearing – participants in 2001
Category Number
Women 85
Men 95
Total trainees 160
Distribution of Pond Rearing participants 2001
• Of the group selected, all farmers had established ponds and the average pond size
was 218m2
. They where then trained in May as per the program schedule.
• These farmers also received an allocation of fodder legume seed. Fodder legumes
have considerable potential in the district as a means of improving soil fertility,
quality of grazing, fish feed options and soil conservation. Farmers where given a
brief outline of the benefits and management before 100g allocations of seed where
distributed via the Group Leaders. This they where encouraged to spread around
their ponds. The seed, training of the extension team and extension posters was
provided by the IFAD/GTZ program13
.

• Distribution of fingerlings to these farmers was scheduled for the end of August
2001. The farmers received a free allocation of 200, 30-day old fingerlings with the
option of purchasing additional fingerlings if they wanted to maximize their
production.
Potential Value to the Community
No of participants 160
Average yield (2000) 37kg/100m2
Total yield 12,900 kg
Average sale price 3,800 reil/kg Gross value of yield
49,041,000 reil
$USD 12,575
3.3.3 Pond rearing (fingerlings to harvest) 2000
• 155 Farmers trained in the previous calendar year14
continued to receive follow-up
support in 2001.
Pond Rearing – participants in 2000
Participant category Number
- Women 95
- Men 80
Total participants (2000 only) 155
Distribution of Pond rearing participants up to & incl. 2000
• Once their harvest was completed a sample of the farmers completed a qualitative
survey to assess perceived outcomes. The survey was based on a sample of 25/152
that included 10 women and 15 men15
.
The feedback was positive:
o Farmers where happy with the outcomes, they intended to continue.

o They where prepared to assist friends and neighbours interested in adopting
the same technology.
o The survey also showed a very high level of involvement of the children
within the family.
• Quantitative analysis of this component was based on a survey conducted July
2001. The survey was based on a second sample of 30/152 that included 13 women
and 17 men16
.
o Participants in 2000 collectively harvested approximately 12tonne of fish.
o The average yield was 77kg /210m2
(37kg /100 m2
) in 6 to 8 months.
o The family consumed the majority of these fish produced whilst some was
supplied to neighbours and some were sold in the village market to provide
income for other purchases and to buy fingerlings for the next season.
o Assuming a direct cost of approximately $USD4, 000 to implement the
program, the net financial worth of the component to the community was
11,400 - 4,000 = $USD 7, 400
Quantitative survey.
Sample size 30/152 (incl ♀ 13, ♂17)
Average kg consumed 62 Total kg consumed 9,370
Average kg sold 15.6 Total kg sold 2,370
Average kg
Consumption + sale
77.2
Total kg
Consumption + sales
11,740
Average price reil/kg 3,790
Average income
from sale
59,100 reil
$USD 15.20
Total income
from sales
8,981,190 reil
$USD 2, 300
Average value
Consumption + sale
292,830 reil
$USD 75.10
Gross value
Consumption + sales
44,510,220 reil
$USD 11, 412.90
3.3.4 Farmer Fish Stations 2001
• The intention of this component was to establish a network of satellite ‘Farmer Fish
Stations (FFS) to which CFS will wholesale 9 to 15 day stock. The FFS will retail to
the wider community when the stock matures to approximately 60 days.
• At this early stage the program has focused on farmers in the vicinity of CFS
because:
o These farmers live in the area that is central to the catchment area for the
program
o Back-up support is readily available from CFS
o The area is less prone to seasonal flooding than others in the catchment
area.
• This component is particularly important because:
o It provides some farmers with an additional income earning activity

o It has the potential to greatly enhance local technology exchange as these
farmers become a focal point for expertise and assistance within the
community network
o It provides DAFF with an additional vehicle for community training and
information exchange.
o It allows CFS to increase production capacities from an estimated 100,000 to
300,000 units per year to 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 units per year.
• The selection of farmers for the Farmer Fish Stations was reduced from 10 to 717
.
This was because the extension team was unable to locate enough farmers from
previous programs that fulfilled the selection criteria18
.
Farmer Fish Stations – Participants 2001
.
Women 2
Men 5
Total participants 7
Distribution of Farmer Fish Stations 2001
• The farmers received training in April and then where assisted in setting up their
ponds. They received close technical support and start-up equipment including
hapas, oxygen, plastic bags and seine nets.19
A collective wholesale supply contract
was signed (including village level authorities)20
, and the farmers took delivery of the
first batch of fry in August. Delivery involved two stages
o Farmers attended CFS to collect carp and barb.21
o APHEDA purchased Tilapia from SCALE and delivered them directly to the
farmers.22
• Gross margin estimates where calculated as follows for FFSs.

Estimate of financial benefit for a FFS participant
Pond size 150m2
Cost of 15 day fry 15 riel
Stocking rate 100fry/m2
Survival rate 60%
Sale price 60day fingerlings 60riel
Preparation and feed costs 38,000 riel
Number of fry purchased 15,000 fry
Cost of purchase 225,000 riel
Prep & feed costs 38,000 riel
Number of fingerlings reared 9,000 fingerlings
Sale price 540,000 riel
Profit (Sale price minus costs) . 277,000 riel ($USD 71 in 45 days)
• Value added at program / community level
Estimate of value added to program
.
Number of fish wholesaled 143,000
Value at wholesale (15 reil ea)
2,145,000 ($USD
550)
Number of fish retailed (60%
survival)
85,800
Value at retail (60 reil ea)
5,148,000 ($USD
1,320)
Value added
3,003,000 ($USD
770)
• The value to the community can also be extrapolated to market potential
Estimated worth of fish retailed by FFSs .
Number of fingerlings (60d) retailed by FFSs
@ 60% survival
85,800 fingerlings
Survival rate ref: SCALE (1997) 35%
Number of fish surviving to market 30,030 fish
Final weight of fish. 0.6kg ref: SCALE (1997) 18,018 kg
Potential value of fish @ 4000reil/kg
720,720, 000reil
$USD 18,480

3.3.5 Overall program to 2001
• Program participants up to and including 2001 including all aquaculture extension
program components

Aquaculture Extn Prgm participants 1999-2001
.
Pond digging 101
- Women - 69
- Men - 39
Pond rearing 461
- Women ~50%
- Men ~50%
Farmer Fish Station 7
- Women - 2
- Men - 5
Total participants 569
Distribution of Extension Program participants to 2001
3.4 Recommendations
3.4.1 General
• Over the years that KamDAFF has been partnering APHEDA it is clear that
KamDAFF has gained the experience and the staff to manage this program without
line management from APHEDA. Future programs should be negotiated on the
basis of fee-for-service whereby APHEDA makes funds available according to the
number of participants trained.
• Identifying one extension officer to be responsible for each of the Pond Digging,
Pond Rearing and FFS programs would benefit the program. The extension Officers
could still function as a team but lines of responsibility and the opportunity for
personal development would be enhanced.
• The program underutilizes the extension team. Future programs should negotiate to
a minimum of 150 farmers per officer. This figure to be increased by 50 farmers per

officer each year as more appropriate extension techniques become established,
particularly group extension.
3.4.2 Pond digging program
• The promissory arrangement negotiated with WFP at the time of this report must be
monitored/facilitated by APHEDA if farmers are to receive a satisfactory outcome.
• Whilst this component is yet to provide substantive outcomes, it has the potential to
be a very important component of the overall program because of the opportunity it
offers poorer members of the community that would otherwise be unable to take up
domestic fish farming.
• Continued cooperation with other organisations able to provide rice for ‘food for
work’ arrangements should be pursued.
• A Memorandum of Understanding between the respective organisations should
underpin negotiations. Where negotiations are conducted on a less formal basis
APHEDA’s program may be compromised. It is worth noting that APHEDA was
fortunate that IFAD/GTZ was prepared to provide assistance when WFP initially
opted to withdraw in-kind support for over 70 farmers deemed ineligible under WFP
revision of target villages. It would not have been possible to continue with the
program at the time without this promise of support.
• The end of January/February should conclude pond digging each year where
possible, given the timing of the main rice harvest. This is well before the wet season
begins but it ensures that unseasonably early rains do not compromise future
programs.
• Pond digging could be extended to include community ponds / Fish refuge projects
3.4.3 Pond Rearing
• The program has an initial dropout rate of approximately 10% before training is
complete. Future farmer selections should include an additional 10% in numbers to
compensate. This will have no significant impact on project costs but will improve
community benefit.
• Given that the allocation of free fish seed has been revised to 200 units in 2001, an
evaluation should follow that considers the propensity of participants to purchase
additional seed, the impact on participation and the impact on overall yields.
• The program should include a schedule of monitoring and evaluation of farmers that
extends beyond the first year to determine whether or not the program is
encouraging sustained change. To avoid excessive cost this could be achieved by
using a reducing sample size each year after completion.
• All components should include a short session on the use of fodder legumes,
moringa, sesbania and leucina. This session should be complimented by distribution
of some seed and/or seedlings. WID Centre nurseries could be commissioned to
propagate these tree seedlings.
3.4.4 Community ponds / Fish refuge
• Whilst the program has the potential to assist poor rural communities, the poorest
(landless) people are excluded.
• To overcome this disparity, a further component could be added to the program
whereby community ponds are developed as fish refuges. The refuges then
providing seeding stock for natural fisheries each wet season.23

• Notably, where the program focuses on native fish stocks it would also contribute to
National Biodiversity Conservation Objectives
3.4.5 Farmer Fish Stations
• Once fingerling sale from the FFSs is complete (assume the end of Sept, this
component will require evaluation, particularly given it’s potential importance to the
overall program and it’s application as a model for other project areas.
• Cooperation with this group should become the responsibility of CFS staff in second
and subsequent years given the wholesaler/retailer relationship that is to be
encouraged.
• The Chhouk District should continue as a focus for FFS development given the
comparative advantages of proximity to CFS, accessibility, water supply and
lessened flood risk. It could develop into an aquaculture ‘precinct’ able to provide fish
seed to a very large catchment.
• Future programs should include resources and training for predator insect traps.
(See CFS).

4 Aquaculture Production

4.1 Implementation
4.1.1 Production targets 2001
• The CFS production program was developed in consultation with CFS staff, with
reference to the Year 2000 Status Report24
and the outcomes of the CFS Workshop
200025
This was presented in the form of a contract and endorsed by the Partners
Contract components on file26
• The program included two main components
o To produce 192,000 units (30 & 45 days old), to support new farmer
programs being run by KamDAFF in partnership with APHEDA and with
IFAD/GTZ
o To produce 173,000 units (15 days old), to wholesale to Farmer Fish Stations
Production targets 2001
June July Aug Totals
Tilapia - 25,950 28,800 54,750
C'mn carp 30,000 34,600 10,800 75,400
Puntius - 25,950 10,800 36,750
S'lvr carp 60,000 69,200 21,600 150,800
I'dn carp 30,000 17,300 - 47,300
Subtotals
120,000 @
30 days old
173,000 @
15 days old
72,000 @
45 days old
365,000
Client
GTZ/IFSP
@ 25reil ea
FFSs @
15 reil ea
KamDAFF
free
to Rearing
Prgm.
Comments
To GTZ/IFSP
Three batches
Over 1 month
Deliver to
KamDAFF
Extn team
Distribute by
KamDAFF
Extn team
Revenue $ UD 769.23 $USD 665.38 $1434.61
o Khem Van Deth Manager Chhouk Fish Station
o Nouch Neang Assistant
o Non Pros Assistant
• The CFS staff was responsible for operating the station and ensuring production
targets where achieved .28
Coordination of the program was maintained through
regular communications and attendance at Extension team meetings.29
In addition
Deth was required to provide monthly reports.30
• Initial preparations for production preceded as required, however, a lack of effective
rainfall and high temperatures made it difficult to bring brood stock into season. This
impacted on the production outcomes.

• It was not possible to encourage spawning of Indian carp or Tilapia. The suggestion
was that this was due to the continued high temperatures but issues of inappropriate
inducing hormone for Indian carp and immaturity of the tilapia brood stock may also
have contributed.
• The other species where successful and fry was transferred to nursery ponds to be
advanced to 30-days.
• Whilst the fry where in the ponds the Station experienced an unusually high
infestation of predatory insects especially diving beetle and diving beetle larvae31
.
Only 30,000 units survived to be delivered to IFAD/GTZ. These fish where good
quality.
• The station had continuing difficulty in producing Tilapia. And the decision was made
to purchase 15-day fry from SCALE to ensure target numbers. These where reared
and distributed via the Station.
• Subsequent batches of all other species proved successful.
• Distribution of stock to participants in the Pond Rearing Program was scheduled for
the first week of September.
4.2 Achievements
• CFS commenced a transition from retailing 45 to 60 day old fish seed to that of
wholesaling 9 to 15 day old fish seed. This process has included education of the
client groups including farmers and departmental staff as to the size limitations and
management considerations associated with handling the larger numbers of smaller
fish seed.
Production outcomes 2001
June July Aug Totals
Tilapia - 18,000 SCALE 30,000 SCALE 480,000
C'mn carp 30,000 34,600 10,800 75,400
Puntius -
25,950
6,000 SCALE
10,800 42,750
S'lvr carp 10,000 39,200 21,600 70,800
I'dn carp - 17,300 - 17,300
Subtotals .
40,000 @
30 days old
141,050 @
15 days old
73,200 @
30 days old
365,000
Client
IFAD/GTZ
@ 25reil ea
FFSs @
15 reil ea
KamDAFF @
no charge
Revenue
Expense
$192.30 $542.50
Cost $110
SCALE
Cost $90
SCALE
$534.80

Potential value of fish produced at CFS
Description Value
Fry (15d) to FFSs - Equivalent number of fingerlings 85,800 fingerlings
Fingerlings (30-45d) to Pond rearing (IFAD/GTZ + APHEDA) 113,200 fingerlings
Total number of fingerlings 199,000 fingerlings
Survival rate ref: SCALE (1997) 35%
Number of fish surviving to market 69,650fish
Final weight of fish. 0.6kg ref: SCALE (1997) 41,790 kg
Potential value of fish crop @ 4000reil/kg $USD 42,860
Cost to operate Fish Station $USD 5,700
Return to community $USD 37,160
• Introduced predatory insect traps using an appropriate technology that is being
adopted by neighbouring concerns and extension program.
• Began informal trial of lemongrass fence as an appropriate technology for predatory
fish management32
.
• Introduced a range of forage legumes via the IFAD/GTZ program33
.
• Established a range of fruit trees, bamboos, legumes shrubs and other utility trees
as a resource to the station and as a future training aid.
• Direct seeded a leucina planting. As a shrub legume leucina has potential as a food
resource for fish production. Seed from the planting should also be made available
to the farming community.34
4.3 Future direction
4.3.1 Market development
• A major influence on the future sustainability of CFS will be the continued
development of a local market. Notwithstanding inherent assumptions and the
influence of other internal and external market factors the following table indicates
that it will take about 8 years to develop a market substantial enough to support CFS
where CFS relies on fish production as the sole income source.

Estimate of time to develop sustainable market for CFS .
Description Item
Approximate cost to operate CFS pa $6,000
Number of fry to meet cost @15reil ea 1,500,000
Most of these fry to be wholesaled to FFSs
Equivalent number of fingerlings
@ 60% survival
900,000
Number of farmer purchases
@ 3 fingerlings / m3
in 150m2
pond
2,000
Assume CFS supplies 75% of local market
Number of farmers needed in market
2,600
Number of farmers trained as at 2001
APHEDA - 461
IFSP & IFAD/GTZ - 470
931
Number to continue pond rearing @ 60% 560
Number of new farmers each season
APHEDA - 200
IFAD/GTZ - 200
400
Number of new farmers each year to
continue pond rearing @ 60%
240
Number of years to achieve market
demand of 2,600 farmers
8.5
• Notably, at such time as CFS does achieve a production level of 1,500,000 fry pa
applying the potential market estimate as in the table above, extrapolates to a gross
return to the community in the order of $USD200, 000 pa.
4.3.2 Management & operations
• In order to meet this level of production some additional procedural and capital
improvements will be needed for CFS to be able to meet this level of demand.
• Procedural improvements
o Introduction of clear line management within KamDAFF with responsibility for
strategic planning, staff management, marketing policy, production targets
and financial management
o Introduction of regular stock monitoring schedule
o Introduction of Brood Stock improvement program
o Introduce FFS support service to retain market share
• Capital improvements include
o Construction of one additional hatching tank. As per the specifications of the
tank built in 2001

o Tiling or latex lining of existing concrete hatching tanks in order to improve
hygiene and handling at hatching.
o Installation of floating hapa system over the main reservoir.
o Development of an on-site fodder resource (to reduce input costs)
o Development of an on-site bamboo resource (to reduce input costs)
o Acquisition of manually operated water pumps (to reduce input costs)
4.3.3 Development of training facility
• Alternately, to increase worth to the community, widen income streams and reduce
reliance on fish seed as the sole income source, CFS should be developed as a
training facility. This would involve:
o Assistance in identification and profiling of market
o Construction of a training shelter and equipment storage
o Assistance with curriculum development
o Identification of boarding arrangements in Chhouk village
o Provision of some training equipment and/or relocation of equipment
previously supplied to KamDAFF
4.4 Recommendations
4.4.1 Revise support
• APHEDA to move to indirect support of CFS and to encourage KamDAFF to take
responsibility for strategic planning, line management and financial sustainability.
This process should include
o Clear definition of the terms under which APHEDA will handover including a
business plan to be ratified by DAFF and APHEDA
o A commitment to purchase quality goods and services from CFS.
o An Official handing over Ceremony.
• KamDAFF should be encouraged to develop CFS as a training facility. To this end,
APHEDA’s support should be
o Assistance in the development of training curriculum and resources.
o A commitment to purchase training services from CFS.
4.4.2 APHEDA as a client
• As it is likely that APHEDA will be CFS’s main client in the 1 to 3 year time frame it
will be appropriate to ensure revenue from goods and services provided to APHEDA
is equivalent to running costs.
o In the first year the total value of product and services purchased by
APHEDA should be equivalent to $5,000, the approximate running cost of
CFS. This should be revised downwards in the second and subsequent years
as CFS begins to develop market.

o Where APHEDA makes an annual purchase of fish seed from CFS. The
value of the purchase to be calculated on a per unit basis but also
considering the quality of stock and timeliness of supply
o Where APHEDA makes an annual purchase of training services from CFS.
The value of the service to be calculated on a per participant basis.
4.4.3 Target groups for training
• Target groups for training requested by APHEDA should include
o Women and men from other provinces with a view to establishing farm scale
hatcheries in their home villages (this would also depend on micro-credit
support being available on their return).
o Women and men from remote parts of the Kampot province including
Banteay Meas and Anchor Chey provinces with a view to establishing farm
scale hatcheries in their home villages (this would also depend on micro-
credit support being available on their return).
o Participants from the FFSs program with interest in developing farm scale
hatcheries
o Recent graduates with the potential to become part of the CFS team
• As a client of CFS, APHEDA should request Snake Skin Gourami as part of the
annual order. This would provide incentive to investigate the production of this native
species. As other native species come into husbandry, these should also be
ordered.
• Support of the Wholesale/retail network between CFS and FFSs remains important
to the development of local fish seed supply. The current arrangement should be
evaluated Sept with a view to further refinement in ensuing seasons.

5 Agriculture Extension IPM

5.1 Aims
• An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Farmer Field School program was developed
for the 2001 season. It was designed by Lim Sou, Senior Agronomist and negotiated
with APHEDA following a pilot program including 2 field schools in 2000. This was
presented in the form of an agreement and endorsed by KamDAFF. Program
components on file.35
• The program included
o 2 Farmer field Schools trained in IPM on rice crops36
o 3 Farmer Field Schools trained in IPM on vegetable crops37
o Lim Sou Senior Agronomist, Team Leader
o Miss Chea Sinat Trainer
o Meng Seng Rithy Trainer
o Hearn Ngon Trainer
o Mrs. Nut Narvy Trainer
• Lim Sou was responsible for implementing the program39
. It was not necessary for
APHEDA to provide line management support. In addition Lim Sou was required to
provide monthly reports40
5.2 Implementation
• The program proceeded with Lim Sou identifying target groups within the community
and verifying their appropriateness with APHEDA. Overlap with the Aquaculture
Extension Program was encouraged where practical, however this was not always
possible as the selection criteria for the two programs differed.
• Each school involved short theory sessions that where followed by the establishment
of small-scale rice or vegetable crops (usually about 1 hectare) on land made
available by one of the participants.
• The farmers come together on a weekly basis to establish and monitor the crop’s
progress, initiate trial plots, and decide on management options.
• There are five main aspects to the field schools
o Trialing of improved fertilizer application techniques whereby fertilizer is
applied at select stages during crop growth rather than as one application at
crop establishment.
o Questioning the appropriateness/timeliness of pest management using ‘leaf
or stem cutting’ experiments. The leaf area of sample plants is cut back and
the effect of their yield is measured. This demonstrates how crops can
absorb considerable damage from pest insects without significant impact on
yields
o Comparison of IPM options with conventional pesticide application. IPM
options include hand picking, rouging, and some pesticide application where
deemed appropriate (eg. pesticide remains a good option for aphids on
legume crops). Conventional pesticide application was as per company
recommendations

o Learning about pest insects and beneficial insects and their ecology using
practical techniques including regular field collections, population sampling
and insect zoos.
o Development of group problem solving / decision making skills. This is
inherent in the manner in which the schools are conducted.
IPM Farmer Field Schools
.
FFSs in 2000 2 Participants 60
FFSs in 2001 5 Participants 150
Total 7 Total 210
Distribution of IPM participants
• The fertilizer trials consistently showed increases in yield although the cereal crop
was typically more responsive than the legume crop.
Improved fertilizer application .
Dry - rice Yield
Traditional fertilizer application 1.775kg/ha
Staged fertilizer application 2,850kg/ha
Increase in yield 60%
String bean Yield
Traditional fertilizer application 5.931kg/ha
Improved fertilizer application 6.134kg/ha
Increase in yield 3%
• The IPM trials showed a consistent increase in yield. Previous farmer field schools
have achieved increases averaging 12.5% (wet rice field schools conducted in 2000)
but the high yields seen this season (whilst apparently masking the differences in the
treatments), translated into substantial increases in gross margins.

Gross margin estimations using IPM practices
Dry rice Value
Crop yield 2.5t/ha
Value of crop @ 350reil/kg 875,000 reil
Increased yield using IPM practices 6.0%
Increased crop value 927,500 reil
Change in gross margin $USD 13.50/ha/crop
String bean Value
Crop yield 6.3t/ha
Value of crop @ 1,000reil/kg (at time of report crop unsold) 6,300,000 reil
Increased yield using IPM practices 1.5%
Increased crop value 6,394,500 reil
Change in gross margin $USD 24.20/ha/crop
• At the same time the IPM options resulted in a reduction in input costs of up to 10%.
This was largely accredited to the reduction in pesticide usage.
• The pesticide options were typically seen to be ineffective because of rapid re-
infestation by pest insects between spray applications. This is a common
phenomenon in small-scale intensive systems. The other advantages of reduced
reliance on pesticides were also stressed during the schools.
• The other advantages of reduced pesticide usage where also stressed during the
course of the field schools including reduction in initial cash outlay, environment,
health and safety.
• The program has proven to be an excellent model for the future direction of co-
operation between APHEDA and partners such as KamDAFF.
o In this instance the operatives are working independently of line management
support from APHEDA.
o Project goals, objectives, target groups, resourcing are negotiated between
KamDAFF and APHEDA.
o APHEDA’s direct involvement was limited to formal presentations to
participants to mark the end of each farmer field school and reporting.
5.3 Recommendations
• Continue to support this program with a view to using experienced trainers to assist
in new areas.
• The program currently inputs quality vegetable or rice seed in order to run each field
school and the participants divide the seed collected at harvest. This provides an
excellent opportunity to introduce new and improved vegetable and rice varieties.
This should become one of the objectives of each school.
• The collective problem solving skills that develop over the course of each school are
recognised as an important output. Farmer groups are able to apply this skill to other
problems that confront their communities. FAO has recognised this and developed a
‘ life-skills’ training component that is run at the end of each farmer field school. A

similar component should be included in future field schools. FAO experience and
training could be engaged to facilitate.

6 Agriculture Extension WID

6.1 Background
• In order to introduce an Integrated Agriculture (Permaculture) component to the rural
development program an assessment was made of potential partnership with
KamDAFF and/or DWVA, WID Centres. It was decided that the preferred option
would be to build the capacity of the WID Centres and staff with the aid of KamDAFF
expertise. The WID Centres would then be able to provide training targeted at young
women of the rural community. Justification.
o The WID Centres are distributed across the current program catchment area
and have staff on hand most of the time. They are also in regular
communication with the Provincial Centre and have experience working with
APHEDA
o Each of the WID Centres includes a land area that could be used for
demonstration of appropriate practices. This was regarded as particularly
pertinent as the surrounding rural communities lacked suitable demonstration
of appropriate practices
o Plantings established at the centres could be used as a source of quality
propagation material for future training and distribution within the community.
Especially selected fruit trees
o The WID staff work primarily with women, they being the primary target group
for training as women and children are typically responsible for home
gardens and orchards.
o The WID Centres had shown a strong interest in Integrated Agriculture.
Some had undertaken some activities including attempts at tree growing and
fish rearing41
(fish seed supplied to Dang Tung through CFS in 2000).
• CFS was also included in this program in recognition of it’s potential as a training
centre in the future.
6.2 Implementation
• Course participants where nominated by DWVA42
from each of the target WID
centres. A brief TNA indicated that most WID staff had limited experience but that
KamDAFF staff was well placed to provide training assistance.
• The program included three (3) components.
o Training WID Centre staff as trainers in home vegetable garden techniques,
tree propagation techniques and in farm planning
o A small tree nursery, orchard and home vegetable garden to be established
at each of the centres
o Initiate student training
• The program was designed in conjunction with WID staff, APHEDA staff and after
consultation with a range of similar programs operating in Cambodia. This was
presented in the form of an agreement and endorsed by the Partner. Program
• The Program was implemented by APHEDA staff based in Kampot
o Brian Lund Technical Advisor, APHEDA
o Tep Sary Translator, APHEDA
o Ms Roos Wilberts Agricultural Advisor, locally based Volunteer

o Lim Sou Senior Agronomist, KamDAFF
6.2.1 Home vegetable gardens
• The home vegetable garden training was based around a “sheet compost” system
for the dry season that allows maximum use of the home garden when alternated
with a conventional bare earth garden that are typically built in the wet season. The
sheet compost system also provides best utilization of green waste/compost
resources and is very water efficient.
• The training was divided into three main components. Note that much of the theory
is applicable to sheet compost and bear earth garden systems.
o The first stage considered nutrient cycling and garden construction. At this
stage the trainees constructed a garden at the Kampot Provincial Centre.
o A week later the compost layer had begun to cool and planting commenced.
The second stage focused on crop combinations and rotations. The group
then planted the garden.
o The final stage was conducted 1-month later and primarily involved use of
natural pesticides. 44
• During the course of the training, gardens were established in each of the other
centres. In each instance the centres experienced some difficulty that compromised
the gardens and prevented any substantial harvest.
o Construction of the gardens did not commence until February. Green waste
was not readily available and had to be bought. Also the hot conditions where
not conducive to early plant growth. Construction should commence in
Nov/Dec
o Vegetable seed sourced in Cambodia is typically of poor quality.
Consequently Quality AA seed was used from Australia however this failed to
perform adequately. Several months after the initial sowing a second batch of
seed was brought from Thailand. This performed much better but was
compromised by the lateness of planting.
o The Kampot provincial Centre harbored an exceptionally large rat population.
They repeatedly ate seed and seedlings despite control efforts.
o There was difficulty in siting the garden at Chumkiri because the centre was
still under construction and property boundaries where not well defined.
• The problems encountered with the gardens provided opportunity for a collective
review. In each instance the problems where seen as solvable and that the gardens
would succeed in the following season.
• At the end of the dry season conversion to bare earth gardens commenced Seed
originating from Thailand was used.
6.2.2 Small nursery - Tree growing
• The tree-growing component was designed to provide grounding in each of the main
propagation techniques. The intent was to ensure that each centre was able to pass
on some skills to the students and that they would also be able to produce some
trees for their own purposes.
• It included some basic theory on plant physiology, nutrient cycling and nursery
management. However the bulk of the training was practically orientated and
included:

o Media preparation, using local technology
o Seed handling, including harvest, cleaning, labeling and storage
o Growing trees from seed45
, including small and large seeded species.
o Cuttings, air layering and grafting46
. Especially locally regarded fruit tree
species such as bamboo47
, Mangoes and Jack-fruit
• The training was followed by assistance in the establishment of a small nursery in
each of the WID Centres in which the WID staff where encouraged to produce their
own trees48
.
6.2.3 Site Planning
• A one-day planning session was held at each WID centre (and at CFS) to develop a
site plans that considered site conditions, infrastructure and future developments
and incorporated:49
o Vegetable gardens
o Trees including fruit tree, timber trees, medicinal trees, ornamental trees etc.
o Fish ponds
6.2.4 Site construction & orchard establishment
• Once the plans where agreed funds where made available for construction
activities.50
Construction activities
Dang Tung WID Centre
Ponds 2 2 ponds 12m x 10m x 2m
Fencing 250m Used timber and bamboo construction.
Advised tree planting on alignment so that
the stems will serve as posts in the future.
Landfill Funds provided to use spoil from pond
digging as landfill on orchard site
Chumkiri WID Centre
Ponds 2 ponds 1 pond 12m x 10m, 1 pond 10m x 8m
Fencing 300m At time of report, construction arranged
with District Chief. Situation to monitored
Landfill Funds provided to use spoil from pond
digging as landfill on orchard site
Kampot Province.
Channel 35m Refurbished channels ideal for fish rearing
and mosquito control.
Land fill 300m3
Landfill used to establish vegetable garden
and nursery.
Kampot District
Pond 35x15 Large pond already on site but requires
refurbish next dry season.
Fencing 400m Approximately 400m of fencing already in-

situ but some repair needed
Land fill 1000m3
Area of landfill to be scheduled for next
dry season
• Trees where purchased for each of the centres with emphasis on selections that
provided both demonstration and a source on propagation material for future training
programs.51
Centre
.
Approx
no. .
Dang Tung WID Centre 140
Chumkiri WID Centre 300
Kampot Prov. WID Centre 160
Kampot Dist. WID Centre 110
Chhouk Fish Station 130
Total 840
6.3 Pilot program
• A 6-month program was designed52
for each centre involving both tree growing and
vegetable gardening. The intention being to involve students attending the centres
for other courses. They would gain experience that they could take back to their
families.
• The program is being implemented by WID Staff53
o Sea Savorn Dang Tung Centre
o Mao Phum Chumkiri Centre
o Long Chandara Kampot Prov.
o Khim Dara Kampot Dist.
• At the time of this report some centres had started to implement the pilot program,
having reconstructed vegetable gardens for the wet season54
and prepared for new
tree crops.
Centre
.
Average attendance / pa
.
Kampot Provincial Centre 160 students
Kampot District Centre 60 students
Dang Tung District Centre 50 students
Chumkiri District Centre 50 students
Chhouk Fish Station To be calculated
Total 320 students

Location of WID Centres + CFS
6.4 Recommendations
• 35m of channel were refurbished at the Kampot Provincial Centre as a
demonstration of the potential for fish rearing and mosquito control. There is an
opportunity to refurbish a further 1,000m+ however it is difficult to justify because
extension of the technique is limited to a relatively small part of the surrounding
landscape.
• The Kampot District WID Centre was a late inclusion in the program. As a
consequence, any earthworks must be delayed until the ensuing dry season.
• At the time of this report the tree-planting component was still in process. Some
follow-up will be needed to ensure the trees are being appropriately managed. Once
all trees are planted an inventory should be carried out at each site and a
comprehensive photograph record made for future reference.
• Where the WID Centres receive continuing support for tree growing, an annual
production schedule should be prepared indicating tree types, numbers and
intended application.
• Where the WID Centres receive continuing support for vegetable growing an annual
production schedule should be prepared indicating vegetable types, volumes and
intended applications
• A major concern regarding training in home gardens is the low rate of adoption. This
problem is widely reported. As a means of overcoming this, many programs are
turning to child nutrition as the main focus with home gardens being a part of the
solution. It has proven particularly effective where young mother are the target
group. The WID Centres could be assisted to adopt this strategy. Mao Phum (Dang
Tung WID) has appropriate training and she may be able to assist in the
development of this approach.
• As each centre now has fishponds with potential as training facilities and/or fish seed
production, WID staff should be included in Aquaculture training in ensuing seasons.

7 HIV/AIDS Awareness
7.1 Background
• A HIV/AIDS awareness component was incorporated into all training programs. The
intention being to ensure as many people in the rural community as is possible are
aware of HIV/AIDS,
o Its nature
o Its prevention
o Its implications
o Living with AIDS
7.2 Implementation
• A program was designed in conjunction with the IPM and Aquaculture programs for
the 2001 season. It was designed by Sim Vanhieng and negotiated with APHEDA.

This was presented in the form of a contract and endorsed by KamDAFF. Program
• The program included
o 150 participants in IPM Farmer field Schools
o 160 participants in Pond Rearing programs56
• The training was conducted by Sim Vanhieng57
Pre-training and post-training
questionnaires indicating that the training increased awareness from 10% to 80%58
7.3 Recommendations
• The program is proving both effective and low cost. The policy of including this
HIV/AIDS component should be continued.
• As a model, addition of short-course components such as HIV/AIDS Awareness (or
the vegetable gardens and trees) into mainstream training programs, may have
similar application in areas such as
o Child nutrition
o Small business management
o Seed banks
o Micro-credit
o Life skills training

8 Community Forestry
8.1 Background
• In the early 1990’s APHEDA supported KamDAFF in the establishment of several
forestry plantations. The plantations were primarily Acacia and Eucalypt.
• At two of the plantations have failed as a result of pilfering, encroachment and grass
fires59
. The remaining plantations are nearing harvest.
• KamDAFF now has an interest in generating revenue from these plantations but is
also recognises the potential of developing community forestry as an option for local
rural communities
8.2 Implementation
• A scoping exercise was agreed in order to assess the potential for community
forestry at the plantation that remains at Thmor Roung.
• A terms of reference was drawn up and KamDAFF nominated a staff member to
undertake the works:
o Chouen Sara, Forestry Officer60

• Chouen Sara was responsible for undertaking the scoping exercise.61
Project co-
ordination was maintained at meetings with APHEDA in Kampot and via progress
reports62
. At the time of this report the first progress report had been received.
8.3 Recommendations
• APHEDA’s support of forestry in Kampot should be reviewed pending the outcome
of the scoping report and forest management options imposed by MAFF.
• In the event that MAFF opts to harvest the Thmor Roung plantation in order to
generate revenue, initial estimates indicate that revenue will be in the order of
$USD200, 000. APHEDA should recommend that $50,000 be used to replant the
plantation and to maintain a community forestry program.63
• There seems to be uncertainty about forestry management imperatives and
Community Forestry objectives within KamDAFF. KamDAFF should be asked to
clarify the position regarding current and future management of all existing
plantations.
• At present, KamDAFF provides no updated information regarding plantations
although this information is gathered for the benefit of MAFF. Updated information
should be requested including maps, inventories and preferred management options
for each plantation.

9 File references
• These references are hyper linked to the respective document on file. Note that
other documents are also contained within the files and these can be accessed by
conventional navigation

1
General Agreement- KamDAFF
General AdminContractsPartner AgreementsAgrm't KamDAFF English.DOC
General agreement– DWVA
General AdminContractsPartner AgreementsAgrm't KamWID English.DOC
2
Salary Support Agreement
General AdminContractsSalary SupportSupport Funds KamDAFF English.doc
3
Pond Digging Contract
AquacultureExtensionPond diggingPond contract APHEDA English.doc
4
Farmer Fish Station Contract
AquacultureFarmer Fish StationsContractsContract supply Eng.doc
5
Aquaculture Extension Program Components
AquacultureExtensionReportsExtn Program 2001 Summary.doc
AquacultureAdministrationFinanceBudget monitored (current).xls
AquacultureExtensionSchedulesActivity schedule 2001.mpp
6
Extension Team photographs
AquacultureExtensionPhotographsStaff.doc
7
Extension Team Job descriptions
General AdminContractsJob descriptionsExtension Officer English.doc
General AdminContractsJob descriptionsLiaison Officer English.doc
8
Aquaculture team Meetings
AquacultureExtensionMeetingsMeeting 011200.doc
9
Extension and Liaison Monthly Reports
AquacultureExtensionReportsAq Extn rpt 050401.doc
AquacultureLiaisonReportsLiaisn rpt 020401.doc
10
Pond digging participants
AquacultureExtensionPond diggingList - Pond Digging 2001.xls
11
Rainfall data
AquacultureAdministrationRelated dataRainfall Kampot.xls
12
Pond Rearing participants 2001
AquacultureExtensionReportsList - Pond Rearing 2001.xls
13
Fodder legumes
AquacultureCFSPhotographsFodder legumes.doc
14
Pond Rearing participants 2000
AquacultureExtensionReportsList - Pond Rearing 2000.xls
15
Pond Rearing participants 2000 – Qualitative survey
AquacultureExtensionReportsSurveyQualitative Survey.xls
16
Rearing pond participants 2000 – Quantitative survey
AquacultureExtensionReportsSurveyQuantitative Survey.xls
17
Farmer Fish Station - participants 2001
AquacultureFarmer Fish StationsmapsMap FFS.doc
18
Farmer Fish Station - selection criteria
AquacultureFarmer Fish StationsSelection criteria.doc
19
Farmer Fish Stations – pond layout
AquacultureFarmer Fish StationsPhotographsPond layouts.doc
20
Farmer Fish Stations – Contract
AquacultureFarmer Fish StationsContractsContract supply Eng.doc
21
Farmer Fish Station – collection of fry
AquacultureFarmer Fish StationsPhotographsFry collection.doc
22
Farmer Fish Station – delivery of fry
AquacultureFarmer Fish StationsPhotographsFry delivery.doc
23
Community pond/fish refuge system
AquacultureExtensionNew ideasCommun ponds'Fish refuge.doc
24
CFS – Year 2000 Status Report
AquacultureCFSReportsHalf Year Report.doc
25
CFS - Workshop outcomes 2000
AquacultureCFSWorkshop 2000Workshop outcomes.doc
26
CFS - Program Components

AquacultureCFSReportsProdn Program Summary 2001.doc
AquacultureAdministrationFinanceBudget monitored (current).xls
AquacultureCFSSchedulesProdn schedule 2001.mpp
27
CFS team photographs
AquacultureCFSPhotographsStaff.doc
28
Aquaculture Extension Team Job descriptions
General AdminContractsJob descriptionsCFS Manager English.doc
29
Aquaculture team Meetings
AquacultureExtensionMeetingsMeeting 011200.doc
30
CFS - Monthly Reports
AquacultureCFSReportsCFS rpt 300401.doc
31
CFS - Insect predators
AquacultureCFSPhotographsPredatory insects.doc
32
CFS – Lemon grass fence
AquacultureCFSPhotographslemon grass fence.doc
33
CFS – Fodder legumes
AquacultureCFSPhotographsFodder legumes.doc
34
CFS – Direct seeding leucina
AquacultureCFSPhotographsDirect seeding leucina.doc
35
Agriculture Extension Program Components – IPM
AgricultureIPMreportsIPM Program 2001 Summary .doc
AgricultureIntegrate AgfinancesIPM&Permaculture budget 2001.xls
AgricultureIPMschedulingIPM schedule.mpp
36
Agriculture Extension – Farmer field School – rice
AgricultureIPMphotographsDry rice harvest.doc
37
Agriculture Extension – Farmer Field School – Vegetables
AgricultureIPMphotographsLong bean school.doc
38
Agriculture Extension - IPM Team
AgricultureIPMphotographsStaff.doc
39
IPM – Job description
General AdminContractsJob descriptionsIPM Manager English.doc
40
IPM Monthly Reports
AgricultureIPMreportsIPM rpt 150501.doc
41
Pond Rearing – Dang Tung Centre
AgricultureIntegrate AgphotographsFish harvest.doc
42
Integrated Ag – ToT participants
AgricultureIntegrate AgphotographsWID vegetable staff.doc
43
Agriculture Extension Program Components – WID
AgricultureIntegrate AgschedulingWID schedule.mpp
44
Vegetable gardens - training
AgricultureIntegrate AgphotographsVegetable training stage 1.doc
AgricultureIntegrateAgphotographsVegetable training stage 3.doc
45
Tree growing – growing trees from seed
AgricultureIntegrate AgphotographsTree training stage 1.doc
46
Tree growing – cuttings, grafting air-layering
AgricultureIntegrate AgphotographsTree training stage 2.doc
47
Tree growing – bamboo cuttings
AgricultureIntegrate AgphotographsBamboo cuttings.doc
48
Tree nurseries – WID Centres
AgricultureIntegrate AgphotographsTree nurseries.doc
49
Planning – Kampot District WID Centre
AgricultureIntegrate Agphotographsplanning Kmpt Dist WID.doc
50
WID Centres
AgricultureIntegrate AgphotographsCentre - Chumkiri .doc
AgricultureIntegrate AgphotographsCentre - Dang Tung.doc
AgricultureIntegrate AgphotographsCentre - Kampot District .doc
AgricultureIntegrate AgphotographsCentre - Kampot prov..doc

51
Fruit trees – allocations
AgricultureIntegrate AgFruit treesFruit tree allocation.xls
AgricultureIntegrate AgphotographsDT trees.doc
52
Vegetable & Trees program components
General AdminContractsPartner AgreementsAgrm't KamWID Stage 2 English.DOC
AgricultureIntegrate Agfinanceshome garden budget 2001.xls
53
Vegetable & Tree growing – job descriptions
General AdminContractsJob descriptionsGarden Trainer English.doc
54
Vegetable Garden Stage 2 – Dang Tung
AgricultureIntegrate AgphotographsVegetable garden - Dang Tung.doc
55
HIV/AIDS Program components
Other components reflected in IPM and aquaculture programs
56
HIV/AIDS Awareness – field school
AIDSphotographsHIVAIDS Awareness.doc
57
HIV/AIDS Awareness - Job description
General AdminContractsJob descriptionsLiaison Officer English.doc
58
HIV/AIDS report
AIDSreportsProgram rpt.doc
59
Community Forestry – inspections
ForestryPhotosTR inspection.doc
ForestryPhotosCashew plantation.doc
60
Community Forestry – Job description
General AdminContractsJob descriptionsCF Officer English.doc
61
Community Forestry – schedule
ForestrySchedule.doc
62
Community Forestry – Progress reports
ForestryreportsPart 1 scoping.doc
63
Community Forestry
ForestryCF budget.xls
Brian Lund
Principal Consultant
Lund & Associates
ablund@powerup.com.au
012732107@mobitel.com.kh

Rural Development Program Kampot

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Rural Development Program Kampot

Similar to Rural Development Program Kampot (20)

Rural Development Program Kampot