Governing the lifeblood of Kandal : a case study of water as a contested resource in the Mekong Delta of Cambodia

(1)

Governing the lifeblood of Kandal

A case study of water as a contested resource in the Mekong Delta of Cambodia

Emma Stork

Master Thesis (Canvas version)

29 July 2019

(2)

(3)

MSc Human Geography – Environmental Geography track 2018-2019

Name student: Emma Stork Student number: 12305839

Course: MSc Thesis Date of submission: 29 July 2019

Name supervisor (1) : Mr. M.A. (Andres) Verzijl Name supervisor (2): Mr. Prof. dr. J.M. (Maarten) Bavinck

(4)

(5)

iii

Abstract

Water is the lifeblood of human existence. A water resource such as the Mekong River has always been important for the water and food security of countries like, Cambodia where 80% of the population lives in rural areas. The Mekong and the Bassac River (branch of the Mekong River) are important lifelines for the rural households in the Kandal Province of Cambodia and can be considered a common pool resource. The benefits that the rivers provide gain the interests of a variety of actors. The interests could potentially be conflicting.

Earlier research focused more on other areas in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam or the Tonlé Sap lake but not the Kandal Province. This research investigates the ways water is a contested resource in the Kandal Province. Through the analysis of 34 semi-structured interviews with rural households, three expert-interviews and participatory observations of the life and water practices of the Cambodians, the interests of the stakeholders are analysed using a political ecology lens.

Little is known about the daily life of the Cambodians in the rural area of Kandal. Insight is given about the way rural livelihoods are shaped in the Kandal. For instance, administrative structures, social relations, the main source of income and development changes. Attention is paid to the local knowledge, water practices and celebrations. Furthermore, the management system used for common pool resources is closely examined and what kind of conflicts arise from this management system. Multi-scalar water related issues are addressed from a local lens to show multiple power relations within the process of water governance.

Finally, this research will give insight into the local management of ‘’water as a common’’ in the Kandal Province and whether these water resources are susceptible to conflicts between different actors active in the Kandal Province.

Keywords: Cambodia, Kandal Province, livelihoods, local knowledge, common pool resources, water governance, water as a contested resource

(6)

iv

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank a few people who supported me during the writing process. Without their help I would have not been able to write this project.

First of all, thanks to my interpreter: Nontarak Huong. You really helped me to adjust to the Cambodian culture by showing me all kinds of Cambodian specialities. Thank you for translating all the interviews and helping me communicate with the participants. Especially thanks for putting up with me when I was cranky because of the heat or the mosquito bites. Last of all, thank you for being my friend during my stay in Cambodia. I will never forget this experience. I could not have conducted this project without you.

Next, I would like to thank Mr. Kimcchin and Jean-Philippe Venot. Mr. Kimcchin, thank you for your kind welcome at the Royal University of Agriculture and for all the arrangements that you have made for me. Jean-Philippe, thank you for your guidance and for your feedback. The few times we met to discuss details of my thesis really helped me to move forward.

Lastly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Andres Verzijl. Without your guidance I would have not been able to present this thesis. Thank you for making time when I needed your advice and feedback. I am very glad that you stimulated me to do my research abroad. Despite my doubts before I went to Cambodia, it was an experience I would not have wanted to miss. Also thanks, to my second reader Maarten Bavinck for making time to evaluate my thesis.

Thanks to all!

(7)

v

List of figures, tables and boxes

Figure 1.1 The Bassac River p. 4

Figure 2.1 Conceptual scheme p. 14

Figure 5.1 Lower Mekong Basin p. 23

Figure 5.2 Kandal Province p. 24

Figure 5.3 Study Area p. 24

Figure 5.4 Svay p. 27

Figure 5.5 Transportation of svay p. 27

Figure 5.6a Land distribution during Pol Pot regime (1975-1979) p. 31 Figure 5.6b Land distribution after Pol Pot regime (1979-now) p. 31

Figure 7.1 Land degradation p. 46

Table 4.1 List of interviews p. 19

Table 4.2 List of expert interviews p. 20

Table 5.1 Overview study area p. 23

Table 7.1 Activity of various actors in Kandal p. 48

Textbox 1. Local knowledge of floods p. 8

Textbox 2. Historical background p. 28

(10)

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

My arrival in Cambodia was very interesting: the heat was like a blow to my head. On the way to the apartment I immediately noticed the dry environment surrounding me. The first day in the

apartment I had to deal with something I never had to think about back home: there was no electricity. Every day (except Sundays) during my stay in Phnom Penh there were power cuts in the

morning or the afternoon. That meant no air-condition and no fan for sometimes 4 hours long. That was the first time I realised the comfort that I have in Holland. Pretty quickly someone told me

that the power cuts were caused by lack of water. Cambodia relies on the generation of energy by hydropower water dams. I was told the water level of the Mekong River was too low to generate enough energy for every household which meant power cuts, affecting daily life (Observations 2, 3

April 2019).

1.1 Problem statement

The water in Mekong and Bassac River in Cambodia is often referred to as the lifeblood of the rural economy and livelihoods of the populations (Pearse-Smith, 2012, p. 147; Cronin, 2007, p.1). There are multiple stakeholders that use the river for different purposes. Millions of people in Cambodia share and Bassac and Mekong river for fishing and cultivation of the land (Torell, Salamance & Ratner, 2004). At the same time, the government uses the rivers to build hydropower dams for electricity generation. Tension could grow between these actors since there is a discrepancy between the priorities of the government and the rural population (Venot & Fontenelle, 2015) Tensions could also arise within and among villages between fishermen and farmers about the use of water resources. According to Werthmann (2010) water and land resources in Cambodia are confronted with open access situations. Especially during flooding season when everyone can use the water without restrictions. Moreover, resources are shared by neighbouring villages which can lead to overuse and contamination (Werthmann, 2010). According to Sour & Viseth (2004) conflicts between different types of stakeholders that use the water resources have been increasing in Cambodia. Conflicts over water resources in Cambodia seem to become a growing issue at different levels. Therefore, the way water resources are managed and governed in the Mekong Delta of Cambodia is important but the Kandal Province is often overlooked in this process.

(11)

2

1.2 Water resources in Cambodia

The Mekong basin supports at least 70 million people (Campbell, 2016). The rivers in the Mekong Basin provide food security and income for the most vulnerable members of society. According to Kok Boon (2011) 80% of the population of Cambodia lives in the rural areas that depend on the Mekong and Bassac River as a resource and form therefore the backbone of the Cambodian agricultural economy. The riverine environments cause seasonal floods in Cambodia (Elhert, 2012). The annual inundation and recession of the river water is essential for the productivity of the agriculture and fisheries. Every year from July until November there is a flooding season in Cambodia (Elhert, 2012). These floods provide sedimentation and silt which fertilises the fields, but also facilitates the migration of the fish. In the dry season, however, there is limited water storage because the topography of Cambodia does not provide sufficient sites to capture water during flooding season. Therefore, it is essential that the water resources in Cambodia are carefully and efficiently governed (Gartrell, 1997).

The water resources in Cambodia are governed by different groups of stakeholders such as, the local fishers, farmers, private business, foreign investors, the government but also the tourism sector or environmental organizations and international development organizations (Campbell, 2016). Different actors with various interests means, according to Krause (2018), that the water flow is never socially neutral. This becomes evident with the growing enthusiasm in hydropower dam construction in the Mekong River area by the Cambodian government and foreign investors. Hydropower dams contribute to the development of the country by providing electricity, but the effects of the installation of the hydropower dams are felt in the communities who live along the river (Molle et al., 2009). For example, when a hydropower dam collapses it can have massive implications for the rural society. The collapse of the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy hydroelectric dam in 2018 in Laos caused destructive flash floods which destroyed villages. The consequences were not only felt in Laos but also in Cambodia’s rural villages. Villagers in Cambodia had to deal with heavy and dangerous floods affected the harvest (BBC, 2018).

The Mekong river can be seen as common pool resource (Fox & Sneddon, 2006). A common pool resource is identified as non-excludable and rival. This means that it is almost impossible to exclude people from using the function of the river (e.g. water flow, floodplains and fish). Everybody can use the benefits that the river provides, but at the same time action of one actor can limit the quality and quantity of another which is happening in the hydropower dam case (Ostrom & Hess, 2007). This system is also perceptible on local level. The resource management on local level is still shaped by traditional property rights: a combination of open access and collective action. This management system is however vulnerable to overuse, whereby one villager uses too much water and another has no water left to use. This could reveal Hardin’s

(12)

3

tragedy of the commons dilemma, especially in sites which are overlooked (Fox & Sneddon, 2006; Hardin; 1968).

1.3 Relevance

This research focuses on the local level of this water resource issue. The local study area where the research is conducted is the Kandal Province. The Kandal Province is located in the Mekong Basin, between the capital of Cambodia (Phnom Penh) and Vietnam. There is a gap in knowledge: existing literature does not include the role of the Kandal Province in the Mekong River Basin. This is in contrast to the Tonlé Sap Lake in Cambodia where multiple researches regarding water spaces and fishing were conducted (Kummu et al., 2006; Sarkkula et al., 2004; Sokhem & Sunada, 2006). Moreover, literature also exists about the water regimes in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Water management in the Vietnamese Delta is important for the production of rice (Berg et al., 2016; Käkönen, 2008). Existing literature about both sites also mentions challenges for the future such as, climate change and rising sea levels (Delgado et al., 2012; Hoang et al., 2018). Yet, no literature is provided about the Kandal Province in this respect while Kandal is also part of the Mekong Delta and will also experience increased uncertainties in the coming years. Moreover, the way water is managed and regulated in Kandal will also have consequences for the quality and quantity of the water flow in Vietnam. Therefore, the complexity of the water resource problem should also be highlighted in the Kandal Province of Cambodia.

In addition, there is a lack of knowledge about the contemporary water practices in Kandal. There is especially a gap in knowledge on livelihoods in the rural villages of Kandal in relation to water. May Ebihara (1968) wrote about the practices and livelihoods of the villagers in Kandal before the Pol Pot Regime and the Khmer Rouge. However, nowadays, there is a lack of information about the contemporary practices in Kandal. For example, who is in charge of the water infrastructure, how are the social relations within the villages constructed and how are water conflicts dealt with? This research shows the ways actors relate to water in Kandal and reveals Kandal as an important part of the Mekong Delta. In the end, gaining attention from development organisations within and outside Cambodia could put Kandal on the map.

To enfold how the water practices and conflicting water interests are shaped in Kandal a research question was formulated:

‘In what ways is water contested within and among Cambodian villages and practices in the Kandal Province?’

(13)

4

1.4 Thesis outline

The outline of this thesis is structured in a way to answer the research questions and to keep oversight of the goals and aims. The second chapter will highlight three different concepts that are used to integrate results and theory. These concepts form the theoretical framework of this research. In the third chapter the research question is further elaborated and the sub questions, that support the research question, are presented and explained. Chapter 4 addresses the methods that are used to conduct the research. Moreover, it presents an overview of the collaboration with the interpreter. The next three chapters display the results. Chapter 5 elaborates on the livelihoods of the villagers in Kandal. The sixth chapter explains the lives of the villagers in relation to water. The final results chapter clarifies the complexities of the common properties and what kind of conflicts that leads to. The research is completed with a conclusion in chapter 8 and a discussion in chapter 9 where the limitations and recommendations of this research are discussed.

Figure 1.1 The

Bassac River Source: Author, 2019

(14)

(15)

6

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

In this chapter relevant theories and concepts are discussed. First, the relation between water and humans is discussed whereby also the multiple ontologies of water are explained. Next, the livelihood approach of rural households is explained. In addition, the importance of local knowledge and the influence of culture is also emphasized in this part. Lastly, the concept of governing the commons on community based level and the governance of water as a common pool resource is discussed. These three concepts are supported by an overarching political ecology lens. Political ecology sheds light on the relationships between political, economic and social factors, and the way they interplay with environmental issues and changes (Neumann, 2009). It focuses on small and rural communities and stresses the complexities of (unequal) power and social structures that shape the resource use. Political ecology is a critical approach which investigates these relationships under the hallmark of multi-scalar analysis (Neumann, 2009). The way that political ecology relates to the concepts is also shortly discussed within this chapter. In the end, the concepts are capitalized in a coherent conceptual model, which is presented at the end of the theoretical framework.

2.1 Contested water relations

The relationship between humans and the water environment has become a critical point of discussion in recent years and raised interest among scholars (Linton & Budds, 2014). Especially since a global water crisis has been triggered by increasing human pressure on water resources and the growing demand for energy and food (Montanari, 2015). According to Krause (2018) and proponents of livelihood approach (Sherbinin et al., 2008), water environment shapes human life. Therefore, Krause (2018) suggests that we are part of different hydrosocial lifeworlds. Researching hydrosocial lifeworlds is an expansion of social life studies. The world tends to be divided up in different forms of sociality such as ‘geosociality’ and ‘biosociality’ but hydrosocial lifeworlds captures these ‘’socialities’’ together. The term hydrosocial lifeworlds attempts to capture the essence of water and society relations (Falkenmark, 1997; Krause, 2018). This implies that water is framed and shaped by social structures, power relations, technologies and identities (Linton & Budds, 2014). In connection to this, Zwarteveen & Boelens (2014, p. 149) suggest to consider water as an inherently contested resource. According to Zwarteveen & Boelens (2014) there are four ways in which water is contested. First, the distribution of water is contested. Hereby, it is questioned who has access to the water resources and the financial assets to use the water resources. A second way water is contested is that conflicts arise about the rules, norms and laws of the allocation of water resources. Third, the

(16)

7

authority and responsibility over water resources is an issue. The last way water is contested is related to the discourse that is used to address water resource problems and resolutions. This point refers to the way the problems are presented, for example in which language and by which actors (Zwarteveen & Boelens, 2014). An example of an complicated discourse is the word ‘delta’. The word ‘delta’ originates from the Greek language and is based on the estuary form of the Nile River. It has been developed as a deeply western concept which is nowadays embedded in geosciences as the dominant discourse. This does not mean that other discourses do not exist and should be taken into account as well (Morita & Jensen, 2017). This contestation of water resources is in line with the political ecology approach which understands these types of conflicts as ‘a site specific phenomenon rooted in local histories and social relations yet connected to larger processes of material transformation and power relations’ (Le Billon, 2015, p. 176). In addition, it is highlighted that such water conflicts should be analysed in a way that includes the variety of scales and new upcoming social actors (Sneddon et al., 2002). Bakker (1999) for example studies the impact of hydro-development in the Mekong Basin. This research highlights the role of power in a multi-scale project. Bakker describes the hydro-development project as ‘a means of commodification, and simultaneously as a means of extending state control in predominantly rural areas’ (Bakker, 1999, p. 210). This example sheds light on the way that water is contested and used as a means to achieve a goal. Therefore, according to Sneddon et al. (2002), the political party interests of locally contested resources should never be neglected and water should not be treated as a homogenous substance. In this case, water is perceived as not a passive element, but as a component that is intertwined in a complicated network of actors and stakeholders (Usón et al., 2017).

The way that water resources are addressed in discourse according to Zwarteveen & Boelens (2014) is interesting to analyse. The discourse could show how water is conceptualized by various types of actors and what kind of differences occur. This statement could also be related to the multiple ontologies of water which, according to Swyngedouw (2009), should be paid more attention to in scientific literature. This statement is supported by Yates et al. (2017). Instead of modern ontologies that describe water often as a resource or a capital for society there are also other ontologies. For example, water as lifeblood. In this understanding laid out by Yates et al. (2017) water is a living entity, interlinked and boundless. It describes how there is no separation between water and humans and will therefore always be interconnected with humans and other living objects. For example in the indigenous villages of Yukon (Canada) water is seen as ‘respectful’ and should be seen as more than a source of income that can be drawn from (Wilson & Inkster, 2018). This ontology highlights that there are multiple water realities (Yates et al., 2017). These alternative ontologies are often indigenous and local and often show more complexity and profundity of hydrosocial relations. It illustrates the deep

(17)

8

interlinkages of water as having a material and a spiritual dimension (Wilson & Inkster, 2018). The rethinking of politics regarding ontologies of water should be taken into consideration when looking at water resources and community relations (Wilson & Inkster, 2018).

2.2 Livelihoods and local knowledge 2.2.1 The livelihood approach

A detailed overview of the different livelihood activities forms an important base for understanding the initiatives undertaken by rural communities (Nguyen et al., 2015). Rural villages are the place in developing countries where knowledge is produced and reproduced and where choices are made (Sherbinin et al., 2008). The livelihood approach is a conceptual framework that is used to analyse the decision-making process within rural households and factors that influence these decisions (Nguyen et al., 2015). Livelihood can be defined in different ways such as, ‘’the means of gaining a living’’ (Scoones, 2009, p. 172) or ‘’a combination of resources used and the activities undertaken in order to live’’ (Scoones, 2009, p. 172). Ultimately the term livelihoods is not an isolated construct but is rather connected to other concepts in the development practices related to social differences, occupations, locales and dynamic patterns (i.e. sustainable and resilient livelihoods) (Scoones, 2009). Within the framework of the livelihood approach a village can be defined as ‘’a site in which particularly intense social and economic interdependencies occur between a group of individuals’’ (Sherbinin et al., 2008, p. 39). The families within a rural village develop a livelihood strategy in order to live under certain circumstances. In reality there is not just one strategy, but rural smallholders combine different activities to make a living. These activities may vary from farming, fishing and off-farm occupations (Sherbinin et al., 2008). For example, in the developing countries of South East Asia the livelihoods of the rural population include fishing but this is not their primary activity and they often do not see themselves as fishermen. Many rural households combine farming and fishing accordingly to the seasonal cycles which is integrated in their livelihood strategy (Martin et al., 2013).

In order to carry out these strategies and activities the rural households have to mobilize their assets. The livelihood approach focuses on the idea that rural families hold wealth in different types of assets. These types of assets are categorized as follows: natural capital, human capital, social capital and financial capital. The wealth of a rural household can be comprised according to these types of assets (Sherbinin et al., 2008). These assets give insight in the constraints and opportunities of the rural livelihoods. This kind of analysis could increase the efficiency of the improvement of livelihoods in rural areas. There is, however, also some criticism on the livelihood approach. De Haan (2012) mentions that ‘’capitals’’ are too fixed. It neglects power

(18)

9

relations within and outside the rural context and also fails to include personal preferences and choices shaped by local knowledge. Moreover, by calling the assets ‘’capital’’ it focuses too much on material economic aspects. In order to overcome this criticism it is important to consider the notion mentioned in Chapter 2.1 to include multiple ontologies when looking at community relations (Wilson & Inkster, 2018). Livelihoods should not be referred to components that are purely economic (De Haan, 2012).

2.2.2 Including local knowledge

According to Horowitz (2015) research has emphasized that local rural communities have close relations with their surroundings. This often leads to a knowledge system based on the local components and interactions of the ecosystem. Livelihoods and knowledge are thus closely connected. According to Tsoukas (2002) knowledge is inherently local. This means that knowledge is seen as innovative and emergent which is retained in local communities who need it, appreciate it and understand it (Tsoukas, 2002). Therefore, according to Taylor & de Loë, local knowledge can broadly be defined as ‘’knowledge which is practical, collective and strongly rooted in a particular place’’ (2012, p. 1207). That knowledge is strongly rooted in a particular place is also the case for local knowledge about water environments. According to Acharya (2015) water environments are embedded in a local and cultural landscape. This is for example the case with floods which differ around the world (Textbox 1). In the end, these different local views of floods could be an addition to the scientific knowledge about floods (Ehlert, 2012;

Several studies focused on how humans adjust to floods on a local level but also how the occurrence of flooding shapes the society (Baldassarre et al., 2013; Cuny, 1991; Ehlert, 2012). There are multiple types of floods that can occur such as flash floods, standing floods, coastal floods and riverine floods. Riverine floods are probably one of the most common types. Riverine floods can be predicted but especially in deltas the flooding can be widespread and intensified by heavy rains. Moreover they are difficult to control and a challenge for those living with floods (Cuny, 1991). These type of floods are characterised by the slow water onset and the slow water withdrawal. In riverine environments the floods occur annually. These floods are by rural societies often not seen as hazardous situations but as vital resources of development. For outsiders it may seem that the societies living with the floods must adapt to survive these natural hazards, but it is actually more disastrous when the floods do not occur seasonally (Ehlert, 2012; Cuny, 1991). Most of the time, the benefits of the floods outweigh the costs or negative effects (Kok Boon, 2011). That does not mean that sometimes the harm outweighs the benefits when the riverine floods are too big. The most negative effects could be death, loss of property, crop failure, change in the river environment (i.e. soil erosion, siltation, etc.) and destruction of infrastructures.

(19)

10 Shaw, 1989).

Textbox 1. Local knowledge of floods

Interestingly however, according to Allison & Badjeck (2004), local knowledge is still neglected by scientific knowledge. Local knowledge is for various reasons seen as valuable and an enrichment of scientific literature. First of all, local practices and strategies based on knowledge might offer lessons to other communities including academic ones (Taylor et al., 2012; Wilson, 2014). Furthermore, the integration of local knowledge in current policies gives the community power. Thirdly, local knowledge can provide information about local insights which is crucial for projects, for example the different views of floods that were discussed by Elhert (2012) and Cuny (1991). Finally, local knowledge might be valuable to important to create an education model (International strategy for disaster reduction et al., 2008). In addition, Wilson and Inkster (2018) stress that indigenous people increasingly have to deal with conflicts over water since water in their territories are under pressure which could have consequences for the management of the resources. When developing and managing water resources local communities and their local knowledge are often overlooked. The experiences and knowledge of local people are a good weapon for solving local water resource problems. Moreover, extending research on local knowledge could increase community participation in the development of for example irrigation systems because the local community will feel included and heard (Dungumaro & Madulu, 2003). It is important that communities feel heard and appreciated since water is not always seen as capital or resource by locals. Local communities could feel interconnected with the water flowing through their villages which makes it part of their lifeblood (Yates et al., 2017). Increase in local participation and sharing of local knowledge is a tool to integrate this type of ontology in the management of water systems (Dungumaro & Madulu, 2003; Wilson & Inkster, 2018).

Although acknowledging local and indigenous knowledge has multiple advantages there is some criticism regarding the feasibility of the implementation of local knowledge in policies. The question that arises in the policy fields nowadays is: how can local knowledge be practically integrated in processes that are determined by several stages of governance? The key points of criticism are focused on this issue (Leino & Peltomaa, 2012). Behagel & Turnhout (2011) expressed two main points of criticism, one considering the problematic practical implementation of local knowledge and the second concerning the question of accountability and legitimacy. The former refers to the willingness of policymakers to involve local views in policy matters and the latter refers to the question who has the control over the local knowledge

(20)

11

and who can be held accountable? Leino & Peltomaa (2012) suggest to consider legitimacy in this case as a context specific phenomenon, called situational legitimacy. The situational legitimacy is constructed by local actors who make active, contextual interpretations of their environments by their beliefs, actions and practices (Leino & Peltomaa, 2012). The construction of these beliefs, actions and practices may also relate to local cultural values. The notion of local cultural values is becoming more prominent in water resource management. These values could refer to sacred water sites or even religious relationships with water (Jackson, 2006). According to Post-Wahl et al. (2008) culture is shaped in the local context. Within that context there are shared beliefs, norms, symbols and expectations. The inclusion of culture, as part of local knowledge, in water management is crucial to understand barriers (Post-Wahl et al., 2008). In the end, it becomes clear that it is important to shift the focus more on the local knowledge that is produced in particular places and sheds a light on new insights that can be used for bottom-up management and governance of water resources which will be discussed next (International strategy for disaster reduction et al., 2008; Leino & Peltomaa, 2012; Taylor et al., 2012; Wilson, 2014;).

2.3 Governing the commons 2.3.1 Community – based water governance

A bottom-up approach, which acknowledges the local knowledge of villagers in the management of water resources, is community-based water governance. Community-based water governance allows the locals to communicate their values, needs and interests regarding water to local officials or service providers. It is the way local stakeholders participate and cooperate together to manage the water resources in an efficient way (Sithirith, 2017; Maclean, 2015). Community-based governance implies that water resources are strongly local and should be governed according to small-scale schemes (Sithirith, 2017). Locals have always shared their knowledge about water resources, often passed on by ancestors, in a cooperative way within the community (Chou, 2010). When local communities are given the chance to negotiate and share knowledge about the water related issues they endure, they feel more in control and empowered over their own image, strategies and resources (van Assche et al., 2011). Studying water governance based on a community level could also reveal the complexities of water-related problems on the local level (Waibel et al., 2012). According to Ravnborg et al. (2012) local insights in community water governance schemes show that conflicts over water resources not only occur at transboundary level, but even more so on intra-community level. For instance, during a time of water scarcity conflicts could arise over the availability of water within the community. Knowledge about intra-community conflicts over water is limited but these type of conflicts often affect a large group of

(21)

12

people and should therefore gain more attention (Ravnborg et al., 2012). Moreover, wider governance regimes controlled by the government ignore power structures within the community (Sithirith, 2017). Community-based water governance includes relationships between key local stakeholders, for example commune councils, which are complex and influence the management of resources (Chou, 2010).

However, according to local perceptions, the approach of community-based water governance prevails over some issues in practice. According to Chou (2010) participation within the community-based water governance is often shallow. There is a distrust in the national and local government which causes the participation rate among farmers to be low. Moreover, there is a lack of finances to support the participation (Sithirith, 2017). Next, experiences of locals show that the assignment of tasks and responsibilities in the community-based governance system are often unclear and sometimes overlap. This could be the result of poor structure and guidance (Chou, 2010). According to Neef (2009) this could also be due to establishment of formal rules. Neef (2009) mentions that locals often prefer collaborative informal arrangements over formalised agreements. Local communities have a common understanding and share common values about the management of water. Locally established informal rules guarantee access to water resources and the local communities often do not see need to formalize this (Neef, 2009). Clearly, officially authorized are less important than the local culture of shared beliefs, norms and values in some cases of community-based water governance. It is however important to underline that community-based water governance is not the same for every place but context-specific and based on the local and national politics (Waibel et al., 2012). A last issue which could prevail is that there is still a dependence on external actors for technical capacity and human resources. The management of water resources requires a high technical capacity and human labour which still needs to be provided from top-down (Sithirith, 2017). Conditions for improving community-based governance practices and to build the capacity of the stakeholders are better communication, sufficient education, monitoring and planning (Sithirith, 2017).

2.3.2 Common pool resource conflicts

When well-implemented the community-based governance approach could be a way to govern common pool resources (Chou, 2010). Common pool resources can be defined as resources that are sufficiently large which makes it hard to exclude users but it is not impossible. An irrigation system is often seen as a common pool resource since its users can also produce benefits for others (Ostrom, 2008). However, water resources may appear a common pool resource but can quickly become open access resource. According to Fox (2004) the Mekong River Basin can also be considered a common pool resource. As mentioned in chapter 1 the millions of inhabitants of

(22)

13

the Mekong River Basin rely heavily on the processes surrounding the ecosystem. Only five percent of the flow of the Mekong River is regulated by hydropower dams which means that the river is for the majority free-flowing. It is hard to exclude the inhabitants from the benefits that the free-flowing river provides, which is characteristic for a common pool resource. However, critically, a resource as the Mekong River is rarely a ‘pure’ common pool. There is a thin line between open access and common pool resources (Schlager & Ostrom, 1992). Actually, the complex river basin ecosystem of the Mekong, that is driven by the seasonal riverine floods, is the common pool because that is where the inhabitants gain benefits from (Fox, 2004).

Within in a single common pool resource there is also difference in common property regimes. In some situations the local resource users define rules and rights among themselves, which sometimes even differs on village level. Local users develop de facto rights which are practices or rules that exist in reality, but are not officially recognized by the law. These rights may overlap, complement or conflict de jure rights (things that are happening according to law). When de jure rights do not correspond with the established de facto rights in the community conflict may arise between multiple local users may arise (Slager & Ostrom, 1992).

A common pool resource is sensitive to conflicts at a multi-scalar level. First, when water is shared as a common property resource by a group of individuals the actions of one person can influence those sharing the pool (Chou, 2010; Ostrom & Hess, 2007). For example, the farmers let the water flow in the irrigation canal and the fishermen can also use this canal for fishing. The natural resource can become a competing ground which can cause conflict (Ostrom, 2008). Competition by different actors for the benefits of the common pool resource also plays out on regional level. For instance, large-scale development of irrigation systems and hydropower dams in the Mekong River which are meant to improve the livelihood of the rural actually often have a negative impact on the local common pool resources, such as the decrease of the water level (Sarkkula et al., 2009). Second, common pool natural resources are shared in a social space where relationships are established within the community. These relations, including unequal power structures, could influence the sharing of the resource which could lead to conflict and tension between different communal groups. The third reason is related to the rapid environmental change. In times of water scarcity, water degradation and overexploitation the competition between the different stakeholders may grow into conflict situations. Increasing demand for water because of population growth and longer dry seasons may be increasing the tension between and within communities (Buckles and Ruknak, 1999). In times of need the farmers tend to maximize water use for self-interests with no regard for the consequences (Sithirith, 2017). Lastly, the water resources are also used in a symbolic and cultural way. The

(23)

14

water flows used for irrigation purposes are not just material resources but also part of their identity which makes it more susceptible to conflict (Buckles and Ruknak, 1999).

In the end, property rights may play an important role in the management and control of the water resources. According Werthman (2010) common property rights allow the restriction for other individuals since a group of users has the common right to prevent them. Different property right systems can exist in different communities. In order to improve effectiveness of the common property rights it is important that boundaries of water areas as well as boundaries of household or individual water rights are clearly defined (Ostrom, 1990; Yu et al., 2016). However, these type of water resource rules are likely to be ineffective when there are many users, when the users are dispersed over a wide area and when the control over rule-breakers is challenging. Another way to improve efficiency is to recognize and legitimize water property rights. In the case of communities governance can structure and secure the claim on the rights. Unfortunately, the rights to water have been ongoing debate since water is a mobile resource. Formal laws on water rights are important but often fail to capture the extent of water resources managed on local level (Werthman, 2010). This is for example the case with the international watercourse law of the Mekong. This law simplifies the Mekong river as a ‘watercourse’ which means it is only seen as a one main water channel. Defining the Mekong River this way makes the river easier to divide in different parts between states. As a consequence, the centres of power and authority regarding the Mekong River tend to be states. It has, however, disregarded the complex ecosystem of the Mekong Delta which is often managed by traditional water practices of local communities (Fox, 2004). According to Zwarteveen & Boelens (2014) water rights are a constitutive of local norms and everyday water-use practices, and power relations that are composed in the local surroundings. Therefore the recognition of local customary within community-based water systems and organizations must be established (Werthman, 2010). In the end, in line with political ecology, power relations on multiple scales need to be solved in order to improve the management over water resources (Sithirith, 2017).

(24)

15

Influenced by 2.4 Conceptual model

This conceptual model (Figure 2.1) demonstrates the relation between the three main concepts of water relations, livelihoods and local knowledge and governing the commons. The concepts are supported by the concept of political ecology which highlights the multiple scales and the power relations which should be taken into account. The three concepts show how water can be seen as a contested resource. According to Zwarteveen & Boelens (2014) water is contested in four ways. A common pool resource is often recognized as a contested form of water which can create conflicts at multiple scales. Community-based water governance is presented as a way to manage contested water resources. Community-based is however influenced by conflict, cooperation and awareness among the community. In the end this model shows how the processes are interlinked. *1

Figure 2.1 Conceptual scheme Source: Author, 2019

*1_{For operationalisation table see Appendix I}

Political ecology - Power relations - Multi-scalar analysis Water relations Livelihoods and local knowledge Water management: governing the commons

Water as a contested resource: - Distribution

- Rules

- Authority and decision- making system - Discourse Community-based water governance Common – pool resource Conflict Cooperation Awareness

(25)

16

Chapter 3: Research questions

3.1 Main research question

As mentioned in the introduction and the theoretical framework conflicting interests in water use and the differences in the ways of water management could form a point of discussion among different actors and various stakeholders. This research will focus on the way these issues enfold in the Kandal Province in Cambodia which led to the following research question:

‘In what ways is water contested within and among Cambodian villages and practices in the Kandal Province?’

3.2 Sub-questions

In order to answer this research question several sub-questions have been formulated, which are elaborated next.

First of all, it is important to understand the relation that the Cambodians have with water and floods. There are multiple ontologies that exist in the Mekong Delta of Cambodia and therefore it is essential to discover how the Cambodian rural livelihoods are structured and how it relates to water and floods. This leads to the formulation of the first sub-question: ‘How are rural water

livelihoods in the Kandal Province shaped?’

Secondly, it is critical to learn what kind of practices the Khmer have and undertake regarding water. It is important to get an overview of the local and indigenous knowledge about water since this type of knowledge is place bound (Elhert, 2012; Taylor et al., 2012) . Therefore the next sub-question is: ‘What are the local water practices performed in the Kandal province?’ Lastly, a final dimension that needs to be considered is the governing of water in the local context. What kind of communication is there between the villagers about water rights and boundaries? It is especially relevant to get an overview of how water is organized in relations to water property and what kind of values and norms are taken into account. This leads to the final sub-question: ‘How is the governing of water organized in villages in Kandal and how are conflicts

of interests mediated?

In order to answer the research question these sub-questions need to be carefully considered. Eventually, together, these sub-questions will provide a coherent and multi-layered answer to the research question.

(26)

17

Chapter 4: Methods

In this chapter the methods that are chosen to conduct the research and to answer the research questions are justified. Before the methods are discussed it is important to specify what type of research is conducted. This research is an explorative research which elaborates further on existing research and literature. It is essential that the correct methods are linked to this type of research. In the next sections, the research methods are clarified and discussed. Moreover, the units of the analysis and analysis methods are elaborated. Finally, the practical constraints and ethical limitations are discussed.

4.1 Data collection methods

This research is based on a primary qualitative method. According to Baarda et al. (2013a) a qualitative research method makes it possible to collect the different opinions and experiences of key individuals. During fieldwork the experiences of the Cambodian farmers with water resources were collected as comprehensively and detailed as possible. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect this type of data. A list of topics and a few important interview questions were drafted to systematically collect the data. The semi-structured interviews were carried out with villagers in the Kandal Province to understand their involvement with water resources in the study area. In addition to these semi-structured interviews there were also interviews conducted with key persons of organisations that are associated with the governing of water resources in Cambodia.

Next, participatory observation was carried out. During my fieldwork in Kandal the observations were written down in the form of chronological field notes to better understand the environment and the interactions between the villagers. I wrote observations about the study area every other day. An example of the field notes is displayed in Annex II. According to Bryman (2012a) participatory observations are an addition to studies because it takes the locational features and surroundings into account. It allows you to get close to the research unit and to make them comfortable with your presence. During the participatory observation it was important to immerse myself into the Cambodian culture and learn about their standards and values (Baarda et al., 2013b). I also learned about the Cambodian culture by visiting historical sites (Observations 4), to experience food habits (Observations 2) and to visit religious locations (Observations 3). By performing participatory observations I was able to directly observe the Cambodian farmers in their natural surroundings and environment to complement reporting’s about the Cambodian cultural characteristics through questions. According to Bernard (2011) the field observations can only be used when written down in a structured way. According to Bernard (2011) it is important to consider how to present yourself and how to introduce

(27)

18

yourself to the people you address. Moreover, Bernard (2011) addresses that you need to prepare for possible negative reactions after the introduction. This advice was welcomed and applied during the conversations with the villagers. For example, the introduction I used during fieldwork in Kandal clearly stated that I was a student from a university in the Netherlands and that I was in the area to ask some questions about water resource management of the village. Some villagers, however, still seemed hesitant to talk to us because they thought we were representatives of the government. I order to make the participant feel more comfortable with the situation I explained the goals of my research a few more times until they completely understood it.

4.2 Collaboration with interpreter

When there is a language barrier between the researcher and the participant the research is a cross-language qualitative study (Wallin & Ahlström, 2006). It is important to overcome this barrier because different languages represent different realities and cultures. Without understanding the language one cannot understand the culture (Kapborg et al., 2002). Therefore, the semi-structured interviews in the Kandal Province were conducted with the help of an interpreter. It is important to point out that there is a difference between a translator and an interpreter. According to Baker (1981) an interpreter will translate back and forth between individuals and a translator generally focuses more on the translation of written material. This interpretation is crucial in knowledge construction (Kapborg et al., 2002)

Collaborating with an interpreter presents some challenges for the researcher as well as for the interpreter. In Cambodia I collaborated with the interpreter Nontarak Huong from the Royal University of Agriculture. According to Wallin & Ahlström (2006) it is wise to meet with the interpreter beforehand to discuss the aim of the research and set ground rules. Nontarak and I met a few days before we went to Kandal, on 31st_{of March, to discuss my research and the}

fieldwork trip (Observations 5). During this meeting I made sure that Nontarak understood the content and aim of my research, because in the end the interpreter is a co-producer of the research data (Edwards, 1998; Temple & Young, 2004; Squires, 2009). Moreover, we established some ground rules regarding our roles as interpreter and researcher. For example, we decided that Nontarak would always be neutral in the discussion and that I, as researcher, would always be in charge of the conversation. Moreover, the first meeting is also primarily meant to get to know each other’s personalities (Kapborg et al., 2002). Especially since we have completely different backgrounds it was important that we talked about our lives (Observations 5).

During the fieldwork there were some challenges to keep in mind. First, according to Kapborg et al. (2002) it is as a researcher important to stay connected to the participant when the interpreter and participant are communicating in their mother tongue. When talking to the

(28)

19

villagers I mainly stayed in contact with them by using non-verbal communication, such as eye contact, confirming nods and smiling. I noticed that these actions made the participants a lot more comfortable with the interview. Another challenge that did arise during the fieldwork was the subjectivity and style of the translation. Within the research process this challenge seemed to be the biggest problem. Nontarak tended to summarize and add comments to the answers of the participants. I explained to him a few times that it was very important that he translated everything of the conversation to me and that he wasn’t supposed to add any comments. Most of the time we discussed some comments from the participants after the interview when I needed some more explanation from Nontarak. According to Kapborg et al. (2002) a way to overcome this problem is to record the interviews and verify the responses with the interpreter. I applied this suggestion during the fieldwork but in the end the translation process was built on trust between me as a researcher and him as an interpreter. Another problem that occurred at the start of the fieldwork was the impatience of Nontarak. It seemed as if he wanted to finish the interviews as quickly as possible. I pointed out this habit to him and he tried to change this style of interviewing during the fieldwork. Squires (2009) stated that one advantage of collaborating with the same interpreter during the fieldwork is that you are able to elaborate each other’s interview style which makes it easier to deliberate and interact with each other. This statement was definitely the case during my fieldwork. Nontarak and I still remain in contact and I can always reach him when I have more questions.

In the end it is important to realise that the collaboration between the researcher and the interpreter should not be underestimated. The interpreter is not just a translator but also gives the researcher insight in the culture (Wallin & Ahlström, 2006). I realised that for a successful cooperation it is important to understand that there is not just one identity or one knowledge. Temple & Edwards (2002) therefore describe the collaboration as follows: ‘The interpretation or translation of the research interview is revealed as a site of interface between different identity and knowledge claims’ (Temple & Edwards, 2002, p. 8). Nontarak turned out to be a bridge between me and the Cambodian culture. He was able elaborate on certain habits of the villagers which was really valuable for me to understand the Cambodian identity and knowledge.

4.3 Units of analysis and analysis methods

The units of analysis in this research are the Cambodian farmers and fishermen in the villages of the Kandal Province (table 4.1). Furthermore, key persons from organizations or institutions in local water governance and specialized in water use issues were also interviewed (table 4.2). Their views and understandings were essential information to comprehend the position of the villagers in the Kandal Province.

(29)

20 Interview

number Date Name Age Sex Village Occupation

Meeting 1 01/04/2019 Phalla - M Prek Tadoung Director of office of Agriculture and Forestry Koh Thom District

1 01/04/2019 Em Chibb* 62 M Prek Tadoung Farmer

2 01/04/2019 Khim Vanthy - M Prek Tadoung Chief Villager (retired)

3 02/04/2019 Kden Hak 47 M Prek Tadoung Farmer

4 02/04/2019 Lor Leng 65 M Prek Yeuhang Chief Villager

5 02/04/2019 Kin Leng 70 M Kampong

Sambour Ler Chief Villager

6 02/04/2019 Lot Mouyly 70 F Kamong

Sambour Ler

Farmer

7 03/04/2019 Hai Ros 44 M Prek Yeayhai Farmer

8 03/04/2019 Ut Vuthy 54 M Prek Yeayhai Farmer

03/04/2019 Chhun

Bunthuern 41 M Prek Yeayhai Farmer 9 03/04/2019 Meach Hour

(+husband) 55 F Prek Yeayhai Farmer

10 03/04/2019 Nov

MouyTeang 33 F Kampong Sambour Ler Farmer

11 03/04/2019 Ut Pov 44 F Prek Yeayhai Farmer

12 03/04/2019 Reach Peng 73 M Prek Yeayhai Farmer

13 04/04/2019 Heang Touch 32 M Svay Krom Farmer & Businessman

14 04/04/2019 Khorn An 48 M Svay Kondal Farmer

15 04/04/2019 Ry Ma 40 M Prek Tadoung Farmer

16 04/04/2019 Vern Vy 42 M Ornlong Saek

(Sang district) Farmer 17 04/04/2019 Pheng Srouch 65 M Kampong

Sombour Krom

Chief Villager

18 04/04/2019 Nouy Ngy 68 M Kampong

Sombour Krom Farmer 19 04/04/2019 Nhean Sophal 39 F Kampong

Sombour Krom

Farmer

20 05/04/2019 Khean Khon* 60 M Prek Tahong Farmer & Chief Villager 21 05/04/2019 San Sophal* 50 M Prek Tahong Farmer

22 05/04/2019 Pin Pheary 49 M Prek Tahong Farmer

23 05/04/2019 But Ran 57 F Prek Tahong Farmer

24 05/04/2019 Chem San 76 M Prek Tahong Retired

25 05/04/2019 Ouch Nith 58 M Prek Tahong Farmer

26 05/04/2019 Sor Kimleang 26 F Prek Tahong Farmer 27 05/04/2019 Khorn Tangty 72 M Prek Tahong Farmer 28 06/04/2019 Chem Mouk* 71 M Svay Tamek Chief Villager

29 06/04/2019 Seng Kim 41 M Svay Tamek Farmer

30 06/04/2019 Sor Limhak 47 M Svay Tamek Farmer

31 27/04/2019 Khean Khon* 60 M Prek Tahong Chief Villager 32 27/04/2019 San Sophal* 50 M Prek Tahong Farmer

33 28/04/2019 Em Chibb* 62 M Prek Tadoung Farmer

34 28/04/2019 Chem Mouk* 71 M Svay Tamek Chief Villager Table 4.1 List of interviews

(30)

21

Number Date Name Organisation Occupation

1 25/04/2019 Ab Koster CAVAC Irrigation and water

manager

2 26/04/2019 Sok Khim Oxfam Novib Natural Resources

Governance program manager

26/04/2019 Por Soknak Oxfam Novib Water Governance national coordinator 3 29/04/2019 Dr. Pech Sokhem CAVAC Senior strategic advisor

Table 4.2 List of expert interviews

The interviews were carried out by means of a topic list (Annex III). This list acted as a guideline during the interview but we were able deviate from it when necessary. The interviews in the villages of Kandal were conducted mostly during the day because, according to Nontarak, it was not safe for us to drive long distances on the motorcycle in the dark. In the morning we went to the fields to find possible participants or we went to the Chief Villagers to interview them in the morning. Most farmers were on their fields in the morning because it was harvesting period. Around midday we interviewed a few farmers at their houses who were at home to have lunch. In the afternoon, when the farmers went back to their fields we interviewed retired farmers at home or other (often female) farmers who were at home. The expert interviews were carried out during the day at the headquarters of the organisations they represented.

According to Bryman (2012b) the collection of data during fieldwork needs to be correctly analysed to establish conclusive results. The most difficult part at the start of the analysis process is the large dataset that is produced. The analysis process of the interviews and observations is therefore divided in different phases (Baarda et al., 2013c). I started with coding the interviews and observations by reading the collected interviews multiple times. The coding process started by assigning labels to text passages also called open coding. I examined, compared and conceptualized the data to make it organized. After this phase I made connections and relationships between the information available in interviews and observations. During this phase I also constructed overarching labels (i.e. axial coding) that would later on fit within the different themes of the research. In the end I categorized the data according to the different themes of my result chapters: daily life, water environments and common property conflict. This coding process enabled me to interpret the structured dataset and compile the results of this research (Baarda et al., 2013c).

(31)

22

4.4 Practical constraints and ethical limitations

This research was limited by some practical constraints that occurred during the fieldwork of this research. First, the collection of the data with the guidance of an interpreter was a practical constraint in the research process. Sometimes there were some structural differences in the translation from Khmer to English. For example, some words in Khmer did not exist in English or were hard to translate. In order to contain this problem the meaning of the words were most of the time described and defined by the participant. Another practical constraint that I encountered during the fieldwork were the cultural differences between me and the participants. In order to remedy this, in the only way I could given the time, I read on and I visited historical sites to learn more about the past and the practices of Cambodians (Observations 4). The interpreter, Nontarak, was also very helpful and tried to tell me more about the norms and values of the Cambodians. For example, when I learned more about the traditional kitchen of Cambodia (Observations 1). In the end there was just not enough time to completely understand the Cambodian culture and to adjust to the cultural differences. With the help of Nontarak we were able to gain access to the villages even though I was clearly seen as a foreigner by the villagers. In order to overcome this objectification of the villagers I tried to learn a few words in Khmer to communicate with them. In an optimal situation it would be good to visit the villages multiple times to improve connections and relationships with the villagers (Miller et al., 2012). Unfortunately, we were not able to do this due to time limitations. Lastly, the main practical constraint during my stay in Cambodia was time. In order to overcome this constraint a strict schedule was made to make sure that all the tasks would be accomplished during the stay in Cambodia. Even dealing with sickness was accounted for in the schedule. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a very busy period for the people at the university as well for the villagers. The interpreter was only available for a period of 12 days and the contacts at the university were almost never available. Due to the harvesting period the villagers were not all day available. This really limited my time in the field and influenced the quantity and quality of the collected data.

During this research the research ethics were taken into consideration. Four ethical requirements were recognized in this research: informed consent, transparency, anonymity and no adverse effects (‘doing no harm’). The participants were, during the interviews, always ensured from informed consent. By explaining that the intentions of the research clearly. In addition, transparency was a central aspect of the data collection. Furthermore, anonymity was guaranteed when the participant so desired, but in the end no participant desired anonymity. Lastly, it was important to assure the participants that no harm or no adverse consequences would arise from this research since some questions were sometimes controversial regarding water use conflicts (Miller et al., 2012).

(32)

23

Chapter 5: Daily life in the Kandal Province

5.1 The Kandal Province

The first trip to the villages of the Kandal Provinces: helmet on and hold on tight. There is only one national paved road that leads the way to the Kandal Province and Vietnam. Therefore, the road was very busy with trucks, tuk tuks and other motorbikes. Nonetheless, I must say that the road was in pretty good shape. On our

way we drove through a few small villages. All the villages had small markets where fruits, vegetables and meats (with flies) were displayed in the open (Observations, 1 April 2019).

The Kandal Province is located to the south of the capital city of Phnom Penh (Figure 5.1; Figure 5.2). The national road that connects Phnom Penh with Vietnam runs through Kandal, leading to border crossings points with Vietnam. The Province is part of the Mekong Delta, since the Mekong delta begins near Phnom Penh. This is also the point where the Mekong River meets the Tonlé Sap river and where the Bassac river branches away from the Mekong River (figure 5.1) (MRC, 2019). The Bassac River is the main water resource for the people living in Kandal.

According to Werthman (2010) about 80% of the Cambodian population are employed in agriculture. Farming and fishing are the main sources of food supply and income but there is also an increase in the production of tropical fruits, livestock and forestry products (Morton & Olson, 2018). Various groups, such as farmers and fishers, use the river in different ways and have access to it at different times.

Officially Cambodia has a three tier administrative structure: provincial, districts and communes (OECD, 2016; Virak, 2005). Provincial governors and district governors are appointed by the central government (Virak). In 2001 elected commune councils were established to extend local power (OECD, 2016). The province of Kandal has 11 districts, 127 communes and 912 villages. This research is conducted in the Kaoh Thum district of the Kandal Province. Within this district three communes were visited: Kampong Kong, Prek Thmei, Kaoh Thum II. Farmers from nine villages were interviewed: Svay Tamek, Prek Tadoung, Prek Yeayhai, Kampong Sambour Ler, Kampong Sambour Krom, Kampong Svay Ler, Kampong Svay Kandal, Kampong Svay Krom and Prek Tahong ( Table 5.1 and Figure 5.3).

(33)

24

Figure 5.1 Lower Mekong Basin Source: Morton & Olson, 2018, p. 433 Table 5.1 Overview study area

Before visiting the farmers in the villages to conduct the interviews it is important to ask permission at the different levels of the administrative divisions. First, the provincial department of the ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in Ta Khmao was visited to ask for permission (Observations 1). Second, the director of the office of Agriculture and Forestry of the district Kaoh Thum was visited. This meeting was organised to introduce ourselves and to explain the purpose of our visit. Next, the Chiefs of the communes were visited to ask for their permission to conduct research in the area. In addition to the other meeting there was also a meeting with the Chief Villager of every village to obtain their consent and to acquire the contact information of farmers. According to Ebihara (1968) visiting the Chief Villager is also important

to show respect and

gain trust.

District Communes Villages Canal (figure 5.3)

Kaoh Thum Prek Thmei Prek Tadoung Prek Tadoung

Prek Yeayhai Prek Yeayhai

Kampong Sambour Ler Prek Yeayhai

Kampong Sambour Krom Prek Kampong Sambour Kampong Svay Ler Prek Kampong Svay Kampong Svay Kandal Prek Kampong Svay Kampong Svay Krom Prek Thmei

Kaoh Thum II Svay Tamek Prek Tadoung

(34)

25

Figure 5.2 Kandal province Source: Google maps, 2019

Figure 5.3 Study area Source: Google maps & Author, 2019

Governing the lifeblood of Kandal : a case study of water as a contested resource in the Mekong Delta of Cambodia