Design of a Research Programme for the Social and Economic Valuation of the Aquatic Resources of the Lower Mekong Basin

  • 1,874 views
Uploaded on

Report prepared for …

Report prepared for
The United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID)

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,874
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
26
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. SCOPING STUDY Design of a Research Programme for the Social and Economic Valuation of the Aquatic Resources of the Lower Mekong Basin. Report prepared for The United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) by The Centre for the Economics & Management of Aquatic Resources (CEMARE) University of Portsmouth & Support unit for International Fisheries & Aquatic Research (SIFAR) Department of Fisheries United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization Rome, Italy Final Version - March 2002 i
  • 2. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study MEMBERS OF THE SCOPING TEAM: Dr. Christophe BÉNÉ (2) Mr. Tim BOSTOCK (1) Mr. Tom JOLLEY (2) Mr. Roger LEWINS (2) Dr. Arthur E. NEILAND (Team Leader) (2) Dr. Premachandra WATTAGE (2) Dr. David J. WHITMARSH (2) (1) FAO/SIFAR Vialle delle Terme di Caracalla Rome 00100 Italy Web-site address: http://www.onefish.org (2) Centre for the Economics & Management of Aquatic Resources (CEMARE) University of Portsmouth Locksway Road PORTSMOUTH Hants PO4 8JF United Kingdom Web-site address: http://www.port.ac.uk/econ/cemare i
  • 3. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The aquatic natural resources of the Lower Mekong Basin are vast and have a significant potential for contributing to the development of the riparian countries (Thailand, Lao PDR, Cambodia and Vietnam). At the present time, the aquatic resources play a significant role in providing a basis for the livelihoods of millions of rural people. The fact that the Lower Mekong Basin is shared by 4 countries, with different economic, political and social characteristics, means that the design of coherent policies for appropriate resource management is complicated and difficult. At the same time, the inter-connection of these countries, at all levels, means that coherent policies for the Mekong Basin are essential in order to avoid creating a situation of disadvantage between neighbours, which could lead to conflict. Successful policies for aquatic resource management which will lead to appropriate development outcomes have at least three fundamental requirements: (i) Information to enable the identification of policy options; (ii) Policy-making processes which enable effective decision-making and the selection of a particular option; (iii) Effective policy implementation through appropriate institutional arrangements and resource management systems. The reality of policy-making and implementation for aquatic resource management in the Mekong Basin at the present time is deficient in all these fundamental areas. With regards to information requirements, in particular, it is widely acknowledged that there is a lack of information and understanding concerning the social and economic value of aquatic resources. Undoubtedly, the fact that this information is deficient means that the identification and choice of policy options is also deficient, leading to a high risk of sub- optimal development outcomes. As a result of a Scoping Study undertaken by CEMARE/SIFAR between October 2001 and January 2002, which involved visits, key interviews and the review of literature in all four riparian countries of the Lower Mekong Basin, a draft design for a new research programme entitled ‘the social and economic valuation of aquatic resources in the Lower Mekong River Basin’ has been produced. This is based on 4-year programme duration. Recommendations Subsequent to a presentation and discussion of the findings of this Scoping Study at DFID headquarters, the key recommendations emerging, which have shaped the design of the research programme, include the following: (a) The new research programme should address the goal of how to achieve the implementation of policies which contribute to regional sustainable development and equitable river basin management; (b) The new research programme should include the generation of information on social/economic values to assist better understanding (a ‘conventional’ research ii
  • 4. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study component), but also initiate a process of policy-making improvements to ensure that all stakeholders participate in decision-making related to resource usage and management (an ‘action research’ component); in other words, the generation of information alone will not be sufficient to achieve the desired development outcome, instead information generation and policy-making reform need to be addressed in parallel; (c) The new research programme should operate initially in Cambodia, hosted by the Mekong River Commission (MRC), and in association with the International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM), subject to agreements being reached with these respective organizations. Within MRC, it is recommended the research programme be based within the Environment Programme whilst maintaining close operational ties with the Fisheries Programme. With regard to ICLARM, it is recommended the programme provide support and advice as appropriate to the MRC- based project The Legal and Institutional Framework, and Economic Valuation of Resources and Environment in the Mekong River Region: A Wetlands Approach; (d) The new research programme should endeavour to build strong collaborative relationships with all relevant stakeholders and other research programmes to facilitate its activities and maximise its impact; (e) Moreover, although the new research programme would operate initially in Cambodia, it should examine effective ways of involving the other riparian countries of the Lower Mekong Basin in programme implementation and strategy, as well as in the dissemination and utilisation of outputs. Although opportunities to do this will naturally arise through the regional focus of MRC, the prospects of an eventual expansion of the research programme to more adequately cover respective national institutional needs should be envisaged; (f) In this regard, efforts should be made by the new research programme (with ad hoc support from other international agencies) to facilitate assistance from other donors; (g) An appropriate level of technical assistance to manage and implement the new research programme should be furnished. Although budgetary resources are likely to be a key determining factor in this regard, the allocation of appropriately qualified personnel is considered prerequisite to the programme’s success. Such support should be designed to complement the respective MRC and ICLARM programmes with reporting arrangements agreed with respective Programme Leaders. The administrative arrangements to support this input would be subject to agreement with MRC and ICLARM. Consideration could be given to utilising the Associate Professional Officer scheme if suitably qualified candidates are available. (h) DFID should ensure early agreement is sought with both MRC and ICLARM regarding the recommendations made in paras (c) and (g) above. iii
  • 5. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study CONTENTS Page Executive summary ii 1. Introduction 1 2. Definition of objectives & output 1 2.1. Overall objective 2.2. Definition of specific objectives 2.3. Output 3. General approach and implementation schedule 2 3.1. General approach 3.2. Implementation schedule 4. Key findings 3 5. Programme design 7 6. Conclusions and recommendations 13 Appendices (I) Terms of Reference. 18 (II) List of key interviewees. 26 (III) Economic development, livelihoods and the role of the Mekong in 33 Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos: an overview. (IV) Key issues related to the Mekong aquatic resources and their 43 management. (V) Profile of the existing research and development programmes related 53 to aquatic resources in the Mekong Basin (plus an assessment of their potential for collaboration in a new research programme on economic and social valuation). (VI) Economic valuation of aquatic resources 62 (VII) Livelihood analysis of aquatic resources 75 (VIII) Literature Search and Bibliographic References 82 iv
  • 6. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study 1. INTRODUCTION The Mekong is one of the largest rivers in the world, with a basin shared by six countries (China, Burma, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam). Although all these countries increasingly show signs of economic development, a large proportion of their rural populations remain dependent upon natural resources for their livelihoods. Many of the poorest and most vulnerable people live in the Mekong Basin, where aquatic resources form an important component of their livelihood activities, typically centered around farming and fishing. In general, the relationship between human society and the natural resources of the Mekong basin is poorly understood. This is reflected in the national policy frameworks for the management and development of aquatic resources which have emerged. For example, at the national level, the riparian countries of the basin have each pursued their own policies for water usage, including dam construction for irrigation and power generation. Unfortunately, these policies have failed to consider the true economic and social value of the river system in a natural (unmodified) state. As a result the negative impact of major modifications such as dams upon the livelihoods of affected user groups, through loss of access to resources, modification of flood regimes and other effects, has not been recognised either. The need to understand the relationships between the Mekong river and the people who depend on its aquatic resources, and to establish the value of naturally flooding rivers has been highlighted by a number of studies. In response, DFID has decided to establish a research programme to generate knowledge which will contribute toward a better understanding of the full value of the aquatic resources and inform and direct both policy and decision-making in the river basin. In November 2001, DFID (through FAO/SIFAR) commissioned CEMARE to undertake a Scoping Study to design an appropriate research programme. The Terms of Reference and the subsequent Response from SIFAR/CEMARE are given in Appendix (I). 2. DEFINITION OF OBJECTIVES AND OUTPUT 2.1. Overall objective The overall objective of the Scoping Study is to design a research programme to establish the full social and economic value of the aquatic resources of the Mekong River. 2.2. Specific objectives In response to the Scope of Work requested by the TOR (Appendix I), it was agreed that the study would address the following specific objectives: 1
  • 7. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study (i) Research needs: to identify and articulate in a precise way the key research questions which need investigation, and highlight how these are relevant to policy; (ii) Policy and institutional context: to identify and undertake a preliminary characterisation of the policy frameworks which affect the Mekong river basin; (iii) Stakeholder characterization: to identify who are the principal stakeholders likely to be affected by policy decisions; (iv) Existing knowledge base: to identify what knowledge is available to answer these questions (above), where knowledge gaps exist, and how easily could these gaps could be filled; (v) Skills assessment: to establish what skills and specialist expertise would be required to do the research and to manage research programme implementation. 2.3. Output The information collected during the study (above) will be used to design and propose an appropriate research programme and a management plan to ensure effective implementation. The current report systematically addresses each of the specific objectives and then outlines the design for the research programme. Additional relevant information, providing detailed accounts on particular subjects, is included in a series of appendices. 3. GENERAL APPROACH AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 3.1. General approach The CEMARE team drew upon their expertise in the area of social and economic analysis of aquatic resource management to address the specific objectives of the study. This includes field experience in both developed and developing countries. It was intended that relevant primary information would be collected through a series of key interviews with stakeholders and field-visits in the Mekong Basin. This would also be supplemented by secondary information provided by both the formal and grey literature. 3.2. Implementation schedule The Scoping Study was implemented in three phases (as originally proposed): Phase 1 (October 2001): Initial preparation, collation of secondary information, briefing with SIFAR and DFID, liaison with staff in SE Asia (DFID, FAO, MRC). Initial meeting with Scoping Study Steering Committee (London). Preliminary visit to Thailand and Cambodia by AN/TB to liaise with a range of stakeholder organisations and prepare for main field-visit. Planning of Phase 2. 2
  • 8. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study Phase 2a (November – December 2001): Liaison with stakeholder organisations in Mekong Basin. CEMARE/SIFAR team visit Thailand, Cambodia and Laos to conduct key interviews (see Appendix IV). Also collect more literature. Also attend MRC Annual Technical Meeting (Phnom Penh) and undertake field-visit along Mekong and Tonle Sap in Cambodia. Write-up of field results. Phase 2b (January 2002): Liaison with stakeholder organisations in Vietnam. CEMARE team visit Vietnam, including Hanoi and Ho Chi Min City, to conduct key interviews. Collect further literature. Field-visit undertaken in Mekong Delta. Phase 3: (January – February 2002): Collation, analysis, review, write-up of findings, production of draft research programme design, identification and assessment of management alternatives, presentation to Scoping Study Steering Committee. 4. KEY FINDINGS In this brief section, the main findings of the Scoping Study are summarized. Much of this information is also provided in greater detail in the appendices to this report. The information in this section is provided as an introduction to the actual research programme design which follows thereafter. 4.1. Identification of key research questions 4.1.1. There is a need to understand both the national and basin-wide context of aquatic resource usage, and the inter-dependency of stakeholders at all levels. The aquatic resources of the Lower Mekong Basin are shared by four countries (Appendix III). Each country has its own particular characteristics (social, cultural, economic, political) which influence the way in which the aquatic resources are utilized. Some of the riparian countries are more developed than others, and this also determines the role of the Mekong and its resources within their development plans. At the same time, all the countries of the Mekong have a certain inter-dependency, and resource utilization by stakeholders in one part of the basin will impact other uses by other stakeholders elsewhere. However, at the present time, there is a relatively limited understanding of the relationships which underlie aquatic resource usage at all levels – local, national and international. 4.1.2. There is a need to understand the contribution of aquatic resources to rural livelihoods and to evaluate the threats to this role (with particular reference to poverty) 3
  • 9. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study For the majority of the rural people of the Lower Mekong Basin (60 million), aquatic resources are believed to play a crucial role in their livelihoods (Appendixes III and IV). Fish, in particular, is the most important protein source and together with rice is essential for food security. However, the natural resource base of the Mekong is threatened by a range of factors, particularly environmental degradation as the result of pollution, deforestation and dam projects, as well as increasing population pressure and associated overexploitation. At present, the level of understanding of the role of natural resources in livelihoods and the likely impact of the forces of change is limited. 4.1.3. There is a need to understand the impact of current natural resource management strategies and policies both on local populations and the environment and to use this as basis to develop appropriate strategies and policies in the future. The natural resources of the Mekong Basin offer huge potential for development at all levels if managed appropriately. Currently, they have a major role in supporting the livelihoods of millions of rural people. However, it is also possible that the aquatic resources could be used as a basis for economic development strategies which emphasize economic growth, the generation of economic surpluses and re-investment of revenues earned in other parts of the national economy such as industry. For example, the generation and sale of electricity through hydro-electric dams may help to achieve this outcome. The design of appropriate policies in the future, which seek to optimise the usage of the aquatic resources of the Mekong, will need to understand the impact and performance of current policies and management strategies. This will require a range of information, and in particular, social and economic information on the trade-offs between different resource usage strategies. 4.2. Policy and institutional context The research needs identified above, covering three broad areas of concern for the management of Mekong aquatic resources and its impact, place an emphasis on generating information and analysis which will help to promote a better understanding of key issues. Under the linear model of policy-making and implementation, it is assumed that benign policy-makers will utilise the new information and better understanding to improve policy design for the benefit of society. In this situation, research and research scientists play the traditional role of information providers for policy-makers, who make policy decisions and then hand these decisions down to administrators (managers) for implementation through various management arrangements. Unfortunately, in many developing countries, policy-making and implementation systems in all sectors do not conform to this linear model. Instead, within weak states, policy- makers do not act benignly and decisions are taken to favour certain powerful sectors of society, rather than for society’s benefit as a whole. In fact, the majority of society are usually excluded from any involvement in the policy-making process. Furthermore, the institutions which make up the state in this situation often lack the capacity for effective information-gathering and analysis to assist or change the policy-making process. This, of course, is the domain of politics and political economy research, and while it is 4
  • 10. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study becoming an area of increasingly important work within the context of analysing the development performance of countries, it still remains relatively youthful in its achievements. In the case of the countries of the Mekong Basin, there is a large general literature on their political and economic characteristics. There are however very few studies on policy and policy-making processes which affect the management of natural resources, especially aquatic natural resources (Appendix VIII). The implications of this situation are as follows: (a) The generation on information on the social and economic aspects of aquatic natural resources in the Mekong is important, but it is doubtful if this alone will help to promote the development of appropriate policies for resource management in the future (given the fact that the non-linear policy-making model tends to predominate in the countries of the Mekong Basin); (b) The utility of the information generated might be greatly increased by a better understanding of the policy-making processes involved (if one assumes that the persistence of the non-linear policy-making model is in part dependent upon asymmetry of information access and flow); (c) The fact that the non-linear model of policy-making is also characterised by a lack of participation in decision-making by a majority of stakeholders also needs to be addressed. Greater participation, in particular by primary stakeholders (e.g. fishers, farmers) is essential for the successful design and implementation of appropriate resource management policies. 4.3. The stakeholders of the Mekong Basin The Lower Mekong Basin currently has a population of almost 60 million people in all the 4 riparian countries. The policies which currently dictate aquatic resource management in the region affect all of these stakeholders, but in different ways. For the majority, the primary stakeholders (rural households who farm and fish), the policy framework of their countries is a key factor in determining their livelihood options and livelihood strategies. In the case of countries such as Cambodia and Lao PDR, where the economy is relatively small and undiversified, the majority of primary stakeholders have few opportunities (or incentives) to look beyond the river basin and its natural resources for a livelihood. For these primary stakeholders, the aquatic resources are highly valuable. Of course, the primary stakeholders are a highly diverse socio-economic group, and the significance or value attached to the aquatic resources by each will depend upon their relative status (e.g. rich compared to impoverished stakeholders). For the minority, the secondary or external stakeholders, who do not depend upon the aquatic resources of the Mekong Basin in a ‘direct’ or ‘consumptive’ way, this group 5
  • 11. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study may impute value in a different way. For example, they might value the Mekong for navigation or as a potential source of irrigation water or hydro-electric power. The important issue, of course, is that for the development of a country or a society, the most appropriate policy choices must be made in all domains of potential intervention. In the case of natural resource management, if there is an optimal policy choice to promote economic development, for example, then this needs to be made taking into consideration the possible benefits and costs of this particular choice. At the present time, there is a strong perception that in most of the countries of the Mekong Basin, policy decisions affecting aquatic resources are currently being made (or influenced) by the minority of secondary or external stakeholders. There appears to be little involvement or reference to the majority of primary stakeholders, and the choices which they might make, on the basis of their valuation of the aquatic resources. The overall outcome, therefore, is likely to be an inappropriate (or sub-optimal) policy, which undervalues the aquatic resources in general, and which promotes a sub-optimal development pathway or outcome. 4.4. Information and information gaps There exists a large and growing literature on the Mekong Basin and its aquatic resources. However, given the size and complexity of the resource system at all levels, it is not surprising that there are important information gaps. From a preliminary analysis of the literature, there appears to be good understanding of the physical (e.g. hydrology), environmental (e.g. land/water use) and biological (e.g. fish stocks) characteristics of the Mekong Basin (Appendix VIII). The main gaps remain in the areas of economic, social, institutional, policy and political knowledge. Without this full complement of multi- disciplinary information it is difficult to produce an overview of the Mekong Basin and to document and explain the actual (or potential) impact of policies on regional or national development (as highlighted in Sections 4.1. & 4.2. above). The main knowledge gaps need to filled with work in the following research areas: (a) Economics: What is the economic value of the aquatic resources and river as it naturally flows? (Appendix VI); What contribution do the resources make to livelihoods? (Appendix VII); (b) Social: What is the composition of the stakeholder groups? What is the relationship between these groups? (c) Institutional: What are the main institutional and organisational arrangements which affect the management and use of the aquatic resources? (d) Policy: What are the current policy arrangements? What is the performance of policy in terms of economic, social and development indicators? (e) Politics: How do different stakeholder groups in society affect policy-making and implementation? What incentives could lead to changes in policy and policy-making in order to promote sustainable development? The extent to which the knowledge gaps above could be filled within the short-term depends on a number of factors. From a positive perspective, there are a large number of 6
  • 12. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study research and development projects operating in the region, both national and international, some of which have research components (although environmental and ecological research predominates). Furthermore, social scientists can capitalise upon the knowledge of the resource systems already accumulated by natural scientists. From a negative perspective, the size and complexity of the social science knowledge gaps within the Mekong Basin are considerable. Many of the subject areas are also sensitive and difficult to research. Finally, there is a lack of local research capacity which will need to be addressed also. 4.5. Research skills and research management The type of social science research which is needed to fill the important knowledge gaps identified briefly above require specialists in these areas, as follows: (a) Economics: Economists with experience of environmental valuation, including techniques such as economic impact and efficiency assessment, cost-benefit analysis, contingent valuation (Appendix VI); Also social scientists with experience of livelihood analysis and socio-economics assessment techniques (Appendix VII); (b) Social: Social scientists with expertise in stakeholder analysis; (c) Institutional: Social scientists with expertise in institutional analysis; Also legal analysis; (d) Policy: Policy analysts and development experts; experience of policy performance assessment; (e) Political: Political scientists with experience of developing countries, constituency formation and the nature and impact of political change. As indicated above, the Mekong Region has some capacity in all these areas, both national and international. However, there is no doubt that further capacity-building will be required. A further factor which needs to be considered is the potential benefits which can be realised from the close collaboration of different research and development projects and programmes. This will require effort and planning on the part of project/programme staff to coordinate their activities where possible. Finally, there are a number of possible options for the management of a research programme which might attempt to address some of the knowledge gaps and research questions identified for the Mekong Basin. This will be addressed in the next section. 5. PROGRAMME DESIGN 5.1. Introduction The TOR for the Scoping Study specify that the overall objective is to design a research programme to establish the full social and economic value of the aquatic resources of the 7
  • 13. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study Mekong River Basin. It was further specified that the programme should be fully coherent with other major research initiatives and inform and support regional and development objectives in the river basin, identifying key partners, research components and a management plan. It can be reported here that all of these objectives and requirements have been achieved. However, it should also be noted that the Scoping Study has extended and modified the research programme design beyond the original draft log-frame which appears in the TOR. DFID were alerted to the possibility that this might happen as the work of the Scoping Study progressed. The major modification to the programme design is the inclusion of an important component which aims to facilitate change in the nature of policy-making processes in the region over time, through a greater level of participation by all stakeholders. In fundamental terms, the Scoping Study team believe that the generation of new social and economic information will only go part-way to improve policies for river basin management. In order to achieve a greater impact, the nature of the policy-making process itself and the interface with new information provided by all stakeholders should also be changed (or improved). The new programme has been designed on the basis of two assumptions: • The programme will run for 4 years in the first instance; • The total budget will be £500K; 5.2. Programme Goal The Goal which provides the focus for the new programme is ‘the implementation of policies which contribute to regional sustainable development and equitable river basin management’ (LogFrame, Table 1). In order to achieve this goal, policy-makers will have to design appropriate policies. This will depend upon a number of key elements. First, there is a need to review different policy objectives (e.g. resource conservation vs. economic returns vs. poverty alleviation) and consider the likely trade-offs between them. In addition, alternative river basin management strategies and their likely outcomes will have to be compared. Second, the policy-makers will have to take account of the different resource users, interest groups and beneficiaries with alternative river basin management plans. Third, policy-makers will have to engage with these different stakeholders through a consultative process which allows their participation in policy decision-making. 5.3. Programme Purpose The programme purpose has two components: (i) to provide an improved understanding of the full social and economic value of the aquatic resources in the Mekong Basin and the contribution which they make to sustainable development; and (ii) to initiate a process by which the policy-making process itself becomes more effective in using this information through appropriate capacity-building and stakeholder participation. 8
  • 14. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study In other words, the implementation of appropriate river basin management policies which meet development goals, will depend on the policy-makers having social and economic information available to design and chose between policy alternatives. However, the whole process of policy-making (using information, and identifying and evaluating alternatives) in the countries of the Mekong Basin must be improved through two actions. First, there must be institutional capacity-building (e.g. training government officers in policy analysis). Second, the participation of all stakeholders in the policy-making process must be encouraged. This will require the facilitation of constituency formation and the definition of constituency roles within the policy-making process at different levels. Two main roles will be the generation and flow of information to policy-makers, and the creation of the means by which stakeholder constituencies can be informed of policy-making actions and consulted over important decisions. 5.4. Activities and Outputs The Activities of the Programme and the resultant Outputs fall into three broad categories. The first two sets of Activities/Outputs can be considered as ‘conventional research’. They will both generate new knowledge, which can be passed to policy-makers for use in the policy-making process. The third category of activity, however, is less conventional and might be described as ‘action-research’. The activity aims to facilitate change (improvement) in the mechanism of the policy-making process itself. The first Activity focuses on the assessing the social and economic value of the resources of the Mekong River. This consists of a series of inter-related and sequential components: (i) a desk-study of current knowledge and research activity; (ii) the establishment of research collaboration with other projects/programmes; (iii) the identification of knowledge gaps and methodological development; and (iv) a series of studies leading to the assessment of social and economic values. The second Activity focuses on the assessment of resource management policy options and their impact on sustainable development. There are three components: (i) investigation of resource management institutions and strategies, and their impact on sustainable development; (ii) study of factors of change likely to affect future management and outcomes, including economic growth, population increases and resource degradation; and (iii) future resource management options will be identified and their impact on sustainable development will be analysed under various scenarios (relating this to expected changes in the future). The third Activity will focus on the policy-making processes itself. There will be three main components: (i) an investigation of the roles and relationships between different stakeholders within the Mekong Basin; (ii) followed by a study of the policy-making processes in operation at all levels (local, national, regional), including an assessment of institutional capacity; and (iii) finally, methods for improved policy-making will be identified and tested, including capacity-building, increased information exchange and greater participation by all stakeholder groups. This will also include the identification 9
  • 15. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study and testing of methods for constituency formation and representation with the policy- making process. 5.5. Assumptions and constraints There are a wide range of assumptions and constraints which underlie the design of the programme. (a) Research capacity: there is very limited research capacity in certain countries, particularly Lao PDR and Cambodia. This is an important constraint which means that detailed and careful planning of research implementation will be required. It is also assumed that capacity-building in the social sciences will be included in the current research project. (b) Related research: it has been assumed that certain aspects of the social and economic studies can build upon the results of already completed or on-going research (e.g. bio- physical research into the operation of the Mekong River Basin); (c) Scale: the Mekong Basin is complex and enormous. It has been assumed that it will be possible to develop methodologies in specific ‘trial’ locations, and that initially, at least, these methodologies can be transferred and used in other parts also; (d) Collaboration: it is assumed that it will be possible to build collaboration with other scientists and their programmes throughout the Mekong and at all levels – in fact, given the enormity of the research challenge, it is essential that this takes place (collaboration is also discussed below) (e) Government participation and facilitation: it has been assumed that it will be possible to secure government participation in the research, and that there will be a willingness at all levels to facilitate the work on policy-process improvement; (f) Political constraints: it has been assumed that political constraints to working on policy at all levels in all the countries can be overcome, and that all stakeholders will appreciate the potential development benefits which might be realised from improved policy-making. 5.6. Implementation strategy, schedule and milestones It is proposed that the initial 4-year research programme should work in Cambodia, as a major case-study. At the same time, links and collaboration will be established and actively maintained with all the other countries of the Mekong Basin through regular meetings and establishment of an information network to disseminate news, outcomes and results. There are three reasons behind thjs proposal: (a) Cambodia has the highest level of dependence on the aquatic resources of the Mekong; (b) Cambodia is strategically located at the centre of the Mekong Basin, and is the location of a number of major research programmes, particularly those operated through the Mekong River Commission (based in the capital Phnom Penh); collaboration with these programmes and others will be important; 10
  • 16. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study (c) There is already a well-established base of knowledge on the fisheries and other aquatic resources of the Mekong in Cambodia, largely as a result of collaborative programmes between the Government of Cambodia (Fisheries Dept) and various international agencies (see below). There are also a number of disadvantages in making this choice (and possible remedies), including: (a) A single-country focus (Cambodia) may bias the analysis of basin-wide policy considerations (the research programme will have to ensure a good network of information flow and contact with the other countries); (b) Approaches and methodologies for social, economic and policy analysis developed in Cambodia may not be transferable to other countries (early testing of approaches and methodologies should also take place in the other countries). The proposed implementation schedule of the programme Activities is shown in Table 2 along with key milestones (Research Reports). As explained earlier, two of the three Activities (Social & economic assessment; Resource management options) can be classed as ‘conventional’ research. They require the establishment and development of social and economic assessment methodologies appropriate to the situation in the Mekong Basin. In turn, the expected Outputs will consist of databases and reports containing the relevant social and economic information, and accompanying analysis, which has been generated. It is expected that the research programme can increase knowledge in this area over the course of 4 years. The third Activity (Analysis and improvement of policy-making) is less ‘conventional’, as indicated earlier. It will have a basis in policy-analysis research, but will also be complemented by an ‘Action Research’ component. This will involve capacity-building activities, the creation of stakeholder networks for information exchange and the initiation of constituency-building. The central idea will be to facilitate the means by which stakeholders at all levels can interact and contribute to the policy-making process. At a low level, this may involve primary stakeholders being more involved in the collection and distribution of information to policy-makers, or at a higher level, it may lead to the organisation of stakeholder constituencies and advocacy by these groups. It is expected that the policy-analysis component of the work can be completed in 4-years and might be achievable through establishing some form of “mentoring” programme. The outcome of this ‘Action Research’ element is far less predictable, and should be viewed as an activity that is likely to lead to certain benefits for improved policy-making in the long-term. 5.7. Research implementation, collaboration and programme management There are a number of options for the implementation and management of the research programme on social and economic valuation. Three important questions need to be answered: 11
  • 17. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study (a) Who should implement the research? (b) Who should manage the research? (c) How should the implementation and management be organised? In order to begin answering these questions and to identify and evaluate the possible options, an important starting point was to produce a profile of the existing research and development programmes working on aquatic resource management in the Lower Mekong Basin. This was also used as a basis for assessing their potential collaboration in the new research programme (Appendix V). Profiles of 15 well-established projects/programmes and their institutions were examined, and then evaluated with respect to the following 4 domains (and a set of criteria): (a) Focus: (Is collaboration with social/economic research possible and appropriate?) (b) Implementation: (Is there an ability to implement social/economic research?) (c) Management: (Is there an ability to manage a research programme in social/economic research?) (d) Policy impact: (Is there an ability to use new research output in policy-making process? The results of this profiling and assessment exercise revealed that all the 15 projects/programmes and their host institutions had some capabilities to offer in different domains. For example, some would be suitable for research management as opposed to research implementation. However, two of the projects/programmes seemed to offer a complete range of capabilities. These were the Mekong River Commission (Environmental Programme) and the ICLARM Programme (of particular relevance in this context is the ICLARM/SIDA collaborative programme entitled The Legal and Institutional Framework, and Economic Valuation of Resources and Environment in the Mekong River Region: A Wetlands Approach). Each could demonstrate positive characteristics and capabilities in their profiles under all domains. Both the MRC and ICLARM profiles were distinguished by their capabilities to implement social and economic research, and most significantly, to use research to impact on policy in the Lower Mekong Basin. At the same time, however, almost all the projects/programmes/institutions profiled were lacking significant staff capacity with expertise in the social sciences. As a result of considering the above profiling and analysis, and also taking into account the overall findings of the Scoping Study, three options for the management of a new research programme on social and economic valuation in the Lower Mekong Basin have emerged: Option 1: Management by UK-based institution Programme managed by UK-based institution (e.g. university-based research centre) with expertise in social sciences and experience of research project management and 12
  • 18. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study implementation in developing countries. Using both UK-based and local collaborators to implement research. Option 2: Management by international organisation with regional base in SE Asia: Programme managed by international organisation with a regional office in SE Asia (e.g. DFID SEA or UN FAO or NACA, Bangkok) with strong background in project management and facilitation in the region, but without in-house expertise in social sciences and policy option analysis. Organisation would commission international and local experts in social sciences to undertake research. Option 3: Management hosted by regional organisation with international expert assistance: Programme managed by regional organisation (e.g. Mekong River Commission) with assistance from appropriate international technical expertise. The nature and level of this input would be subject to further discussion and agreement with MRC staff. However, this could comprise TCO personnel or appropriately qualified expertise identified through the Associate Professional Officer scheme. The technical assistance would be appointed to a specific post within the MRC and help facilitate strong collaboration with the work of the host organisation. The technical assistance would be based in the Environment Programme and maintain active links both to the Fisheries Programme and to the ICLARM project mentioned above. Additional local and international collaboration (possibly through additional TA / APO support) will need to be established until additional local capacity in social sciences can be built-up. In making a choice between the three options, it is helpful and appropriate to use the criteria outlined in Appendix (V) Table 1. Overall, it is considered that Option 3 offers the best opportunity of success. An organisation such as the Mekong River Commission (Environment Programme) has a highly relevant focus (multi-disciplinary environmental management), there is experience of social science research implementation and management with the MRC. Crucially, the MRC has direct and important links to regional and national policy-making processes. There is in fact no doubt that it is explicitly part of the policy-making process for aquatic resource management in the Lower Mekong Basin. The MRC HQ is sited in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and therefore has significant locational advantages for operating an initial Phase of this new programme, based on the earlier suggestion that Cambodia should be used as an initial country case-study. Given this somewhat more limited geographical context than envisaged, effort should be made by the new research programme (through MRC and ICLARM) to disseminate programme approach and activities, and facilitate collaboration from other agencies and donors in supporting the overall scope of the research programme. In this regard, ad hoc support could be provided by other international agencies such as SIFAR/FAO. It should be noted that although MRC has been highlighted as the preferred location of the proposed new research programme, the Scoping Study Team has been impressed by 13
  • 19. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study the activities of many of the other organisations. An important task, therefore, of the start-up and implementation of the new programme will be the establishment of appropriate collaboration with the full-range of relevant organisations and experts, particularly with ICLARM, but also with IUCN and others who have dedicated work in the social sciences. There are clearly huge benefits from sharing information and tackling the major research challenges in collaboration with one another. DFID should ensure early negotiation with both MRC and ICLARM and seek agreement regarding this Option 3. 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The results of this Scoping Study have confirmed: (a) the great significance of aquatic resources for the development of the countries of the Lower Mekong Basin; (b) the need for the development of appropriate resource management policies which capitalise on this development potential; (c) the requirement of social and economic information and understanding to inform the policy-making process on development in the region; (d) the requirement also of improved policy analysis and policy reform (through capacity building and stakeholder participation) to optimise the usage of social/economic information; (e) the need for a new research programme in social and economic valuation in the Lower Mekong Basin; The key recommendations which have emerged from the Scoping Study are: (a) The new research programme should address the Goal of how to achieve the implementation of policies which contribute to regional sustainable development and equitable river basin management; (b) The new research programme should include the generation of information on social/economic values to assist better understanding, but also initiate a process of policy-making improvements to ensure that all stakeholders participate in decision- making related to resource usage and management; (c) The new research programme should operate initially in Cambodia, hosted by the MRC and with international technical assistance in management and implementation; (d) The new research programme should build collaborative relationships with all relevant stakeholders and other research programmes to facilitate its activities and maximise its impact. 14
  • 20. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study Table 1. PROJECT FRAMEWORK: Social and Economic Valuation of the Aquatic Resources of the Lower Mekong Narrative summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs Mean of Verification (MoV) Goal: Implementation of River basin management recognises alternative strategies, outcomes and Government policy policies which contribute to trade-offs between policy objectives. documents & official regional sustainable development statistics; and equitable river basin River basin management takes account of the different resource users, management. interest groups and beneficiaries. Reports from NGOs and other independent A process by which all stakeholders engage in policy-making and organsations management decision making is established. Purpose: (i) Improved Key policy-makers and regional planners have access to valuation Government reports & understanding of the full social information. Official statistics; and economic value of aquatic resources in the Mekong Basin; Institutions responsible for policy-making and planning have capacity to Government reports; (ii) to initiate a process to use valuation information. improve policy-making through capacity-building and Evidence of information influencing management decision-making Government reports; stakeholder participation: Participation of all stakeholder groups in the policy-making process, Government Reports; including consultation and decision-making, is encouraged and Reports from NGOs facilitated. Outputs: 1. A social & economic 1.1. Current knowledge & research activity on Mekong established; Research Report No.1; assessment of the aquatic 1.2. Research collaboration established with other projects/programmes; RR No.1 resources and ecosystems of the 1.3. Knowledge gaps & study methodologies defined; RR No.2 Mekong completed. 1.4. Social/economic value of Mekong established. RR No.6 2. Assessment of resource management policy options and 2.1. Current institutional & management systems, and their impacts RR No.3 their impact on regional defined and understood; sustainable development 2.2. Factors of change likely to affect future resource management and RR No.5 completed. its impact identified, analysed and understood; 15
  • 21. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study 2.3. Future resource management options identified and their impact on RR No.7 3. Analysis of policy-making sustainable development analysed under various scenarios; process completed and strategy for improvement successfully 3.1. Relationships between stakeholders defined and understood; RR No.4 initiated. 3.2. Characteristics of policy-making processes and associated RR. No.8 institutional capacity understood; strategy for policy-making improvement identified; 3.3. Strategy for policy-making improvement through capacity-building, RR No.9 information exchange and participation successfully initiated. Activities 1. Social and economic 1.1. Desk study of existing knowledge & research activity on Mekong Project Management assessment of the Mekong System (multi-disciplinary perspective); Reports (Quarterly & undertaken 1.2. Identification and establishment of collaborative arrangements with Annual) other projects/programmes; 1.3. Identification of knowledge gaps & methodology for social/economic studies defined; 1.4. Social/economic assessment studies undertaken (including livelihood analysis); local research capacity-building undertaken. 2. Assessment of resource 2.1. Investigation of existing institutional arrangements and resource management policy options and management strategies and the impact on sustainable development. their impact on sustainable 2.2. Study of factors of change likely to affect future resource development undertaken. management and outcomes; 2.3. Analysis of future resource management options and scenario 3. Policy-making process analysis of impact on sustainable development; analysed and then strategy for improvement initiated. 3.1. Investigation of stakeholders (roles and relationships within region); 3.2. Analysis of policy-making processes (local, national, region levels), investigation of institutional capacity, and a strategy for improvement of policy-making identified; 3.3. Initiation of policy-making improvement strategy through capacity- building, information exchange and stakeholder participation. 16
  • 22. Mekong River Basin Scoping Study TABLE: 2 INDICATIVE SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES Y 1 2 3 4 Half-year 1I 1ii 2i 2ii 3i 3ii 4i 4ii Activity 1. Social & economic assessment of aquatic resources in Mekong; 1.1 Desk study of existing RR1 knowledge; 1.2. Establishment of research RR1 collaboration; 1.3. Methodology development; RR2 1.4. Social & economic assessment RR6 studies; 2. Assessment of resource management; 2.1. Investigation of institutional RR3 arrangements & resource management strategies; 2.2. Study of change impacts; RR5 2.3. Study of future management RR7 options & scenario analysis; 3. Policy-making processes 3.1. Stakeholder analysis; RR4 3.2. Analysis of policy-making RR8 processes & development of future strategy; 3.3. Initiation of policy-making RR9 improvement strategy; 17
  • 23. Appendix (I) (A) TERMS OF REFERENCE (B) RESPONSE TO TERMS OF REFERENCE 18
  • 24. Appendix (I) - Terms of Reference (A) TERMS OF REFERENCE: MEKONG SCOPING STUDY Background: Throughout the world millions of the poorest and most vulnerable live in river basin, dependent on the river to support their livelihoods. Despite some recent studies on the Mekong, the relationship between the communities living in the basin and the river remains obscure. We do not fully understand the complexity of the relationships which bind fishing and farming communities to the seasonal cycles of flooding which characterise tropical river systems. Throughout the world the demand for water is becoming greater, much of the world is moving towards a position of water scarcity and the pressure to use rivers for power generation and for irrigation is increasing. Despite the failure of many very large dams to deliver promised benefits, the era of the mega-dam seems to be far from over and plans are afoot to dam several of the worlds largest rivers. Including the Euphrates, the Mekong, and the three gorges project in China to dam the Yangkse. Underlining these plans is a failure to understand the economic value of the river as it naturally flows, and the ecological and livelihoods benefits which derive from the river and its floodplain. These benefits are often diffuse, hard to quantify and often accrue to groups geographically and socially isolated without political voice. Nevertheless the few studies which have been done, demonstrate that the value of allowing rivers to flow naturally, greatly outweighs the benefits from abstracting water for either irrigation or power generation, and this information has been hugely influential in the development of more complex and diverse policies for the management of large river basins. The need to understand the relationships between the river and the people who depend on its aquatic resources, and to establish the value of naturally flooding rivers has been highlighted by a number of studies, and has driven forward this study. A number of other development agencies and research groups are currently engaged in studies into the aquatic resources of the Mekong, including ICLARM, the Mekong River Commission, the River Basins Initiative. Following a proposal from DFIDs research section, the managers of the RNR fisheries research programmes, developed an initial proposal to identify the livelihood strategies of groups dependent of aquatic resources. This was amended with comments from the DFID NR advisers in Asia and a tentative LogFrame agreed (attached below). The overall aim of the research is to generate knowledge which will contribute toward a better understanding of the full value of the aquatic resources and inform and direct both policy and decision-making in the river basin. The initial phase of this work will therefore be to design a research programme which supports other research programmes and generates new knowledge and understanding. Overall Objectives: The overall objective of the Scoping Study is to design a research programme to establish the full social and economic value of the aquatic resources of the Mekong river. The programme will fully coherent with other major research initiatives 19
  • 25. Appendix (I) - Terms of Reference and will inform and support regional and international development objectives in the river basin, identifying key partners, research components and a management plan. Scope of the Work: The consultant will develop a programme in collaboration with ICLARM and other research and development partners. Specially the consultants will: 1. Review the research on the valuation of the aquatic resources of river basins and in particular work completed or underway on the Mekong river. 2. Identify and contact major international, regional and national organisations conducting research on the aquatic resources of the Mekong river basin. Identify the key objectives of the research, current and planned activity and institutional priorities. 3. Review the institutional and organisational basis of current aquatic resource management decision making in the river basin, determining regional and national agencies, management objectives and development priorities. 4. Identify key partners for the research programme and the interface for knowledge uptake and application within policy development and management decision-making 5. Design a research programme consistent with the draft LogFrame and coherent with research currently underway in the river basin. The programme should outline programme components, tentative knowledge outputs and major research partners. The proposal should clearly identify the pathways and context by which knowledge generated will be applied to deliver development outcomes. Opportunities for the co- funding of research should be explored. 6. Develop draft management arrangements for the project including the identification of key national and regional partners and propose a management structure. Outputs: The scoping study will develop a detailed research proposal and a management plan for a Mekong river basin study, fully consistent with the plans of other regional and international research and development agencies. The plan will presented to DFID for consideration within 14 days of the completion of the consultancy. Conduct of the Work: The consultant will be managed by SIFAR on behalf of DFID NR research section. A committee comprising three Fisheries PMs and DFID fisheries advisers will review and comment of the report. 40 days of consultancy time have been allocated to this work, with provision for extended travel to South Asia. A draft proposal will be submitted to the committee for review after 30 days. Competencies: The consultant will have a background in natural resources research management and will have experience of aquatic resource management in tropical river basins. Detailed knowledge of the SL approach and of environmental economics essential. Timing and Duration: The consultancy will start by the end of September 2001. 40 days consultancy time have been allocated for this purpose. 20
  • 26. Appendix (I) - Terms of Reference Project Framework Narrative Summary OVIs MoV Assumptions Goal: Policies for equitable Options for management river basin management recognise a broad range developed of resource users. Policies establish the rights of all resource dependent communities to engage in management decision making Purpose: Improved EoPS: understanding of the full social and economic Key policy makers and value of aquatic regional planners have resources in the Mekong access to valuation basin: information. Evidence of information influencing management decision-making Outputs: 1: An economic assessment 1.1 Regional partnerships of the aquatic resources and inform research ecosystems of the Mekong 1.2 Desk studies completed. incorporating existing knowledge completed 1.3 Analysis of existing management policy. 1.4 2 Assessment of the 2.1 Constituency of contribution made resource dependent aquatic resources and groups established ecosystems in supporting 2.2 Case studies of the livelihoods the people livelihoods in river living in river basins. dependent communities 2.3 Analysis of trade-offs in management options 2.4 3: Knowledge effectively 3.1 Network of resource disseminated to key managers and policy stakeholders within river makers established. basins. 3.2 Systems for engaging 21
  • 27. Appendix (I) - Terms of Reference Narrative Summary OVIs MoV Assumptions regional management bodies Activities: Inputs: 1 £000s 2 3 4 5 Total 22
  • 28. Appendix (I) - Terms of Reference (B) SIFAR/CEMARE RESPONSE TO TERMS OF REFERENCE Introduction The overall objective of the Scoping Study is to design a research programme aimed at developing a better understanding of the social and economic value of the aquatic resources of the Mekong river. Such a programme is seen as crucial in terms of generating information of direct relevance to river basin development. The information derived will be used both in awareness building, and in informing and influencing complex policy processes relevant to the sustainable management of this and other large river basins. It is foreseen that the programme will generate significant evidence on the important role played by the highly diverse traditional capture fisheries of the Mekong basin in maintaining local livelihood benefits. It is likely also to pinpoint threats to these livelihoods from gross environmental changes that could result from large-scale water management activities. As articulated in the Draft ToRs and logframe provided, the programme will be consistent with other research and will inform and support regional and international development objectives in the river basin, identifying key partners, research components and a plan for programme management. The Study will be implemented by the Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources (CEMARE) under the overall supervision of FAO's Support unit for International Fisheries and Aquatic Research (SIFAR). Additional resource persons will be deployed to complement available skills. How the study will be conducted - key needs With reference to the general objective, ToRs and logframe, the study needs to: • Articulate in a precise way the key research questions which need investigation, highlighting how these are relevant in policy. For example, the TOR state “… establish the full social and economic value of the aquatic resources of the Mekong river”. This general statement will need to be fully developed. • Identify and undertake a preliminary characterisation of the policy frameworks, including the policy-making process and policy implementation (regional, national, international), which will affect the Mekong river. The utility of the social/economic information generated by research will be determined by the nature of the policy environment, and it is important to include this aspect within the research programme in some way, possibly as a research area. Or, in other words, the generation of the information (cf. ‘the need to understand the relationship between the river and the people who depend on its aquatic resources, and to establish the value of naturally flooding rivers [re: OVI: key policy makers and regional planners have access to valuation information] is not a sufficient condition to achieve the project goal, a detailed analysis of how this information may be used by the policy-makers is also considered necessary. 23
  • 29. Appendix (I) - Terms of Reference • Identify who are the principal stakeholders likely to be affected by policy decisions. This is important because we cannot discuss ‘economic value’ without addressing the question: ‘value for whom?’. There are also important questions relating to poverty and equity to be addressed. • See what knowledge is available to answer these questions, where the knowledge gaps are, and how easily the gaps could be filled. For example, would it really be feasible to conduct a contingent valuation methodology (CVM) survey, or would a benefit transfer approach be the only feasible option? How would these approaches relate to sustainable livelihood analysis? • Establish what skills and specialist expertise would be required both to do the research (for example, what specialist disciplines / multidisciplinary expertise will it require ?); and to manage research programme implementation. How the study will be conducted - team structure The overall general objective and scope of the work corresponds well with CEMARE’s area of expertise and current activity i.e. the economic and social analysis of fisheries and aquatic resource systems. In particular, CEMARE can offer appropriate skills and experience of research into riverine and coastal areas in less developed countries. CEMARE will offer a strong team comprising five of their key senior staff, with appropriate and complementary skills, to undertake the scoping study as follows: Dr. Arthur Neiland (policy analysis and economics) Dr. David Whitmarsh (environmental economics) Dr. Premachandra Wattage (environmental economics) Dr. Christophe Bene (policy analysis and socio-economics) Mr. Roger Lewins (rural socio-economics). This team will be complemented with David Coates, a Mekong fisheries specialist who has been working long-term in the Assessment of Fisheries Project, MRC, Vientiane (Danida funded). Other resource persons will be identified in due course. What we will deliver and when Implementation would begin in late October when a representative of SIFAR and/or CEMARE would travel to the region to participate in the MRAG/FMSP workshop, establish links with potential partner organisations interested in collaborating (Annex 1). The CEMARE team would undertake the main scoping activities from the beginning of December 2001 (earlier than this is not possible owing to previous commitments). The work could be roughly divided into three phases: Phase 1: Preparation, collation of materials, briefing with SIFAR, DFID and others, liaison with staff in SE Asia (UK, 15 man.days; also facilitated and supplemented by proposed October visit); 24
  • 30. Appendix (I) - Terms of Reference Phase 2: Visit to key organisations in SE Asia, field visits in Mekong study, workshop with relevant stakeholders (Annex 2), consultation with key experts, preliminary research programme design (SE Asia, 50 man.days); Phase 3: Collation, analysis, review, write-up of findings, refinement of research programme design based on wide consultation with partners, presentation to SIFAR / DFID (UK, 30 man.days). Output The information collected during the study (above) will be collated, analysed and reviewed in order to design and propose an appropriate and achievable research programme. This will focus on the economic and social aspects of the Mekong river system as defined by the logframe (it is noted that some modifications to the logframe may be proposed as part of the programme design process, and assumed this is acceptable). The programme will identify programme management needs to ensure effective implementation. Conduct of the Work The consultant will be managed by SIFAR on behalf of DFID NR research section. A "virtual" steering committee will be established comprising the three Fisheries Programme Managers; DFID Advisers (London and SE Asia); SIFAR and the CEMARE Coordinator. This group will review and comment both on this response document and on the final report. It will also convene as and when required at the request of any member. 25
  • 31. Appendix (II) LIST OF KEY INTERVIEWEES 26
  • 32. Appendix (II) - Key-Interviewees CAMBODIA !"Mr. Sarthi ACHARYA, Research Director, Cambodia Development Research Institute (CDRI), Phnom Penh, Cambodia. !"Mr. Michael BIRD, Programme Representative, Oxfam GB, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. !"Ms. Kelly BROOKS, Oxfam Mekong Initiative, Oxfam America, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. !"Mr. Tep BUNNARITH, Acting Executive Director, Culture and Environment Preservation Association (NGO), Phnom Penh, Cambodia. !"Mr. Sim BUNTHOEUN Programme Database Officer, Oxfam America, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. !"Mr. Lai BUTHA Extension Adviser, SCALE (NGO), nr. Phnom Penh, Cambodia !"Dr. Chris BARLOW, Senior Programme Officer, Fisheries Unit, MRC Secretariat, PO Box 1112, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, (855 23) 720 979. E-mail: Barlow@mrcmekong.org !"Mr. Heng DA, Extension Trainer, SCALE (NGO), nr. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. !"Mr. Ben DAVIES, Livelihoods Adviser, DFID, British Embassy, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. !"Dr. Peter DEGEN, Socio-economic Adviser, Project for the Management of the Freshwater Capture Fisheries of Cambodia, MRC, Department of Fisheries, 186 Norodom Blvd PO Box 582, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Tel: +(855 23) 723 275, Fax: +(855 23) 427048. E-mail: MRCFISH@bigpond.com.kh or ifric@bigpond.com !"Mr. Marc GOICHOT, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Phnom Penh, Cambodia. !"Dr. Hans GUTTMAN, Environment Programme Coordinator, Environment Division, MRC, PO Box 1112, 364 M.V. Preah Monivong, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Tel: +(855 23) 720 979, Fax: +(855-23) 720 972. E-mail: guttman@mrcmekong.org !"Dr. Jeanineke Dahl KRISTENSEN Programme Manager, Fisheries Programme, MRC, PO Box 112, 364, Preah Monivong, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Tel: +(855 23) 720 979, Fax: +(855 23) 720 972. E-mail: jeanineke.dk@mrcmekong.org !"Mr. Bruce MCKENNEY, Programme Manager, Natural Resources and the Environment, Cambodia Development Research Institute (CDRI), Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 27
  • 33. Appendix (II) - Key-Interviewees !"Mr. Ka MING, Technical Adviser, SCALE (NGO), nr. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. !"Mr. Tuok NAO, Director, Department of Fisheries, 186 Norodom Blvd, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. E-mail: catfish@bigpond.com.kh !"Mr. Ngin NAVIRAK, Programme Officer, Cambodia Livelihoods Study Project, Oxfam UK, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. !"Mr. Sam NUOV, Deputy Director, Department of Fisheries, 186 Norodom Blvd, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. E-mail: catfish@bigpond.com.kh !"Ms. Poeu OUCH, Regional Coordinator of Women in Fisheries Network, MRC Assessment of Mekong Fisheries Component, Department of Fisheries, 186 Norodom Blvd, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. E-mail: catfish@bigpond.com.kh !"Mr. Pen ROTHA, Extension Trainer, SCALE (NGO), nr. Phnom Penh, Cambodia. !"Mr. Sak SAMBATH, Programme Assistant, DFID, British Embassy, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. !"Mr. Tuy SAMRAM, Agriculture Senior Project Officer, Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Phnom Penh, Cambodia. !"Mr. Mak SITHIRITH Environmental Network Coordinator, NGO Forum, Phnom Penh, Cambodia !"Mr. Bruce TODD, Oxfam Mekong Initiative, Oxfam America, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. !"Mr. Seang Tana TOUCH Economic/Social Adviser to Cabinet Council of Ministers, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. !"Mr. Ly VUTHY, Office of Community Fisheries Development, Department of Fisheries, 186 Norodom Blvd, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, ifric@bigpond.com.kh !"Dr. Nicolaas VAN ZALINGE, CTA, Management of Freshwater Capture Fisheries of Cambodia, Department of Fisheries, 186 Norodom Blvd, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. E-mail: ifric@bigpond.com.kh LAO PDR !"Dr. Ian BAIRD Global Association for People and the Environment, Vientiane, Lao PDR. 28
  • 34. Appendix (II) - Key-Interviewees !"Mr. Jim CHAMBERLAIN, Social Assessment and Policy Consultant, Vientiane, Lao PDR. !"Dr. Wolf HARTMANN, Chief Technical Adviser, Project for the Management of Reservoir Fisheries in the Mekong Basin (MRFP), MRC, PO Box 7035, Vientiane, Lao PDR, Tel: +(856 21) 216 268, Fax +(856 21) 223610. E-mail: merops@laotel.com or hartman_00@yahoo.com !"Mr. Nick INNES-TAYLOR, Institutional Adviser, Regional Development Co-ordination (RDC), AIT Outreach, Department of Livestock & Fisheries, PO Box 16, Savannakhet, Lao PDR. Tel: +(856 41) 214520, Fax: +(856 41) 212 549. E-mail: nick@udon.loxinfo.co.th !"Mr. Lionel LAURENS, Rural Development Adviser, UNDP, Vientiane, Lao PDR. !"Mr. Ole PEDERSEN, Coordinator, Natural Resources and Environment Programme, DANIDA, Vientiane, Lao PDR. !"Mr. Nouvong PHOSAVATH IUCN Office Manager, Vientiane, Lao PDR. !"Dr. Jens SJORSLEV Senior Socio-economist, MRC, PO Box 7035, Vientiane, Lao PDR. !"Mr. Glen SWANSON, Rural Development Adviser, UNDP, Vientiane, LAO PDR. !"Mr. Choulamany XAYPLADETH, Director, Living Aquatic Resources Research Centre (LARReC), PO Box 9108, Vientianne, LAO PDR. Tel: +(856 21) 215 015, fax: +(856 21) 214 855. E-mail: Larrec@laonet.net THAILAND !"Mr. Simon BLAND, Natural Resources Adviser, DFID SEA, British Embassy, Bangkok, Thailand !"Mr. Pedro BUENO, NACA, Suraswadi Building, Department of Fisheries, Kasetsart University Campus, Bangkok 10900, Thailand. !"Dr. Harvey DEMAINE, Associate Professor and Co-ordinator, Aquaculture and Aquatic Resources Management Programme, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok, Thailand. 29
  • 35. Appendix (II) - Key-Interviewees !"Mr. Premrudee EANG, NGO Director, Project for Ecology Recovery (PER) & Towards Ecological Recovery and Regional Alliance (TERRA), Bangkok, Thailand. !"Dr. Hans FRIEDERICH, Head, Regional Wetlands and Water Resources Programme, IUCN, Bangkok, Thailand. !"Dr. Richard FRIEND, Consultant Anthropologist/Policy Expert, Bangkok, Thailand Fax: +(66 34) 624756. E-mail: richardfriend@hotmail.com ; From Jan 02 working with IUCN Thailand. !"Mr. Simon FUNGE-SMITH, Regional Adviser for Aquaculture & Inland Fisheries, UN FAO, 39 Pra Athit Road, Bangkok, Thailand. Tel: (+66) 2697-4149, Fax: (+66) 2697-4445. E-mail: sjfsmith@loxinfo.co.th !"Dr. Graham HAYLOR, Director, STREAM, c/o NACA, Suraswadi Building, Department of Fisheries, Kasetsart University Campus, Bangkok 10900, Thailand. Tel: +(66 2) 561 1728, Fax: +(66 2) 561 1727. E-mail: ghaylor@loxinfo.co.th !"Dr. Phillip HIRSCH, Director, Australian Mekong Resource Centre, Division of Geography, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, NSW2006, Australia. Tel: +(61 2) 9351 7796, Fax: +(61 2) 9351 3644. E-mail: hirsch@mail.uysd.edu.au !"Dr. Kungwan JUNTARASHOTE, Department Chairman, Department of Fisheries, Faculty of Fisheries, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. !"Dr. Supawat KOMOLMARL, Fisheries Biologist, Department of Fisheries, Bangkok, Thialand. !"Dr. Wattana LEELAPATRA, Fisheries Economics Division, Department of Fisheries, Bangkok, Thailand. !"Dr. Oophatum PAWAPUTANON Deputy Director General, Department of Fisheries, Bangkok, Thailand !"Dr. Mike PHILLIPS, NACA, Suraswadi Building, Department of Fisheries, Kasetsart University Campus, Bangkok 10900, Thailand. E-mail: naca@mozart.inet.co.th or mjphillips@inet.co.th !"Dr. S.L. RANAMUKHAARACHCHI Associate Professor, Agricultural and Aquatic Systems and Engineering Programme, AIT, Bangkok, Thailand. !"Mr. Alvaro RODRIGUEZ, Chief, Sub-Regional Resource Facility (SURF), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Bangkok, Thailand. 30
  • 36. Appendix (II) - Key-Interviewees !"Dr. Amararathne YAKUPITIYAGE, Associate Professor and Co-ordinator, Agricultural and Aquatic Systems and Engineering Programme, AIT, Bangkok, Thailand. VIETNAM !"Dr. Steen CHRISTENSEN Chief Technical Advisor, Assessment of Living Marine Resources in Vietnam, 10 Nguyen Cong Hoan – Ba Dinh – Hanoi, Vietnam. Tel: (84-4) 7715704, Fax: (84-4) 7715707. E-mail: steen@netnam.vn !"Mrs Fernanda GUERRIERI, Representative for Vietnam, FAO Vietnam, 3 Nguyen Gia Thieu Street, Hanoi, Vietnam. Tel: (84-4) 942 4208. E-mail: FAO-VNM@fao.org !"Frits JEPSEN, Chief Technical Advisor Coordinator, DANIDA: Sector Programme Support, Ministry of Fisheries, 10 Nguyen Cong Hoan – Ba Dinh – Hanoi, Vietnam. Tel: (84-4) 7717001, Fax: (84-4) 7716522. E-mail: jepsen.stofa@fsps.com.vn !"Mrs. Anh Tran Thi QUYNH, International Marine Life Alliance – Vietnam, Suite 3.3B City Gate Building, 104 Tran Hung Dao Street, Hanoi, Vietnam. Tel: (84-4) 9420 481, Fax: (84-4) 9420 480. E-mail: ttqanh@imarinelife.org.vn !"Dr. John SOLLOWS, Chief Technical Adviser, Management of Reservoir Fisheries (Vietnam), MRC, 68 Le Hong Phong, Ban Me Thout, Vietnam. Tel: +(84 50) 852 924, Fax: +(84 50) 952 927. E-mail: johns@netman2.org.vn or johns@hcmc.netman.vn !"Do Than LAM, Programme Coordinator, Oxfam GB, c/o La Thanh Hotel, 218 Doi Can Street, Hanoi, Vietnam. Tel: (84-4) 8325491, Fax: (84-4) 8325247. E-mail: dtlam@oxfam.org.uk !"Dr. Le Thanh LUU, Vice Director, Research Institute for Aquaculture No. 1, Dinh Bang – Tu Son – Bac Ninh, Vietnam. Tel: (84-4) 827 1368, Fax: (84-4) 8273070 – 8785751. E- mail: ria1@hn.vnn.vn !"Dr. Nguyen Thanh PHUONG, Vice Director, Aquaculture and Fisheries Science Institute, College of Agriculture, Can Tho University, Campus 2, Can Tho City, Vietnam. Tel: (84-71) 830931; 830246, Fax: (84-71) 830247; 830323. E-mail: ntphoung@ctu.edu.vn !"Pham GIA TRUC, Programme Assistant, FAO Vietnam, 3 Nguyen Gia Thieu Street, Hanoi, Vietnam. Tel: (84-4) 942 4208. E-mail: FAO-VNM@fao.org !"Mr. Nguyen VAN TRONG, Head of Division, Research Institute for Aquaculture No. 2, Division of Aquatic 31
  • 37. Appendix (II) - Key-Interviewees Environment and Fisheries Resources, 116 Nguyen Dinh Chieu, Dist., Ho Chi Minh Cty, Vietnam. Tel: (84-8) 8229616 & 8299592, Fax: (84-8) 8226807. E- mail: amfpvn@hcm.fpt.vn !"Dr. Ha Xuan THONG, Director, Institute of Fisheries Economics and Planning, 10 Nguyen Cong Hoan – Ba Dinh – Hanoi, Vietnam. Tel: (84-4) 7716054, Fax: (84-4) 8326054. E-mail: IFEP@netnam.vg.vn !"Dr. Nguyen Xuan LY, Director, Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Fisheries, 10 Nguyen Cong Hoan – Ba Dinh – Hanoi, Vietnam. Tel: (84-4) 8354516, Fax: (84- 4) 7716702 OTHERS !"Dr. Eric BARAN, Research Scientist, ICLARM, PO Box 500, GPO 10670, Penang, Malaysia. Tel: +(60-4) 626 1606, Fax: +(60-4) 626 5530. E-mail: e.baran@cgiar.com !"Dr. Magnus TORRELL, Research Scientist, Policy Research & Impact Assessment Programme, ICLARM, PO Box 500, GPO 10670, Penang, Malaysia. Tel: +(63 2) 750 0309 ext 105, Fax: +(63 2) 813 7893. E-mail: m.torrell@cgiar.org 32
  • 38. Appendix (III) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, LIVELIHOODS AND THE ROLE OF MEKONG IN THAILAND, CAMBODIA VIETNAM AND LAOS: AN OVERVIEW 33
  • 39. Appendix (III) - Overview of Lower Mekong Basin Economic development, livelihoods and the role of Mekong in Thailand, Cambodia Vietnam and Laos: an overview. “mean toek, mean trey” (where there is water, there is fish) khmer proverb INTRODUCTION The objective of this appendix is to provide a general and brief description of the economic development and rural livelihoods context in the four countries of the Lower Mekong Basin (LMB), namely Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR). For this purpose, the appendix is structured into two main subsections. First the general physical and socio-economic context of the Mekong Basin is given from a regional perspective. The second section treats separately the four countries with emphasis on their specificities with respect to the LMB. 1. THE MEKONG BASIN FROM A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE 1.1. Geo-politics The Mekong (the world’s sixth largest river) is the longest river in Southeast Asia. It flows from Tibet plateau in South China through six countries: China, Burma, Lao PDR, Thailand, Cambodia and lastly down to the delta in Vietnam (Fig.1). Management of the Mekong basin therefore occurs within two incongruent sets of boundaries. The first set is political and results from the historical division of the region into countries, provinces and districts. The second set is bio- physical, defining the basin as a whole and the sub-basin units that comprise it. Taken in its entirely the Mekong basin spans a wide range of altitude, latitude, climate and vegetation zones along the 4200 kilometre length of the river. The Lower Mekong Basin (LMB) covers a somewhat narrower range of bio-geographical conditions. The four lower countries (Lao PDR, Thailand Cambodia and Vietnam) contain 77% of the basin area and account for more than four-fifths of the water that passes through the basin each year. Five of the countries included in the Mekong Basin have been through some form of socialist or socialist administration and three (China, Lao PDR and Vietnam) remain nominally socialists state in the process of economic reform. All countries have gone through periods of authoritarian rule. Both Lao PDR and Cambodia have institutional deficiencies linked to the aftermath of war and political transformation. While Vietnam 34
  • 40. Appendix (III) - Overview of Lower Mekong Basin has gone through similar processes, it has managed to achieve much better health and education outcomes while Thailand has had a relatively stable political and social history in recent times. 1.2. Socio-economy The Mekong basin has a population of approximately 60 million of whom about 50 millions are in the LMB. The LMB is economically diverse. In part this is due to the historical difference and divisions within the region. Table 1 shows the main economic indicators for each country. The most notable economic feature is the difference in average levels of income between the wealthiest and poorest countries of the LMB 1. In this respect, Vietnam and Thailand show significantly better health profiles compared to those for the people of Lao PDR and Cambodia. Table 1. Key socio-economic and development indicators Cambodia Lao PDR Vietnam Thailand East-Asia & Pacific Population (millions) 12 5.2 78.5 60.2 1,853 b Poverty (% population below poverty line) 36 na 37 16 na GDI US$ per capita 260 280 370 1960 1,060 (rank a) (141) (139) (127) (67) GDP growth (%) 5.0 7.3 4.8 4.3 5.7 Life expectancy 53 54 68 68 69 Mortality rate infant 100 93 36 28 35 (per 1000 live birth) HDI (rank a) 131 121 101 66 Rural population (% total) 85 77 81 79 Paved road (%) 7.5 15 25 97 na Illiteracy (% of population +15) 60 51 7 5 14 Access to improved water supply (%) 30 90 56 89 75 Agriculture (% of GDP) 37 53 24 2.2 Total debt per capita 196 480 198 1337 (outstanding and disbursed) US$ a out of the 162 World’s countries. b poverty data for the year 1999 at $1.5 a day. Sources: World Development Database 2000, Hirsch and Cheong 1996, ICLARM 1999, Baird et al.1998. While the majority of the basin’s inhabitants are farmers and fishers most of whom maintain a strong subsistence orientation, the main areas of resource development envisaged for the basin lie in different sectors. In particular hydropower and forestry are seen as major earners of national income and foreign exchange. This potentially places industrial and export sectors at odds with the subsistence needs and livelihood security interests of the region’s poorest people. Agriculture (including fisheries) will however remain the prime economic activity in the Basin in the foreseeable future. Indeed, while there is much hyperbole about Vietnam being an emerging economic "tiger", its economy is still largely resource based. This is also the case in Cambodia and Lao PDR which are more slowly moving out of an era of 1 Note that Thailand and Vietnam differs by a factor of about 10 on this measure. However, this is tempered significantly by the regional disparities within each country. Given that Thailand’s north-eastern region is its poorest, and Vietnam’s Mekong delta is its most prosperous area, the difference in living standards between the two most populous regions of the LMB is much less than the national comparisons indicate. 35
  • 41. Appendix (III) - Overview of Lower Mekong Basin economic "slumber". Even with the possible and dramatic advent of hydropower as a major GDP component in Lao PDR, the majority of the population will still be agriculturally based, as will Northeast Thailand which will continue to be a zone of agricultural production. As population pressures increase, farming land will become even scarcer, prompting challenges for governments and donor agencies. 1.3. Fisheries in the LMB This section is best started by mentioning that the LMB is considered to support one of the richest river faunas in the world, surpassed only by the Amazon and the Zaire Rivers. The river system itself is habitat to over 1000 species of fish and include many rare species such as the Mekong river dolphin and the giant catfish Pangasianodon gigas to name the more obvious ones. Fish is the primary source of animal protein in the Basin and comprises from 40 to 80% of the total animal protein intake. This has great significance for the Basin’s poorest inhabitants, and any disruption to this source would have significant nutritional consequences. In this respect, several reports emphasise that the potential impacts of future projects (such as hydropower schemes) are difficult to ascertain, due to the current limited information on fish biology and ecology. This lack of data on the aquatic resources sector also makes it difficult to credibly report on the overall state of exploitation of fish stocks. 2. COUNTRIES’ REVIEW 2.1. Thailand 2.1.1 Key socio-economic and development indicators Thailand East-Asia & Pacific Thailand can be described as the most powerful local economic force in the GDI per capita LMB with a major resource development interests within the boundaries of its Water supply GDP growth basin neighbours. Thailand’s GDP export earnings, level of industrialisation and standard of living surpasses those of its neighbours in the basin. Thailand’s Illiteracy rate Life expectancy demand for natural resource is an important part of the drive for regional Mortality rate development of the Basin. However against an upbeat background of impressive GDP growth there is increasing concern that this growth is not sustainable and is causing unacceptable ecological destruction. Increasing social inequalities also figure in the debate as the income gap between those in Bangkok and those in the other provinces (especially the Northeast) continues to increase. As a result of increasing environmental degradation and mounting public pressure, the Thai government since the 1980s has had to incorporate the environment into its policy agenda. 36
  • 42. Appendix (III) - Overview of Lower Mekong Basin 2.1.2. Significance of LMB to Thailand The basin covers about 183000 km2 or more than a third of Thailand. This, and the fact that within the basin Thailand shares common boundaries with Lao PDR, Burma, and Cambodia, inscribes the basin’s importance to Thailand in its socio-economic, cultural and political life. About 37% of the population or 21 million people live in the basin region. About 90% of this population relies on agriculture showing low levels of industrialisation and service sector development compared to the rest of the country. In fact, the part of Thailand which fall within the basin contrasts quite strongly with the central region in a variety of ways. The basin provinces demonstrate far greater proportions of ethnic minorities among their populations. They are also relatively less developed, derive most of their earnings from agriculture and trading and the inhabitants have lower average income 2. 2.2. Lao PDR 2.2.1 Key socio-economic and Lao PDR East-Asia & Pacific development indicators With an estimated per capita income of GDI per capita US$320 (1998), the landlocked Lao PDR is one of the poorest and least developed countries in the East Asia Water supply GDP growth region. Lao PDR covers 236,800 km2 with a population of 4.9 million growing at 2.6 percent per annum. Illiteracy rate Life expectancy Social indicators in the Lao PDR are among the worst in the region, and Mortality rate closer to the average for Sub-Saharan Africa. Lao PDR is predominantly rural in character. In economic terms, the rural sector accounts for 53 % of GDP and 80 % of employment and continues to be important to the Lao PDR economy. There are major constraints, however, to rural development and diversification, including poor rural infrastructure, access to markets and the limited network of all-weather feeder roads. 2.2.2. Significance of LMB to Lao PDR More than 85 % of the land area of Lao PDR is in the Mekong basin (202000 km2). About 35% of all water in the Mekong river originates from watersheds within Lao PDR. These watersheds form 26% of the total watershed area of the Mekong basin. In the context of the LMB, the Lao PDR watersheds provide about 60% of all the water. Lao PDR has in fact the largest available renewable freshwater per capita ratio in Asia The LMB is central to Lao PDR in all facets of its national economy. The major LMB development plans in Lao PDR are hydropower projects which aim to sell electricity to 2 For illustration the annual gross provincial product GPP per capita in Bangkok was estimated at 160,169 Baht in 1995 while for the basin provinces, it was an average of 15,579 Baht or only 9% of the BKK GPP. 37
  • 43. Appendix (III) - Overview of Lower Mekong Basin Thailand and the Lao government looks at hydropower development as the primary source of income for the country in the future. This is seen as an important export opportunity for the country that is very poor in GDP per capita terms and quality of life indicators such as infant mortality rates and life expectancy. Importantly, the foreign debt stands at US$2 billion, a high figure in view of the small population of 4.5 million people and GDP of about 1.3 billion. However, the Lao’s part of the LMB does not only have national significance. It also plays an important role in geopolitics 3. For example Lao PDR plays a critical role in any plans to improved navigation in the upper Mekong river, and thus the opening of important trade routes to southern china. At a societal level, the numerous watersheds of the Mekong river in this largely mountainous country support almost all of the numerous watersheds. The basin is also a cultural meeting point for the various ethnic groups living in the country. In this context its represents a unitary framework, but on the other hand it also provides the location for resource conflicts. Fish represents the most important source of animal protein to the Lao PDR, comprising form 30 to 50% of total animal protein consumption. In this respect, fisheries (and livestock) are considered by the government to present one of the most promising opportunities for commercialisation of the agriculture sector. This strategic orientation, however, is directed at the attainment of national food security. 2.3. Vietnam 2.3.1 Key socio-economic and Vietnam East-Asia & Pacific development indicators Vietnam is often called an emerging GDI per capita “tiger” in the economic world despite the continuing basis of its economic Water supply GDP growth performance on its natural resources. In the last decade, Vietnam has greatly reduced the incidence of poverty. The proportion of people with per capita Illiteracy rate Life expectancy expenditures under the total poverty line dropped dramatically from 58 percent in 1992/93 to 37 percent in 1997/98. This Mortality rate decline in poverty levels in rural and urban areas has been matched with improvements in access to education and in access to infrastructure. There has also been improved access to clean water supplies and sanitation facilities in both urban and rural areas. Over 90 percent of the urban poor and nearly 60 percent of the rural poor have access to electric lighting. 3 For illustration the Mekong river carves a common border between Thailand and Lao PDR for 900 (64%) of their 1400 kilometre common border. 38
  • 44. Appendix (III) - Overview of Lower Mekong Basin While the progress achieved over the past decade has been impressive by almost any standards, Vietnam remains a very poor country whose huge development potential is as yet largely untapped. Currently, around 25 million people, accounting for 60 percent of the labour force, are unemployed or underemployed. And each year in the coming decade, over one million people will be added to the workforce. Poverty is predominantly rural and associated with working in a low-productivity agricultural sector. Under the process of economic liberalisation or “doi moi” since the mid 1980s, it has seen rapid economic development. This underscores approaches to natural resource management within the country, where the development imperative is often highest on the government’s agenda. This imperative is driven by an economic growth momentum which is only now slowly beginning to be regulated by broader concerns for the environment. 2.3.2. Significance of LMB to Vietnam Within Vietnam the Mekong basin cover 29% or 94000 km2 of the nation’s total area and is represented by two disparate regions, the Mekong delta and the central highlands. The Mekong delta spans 395000 km2 (12% of country total) and provides a home for over 15 million people (22% of country total), making it the second most densely populated region in Vietnam. The central highlands region, in contrast, has the lower population density in the country with about 3 million people (4% of country total) living in an area of 56000 km2 (17% of country total). The two regions, while exhibiting widely different circumstances, are both highly relevant to Vietnam’s development plans. On the one hand the Mekong delta -the Vietnam’s rice-bowl-, producing 40% of total agricultural output, provides food security for the whole country and contributes to Vietnam’s status as the world’s third largest rice exporter. The central highlands, on the other hand, with their steep topography have large hydropower potential and forestry resources. This central highlands area, which is the poorest region of Vietnam, is seen by many as a resource “frontier”. It is therefore experiencing an important in-migration, which contributes to it having the highest population growth rate in the country (5.8%). 2.4. Cambodia 2.4.1 Key socio-economic and Cambodia East-Asia & Pacific development indicators GDI per capita After almost 30 years of civil war, occupation and military conflicts, Water supply GDP growth Cambodia is now at peace. The country’s political situation is stabilizing, and recent economic performance is promising. The economy grew by 5% in Illiteracy rate Life expectancy 1999, the exchange rate has remained stable, and inflation has continued to come down steadily. Communities are Mortality rate 39
  • 45. Appendix (III) - Overview of Lower Mekong Basin slowly being rebuilt, and the country's cultural heritage is being rediscovered. With its accession to ASEAN, Cambodia is redefining its political and economic position in the region. Yet Cambodia remains one of the poorest countries in the world with a per capita income of USD 300. Over one-third of the population lives below the poverty line, 90% of them in rural areas. Much of the population lacks access to health and educational facilities, safe water, electricity, sanitation, and serviceable roads, and land mines continue to limit the use of arable land. In terms of structure the main activity on which 80-85%% of the labour force depends is agriculture and related sub-sectors, which contribute about 50% the country’s GDP. The productivity of agricultural production however remains far below that of the best practice country in the region. Much of the growth has been concentrated in Phnom Penh which accounts for less than 10% of the population, and its impact and benefits in Cambodia’s vast rural society remain shallow and thinly spread. Achieving food security is a keystone of Cambodia’s development plans while at the same time, the country is strongly encouraging foreign investment to help boost production and kick-start its long dormant economy. It is noteworthy that aid money represents about 50% of the US$407 million in revenue indicated in Cambodia’s 1995 budget. These issues strongly influence the approach to natural resource management in the country. In fact, it could be said that Cambodia is an a classic dilemma of desperately needing short term economic gains but while lacking the capacity to determine exactly what are the ecological and social consequences of its development plans. 2.4.2. Significance of LMB to Cambodia Almost all (68%) of Cambodia land area lies within the Mekong basin. The Mekong basin is thus pre-eminent as a natural resource unit for Cambodia. Within this Cambodian part of the Basin, one feature of immense resource and environmental importance is Tonle Sap. The Tonle Sap basin is notable for its “great Lake” which is the largest freshwater lake in south-east Asia. The great lake connects with the Mekong river at Phnom Penh through the 120 kilometre long Tonle Sap river. Within the basin the Tonle Sap system plays a crucial role in water regulation. Since most of Cambodia’s territory is in the basin and as Cambodia is one of the downstream countries, resource management both inside Cambodia and in other riparian countries is of great significance. There is particular concern over implications of river development on the Tonle Sap system, which is the heart of the country’s agricultural and fisheries production. Fisheries production is interlinked with annual floods of the Tonle Sap and the Mekong- Bassac 4 delta around and downstream of Phnom Penh. About 14000 km2 are flooded annually and fish migrations as part of their breeding cycles coincide with these floods. Freshwater capture fisheries’ contribution to national food security and economy in 4 The Mekong river flows through Lao PDR into Cambodia and forms a major arm, the Bassac river at Phnom Penh. These two arms fan out gradually to commence the Mekong delta in southeast Cambodia until they meet the sea in Vietnam’s coast. 40
  • 46. Appendix (III) - Overview of Lower Mekong Basin Cambodia is higher than in any other country. Cambodia ranks fourth among the world’s top freshwater capture fisheries with an estimated annual production of 300,000 – 400,000 tons. Capture fisheries in Cambodia is therefore characterised by the relatively high degree of optimality due to established fishing skills and technology and the intensive nature of the fisheries especially in the Tonle Sap area. Trends however indicate that overfishing may be occurring for the larger and less fertile species such as the indigenous giant catfish Pangasianodon gigas and the large carp Catlacarpio siamensis. For Cambodia the protection of the Tonle Sap system including the maintenance of the annual floods is therefore crucial to the welfare of the country, as it enables the continued production of a large proportion of its rice 5 and fisheries. Table 2. Significance of Lower Mekong Basin (LMB) to the four riparian countries Cambodia Lao PDR Vietnam Thailand Total LMB c Share of country lying within LMB 86% 85% 29% 34% Share of population living within LMB 91% 89% 26% 37% Contribution of MB to agricultural 90% 91% 40% output Contribution to LMR’s total flow 60% 8% Contribution to LMB’s watershed 26% 23% Potential hydropower 2,200 MW 13,000 MW 2,000 MW 1,000 MW Inland wild and/or culture fisheries 250,000 – 100,000 - 150,000 - 650,000 – 400,000 t 150,000 t 350,000 t 900,000 t Per capita fish consumption 30 – 50 kg 35 - 40 kg 20 - 35 kg 20 – 30 kg Fish and other aquatic resources 80 – 90 % 70 – 90 % 60 % 40 – 80 % (as total animal protein intake) Various sources: World Development Indicators Database 2000, Hirsch and Choeng 1996, ICLARM 1999, Baird et al.1998, c The total LMB estimate may originate from a different source than the individual national estimates. REFERENCES (consulted and cited) Aeron-Thomas, M., 2001. Information on fisheries and its integration into the planning process of the MRC. A consultancy report for the assessment of Mekong Fisheries Component of the Fisheries Programme of the Mekong River Commission, MRAG, London, 31 p. Baird, I. et al. 1998. A rapid fisheries survey in Khong district, Champasak province, Southern Lao PDR. Technical Report Environmental protection and community development in the Siphandone Wetland. Lao PDR. CESVI – European Commission Project, 31 p. Bakker, K., 1999. The politics of hydropower: developing the Mekong. Political Geography 18, 209-232. 5 Rice-based farming systems cover 90% of the cultivated area or about 1.9 million hectares. Most of this is rainfed lowland rice production which mainly occurs on the plains surrounding the Tonle Sap system and the Mekong and Bassac rivers. The other major rice production systems also rely on the land and water of the Mekong basin. 41
  • 47. Appendix (III) - Overview of Lower Mekong Basin Degen, P. and Thuok, N., 1998. Inland fishery management in Cambodia: is the fishing lot system the basis for improved management or should it be abolished? In Crossing boundaries, 7th annual conference of the International Associationfor the Study of Common Property, IASCP, Vancouver. Degen, P., van Acker, F., van Zalinge, N., Thuok, N., and Vuthy, L., 2000. Taken for granted, conflicts over Cambodia's freshwater fish resources. In Constituting the Commons, 8th annual conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, IASCP, Bloomington, Indiana. FAO, 2001. Fisheries Country Profile, Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, available on http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp Gum W., 2000. Inland aquatic resources and livelihoods in Cambodia, a guide to the literature, legislation, institutional framework and recommendations. Consultancy report for Oxfam GB and NGO Forum Cambodia, Oxfam, 123 p. Hirsch P. and Cheong G., 1996. Natural resource management in the Mekong river basin: perspectives for Australian development cooperation. Final report to AusAID. Availbale on http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/geography/hirsch ICLARM, 1999. The legal and institutional framework, and economic valuation of resources and environment in the Mekong region: a wetland approach. Draft Programme/project document, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources management. 67 p. MRC, 2001. Annual Report Fisheries management and development cooperation, MRC Secretariat, Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh, 11 p. Tu T., 1996. Sustainable development in the Mekong River Basin. Land Lines 8(3) online available on http://www.linconinst.edu/landline/ van Zalingue, N., Thuok, N., and Seang Tana, T., 1998. Where there is water, there is fish? fisheries issues in the Lower Mekong Basin from a Cambodian perspective. In Crossing boundaries, 7th annual conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, IASCP, Vancouver. Vinary V. et al., 2000. All our livelihoods are dead, landlessness and aquatic resources in Battambang Province. Landlessness and Development Research 1999-2000, Oxfam GB, 31 p. WB, 2000. World Development Database 2000. available on http://www.worldbank.org/data/ 42
  • 48. Appendix (IV) KEY-ISSUES RELATED TO MEKONG AQUATIC RESOURCES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT 43
  • 49. Appendix (IV) - Key issues in the Lower Mekong Basin Key-issues related to Mekong aquatic resources and their management INTRODUCTION The objective of this appendix is to provide a general and synthetic overview of the key- issues related to the use and management of the aquatic resources of the Lower Mekong Basin (Lao PDR, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam). Although these issues appear to be complex and largely interrelated, they can be separated according to their nature and categorised into two generic domains: (1) the issues directly related to the resources’ use and livelihoods of the users; and (2) the issues related to the policies formulation and implementation processes regarding the management of these aquatic resources. The rest of this appendix is structured to address these two main questions in a linear way: a first section covers the issues of resource use and livelihoods, while the second cover the issues of policy and management. 1. RESOURCE USE AND LIVELIHOODS 1.1. Importance of aquatic resources for the livelihoods of LMB population Perhaps the first thing to do is to re-affirm the crucial role of natural resources and especially aquatic resources for the livelihoods of the tens of million people living within the LMB area. From the literature reviewed and people interviewed, there is little doubt of the importance of these aquatic resources in providing a source of nutrition, income and employment for the large majority of rural dwellers of the basin (Box.1). Rural families commonly harvest fish and other aquatic animals such as crabs, shrimps, snails, frogs, insects and plants from nearby fields, canals, ponds, rivers, streams, lakes etc. Of particular importance are fish and fish products. Fish is the primary source of animal protein in the Basin and comprises from 40 to 80% of the total animal protein intake. The fisheries sector, in particular subsistence fisheries, is therefore crucial to the dietary requirements of people in the Mekong Basin. Box 1. Importance of fisheries resources: the case of Cambodia Eighty five percent of Cambodia’s population is rurally based relying primarily on rain fed rice production as the dominant agricultural crop. The average rice yields in Cambodia are some of the lowest in the world with the typical farmer producing enough rice to feed the family for 7 to 10 months of the year. However fish and fish products are estimated to contribute up to 80% of the dietary animal protein intake of the population and Cambodians are considered one of the highest per capita consumers of fish and fish products in the world (recent household surveys estimate 75 kg/person/year). Rural families commonly harvest fish and other aquatic animals such as crabs, shrimps, snails, frogs, insects and plants such as morning glory, lotus and water lily; from nearby fields, canals, ponds, rivers, streams, lakes etc. These resources are traditionally accessible as common property providing an important livelihood supplement, especially for the poor, as a source of food and additional income. (Source: Degen and Thuok, 1998; Gum, 2000; Vinary et al., 2000) 1.2. Environmental degradation and over-use of natural resources Altogether the different aquatic resources have great significance for the Basin’s poorest inhabitants, and any disruption to these resources would have significant nutritional 44
  • 50. Appendix (IV) - Key issues in the Lower Mekong Basin consequences. There is however evidence of increasing environmental degradation and resource over-use within the whole LMB. Fisheries are reportedly declining, swamp forests and fish spawning areas are being destroyed, pesticides are increasingly used in rice fields, and several species of flora and fauna are threatened in swamps, floodplains and rice-fields. These overall environmental degradations are due to a series of various and combining factors whose effects are unlikely to be alleviated in the short-term: pressure on the resources due to population growth, destruction of inundated forest for rice production, pollution arising from agro-chemicals6, etc. (see box 2). Box 2. Environmental degradation; the case of the delta in Vietnam The Delta faces three major water and land resource problems. One is acute flooding, where wet season depths can reach more than four metres over large parts of southern Cambodia and the upper part of the Delta in Vietnam. The second is the problem of acid sulphate soils. The third is saline intrusion, particularly in the coastal provinces. These three issues are closely linked, and interventions to alleviate one problem can sometimes exacerbate another. A more recent resource use and environmental issue affecting the Delta has been conversion of mangrove forests to prawn farms, with significant implications for coastal protection and fish spawning environments. (Source: Hirsch and Cheong, 1996 ) In this regard, forest (including mangrove) and fisheries are probably the two main natural resources which are facing the most important threats in terms of over-use and degradations. 1.2.1. Deforestation The impacts of deforestation occur at local, national and regional levels. The figures of present forest cover show that large proportions of forest have been destroyed in the Lower Basin countries and current rates of deforestation are not sustainable. Indiscriminate logging (both legal and illegal) still occurs in many areas, with little effort put into replanting. The forces encouraging such logging include agricultural expansion, population pressures, corruption, government economic planning, and war. Inability to control such logging is also a factor of porous boundaries which allow the illegal export of logs. The case of mangrove deforestation in the Mekong Delta is similarly alarming. Profit from shrimp farming (but also large in-migration) led to massive clearance of mangroves at a rate unequalled anywhere else in the World. Hardly any mature mangrove forest remains now in the whole Delta. 1.2.2. Fisheries degradations While reliable data is difficult to obtain, there is a growing suspicion of over-use of fishing resources reflected, for instance, in the reduction of fish size in landings (or even complete disappearance) of certain large species. Field-based studies largely report the increasing widespread use of stock damaging fishing practices (electric shock gears, dry- 6 For instance the intensification of agriculture in the Mekong Delta is reliant on increased use of agrochemicals. While carbamate and organophosphorus pesticides have shorter residence times in the environment, organochlorines are very persistent and presence of these products has been recurrently observed in water and fish tissues in the Mekong Delta since the earlier 1990s. 45
  • 51. Appendix (IV) - Key issues in the Lower Mekong Basin up pumping). Beyond those (intra-sectoral) reasons, increase in population pressure and destruction of fisheries habitat (mainly loss or degradation of inundated forest) by both commercial fishers and local communities play a major role in the overall degradation of the fisheries7. On the other hand, large-scale hydropower projects along the Mekong river and its tributaries cause significant changes to the river system and have major impact on fish. Many species undertake long migrations within the rivers themselves and the most serious impact associated with hydropower projects is the blockage of these fish migration. Hill and Hill (1994, p.89) for instance assert that the blockage of fish migration alone could cause “a wholesale decline in the fishery throughout the whole Mekong river” 8. 1.3. Food security issues These problems of resource mis-use are all the more serious, given the high dependency of large numbers of people for their livelihoods on aquatic resources. In particular, the poorest households who rely on a larger proportion of these common property resources to ensure their dietary requirements and livelihoods are likely to be heavily impacted by these changes. In some areas the supply of food to the rural and the poor population is already reported to be inadequate. Furthermore, projections suggest that the current shortfall in fisheries production to ensure minimal nutrition standards will increase in the future. While aquaculture is expected to make up for some of this shortfall, the promotion of large-scale fish breeding projects are not relevant to the rural poor. In addition, expansion of aquaculture can contribute to increased environmental degradation when, for example, mangroves are cleared for pond systems as it is currently the case in the Mekong Delta. In summary, the following points should be emphasised from this first section: !"Natural resources represent the central element of the livelihoods of the totality of the population living within the Mekong Basin !"In particular, aquatic resources, which are mainly open-access or common properties, play an even larger role in the livelihoods of the poorest households of the Basin. !"Fish represent the most important source of animal protein for the 60 million people living in the LMB and as such represent (with rice) the pillar of the food security for the four riparian countries. !"However, natural resources in general and aquatic resources in particular are facing increasing pressures and environmental degradation (pollution, dam projects, over-fishing) which are directly jeopardising the livelihoods of millions of people and threatening the survival of the poorest. 7 The total production of the LMB fisheries has been in constant augmentation over the last decade (from an official figure of 356000 tonnes in 1991 to an estimate of more than one million tonnes in 2000). However this trend is likely to reflect more the increase in data collection effort rather than an actual increase in production. It would in any case be dangerous to rely on this to extrapolate any reliable conclusion regarding the status of the resources. 8 The full ecological impact of dam however is difficult to evaluate due to the lack of data (see section 2.1). 46
  • 52. Appendix (IV) - Key issues in the Lower Mekong Basin 2. POLICY AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES 2.1. Lack of knowledge Formulation of adequate policy and implementation of effective management cannot be undertaken if the relevant information is not available. From the review of the literature and from the interviews of various stakeholders, it appears that one major constraint facing the national and supra-national (regional, international) institutions responsible for the LMB’s development is the lack of data. This lack of data leads to a failure to fully understand and correctly evaluate (a) the economic value of the river as it naturally flows, and (b) the ecological and livelihoods benefits of the rivers and its floodplain environment for the local population (and in particular the poorest). There is an urgent need to generate adequate information regarding these two aspects as emphasised during a series of national workshops organised by ICLARM and regrouping various stakeholders from the four riparian countries (Box 3). Box 3. The lack of knowledge “Very little is known of the different types of wetlands of the (Lower) Mekong River and the values and benefits they provide. This is an important constraint to improving sustainable wetland use. A comprehensive knowledge of the wetlands and their functions and values are essential for making proper decisions on development options for the management of wetlands and wetland resources”. ICLARM, 1999, p.35 Likewise in Cambodia Degen et al (2000) note that despite the importance of subsistence fisheries to rural livelihoods, there appears to be little attention given either by the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) or the donor community to the poverty implications of the management of these resources. Indeed, without an appropriate valuation of the economic and social values of the natural resources and an complete understanding of the contribution that these resources play in the livelihoods of the local populations9, policies that attempt to address development priorities in the LMB are likely to consider Mekong Basin resource management mainly in terms of large-scale international upstream- downstream issues of water sharing. If the rural and the poor population is to benefit from improved and sustained use of the LMB resources, it is crucial to get an accurate picture of the present and potential values of the basin natural resources. 2.2. Inadequate natural resources management capacities While natural resource management activities function at a rudimentary level in many countries, some of the riparian countries are doubly afflicted in that they lack some of the basic institutional elements to even begin. This, in turn, reduces the capacity of the governments to manage and administer their affairs and constrains development. In particular, several reports emphasise the shortage of people trained in practical aspects of data sampling, data analysis and integrated, cross-sectoral basin management, including that of ability to assess the ‘real’ values of natural resources (see Section 2.1. above). One of the key-issues under this section on policy and management aspects is therefore an 9 See in particular Appendixes (VI) and (VII) on this aspect. 47
  • 53. Appendix (IV) - Key issues in the Lower Mekong Basin inadequate natural resources management capacity for most, if not all four riparian countries10. In Cambodia for instance Hirsh and Cheong (1996) and Gum (2000) point out that the management of the Mekong resources is characterised by very weak government ability. This general situation regarding the RGC’s administration has particularly negative consequences for fisheries resources and the local communities (Box 4). However the most alarming aspect of the literature reviewed is a widespread trend of conflict between local communities and fishing lot operators characterised by armed violence and an absence of formal mechanisms to address confrontation of this nature. Box 4. Fisheries management deficiencies: the case of Cambodia According to the ample literature available the situation of the fisheries sector in Cambodia is bleak. There appears to be a complete breakdown in management of inland fisheries. The DoF is the primary agency responsible for management of fisheries resources, yet their performance has been characterised by: - weak enforcement of fisheries legislation, - an inability to control widespread illegal and destructive fishing practices, - an inability to prevent or resolve fishing conflicts and - an inability to collect sufficient state revenue, reflective of the estimated value of commercial fisheries. Much of these deficiencies relate to the institutional incapacity of DoF staff to implement their mandate. At the local level the effectiveness of DoF staff is also hindered by interference from other local authorities such as military units or police. Source: Vinary et al., 2000; Degen and Thuok, 1998, Degen et .al, 2000. In Lao PRD, the situation is also relatively alarming. The government relies on the advice of numerous foreign consultants and agencies which is a clear symptom of the lack of skilled human resources and training facilities in the country. A key concern is the ability of the government to fully assess the impacts of proposed developments and to integrate multiple issues in natural resource management. The newly created Science, Technology and Environment National Organisation (STENO) is charged with developing environmental management legislation and assessing environmental impact studies. However, several reports and interviews emphasised that this organisation is still understaffed and under-skilled at present. 2.3. Sectoral incompatibilities As is the case in many international basins (e.g. Lake Chad Basin, Nile Basin, Amazon Basin) the situation of the LMB is characterised by a high degree of sectoral incompatibilitiy related to the multiple uses of the river and its resources. Within and between countries, competing interests of forestry, hydropower, conservation, subsistence livelihoods and other resource sectors present important developmental questions for projects that focus on one sector or another. Sectoral issues are manifest at different scales, sometimes transcending national borders. Fisheries, for example, are not contained within single countries, given the migratory behaviour of fish and the location 10 The situation of Thailand may in this respect appear to be slightly better than that of Vietnam and much better compared to Cambodia or Lao PDR whose situations in terms of natural resource management capacities are indisputably an urgent priority. 48
  • 54. Appendix (IV) - Key issues in the Lower Mekong Basin of the Mekong River along international boundaries. Hydropower often involves international negotiations between producers and consumers of electricity (see below). Several authors therefore identify the issue of sectoral incompatibility as a major one (e.g. Hirsh and Choeng 1996; Bakker, 1999). Some authors even attempted to (qualitatively) assess the cross-sectoral implications of major “generic” interventions using a Sector Incompatibility Matrix (Box 5). These SIM could be useful to illustrate the sometimes complementary, sometimes competing needs of the main resource sectors within the basin. Box 5. Illustration of sector incompatibility through SIM Impact on Fore Fish Agri Aqu Mini Oil Infor Indu Pow Tour Tran stry ery cultu acult ng and mal stries er ism sport re ure Gas Sect Gene Impact from Expl ors ratio orati n on Forestry ---- B-D A-E D-E B-C B-C C-D A-C A-C D A-B Fishery B ---- B B-D B B B-C A-C B-C A-C A-C Agriculture A-D B-D ---- A-D B B C-D A-B B B B-C Aquaculture B B-E A-E ---- B B B-C A-B A-E B-D B-C Mining B-D D C-D C-D ---- B C-D A-B A-B D A-B Oil and Gas B-D D C-D C-D A-B ---- C-D A-B A-B D A-B Exploration Informal B A A A B B ---- A-B B A B Sector Industries B-D D C-D C-D A A C-D ---- A-B D A-B Hydropower A-D D C-D A-C A A C-D A ---- D A Generation Tourism B-D A-C B B-E E E A-B B-E D ---- A Transport A B-D A-C A-C A A A-E A A A ---- Environment E C C-E C-E E E B-C E E C-E E Legend: A = Possibly conducive; B = No relevance; C = No major interference; D = Mutually interfering; E = Definitely negative impact. Possibly incompatible. (Source: Öjendahl and Torell, 1997) 2.4. Conflicting objectives and priorities Although the expression “conflicting objectives” could be used in the first place to characterise what we identified as “sectoral incompatibilities” (see above) the term is restricted here to divergences between the different stakeholders (e.g. ministries within governments, supra-national or international donor agencies) about the priorities to be given to these different sectors in terms of development. These priorities reflect the different objectives of the four riparian countries, which themselves depend on the levels of development, resource endowments, ideological backgrounds, directions of change, and relationships with neighbouring countries. Economic objectives of a country may very well sit uneasily with its political objectives, and even more so with environmental objectives. Lao PDR, for example, hopes to take full advantage of its resources (notably its high hydro-power potential -see below) to 49
  • 55. Appendix (IV) - Key issues in the Lower Mekong Basin promote economic growth and provide a fiscal base for socio-economic development, but it wishes to do so without becoming overly dependent on a single neighbouring economy - notably Thailand - and without destroying the resource base on which the majority of the country’s population depends for subsistence. Meanwhile, Thailand wishes to take advantage of the energy and other resources potential of neighbouring countries to assist in powering its continuing industrialisation, but at the same time to maintain a diversity of sources and to maintain a substantial reserve electricity generation capacity in order to reassure foreign investors of a guaranteed power supply. Vietnam’s political desire to integrate its economy within the Mekong Region lies behind its enthusiasm as an MRC member, yet a significant concession was made to upstream countries in the terms of the MRC Agreement over the right to veto upstream developments that may have environmental implications for the Delta. Finally, the Cambodian government is keen to develop the Tonle Sap Basin but is also keenly aware of the need to protect the river and lake system. These different perspectives of each country are further complicated by multiple agendas within each country. Situations can also occur where two conservation or environmental measures or programmes conflict with one another (Box 6) Box 6. Conflicting environmental measures: the case of saline intrusion About 1.6 million hectares of the Mekong Delta are affected by saline intrusions which are particularly important in the smaller tributaries and canals. Flood protection measures to control these saline intrusions involve the construction of dykes and canals over very large areas. However, stopping the inflow of saline water will lead to the diminution of mangrove areas, which will result in significant reduction of spawning and feeding areas for fish and severely affect shrimp nurseries. The reduction in fishing areas will reduce access by poor fisher-folk who rely on floodplain fisheries. (source: Hirsch and Cheong, 1996) With respect to the specific case of inland fisheries, and the role and contribution that this sector is expected to play within the national economy of each country, the review reveals also some significant divergences. While Cambodia -despite its current incapacity to manage the activity- seems to consider inland fisheries as a priority –at least as a rent generating sector and support for tax base, both Vietnam and Thailand have resolutely put emphasis on marine and cultured fisheries (aquaculture, essentially of prawn) and consequently do not consider inland fisheries development as one of their priorities. In contrast, land-locked Lao PDR seems to regard freshwater fisheries (along with livestock) as one major opportunities for commercialisation of the agricultural sector and also as one way to its secure national food security. 2.5. Major infra-structuring projects Although major infra-structuring projects (dams, roads, bridges, etc.) could be considered under the two previous sections above (sectoral incompatibilities and conflicting objectives) the case of these major infra-structuring projects (especially hydropower projects) stands by itself as a major issue essentially for three reasons: (1) the scale of the externalities generally induced by these projects on the environment and populations, (2) the irreversible nature of these projects, (3) the number of these projects in preparation. 50
  • 56. Appendix (IV) - Key issues in the Lower Mekong Basin Fig.1. Project of dams on the Mekong river. For instance, as far as hydro-power projects are concerned, the feasibility of between 25 and 30 dams is being studied (see Fig.1), mainly under the auspices of the Mekong River Commission. The rationale for these hydropower projects stems from Asia's rapidly growing energy demand, which is doubling every 12 years. Proponents of hydropower assert its comparative advantages over other energy sources (hydropower is often considered the “driving force for basin development”), but opponents are concerned about the implications of the (so-far) MRC's alleged pro- dam policies. The impacts (positive and negative) of other large-scale infra-structuring projects (roads, bridges) on the environment and the local population also need closer consideration. With reference to all these infra-structuring projects (dams and others), the issue of current lack of economic and social valuation of the Mekong river and of livelihoods benefits of the natural resources for the local population take its whole dimension here. In summary, from this section 2, the following points must be emphasised: !" As it is the case in many other international basins, the LMB faces a certain number of challenges regarding its development and management: (a) sectoral incompatibilities related to the multiple use of the river and its resources, (b) conflicting objectives in terms of development priorities between governments of the four riparian countries but also between ministries of national governments, or even supra-national or international agencies, !" The LMB also face some specific constraints in terms of policy formulation and natural resource management (especially fisheries) due essentially to poor human resource capacities. !" Due to an almost total absence of data, one observes a severe lack of awareness of the decision-makers (at the national but also international levels) about : (c) the economic and social value of the river as it naturally flows, (d) the ecological and livelihoods benefits of the rivers and its floodplain environment for the local population (and in particular the poorest) !" This lack of awareness has led (so far) the different decision-makers to consider large scale international upstream-downstream issues at the detriment of the livelihoods of the local –rural- population (which represent however the vast majority of the total population of the four riparian countries). 51
  • 57. Appendix (IV) - Key issues in the Lower Mekong Basin REFERENCES (consulted and cited) Bakker, K., 1999. The politics of hydropower: developing the Mekong. Political Geography 18, 209-232. Degen, P. and Thuok, N., 1998. Inland fishery management in Cambodia: is the fishing lot system the basis for improved management or should it be abolished? In Crossing boundaries, 7th annual conference of the International Associationfor the Study of Common Property, IASCP, Vancouver. Degen, P., van Acker, F., van Zalinge, N., Thuok, N., and Vuthy, L., 2000. Taken for granted, conflicts over Cambodia's freshwater fish resources. In Constituting the Commons, 8th annual conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, IASCP, Bloomington, Indiana. Gum W., 2000. Inland aquatic resources and livelihoods in Cambodia, a guide to the literature, legislation, institutional framework and recommendations. Consultancy report for Oxfam GB and NGO Forum Cambodia, Oxfam, 123 p. Hartmann W., 2001. Decentralisation of reservoir fisheries management in the Lower Mekong Basin (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam) FAO-CDC Regional consultation on interactive mechanisms for small-scale fisheries management. 26-29 November, Bangkok, 8 p. Hirsch P. and Cheong G., 1996. Natural resource management in the Mekong river basin: perspectives for Australian development cooperation. Final report to AusAID, availbale on http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/geography/hirsch ICLARM, 1999. The legal and institutional framework, and economic valuation of resources and environment in the Mekong region: a wetland approach. Draft Programme/project document, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources management. 67 p. MRC, 2001. Annual Report Fisheries management and development cooperation, MRC Secretariat, Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh, 11 p. Öjendahl J. and Torell E., 1997. The Mighty Mystery. SIDA, Stockholm. Sithirith M., 2000. Fishing for lives: conflicts and struggles between communities and fishing lots in Kompong Chhnang province. Report for NGO Forum Cambodia, Phnom Penh, 30 p. Sithik R., 2000. Fisheries degradation and its impact on Livelihoods Cambodia’s upper stream of the Mekong, Stung Treng. CEPA Report, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Phnom Penh, 46 p. Tu T., 1996. Sustainable development in the Mekong River Basin. Land Lines 8(3) online available on http://www.linconinst.edu/landline/ van Zalingue, N., Thuok, N., and Seang Tana, T., 1998. Where there is water, there is fish? fisheries issues in the Lower Mekong Basin from a Cambodian perspective. In Crossing boundaries, 7th annual conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, IASCP, Vancouver. Vinary V. et al., 2000. All our livelihoods are dead, landlessness and aquatic resources in Battambang Province. Landlessness and Development Research 1999-2000, Oxfam GB, 31 p. 52
  • 58. Appendix (V) PROFILE OF THE EXISTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES RELATED TO AQUATIC RESOURCES IN THE MEKONG BASIN (PLUS AN ASSESSMENT OF THEIR POTENTIAL FOR COLLABORATION IN A NEW RESEARCH PROGRAMME ON ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL VALUATION). 53
  • 59. Appendix (V) – Evaluation of existing Research and Development Programmes 1. INTRODUCTION Within the Mekong Basin, there are a large range of both research and development projects and programmes in operation with a focus on some aspect of the environment and its management. This work is funded and implemented at various levels from local to national to international level. In the following account, the activities which focus specifically on aquatic natural resources in the lower Mekong Basin will be considered and reviewed. 2. OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH There are three objectives, as follows: First, the projects and programmes which focus on aquatic resources and their management in the Lower Mekong Basin will be identified. The range will include small- scale projects operated by NGOs at the local level, to large-scale national and international activities. Second, each project or programme identified will be characterised using the information collected through discussions with key staff (Appendix II) and based on relevant literature. The following set of questions will be used as a framework for this review an covering four domains (Research Focus, Research Implementation, Research Management and Policy Impact): Research Focus: (i) What is the focus of the project or programme? Research Implementation: (ii) Is there effective vertical integration of operation? (e.g. local, national, international)? (iii) Are social and economic methods and information used? (iv) Does the activity have or depend upon collaboration with other activities/organisations? (v) Does organisation have good track record of achievement with social/economic work? (and recognisable potential for the future?) (vi) Is there a high level of staff capacity in the social sciences? Research Management: (vii) What is the institutional or organisational setting for the activity? (viii) Doe the organization have a good track record in research management? Policy Impact: (ix) Are there good links to policy-makers? (x) Is there good geographical coverage to allow effective impact on global issues? Third, following the characterisation of each project or programme, the potential for their close collaboration with a future DFID research programme on social and economic valuation will be assessed using a simple scoring system of each attribute, as shown in Table 1 (below). Each project or programme will be given a total score based on this 54
  • 60. Appendix (V) – Evaluation of existing Research and Development Programmes method. In other words, the project or programmes with the highest scores will probably be the most appropriate for future collaboration based on the criteria established. The attributes of a project or programme which could be considered to be ‘highly desirable’ for collaboration are those which score ‘3’ in Table 1. Table 1. Comparison of potential collaboration between existing Mekong programmes and a future research programme on social/economic valuation: simple scoring system Domain Assessment Criteria SCORES 1 2 3 RESEARCH FOCUS (i) Focus Narrow or non- Highly related or (Can social/econ research be relevant focus broad focus (good integrated and add value to (difficult to integrate potential for current work?) new work) integration) RESEARCH (ii) Vertical integration Low vertical High vertical IMPLEMENTATION (Will the level of operation integration (may integration (good facilitate social/econ constraint research potential for wide- research? overall by delimiting ranging social/econ e.g. local vs.macro) activity at one level) research) (iii) Use of social & Not used (difficult to Used as a focus or economic methods start-up new integral part (good (Is there a familiarity with approaches in possibilities for methods and applications?) social/econ domain building upon existing without track-record) work) (iv) Collaboration Weak or narrow (will Strong or diverse (Are the existing limit opportunities for (good opportunities arrangements well-developed developing a new for developing & appropriate? research programme) research) (v)Track record with Poor (new research Strong (new research social/econ research will probably also be will capitalize on good (Has organization performed constrained by same environment) well in past & good potential causal factors) for future?) (vi)Staff expertise Low capacity High capacity (Is there capacity in social (implementation will (research will be well- science?) be constrained) facilitated) RESEARCH (vii) Institutional setting Marginal or weak Central or strong MANAGEMENT (will the setting facilitate new (setting will not (Setting will facilitate research?) facilitate research) research) (viii) Track record in Poor (new research Strong (new research management (has will be constrained) will be facilitated) organisation performed well in the past?) POLICY IMPACT (ix) Links to policy-makers Poor (research output Strong (research will (are there good links for will not reach policy- reach policy-makers channeling research output?) makers in effective effectively) way) (x)Geographical coverage Poor coverage (impact Strong coverage (Are issues given wide on global policy issues (impact on global geographical coverage?) will be reduced) policy issues will be enhanced) 55
  • 61. Appendix (V) – Evaluation of existing Research and Development Programmes 3. KEY FINDINGS For the purposes of this assessment, a total of fifteen programmes/projects which focus on the aquatic resources of the Mekong were identified (Table 2). Those identified exhibit a range of characteristics and varying potential for collaboration with a future DFID research programme on social and economic valuation. Case-study 1: Small NGO: SCALE, Cambodia Contact: Mr. Ka Ming. SCALE is a small NGO based outside Phnom Penh. It is focused primarily on technical support to small-scale fish farmers, providing advice and some inputs for aquaculture. There is some rudimentary livelihoods analysis associated with the work. SCALE does not have a major impact on national policy, being very small and localised in operation. It currently receives support from overseas voluntary donations and some donor support (there is a certain institutional fragility). There is evidence of good local collaboration, but overall lacks a track-record, expertise, institutional capacity or geographical coverage to participate to a significant degree in a new research programme on social and economic valuation. There is a potential role to facilitate local case-study research for Cambodia. TOTAL ASSESSMENT SCORE: 11. Case-study 2: Large NGO: Oxfam Contact: Mr. Michael Bird Oxfam UK has taken an increasing interest in the role of aquatic resources in the Mekong and recognises the need for social and economic valuation research. As a major international NGO, it has the capability to operate at all policy levels from local to international. However, its influence in the Mekong so far has been limited (it is a new player) and needs to develop its institutional setting in the region. Other weaknesses currently include limited expertise, limited direct links to policy-makers at present and low geographical coverage to pursue a significant role within a new social and economic research programme. TOTAL SCORE 17. Case-study 3: Large NGO: IUCN Ref: Dr. Hans Friederich/ Dr. Richard Friend Like Oxfam, this international NGO has started to take an increasing interest in the role of aquatic resources, and also the need for social/economic analysis. Has the potential to influence policy throughout the Mekong, but so far this has been limited. Presently expanding its Wetlands Programme and through further institutional development and capacity building, IUCN could collaborate with a new research programme to some effect in the future. Weaknesses at present include limited capacity, direct links to policy- makers and low geographical coverage. TOTAL SCORE: 17. Case-study 4: Department of Fisheries, Cambodia Contact: Mr. Tuok Nao 56
  • 62. Appendix (V) – Evaluation of existing Research and Development Programmes The DoF Cambodia, like many government fisheries departments throughout the world (similar profile could be produced for the other countries in the Mekong Basin), presents a very conventional profile, where its main roles are to monitor fish stocks and set and then enforce rules for fishing. This narrow focus of activity and the associated limited usage of social/economic analysis is a constraint to broadening the government’s view of fisheries and articulating the sector with development and poverty work in general. The links to policy-making and the institutional set-up are defined by government frameworks, and are rigid and conservative. Collaboration is good at all levels, particularly internationally ones, where a number of bi-lateral and multi-lateral programmes have been implemented. Also through its interaction in the MRC, the DoF has been exposed to new ideas and techniques, but predominantly in fisheries science. Weaknesses include lack of expertise in social/economic analysis, a limited track-record in this area and low overall capacity to change this at present. TOTAL SCORE: 17 Case-studies 5 & 6: National Government Institutes: LARReC, Lao PDR and CDRI, Cambodia Contacts: Dr. Choulamany Xaypladeth (LARReC); Mr. Bruce McKenney (CDRI) Both of these government research institutes in Lao PDR and Cambodia are showing an increased interest in the economic role of aquatic resources, and there is potential for the development of a more concerted research agenda in each institution. They have already a reasonably sophisticated (albeit national) development research agenda with some local and national collaboration, and routinely use social/economic information and analysis. In turn, they may be able to extend their national policy advice role in the future. Current weaknesses include some lack of expertise, track-record and institutional capacity in social/economics research. No basin-wide remit. TOTAL SCORE: LARReC: 17 and CDRI: 19 Case-study 7: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok Contact: Dr. Harvey Demaine AIT has a good record of operating international basin-wide programmes in the field of aquatic resources. However, most of these have been concerned with aquaculture development through technology development, transfer and extension. Although there is some utilisation of social science information/methods, AIT probably lacks the appropriate track-record or capacity to implement the work proposed by the new DFID programme. Good institutional set-up, track-record in management and geographical coverage, but lacks direct links to policy-makers. OVERALL SCORE: 17. Case-study 8: UK Bilateral DFID Research Programmes (Fisheries and Aquaculture) Contact: Professor John Beddington/ Dr. Ian Payne/Dr. Chris Mees (MRAG); Professor James Muir (Stirling) Both the DFID Fisheries Science Management Programme and the DFID Aquaculture Programme have undertaken research in the Mekong Basin. There is evidence of good local collaboration, a respectable track-record but limited overall capacity in the social 57
  • 63. Appendix (V) – Evaluation of existing Research and Development Programmes sciences. The host UK institutions for both programmes (MRAG Ltd and Stirling) offer a range of skills and experience, particularly in the bio-physical and technical aspects of aquatic natural resource management, which could articulate usefully with a new research programme in social and economic valuation. Good institutional setting in UK with strong management record. Direct links to policy-makers in Mekong Basin are not strong. TOTAL SCORE: 20 Case-study 9: International Programme: Network for Coordination of Aquaculture (NACA), Bangkok Contact: Dr. Mike Phillips With a head-quarters in Bangkok, this organisation coordinates an impressive network of participants throughout SE Asia and the Pacific rim. These include government departments, institutes and a range of other stakeholders at all levels of society. NACA (as suggested by the name) was originally established to promote aquaculture development, with particular emphasis on the dissemination of technological innovations and management techniques. It has now shifted its emphasis towards integrated rural development, with special reference to aquatic resources. NACA clearly has a strong and well-developed institutional set-up and evidence of extensive and good collaboration. Although NACA has broadened its agenda to include areas such as economics and livelihoods, this is a relatively new development. It is unclear to what extent NACA has impacted on policy in this arena. It would appear that there are some limitations in terms of staff capacity in the social sciences, and therefore a limited track-record of activity also. Finally, it should be noted that NACA along with DFID, Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO) and UN FAO have recently established an initiative called STREAM (Support to Regional Aquatic Resources Management. Contact: Dr. Graham Haylor). Its overall purpose is to develop capacity for poor and vulnerable aquatic resource users in the Asia-Pacific region to pursue their livelihood objectives. STREAM hopes to achieve this through local capacity-building, through lesson-learning and more effective communication between stakeholders, and through supporting policy and institutional changes. TOTAL SCORE: 21. Case-study 10: International Programme: Mekong River Commission (Environmental Programme) Contact: Dr. Hans Guttman The Environmental Programme is the largest core-programme within the MRC based in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. It operates on a broad front and at many levels, offering a wide range of possibilities for linking to other areas of research which relate to environmental management in general. There is some utilization of social/economic information, and a significant relationship with policy (the MRC is part of the government of each riparian country and is directly involved in policy-making). The institutional setting of the MRC and the level of collaboration (basin-wide in both cases) is impressive. However, there are some weaknesses with a limited track-record, staff capacity in the social sciences. TOTAL SCORE: 24. 58
  • 64. Appendix (V) – Evaluation of existing Research and Development Programmes Case-study 11: International Programme: Mekong River Commission (Fisheries Programme) Contact: Dr. Jeanineke Dahl Kristensen This is a large programme which has been operating for many years, with local, national and regional perspectives on key issues. It has established an impressive array of information on the biophysical and environmental aspects of fisheries, and this has even been extended to modeling of the fisheries resource. There has been a lesser emphasis on social and economic aspects of fisheries, although some socio-economic research has been operating in recent years. Again like the MRC Environmental Programme, the institutional setting is impressive and there is an ability to input into policy at a high level. Collaboration is generally good (although there is some criticism from NGOs). There is a limited track-record and capacity related to social science research. TOTAL SCORE: 23. Case-study 12: International Programme: ICLARM Contact: Dr. Magnus Torrell The new ICLARM programme is operating on a broad-front, at all levels and focuses specifically on social science dimensions of natural resource exploitation and management. The impact on policy is likely to be important (although uncertain at this stage) and there is a reasonable local institutional setting for the programme activities (albeit remote from ICLARM HQ in Malaysia). Local collaboration is good. ICLARM has a track-record and expertise in social science research, although its overall capacity in this area is weak. TOTAL SCORE: 24. Case-study 13: International Programme: UNDP Contact: Mr. Alvaro Rodriguez, Chief, Sub-Regional Resource Facility (SURF) UNDP was central to the development of the MRC (institutional support and training), including the production of the Basin Development Management Plan in 1997. Now UNDP activity is largely confined to technical assistance and policy advice for the National Mekong Committees (increasing their capacity to negotiate with the MRC with respect to water supplies). The Bangkok-based SURF operates in NE Asia, SE Asia and the Pacific, and provides a networking, knowledge-sharing and technical support function. The focus of the UNDP remains at a regional, and macro-level. It is difficult to appraisal the activities of the UNDP overall, given that it tends to play a supporting role to institutions (‘behind the scenes’). The overall potential for high-level collaboration in a new research programme on social/economics of aquatic resources is limited. TOTAL SCORE: 15. Case-study 14: International Programme: UN FAO Contact: Mr. Simon Funge-Smith The UN FAO has a regional office in Bangkok which represents 33 countries of the Asia- Pacific Region. The role of FAO has shifted from that of advisory support and project 59
  • 65. Appendix (V) – Evaluation of existing Research and Development Programmes design (mainly for UNDP) to one of a facilitator for development activities in this region which arise from many sources (bi-lateral, multi-lateral donors). Clearly, FAO has many strengths, with good institutional relationships and collaboration, particularly at inter- governmental level. However, other than its facilitating role, it has limited experience, expertise or capacity in social science research relating to aquatic resources in the region (which is not its role anyway). TOTAL SCORE: 18. Case-study 15: International Programmes: Asian Development Bank and World Bank Both the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have been active in the Mekong Basin for many years working with government departments. There are a number of current projects relating to aquatic resources. For the ADB, these include both technical support and institutional capacity building in the areas of water transport and environmental assessment. For the World Bank, projects include transportation, flood protection and institutional capacity building. It is difficult to appraise the potential for collaboration with either of these major lenders. Research is a small part of their remit and their focus is more on capacity building and technical implementation. OVERALL SCORE: 15. 5. CONCLUSIONS The Mekong Basin has become the focus and centre of activity for a wide range of research and development institutions. In the process of reviewing a selection (total of 15) of the well-established projects and programmes relating to aquatic resources and their management, it is evident that some exhibit a greater potential than others for future collaboration with a new research programme on social and economic valuation. The review process was carried out with reference to a set of criteria which attempted to focus attention on a set of desirable attributes for collaboration. These covered four domains: focus, research implementation, research management and policy impact. It was judged that many of the existing projects/programmes and associated institutions exhibited some potential for collaboration i.e. they all scored well for certain specific desirable attributes. However, relatively few projects/programmes and their host institutions could present a comprehensive profile of desirable attributes. Overall, it was found that MRC (Environment Programme) and ICLARM demonstrated the most desirable set of attributes for future collaboration with a new research programme in social and economic valuation. 60
  • 66. Appendix (V) – Evaluation of existing Research and Development Programmes Table 2: Assessment of potential for collaboration with programmes/projects in the Mekong Basin (only well-established programmes have been included). FOCUS (i) What is the focus of the project/programme? IMPLEMENTATION (ii) At what level does it operate? (iii) Is social/economic analysis used at present? (iv) Is there good collaboration? (v) Good track record in social science research? (vi) Staff expertise/capacity? MANAGEMENT (vii) Good institutional setting? (viii) Good track record in management? POLICY IMPACT (ix) Links to policy- makers? (x) Geographical coverage Programmes/projects Scoring: TOTAL 1 (poor or inappropriate) to 3 (good or highly appropriate) 1.NGO (small): 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 SCALE 2.NGO (large): Oxfam 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 17 3.NGO (large): IUCN 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 17 4.GO: DoF Cambodia 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 17 5. GO: LARReC 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 17 6. GO: CDRI 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 19 7. AIT 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 17 8. Bi-Lateral: DFID 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 20 Fish/Aquaculture Progs 9. International: NACA 2 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 3 21 10. International: MRC 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 24 (Environment Prog.) 11. International: MRC 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 23 (Fisheries Prog.) 12. International: 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 24 ICLARM 13. International: 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 15 UNDP 14. International: UN 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 18 FAO 15. International: 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 15 WB/ADB 61
  • 67. Appendix (VI) ECONOMIC VALUATION OF NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 62
  • 68. Appendix (VI) - Economic valuation of natural environment Economic valuation of the natural environment INTRODUCTION This Appendix examines the principal methods of placing economic values on the natural environment, focussing on the valuation of impacts which affect the environmental quality of aquatic natural resources. We begin with a discussion of the concept of economic value, how far economic measures truly reflect 'social' values, the various components of value which can be attributed to the aquatic environment, and the ways in which valuation comparisons are made in practice. 1. ECONOMIC VALUES AND ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS 1.1. The meaning of ‘value’ In general terms values can be defined as ‘beliefs, either individual or social, about what is important in life and thus about the ends or objectives which should govern or shape public policies.’ (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1998). To apply this definition to the natural environment, therefore, means eliciting from people the strength of their beliefs about what to them makes the environment ‘important’. The conventional approach of economics is to look for some way of measuring human preferences for or against changes in the state of the environment, the change being either an improvement or a deterioration. (Hussen, 2000). Where such preferences are expressed in terms of willingness to pay – for example, to raise water quality on a certain stretch of river – it follows that the measure of value is necessarily in monetary terms. The use of money as a yardstick of value has the advantage that it facilitates comparison between, on the one hand, specified improvements in environmental quality, and on the other, what must be given up to attain this in terms of other goods and services. The relevance of this to policy making should be apparent, since if environmental assets can be valued in monetary terms it provides a rational basis for deciding whether such assets should be maintained as they are, enhanced and upgraded, or allowed to be sacrificed to some other use. 1.2. Social values and impacts It needs to be emphasised that, measured in the way described above, economic values are also social values. This follows almost as a matter of definition, since the concept of value is anthropocentric: it is people who value the environment, and accordingly the estimated values reside in the individuals themselves rather than in the objects of their assessment. Destruction or degradation of an environmental asset for which people have signalled a willingness to pay to preserve intact must necessarily make society worse off, and as such the economic loss is also a social loss. The obvious difficulty arises where the valuation question involves a change from the status quo - possibly initiated by a project or policy intervention - that is expected to create losers as well as winners. River damming for hydro-electric power illustrates this well, involving as it typically does a wide diversity of effects including major changes in environmental quality and aquatic resource use. Conventional cost-benefit analysis side-steps the issue by invoking the 63
  • 69. Appendix (VI) - Economic valuation of natural environment principle of 'potential compensation' (i.e. that the intervention represents a net gain to society if the winners could compensate the losers and still be better off), but since this principle does not insist that compensation actually be paid it starts to become rather unsatisfactory where the losers happen also to be the poorest of the poor. In short, the arithmetic of economic valuation may well adjudge a project such as dam construction to be worth undertaking insofar as it improves the net wealth of society, but it is clear that the social impact of the project is unlikely to be neutral. In such situations something more than economic valuation is warranted, specifically a distributional analysis to examine how the net costs and benefits are apportioned across different groups affected by the change (McKenney, 1999). 1.3. Values attributable to aquatic natural resources It is nowadays recognised that a natural resource may provide a range of benefits according to the particular use or function it fulfils, and this forms the basis of the concept of total economic value (TEV). The components of TEV in respect of an aquatic resource, such as a river system and its adjacent wetlands, are illustrated schematically in the accompanying Figure. Aquatic resource Use value Non-use value Direct use Indirect Option Bequest Existence value use value value value value e.g e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g. Harvesting Ecological Harvesting Harvesting Knowledge of fish, support opportunitie opportunitie of aquatic and function of s on a later s by future continued timber inundated occasion generations existence of forest for the aquatic fisheries resource 64
  • 70. Appendix (VI) - Economic valuation of natural environment The obvious and tangible benefits would be those derived from direct use of the resource, and these may materialise in the form of commodities (e.g. fish, aquatic plants, fuelwood) or services (e.g. recreation and amenity). The aquatic resource may additionally have an indirect use value in situations where, for example, the inundated forest which forms part of the flood plain system provides an essential habitat for juvenile fish. In such instances the habitat may have an important role in supporting commercial fishing, but changes in habitat area may impact only indirectly on the fishery since the two will probably be separated by distance as well as time. Individuals may also derive a benefit from being able to postpone their personal use of the resource to a later date, and as such can be said to attach an option value to using the resource. Distinct from these various categories of benefit are what are generally termed non-use value (or 'passive' use value). In the case of an aquatic resource this may include the value associated with the desire to maintain a river fishery intact for future descendents (bequest value) or simply the satisfaction from knowing that a particular aquatic habitat has been preserved in perpetuity (existence value). 1.4. Putting valuation into practice The problems involved in attaching economic values to environmental assets, and the various techniques which have devised to overcome them, are described in detail in the methodology section which follows. Before addressing these we briefly outline what economic valuation entails and how monetary estimates of value may be used by policy- makers. Valuation is always a comparative exercise, and it is appropriate to consider how such comparisons might be undertaken. At its crudest this might involve comparing the economic benefits provided by a natural resource in its current state with the absence of benefits if the resource were to be removed or destroyed completely. Implicitly this is what is being suggested by single-figure estimates of value, a notorious example of which is the claim by Costanza et al. (1997) that the World's total ecosystem services are worth $ 33 trillion p.a. What is being claimed, in effect, is that the loss of these services in their entirety would make society worse off by that amount. It should be clear that this kind of 'all or nothing' comparison is not very meaningful or realistic, since most decisions involve incremental (i.e. marginal) changes from current conditions. This is especially true in a policy context, and indeed economic valuations may well involve comparisons of the effects of different types of governmental intervention. In the case of fisheries policy, for example, we may wish to know how economic benefit might change if harvesting activity on a certain river were regulated using a different set of management measures; the comparison would thus be between the existing policy (i.e. the base case) and the proposed new regime. Within the framework of cost-benefit analysis, the comparative estimates of economic value could then be used to decide whether the proposed policy change was worthwhile or whether it would be preferable to keep the status quo. Another way in which economic values may be compared is over time, an exercise that may prove necessary in situations where, in particular, there is concern about environmental degradation and the aim is to measure the social cost of this change. An especially important application of this kind of retrospective comparison is natural resource damage assessment, an ex post form of cost-benefit analysis used to assess the 65
  • 71. Appendix (VI) - Economic valuation of natural environment social cost of particular incidents (e.g. oil spills) or interventions (e.g. major infrastructure projects). 2. METHODOLOGIES FOR ECONOMIC VALUATION Those properties of aquatic resources that make them of value from an ecological perspective are part of what make them of value from an economic perspective. Earlier it was explained that there are two broad classes of benefit which are attributable to aquatic resources, namely use values and passive use (non-use) values. Similarly, there are two broad classes of valuation techniques, direct and indirect. Direct techniques involve descriptions of situations to individuals and assessment of their valuations through direct questions. Contingent valuation method (CVM) and stated preference are examples of direct techniques. CVM has the advantage of being able to measure passive use values and use values. Stated preference analysis, or the experimental analysis of choice, has its roots in conjoint analysis (CA). CA is a form of analysis used to represent individual judgements of multi-attribute stimuli. Indirect techniques (also known as revealed preference techniques) use information on actual behaviour to build economic models of choice. These models are then used to determine the value of environmental change. These indirect techniques are based on traditional economic theory, which provides several decades of experience in empirical modelling. Examples of revealed preference techniques include travel cost models and hedonic price models. 2.1 Contingent Valuation Methodology (CVM) Contingent valuation is generally a method of estimating the value of non-market goods such as clean air or water. The basic assumption is that although the markets for these goods are not well defined in usual economic terms, they do exist. The CVM enables the market for such a good to be simulated and described and then asks individuals what they would be willing to pay for that good or what they would be willing to accept as compensation if this good were lost or unavailable. The monetary values estimated are those that are contingent upon the existence of a market. The ultimate aim of a CVM study is to obtain an accurate estimate of the benefits of a change, in the level of provision of a good. These contingent markets are structured to confront respondents with a well-defined situation just like in any other market. Consumers of this market (those who are selected in the sample) are free to elicit a circumstantial choice contingent upon the occurrence of the posited situation. To achieve this structure and an accurate measure of non-market benefits, the survey must simultaneously meet the methodological imperatives of empirical research and the requirements of economic theory. The crucial element of the success of a CVM study is the design and conduct of a proper sample survey of the population. If appropriately designed, CVM surveys can be used to generate Willingness To Pay (WTP) functions for a large and diverse set of consumer goods.11 This can provide an estimate of the benefits, which may be used for many planning and policy activities 11 For an extended discussion of this issue, see Mitchell and Carson (1989). 66
  • 72. Appendix (VI) - Economic valuation of natural environment dealing with environmental goods (Wattage et al., 2000). Contingent valuation is the only method which is capable of establishing general environmental values (FWR, 1994). CVM appears in open-ended forms, directly eliciting payments, and in closed-ended forms, eliciting a yes-no response to a particular payment amount. Case study I: Valuing wetland aquatic resources using CVM in Sri Lanka The Muthurajawela Marsh – Chilaw Lagoon coastal wetland is situated along the West Coast of Sri Lanka, just north of the capital city Colombo. Wetland ecosystems in this area have been, and to a larger extent still are, indiscriminately exploited for commercial, agricultural, residential and industrial development, and at an increasing rate, as dumping grounds for the waste products of these activities. Environmental problems such as these can arise because property rights are poorly defined or because market prices do not reflect the true cost or actual values of wetlands. The main objective of this project is to estimate the price or total value (use and non-use) of the wetland eco-system using one and half bound, dichotomous choice CVM. The project will also attempt to assess the true social cost of growth and development in this wetland area using the concept of ecological footprints, an approach which offers a number of advantages over traditional monetary analysis. The CVM format leads to a number of difficulties in practice. First, there is always the possibility of strategic behaviour. Individuals may understate their willingness to pay (WTP) if they feel that they can free ride or they may overstate their WTP if they feel provision of the improved situation is not conditional on their actual payments. Second, individuals may become ‘yea-sayers` in situations where they wish to be seen to be supporting good causes (such as improving environmental conditions) seemingly regardless of personal cost. Third, the hypothetical nature of the process requires careful structuring of the information needed to be supplied to respondents; they need to be informed of the salient facts without overloading them with extraneous detail. A variety of other problems can arise with CVM including different kinds of bias. One of the most controversial findings about contingent valuation is the possibility of so-called embedding effects. CV critics often argue that embedding results from what they term “warm glow”, by which they mean getting moral satisfaction from the act of paying for the good independent of the characteristics of the actual environmental goods. There have now been a considerable number of tests of the embedding hypothesis and a recent review of the empirical evidence suggest that the hypothesis is rejected in a large majority of the tests performed (Carson, 1999). Concerns raised by CVM critics over the reliability of the CVM approach led the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of USA to convene a panel of eminent experts to examine the issue. The panel issued a report in 1993, which concluded that CVM studies could produce estimates reliable enough to be the starting point for a judicial or administrative determination of natural resource damages including lost passive use values (Arrow et al., 1993). The panel suggested guidelines for use in natural resource damage assessment legal cases to help ensure the reliability of CVM surveys on passive use values including the use of in-person interviews, a binary discrete choice question, a careful description of the good and its substitutes and several different tests that should be included in the report on the survey results. Since the panel issued its 67
  • 73. Appendix (VI) - Economic valuation of natural environment report, many empirical tests have been conducted and several key theoretical issues have been clarified (Carson, 1999). Case study II: Coastal conservation quality Goodman et al. (1996 and 1998) used CVM to assess coastal conservation quality in the UK. The study was based on the assumption that people might hold significant non-user values for natural coastal environments, and as such might be WTP to maintain coastal areas in their current state for reasons that were not connected with any intention to visit such areas for recreational or amenity purposes. The results showed that the public valued conservation quality, but that they had difficulty expressing their preferences and values in monetary terms. Non-use benefits were shown to be important, with a significant portion of public value being related to ‘existence’ and ‘bequest’ motives. Three-quarters of respondents to the CVM survey indicated a WTP additional taxes in support of a coastal conservation programme. The estimated aggregate value based on mean WTP was £313million p.a. after allowance was made for possible upward bias in the hypothetical value statements expressed by respondents. Though public perception of conservation quality was broadly in line with that of environmental scientists, the criteria used to evaluate potential changes was not identical. 2.2 Conjoint analysis Conjoint analysis (CA) is a form of analysis used to represent individual judgements of multi-attribute stimuli. CA has its roots in marketing research that uses stated preference analysis or the experimental analysis of choice. The basic approach, and its various forms, have been used and developed since the early 1970s (Green and Srinivasan 1978, paper updated in 1990). Put simply, the aim of the approach is to estimate the structure of an individual’s preferences, by establishing the relative importance of attributes. In marketing, this is generally of a good or service, although this can be relaxed to general objectives and/or alternatives. To achieve this, a set of alternatives that are pre-specified in terms of levels of attributes are incorporated into a questionnaire. The total utility that an individual derives from that alternative is thereby determined by the utility to the individual of each of the attributes. The aim of the conjoint analysis technique is therefore to estimate (a) the relative importance of the individual attributes; (b) the trade- offs or marginal rates of substitution that individuals are willing to make between these attributes; and (c) the total satisfaction or utility scores for different combinations of attributes (Ryan, 1996). The definition commonly used to explain the conjoint analysis procedure is that it covers (Green and Srinivasan, 1978): … any decompositional method that estimates the structure of a consumer’s preferences given their overall evaluations of a set of alternatives that are prespecified in terms of levels of different attributes. Under this definition, CA can incorporate a number of approaches, such as choice modelling, paired comparison, contingent rating and contingent ranking. The characteristics of the alternatives that the individual must choose from are multi-attribute in nature. 68
  • 74. Appendix (VI) - Economic valuation of natural environment Choice experiments consider the number of alternatives while either holding the attribute levels associated with each alternative constant, or by varying them, so producing choice sets. It also uses similar principles of experimental design, but respondents’ are expressed by making a choice between different options (Wattage et al., 2002). Fixed choice set designs are particularly widely used (Hensher, 1994). The choice-based conjoint approach can be used to avoid problems like untestable statistical properties of estimated parameters in ranking data and the cardinal measurement assumption of the rating method. Specifically, one can design choice or allocation experiments to mimic real choice environments closely. There are several advantages and disadvantages with the conjoint choice-based method compared to the other available approaches. This method does not require any assumptions to be made about order or cardinality of measurement. The only condition required is that the response data should be discrete either nominal or classificatory in level of measurement. Unlike rank-order or ratings methods, one can show subjects different sets of alternatives and ask them to choose among them, or allocate resources among them in each set. One can also estimate choice models directly from choice data, and thus avoid the potentially unrealistic ad-hoc assumptions about choice behaviour that would be implied by the rating or ranking of a single choice set. Choice experiments are more difficult to design because they require two separate designs to be combined. One design is to create the choice alternatives (conjoint treatment and /or existing alternatives) and a second design to place choice alternatives (treatments plus possibly other non-designed choice alternatives) into choice sets. Both designs must satisfy certain statistical properties to enable the estimation of parameters and conduct statistical tests efficiently (Louviere and Woodworth, 1983). Case study III: A Conjoint-based Choice Modelling approach to Evaluate the Importance of Fisheries Management Objectives Experimental modelling to identify the preference structures of management objectives in fisheries management is vital in a sustainable fisheries policy. Furthermore, identification of differences of preferences amongst stakeholders on these objectives provides a basis to justify direction within policy management. Wattage et. al, (2002) used a conjoint-based choice modelling approach to evaluate several overriding fisheries management objectives using the UK fisheries of the English Channel as an example. Results indicates that stakeholders prefer the objective of improving the quality of marine environment over both sustainable yield and bycatch objectives in the management attribute of “conserve the fishery and marine environments”. The improvements of the fishery’s socio-economic structure, from most preferred to least preferred are maintain community employment, increase profit, maintain fishery employment and improve safety of fishermen. The preference for fishery employment and increase profit are more or less the same while the maintaining community employment is more preferred to the improve of safety of the fishermen. However, improve allocation between different geographical groups is preferred to both other objectives, i.e. improve allocation between inshore and offshore fishermen and improve allocation between fishermen using towed and fixed gear. Results of the analysis have revealed that conjoint based choice modelling approaches are a useful approach for evaluating management alternatives and programs in the field of fisheries. Preference elicitation methods for environmental goods have been dominated by contingent valuation (Wattage et. al, 2000). There are relatively few examples of stated preference studies using conjoint and choice experiments, rather than contingent valuation, in the environmental valuation field (Adamowicz, et. al, 1994). Recently, other varieties of stated choice methods, including forms of conjoint analysis and 69
  • 75. Appendix (VI) - Economic valuation of natural environment attribute based stated choice methods, have become popular in environmental valuation (Adamowicz and Boxall, 2000). However, in the field of fisheries management, conjoint analysis has not been applied to a great extent. However, Aas et al. (2000) showed a choice modelling approach to be particularly useful for evaluating various fisheries management alternatives and programs for harvest regulation in a recreational fishery in Eastern Norway. Specifically, they considered 5 main attributes over 2-3 levels (i.e. 72 possible combinations), 16 orthogonal profiles where chosen for each individual. Wattage et al., (2002) used choice based modelling approach to measure stakeholder preferences for management objectives in Channel fisheries. 2.3. Travel cost method One of the widely known indirect techniques in environmental valuation is the travel cost method (TCM), which provides several decades of experience in empirical modelling. TCM is based on the simple idea that it ought to be possible to infer the values placed by visitors on environmental amenity services from the costs that they incurred in order to experience the services. The original TCM proposal related to national parks where entry was unpriced. However, it can be seen now that the TCM is an application of what is termed weak complementarity, which means that if the individual does not visit the park, he or she does not care about the services that it provides. In practical terms the first basic assumption for the TCM is that visit to the park is determined by a trip or visit that generates a function capable of explaining the relationship between visits (V) and the cost (T) of a visit from origin or by individual and the other relevant variables (X). The second basic assumption is that the cost of a visit comprises both travel costs varying with the individual and admission price and that visitors treat travel costs and the price of admission as equivalent elements of the total cost of a visit. Giving these assumptions, the operational problem is to estimate relevant parameters from data on V and T. The data is most commonly obtained by surveying visitors to the site. Sometimes data is gathered on visitors and non-visitors, usually by means of a postal survey of a sample of the population considered to be relevant as potential visitors. Most TCM applications enjoy the zonal average approach, often simply because of data limitations. Marshallian Consumer Surplus (MCS) per visit is estimated using both individual data on visits per year and zonal data on visits per unit population as dependent variables, with explanatory variables defined appropriately for each case. Case study IV: The recreational value of the forestry commission estate in Great Britain: A travel cost analysis. Willis (1991) used Clawson-Knetsch travel cost method to estimate demand for non-priced forest recreation and environmental benefits in Forestry Commission’s estate. Multiplying the visitor numbers by the average consumer surplus per visitor for that cluster, produces an aggregate consumer surplus figure of almost £53 million. The significance of the £53 million consumer surplus on forest recreation can be judged in relation to the £71.05 million income to the Forestry Enterprise from the sale of timber in 1988 and a net expenditure on Forestry recreation and amenity of £8.5 million by way of a subsidy. 70
  • 76. Appendix (VI) - Economic valuation of natural environment There are a number of practical problems that can arise in the implementation of the TCM. The functional form chosen on TCM can have non-trivial implications for the result obtained. The economic theory of constrained optimisation with weak complementarity does not imply any particular functional form for the trip generating equation. However, many studies imposed linearity mainly because of the convenience. In many early applications of the TCM the trip generating equation parameters were estimated by the method of ordinary least squares (OLS), but in later studies it was realised that OLS would lead to biased estimates of the parameters. The development of improved estimation techniques to deal with particular problems arising in different sorts of TCM application is now a very active area of environmental research. 2.4. Hedonic pricing method This is an indirect method, first proposed and used in the early 1970s, based on the weak complementarity assumption. The basic approach of the hedonic pricing method (HPM) can be indicated in the context of atmospheric pollution, where it has been widely used. While clean air is not a traded good in its own right it is nonetheless an important attribute which seems to influence residential property prices. Evidence from revealed preferences suggests that, other things being equal, a positive relationship exist between the prices that people are willing to pay for housing and the quality of ambient air standards. Movement of property prices might, therefore, enable one to impute the value of clean air. Similar applications can be performed in properties affected by water and other types of pollution. Case study V: Valuing improvements in air quality in Los Angeles Brookshire et al., (1982) analysed a sample of 654 sales of single family homes which occurred between 1977-1978 using hedonic pricing method. The objective of the study was to estimate rent differentials associated with air quality improvements (control of pollution on nitrogen dioxide and total suspended particulate). According to the regression model about 90% of the variation in the home sale price is accounted for by variation in the explanatory variables. All coefficients have the expected signs and all are statistically significant at 1% level. Authors have used this information to calculate rent premium that would be implied if air quality were to improve for identical homes in given localities. Data requirements for the estimation of the HPM are housing rents or prices, air quality and a set of attributes which influence housing rents, such as size of the house, amenities, proximity to school and work places and neighbourhood characteristics. Data collection is usually carried out by a representative sample drawn from the population in such a way that properties in the sample are chosen from a variety of locations with differing levels of ambient air quality. The relationship between rents and the all of the attributes relevant to rents can be estimated using multiple regression analysis. The estimated relationship can then be used to identify the relationship between rents and air pollution holding all other determinants of rent constant. 2.5. Production function based techniques In principle it is possible to assess the economic importance of the environment by examining the relationship between environmental inputs into a productive system (such as a fishery) and the resulting output (i.e. fish). Input-output relationships such as this are termed production functions. 71
  • 77. Appendix (VI) - Economic valuation of natural environment Case study VI: Coastal wetlands and the production of blue crabs Lynne, Conroy and Prochaska (1981) use the production function approach to value coastal wetlands in a study which examined the economic productivity of the Florida blue crab fishery in relation to available marsh area. Lynne et al. estimate a statistical relationship between catches of blue crab, fishing effort and acreage of coastal wetland. This was specified as: Ct = B0 + B1 [E t ] [lnM t-1] + B2 [E t2] [lnM t-1] + B3 C t-1 Where: c = catch E = effort M = marsh area B0, B1 , B2, B3 are parameters to be estimated Their results demonstrated that a loss of wetland would entail a cost to society (albeit fairly small) in the form of reduced crab landings. At the mean effort level of 33,000 traps, average physical productivity of wetland (APPm) = 28 lbs/acre/yr while marginal physical productivity (MPPm)= 2.3 lbs/acre/yr. The marginal value of wetland translates into a capitalised value of $7.62 per acre (in 1993 dollar terms). The low marginal productivity estimate is attributed in part to the open-access nature of the resource (causing over-exploitation). A production function can be specified in terms of several inputs - e.g. labour (L), capital (K) and the environment (E) - and a single output (Q). The idea can be applied to a river fishery, where we may suppose that a key environmental variable affecting production is water quality - higher levels of water quality being associated with increased catches, and vice versa. Provided the relationship is known or can be estimated, any policy designed to raise water quality can then be evaluated through its impact on fish harvest for any given level of labour and capital. If the price of the fish is known, the change in harvest can in turn be translated into a monetary measure to find out the impact of water quality improvement on the value of the fishery. With regard to the effect on production, this is an outline description of what is often called the dose-response valuation technique. Case study VII: Coral reefs and fisheries Hodgson and Dixon (1992) used the production function approach (dose response method) to evaluate alternative development plans in Bacuit Bay, Philippines, where the local tourism and fishing industries are strongly dependent on the adjacent coral reefs and the living resources they support. Both tourism and fishing were in competition with the timber industry (logging), which created significant external costs via sedimentation which reduced coral cover. Hodgson and Dixon showed that (a) every additional 400 tonnes/sq.km of annual sediment deposited in the Bay reduced coral cover by 1%. (b) for each 1% reduction in coral cover, fish biomass was reduced by about 2½ %. These results were then used to evaluate different policy options. The authors found that the economic benefits from the three industries together was 4 times larger for the policy banning logging compared with the alternative of allowing it to continue. ($25.5 million as against $6.3 million in 1986 dollar terms). Two other production functions related techniques used in environment valuation are avoided cost and averting expenditure. In this approach increases in the environmental indicator E reduce output for given levels of input of averting input A, L and Q. According to the avoided cost approach, environmental improvements would be valued in terms of reduced expenditure on A. With the averting expenditure method, by contrast, environmental deterioration would be valued as an expenditure increases on A. These 72
  • 78. Appendix (VI) - Economic valuation of natural environment approaches can also be used at the household level in the same way as it has been used in the firm. The household production function approach has households using purchased commodities with their own time and effort to produce some sort of the arguments that appear in its utility function. REFERENCES Aas, O., Haider, W. and Hunt, L. 2000. Angler responses to potential harvest regulations in a Norwegian sport fishery: A conjoint-based choice modelling approach, North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20, 940-950. Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J. and Williams, M. 1994. Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 271-292. Adamowicz, W. and Boxall, P. 2001. Future directions of stated choice methods for environment valuation, Paper presented at the conference “Choice experiments: A new approach to Environment Valuation, London, England. Arrow, K. Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R., and Schuman, H. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58(10), 4601- 4614. Brookshire, D.S, Thayer, M.A., Schulze, W.D., and D’Arge, R.C. 1982. Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approaches, American Economic Review, 71, 165-177. Carson, R.T. 1999. Contingent valuation: A user’s guide, Discussion paper 99-26, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego. Costanza, R. et al. 1997. The value of the World's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, Vol. 387, 253-260 Foundation for Water Research (FWR) 1994. Assessing the benefits of river water quality improvements, Interim Manual, FR/CL 0001. Goodman, S.L., Daniel, H.M., Seabrooke, W. and Jaffry, H. 1996. Using public surveys to estimate the total economic value of natural coastal resources. In: Tauuik, J. and Mitchell, J. (eds.) Partnership in Coastal Zone Management. Samara Publishing, pp 103-109 Goodman, S.L., Seabrooke, W. and Jaffry, S.A. 1998. Considering conservation value in economic appraisals of coastal resources. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 41(3): 313-336 Green, P.E. and Srinivasan, V. 1978. Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, Journal of Consumer Research 5, 103-123. Green, P.E. and Srinivasan, V. 1990. Conjoint analysis in merketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing (October), 3-19. Hensher, D.A. 1994. Stated Preference Analysis of Travel Choices: the State of Practice, Transportation 21(2), 107-133. Hodgson, G. and Dixon, J.A. 1992. Sedimentation damage to marine resources: environmental and economic analysis. In: March, J.B. (ed.) Resources and Environment in Asia’s Marine Sector. New York: Taylor and Francis. Hussen, A.M. 2000. Principles of environmental economics: economics, ecology and public policy. Routledge, London. 73
  • 79. Appendix (VI) - Economic valuation of natural environment Louviere, J.J. and Woodworth, G. 1983. Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data, Journal of Marketing Research XX, 350-367. McKenney, B. 1999. Review paper on environmental impact assessment and cost- benefit analysis for dam projects. Prepared for Oxfam America, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Mitchell, R. C., and Carson R. T. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 1998. Setting environmental standards. Twenty First Report, Cm 4053 Ryan, M. 1996. Using Consumer Preferences in Health Care Decision Making: The Application of Conjoint Analysis, Office of Health Economics, London, UK. Wattage, P., Smith, A., Pitts, C., McDonald, A. and Kay, D. 2000. Integrating environmental impact, contingent valuation and cost-benefit analysis: empirical evidence for an alternative perspective, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, vol. 18, number 1, 5-14. Wattage, P., Mardle, S. and Pascoe, S. 2002. Evaluation of the importance of fisheries management objectives: a conjoint-based choice modelling approach, Paper submitted to the Fisheries Research. Willis, K.G., 1991. The recreational value of the forestry commission estate in Great Britain: A Clawson-Knetsch travel cost analysis, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, vol. 38, number 1. 74
  • 80. Appendix (VII) LIVELIHOODS ANALYSIS OF AQUATIC RESOURCES 75
  • 81. Appendix (VII) – Livelihoods analysis of aquatic resources Livelihoods Analysis of Aquatic Resources INTRODUCTION The objective of this appendix is to provide a general overview of Livelihoods Analysis (LA) within the specific context of the Mekong Basin issues. For this purpose the appendix is structured in 3 main sections. We begin with a brief discussion where we show the rational for the use of such method. We show in particular that in the specific case where an analysis of the contribution of natural resources to the livelihoods of local populations is required, this method can be regarded as a complementary approach to economic valuation techniques. We then describe briefly the principles of the method in a second section. We finally show how this technique relates to other socio-economics evaluation methods. 1. JUSTIFICATION OF LIVELIHOOD ANALYSIS Whilst the use of economic valuation techniques is almost self-explanatory with respect to the lack of data regarding LMB natural resources (Appendix VI), the use of the LA may still require some justification in this respect. As detailed in Appendix VI, the objective of economic valuation of natural environment is to attach economic values to environmental resources –or natural assets (i.e. in the present case: the Mekong river, its floodplains, lakes and other water bodies, and associated natural resources). These economic valuations techniques are thus by definition resource-centred approaches. However, adequate policies and effective management of natural resources do not only require information about the (value of the) resources. Information is also required about the people, and the ways these people use these natural resources to sustain their livelihoods. In other words, to make an appropriate decision regarding the management of a natural resource, one does not only need to know the value –would it be through the most “comprehensive” evaluation framework possible, such as the total economic value (TEV)12-, one also needs to know this resource’s contributions to the livelihoods of people: who use it, how, when, etc. More fundamentally, economic valuation techniques do not permit to identify the factors which influence or affect people’s access to these resources. However, very often the key issue is not the availability of the resource (or symmetrically its scarcity, to which its economic –or even social- value is related), but the access to this resource. Extending Sen’s main conclusion -initially framed in the specific context of famine (Sen, 1981)- to the wider domain of natural resources, it should be recalled that poor people are usually those who lack access to resources. In this context, determining the value of the resource is irrelevant, if people cannot access it! One key-question to be answered is therefore: what are the factors that influence people’s access to, and control over, (natural) resources? 12 See Appendix (VI), section 2.2 for the definition of TEV. 76
  • 82. Appendix (VII) – Livelihoods analysis of aquatic resources To illustrate this in the context of the Mekong Basin, the example of the situation of Cambodian rural population reported in Appendix 5 may be helpful. In Cambodia, 80 to 85% of the population live in rural areas, relying on agriculture (primarily rain fed rice), local fisheries and collection of forest products for subsistence. Importantly, agricultural land is primarily held as private property whereas much of the fisheries resources consumed by rural people can be considered to be common property. These fisheries resources therefore provide a livelihood safety net for a large number of households (when agricultural harvests are poor), but they also provide the main livelihood source for those families without access to agricultural land. This is especially the case for the poorest and more vulnerable. In this case, access to, rather than, availability of, land appears to be the key-factor determining people’s livelihoods. Appreciation of this distinction (between availability and access), is therefore important. It is, however, not always reflected or even identified through evaluation methods. In contrast, this is one of the key-issues that livelihood analysis attempts to address. The next section describes briefly the main principles of this approach and show how this approach complement other more conventional economic assessment methods. 2. LIVELIHOOD ANALYSIS Livelihoods Analysis is a holistic approach that tries to capture and provide a means of understanding people’s livelihoods, and more particularly the factors and processes which affect these livelihoods. The framework (Fig.1) consists of five components: (1) the vulnerability context of the world in which the communities under consideration operate, (2) the livelihood assets of these communities, (3) the policies, institutions and processes (PIPs) which affect their lives and in particular their access to livelihood assets, (4) the livelihood strategies which the communities adopt, and (5) the outcomes they achieve or aspire to. With reference to the case above-mentioned (Cambodian rural fisher-folks) the importance of the property regimes which determine the access to land and fisheries resources would be analysed as part of the PIPs (the third component of the framework). Fig.1. The LA framework. Legend: H: human; N: natural; F: financial; P: physical; S: social LIVELIHOOD ASSETS LIVELIHOOD POLICIES, OUTCOMES INSTITUTIONS AND PROCESSES IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE VULNERABILITY H CONTEXT S STRUCTURES N Influence • More income & access • Levels of LIVELIHOOD • Increased well-being •SHOCKS government STRATEGIES •TRENDS • Reduced vulnerability • Private sector • Laws P • Improved food security •SEASONALITY F • Policies • More sustainable use • Culture of natural resource base • Institutions PROCESSES 77
  • 83. Appendix (VII) – Livelihoods analysis of aquatic resources The principles that form the backbone of the LA – a cross-sectoral approach, a broadening of desirable outcomes to include rather more abstract development goals (‘increased well-being’, ‘reduced vulnerability’ etc.) and an emphasis on participation – make its application to evaluation problematic (DFID, 1999). More conventional approaches to evaluating financial (e.g. household surveys), physical (e.g. cost-benefit analysis), or natural capitals (e.g. economic evaluation techniques) must now be accompanied with new approaches that attempt to gauge less familiar and tangible attributes such as human and social capital, vulnerability etc. (Box 1.) Box 1. Evaluating Livelihood Assets Natural Capital !" Biodiversity and 'bioquality' assessment !" Participatory methods to uncover differences in access Physical Capital !" Household sample survey (inventories) !" Use of indicators (house quality, roof construction materials, piped water, electricity etc.) Financial Capital !" Household income and expenditure surveys !" Participatory approaches (e.g. preference ranking and seasonal calendars for different sources of credit) Human Capital !" Household surveys (e.g. family age structure, educational attainment, health) !" Secondary sources (census, existing indices and reports) Social Capital !" Survey of associative-type organisations (membership and activities) !" Participatory approaches (e.g. timelines, preference ranking) to reveal extent and change of conflicts and other indicators (Source: adapted from Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets DFID, 2000) As a core methodology, the framework of LA can be used to provide: !"an analysis of the causes of vulnerability – shocks and stresses in the economic, social and political context, trends, seasonality, fragility of natural resources, etc.- which affect the communities; !"an assessment of the assets, at the individual, household and community level, comprising human, social, economic, physical and natural resource assets; !"a description of the context within which livelihoods evolve – policies at both micro and macro levels; civic, economic and cultural institutions, both formal and informal; the nature of governance and its processes at all levels in society; !"an identification of people’s livelihood strategies, including, but not restricted to, consumption, production and exchange activities; and !"an evaluation of the resulting livelihood outcome, assessed multi-dimensionally in terms of food and other basic needs security, greater sustainability of the natural resource base, reduced vulnerability and increased income. The value of such a framework is to encourage analysts to take a broader and systematic view of the factors that affect people livelihoods – whether these are shocks and adverse trends, poorly functioning institutions and policies or a basic lack of assets – and to investigate the relations between them. It does not take a `sectoral’ view –as it is usual 78
  • 84. Appendix (VII) – Livelihoods analysis of aquatic resources done-, but tries to recognise the contribution made by all the sectors to building up the stocks of assets upon which people draw to sustain their livelihoods. In that sense, it is a holistic, people-centred approach. 3. RELATION BETWEEN LIVELIHOOD ANALYSIS AND OTHER SOCIO-ECONOMICS EVALUATION METHODS Although LA provides guidance for the analysis of people’s livelihood it does not, however, offer an evaluation methodology in itself. Rather, the LA can help formulate a descriptive representation of the factors that influence people’s access to sustainable livelihoods. Appropriate methods and tools must then be selected according to the purpose and context of the analysis (see below). Likewise, experience to date has uncovered some limitations in the scope of the approach – in particular, difficulty in linking macro-level processes to local level outcomes for general policy recommendations (see Shankland, 2000) and the need to consider the individual’s access to political influence (see Baumann, 2000) – but it has proved useful in providing a contextual background to more quantitative analyses. Early analysis with the LA placed the emphasis on quantifying the assets at the disposal of the individual or community in an attempt to reveal the shape of the ‘assets pentagon’. Recently, however, there has been a growing awareness of the importance of management and access issues that are shaped by the political and cultural environment that surrounds the poor (this change is reflected by DFID’s division of ‘transforming structures’ into ‘policies, institutions and processes’ (PIPs)). One criticism of LA (and of participatory approaches, generally) is that qualitative and site-specific analysis in isolation does not lend itself particularly well to the influence of policy at the wider level. However, if case studies are carefully selected in an attempt to represent the diversity of social, environmental and political contexts (analogous to stratified sampling) they can add value to other more global evaluation. In addition, some of the methods to report livelihoods analysis (scoring, ranking etc.) are easily quantifiable and in conjunction with certain indicators can be applied universally (DFID, 2000). LA and more conventional forms of analysis are not mutually exclusive and ideally LA principles should guide the application and design of existing tools for evaluation. For instance, a sectoral economic analysis would benefit from a detailed knowledge of the household (how all activities, strategies and resource dependence are disaggregated), the dynamic and seasonal significance of that sector versus other opportunities, and the political and institutional constraints that influence access and management. LA has initiated much research in the quantification of assets and the development of suitable indicators (in particular, indicators of social capital) but existing tools can be applied in a less directed (LA-explicit) way to understand constraints and opportunities to people's livelihoods (see Table 1). One approach that has proved effective in this regard is stakeholder analysis in conjunction with problem census. The DFID project 'Investigation of Livelihood Strategies Resource Use Patterns in Floodplain Production Systems in Bangladesh' (R6756) used participatory stakeholder analysis to disaggregate 79
  • 85. Appendix (VII) – Livelihoods analysis of aquatic resources the 'community' and a series of workshop activities whereby participants could express their concerns according to access to resources, skills, organisations and their ability to influence management (see Barr et al. 1999). In effect, this process allows people to weight the local significance of the various forms of capital to their livelihoods and can uncover important aspects of PIPs (e.g. the role of traditional access arrangements or the function of local government). Table 1. Conventional socio-economic appraisal tools and their relations with LA. Appraisal Tool Knowledge needed Example SLA relevance • Environmental Relationship between poor How does state of Vulnerability, role of checklists & environment 'resource' currently provide PIPs, assessment of options (or constrain natural capital & other opportunities)? assets • Gender analysis Differences between Household division of Culture relates to genders regarding access, labour, responsibilities transforming structures / needs, issues etc. PIPs - opportunity or constraint for SL? • Governance State viability, structure, How efficient are local Knowledge of the PIPs assessment levels and effectiveness of service providers, property environment government etc. rights clear, human rights upheld? • Institutional At various scales; roles, What are the implications Knowledge of the PIPs appraisal management, human of current form of environment resources and constraints decision-making on to function livelihoods? • Macro-economic Monetary, fiscal and trade How are local conditions Relates to 'trends' and analysis policy affected by devaluation, exogenous 'shocks' of inflation vulnerability • Market analysis Knowledge of function Who has access to markets Shapes ability to access (and failure) and can influence 'rules' ? and exchange the various forms of assets • Participatory Local perceptions of How do poor people link Elicits knowledge of poverty assessment 'poverty', and constraints to with 'institutions', what are 'processes' and social SL the priorities of the poor? significance of poverty • Risk assessment Events and trends that How do seasonal Relates directly to the impact the poor (now and fluctuations in catches / 'vulnerability context' historically) yields impact the household? • Social analysis Influence of social status How does gender, age and Uncovers local forms to overcome vulnerability ethnicity influence access and role of social capital or utilise assets to 'resources'? and role if institutions (PIPs) • Stakeholder The range of interest Which groups are directly Forms basis to analysis groups, their dependent on which understanding horizontal interdependencies and how economic activity (which and vertical interactions they are disaggregated are secondarily of PIPs dependent)? 80
  • 86. Appendix (VII) – Livelihoods analysis of aquatic resources • Strategic conflict Drawing on stakeholder How does conflict Knowledge of shocks assessment analysis, the threats that influence livelihood and PIPs and potential to various groups face from incomes for different ameliorate conflict, adapt conflict group? ongoing programmes • Strategic Policy and planning issues What are the alternative Relates to PIPs and the environmental that can help or hinder project options and what link between institutions assessment appropriate projects are their potential impacts and assets (particularly natural assets) (Source: adapted from Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets (DFID, 2000)) REFERENCES Barr, J., Dixon, P-J., Rahman, M., Isalm, A., Zuberi, M.I., McGlynn, A.A., and G.P. Ghosh (1999) Report on participatory, systems-based processes for identification of improved natural resource management for better floodplain livelihoods. Report submitted to NRSP, DFID. Baumann, P. (2000) Sustainable Livelihoods and Political Capital: arguments and evidence from decentralisation and natural resource management in India. Working Paper 136. Overseas Development Institute, London Chambers R., and Conway G.R., 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion paper 296, University of Sussex, Brighton. DFID (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets (available through website www.livelihoods.org) DFID (2000) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets (available through website www.livelihoods.org) Shankland, A. (2000) Analysing Policy for Sustainable Livelihoods. IDS Report 49. University of Sussex. Thompson, P. and Islam, A. (2001) Methods for Consensus Building for Management of Common Property Resources. Final Technical Report (R7562) Consensus Assessment Survey. Report submitted to NRSP, DFID. Sen A. (1981) Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 257 p. 81
  • 87. APPENDIX (VIII) (A) LITERATURE SEARCH (B) BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES 82
  • 88. Appendix (VIII) - Literature Search and Bibliographic References (A) LITERATURE SEARCH / REVIEW Search terms: Mekong, Cambodia, Lao(s) PDR, Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand, development, socio-economic, fisheries, poverty, rural Sites: BIDS (IBSS), ASFA, DFID (narsis etc.), World Bank, FAO, UNDP, IIED, Asian Development Bank, Japan Foundation, Mekong River Commission, ICLARM, ELDIS (IDS), Onefish The search yielded about 800 relevant titles. The table tallies the key words as they appeared in the titles - the key words are obviously interrelated and any one article may cover hydropower, watershed management and economic issues, for instance. Key words Total References % Fisheries 418 33 Aquaculture 195 16 Ecological / Biological 94 8 NRM / Watershed Management 158 13 Dams / Hydropower 90 7 Economic / Socio-economic 173 14 Planning / Policy / Institutional 30 2 Development 93 7 Planning / policy/ Development institutions Economic / socio- economic Fisheries Dams / hydropower NRM / watershed management Aquaculture Ecological / biological Fisheries Aquaculture Ecological / biological NRM / watershed management Dams / hydropower Economic / socio-economic Planning / policy/ institutions Development 83
  • 89. Appendix (VIII) - Literature Search and Bibliographic References Fisheries A wide range of areas but particularly assessment methodologies (catch & effort frame surveys) and local level RRA and socio-economic surveys (especially within project reporting). Some more sociological articles and titles concerning ethnicity and socio- economics of named, local artisanal fisheries - ethnicity seems to be crucial to understanding tenure regimes and inequitable access rights (particularly in Cambodia). Aquaculture Some development and programme strategies but most technical aspects of breeding etc. Ecological / Biological Biodiversity, species and community composition of fish in the region. NRM / Watershed Management Mostly related to hydropower, river flow ("Run-of-River" studies) and effects on fish populations. But also a good number of country-specific titles (eg. "Community Management of Mekong River Resources in Laos") and Basin-wide titles covering general resource management ("Mekong Committee history and lessons for river basin development" etc.). Dams / Hydropower Some technical project or engineering articles but mostly highlighting environmental impacts. Papers on resettlement, impacts on resources and socio-economic evaluation of particular communities. Economic / Socio-economic This includes national and regional economic reviews and policy articles and reviews of aid and trade. Also government papers (e.g. "Socialist Republic of Vietnam Geographical, Social and Socio-Economic Assessment of the Fishery Industry In Vietnam (Fisheries Master Plan)"). Numerous socio-economic reviews and studies that tend to be local and project-oriented (reflecting the problem of drawing generic conclusions from such a socially and politically diverse region). Planning / Policy / Institutional Several articles on the formation and history of the MRC and some institutional or ministerial reviews at the national level (eg. "Towards a Policy Framework and Vision for National Aquatic Resources Institute in Lao PDR"). Lacking regional overview (although the 1996 AusAID Report makes an attempt to systematically outline government and project institutions of the 6 Mekong countries, see below). Only representing 2% of the potentially relevant literature. 84
  • 90. Appendix (VIII) - Literature Search and Bibliographic References Development Mostly sectoral development - fisheries (largely aquaculture), agriculture and energy. Several titles covering food security - particularly agricultural/rice production in the Region. Mainly country-specific. Only two titles referred to "poverty", and these were not specific to the Mekong; MRAG, 1994. Floodplain Fisheries Project. Poverty, Equity and Sustainability in the Management of Inland Capture Fisheries in South and South-East Asia. Biological Assessment of the Fisheries. Internal Report to the Bath University Centre for Development Studies. Heady, C.J. & McGregor, J.A Poverty and Sustainability in the Management of Inland Capture Fisheries in South and Southeast Asia End of Project Report (Revised : 1995). 85
  • 91. Appendix (VIII) - Literature Search and Bibliographic References (B) LIST OF BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES (consulted and cited) Aas, O., Haider, W. and Hunt, L. 2000. Angler responses to potential harvest regulations in a Norwegian sport fishery: A conjoint-based choice modelling approach, North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20, 940-950. Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J. and Williams, M. 1994. Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 271-292. ADB, 2001. Participatory Poverty Assessment Lao PDR. State Planning Committee and National Statistics Center. June 2001. Asian Bank of Development, Vientiane, 187 p. Adamowicz, W. and Boxall, P. 2001. Future directions of stated choice methods for environment valuation, Paper presented at the conference “Choice experiments: A new approach to Environment Valuation, London, England. Adger N., 1999. Evolution of economy and environment: an application to land use in lowland Vietnam. Ecological Economics 31, 365-379. Aeron-Thomas M., 2001. Information on fisheries and its integration into the planning process of the MRC. A consultancy report for the assessment of Mekong Fisheries Component of the Fisheries Programme of the Mekong River Commission, MRAG, London, 31 p. Ahmed, M. et al., 1998. Socio-economic assessment of freshwater capture fisheries of Cambodia. Report on a household survey. Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh,149 p. + Appendix Anon., 1996. Geographical, social and socio-economic assessment of the fishery industry in Vietnam. Department of Fisheries / DANIDA. Final Report, 185 p. Anon., 2000. Integrated Framework for Technical Assistance- Integration and competitiveness study - a pilot study prepared under the Integrated Framework for Technical Assistance (with Cambodian Ministry of Commerce), Phnom Penh. Anon., 2000. A study of downstream impacts of the Yali Falls Dam in the Se San River Basin in Ratanakiri Province, Ratanakiri Province. With the non-timber forest products project (NTFP). Northeast Cambodia. Fisheries Office, 41 p. + Appendix. Anon., 2000. Strengthening of the Mekong women in fisheries network. Project proposal. Mimeo, 46 p. Anon., 2001. Project document – Participatory natural resource management in the Tonle Sap region, Phase III, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Cambodia, Project GCP/CMB/008/BEL. Arrow, K. Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R., and Schuman, H. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58(10), 4601-4614. Baird I. et al. 1998. A rapid fisheries survey in Khong district, Champasak province, Southern Lao PDR. Technical Report Environmental protection and community development in the Siphandone Wetland. Lao PDR. CESVI – European Commission Project Lao/B1-B7/6200-IB/96-012, 31 p. Baird I., 1999. Integrating living aquatic resources, community-based co-management and protected areas in Lao PDR: opportunities and obstacles to advancement. August 1999., mimeo. Baird I., 1999. Toward sustainable co-management of Mekong river inland aquatic resources, including fisheries, in Southern Lao PDR. CESVI – European Commission Project Lao/B1-B7/6200-IB/96-012, 63 p. Bakker, K., 1999. The politics of hydropower: developing the Mekong. Political Geography 18, 209-232. Barr, J., Dixon, P-J., Rahman, M., Isalm, A., Zuberi, M.I., McGlynn, A.A., and G.P. Ghosh (1999) Report on participatory, systems-based processes for identification of improved natural resource management for better floodplain livelihoods. Report submitted to NRSP, DFID. Baumann, P., 2000. Sustainable Livelihoods and Political Capital: arguments and evidence from decentralisation and natural resource management in India. Working Paper 136. Overseas Development Institute, London Brookshire, D.S, Thayer, M.A., Schulze, W.D., and D’Arge, R.C. 1982. Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approaches, American Economic Review, 71, 165-177. Bush, S. 2001, Review of Fish Marketing in Cambodia Australian Mekong Resource Centre. Marketing Study for the Assessment of Mekong Fisheries Component Project, MRC, Lao. Working Paper No. 2. 86
  • 92. Appendix (VIII) - Literature Search and Bibliographic References Cambodia Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2000. Management Aspects of Cambodia's Freshwater Capture Fisheries. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Department of Fisheries, 27- 28 January, Phnom Penh. Carson, R.T. 1999. Contingent valuation: A user’s guide, Discussion paper 99-26, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego. Chambers R., and Conway G.R., 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion paper 296, University of Sussex, Brighton. Choowaew et al., 1998. The socio-economic conditions in the vicinity of Huai Nam Un Wetalnd, Songkhram River, Lower Mekong Basin, Thailand. Mitt. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 24, 41-46. Chuenpadgee R., 2001. Involving fishers and fishers’ knowledge in small-scale fisheries co-management. FAO-CDC Regional consultation on interactive mechanisms for small-scale fisheries management. 26- 29 November, Bangkok, 8 p. Coates D., n.d. Biodiversity and fishery management opportunities in the Mekong River Basin. Draft report, Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh. Costanza, R. et al. 1997. The value of the World's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, Vol. 387, 253-260 Degen, P. and Thuok, N., 1998. Inland fishery management in Cambodia: is the fishing lot system the basis for improved management or should it be abolished? In Crossing boundaries, 7th annual conference of the International Associationfor the Study of Common Property, IASCP, Vancouver. Degen, P., van Acker, F., van Zalinge, N., Thuok, N., and Vuthy, L., 2000. Taken for granted, conflicts over Cambodia's freshwater fish resources. In Constituting the Commons, 8th annual conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, IASCP, Bloomington, Indiana. DFID, 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Department for International Development, London, available on www.livelihoods.org DFID, 2000. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Department for International Development, London, available on www.livelihoods.org Evans P., 2001. Community fishery development on the Tonle Sap Great Lake in Cambodia, FAO-CDC Regional consultation on interactive mechanisms for small-scale fisheries management. 26-29 November, Bangkok, 8 p. FAO, 1994.Cambodia: rehabilitation and development needs of the fishery sector. FAO Fish. Circ. 873, Rome, 89 p. FAO, 2001. Fisheries Country Profile, Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, available on http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp FAO, 2001. FAO in Viet Nam: Development Partner for the New Millenium. Food and Agricultural Organization, Hanoi. August 2001. Foundation for Water Research (FWR) 1994. Assessing the benefits of river water quality improvements, Interim Manual, FR/CL 0001. Goodman, S.L., Daniel, H.M., Seabrooke, W. and Jaffry, H. 1996. Using public surveys to estimate the total economic value of natural coastal resources. In: Tauuik, J. and Mitchell, J. (eds.) Partnership in Coastal Zone Management. Samara Publishing, pp 103-109 Goodman, S.L., Seabrooke, W. and Jaffry, S.A. 1998. Considering conservation value in economic appraisals of coastal resources. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 41(3): 313-336 Green, P.E. and Srinivasan, V. 1978. Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, Journal of Consumer Research 5, 103-123. Green, P.E. and Srinivasan, V. 1990. Conjoint analysis in merketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing (October), 3-19. Gum W., 2000. Inland aquatic resources and livelihoods in Cambodia, a guide to the literature, legislation, institutional framework and recommendations. Consultancy report for Oxfam GB and NGO Forum Cambodia, Oxfam, 123 p. Hartmann W., 2001. Decentralisation of reservoir fisheries management in the Lower Mekong Basin (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam) FAO-CDC Regional consultation on interactive mechanisms for small-scale fisheries management. 26-29 November, Bangkok, 8 p. Hensher, D.A. 1994. Stated Preference Analysis of Travel Choices: the State of Practice, Transportation 21(2), 107-133. 87
  • 93. Appendix (VIII) - Literature Search and Bibliographic References Hirsch P. and Cheong G., 1996. Natural resource management in the Mekong river basin: perspectives for Australian development cooperation. Final report to AusAID. Availbale on http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/geography/hirsch Hodgson, G. and Dixon, J.A. 1992. Sedimentation damage to marine resources: environmental and economic analysis. In: March, J.B. (ed.) Resources and Environment in Asia’s Marine Sector. New York: Taylor and Francis. Hussen, A.M. 2000. Principles of environmental economics: economics, ecology and public policy. Routledge, London. ICLARM, 1999. The legal and institutional framework, and economic valuation of resources and environment in the Mekong region: a wetland approach. Draft Programme/project document, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources management. 67 p. Kumar R. and Young C., 1996. Economic Policies for Sustainable Water Use in Thailand. CREED Working Paper 4, IIED, London, 33 p. LARReC, 2000. Fishery survey Luangprabang province Lao PDR, LARReC Research report No. 001, Vientiane, 44 p. Long N., 2001. Small-scale fisheries management in Vietnam. FAO-CDC Regional consultation on interactive mechanisms for small-scale fisheries management. 26-29 November, Bangkok, 9 p. Louviere, J.J. and Woodworth, G. 1983. Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data, Journal of Marketing Research XX, 350-367. Mam, K. and Gum, W. (eds), 2000. Fishery Management in Cambodia. Workshop Proceedings 5-6th December, Supported by Oxfam America. Phnom Penh. Martosubroto P., 2001. Towards strengthening of coastal fisheries management in the South and Southeast Asia. FAO-CDC Regional consultation on interactive mechanisms for small-scale fisheries management. 26-29 November, Bangkok, 10 p. McKenney, B. 1999. Review paper on environmental impact assessment and cost-benefit analysis for dam projects. Prepared for Oxfam America, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Mitchell, R. C., and Carson R. T. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. Ministry of Fisheries of Vietnam 2001. Sustainable Aquaculture for Poverty Alleviation (SAPA); Strategy and Implementation. Ministry of Fisheries, Hanoi, Vietnam. Ministry of Fisheries of Vietnam (2001) Vietnam’s Fisheries. Ministry of Fisheries, Hanoi, Vietnam. MRC, 2001. Management of the Freshwater Capture Fisheries of Cambodia, Phase II-A. Progress Report April-September 2001. Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh MRC, 2001. Annual Report Fisheries management and development cooperation, MRC Secretariat, Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh, 11 p. Nikjamp P. and Vreeker R., 2000. Sustainability assessment o development scenarios: methodology and application to Thailand. Ecological Economics 33, 7-27. Öjendahl J. and Torell E., 1997. The Mighty Mystery. SIDA, Stockholm. Oxfam Great Britain, 2000. Terminal Evaluation: Duyen Hai Mangroves Project (RVN 277). Oxfam Great Britain, Hanoi, Vietnam. September 2000. Pimoljinda J., 2001. Small-scale fisheries management in Thailand. FAO-CDC Regional consultation on interactive mechanisms for small-scale fisheries management. 26-29 November, Bangkok, 8 p. Prapertchob, P., 1999. Thailand: a review of fish consumption in Thailand. Assessment of Mekong Fisheries: fish migrations and spawning and the impact of water management projects (AMFP). AMFP Tech Rep 5/99. Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Khon Kaen University, Thailand. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 1998. Setting environmental standards. Twenty First Report, Cm 4053 Ryan, M. 1996. Using Consumer Preferences in Health Care Decision Making: The Application of Conjoint Analysis, Office of Health Economics, London, UK. Seilert H., 2001. Regional synthesis on current status of small-scale fisheries management in Asia. FAO- CDC Regional consultation on interactive mechanisms for small-scale fisheries management. 26-29 November, Bangkok, 7 p. Shams, N., Samram T., and Gutirerrez D., 2001. Much more than rice: rice field biodiversity and food security in South Eastern Cambodia, Catholic Relief Services, Phnom Penh. Shankland, A., 2000. Analysing Policy for Sustainable Livelihoods. IDS Report 49. University of Sussex. 88
  • 94. Appendix (VIII) - Literature Search and Bibliographic References Sithirith M., 2000. Fishing for lives: conflicts and struggles between communities and fishing lots in Kompong Chhnang province. Report for NGO Forum Cambodia, Phnom Penh, 30 p. Sithik R., 2000. Fisheries degradation and its impact on Livelihoods Cambodia’s upper stream of the Mekong, Stung Treng. CEPA Report, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Phnom Penh, 46 p. Sjorslev, J. et al., 2000. Fisheries survey, Luangprabang, Lao. LARREC / MRC for AMFC October 2000, mimeo. Sjorslev, J. and Coates, D. et al. (2001) An Giang Fisheries Survey, Vietnam. Research Institute for Aquaculture Number 2, Ho Chi Minh City, Dept. Fisheries An Giang Province, Fisheries Department, Can Tho University and AMFC. MRC April 2001. Sjorslev, J., 2001. Assessment of consumption of fish and aquatic animals in the Lower Mekong Basin. Mekong Development Series, 2001. Jens Sjorslev, Programme Advisor. Spaninks F., and van Beukering P., 1997. Economic valuation of mangrove ecosystems: potential and limitiations. CREED Working Paper 14, Vrije Unversity, The Netherlands, 54 p. Thompson, P. and Islam, A., 2001. Methods for Consensus Building for Management of Common Property Resources. Final Technical Report (R7562) Volume 5 - Consensus Assessment Survey. Report submitted to NRSP, DFID. Thong H.X., 1998. Traditional Organisation of fisheries communities in Vietnam. Institute of Fisheries Economics and Planning, Vietnam. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of IIFETR, Tromso, Norway. Thong, H.X (Ed.) (1998) Survey of the Impact of Hoi Moi on the Development of Fisheries in Vietnam. Ministry of Fisheries, Hanoi, Vietnam. May 1998. Try, I, Vansereyvuth S., and Somony T., 2001. Small-scale fisheries management in Cambodia. FAO-CDC Regional consultation on interactive mechanisms for small-scale fisheries management. 26-29 November, Bangkok, 9 p. Tu T., 1996. Sustainable development in the Mekong River Basin. Land Lines 8(3) online available on http://www.linconinst.edu/landline/ van Zalingue, N., Thuok, N., and Seang Tana, T., 1998. Where there is water, there is fish? fisheries issues in the Lower Mekong Basin from a Cambodian perspective. In Crossing boundaries, 7th annual conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, IASCP, Vancouver. Vinary V. et al., 2000. All our livelihoods are dead, landlessness and aquatic resources in Battambang Province. Landlessness and Development Research 1999-2000, Oxfam GB, 31 p. Wattage, P., Smith, A., Pitts, C., McDonald, A. and Kay, D. 2000. Integrating environmental impact, contingent valuation and cost-benefit analysis: empirical evidence for an alternative perspective, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, vol. 18, number 1, 5-14. Wattage, P., Mardle, S. and Pascoe, S. 2002. Evaluation of the importance of fisheries management objectives: a conjoint-based choice modelling approach, Paper submitted to the Fisheries Research. Willis, K.G., 1991. The recreational value of the forestry commission estate in Great Britain: A Clawson- Knetsch travel cost analysis, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, vol. 38, number 1. WB, 2000. World Development Database 2000. available on http://www.worldbank.org/data/ 89