Learning for sustainability: Participatory resource management in Cambodian fishing villages

Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 206e216 www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Learning for sustainability: Participatory resource management in Cambodian fishing villages Melissa Marschke a,*, A. John Sinclair b,1 a

International Development and Globalization Programme, University of Ottawa, 55 Laurier Avenue East, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N 6N5 b Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, 303-70 Dysart Road, Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 2N2 Received 2 September 2006; received in revised form 18 August 2007; accepted 24 August 2007 Available online 20 February 2008

Abstract Considerable attention is now being given to the role and importance of education and learning implications of participatory resource and environmental governance. The contention is that such learning has the potential to transform behaviour, and in the case of resource management, may help change current patterns in resource use towards a more sustainable socialeecological system. Our purpose is to establish the opportunities for learning afforded to those participating in local level resource management committees in two Cambodian fishing communities and consider the learning outcomes from such opportunities. Our approach was qualitative and used a case study design. The findings establish a wide range of committee resource management activities that resulted in both instrumental (e.g., learning about administrative procedures) and communicative (e.g., insights into the need to conserve mangroves) learning. It was revealed that such learning can lead to changes in behaviour at the community level (e.g., managing local waste). Our findings also indicated a number of motivators and enablers of learning such as opportunities for dialogue, leadership and the presence of declining resources. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Transformative learning; Participation; Local resource management committees; Cambodia

1. Introduction Considerable attention is now being given to the role and importance of learning that occurs through governance processes initiated for resource and environmental management decisions (Diduck and Mitchell, 2003; Keen et al., 2005). Public involvement in such decision making processes has the potential to engage citizens, making decisions more democratic, and to re-construct social spaces (Fitzpatrick and Sinclair, 2003; Keen et al., 2005). In fostering these social spaces for public deliberation, participants can be exposed to different ideas and perspectives with learning as an outcome (Barbas, 2004). Such learning has the potential to transform * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 613 562 5800x2866; fax: þ1 613 562 5241. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Marschke), jsincla@ms. umanitoba.ca (A.J. Sinclair). 1 Tel.: þ1 204 474 8374; fax: þ1 204 261 0038. 0301-4797/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.012

behaviour, and in the case of resource management, may help shift current patterns in resource use and governance towards a more sustainable and equitable economy (Webler et al., 1995; Diduck, 1999; Neefjes, 2000; Keen et al., 2005; Rist et al., 2007). The value of public involvement in resource management decisions is well established in the resource management literature (Meredith, 1995; Webler et al., 1995; Wood, 1995; Fitzpatrick and Sinclair, 2003). As Rist et al. (2007) observe ‘participation’ and ‘empowerment’ have emerged as a kind of meta-normative framework in governance and sustainability debates regarding natural resources. Further Parkins and Mitchell (2005), among others, ascertain that such involvement is consistent with the principles of participatory democracy, can improve planning and decision making, may help to reduce conflicts, might encourage the inclusion of local knowledge in decisions and can make political decisions more acceptable (Sinclair and Diduck, 1995; Mitchell, 1997; Moote et al., 1997; Shepherd and Bowler, 1997; Diduck,

M. Marschke, A.J. Sinclair / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 206e216

1999). Underpinning support for participatory approaches to decision making is the understanding that by creating more deliberative space for dialogue and debate individual and collective learning may take place, modifying power dynamics and conflicts between groups and potentially allowing for action to be taken towards implementing change for sustainability (Webler et al., 1995; Diduck, 1999; Fitzpatrick and Sinclair, 2003; Keen et al., 2005; Rist et al., 2007). This being said, creating learning platforms that acknowledge and accommodate power inequities is a challenge (Keen et al., 2005). Our paper establishes the opportunities for learning afforded to those individuals participating in resource management committee work in two Cambodian fishing communities. The learning outcomes from such opportunities and how this work might contribute towards a more sustainable socialeecological system are considered, as are the participatory processes that contributed to those learning outcomes. In particular, concepts from transformative learning theory are applied to understand how interaction among adults through participation in resource management can promote learning and social change. 2. Approach 2.1. Theoretical framework Transformative learning theory offers a theoretical framework that attempts to provide a comprehensive theory of learning in adulthood and learning within different cultural contexts (Mezirow, 1981, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000; Clark and Wilson, 1991; Merriam and Caffarella, 1999). This framework focuses on the process of learning (rather than on characteristics of learning, as most theories do) and accommodates the social context in which the learning occurs through recognizing the importance of the environment in which the interactions occur rather than dictating the environment needed (Clark, 1993; Mezirow, 1995, 1996, 2000; Diduck, 1999; Sinclair and Diduck, 2001). As Sinclair and Diduck (2001) outline, transformative learning theory suggests that adults learn through changes (or transformations) in frames of reference that occur through critical self-reflection of the various parts of ones meaning scheme or perspective. Transformative learning theory centres on how to encourage learning so that an individual’s perceptions and consciousness can be altered as a person engages in a reflection process. This theory aims to explain the process of ‘‘formulating more dependable beliefs about experience, assessing their contexts, seeking informed agreement on their meaning and justification, and making decisions on the resulting insights’’ (Mezirow, 2000: 4). This process is central to the adult learning process. Mezirow (1995) also establishes that action is an integral part of the transformative learning process and indispensable to the process of adult learning. Such learning can effect changes in the system, in institutions, or in social practices. As Taylor (2000) confirms, both social action and change can result from perspective transformations. Further, Scott (2003) observes that transformation co-emerges in the learner and the setting and can be related to social action.

207

Two primary domains of learning, instrumental and communicative, help people construct more dependable interpretations of life and make decisions about what new action to take. Instrumental learning involves learning that pertains to controlling or manipulating the environment or other people as in task-oriented problem solving to improve performance (Mezirow, 1995, 2000). The logic used is hypotheticaledeductive (e.g., test a hypothesis; analyze its consequences). Communicative learning, on the other hand, involves learning that pertains to understanding what somebody means or the process by which others understand what you mean. This type of learning includes an awareness and appreciation of ‘‘values, ideals, feelings, and normative concepts like freedom, . justice, . and responsibility’’ (Mezirow, 1995: 49). Communicative competence refers to an individual’s ability to negotiate meanings, intentions and values for oneself. The transformative framework, with its focus on adult learners, places high value on the potential for learning in situations where individuals are involved in activities that encourage learners to share their experiences, engage in dialogue and, in so doing, be exposed to alternative perspectives. For these reasons, some researchers are considering the transformative potential of participatory governance. The results of this work are far from conclusive, in fact Diduck and Mitchell (2003) found the extent to which public participation in environmental assessment facilitated the ideal conditions of learning was limited, as was the resulting learning. Fitzpatrick and Sinclair (2003), however, found that participants in an environmental hearing did engage in critical education and potentially transformative learning. Our work adds to the elaboration of the theory in this context and in particular the resulting social action and change that can result through participatory governance that is transformative. 2.2. Learning in a post-conflict society Modern Cambodia is one of struggle and change. Violence has plagued the country, particularly during the Cold War era. Significant reform processes began with the introduction of liberal economic reforms in the late 1980s, the signing of the Paris Peace Agreement in 1991, and the introduction of a multi-party governance system in 1993. Multi-party elections were held nationally (1993; 1998; 2003) and locally (2002; 2007); moreover, Cambodia was admitted into the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 1999 and the World Trade Organization in 2004. Since the 1990s, aid money and ‘expert advisors’ have flowed into Cambodia, with over half of Cambodia’s national budget now being funded by foreign sources (Hubbard, 2005). As Slocomb wryly observes, ‘‘democracy arrived in Phnom Penh like a pre-packaged assembly kit, complete with notions of civil society, good governance, decentralization, gender equality .’’ (2006: 391). Proponents suggest that these new modes of governance are nothing short of radical, transforming society from adhering to highly centralized, hierarchical forms of governance to supporting ‘the local’ and ‘the rule of law’ (EIC, 2005). Critics argue that the government has

208

M. Marschke, A.J. Sinclair / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 206e216

adopted a ‘public transcript’ of reconstruction and state transformation, largely dictated by donor experts (Le Billon, 2000). Regardless of which argument one subscribes to, state reconstruction is underway and a substantial amount of legislation has been drafted and passed to support this effort. As an example, administrative reforms that emphasize decentralized, local democracy are found across all sectors, from health to education to resource management (Blunt and Turner, 2005). Although reforms are occurring within an authoritarian, hierarchical power structure where social stratification remains an important cultural value (Ebihara, 1968; Marston, 1997), these features interact with evolving political and institutional development in multifarious patterns (Ojendal and Sedara, 2006). This ‘hybridisation’ enables participatory democracy to be pursued while overlapping with remaining patronage structures (Ojendal and Sedara, 2006). So, while much government policy is about exploiting timber and fish exports, converting forests for agriculture (rice or rubber) production and fishing grounds into exclusive ‘fishing lots’ (Sunderlin, 2006; Ratner, 2006), other policy is designed to support local environmental governance. Perhaps the combination of technical and budgetary constraints confronting government departments, an overall situation of resource decline, and the emergence of resource-related protests all supported the emergence of such environmental governance reforms. In the resource management sector policy reforms aimed at offering a greater opportunity for rural people to control and manage their resources include legislation that supports community forestry (2003), community fisheries (2005), and a role for the commune (i.e., municipal) council in environmental management at the commune or municipal level (2002). In the case of the 2001 Fisheries Reform, fisheries management in the Tonle Sap Lake was reorganized to enable villagers’ greater access of local fishing grounds. This reform was mandated by the Cambodian Prime Minister (no legislation existed to back this reform until 2005), and fishers were suddenly given the ‘right’ to manage their fisheries resources. Not surprisingly, in some cases fishers wanted this, in other cases they did not. Outcomes of these reforms within the resource management sector are beginning to emerge (see Fennel et al., 2008 for further analysis) although none provide detailed local analysis. This is somewhat surprising given the rising popularity of, for example, community fisheries (both in terms of donor funding and government initiatives). During the 1990s there were only a handful of community fishery committees, now there are over 500. Yet, as the anthropologist Judy Legerwood notes, ‘‘in most discussions of Cambodian political and economic development, the vast peasant majority . is generally invisible and silent’’ (1998: 128). Even historically little is written about how Cambodian villagers managed their resources at any point leading up to the proliferation of community-based management practices in the late 1990s. Some accounts suggest that little management took place (Chandler, 1996); other accounts suggest that certain local resource practices were most likely led by village and higher level government officials (Martin, 1997;

Marschke, 1999). For example, Martin (1997) describes statecontrolled marketing systems for resources in the 1960s. Villagers could manage their resources, however, they liked, so long as they sold their product to a centrally appointed government official. Household harvests were recorded, with money being collected after the district chief sold the harvest on behalf of households. Examples are few and far between making it difficult to get a sense of resource management practices at the local level. Although it would be interesting to further explore how this emphasis on local resource management emerged, that is outside the scope of this paper. Rather, we examine two resource management committees that began their work in the 1990s, Kompong Phluk (an in-land lake community) and Koh Sralao (a coastal community). These committees were established in 1999 and 2000, respectively, and have received long-term support from national and provincial technical departments receiving funding from international organizations (Marschke and Berkes, 2005, 2006). These committees were chosen as their work may offer valuable insights related to creating learning opportunities in relation to resource management. For example Koh Sralao’s resource management committee was established partially in response to the rapid decline of the mangrove forest in the late 1990s (Marschke and Nong, 2003). Thus, initial resource management practices emphasized environmental education and patrolling activities to prevent illegal trawling, dynamite fishing, forest cutting and charcoal production and the theft of fishing gear. With time, this committee expanded their activities to include conservation-type activities, livelihood activities and other village development activities (Marschke and Berkes, 2005). Since 2004 this committee has been working with two other resource management committees in the area to facilitate a ‘bay wide’ approach for fisheries management (three villages access the same fishing grounds). The Koh Sralao committee takes the lead role in harmonizing resource management regulations and working on conflict resolution mechanisms. Somewhat in contrast, Kompong Phluk’s resource management committee was established in 1999 partially in reaction to land encroachment issues (areas of flood forest being cleared for agricultural production by non-villagers). Although there is a history of protecting flood forest areas within this community (Marschke and Berkes, 2005), this community saw the advantage of working with a development project to address the ‘harder to solve’ issues (Marschke, 2005). This committee appears to organize itself loosely, working on resource management issues inconjunction with the government team that facilitates this process, as need be. In 2005 the committee began working intensively on eco-tourism activities as a way to ensure flood forest protection and gain benefit from increased tourism in the area. These two committees are particularly active in resource management issues, and are likely not reflective of most resource management committees in Cambodia (Blunt and Turner, 2005; Ratner, 2006). Somehow local ownership (at the committee level at least, but to a certain degree also at the village level) of the resource management work has been

M. Marschke, A.J. Sinclair / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 206e216

fostered. Thus, an analysis of what committee members are learning through participating in resource management is timely given that each committee has been working with a certain degree of success on resource management issues for a relatively long time. 3. Data collection and analysis Our study approach was qualitative and used a case study design (Merriam, 1998; Creswell, 2003). Fieldwork was carried out between 2002 and 2004, with follow-up visits in 2005 and 2006. Qualitative methods were used for data collection and analysis, spanning several administrative levels. Participatory research methods (Ellis, 2000; Chambers, 2004) included eight focus group sessions between the two resource management committees. A series of PRA methods were used during group interviews, including small breakout groups, role-plays and oral histories. In each case data were recorded through note-taking. Follow-up interviews were then held with 22 individuals between both committees and recorded in field notebooks. Data analysis was carried out with the assistance of QSR N4 qualitative data analysis software (Muhr, 1997). Themes derived from the literature were used to help to sort and code the data into data segments allowing the development of families of codes. Results are often represented by direct quotations from the interviews. Quotes included in this paper represent the majority view of the resource management committee members that participated in the research. Committee members are key actors in the community, although not necessarily engaged in local government work. Members tend to have a secure enough livelihood (specialized fishing activities, access to farm land) to have time to be involved in various community work including pagoda or mosque activities, health extension or resource management (Marschke, 2005). Although intra-community socioeconomic differentiation does occur, the gradient of difference is perceived by villagers themselves to be relatively narrow (Marschke and Berkes, 2006), which is consistent with other findings of socioeconomic differentiation in rural Cambodian communities (Legerwood and Vijghen, 2002). 4. Opportunities for learning through the committees Can you tell me about the activities that your resource management committee works on? I forget everything . We do mangrove replanting, form internal regulations and extension to community members, solve some problems in the community, catch and stop illegal activities, put poles for the sea grass area, patrol, monthly meetings, environmental education and village cleaning (Sovanna). Sovanna is reflecting upon the work of the resource management committee in Koh Sralao, a committee that is engaged in a series of resource-related activities. This committee is active in mangrove replanting, solving fisheries conflicts, waste management initiatives and working with school teachers on

209

environmental issues. On the other hand, in Kompong Phluk committee members are involved in fire prevention, sign posting the flooded forest, halting land encroachment and, most recently, eco-tourism. In both Koh Sralao and Kompong Phluk committee members engaged in resource management work that included forest and fisheries related activities and other village level activities. Table 1 illustrates the range of resource-related activities that committee members are engaged in; an explanation of the activity process is also detailed. Each of these activities provides opportunities for committee and some community members to learn. As highlighted in Table 1, committee members are engaged in a wide array of activities. 4.1. Committee learning outcomes There are many community fisheries committees around the Tonle Sap but some do not work so well. Our community is working well and there is enough fish in the flood forest area. Other fishers mostly follow our rules, as they know we are strict and they see the flood forest near our village. This shows how much we care about our environment (Kompong Phluk Committee). In establishing learning outcomes we asked people to specifically reflect on what they had learned through participating on their respective committee and activities undertaken by each. Additionally, we examined data provided in response to other questions we asked committee members for evidence of learning. The data below provides some of the outcomes generated as they relate to instrumental and communicative learning and the identified activities of each committee. The discussion is illustrative rather than exhaustive. 4.1.1. Monthly committee meetings We learn by meeting together, especially in our monthly meeting. If there are problems then we have to solve them. We must discuss and find a solution. Sometimes we understand something the wrong way, so we can learn from each other. We discuss technical things, such as where to go patrolling, how to inform others and how to report this work (Koh Sralao Committee). During monthly meetings, committee members are able to reflect on their resource management work: issues are discussed, ideas are debated and potential solutions are found for resource-related problems. This is the time when approaches to specific activities are reflected upon and new ideas are discussed. The combination of monthly meetings, workshops and discussions serve as potential platforms for dialogue and reflection for committee members and those villagers engaged in workshops. Wayne, a committee member, reflects on his own learning through engaging in different resource-related activities: I was a charcoal producer and destroyed mangroves but became active in the resource management committee. I learn from other people, and learn about local needs

M. Marschke, A.J. Sinclair / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 206e216

210

Table 1 Participation in resource management activities that may create learning opportunities for committee members

Committee learning

Opportunities for learning

How this process occurs

Developing a community resource management plan

Project staff facilitates this process with committee, writing up plans in provincial town and returning completed, endorsed plans.

Village activities Patrolling Creating a fish sanctuary Building a guard house Sign posting flood forest Waste management Eco-tourism

Committee members rotate on patrols, along with authorities. Committee chooses area, disseminate information to villagers. Committee builds together. Several committee members decide to signpost flood forest. Project team and committee start with awareness building prior to implementing a system. Sub-committee formed to work on this issue (began in 2005).

Monthly meetings Conflict resolution Decision making regarding activities Other meetings/workshops Inputting into policy Visiting other NRM committees

Community learning

Mangrove replanting Environmental education Public participation

Committee tries to solve issues related to resource management. Committee discusses and reflects on issues; leader ultimately decides course of action after discussion. Several committee members attend national policy meetings. Sometimes share information with other committee members. Chance for committee members to exchange ideas and learn from experiences. Tend to be active forums at village level. Committee organizes. Elders and long-term residents coach others in mangrove replanting; each year becomes more organized. Workshops and trainings facilitated by the project team or committee members (e.g., mangrove replanting, waste management, fire prevention). Workshops and trainings where a specific time is given for villager comments (but not significant amounts).

related to natural resources. How to support those needs, like needing money from crabs, and how this is related to natural resources and local livelihoods (Wayne). Wayne comes from a fishing household that has lived in this area for a long time. He holds specific socialeecological knowledge, and is able to dialogue with community members and to engage in problem solving on various issues. These are examples of instrumental learning. Perhaps more significantly, from a learning perspective, Wayne’s comments illustrate that communicative learning has also taken place. Wayne has gained insights into the interests of others (a concern for resource conservation and livelihood enhancement) and in understanding others’ points of view (learning from other people). 4.1.2. Creating a resource management plan Only in 2005, when the Community Fisheries Sub-decree was approved (see Evans, 2002; Ratner, 2006; Sneddon, 2007 for an analysis of this process), did communities gain the legal right to engage in resource management practices. Of course, as both cases illustrate, committees were engaged in this type of work prior to the creation of a supportive legal environment. As such, both committees had created, with support from project staff working with each committee, a resource management plan for their area. These plans are endorsed by the provincial governor and, in the case of Koh Sralao, a national ministry. This gives each committee the ‘informal official’ mandate to carry through with their resource management activities, and the resource management plan is

an important document to refer to when people question their mandate. In terms of everyday practice, there is a need for both legal rights and for informal support from appropriate actors to carry out this type of work. Resource management plans include: (a) the management structure, (b) specific rules and regulations related to resource management activities, and (c) a map indicating the area that the committee has management jurisdiction over. A member from the Koh Sralao committee further elaborates: We have a plan for our community, and can use planning as a guideline for our work. We discuss together to develop a plan, and we challenge each other. This is helpful. But we also have a lot of other work to do. This other work is immediate, and we cannot plan for this. We need to have plans but we also need to be able to respond to immediate work (Koh Sralao Committee). As this comment illustrates, committee members do see the value of creating a plan, especially the discussions that emerge. Plans are also used as a tool in negotiating conflict. At the same time, committee members are reluctant to spend too much time focusing on planning. This is partially in reaction to the amount of planning that many committees are engaged in when working with NGOs or government counterparts, planning that is not always followed up with action (Marschke, 2004). Kompong Phluk has a ‘model’ community fisheries plan (first approved in 2001, and extensively updated in 2003): committee members underwent an intensive planning process for the better part of a year to create this document. Project

M. Marschke, A.J. Sinclair / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 206e216

staff facilitated a series of trainings for committee members including designating fish and flood forest areas for different management activities, setting up patrolling and monitoring systems and accounting. Rules and regulations were agreed upon by committee members and written into the management plan. The management ‘zones’ (forest plots and fishing areas) were plotted onto a map that was digitized in the provincial town. In the course of creating this management plan, the committee received significant training in relation to all aspects of resource management. Yet, as Sok’s comments suggests, such training may not be enough to solve issues. We have had training [from the project team] on how to manage fines, how to manage the fishery and how to make a management plan. Although we keep going in my community, not everything is going well. We still have conflict between small-scale and medium-scale fishers within the community (Sok). Nonetheless, as established by participant comments, the committee is gaining something from participating in this process, particularly through obtaining skills and information and learning about legal and administrative procedures. And, management plans are used in multiple ways. During the 2004 commune planning process, for instance, local government officials obtained the fisheries management plan from the committee to help them identify key activities to write into their commune development plan. Moreover, the topographic map included within that fisheries management plan is something that is used by a variety of villagers when planning and engaging in local activities. Committee members commented that this is the only topographical map found in Kompong Phluk, and that the map is helpful since it includes fish, forest and agricultural areas. 4.1.3. Patrolling I am responsible to inform people to patrol. I manage equipment before we go out to patrol. I communicate with others who do patrolling . like when we need help from the local authority or from technical departments. I also network with other communities.like when there are illegal activities inside and outside the community area... I organize the patrolling roster (Dom). Each resource management committee conducts patrolling several times a month (up to eight times, in the case of Koh Sralao; one to two times officially, in the case of Kompong Phluk, informally at other times). These patrols are done to monitor for illegal activities, which includes forest cutting, wildlife harvesting and using illegal fishing gear (blast fishing, trawling in shallow waters). Offenders are stopped and fined, with illegal gear or illegally extracted resources often being apprehended. As per management regulations, the committee does patrols with local police and members from technical departments when possible. Although local police were initially resistant to patrol with committee members (in part as this limits rent-seeking opportunities), time and dialogue has

211

helped to resolve this issue. Dom further comments, ‘‘[b]efore it was really hard to get the police to join in but now it is much easier. We can understand each other better.’’ For committee members, patrolling requires cooperation and decision making in terms of where to patrol. Sometimes an illegal activity is reported to committee members outside of the patrolling schedule. Then the committee decides if they should investigate this claim and mobilize themselves (committee members need to be available, a boat needs to be found, the police need to be informed). Given the challenges that committee members may face (conflicts with those apprehended), their dedication to monthly patrols is impressive. For patrolling to work, repercussions have been established for those that fish illegally. When someone is caught, the committee must engage in task-oriented problem solving since imposing a penalty may not be that straight forward. As the following quote illustrates, not all situations are predictable. A fisher lost traps on the other side of the estuary [across from the village]. We tried to solve this with the police. The person who stole the traps lived outside the community. We wanted to fine this person but they did not have any money. So, we went to their home and brought back some luggage and some cups since he is a thief. Everyone agreed that this was fair (Dom). Given that conflicts often arise in the course of a patrol, the committee must also determine cause and effect relationships prior to making a decision. Monthly meetings in the case of Koh Sralao offer an opportunity for committee members to reflect and adapt their methods; it appears that a more informal approach is taken in Kompong Phluk. 4.1.4. Waste management Islandeestuary communities do face a significant challenge when it comes to waste management as there is little land in which to burn or bury waste and these areas are far from government services. Until recently the ‘norm’ was to throw waste into the water (for those houses built over the sea) or onto the land (in piles and more piles). This is also true in fresh water fishing communities, where over 95% of villagers dispose their waste into the river or lake (Isreal et al., 2005). Therefore, the committee in Koh Sralao has been working to change this. As Wayne notes: There is still a lot of garbage, especially in the water. Our weakness is that our regulations [community regulations] are not clear, it does not say how to do [waste management]. It does not say how much to fine people. People throw garbage [out of their home] for many years, and it is difficult to change their behaviour. It takes time to educate the effects of waste (Wayne). A series of trainings and workshops (initially facilitated by project staff from the Ministry of Environment, then by Koh Sralao committee members) have been held since 2000 relating to waste management, and waste management is included as an activity in Koh Sralao’s resource management plan

212

M. Marschke, A.J. Sinclair / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 206e216

(although not the ‘nuts and bolts’ of how to address this issue, as Wayne’s comment indicates). Committee members have struggled with how to tackle waste issues; project staff have also struggled with how to approach this issue. For the first several years, linked into a general environmental education campaign, workshops introduced the importance of waste management for the committee and selected community members. Preun points to the usefulness of such workshops: Some people ask me what I learned [when attending a workshop] and I gave examples about waste management. This can improve your livelihood. If one household cleans up this could help to reduce disease. If only one or two households do so then there will be no success whereas we need the entire village to clean to have success. If the entire area is clean this could reduce disease and pollution. I think people learn from me. After I tell my story, and I return later on, I see that they have cleaned up the garbage near their house (Preun). However, a key issue was that people were not dealing with their waste in a consistent manner. Only in late 2004 was the committee ready to implement a system of waste management for Koh Sralao. At this point, committee members had spent enough time educating villagers about the cause and effect of poor waste management. A task-oriented approach to problem solving helped this committee to find an appropriate approach. This involved small user-fees, widening several bridges over the waterways to handle the cart used to collect waste, agreeing on an area of land by which common waste could be buried and a weekly system of garbage collection. As Sovanna, the head of the resource management committee, notes: We have had to learn how to encourage and push community members to pay their monthly waste collection fee. I’ve also noticed that when some households start keeping their household area clean, other households who live around them begin to do so too (Sovanna). As a means of encouraging greater participation of community members, quarterly waste management awards are given out for those households that have the cleanest area surrounding their house. Although the system is not perfect (sometimes waste is not collected on time as the waste collector is busy with other livelihood activities), committee members felt that this practice was contributing towards a cleaner, healthier village environment. Over time the committee has helped to create new ‘norms’ in relation to acceptable levels of waste in Koh Sralao.

4.1.5. Participating in higher level dialogues Committee members in Koh Sralao and in Kompong Phluk participate in a range of workshops, from study tour exchanges with other resource management committees to being asked to ‘input’ into policy reforms such as the Community Fisheries Sub-decree. Several community members have taken part in

regional study tours to visit other community fishery sites. Plan reflects upon his experience: I have joined many provincial, national and international workshops, and I provide many comments about protecting natural resources. I want to stop illegal fishing activities. Maybe we need one day a year that is Stop Illegal Fishing Activities Day. We could share this information with people in order to wake them up. Many NGOs worry about natural resources in the Tonle Sap. The government doesn’t think about this problem. The government should be ashamed that they don’t protect the natural resources (Plan). Over time, committee members have become more confident and vocal, as expressed above by Plan. On several occasions committee members have had a chance to express their needs to the Governor and the Minister of Environment to help them to stop illegal trawling activities that are taking place in the mangrove estuaries (Marschke and Nong, 2003). More recently, members from Koh Sralao’s committee were asked to participate in a nationally televised debate with university students arguing the pros and cons of shrimp farming. Committee members talked about their experiences with unsustainable shrimp aquaculture, and argued in favour of developing small-scale aquaculture as one of a series of fishing strategies that would ensure longer-term survival of the fishery (personal communication N. Kim, Dec 2006). Also, the committee in Kompong Phluk participated in a district workshop to confront a former fishing lot owner who had forged a letter on behalf of the committee agreeing to sell off a section of their community fishery to him (in this letter he offered the community USD 20 000 for the area). Even though it is illegal for a fisheries committee to sell any section of a community fishing ground, district level officials sided with the former fishing lot owner. At this point, the committee recognized that they needed to take this issue to the national level to demand that the Fisheries Administration follow its own policy. Fortunately, a former project member and an international volunteer working in the area worked with the committee to do so. They collected signatures from all community fishery members (417) explaining that they had not written this letter and took this to the Director of the Fisheries Administration (personal communication M. Ocampo, Jan 2006). In doing so, the committee was able to secure their legal rights. As this example illustrates, sometimes committee members are able to dialogue and take advantage of newly established legal mechanisms, or at least may know who to turn to when a committee needs outside help. Another way that learning may be fostered is through participating in workshops or study tours. For example, after a study tour between fresh water and coastal fishers working on resource management, the committee in Koh Sralao decided that they wanted to establish a brooding area within their community fishing area. And, through such activities, relationships are built. Koh Sralao’s response to the devastating 2005 fire that burned one-third of all homes in Kompong Phluk is illustrative of this. When news of the fire reached the committee in Koh Sralao, they (along with two other committees in

M. Marschke, A.J. Sinclair / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 206e216

the area) raised nearly USD 100 to donate to the resource management committee in Kompong Phluk. This type of villageto-village help in the resource management sector is generally unheard of. 4.1.6. Mangrove replanting Mangrove replanting is the most consistent activity that the committee in Koh Sralao supervises. By the late 1990s this area experienced significant declines in mangrove forest cover, fuelled by the growing market for mangrove wood and mangrove charcoal in neighbouring Thailand and lax enforcement by technical officials (Marschke, 1999). Thus, mangrove replanting was seen to be an important activity. Since 2000 there has been an annual mangrove replanting day in Koh Sralao where most villagers volunteer their labour in exchange for donated rice. Although there was a low survival rate of mangrove propagules in the first year, in subsequent years better planting techniques and monitoring of seedlings has taken place. Several older women holding significant local knowledge now take the lead in explaining and monitoring mangrove replanting with villagers. ‘‘We learn about mangrove replanting from using the experience of the old people’’ (Koh Sralao Committee). When committee members in Koh Sralao were asked to reflect on their most successful activity, mangrove replanting was ranked number one. Most successful is mangrove replanting because of good planning. I learned the technique of how to replant mangroves, like the area and the methods, how deep a propagul should go, monitoring the survival rate, how much per month. Also, I learned how to ask local people to participate, learned how to ask people to attend. The main reason people are involved is labour for rice. The villagers get rice from the resource management committee when they are involved in mangrove replanting (Dom). Committee member learn a significant amount by working on a specific activity on an annual basis; moreover, this type of ‘engaged action’ coupled with community level discussions means that villagers do recognize the value of conserving the mangroves. As one villager commented: People know not to cut the mangroves as this will destroy our life. Now there are more mangroves, and we can find more snails and crabs in the rainy and dry season (Koh Sralao villager). As participants identified, in the process of working on mangrove replanting over many years, they obtained skills, information and learned how to better dialogue with community members. Over time, mangrove propagules are replanted in the appropriate ecological area and local knowledge is being tapped into. More than anything, this process has fostered an enhanced understanding of the value of mangroves for villagers in Koh Sralao. As of early 2007, over 350 ha of mangroves were replanted in the area surrounding Koh Sralao. Preliminary analysis of

213

Radarstat satellite imagery suggests that the prevalent decline in mangrove resources that the area faced in the 1990s has been halted with significant re-growth taking place. Most likely this re-growth can be attributed to an active environmental education campaign at the village level, patrolling efforts to ensure natural regeneration and annual replanting. 5. Discussion Table 1 illustrates how participation in resource management activities by committee members and the wider community can support a variety of learning opportunities. Committee members are involved in decision making, sometimes responding to disorientating situations (resource declines; policy shifts; resource conflict). As the results indicate, participants experienced both instrumental and communicative learning outcomes that, in part, led to changes in individual behaviour and influenced community sustainability practices. Those participants that we spoke to all experienced instrumental learning outcomes of some form as a result of their participation in or association with the two resource management committees. For example, committee members obtained skills and information in relation to natural resource management and, as a result, were better able to place their resource situation within a broader regional context. Members also learned about emerging legal and administrative procedures related to fisheries and environmental management. Ecological knowledge was strengthened through mangrove replanting activities, patrolling exercises and creating fish sanctuaries. Importantly, monthly committee meetings and workshops created opportunities for committee members to learn how to better dialogue around issues and to focus on task-oriented problem solving, such as solving gear theft or creating waste management systems. Learning is revealed as committee members reflect on their successes and challenges as they continue to negotiate the management of local resources. Although instrumental learning appears to be the norm through participating in most resource management activities, examples of communicative learning were also evident. For instance, committee members gained insights into the interests of others and understood others’ points of view through being exposed to different perspectives. Perhaps most important in this regard was the shared understanding that developed about the urgent need to conserve mangroves, in the case of Koh Sralao. Communicative learning also allowed patrolling to become more effective, involving institutions other than the resource management committee and making people aware that the community had a shared sense that illegal activities were not acceptable. Such an understanding may eventually lesson or negate the need for patrolling related to small-scale fishing activities. It was also clear that the community members reflected on the need for a cleaner community: through communication and eventually direct intervention individuals made the effort to mange their waste in ways they had not done before. While there was not as much evidence of communicative learning, the data did reveal that learning was rarely

214

M. Marschke, A.J. Sinclair / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 206e216

exclusively instrumental or communicative. Since the committees themselves deal with a range of resource and environmental issues and have a variety of support mechanisms, they can learn skills from NGO or government supported project teams (when funding exists, although most projects run on 3-year funding cycles) and relate those learned skills to broader conservation issues and livelihood enhancement. So the learning process may move from instrumental (how to plant mangroves) to communicative (how planting and conserving mangroves provides other ecological and economical benefits) or it can move from having a conservationist view (an end to charcoal production is needed to conserve mangroves) to a broader view (learning the skills to protect mangroves, and considering selective harvesting techniques). We found evidence of behaviour transformation among a very small number of committee members. In one case being active in the resource management committee likely influenced an individual to end his livelihood strategy of charcoal production in favour of helping to implement an active mangrove protection strategy in his village. While it was not entirely clear what learning event(s) may have precipitated this change, it was clear that the individual had engaged in many of the steps of critical reflection in arriving at a more conservationist premise (Mezirow, 1994). In another case a participant attended workshops relating to waste management. Participation in the workshop caused the person to take individual action to change their behaviour. Through communicative learning the action taken by this individual resulted in broader social learning and social mobilization resulting in concrete action to clean the community. What also became clear during this research was that the nature of the committee and the way resource management activities are undertaken impacts on potential learning outcomes. People do need to be given the chance to participate in local decision making, although legal rights alone will not ensure action. Indeed, other factors are at play that may enable or hinder committee participation in resource management and their potential learning outcomes. Table 2 outlines some of these factors. As Table 2 highlights, experience in working together and in taking the time to reflect is critical to committee learning. It was evident from the data that when committee members took the time to discuss, dialogue and critically reflect on issues at Table 2 The enabling context: factors that may enable and hinder learning Enabling factors

Hindering factors

Experience working together Time to reflect Leadership Active participation Initial support, such as a ‘patron’ or start-up money Linkages between and across administrative levels Memory of rapid resource declines or a history of resource management

Polarized community members Committee formed quickly by an outside group with little support Unwilling to take risks Token participation Too much rent-seeking activities of higher officials in the area Lack of support at commune or other administrative levels Fishing and/or other resource conflicts that cannot be solved locally

hand action often resulted. Each committee has worked together on resource management issues for over 7 years (a core group, with some membership turnover) and are comfortable in expressing their views to each other. Active participation was also important to learning. The more and varied opportunities that were provided to share information and ideas e workshops, training sessions, meetings, activities e the more likely there would be at least an instrumental learning outcome. This fits well with the findings of Sinclair and Diduck (1995, 2005) and others (Webler et al., 1995) regarding the importance of meaningful participation. These enablers also underscore two of Mezirow’s (1991) ideal conditions for perspective transformation e the opportunity to reflect critically on presuppositions and consequences and opportunities to participate. Committees initially formed around resource management issues may evolve to function for entirely different purposes. In relation to leadership Sovanna discusses the challenges he faces in leading Koh Sralao’s resource management work. For resource management, I encourage all villagers to participate through mangrove replanting, reporting illegal activities to the committee, and using larger mesh sizes. But because other resource management committees in this area are not so strong it makes our work particularly challenging. We are a young resource management committee with little experience. We need support for facilitation. We are trying to do by ourselves but this is hard. The lack of money is really challenging to keep things going. We could spend all our time thinking about this (Sovanna). Implementation of any activity very much depends upon the motivation and vision of local leaders. It takes creativity and determination, especially given the lack of money most committees have. If a committee is too reliant on outside facilitators to drive the process or does not have an effective leader, they will not be able to carry out their own activities. For example, Sovanna is able to negotiate opportunities (e.g., with the police, with local politicians) to ensure that the committee can carry out its work. When Sovanna left Koh Sralao for 6 months during 2003 the committee appointed a substitute leader who, in hindsight, was not an appropriate choice (the committee became fragmented and patrolling activities ground to a halt during those 6 months). Since Sovanna returned, the committee has been grooming a ‘second in command’ should he leave the area again for an extended period of time. Strong local leadership, initial support (e.g., technical input, small funds) for resource management activities and linkages across and between administrative levels may all serve as enabling factors to support committee involvement in local environmental governance. Regardless, resource management committees do face serious challenges in terms of resource management practice and a chance to engage in a meaningful manner. In both coastal and inland fisheries there appears to be an increase in large scale fishing practices, which limits the fishing grounds available to small-scale fishers. Thus, fisheries related conflicts continue to escalate, and it appears that fishers are now fishing for lower-value species (Hortle et al., 2004). To

M. Marschke, A.J. Sinclair / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 206e216

add to the chaos, Fisheries Administration staff are not able to consistently enforce their own polices (Sneddon, 2007). For the committees themselves, there is no secure source of funding which means that aspects of this work are fragile at best. This is why supporting the learning angle of this work may be especially critical: people can gain knowledge and skills that can be applied to other situations. At the same time, it must be recognized that this type of work does push a ‘‘recalcitrant and ineffective government towards meaningful changes in environmental decision-making’’ (Sneddon, 2007: 187). In spite of significant barriers, those committee members who are active in this process appear to believe that their work is worth doing. 6. Conclusions I want to help my village. I have good knowledge and I want to share this knowledge to develop the village. I expect we can develop the village in the future. When I do something I think of my children since I want them to have a good role model (Sovanna). Our data illustrates that the two resource management committees considered deal with a range of issues from resource management planning, to specific activities related to their environment, to discussions with provincial and national actors. In the Cambodian context, committee members are working to enhance their daily life, and work on a range of inter-connected issues. They are at the frontier, far from government services, and recognize that they can potentially make a difference in their village. Rather than only focusing on one issue, which may or may not be solved, committees engage in a diversity of actions. Perhaps it is this combination of activities that promotes learning: if one activity does not work, there are other activities to be worked on. Although we did not observe a wholesale change in thinking with regards to resource management in either community, we did see some incremental changes in thinking and behaviour from committee members and from community members that would lead to a more sustainable community. People are more engaged in resource management work then they ever have been, as the examples outlined in Table 1 illustrate. The opportunity for committee members, and some other villagers, to participate in resource management provides a space for learning to occur. As the data revealed all the people that we interviewed had instrumental learning outcomes from either their participation on the committee or in committee activities. This supports the findings of others in terms of the propensity for instrumental learning outcomes through participation in resource and environmental decision making (e.g., Defoer, 2002; Diduck and Mitchell, 2003; Fitzpatrick, 2006). The data also revealed important communicative and even transformative learning outcomes, indicating that the deliberative spaces being created for participation are fostering some level of dialogue and reflection among committee members. These opportunities and activities offer tentative hope that policy reforms can make

215

a difference, and may serve as learning platforms under certain conditions. These findings add further support to the notion that participation in resource management, that is community-based, allows people to learn and that such learning outcomes can lead to concrete actions on the ground that promote sustainable solutions. Each committee appears to follow an iterative learning process. Through slowly engaging in more participatory decision making processes, awareness of natural resources and resource management practices are enhanced. It is also clear that participation and reflective dialogue of marginalized fishers supports their development as individuals, and the development of a more inclusive, democratic community. Such individual development and social change can lead to learning outcomes that cause individuals and communities to challenge dominate decision making paradigms and promote changes in environmental governance (e.g., Keen et al., 2005; Rist et al., 2007; Sneddon, 2007). Although asymmetrical relationships persist (there are many impediments to participating in such a process), these two committees illustrate how they grapple with many inequalities and deal with new issues as they arise. Through their iterative learning process, each committee was able to advance social goals and question authority, tradition and basic assumptions about the role of villagers in environmental governance. Each committee illustrated a greater ability to communicate and assert their needs as a result of participation in the resource management process. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Kim Nong, Dyna Eam and Maria Ocampo for their research support and insights, along with committee members in Koh Sralao and Kompong Phluk. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Marschke’s research was supported by SSHRC and the International Development Research Center. This research began during Marschke’s dissertation work at the NRI, University of Manitoba and was completed during her post-doctoral work with the SSHRCeMCRI Challenges of the Agrarian Transition in Southeast Asia project. References Barbas, J., 2004. How deliberation affects policy opinions. American Political Science Review 98 (4), 687e701. Blunt, P., Turner, M., 2005. Decentralisation, democracy and development in a post-conflict society: commune councils in Cambodia. Public Administration and Development 25, 75e87. Chambers, R., 2004. Ideas for Development: Reflecting Forwards. In: IDS Working Paper 238. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, Sussex, U.K. (online 2005). Available from: http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/ Chandler, D., 1996. A History of Cambodia. Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Clark, C., 1993. Transformational learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 57, 47e56. Creswell, J.W., 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, second ed. Sage Publications, California. Clark, C.M., Wilson, A.L., 1991. Context and rationality in Mezirow’s theory of transformational learning. Adult Education Quarterly 4 (2), 75e91.

216

M. Marschke, A.J. Sinclair / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 206e216

Defoer, T., 2002. Social learning for integrated soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Leeuwis, C., Pyburn, R. (Eds.), Wheel-barrows Full of Frogs: Social Learning in Rural Resource Management. Van Gorcum, Koninklijke, Netherlands, pp. 147e166. Diduck, A.P., 1999. Critical education in resource and environmental management: learning and empowerment for a sustainable future. Journal of Environmental Management 57, 85e97. Diduck, A.P., Mitchell, B., 2003. Learning, public involvement and environmental assessment: a Canadian case study. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 5 (3), 1e26. Ebihara, M., 1968. Svay, a Khmer Village in Cambodia. Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, New York. EIC, 2005. Cambodia e Economic Watch, April 2005. Economic Institute of Cambodia. Ellis, F., 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Evans, P., 2002. Fishing Disarmed. Samudra, March, 6e12. Fennel, D., Plummer, R., Marschke, M., 2008. Is adaptive co-management ethical? Journal of Environmental Management 88 (1), 62e75. Fitzpatrick, P., Sinclair, J., 2003. Learning through public involvement in environmental assessment hearings. Journal of Environmental Management 67, 161e174. Fitzpatrick, P., 2006. The environmental assessment process e learning nexus: a Manitoba case study. In: Hallman, B. (Ed.), Prairie Perspectives: Geographical Essays, vol. 9 (1). Hortle, K.G., Lieng, S., Valbo-Jorgensen, J., 2004. An Introduction to Cambodia’s Inland Fisheries. In: Mekong Development Series, No. 4. Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh. Hubbard, M., 2005. Aid management in Cambodia: breaking out of a low ownership trap. Public Administration and Development 25 (5), 409e414. Isreal, D., Ahmed, M., Thouk, N., Ly, V., 2005. Profile for Aquatic Resources Management: Siem Reap province, Cambodia. WorldFish Center, Malaysia and the Department of Fisheries, Cambodia, 76 pp. Keen, M., Brown, V., Dyball, R., 2005. Social Learning in Environmental Management: Towards a Sustainable Future. Earthscan, London. Le Billon, P., 2000. The political ecology of transition in Cambodia 1989e1999: war, peace and forest exploitation. Development and Change 31, 785e805. Legerwood, J., 1998. Rural development in Cambodia: the view from the village. In: Brown, F., Timbrman, D. (Eds.), Cambodia and the International Community: the Quest for Peace, Development and Democracy. The Asia Society, New York, pp. 127e148. Legerwood, J., Vijghen, J., 2002. Decision making in Khmer villages. In: Legerwood, J. (Ed.), Cambodia Emerges from the Past: Eight Essays. Southeast Asia Publications, DeKalb, IL, pp. 109e150. Marschke, M., 1999. Using Local Environmental Knowledge: A Case-study of Mangrove Resource Management Practices in Peam Krasaop Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia. Master’s thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS. Marschke, M., 2004. Creating plans is only one step. Cambodia Development Review 8 (3), 7e12. Marschke, M., 2005. Livelihood in Context: Learning with Cambodian Fishers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manitoba. Marschke, M., Berkes, F., 2005. Local level sustainability planning for livelihoods: a Cambodian experience. The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 12, 21e33. Marschke, M., Berkes, F., 2006. Exploring strategies that build livelihood resilience: a case from Cambodia. Ecology and Society 11 (1), 42 (online) Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art42/. Marschke, M., Nong, K., 2003. Adaptive co-management: lessons from coastal Cambodia. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 24 (3), 369e383. Marston, J., 1997. Cambodia 1991e94: Hierarchy, Neutrality and the Etiquettes of Discourse. Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington, Washington. Martin, M., 1997. Les Khmer Deaum e Khmer de l’origine. Presses de l’EFEO, Paris. Meredith, T.C., 1995. Assessing environmental impacts in Canada. In: Mitchell, B. (Ed.), Resource and Environmental Management in Canada. Oxford University Press, Toronto, pp. 360e383.

Merriam, S.B., 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study: Applications in Education. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, P.S., 1999. Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide, second ed. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Mezirow, J., 1981. A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education Quarterly 32 (1), 3e24. Mezirow, J., 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Mezirow, J., 1994. Understanding transformational theory. Adult Education Quarterly 44 (4), 222e232. Mezirow, J., 1995. Transformation theory of adult learning. In: Welton, M.R. (Ed.), In Defense of the Life-world. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. 39e70. Mezirow, J., 1996. Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly 46 (3), 158e173. Mezirow, J., 2000. Learning to think like an adult: core concepts of transformative theory. In: Mezirow. & Associates, J. (Ed.), Learning as Transformation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 3e34. Mitchell, R., 1997. Resource and Environmental Management. Longman, Waterloo, Ontario. Moote, M.A., McClaren, M.P., Chickering, D.K., 1997. Theory in practice: applying participatory democracy theory to public land planning. Environmental Management 21 (6), 877e889. Muhr, T., 1997. Scientific software development. Berlin, Germany. Neefjes, K., 2000. Environments and Livelihoods: Strategies for Sustainability. Oxfam, London. Ojendal, J., Sedara, K., 2006. Korob, Kaud, Klach: in search of agency in rural Cambodia. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 37 (3), 507e526. Parkins, J., Mitchell, R., 2005. Public participation as public debate: a deliberative turn in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 18, 529e540. Ratner, B., 2006. Community management by decree? Lessons from Cambodia’s fisheries reform. Policy review. Society and Natural Resources 19, 79e86. Rist, S., Chiddambaranathan, M., Escobar, C., Wiesmann, U., Zimmermann, A., 2007. Moving from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources: the role of social learning processes in rural India, Bolivia and Mali. Journal of Rural Studies 23, 23e37. Scott, S.M., 2003. The social construction of transformation. Journal of Transformative Education 1 (3), 264e284. Shepherd, A., Bowler, C., 1997. Beyond the requirements: improving public participation in EIA. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40 (6), 725e739. Sinclair, A.J., Diduck, A.P., 1995. Public education: an undervalued component of the environmental assessment public involvement process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15 (3), 219e240. Sinclair, A.J., Diduck, A.P., 2001. Public involvement in EA in Canada: a transformative learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 21, 113e136. Sinclair, A.J., Diduck, A.P., 2005. Public participation in Canadian environmental assessment: enduring challenges and future directions. In: Hanna, K.S. (Ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment Process and Practices in Canada. Oxford University Press, Don Mills, pp. 53e74. Slocomb, M., 2006. The nature and role of ideology in the modern Cambodian State. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 37 (3), 375e395. Sneddon, C., 2007. Nature’s materiality and the circuitous paths of accumulation: dispossession of freshwater fisheries in Cambodia. Antipode, 167e193. Sunderlin, W., 2006. Poverty alleviation through community forestry in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Forest Policy and Economics 8 (4), 386e396. Taylor, E., 2000. Analyzing research on transformative learning theory. In: Mezirow, J. (Ed.), Learning as Transformation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 285e328. Webler, T., Kasternholz, H., Renn, O., 1995. Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15, 443e463. Wood, C., 1995. Environmental Impact Assessments: A comparative review. Longman Scientific and Technical, England.