Satoyama Initiative Thematic Review

Maiko Nishi
Suneetha M. Subramanian
Himangana Gupta Editors

BiodiversityHealth-Sustainability
Nexus in SocioEcological Production
Landscapes andSeascapes (SEPLS)Contents

1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maiko Nishi, Suneetha M. Subramanian, and Himangana Gupta

2

Human-Nature Cooperation for Well-Being: Community
Understanding on One Health Approach in the COVID-19 Erain the Sundarbans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rashed Al Mahmud Titumir and Md. Shah Paran

3

4

5

Linking Biocultural Memory Conservation and Human
Well-Being in Indigenous Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes in
the Colombian Paciﬁc Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Andrés Quintero-Angel, Andrés López-Rosada, Mauricio QuinteroAngel, David Quintero-Angel, Diana Mendoza-Salazar, Sara Catalina
Rodríguez-Díaz, and Sebastian Orjuela-Salazar
SEPLS Well-Being as a Vision: Co-managing for Diversity,
Connectivity, and Adaptive Capacity in Xinshe Village, HualienCounty, Chinese Taipei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paulina G. Karimova, Shao-Yu Yan, and Kuang-Chung Lee“To Take Care of the Land Means Taking Care of Ourselves”:
Local Perceptions on Human and Environmental Health in a HighAgro-Biodiversity Landscape in the Yucatan Peninsula . . . . . . . . .
María Elena Méndez-López, María Fernanda Cepeda-González,Karla Juliana Rodríguez-Robayo, Lilian Juárez-Téllez,
Mariana Rivera-De Velasco, Rosa Martha Peralta-Blanco,
Nicolás Chan-Chuc, Andrea A. Serrano-Ysunza,
R. Antonio Riveros-Cañas, Oscar G. Sánchez-Siordia,
and Sebastien Proust

1

15

35

61

89

xvii

xviiiContents

6

Community “Bio-Rights” in Augmenting Health and Climate
Resilience of a Socio-Ecological Production Landscapein Peri-urban Ramsar Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Dipayan Dey and Priyani H. Amerasinghe

7

Effective Water Management for Landscape Managementin the Siem Reap Catchment, Cambodia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Chris Jacobson, Jady Smith, Socheath Sou, Christian Nielsen,
and Peou Hang

8

Are the Skiing Industry, Globalisation, and Urbanisationof Alpine Landscapes Threatening Human Health and Ecosystem
Diversity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Andrea Fischer, Henriette Adolf, and Oliver Bender9

Promoting Local Health Traditions and Local Food Baskets:
A Case Study from a Biocultural Hotspot of India . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
N. Anil Kumar, V. V. Sivan, and P. Vipindas

10

Safeguarding the Biodiversity Associated with Local Foodwaysin Traditionally Managed Socio-Ecological Production Landscapesin Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Patrick Maundu and Yasuyuki Morimoto

11

Multi-stakeholder Approach to Conserving Agricultural
Biodiversity and Enhancing Food Security and Community
Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Kampong Cham,
Cambodia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Jeeranuch Sakkhamduang, Mari Arimitsu, and Machito Mihara

12

Reducing Commodity-Driven Biodiversity Loss: The Case of
Pesticide Use and Impacts on Socio-Ecological Production
Landscapes (SEPLs) in Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Yaw Osei-Owusu, Raymond Owusu-Achiaw, Paa Koﬁ Osei-Owusu,
and Julia Atayi

13

Synthesis: Concept, Methodologies, and Strategies to Address the
Nexus in SEPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Maiko Nishi, Suneetha M. Subramanian, and Himangana Gupta

Chapter 11

Multi-stakeholder Approach to Conserving
Agricultural Biodiversity and Enhancing
Food Security and Community HealthDuring the COVID-19 Pandemicin Kampong Cham, Cambodia
Jeeranuch Sakkhamduang, Mari Arimitsu, and Machito Mihara

Abstract Agricultural biodiversity plays a vital role in enhancing food security andhuman health. Sustainable agriculture practices that conserve soil and water can
result in good environmental and human health. In view of this, a project on
capacity-building for sustainable agricultural practices targeting extension ofﬁcers
was implemented between September 2017 and February 2021 in Kampong Cham
Province, Cambodia, by the Institute of Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation (ERECON), Japan. The project involved government agencies, educational
institutes, NGOs, and farmers, and employed a multi-stakeholder approach topromote sustainable farming practices among local farmers and enable conditions
for the sale of agricultural products with low chemical inputs, especially in aprovince where agrochemical application is prevalent. A questionnaire survey, key
informant interviews, focus group discussions, and observations from farmers wereused for programme monitoring. Farmers reported that soil quality was improved
after applying compost, and more beneﬁcial insects were found after integrated pest
management techniques were applied. The amount of agrochemicals applied tofarmlands decreased compared to usage before the project start, implying that the
project was successful in promoting sustainable agriculture in the province. During
the COVID-19 pandemic, communities in the project areas are struggling to cope

J. Sakkhamduang (*)
Southeast Asia Ofﬁce, Pathum Thani, Thailand
Institute of Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation, Tokyo, Japan
M. Arimitsu
Institute of Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation, Tokyo, Japan
M. Mihara
Institute of Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation, Tokyo, JapanTokyo University of Agriculture, Japan, Faculty of Regional Environment Science, Tokyo,
Japan© The Author(s) 2022
M. Nishi et al. (eds.), Biodiversity-Health-Sustainability Nexus in Socio-Ecological
Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS), Satoyama Initiative Thematic
Review, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9893-4_11

227

228

J. Sakkhamduang et al.

with food and health insecurity. The intervention has helped communities become
more resilient during this hard time. After 3 years, many of the approximate 1500
farmers involved in the project are applying organic fertilisers and enhancing
agricultural biodiversity in their farmlands. This case is a grassroots-level activity,
but the concept of multi-stakeholder activities for agricultural biodiversity conservation can be replicated in other areas of Cambodia for achieving the sustainable
development goals.
Keywords Sustainable agricultural practices · Agricultural biodiversity · Food
security · Multi-stakeholder approach · COVID-19

1 Introduction
In Cambodia, the application of chemical fertilisers and pesticides has signiﬁcantly
increased to promote agricultural productivity. However, the inappropriate use ofagrochemicals, such as overuse and application without sufﬁcient knowledge, hascaused various problems to human and environmental health (Paavo & Sergiy,2015). Although agricultural productivity has increased temporarily, environmental
issues including soil degradation, water contamination from agrochemicals, andwater quality degradation such as eutrophication have resulted. Several studies
have proposed that one way to avoid the adverse impacts of agrochemicals on
humans and the environment is sustainable agriculture (Lotter, 2003; Crowder
et al., 2010; Eyhorn, 2007).
Agriculture plays an important role in Cambodia by ensuring food security at
community and national levels as well as in providing income opportunities. In orderto improve agricultural production, Cambodia imports chemical fertilisers fromother countries. Recently the chemical fertiliser and pesticide markets have been
growing rapidly, and application has become quite common among Cambodia’s
farmers (Ministry of Environment (MoE), 2004). In 2001, chemical fertilisers andpesticides were imported into Cambodia in the amount of 45,335 tons and 200 tons,
respectively (Ministry of Environment (MoE), 2004), while in 2010, 245,854 tons ofchemical fertiliser and 1357 tons of pesticides were imported into the country(Ministry of Environment (MoE), 2010; FAOSTAT, 2021). Many Cambodian
farmers believe that increased agricultural production can only be achieved byusing modern inputs, especially agrochemical products. This practice contributes
to increased farm products, but also increases farm expenditure and the risks forhuman and environmental health (Smith et al., 1990).
Kampong Cham Province is located in the central region, or plain zone according
to the topographical classiﬁcation, of Cambodia with a population of 895,763 people
within 215,923 households (Royal Government of Cambodia, 2019) (Table 11.1).
Among the ﬁve provinces in the plain zone, Kampong Cham has the highest poverty
severity index and poverty gap index of 3.34 and 9.28, respectively (JICA, 2010).
Almost all of the area in the province is non-forest land (agricultural and residential
areas), as shown in Fig. 11.1. Agricultural lands can be categorised into two distinct

11

Multi-stakeholder Approach to Conserving Agricultural Biodiversity. . .

229

Table 11.1 Basic information of the study area
Country
Province
District
Municipality
Size of geographical area (hectare)
Number of direct beneﬁciaries (persons)
Number of indirect beneﬁciaries (persons)
Dominant ethnicity(ies), if appropriate
Size of the case study/project area (hectare)
Geographic coordinates (latitude, longitude)

Cambodia
Kampong Cham
All 9 districts in the province
1459,400
1530
899,791
Khmer
459,400
11 590 000 N, 105 270 000 E

Fig. 11.1 Land cover map of Kampong Cham Province (source: Forest Administration, 2010)

topographical regions: lowlands and uplands. Lowland areas mainly support rice
farming interspersed with ﬁeld crops, vegetable gardens, and fruit trees. Uplandareas are mainly used for rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) plantations, maize (Zea mays),cassava (Manihot esculenta), soybeans (Glycine max), mung beans (Vigna radiata),
peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), sesame (Sesamum indicum), sugar cane (Saccharumofﬁcinarum), and fruit trees (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries(MAFF), 2012). Similar to large-scale farmers in the country, farmers in Kampong
Cham rely heavily on agrochemical products to increase farm production.
EuroCham (2016) reported that 123,871 and 79,328 households in the province
applied inorganic fertilisers and chemical pesticides, respectively, to their farmlands.

230

J. Sakkhamduang et al.

Although many farmers realise the adverse impacts of agrochemicals to humanand environmental systems, they lack knowledge related to sustainable or alternative
farming practices. Meanwhile, the agricultural extension ofﬁcers who are responsible for enhancing farmers’ knowledge are simply not enough in number compared totheir assigned areas (de Silva et al., 2014). Cambodia has suffered prolonged internal
conﬂict that has ruined the educational system and social economy across thecountry, such that capacity-building of extension ofﬁcers has not been implemented.
Hence, interventions from change agents such as NGOs, civil society, or educational
institutions are essential to tackle this problem.
To address the aforementioned issues, the Institute of Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation (ERECON) initiated the Project on Promoting Sustainable
Agricultural Conditions for Poverty Reduction in Kampong Cham Province(September 2017 to February 2021) to enhance the capacity of extension ofﬁcers
and farmers, with a multi-stakeholder approach as the key approach. The project
aimed to promote sustainable agricultural conditions through various forms ofeducation for change agents (agricultural extension ofﬁcers) and farmers in theprovince. The project covered all ten districts of the province. The speciﬁc objectives
included:
1. To build capacity on sustainable agriculture based on the cyclic use of natural
resources in the Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries(PDAFF) and ten District Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries(DDAFF) of the province, including dissemination skills and knowledge ranging
from soft (knowledge, skills) to hard (facilities) measures
2. To promote sustainable farming practices based on the cyclic use of natural
resources by local farmers
3. To promote conditions for the sale of agricultural products with low chemical
inputsAlthough human health was not a main objective of the programme from the
beginning, from April 2020 to February 2021 amidst the COVID-19 global pandemic, programme stakeholders observed that due to achievement of objective
number two, some changes had occurred related not only to environmental but
also human health.

2 Methodology
2.1

Multi-stakeholder Approach

Hemmati (2002) described the multi-stakeholder process as a tool to promote better
decision-making by ensuring that the views of the main actors concerned about aparticular decision are heard and integrated at all stages of dialogue and consensus
building. The process takes the view that everyone involved in the process has avalid view and relevant knowledge and experience to bring to the decision-making.

11

Multi-stakeholder Approach to Conserving Agricultural Biodiversity. . .

231

Table 11.2 Stakeholders and their roles in the project

Stakeholder group
Provincial Department ofAgriculture, Forest and Fisheries (PDAFF) ofﬁcers
District Department of Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries(DDAFF) ofﬁcers
Model Farmers and District
Group (DG) Members
General Farmers

Number ofparticipants fromeach stakeholder
group
5

25

500
1000

Royal University of Agriculture (RUA)

3

Kampong Cham National
Institute of Agriculture (KNIA)

2

Institute of Environmental
Rehabilitation and Conservation (ERECON)

10

Role
Attend trainings and workshops andtransfer knowledge to model and DG
farmers
Attend trainings and workshops andtransfer knowledge to model and DG
farmers
Attend workshops and transfer knowledge to general farmers
Attend workshops and transfer knowledge to other farmers and neighbours
Prepare technical content for trainings
and workshops and giving trainings
and lectures in workshops
Prepare technical content for trainings
and workshops, giving trainings andlectures in workshops, and programmemonitoring
Prepare technical content for trainings
and workshops, giving trainings andlectures in workshops, programmemonitoring, and programme
facilitating

The approach aims to create trust between actors and solutions that provide mutual
beneﬁts (win-win). The approach is people-centred, with everyone involved taking
responsibility for the outcome. When inclusive and participatory approaches areused, stakeholders have a greater sense of ownership of decisions made, and are thus
more likely to comply with them. Stakeholders of the project included the Royal
University of Agriculture (RUA), Cambodia; Provincial Department of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries (PDAFF), District Department of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries (DDAFF), Kampong Cham; Kampong Cham National Institute of Agriculture (KNIA); and farmers’ groups for promoting sustainable agriculture. The
number of persons and the roles of each stakeholder group are presented inTable 11.2.
Trainings and workshops covered topics ranging from sustainable agricultural
practices to product handling and marketing channels and were provided to extension ofﬁcers and farmers by ERECON staff and RUA and KNIA lecturers, aspresented in Table 11.3. Contents of training and workshops were prepared anddelivered to PDAFF and DDAFF ofﬁcers by ERECON staff and RUA and KNIA
lecturers. The trained ofﬁcers gave feedback on the content and delivery methods tolecturers and ERECON staff. The feedback was considered and incorporated into
outreach materials before it was used with farmers, as shown in Fig. 11.2. The

232

J. Sakkhamduang et al.

Table 11.3 Topics of trainings/workshops and number of participants
DurationJanuary 2018–June
2018

14–17 May 2018

Topic of training/workshop
Improvement of soil fertility
Soil conservation practices
Composting, pellet compost
Liquid fertiliser
Multicropping
Agroforestry
Technical training in Thailand for agricultural extension ofﬁcers

January 2019–June
2019

Integrated pest management
Biopesticide making

13–18 May 2019Technical training in Thailand for agricultural extension ofﬁcers

January 2020–June
2020

Irrigation techniques
Drip irrigation
Mini sprinkle planning and installing

September 2020–
November 2020

Post-harvesting, product handling, and marketing channels

Participants
PDAFF and DDAFF
ofﬁcers (30)Model and DG farmers(500)
General farmers (1000)
PDAFF and DDAFF
ofﬁcers (20)KNIA staff (1)ERECON staff (1)PDAFF and DDAFF(30)
Model and DG farmers(500)
General farmers (1000)
PDAFF and DDAFF
ofﬁcers (20)KNIA staff (1)ERECON staff (3)PDAFF and DDAFF
ofﬁcers (30)Model and DG farmers(500)
General farmers (1000)
PDAFF and DDAFF
ofﬁcers (30)Model and DG farmers(500)
General farmers (1000)

roughly 1500 farmers who attended the trainings and workshops were expected toshare the knowledge gained with their neighbours. Agricultural materials, such ascompost boxes and tanks for making liquid fertiliser and biopesticide, were distributed to all farmers along with guidebooks on sustainable agriculture practices.
Networks for safe agricultural products were formed, and marketing channels forthe products were introduced to farmers in the ﬁnal year of the project throughworkshops and trainings. Small shops for selling low agrochemical input products
were set up in the ten districts of the province, with products sold at the stalls comingfrom farmers who participated in the project. The main products included leafy
vegetables, tomatoes, eggplants, cucumbers, etc.

Multi-stakeholder Approach to Conserving Agricultural Biodiversity. . .

11

233

Stakeholders

Activity

Stakeholders

ERECON, RUA
and KNIA

Technical training

PDAFF andDDAFF officers

Feedback

Revise/improve
ERECON, PDAFF
and DDAFF
officers

Workshop

Revise/improve

ERECON, PDAFF
and DDAFF officers,
Model farmers and
DG farmers

ERECON, PDAFF and
DDAFF officers,
RUA and KNIA

Model farmers
and DGs
farmers

Feedback

Workshop

General farmers

Monitoring

Model farmers,
DG farmers andGeneral farmers

Fig. 11.2 Stakeholder involvement in the Project on Promoting Sustainable Agricultural Conditions for Poverty Reduction in Kampong Cham Province (from October 2017 to February 2021)(source: authors)

2.2

Data Collection and Analysis

A questionnaire survey, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, andprogramme monitoring through farm data records and farm visits by DDAFF
ofﬁcers and KNIA and ERECON staff were the methods used to collect data.
Moreover, the concept of citizen science (McKinley et al., 2017; Ryan et al.,2018) was applied by asking farmers to observe and make note of changes observedin their farmlands after converting to organic fertilisers. DDAFF ofﬁcers wereassigned to make monthly visits to farmers participating in the project, make records
of natural fertilisers produced and utilised in farmlands, and write monthly reports.
To capture any changes following project implementation, 100 DG farmers who
participated in the project were randomly selected out of a total of 500 DG farmers to
conduct baseline and end-line surveys. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse thedata collected.

234

J. Sakkhamduang et al.

3 Results
From the ﬁrst year of the project until project termination, more than 50 workshops
were conducted for agricultural ofﬁcers and farmers in the project area as shown in
Table 11.4. Trainings and workshops for PDAFF and DDAFF ofﬁcers wereconducted at the provincial ofﬁce. Ofﬁcers working in the districts had to travel tothe provincial capital to attend. For DG and general farmers, workshops were held atmodel farmers’ houses or at village meeting places as shown in Figs. 11.3 and 11.4.
The average distance travelled to attend workshops was around 4 km.
According to the baseline and end-line surveys, 78.0% of respondents were malewith an average age of 49.62 years old. Regarding educational attainment, 44.0%
graduated primary school, and 39.0 percent graduated secondary school. The average number of family members was 5.12 persons, and the average years of residency
Table 11.4 Number of workshops and participants during project implementation

Participants
PDAFF
and
DDAFF
ofﬁcers(30)
Model
farmers and
DGs (500)
Generalfarmers(1000)

No. ofparticipants
per training orworkshop32

Number ofworkshops per
topic per district(10 districts)
1

Duration ofeachworkshop(in days)2

Numberof topics
4

Total numberof trainings/
workshops
organised
4

25

2

1

4

20

30–50

2–3

1

4

32

Fig. 11.3 Workshop on
composting11

Multi-stakeholder Approach to Conserving Agricultural Biodiversity. . .

235

Fig. 11.4 Training on
biopesticides (photo
courtesy of the Institute ofEnvironmental
Rehabilitation andConservation (ERECON),
2018a, b)

Table 11.5 General information on respondents (source: survey data)

Item
Gender (persons)Average age (years)
Educational background of respondent (persons)Average number of family members (persons)Average years of residence
Average total cultivation area (ha)Irrigation of farmland (households)

Male
FemaleNo schoolingPrimary
SecondaryHigh school
College/university(years)Fully
Partially
Not at all
Average annual income from agricultural activity (in KHR)
Average annual income from non-agricultural activity (in KHR)
Average annual total income (in KHR)

Respondents (of total
100)(Value)
(%)
78
78.0
22
22.0
49.62
4
4.0
44
44.0
39
39.0
12
12.0
1
1.0
5.12
43.04
1.19
72
72.0
26
26.0
2
2.0
8,385,414.14
2,247,838.38
10,633,252.53

in the respective districts were 43.04 years. The average cultivated land size was
1.19 ha with 72% fully irrigated. Main crops grown by the respondents included rice,cassava, corn, fruit trees, and vegetables.
Even without any signiﬁcant change in cropping area, end-line surveys showedthat the farmers’ average annual income from agricultural activity increased by
49.9% or 3,683,141.41 KHR (Cambodian Riel, around 905 USD) from the yearthat the project started, pointing to an increased efﬁciency in the existing land use(Table 11.5). Income from non-agricultural activities also grew by 45.2% or236

J. Sakkhamduang et al.

1,015,079.76 KHR (249.5 US$) over the 2-year period (2018–2020). One of thereasons for this increase was family members gaining income working in garment
factories or working abroad sending remittances back to their families.

3.1

Changes in Agricultural Practices

Farmers who reported using chemical pesticides decreased overall by 9.0% from
90.0 to 81.0 percent. Of these, farmers using herbicides decreased by 9.0% from 54.0
to 45.0%, and those using insecticides decreased by 11.0% from 78.0 to 67.0%.
Meanwhile, farmers who reported using organic pesticides increased by 39.0% from
23.0 to 62.0%. Similarly, farmers using chemical fertilisers decreased by 5.0 percentage points from 87.0 to 82.0% (Table 11.6).
The farmers who did not apply agrochemicals prior to joining the project statedreasons including lands being relatively small (less than one hectare) and a lack ofany signiﬁcant insect pest problems. They considered application of agrochemicals
to be unnecessary.
Likewise, comparing with the baseline survey, end-line survey results showedthat the number of farmers using organic fertilisers increased by 11.0% from 85.0 to
96.0%. Among organic fertilisers, the biggest increase was seen for compost, risingby 74.0% from 7.0 to 81.0%, followed by liquid bio-fertiliser rising 25.0% from 4.0
to 29.0%, and green manure with a 28.0% increase from 6.0 to 34.0%. Rice husk
and/or bran went up 20.0% from 13.0 to 33.0%, rice straw 12.0% from 13.0 to
25.0%, and other organic fertilisers 6.0% from 2.0 to 8.0%. Of all organic fertilisers,
only animal manure saw a relative decrease in use, falling by 7.0% from 80.0 to
73.0% due to farmers using it to make compost instead of applying it directly on theirﬁelds (Table 11.7).
The reason behind this drastic increase in organic fertiliser use was the farmers’
lack of knowledge in making organic fertilisers, such as compost or liquid fertiliser,
before the project started. Prior to the project, the most prevalent practice wasapplying cow manure directly to farmlands, which carried the risk of pathogenic
bacteria such as Escherichia coli leaking into water sources. Through participating in
the project, farmers gained knowledge on how to make and apply compost and liquid
Table 11.6 Changes inapplication of fertilisers andpesticides (source: survey
data)

Item
Using chemical fertilisers
Using chemical pesticides
Herbicides
Fungicides
Insecticides
Other
Using organic pesticides

Respondent (100)Baseline (%)
End line (%)
87.0
82.0
90.0
81.0
54.0
45.0
32.0
32.0
78.0
67.0
1.0
3.0
23.0
62.0

11

Multi-stakeholder Approach to Conserving Agricultural Biodiversity. . .

Table 11.7 Changes inorganic fertiliser application(source: survey data)

Item
Using organic fertiliser
Rice straw
Rice husk and/or bran
Green manure
Animal manure
CompostPellet compost
Liquid bio-fertiliser
Other

237

Respondents (100)Baseline (%)
End line (%)
85.0
96.0
13.0
25.0
13.0
33.0
6.0
34.0
80.0
73.0
7.0
81.0
1.0
6.0
4.0
29.0
2.0
8.0

fertiliser to their farmlands. During the second year of the project, when some
farmers started to grow low input or organic vegetables, compost became a necessary input for them. Many farmers changed their attitudes towards organic fertilisers,
especially compost, after observing the good practices of their neighbours.
However, some farmers still apply chemical fertilisers mixed with compost in an
attempt to get a quicker and higher yield than with compost alone. Some farmers
have continued to decrease the amount of chemical fertilisers used while increasing
the amount of compost. Chemical pesticides are still widely used in the project areas
due to organic pesticides showing a lower performance than that of chemical
pesticides, especially for farmers who grow large amounts of vegetables. Changing
the perception of farmers concerning the adoption of organic fertiliser application bymodelling the change proved to be very effective. In this case, the model farmers
played important roles in sharing knowledge and using their farms as places fordemonstration and showcasing of sustainable agricultural practices to their neighbours and visitors.
Regarding changes in soil conditions and diversity in farms, semi-structured
interviews were conducted with ten model farmers. Excerpts from the interviews
are presented below:
First thing I did is reduce chemical fertiliser and pesticide; after participate in the training, I
clearly realise that applying chemicals is impacting health and the environment and costs
much more money. That is the reason why I changed to using compost for which materials
can be found around the house, and it’s cheaper. Second is I changed the traditional habit ofgrowing; I used to grow crops for only household consumption and without much taking
care. But now, that habit is changed, and I look after my crops and soil well. I can see thesoil condition is improved after applying compost. —Farmer A
I can say, it (crop diversity) is increased 30% in my farms. I cultivate many types ofvegetables, and I can produce foods for the year round. —Farmer B
Crop diversity in my farm is really increased. More than 50 dragon fruit trees are increased,
and I plan to add another 30 trees this year. Moreover, I grow more crops for household
consumption, like eggplant, tomato, lemongrass, and other herbs, etc. I also raise chickens,ducks and some catﬁsh to gain more income. —Farmer A

238

J. Sakkhamduang et al.

Since I started applying bio-pesticide to my farmland, I found out there are many beneﬁcial
insect populations that have signiﬁcantly increased. I noted that there are bees, spiders,
golden bugs, and frogs, etc. —Farmer B
I noticed that after I started applying bio-pesticide, some beneﬁcial insects appeared more,
like bees and spiders. There are also birds and some types of reptiles coming to eat worms,
ants, and other pests. Those insects and small animals never showed up when I usedchemical pesticide. —Farmer C

Most farmers interviewed reported noticing improvements in soil conditions,such as soil being more porous, softer, and darker in colour compared to before
applying organic fertilisers. Farmers also reported that they increased crop diversity
in their farmlands with multiple beneﬁts, such as producing for household consumption, for the market, or to use as safety nets (in the case of animal husbandry).
Moreover, more beneﬁcial insects were found in farmlands after farmers stopped
applying chemical pesticides and began using biopesticides made from plants andherbs in their farmlands.

3.2

Impact of COVID-19

Kampong Cham is one of the provinces with reported cases of COVID-19, with118 cases as of 4 May 2021 (Ministry of Health (MoH), 2021). Due to the global
pandemic, several planned workshops and trainings had to be postponed because theRoyal Government of Cambodia restricted all events involving more than 50 participants. The postponed activities have caused a delay in project implementation,
especially in the ﬂood-prone areas along the Mekong River, which are normally
difﬁcult to access during the rainy season.
During this hardship, several organisations working in the country decided tohold workshops, seminars, or meetings using internet platforms to connect people.
However, most of the project beneﬁciaries are farmers living in rural and remoteareas with limited access to infrastructure such as tap water or electricity, let alone
smartphones to connect to the internet. Most of the farmers participating in the
project own mobile phones, but only 25% own smartphones. Some farmers reported
that although at least one of their family members owns a smartphone, they themselves do not know how to use it.
Face-to-face communication and social gatherings are still the most effectivemeans of communication with farmers, especially in remote areas. Therefore, local
stakeholders, especially agricultural extension ofﬁcers, model farmers, and district
group members, play important roles in project monitoring and keeping the majorityof farmers engaged in the project via farm visits and mobile phone conversations.
A questionnaire survey for DG and model farmers and semi-structured interviews
were conducted to obtain updates on farmers’ situations during the pandemic,
especially on their feelings about their own health, food security, and mental health.
A total of 58 DG farmers completed the survey between January and May 2021.
Results are shown in Table 11.8.

11Multi-stakeholder Approach to Conserving Agricultural Biodiversity. . .

239

Table 11.8 Farmers’ feelings towards health, food security, diversity in their farms, and mental
health during COVID-19 (source: survey data)
Items
After applying organic fertilisers to your farmland, do you think
you are healthier than before?
Did you increase types of plants/livestock in your farmland morethan before?
Do you think you have more food security than before?
Do you think you have chances to meet with other farmers fromdifferent villages/communes more often than before?
COVID-19 concerns

How does COVID-19 affect your everyday life?
I worry that I or my family members are going to contract
COVID-19.
I cannot attend meetings or workshops conducted by government
agencies or NGOs as usual.
I do not want to go to public places such as pagodas, markets, or
meeting halls as I might contract COVID-19.
I feel less conﬁdent about consuming foods from markets as it
might be contaminated with COVID-19.
My agricultural products cannot be sold as before due to
COVID-19.
I feel depressed about the situation of COVID-19 and economic
situation.
How do you cope with such concerns or fears?
I and my family members always wear facial masks and wash ourhands often, especially when we go out.
I attend meetings or workshops as little as possible.
I avoid going to public places.
I eat more of my own foods, such as vegetables or livestock that I
grow rather than buying raw materials from markets.
I try to contact other farmers or agricultural ofﬁcers to ﬁnd othermarket channels.
I talk and share my feelings with neighbours and farmers I know
from the project.
Do you think sharing your concerns or fears with neighbours
and other farmers from the project can reduce your stresscaused by the COVID-19 situation?
Yes, very much
A little
Not at all

Respondents (58)
Healthier54
No
difference4
MoreNo
diverse49
difference9
More foodNosecurity53
difference3
Yes57
No
difference1
Number of respondents(multiple responses
allowed)
55
33
50
41
33
38

56
35
46
40
30
35

32
23
3

240

J. Sakkhamduang et al.

Some responses from interviews with farmers are presented below:
Since COVID-19, I am only conﬁdent in consuming food collected from my own farm. And I
do not usually buy from outside, only meats and other necessary ingredients. I can rely on
my farm to survive during the pandemic. —Farmer D
Since the COVID-19 outbreak, I am more conﬁdent eating my own food from my farm rather
than going out to eat or buying vegetables from unknown sources. Because I only apply
compost, liquid fertiliser and bio-pesticide I have learnt from ERECON about my crops. Ourcommunity members also know how to prevent themselves from contracting COVID-19 byfollowing the Ministry of Health’s announcements. Many of them diversiﬁed their farms tomeet household consumption and meet the market demand. But at the same time, theirproducts do not sell well, because of the reduction of buyers/consumers. —Farmer E

Most of the farmers interviewed stated that during the pandemic, they felt more
conﬁdent consuming their own products, believing that they could depend on theirown crop diversity. Meanwhile, they felt less stress after talking and exchanging
information among community members. Results of interviews clearly show thatsustainable agricultural practices lead to healthy soil and healthy and safe foods andcontribute to human health, both of the individual and the community.

4 Challenges and Opportunities
4.1

Challenges

During the 3 years of the project intervention, the number of farmers using organic
fertilisers has increased, but the use of chemical fertilisers mixed with compost is stillprevalent, although the amount of chemical fertiliser is small compared to compost.
Project staff and agricultural extension ofﬁcers suggested farmers to gradually
decrease the amount of chemical fertilisers and increase the amount of compost.
Moreover, the biopesticides introduced by the project were not highly adopted bysome farmers, especially those engaged in mono-crop farming, as they are lesseffective compared to chemicals. Positive human and institutional impacts wereseen as extension ofﬁcers gain knowledge, skills, and experience in agriculturalextension and advisory services from agricultural development projects/programmes(Ke & Babu, 2018). However, the number of agricultural extension ofﬁcers assigned
to work in each district is still small considering the size of the areas for which they
are responsible. This challenge is also discussed in the work of Sothath and Sophal(2010), who note that the average of extension service support in Cambodia at the
district level is 5000 households per extension worker. This limitation is an obstacle
for farmers to obtain adequate knowledge of sustainable farming practices.

11

4.2

Multi-stakeholder Approach to Conserving Agricultural Biodiversity. . .

241

Opportunities

Sustainable organic farming has become one of the province’s agricultural extension
policies. The project has contributed to provincial and district agricultural strategicplans by promoting the production of low agrochemical input or organic products by
farmers in the province for supply to local markets. Moreover, the project has alsoenhanced food security at the household and community level through increased
crop diversity and productivity. Organic farming and safer foods are well acceptedby relevant stakeholders, especially customers in the province. Several farmers
involved in the project produced low agrochemical input products or organic
products, which earned 20 to 25 percent higher a price than that of conventional
products. Figure 11.5 shows the organic vegetable farm belonging to one of the DG
farmers, which received a net house from another project as part of an integrated pest
management (IPM) technique promotion activity. The farmer has successfully
applied IPM techniques and demonstrated the beneﬁt of selling low-chemicalinput products at higher prices. This case serves as a good example that can motivate
more farmers to follow a similar path. Enhanced engagement of youth and educational institutes was also observed. The project stakeholders included two educational institutes, one located in the capital city of Phnom Penh and the other locatedin Kampong Cham Province, the Kampong Cham National Institute of Agriculture,
which actively engaged in the project by conducting farm visits and collaboratingwith farmers using their farms as experimental sites for students. Sharing knowledge
with university students made the farmers more conﬁdent in their farming practices.
Moreover, the project also encouraged young farmers to get involved and use theirknowledge of and access to social media to support older farmers in keeping up withnews on techniques and other information related to sustainable agricultural
practices.
During project implementation, we observed the active involvement of women.
Several of them supported the extension ofﬁcers during trainings and workshops by
Fig. 11.5 Organic
vegetable farm of a DG
member242

J. Sakkhamduang et al.

Fig. 11.6 A farmer
showing her organic garden
to visitor (photo courtesy of
the Institute ofEnvironmental
Rehabilitation andConservation (ERECON),
2021 (Fig. 11.5) andInstitute of Environmental
Rehabilitation andConservation (ERECON),2019 (Fig. 11.6))

sharing their knowledge and ﬁrst-hand experiences in applying organic fertilisers orother changes in their farms with other farmers as well with visitors from universities
and government agencies (Fig. 11.6). Several PDAFF and DDAFF ofﬁcers acknowledged that through this project, they acquired new knowledge and techniques onsustainable farming practices used both in Cambodia and abroad. The technicaltrainings in Thailand, in particular, motivated many ofﬁcers to develop conditions
for sustainable farming practices in their own responsible areas. Moreover, theknowledge dissemination design that required ofﬁcers to give lectures to farmers
in the workshops gave junior ofﬁcers the opportunity to hone their teaching andcommunication skills instead of only observing senior ofﬁcers perform.

5 Conclusion
After 3 years of project implementation, several changes and developments in termsof agricultural practices and the capacities of ofﬁcers and farmers were observed.
According to monitoring reports and farm visits, farmers produced and appliedcompost, liquid fertilisers, and biopesticides in their farmland instead of agrochemical products. The changes resulted in an increase in agricultural biodiversity infarmlands and enhanced food security and human health.
The project has contributed to provincial and district agricultural strategic plansby promoting the production and sale in markets of low-agrochemical-input ororganic products by farmers in the province. Although the progress of marketingorganic products was hindered by COVID-19, knowledge in marketing and networks were formed. Moreover, consumers in the Kampong Cham capital city
became aware of organic farming networks through the promotional event held by
PDAFF.

11

Multi-stakeholder Approach to Conserving Agricultural Biodiversity. . .

243

Through its multi-stakeholder approach, the project addressed Target 2.4 for Goal
2 of the SDGs, by promoting sustainable food production systems to increase
productivity and production, and improve land and soil quality. The project covered
the whole province encompassing various landscapes ranging from uplands tolowlands and river ecosystems. The sustainable agricultural practices promoted
and applied by farmers in these landscapes have helped to conserve the soil andwater ecosystems and have resulted in improved human health.
The project also contributed to Target 12.2 for Goal 12, by promoting sustainable
management and efﬁcient use of natural resources through composting and producing organic fertilisers. Generally, after rice is harvested from paddies, rice straw iscollected and used as animal fodder. However, farmers always burnt the remaining
rice stumps as a convenient way to clear the land before the next growing season.
Burning residue not only creates smoke and particulate matter (PM2.5), but also kills
microorganisms and animals in the soil (Ajay et al., 2019). Using farm residues tomake compost to apply to ﬁelds is a good example of cyclic use of resources forsustainable production and consumption. Although more labour by farmers is
required to make and apply compost than needed for the use of chemical fertilisers,
the practices result in a better environment and improved human health both at theindividual and community levels.
Farmers who converted their agricultural practices from applying agrochemical
products to using organic fertilisers observed several changes in their farmlands. For
instance, some noted the improvement of soil conditions, such as more porous soils
that are darker in colour and contain more soil organisms. The integrated pest
management also allowed more beneﬁcial insects to live, helping control insect
pests. Crop diversity in farmlands enhanced the food security of farmers, which has
proven to be vital especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is anticipated that understanding and awareness of sustainability, especiallywith regard to consumption and production, will spread to the public in Kampong
Cham Province through the farmers’ network. We also expect that the outcomesfrom this project will be scaled up and applied to broader areas of Cambodia.

References
Ajay, K., Kushwaha, K. K., Singh, S., Shivay, Y. S., Meena, M. C., & Nain, L. (2019). Effect of
paddy straw burning on soil microbial dynamics in sandy loam soil of indo-gangetic plains.
Environmental Technology & Innovation, 16, 100469.
Crowder, D. W., Northﬁeld, T. D., Strand, M. R., & Snyder, W. E. (2010). Organic agriculture
promotes evenness and natural pest control. Nature, 466, 109–112.
de Silva, S., Johnston, R., & Sellamuttu, S. S. (2014). Agriculture, irrigation and poverty reduction
in Cambodia: Policy narratives and ground realities compared, CGIAR Research Program on
Aquatic Agricultural Systems, Penang, Malaysia, Working Paper AAS-2014-3.
EuroCham. (2016). Agriculture and agro-processing sector in Cambodia, taking stock: A detailed
review of current challenges and investment opportunities in Cambodia. EuroCham,
AgriProject Reporting, v. 46.

244

J. Sakkhamduang et al.

Eyhorn, F. (2007). Organic farming for sustainable livelihoods in developing countries: The case of
cotton in India. PhD dissertation, Department of Philosophy and Science, University of Bonn.
FAOSTAT. (2021). Pesticides trade, viewed 15 October 2021. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/
faostat/en/#data/RT.
Forest Administration. (2010). Land cover map of Kampong Cham. Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries.
Institute of Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation (ERECON). (2018a). Workshop on
composting.
Institute of Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation (ERECON). (2018b). Training on
bio-pesticides.
Institute of Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation (ERECON). (2021). Organic vegetable
farm of a DG member.
Institute of Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation (ERECON). (2019). A farmer showing
her organic garden to visitor.
JICA. (2010). Kingdom of Cambodia, study for poverty proﬁles in the Asian region, ﬁnal report,
Japan International Cooperation Agency, OPMAC Corporation.
Ke, S. O., & Babu, S. C. (2018). Agricultural extension in Cambodia: An assessment and options
for reform. IFPRI discussion paper 01706. International Food Policy Research InstituteHemmati, M. (2002). Multistakeholder processes for governance and sustainability. Earthscan.
Lotter, D. W. (2003). Organic agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 21(4), 59–128.
McKinley, D. C., Miller-Rushing, A., Ballard, H. L., Bonney, R., Brown, H., Cook-Patton, S. C.,
Evans, D. M., French, R. A., Parrish, J. K., Phillips, T. B., Ryan, S. F., Shanley, L. A., Shirk,
J. L., Stepenuck, K. F., Weltzin, J. F., Wiggins, A., Boyle, O. D., Briggs, R. D., Chapin, S. F.,
III, . . . Soukup, M. A. (2017). Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural
resource management, and environmental protection. Biological Conservation, 208, 15–28.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). (2012). Annual report of agriculture for
2011–2012.
Ministry of Environment (MoE). (2004). National proﬁle on chemicals management in Cambodia.
Ministry of Environment (MoE). (2010). Unsustainable agricultural practices (unpublished handout, Cambodia National Environmental Performance Assessment (EPA) at Sunway Hotel.
Ministry of Health (MoH). (2021). COVID-19 statistics, communicable disease control department,
viewed 4 May 2021. Retrieved from https://covid19-map.cdcmoh.gov.kh/?fbclid¼IwAR2
9DjPwYCLbkqtreXbXnRgsAVjOqEAA0HnX96NQnLLdeT4XKep_PDwH-3U (In Khmer
language).
Paavo, E., & Sergiy, Z. (2015). Cambodian agriculture in transition: Opportunities and risks.
World Bank Group.
Royal Government of Cambodia. (2019). General population census of the kingdom of Cambodia
2019. National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning.
Ryan, S. F., Adamson, N. L., Aktipis, A., Andersen, L. K., Austin, R., Barnes, L., Beasley, M. R.,
Bedell, K. D., Briggs, S., Chapman, B., Cooper, C. B., Corn, J. O., Creamer, N. G., Delborne,
J. A., Domenico, P., Driscoll, E., Goodwin, J., Hjarding, A., Hulbert, J. M., . . . Dunn, R. R.
(2018). The role of citizen science in addressing grand challenges in food and agriculture
research. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 285(1891), 20181977. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rspb.2018.1977
Smith, S. J., Schepers, J. S., & Porter, L. K. (1990). Assessing and managing agricultural nitrogen
losses to the environment. Advances in Soil Science, 14, 1–32.
Sothath, N., & Sophal, C. (2010). Agriculture sector ﬁnancing and services for smallholder farmers,
NGO Forum on Cambodia.

11Multi-stakeholder Approach to Conserving Agricultural Biodiversity. . .

245

The opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reﬂect theviews of UNU-IAS, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent.
Open Access This chapter is licenced under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
IGO Licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit
to UNU-IAS, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.
The use of the UNU-IAS name and logo, shall be subject to a separate written licence agreement
between UNU-IAS and the user and is not authorised as part of this CC BY 3.0 IGO licence. Notethat the link provided above includes additional terms and conditions of the licence.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is notincluded in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted bystatutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly fromthe copyright holder.