World Development Perspectives 22 (2021) 100318
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect 
World Development Perspectives 
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/world-development-perspectives 
Research paper 
Fish for whom?: Integrating the management of social complexities into 
technical investments for inclusive, multi-functional irrigation 
Nicolette Duncan a,*, Sanjiv de Silva b, John Conallin a, Sarah Freed c, Michael Akester c, 
Lee Baumgartner a, Matthew McCartney b, Mark Dubois c, Sonali Senaratna Sellamuttu b 
a Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, 386 Elizabeth Mitchell Drive, Thurgoona, New South Wales 2640, Australia 
b International Water Management Institute, 127, Sunil Mawatha, Pelawatte, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka, Postal Address: P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka 
c Worldfish, Jalan Batu Maung, Batu Maung, 11960 Bayan Lepas, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia   
A R T I C L E  I N F O   A B S T R A C T   
Keywords: Irrigation represents a long-standing water sector investment in South East Asia. However, despite the undeni-
Inland fisheries able benefits of food production, an irrigation/rice-centric strategy is insufficient in a multi-dimensional con-
Sustainable Development Goals ceptualisation of development. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) challenge us to re-think traditional 
Development ways of achieving food security. Central to this challenge is how we can retain multi-functionality within 
Nutrition security 
Benefit distribution landscapes. We explore the often negatively correlated relationship between irrigation and inland fisheries 
Elite capture through a literature review and interviews with key informants, focusing on examples from Myanmar and 
Cambodia. We found that whilst technical options exist for minimizing irrigation impacts on fisheries, there is a 
fundamental disconnect between the technical application of such ‘solutions’, and distribution of benefits to the 
marginal groups that SDGs 1, 2, 3 and more target. We found that insufficient recognition of the social contexts in 
which solutions are applied underpins this disconnect. This means that technical infrastructure design needs to 
be organised around the question, ‘Who do we want to benefit?’, if investments are to go beyond rice/fish 
production and deliver more on socially inclusive food security and livelihood opportunities. This paper is a call 
to extend the framing and financing of irrigation investments beyond technical parameters to include investing in 
the social processes that enable both multi-functionality and inclusive growth, to enhance the role of irrigation in 
adapting to a changing climate, while maintaining landscape integrity and multi-functionality so necessary for a 
sustainable future.   
1. Introduction economies (Grabrowski & Self, 2020). Irrigation in SEA has mainly 
targeted rice agriculture since the Green Revolution, which has reduced 
According to Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen, development is the poverty and improved food security for many (Hussain & Biltonen, 
“process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy” (Félix & 2001). However, despite its status as a dietary staple and the benefits of 
Belo, 2019). Inclusive development then, with “roots in social justice… greater food security, rice nutrient content is insufficient to meet human 
(is) focused on the participation, human rights and social demands of the nutrition requirements (Youn et al., 2014). Moreover, the consolidation 
most marginalized people and communities” (Pouw & Gupta, 2017). of rice agriculture into large-scale irrigated operations (Vicol, Pritchard, 
Following seminal works by Johnston and Mellor (1961) and Schultz & Htay, 2018) adversely impacts naturally occurring food systems such 
(1964), international aid organisations and governments have aimed to as inland capture fisheries, well beyond the command area of a given 
address poverty faced by rural communities in developing countries by irrigation scheme, by fragmenting landscapes and changing water flow 
investing heavily in rural development and infrastructure in South East regimes (Conallin et al., 2019; Mahood et al., 2020). The same approach 
Asia (SEA), where agriculture forms the backbone of multiple national inadequately addresses social justice concerns of ensuring participation 
* Corresponding author at: Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, 386 Elizabeth Mitchell Drive, Thurgoona, New South Wales 2640, 
Australia. 
E-mail addresses: ndunenvir@gmail.com (N. Duncan), s.s.desilva@cgiar.org (S. de Silva), jconallin@csu.edu.au (J. Conallin), S.Freed@cgiar.org (S. Freed), M. 
Akester@cgiar.org (M. Akester), lbaumgartner@csu.edu.au (L. Baumgartner), M.McCartney@cgiar.org (M. McCartney), M.Dubois@cgiar.org (M. Dubois), s. 
senaratnasellamuttu@cgiar.org (S. Senaratna Sellamuttu).  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2021.100318 
Received 17 December 2020; Received in revised form 7 May 2021; Accepted 12 May 2021   
Available online 24 May 2021
2452-2929/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
N. Duncan et al.                                                                                                                                                                                     W   o  r l d   D  e v  e  lo  p  m   e n  t  P  e r  s p e  c t i v  es 22 (2021) 100318
and distribution of benefits to disadvantaged groups, resulting in mar- resources and agricultural development infrastructure, but from 
ginalisation of smallholder farmers (Jepsen, Palm, & Bruun, 2019; partaking in setting the development agenda in the first place (Sobhan, 
Loughlin & Milne, 2020; Snoxell & Lyne, 2019), despite efforts to engage 2010). We argue that this critical gap is typified in cookie-cutter 
local stakeholders in participatory irrigation management (Matsuno development approaches which risk increasing inequities, where those 
et al., 2013). Such marginalisation further concentrates wealth and with a greater capacity for resource extraction (whether fish, water or 
power in the hands of a relative few, hardening and lengthening the gap land) are at an advantage, unless rules and participatory governance 
between rich and poor (Ingalls et al., 2018). Li (2010) goes so far as to arrangements to mediate this imbalance are also invested in (Choe & 
say that in this way, the poorest are ‘let die’ through this process of Yun, 2017; Ostrom, 1990; Saunders, 2014). 
exclusion which displaces people from their land and livelihoods. These Our argument is framed by a social-ecological systems approach, 
negative trade-offs of large-scale mainly irrigated rice production, adapted from Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model, outlined in 
combined with an overly technocratic design and implementation pro- Fig. 1, which highlights the plural forces which underpin individuals’ 
cess, risk detracting from the livelihood and dietary improvement ob- behaviour, or in our context, livelihood outcomes. This adapted version 
jectives of poverty reduction (Adger, 2000; Al Mamun, Nasrat, & Debi, of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Socio-Ecological Model illustrates the 
2011; Cramb, 2020), meaning time and resource investments by gov- complexity of the social context into which development initiatives are 
ernments and donors may not achieve their full potential. deployed. An individual’s or household’s access to the benefits of 
Global discourses which embrace multi-dimensional development, development investments are shaped not only by personal circum-
such as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), stances, but also the local and larger scale power structures which 
challenge us to re-evaluate ‘growth’, by recognising the social and determine who is represented in and who is excluded from development 
environmental trade-offs of GDP focussed development (Bebbington & and natural resource decision making. 
Unerman, 2018; Scholte & Söderbaum, 2017). The SDGs are reflected in We thus argue, and seek to demonstrate, that while improving multi- 
global development organisations and donor strategies, including those functionality within irrigated landscapes may optimize use of scarce 
of the World Bank (WB - Sen & Pookayaporn, 2018) and Asian Devel- natural resources, it will not translate into livelihood improvement for 
opment Bank (ADB - Helble & Shepherd, 2017), as well as national those who need it most unless social contexts are accounted for through 
policy. While they offer little guidance on best-practice approaches, the grounded, systematic institutional development. We investigate the 
SDGs posit an inclusive development model, including in SDG 1 (No potential benefits of fish passage and aquaculture as investments aimed 
poverty), 2 (Zero hunger) 3 (Good health), 10 (Reduced inequalities) at mitigating WCI impacts and enhancing fisheries within irrigated 
and 16 (Just, peaceful and inclusive societies) amongst others. Inclusive landscapes, as well as the consequences of each if social inequalities are 
development calls for the potential benefits and consequences of not considered. We question whether the community and policy envi-
development be considered with equal weight given to economic, ronments in Myanmar and Cambodia are conducive to multifunctional, 
environmental and social goals (Pouw & Gupta, 2017). According to inclusive agricultural development, and show that in both countries 
Pouw and Gupta; “the underlying argument is that social inequality water (and fisheries in Myanmar) governance operates to the disad-
reduces opportunities for enhancing human wellbeing while reducing vantage of poor and marginal households. Finally, we examine the case 
the resource base” 2017, p. 104). study of Cambodia’s rice field fisheries (RFFs) supported by community- 
This need to re-balance development interventions is demonstrated managed fish refuges (CFRs), which demonstrate the advantages of 
with examples of rice and fisheries production from Myanmar and developing multifunctional irrigated landscapes and investing in insti-
Cambodia. In both countries, rice and fish are the mainstays of the na- tution building. 
tional diet, especially for the poorest among the population (Dubois 
et al., 2019). Rice irrigation and associated water controlling infra-
structure (WCI) negatively impact inland fisheries, which provide crit-
ical dietary micronutrients and are a common pool resource relevant to 
millions of livelihoods (Dubois et al., 2019). However, as elsewhere in 
the world, inland fisheries are simultaneously threatened by irrigation, 
hydropower, WCI, land conversion, population growth and overfishing, 
which have altered hydrological flows, fragmented and degraded 
aquatic habitats and accelerated fishery decline (Conallin et al., 2019). 
In Myanmar and Cambodia, the impact of WCI on fisheries is often 
unacknowledged (Lynch et al., 2017), although traditionally in these 
countries people have relied on diverse natural and ecologically func-
tional food systems (Vicol et al., 2018). Thus, we argue that insufficient 
attention to inland fisheries represents an associated disregard for those 
who depend on them, especially rural poor and landless people. To 
safeguard the food and nutrition security provided by inland fisheries, 
the scope of project design should expand to focus not only on pro-
duction but also to reducing negative socio-ecological trade-offs of 
agriculture (McCartney, Whiting, Makin, Lankford, & Ringler, 2019; 
Rasul, 2016), by ensuring appropriate institutional arrangements are in 
place (Matsuno et al., 2013) so that benefits are widely available. 
In this paper, we contribute to the discourse on how more sustainable 
and socially inclusive development, and thereby several SDGs, could be 
achieved. Focussing on irrigation and fisheries, we argue that while 
technical solutions may maintain or increase fish availability, the chal-
lenge, as with irrigation, of serving often heterogeneous communities, Fig. 1. Individuals are nested in a social ecology. Note: Adapted from “Using the 
stratified, for example, by class, gender, ethnicity or occupation, is often Socio-Ecological Model to Frame Agricultural Safety and Health Interventions” 
underestimated. We argue that consequently, a fundamental gap in by B.C. Lee, C. Bendixsen, A. K. Liebman and S. S. Gallagher, 2017, Journal of 
current development approaches is that individuals, households and Agromedicine, 22(4), p. 298–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2017.1 
even entire communities are excluded not only from accessing natural 356780. Copyright 2017 by Taylor and Francis. 
2
N. Duncan et al.                                                                                                                                                                                     W   o  r l d   D  e v  e  lo  p  m   e n  t  P  e r  s p e  c t i v  es 22 (2021) 100318
2. Methodology earnings (FAO, 2019). Agriculture, livestock and fisheries account for 
nearly 37.8% of GDP and about 70% of employment (FAO, 2019). 
Through a literature review, approximately 200 English language Irrigation supplies about 15 million rural people and 2.78 million 
documents were examined to reflect the richness of available material hectares (23.4% of the net sown area in 2015–2016) of agricultural land 
on both countries and read around the topic more broadly. The reviewed (Than, 2018). Further investments are likely for climate change adap-
literature included peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, tech- tation (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation, 
nical publications, donor reports, national policies and grey literature, 2017). Hydropower provides almost 75% of Myanmar’s electricity and 
sourced through Google Scholar and institutional and personal net- hundreds of small and medium hydropower plants are earmarked for 
works, including WorldFish, International Water Management Institute potential construction by 2030 (Emmerton et al., 2015). Fishing con-
(IWMI) and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation tributes to approximately 15 million livelihoods (McCartney & Khaing, 
(FAO). The reviewed literature covered: discourse on irrigation and 2014), while consumption is estimated at 22–34 kg per capita per year 
fisheries; development policy and fisheries in Myanmar and Cambodia; and fish are consumed at almost every meal (FAO, 2003). The rural poor 
social heterogeneity and common pool resource governance. Search have inadequate access to food and nutrition and suffer from micro-
terms included, but were not limited to: aquaculture, access, Cambodia, nutrient deficiencies (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
conflict, development, elite capture, equity, exclusion, fish passage, Development [OECD], 2015; Ministry of Health and Sports, 2018). 
governance, inland fisheries, inclusion, inclusive, irrigation, landless, Stunting affects 29.4% of children (Blankenship, Cashin, Nguyen, & Ip, 
land tenure security, land use, Mekong, Myanmar, nutrition, participa- 2020), above the developing country average of 25% (Global Nutrition 
tion, political economy, pro-poor, rice fish, South East Asia and common Report, 2020). Estimates indicate that between 41% and 57% of the 
pool resource governance. Relevant documents from the literature were population is landless (Lwin, Ikuko, & Koichi, 2020; Pritchard, Ram-
uploaded to NVivo (released by QSR in March 2020). Documents were mohan, & Vicol, 2019) and more likely than landholders to be food 
read and sections of the text were coded to themes arising from the insecure (Lwin et al., 2020). 
literature review that linked to our research focus. Text search and tree Inland fisheries are structured primarily around leasable and open 
map analyses were conducted across the 200 coded documents to fisheries systems, which account for 21% and 6% of total recorded fish 
observe the ways in which key terms were discussed and related to each catch annually. Leasable fisheries auction productive fishing areas to the 
other. highest bidder, granting exclusive fishing rights, subject to regulations 
Concurrently, virtual interviews were held with 12 key informants on species, season and gear. There are over 3,500 leases in operation 
(KIs) to gain a diversity of perceptions and deeper understanding of today. Open fisheries relate to licenced fishing in all inland waters 
specific themes. KIs were identified through institutional and personal except leasable fisheries. Open fishing grounds are specified, and gear is 
networks of the authors, and the literature, for their expertise on regulated. Aquaculture is mainly freshwater and operated by the private 
Cambodia and/or Myanmar fisheries and/or irrigation. Prior written sector in large pond-based culture, the majority of which occurs in the 
informed consent was obtained from each KI. The KIs are distributed Ayeyarwady Delta (van Beijnen, 2018). Small-scale aquaculture is also 
across government, academic, practitioner and donor categories widespread, although policy prohibits conversion of rice-fields to other 
although several KIs transcended these labels. Overall, five KIs were uses (Belton et al., 2015). 
interviewed regarding Cambodia (3 academics; 1 practitioner and 1 Cambodia’s fisheries provide full-time, part-time and seasonal 
government official) and four in Myanmar (3 academics; 1 practitioner) employment for approximately 35% of the population and contributes 
respectively. Three other KIs not specifically linked to either country, 25.4% of GDP, behind 54.8% from agriculture (Royal Government of 
but a donor representative and practitioners knowledgeable on the Cambodia [RGC], 2010). The Proposed loan, grant, and administration 
overall topic, were also interviewed. of grant Kingdom of Cambodia (2019) reports 32% of rice is irrigated. 
Ethical approval was obtained from the IWMI. Informed consent Irrigation development including refurbishment is earmarked for 
forms were sent to all KIs prior to the arranged meeting, along with a further investment, which it is hoped will reflect a commitment by the 
copy of the questions that would form the basis of the conversation. RGC to enhance multifunctionality of structures needing repair 
Interviews were conducted via video call, in English, guided by a semi- (McCartney et al., 2019). External pressures from Mekong River hy-
structured questionnaire, covering common themes including KI’s views dropower development and a warming climate contribute to changing 
on the paper’s primary argument; national policy; governance charac- flood cycles. Altered water availability and flow regimes will ultimately 
teristics; the nature of social contexts and associated political economies affect not only inland fisheries, but water intensive agriculture, 
in Cambodia and/or Myanmar and how these impact the role of fish in including rice and aquaculture (Teh et al., 2019). Fish constitutes 70% of 
the livelihoods of rural households. Written notes were taken during animal protein intake (Bann & Sopha, 2020), 37% of the total protein, 
each interview, and later uploaded and coded thematically in NVivo. and total iron intake, along with other micronutrients (Council for 
Tree map and word cloud analyses were conducted to compare inter- Agricultural and Rural Development, 2014). However, one in three 
view responses with literature review texts. Cambodian children is estimated to experience stunting (Karpati et al., 
2020). 
3. Fisheries in Myanmar and Cambodia’s development contexts Over 30% of Cambodia’s landmass consists of either permanent or 
seasonal wetlands. It is the fifth largest inland capture (wild) fishery in 
Fish are the leading source of animal protein in Myanmar (Belton the world, producing 58.8% of total national fish catch in 2018 (Bann & 
et al., 2015) and Cambodia (Golden et al., 2019). Both Myanmar and Sopha, 2020). The Tonle Sap Lake is the main production area and is 
Cambodia encompass vast freshwater resources with highly productive home to highly diverse aquatic species (Chan, Brosse, Hogan, Ngor, & 
inland fisheries (Orr et al., 2012). The extent of inland fisheries in Lek, 2020). Most of Cambodia’s almost 17 million people are engaged in 
Myanmar and Cambodia has made them a traditionally accessible and fishing for some, or all, of the year, indicating the importance of healthy 
affordable common pool resource of social and economic importance inland waterways to livelihoods (Nasielski, KC, Johnstone, & Baran, 
(de Silva et al., 2014). Yet in recent years, inland fisheries have expe- 2016). A shift from privately leased fish lots (akin to leasable fisheries in 
rienced significant declines due to extensive exploitation of freshwater Myanmar) to co-managed community fisheries (CFis) in 2012, attemp-
ecosystems through water (Halls & Hortle, 2021; Tezzo, Belton, John- ted to strengthen access and management rights for communities and 
stone, & Callow, 2018), fish (KC et al., 2017) and vegetation extraction support rural poverty reduction, food security and better habitat man-
and land conversion (Mahood et al., 2020) to agriculture and land agement. Today, all fisheries are technically accessible to all fishers, 
development. although 35% of the former lot area around Tonle Sap is now reserved 
In Myanmar, the agriculture sector contributes 25% to 30% of export for conservation and fishing is prohibited (KC et al., 2017). Important 
3
N. Duncan et al.                                                                                                                                                                                     W   o  r l d   D  e v  e  lo  p  m   e n  t  P  e r  s p e  c t i v  es 22 (2021) 100318
inland fisheries include rice field fisheries, supported by co-managed though these lands may constitute multi-use common pool resources for 
Community Fish Refuges (CFRs), which produce approximately 30% local communities. Aquaculture moreover remains an expensive pursuit 
of inland fish catch (Bann & Sopha, 2020). During monsoon floods, rice only available to those with the power and resources to control land and 
field fisheries are a common pool resource for communities, including invest in the associated inputs. 
the landless. Water bodies designated as CFRs allow fish populations to Similarly, the country’s leasehold inland fisheries management sys-
persist locally during the dry season and migrate to spawn and feed in tem ensures only the most powerful can control productive inland 
the flooded rice fields during the monsoon. Aquaculture production fishing grounds, excluding small-scale fishers and driving youth out of 
(including marine) is relatively low, contributing one sixth of fisheries freshwater fisheries. Until recently, community collectives were deemed 
production (FAO, 2021). The sector is set to grow as the current level of illegitimate by the government (WorldFish informant), undermining the 
exploitation in the Tonle Sap is thought unsustainable (Teh et al., 2019). scope for building locally appropriate, participatory resource manage-
ment institutions. The attention given to inland fisheries in Myanmar’s 
4. Under-representation of fisheries in policy. Irrigated development policies is yet to see significant reforms to the Freshwater 
landscape planning points to systemic dissonance between Fisheries Law, which so far remains focused on the provisioning of 
technical and social dimensions of development fishing licenses (Khin et al., 2020) with no space for participatory fish-
eries management. 
The literature review and informant responses reflected an “invisi- The negative impact of irrigation has been especially high in the 
bility” of fish within irrigation developments (Lynch et al., 2017), as Ayeyarwady Delta where some of the highest rates of landlessness occur, 
well as a poorly developed or expressed understanding among donors at approximately 32.6% (Htway, Phyo, Grünbühel, & Williams, 2014). 
and implementers of how heterogeneous social contexts influence the More than 580 irrigation structures already exist in Myanmar (Than, 
livelihood improvement impacts of development investments (Sheng 2018). Myanmar’s National Water Policy and Strategic Plan for Irriga-
et al., 2017). As one key informant put it; “governments are less inter- tion Development, although focused on food security and poverty 
ested in the social aspects; they are after the bio-physical solution. They reduction, fail to recognise these negative impacts resulting from WCI, 
take the view of a homogenous society” (International Rice Research or of inland fisheries contribution to diets and livelihoods (National 
Institute [IRRI] informant). With numerous major river infrastructure Water Resources Committee, 2014; Rosegrant, 2018). An awareness of 
developments are earmarked for construction in Cambodia and the contribution of fish to nutrition security is however reflected in ar-
Myanmar, there is a danger that a technocratic approach to design will ticles published on the NWRC website (Linn, 2020). Further threats to 
miss important opportunities to resolve the social shortcomings of aquatic systems loom with plans to increase access to electricity via new 
business-as-usual development. small and medium hydropower plants (Emmerton et al., 2015 Tezzo 
Myanmar and Cambodia each have a poorly coordinated and frag- et al., 2018). These are expected to have major negative impacts to 
mented water sector, where the needs of multiple water users are gov- Myanmar’s inland fishery, as similar developments have had on the 
erned independently of each other (McCartney et al., 2019; Sithirith, Mekong (Baran et al., 2018, p. 39). 
2017). In both countries, fisheries operate in isolation to other water The Cambodian context is not much different. Poverty reduction and 
sector departments (McCartney et al., 2019; Sithirith, 2017), are rarely inclusive, sustainable development are stated as core themes across 
consulted on river infrastructure development (two WorldFish in- development policies, with agriculture a major driver for achieving 
formants), and multi-sectoral collaboration spaces are limited (in- economic growth, poverty reduction and SDGs (Yu & Diao, 2011; World 
formants from Gembloux AgroBio Tech, FiA & Mekong River Bank, 2019). The Strategic Planning Framework for Fisheries (SPFF, 
Commission [MRC]). Inland fisheries are an afterthought in irrigation 2010–2019) and National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition 
investments and action to mitigate negative impacts is reactive (MRC, (NSFS – RGC, 2014) recognize that fisheries improve nutrition, 
Gembloux AgroBio Tech & FiA informants). As an informant from contributing to reductions in extreme poverty, hunger and child mor-
WorldFish put it; “the way the money flows to different ministries has a tality (Royal Government of Cambodia [RGC], 2010). Smallholder 
large influence on the relative power of those ministries”. As it stands, production systems and sustainable use of common property fishery 
the relative influence of irrigation far exceeds inland fisheries in both systems are highlighted as means to increase access to food and income 
Myanmar and Cambodia, resulting in political, financial, technical for the poor and food insecure. Rice field fisheries and aquaculture are 
underrepresentation. expected to contribute to growth in fisheries productivity (Fisheries, 
In Myanmar on the one hand, household food and nutrition security 2011). 
(Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation [MoALi], 2014) and However, agriculture receives a much larger budget share than 
increasing incomes especially for agrarian households (Ministry of fisheries, both of which are managed under the Ministry of Agriculture, 
Health, 2011) are central policy goals. The Multi-sectoral National Plan Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF- WorldFish informant). Funding for irri-
of Action on Nutrition (MS-NPAN, 2018/19-2022/23) additionally gation infrastructure and human capacity development is a priority of 
highlights micronutrient deficiencies among women and children the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC), while donors including the 
particularly in poor rural households as a development priority (Min- World Bank (WB) and Asian Development Bank (ADB) prioritize support 
istry of Health and Sports, 2018). Thus, while agriculture is positioned to the Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology (MoWRAM); the 
as a primary driver to improve rural livelihoods (MoALi, 2018), fisheries main government agency responsible for water management (Sithirith, 
are recognised as a vital element in a more integrated and nutritious 2017). Water is redirected for use in large-scale irrigated farms and 
food production system (Ministry of Health and Sports, 2018; Ministry hydropower. This trades off against inland fisheries users who face 
of Forestry, 2009). declining fish populations, and in some cases are left without a local 
Other aspects of the policy sphere however systematically work viable livelihood alternative, being forced to either migrate to other 
against poor and marginalised groups by excluding them from land and territories for food or income or starve (informant Gembloux AgroBio 
water resources (Lee, Bendixsen, Liebman, & Gallagher, 2017). 53.84% Tech; Lawreniuk & Parsons, 2020). 
of the MoALi’s budget for 2016–2022 is earmarked for irrigation, Moreover, Cambodia’s most productive fishery, the Tonle Sap, is 
compared to only 13.53% for fisheries (MoALi, 2018). Customary land dependent upon the hydrological flow regime of the Mekong River, 
rights are rarely upheld, especially for minorities (WorldFish infor- which is increasingly altered by the river infrastructure development, 
mant). Myanmar’s National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS - especially hydropower (Hecht, Lacombe, Arias, Dang, & Piman, 2019). 
Ministry of Forestry, 2009), for example, allows for the granting of land Dam developments upstream in Lao PDR and China have drastically 
without a legally recognised title (termed ‘vacant, fallow and virgin reduced flow (Lovgren, 2020). These changes to flow, coupled with 
land’) to private entrepreneurs for commercial-scale fish culture, even consecutive years of drought (Lovgren, 2020; WorldFish informant) 
4
N. Duncan et al.                                                                                                                                                                                     W   o  r l d   D  e v  e  lo  p  m   e n  t  P  e r  s p e  c t i v  es 22 (2021) 100318
have compounded the effects of flooded forest conversion to agriculture, Discourse about the trade-offs of irrigation and energy to aquatic eco-
all issues which are managed separately and with very little regard to systems is lacking, symptomatic of an entrenched sectoralism that un-
fish (WorldFish informants). dermines integrated development planning in both countries and 
That the purported policy focus on smallholder poverty reduction overlooks the role of social contexts which mitigate the extent to which 
and nutrition security has not permeated the management of the sectors individuals can participate and benefit from development investments. 
which affect fisheries most (agriculture, irrigation and energy) reflects 
the systemic dissonance of the irrigation/agriculture development bias. 
Fig. 2. Technical fisheries mitigation and enhancement intervention possibilities across an irrigated landscape. Note. Figure reproduced from “An ecosystem approach to 
promote the integration and coexistence of fisheries within irrigation systems” by R. Gregory, S. Funge-Smith and L. Baumgartner, 2018, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture 
Circular (1169). Copyright 2018 by FAO. Reproduced with permission. 
5
N. Duncan et al.                                                                                                                                                                                     W   o  r l d   D  e v  e  lo  p  m   e n  t  P  e r  s p e  c t i v  es 22 (2021) 100318
5. Enhancing irrigated landscapes through technical-based species are beginning, with fish passage being designed for at least one 
solutions to reintegrate fish: Fish passage, aquaculture and fish key site and landscape connectivity focus and a regional approach to 
refuge technology river connectivity are being applied (Conallin et al., 2019). In Cambodia, 
the technology is also being implemented, although it’s still in its in-
Negative environmental impacts of WCI include fragmentation of fancy (Baumgartner et al., 2017). Within both countries these initiatives 
free-flowing rivers which prevents fish from accessing habitat for were originally technical performance-based remediation projects, with 
feeding, spawning and dispersing and can lead to significant declines. In an emphasis on fish biomass and cost-benefit attributes of the fish pas-
the context of growing human demands and increasing environmental sage at key sites to ensure minimal impact on existing irrigation infra-
volatility, the importance of agricultural sectors in meeting develop- structure. The assumption that more fish equals pro-poor outcomes 
ment targets in Myanmar and Cambodia as elsewhere (Zirbel, Grman, forms the basis of these initiatives, but presently, there are orders of 
Bassett, & Brudvig, 2019; Raiten & Combs, 2019) is underlined. Main- magnitude more structures which do not contain fish passages, than 
taining freshwater biodiversity and habitat connectivity through ‘fish- those that do. Prioritisation is a key factor. More needs to be done to 
friendly’ infrastructure and practices (Baumgartner et al., 2016; have fish passage considered a “mainstream” part of decision making, 
McCartney et al., 2019) could present a more food secure, environ- and to have governance mechanisms to achieve social benefits included 
mentally sustainable and economically equitable way forward (Freed within fish passage initiatives. Often this technology is seen as an un-
et al., 2020). Efforts to ameliorate WCI’s negative impacts have focused necessary cost, despite benefits being better-defined in recent times 
on technical solutions, such as the installation of fish passages in the (Cooper, Crase, & Baumgartner, 2019). 
Lower Mekong (Baumgartner, Boys, Barlow, & Roy, 2017), which allow 
fish to bypass dam infrastructure and re-enter formerly unobstructed 5.2. Aquaculture 
landscapes (Baumgartner et al., 2021; Conallin et al., 2019). Other 
technologies such as aquaculture have been introduced partly to Recognition that capture fishery production cannot be substantially 
compensate for undermined natural fisheries (Golden et al., 2017). Both increased to match human population growth has made aquaculture an 
are technical solutions which work in combination with WCI. Both attractive proposition to guarantee fish through intensified production 
require significant capital investment however and livelihood (Reverter et al., 2020). When fish are cultured concurrently with rice, 
improvement for marginalised groups is not guaranteed (Rajee & Mun, land productivity can be doubled (Dubois et al., 2019), and aquaculture 
2017). has been found to create jobs, with better wages, including for women 
Food production has been identified as the single most influential (Belton, Filipski, & Hu, 2017; Stevenson & Irz, 2009), all while 
sector in improving socioecological outcomes and achieving SDGs increasing production of fish for human consumption. Sector profit-
(Willett et al., 2019). Presently, accounting for existing wild aquatic ability has been demonstrated in the region, with Vietnam, Thailand and 
food systems in irrigation planning is an afterthought in rural develop- Bangladesh consuming and exporting large amounts of farmed fish 
ment efforts (McCartney et al., 2019). Integrating fisheries through (Belton et al., 2015). However, the substantial investments needed for 
infrastructure modification, operational changes and value adding en- profitable operations represent a barrier to entry for low-income 
terprises has been shown to measurably increase fish numbers within households (Belton et al., 2017; Chertkov, 2020). Some socio- 
irrigated areas and present an alternative to the current rice-centric ecological impacts are described in Fig. 3 (Stevenson & Irz, 2009). 
approach (Dubois et al., 2019; McCartney et al., 2019), increasing irri- In Myanmar, aquaculture is primarily freshwater, concentrated in 
gated agriculture’s long-term viability (McCartney et al., 2019). Greg- the Ayeyarwady Delta, and controlled by approximately 100 large farms 
ory, Funge-Smith, and Baumgartner (2018) illustrate several methods of (van Beijnen, 2018). Small-scale aquaculture occurs throughout the 
integrating fish friendly design into irrigated landscapes (Fig. 2), Delta, much of this illegally due to restrictive land use policy (Belton 
underlining that an integrated and holistic approach is needed to et al., 2015). Unlike in Cambodia where the industry is relatively low 
maintain a key aspect of aquatic ecology; connectivity. Rarely is such an technology and inefficient (Joffre, Pant, Somony, Chantrea, & Viseth, 
approach taken however, as there are few examples worldwide of where 2019), aquaculture accounts for 35% of all catch in Myanmar (FAO, 
fish-friendly design was implemented from inception (Conallin et al., 2020). Several investments have been made to date, including MYCul-
2019). This highlights a common problem where fisheries are consid- ture (Akester, 2019), GIFT (Chertkov, 2020) and WISH ponds (Karim 
ered after the fact and are usually only discussed in irrigation planning et al., 2020). Government-led efforts to demarcate riparian and riverine 
when fishery decline occurs, and the resource base is impacted. areas of the Ayeyarwady Delta for aquaculture development have 
resulted in displacement of many (Hein & Belton, 2017; WorldFish 
5.1. Fish passage informant), and where scheme design is singularly oriented to fish 
production and maximum profit (WorldFish informant), poor and 
Fish passage design is focussed on ensuring fish can move through landless can experience a double inequity: being simultaneously 
WCI to complete essential life history processes. It is a globally recog- excluded from land, water and fishery resources and barely supported by 
nised technical solution currently being applied in SE Asian rivers, investments (Pasgaard & Chea, 2013). In Cambodia, where formerly 
including in Lao PDR (Baumgartner et al., 2018). The type and location abundant freshwater capture fisheries are declining, aquaculture is 
of fish passage can have diverse outcomes for different social groups gaining traction (MRC informant), however strong competition from 
within the same irrigation area. For example, providing fish passage on already established aquaculture industries in neighbouring Vietnam and 
river mainstreams in Myanmar may benefit leaseholders who typically Thailand, limited access to quality seed, expensive imported feed, poor 
control river fisheries, whereas natural wetlands are more often utilised biosecurity and inadequate training and support have restricted the in-
by landless fishers. Reinstating connectivity to natural wetlands and dustry (Panha, 2018). 
ponds may therefore better serve poorer sectors of the community, and, 
as these habitats are important nursery areas for economically important 5.3. Fish-Rice systems 
fish, flow on effects to other fishing groups could be realised. The type of 
fish passage may also influence the distribution of benefits as lease- Rice-field fisheries (RFFs) are an important common pool resource in 
holders typically target large fish, while small-scale fishers more often Cambodia which occurs within irrigated landscapes naturally contain-
rely on small-bodied species. Fish passage that allows for both sizes of ing wild fish and other aquatic species. RFFs are facilitated by the variety 
fish to travel through may provide wider benefits, at an economic cost of aquatic habitats within rice agroecosystems, the seasonal inundation 
depending on the type of passage built. of rice fields and overflow of perennial water sources, which allow fish 
In Myanmar, initiatives to re-instate connectivity for migratory fish to disperse across the landscape to spawn and feed in shallow, nutrient 
6
N. Duncan et al.                                                                                                                                                                                     W   o  r l d   D  e v  e  lo  p  m   e n  t  P  e r  s p e  c t i v  es 22 (2021) 100318
Fig. 3. Aquaculture and poverty reduction: potential impact pathways. Note. Reproduced from “Is aquaculture development an effective tool for poverty alleviation? A review 
of theory and evidence” by J. Stevenson and X. Irz, 2009, Cahiers Agricultures, 18, 292-299. https://doi.org/10.1684/agr.2009.0286. Copyright 2014 by CIRAD. 
Reproduced with permission. 
rich, flooded rice paddies (Freed et al., 2020). RFFs are supported by wellbeing and participation to ensure that the least advantaged in so-
water storage infrastructure such as canals, ditches and household ciety are not marginalised. Similarly, based on social justice ideology, 
ponds, and purpose-built community fish refuges (CFRs). Rice-fish cul- Gidley et al. argue that increasing social inclusion “is about human 
ture; the practice of raising fish stocks in privately owned ditches, canals rights, egalitarianism of opportunity, human dignity, and fairness for 
and ponds, for personal nutritional and economic benefit (Halwart & all”, where “its primary aim is to enable all human beings to participate 
Gupta, 2004), also occurs. Conflicts can occur between agriculture fully in society with respect for their human dignity” (2010, p. 9). 
focussed and fish focussed water users (Sithirith, 2017) during dry pe- Safeguarding the engagement and participation of all societal groups is 
riods when landless people trespass on to private property to access fish therefore key to inclusive development (Gidley, Hampson, Wheeler, & 
(Dey et al., 2005). Bereded-Samuel, 2010). One approach to this could be through proce-
dural justice, or the fairness of the decision-making process (Venot & 
6. Discussion Clement, 2013), where who participates in and influences decision- 
making is shaped by recognition, in turn determined by social iden-
6.1. The challenge of inclusive development within unequal social tity, linked to the heterogeneity of identities in a community. Social and 
landscapes procedural justice are important in our context with respect to both 
ensuring equitable access to irrigation and fish resources, and mitigating 
While fish passages, aquaculture and other technical investments can trade-offs between irrigation development and aquatic ecosystems, 
enhance fish populations within landscapes, neither the infrastructure since it appears that disadvantaged groups lack adequate institutional 
nor increased fish biomass guarantees socially inclusive development capacity and legitimacy to participate in natural-resource decision 
unless social inequalities are concurrently addressed to secure equitable making in Myanmar (WorldFish informants) and Cambodia (WorldFish 
benefit distribution. Limited representation and agency of marginalised & Gembloux AgroBio Tech informants). 
groups in the shaping of interventions and benefit sharing arrangements 
can lead to poorly targeted development projects and exacerbate issues 6.3. Social inclusion in the context of heterogeneity, marginalisation and 
of access to fish and water resources, prompting the question, fish for multi-scalar complexity 
whom? 
In general terms, heterogeneity can be understood as being diverse in 
6.2. Social inclusion and distributive and procedural justice character or content. In the context of irrigation or other common-pool 
resource use, social heterogeneity is the result of intersections between 
In considering social inclusion in the context of the SDGs, Gupta et al. features of a particular collection of people such as a village or larger 
(2014) note that social goals tend to be marginalized in the imple- society and is strongly embedded in social identity. Intersecting factors 
mentation of sustainable development while economic growth is prior- may include economic, social and cultural, or other characteristics. For 
itized, such that many development challenges are essentially issues of example, while gender norms and hierarchies shape nature-society in-
distribution. Rawls’ (1971) view of social justice emphasizes the need terrelations (Agarwal, 1994; Leach et al., 2007), the experience of 
for fairness in the distribution of goods and opportunities with respect to gender inequalities is impacted by other axes of vulnerability such as 
7
N. Duncan et al.                                                                                                                                                                                     W   o  r l d   D  e v  e  lo  p  m   e n  t  P  e r  s p e  c t i v  es 22 (2021) 100318
class, race, religion, ethnicity, age, or disability. Social and cultural be articulated by the interrelated notions of distributive justice, proce-
rules, norms and practices determine that reliance on, access to, use and dural justice and recognition (Schlosberg, 2003; 2004). 
control of natural resources varies significantly. For example in Avoiding elite capture of natural resources and equitably distributing 
Myanmar, Angeles, Barbesgaard, and Franco (2019) demonstrate benefits to marginal groups has proven enormously challenging 
gendered impacts of development interventions for women and men in (Andersson & Ostrom, 2008; Dasgupta & Beard, 2007; Platteau & Gas-
labour participation, community roles and access to resources, where part, 2003). Inclusivity and access pathways are rarely considerations in 
women are often “invisible and unacknowledged” (2019, p.75) as fish- the planning, implementation and evaluation stages of many irrigation, 
eries is perceived as a male domain despite women’s crucial role in fisheries, and other rural development projects (Hein & Belton, 2017; 
fishery value chains. The land rights claims of marginalised ethnic Kaminski et al., 2020; Johnstone, 2016), as evidenced by the scarcity of 
groups are likewise known to be ignored or dismissed when demarcating examples from the literature and experiences of key informants. Exter-
formerly commons wetlands to private commercial aquaculture nally conceived projects tend to ignore or oversimplify the social context 
(WorldFish informants). Landless people are excluded all together from in which technical solutions are applied, often failing to incorporate 
the direct benefits of irrigation, though they may indirectly benefit from adequate management strategies for the human aspects of resource use 
lower food prices (Royal University of Agriculture Cambodia, WorldFish (Saunders, 2014). Questions of benefit distribution are left to be deter-
& MRC informants). The plurality in interests, needs, vulnerabilities and mined by power relations within rural communities (Saunders, 2014), 
agency of diverse groups therefore unfold in different ways in spaces, and evaluating livelihood improvement impacts of investment remains 
such as the household, community and the “commons”, which are challenging (Béné et al., 2016; Kandulu & Connor, 2017). 
therefore complex, dynamically evolving spaces (Clement, Harcourt, Myanmar’s leasable fisheries system exemplifies the way vertical 
Joshi, & Sato, 2019). Moving beyond social factors, Bardhan and laws and horizontal inequalities interact to enable local elites to capture 
Dayton-Johnson (2002) point out that locational differences in land- the country’s most productive fishing grounds (Box 1). The exclusive 
holding can provide different strategic opportunities (and disadvan- access rights granted to leaseholders for resource exploitation are 
tages). This would apply in the case of upstream–downstream irrigators designed for maximum rent extraction and are auctioned at a price 
or fishers with access rights linked to specific locations. When correlated which precludes small-scale fishers from competing with wealthy op-
with wealth, fishers with more or better equipment will enjoy greater erators, even if resources are pooled (Khin et al., 2020). Leases are also 
capacity to extract fish and capture a larger portion of the resource. used to reward specific individuals, who, although they may sublease 
These interactions between social, economic and other factors cause the operation of the fishery, remain in control of the profits (Khin et al., 
a plurality of values and interpretations of social problems (Bardhan and 2020). It is not only disparities in wealth that disenfranchise small-scale 
Dayton-Johnson, 2002), which can impede cooperation and inclusion in fishers; government policy prioritizes revenue through low transaction 
the use and sharing of resources, which undermines irrigation perfor- cost resource exploitation models that are blind to the fishery’s 
mance unless appropriate management institutions are adopted. More- distributive potential. 
over, Howarth, Nott, Parajuli, and Dzhailobayev (2007) note that 
approaches dominated by engineering and infrastructure activities that 6.5. The way forward: Bridging the techno-social divide 
“glossed over the mixed livelihood strategies of water users, the nature 
of relationships in socially heterogeneous communities” and that it is the Without prior in-depth social research, development projects will be 
“particular interests and relationships” of local stakeholders that un- unable to sufficiently account for complex social landscapes and thus 
derpin the mixed performance of community-based irrigation manage- risk investments being ‘captured’. Mitigating uneven access and benefit 
ment (2007, p.2). These weaknesses arise because irrigation distribution is therefore highly relevant to investments’ contextual 
management and water distribution problems are often perceived to be relevance and ability to deliver benefits accessible to the cross-section of 
technical, and hence requiring only technical solutions. a community. The question that must be answered by governments and 
Problems of commons management are, moreover, not simply donors is how will the contextual inequalities that inhibit some groups’ 
“local” problems. Wider economic, social and political contexts shape influence on decision-making, meaningful engagement in planning, and 
social and environmental conditions and challenges in different ways active participation in implementation be addressed? 
(Fig. 1). Put together, this matrix of inequalities co-determines To tackle deep-rooted, intersectional inequalities that exist at scale, 
marginalization and vulnerability. For example, since water gover- we recommend that government, donors and development implemen-
nance is polycentric, (nested at multiple jurisdictional levels), with ters firstly recognize that investments in manipulating landscapes for 
multiple centres of decision making (Aligica & Tarko, 2012), intra- human development must address both ecological and human aspects of 
community relationships have both horizontal (local) and vertical social-ecological systems. This should lead to investments that no longer 
(larger scale) characteristics (Berkes, 2006; Pellow, 2017; Stewart, treat technical innovation as the final solution, but rather as a midway 
2002). Polycentrism and historical narratives in which social relations point, to be strongly linked to action in the social domain. In fact, we 
are rooted (Agarwal, 2003; Saunders, 2014), add to the contextual suggest that technical investments be conceived, designed and imple-
complexity in which investments and actors are ‘embedded’. Thus, root mented within specific social contexts, informed by co-creative pro-
causes of inequality are deeply structural and hierarchical (Agarwal, cesses to ensure that project planning adequately allocates time and 
1994; Leach et al., 2007), and represent relations of power, privilege and resources to understand and reflect the social dimensions of an inter-
(in)justice at scale (Fraser, 1996). vention. This should include integration of local knowledge and 
contextual appropriateness of infrastructure design and operation as 
6.4. The risk of elite capture in designing and implementing technical well as mechanisms for inclusive and equitable access to benefits. Such 
interventions attention to distributive and procedural justice will help project design 
and implementation move beyond rhetorical notions of participation to 
A key manifestation of social heterogeneity impacting the outcomes more robust, inclusive designs. Inclusion is fundamentally about man-
of investments is elite capture. Schmidt and Theesfeld (2012) define aging the politics of context: understanding wider social, political and 
elite capture as “the tendency of local elites – that is, local individuals or economic contexts, not just to understand how these shape structural 
groups with disproportionate access to social, political, and economic inequalities in decision-making, but equally to understand the plural 
power – to dominate or capture participatory projects.” Such dominance mandates and interests that shape resource access, management and 
gives rise to “local tyrannies” (Andersson & Ostrom, 2008) based upon benefit distribution. Box 2 presents a case study of community fish 
the manipulation of rules by the powerful to suit their interests, often at refuge (CFR) investment in Cambodia to illustrate this. Transforming 
the expense of other stakeholders. Elite capture and marginalisation can structural barriers is key to addressing inequality in diverse groups 
8
N. Duncan et al.                                                                                                                                                                                     W   o  r l d   D  e v  e  lo  p  m   e n  t  P  e r  s p e  c t i v  es 22 (2021) 100318
Box 1 
. A case study on the exclusionary impacts of leasable fisheries in Myanmar 
An examination of youth engagement in inland fisheries by the International Water Management Institute (Arulingam et al, in review) dem-
onstrates how investments in irrigation (canals, sluice gates) and other WCI have decimated the productivity of the local inland fishery in 
Kyonkadun village in the Ayeyarwady Delta. In this case, the leasable fishery system has compounded the plight of landless and smallholder 
households by excluding them from the remaining productive fishing areas, illustrating how more inclusive community fisheries management 
initiatives are fettered by the monopolistic influence of the leasable fishery, whereby the landholding fishery leaseholders shut out small-scale 
fishers. Local youth report disenfranchisement, and are now seeking alternate livelihood options away from the village. The out-migration of 
this next generation will result not only in the loss of labour, but generational knowledge of the natural resources system, meaning the loss of 
local environmental custodians. The convergence of sector-driven WCI investments and exclusionary, rent-seeking fisheries management policy 
undermines multi-functional landscapes and the contribution of inland fisheries to local poverty reduction and nutritional diversity. Considered 
in the context of the more than 300 other existing sites of WCI in the Ayeyarwady Delta provides pause for contemplation as to the cumulative 
impacts across the Delta.  
within and between households (de la Torre-Castro, 2019; Rao, 2017). bottom-up, co-creative processes, where the project was the facilitator 
This will require a shift in thinking and considerable investment. rather than the agenda and rule setter. 
While other mediating factors no doubt contributed, this short case Mediating social heterogeneity will require institutions built through 
study is one example where collective resource governance appears to an iterative process of social engagement beginning in the goal setting 
have been achieved with benefits for ecosystems and associated human phase. To illustrate how the principles of institutional co-creation can fit 
communities. Conscious of both horizontal and vertical actors, the Rice within technical investments, Fig. 4 represents a modified version of a 
Field Fisheries Enhancement Project appears to have by and large figure from Lynch et al. (2019). In its original form, investments in 
overcome the challenges of operationalising CPR theory and design increasing inland fish resources were assumed to automatically result in 
principles in local contexts where power is distributed unequally (e.g. greater food security and nutrition. The original figure aptly illustrates 
Ostrom 1990, Saunders 2014). Accounting for the full range of stake- the current conception of development investments as solely technical 
holders not only reduced conflict (Miratori et al., 2019), but brought to fixes. To bridge the techno-social divide, we recommend “Multi-scale, 
bear local knowledge derived from life-long experiences with the nat- representative institutions to foster sustainable resource management, 
ural system in question, enriching problem analysis and promoting a inclusive access to fish and equitable benefit flows“ (Fig. 4). This is 
context-relevant rules system (Andersson & Ostrom, 2008; Schmidt & notably the reverse of external and top-down approaches. In addition to 
Theesfeld, 2012). This reflects the application of ‘adaptive governance’ goals related to natural resource production, ensuring greater food se-
theory (Dietz, Ostrom, & Stern, 2003) and polycentric approaches curity, nutrition and income for a wider range of stakeholders consti-
(Aligica & Tarko, 2012) that link local level action to higher levels of tutes a key goal. The steps that follow move through analysis of the 
governance. Moreover, awareness of social diversity and inequality status quo considering the agreed goal(s), which includes explicitly 
enabled representation and more effective management through acknowledging inequalities, power asymmetries and underlying drivers, 
Box 2 
. Community-managed fish refuges in Cambodia: An example of institution building to address the techno-social divide. 
After Cambodia’s Fisheries Administration (FiA) decided to designate CFRs to enhance productivity of rice field fisheries, the Rice Field Fisheries 
Enhancement Project (2012–2016), led by WorldFish, in collaboration with the FiA and financed by USAID, set out to pilot best management 
practices for the CFRs. Core objectives included local enhancement of fishery productivity; local poverty reduction and improved nutrition 
through greater access to fish. As co-management arrangements are used to govern Cambodia’s fisheries, local communities were considered 
both the custodians and beneficiaries of well-managed CFRs. The CFRs were established on a theoretical framework that: 
builds on the premise that common-pool resources such as community fish refuges are complex systems that are often treated as public and open 
resources that everybody has access to and community members’ knowledge of and participation in their management is paramount to sustain 
such resources (Phala, Sarin, Suvedi, & Ghimire, 2019). 
A systematic approach including investment in an inclusive institution (the Community Fish Refuge governing committee), networks, part-
nerships and fora to enable the inclusion of CFR issues within wider planning for local and provincial governance, was central to this frame-
work’s operationalization. Governance capacity-building for CFR committees focussed on five areas: appropriate institutional structure, 
inclusive planning and implementation, effective resource mobilization, networking with external stakeholders and equitable representation (de 
Silva et al., 2017). Engagement of local resource users, commune council members, fisheries officers, environment officers, military police, 
district officials and regional governors was enabled through sharing of responsibilities and recognition for achievements; helping to minimise 
negative impacts of power imbalance and the potential for governance traps (Suhardiman et al., 2017). Using the Tonle Sap region as the frame 
of reference encouraged groups to think beyond their immediate geography, promoting a multi-scalar awareness of challenges and options for 
their management (de Silva et al., 2017). The process of collective analysis and institutional design built project legitimacy amongst local and 
external stakeholders and represents an example of procedural justice. 
This process of institutional co-creation has yielded promising results. Resource conflicts were reduced through negotiated and agreed upon 
limits to water exploitation in the CFRs and better coordination between water users (de Silva et al., 2017). In the second year of the project, fish 
production increased by 17%, worth USD 1.8–2.1 million (Brooks & Sieu, 2016). Phala et al. (2019) found households were catching 0.8 kg more 
fish per day, while the variability of catch among households reduced, suggesting CFRs contribute to income equalization among community 
members. Household savings and family expenditure had consequently increased significantly  
9
N. Duncan et al.                                                                                                                                                                                     W   o  r l d   D  e v  e  lo  p  m   e n  t  P  e r  s p e  c t i v  es 22 (2021) 100318
Fig. 4. Development process components necessary to promote inclusive growth. Note. Figure adapted from “Speaking the same language: can the sustainable development 
goals translate the needs of inland fisheries into irrigation decisions?” by A. Lynch et al., 2019, Marine and Freshwater Research, 70(9). doi:https://doi.org/10.107 
1/mf19176. Copyright 2019 by CSIRO. Adapted with permission. 
enabling finally the design of contextually appropriate institutional physically through fish/rice production, but socio-ecologically, which 
structures, participation schemes, and rules fit for achieving desired at present is poorly articulated in performance evaluation frameworks 
goals. and investor strategies. This should result in more precise cost/benefit 
analysis disaggregated across predicted beneficiary groups and a 
7. Conclusion reduction in unexpected or unintended social-ecological consequences. 
The development of frameworks for measuring performance against 
Reintegrating fisheries can enhance landscape multi-functionality, indicators of inclusive outcomes which go beyond binary, superficial 
contribute to agricultural and ecological resilience, and enhance food statistics will likely require development design teams to become more 
and nutrition security. However, as we have demonstrated, infrastruc- multidisciplinary. Perhaps most importantly, political will to break 
ture alone is not enough to translate investments into these improve- away from the well-trodden path of business-as-usual is necessary. The 
ments, especially for marginalised groups, who compete from a position onus is on donors and governments to recognize and account for this 
of disadvantage for resources and investment benefits. For inclusion to inextricable link between ecological and social systems in planning, 
become reality within future development investments, gaining an designing and implementing development programs to ensure more 
appropriate understanding of social context, including incorporating equitable benefit distribution for those they are seeking to uplift. 
local knowledge, prior to design and implementation, will aid greater Funding 
customisation of investments such as fish passage, aquaculture and This work was undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Program on 
irrigation amongst others. We propose that institution building is of Fish Agri-Food Systems (FISH) led by WorldFish and the Water, Land 
critical importance in bridging the techno-social gap that we argue and Ecosystems (WLE) CRP led by IWMI. The program is supported by 
currently exists, with Fig. 4 representing the social component that contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund. 
future investments must include. 
We therefore call for the reconceptualization of water infrastructure 
to align with SDGs, arguing that WCI need perform not only bio- 
10
N. Duncan et al.                                                                                                                                                                                     W   o  r l d   D  e v  e  lo  p  m   e n  t  P  e r  s p e  c t i v  es 22 (2021) 100318
CRediT authorship contribution statement Bann, C., & Sopha, L. (2020). Increasing the visibility of small-scale fisheries in Cambodia’s 
national planning [Working paper]. International Institute for Environment and 
Development. 
Nicolette Duncan: Visualization, Investigation, Data curation, Bebbington, J., & Unerman, J. (2018). Achieving the United Nations sustainable 
Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Sanjiv Silva: Visualization, development goals. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 31(1). https://doi. 
Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Supervision. org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2017-2929/. 
Belton, B., Filipski, M., & Hu, C. (2017). Aquaculture in Myanmar: Fish farm technology, 
John Conallin: Visualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - production economics and management (Research paper 52). Michigan State University.  
original draft, Supervision. Sarah Freed: Writing - review & editing. Belton, B., Hein, A., Htoo, K., Kham, L. S., Nischan, U., Reardon, T., et al. (2015). 
Michael Akester: Visualization, Writing - review & editing. Lee Aquaculture in transition: Value chain transformation, fish and food security in Myanmar 
Baumgartner: Visualization, Writing - review & editing. Matthew (Research paper 8). Michigan State University.  
Béné, C., Arthur, R., Norbury, H., Allison, E. H., Beveridge, M., Bush, S., et al. (2016). 
McCartney: Visualization, Writing - review & editing. Mark Dubois: Contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to food security and poverty reduction: 
Visualization, Writing - review & editing. Sonali Senaratna Sell- Assessing the current evidence. World Development, 79, 177–196. https://doi.org/ 
amuttu: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.007. 
Berkes, F. (2006). From community based resource management to complex systems: 
Writing - review & editing. The scale issue and marine commons. Ecology and Society, 11(1). https://www.jstor. 
org/stable/26267815?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents. 
Declaration of Competing Interest Blankenship, J. L., Cashin, J., Nguyen, T. T., & Ip, H. (2020). Childhood stunting and 
wasting in Myanmar: Key drivers and implications for policies and programmes. 
Maternal & Child Nutrition, 16(S2). https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.v16.s210.1111/ 
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial mcn.12710. 
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and 
design. Harvard University Press.  
the work reported in this paper. Brooks, A., & Sieu, C. (2016). The potential of community fish refuges (CFRs) in rice field 
agro-ecosystems for improving food and nutrition security in the Tonle Sap region. 
Acknowledgements WorldFish. shorturl.at/dHLR3. 
Chan, B., Brosse, S., Hogan, Z. S., Ngor, P. B., & Lek, S. (2020). Influence of local habitat 
and climatic factors on the distribution of fish species in the Tonle Sap Lake. Water, 
The authors acknowledge the invaluable contribution of the key in- 12(3), 786. 
formants and wish to express thanks to the funding bodies for their Chertkov, G. (2020). Quantifying pond and labor productivity of small-holder 
support. aquaculture farmers in the central dry-zone of Myanmar [Masters thesis]. Stuttgart 
Germany: University of Hohenheim. http://opus.unihohenheim.de/volltexte/202 
0/1786/pdf/GEORGI_CHERTKOV_MASTERS_THESIS_1.pdf. 
References Choe, H., & Yun, S. J. (2017). Revisiting the concept of common pool resources. Beyond 
Ostrom Development and Society, 46(1), 113–129. https://www.jstor.org/stable/ 
90011214. 
Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Clement, F., Harcourt, W., Joshi, D., & Sato, C. (2019). Feminist political ecologies of the 
Geography, 24(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913200701540465. commons and commoning [Editorial to the Special Feature]. International Journal of 
Agarwal, B. (1994). A field of one’s own: Gender and land rights in South Asia. Cambridge the Commons, 13(1). http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.972. 
University Press.  Conallin, J. C., Baumgartner, L. J., Lunn, Z., Akester, M., Win, N., Tun, N. N., et al. 
Agarwal, B. (2003). Gender and land rights revisited: Exploring new prospects via the (2019). Migratory fishes in Myanmar rivers and wetlands: Challenges for sustainable 
state, family and market. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(1–2), 184–224. https://doi. development between irrigation water control infrastructure and sustainable inland 
org/10.1111/1471-0366.00054. capture fisheries. Marine and Freshwater Research, 70(9), 1241. https://doi.org/ 
Akester, M. J. (2019, 11 December). MYCulture: Project overall review. WorldFish. 10.1071/MF19180. 
https://digitalarchive.worldfishcenter.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12348/4121/ Cooper, B., Crase, L., & Baumgartner, L. J. (2019). Estimating benefits and costs: A case 
c5b6e3 aacca679e73dd604df6e856807.pdf. of fish passages in Lao PDR and the development of the Lower Mekong fishway 
Aligica, P. D., & Tarko, V. (2012). Polycentricity: From Polanyi to Ostrom, and beyond. support tool. Marine and Freshwater Research, 79(9), 1284–1294. https://doi.org/ 
Governance, 25(2), 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2011.01550.x. 10.1071/MF19156. 
Al Mamun, S., Nasrat, F., & Debi, M. R. (2011). Integrated farming system: Prospects in Council for Agricultural and Rural Development. (2014). http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/doc 
Bangladesh. Journal of Environmental Science and Natural Resources, 4(2), 127–136. s/pdf/cam152935.pdf. 
https://doi.org/10.3329/jesnr.v4i2.10161. Cramb, R. (2020). The evolution of rice farming in the Lower Mekong Basin. In R. Cramb 
Andersson, K. P., & Ostrom, E. (2008). Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a (Ed.), White gold: The commercialisation of rice farming in the Lower Mekong Basin (pp. 
polycentric perspective. Policy Sciences, 41(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 227–245). Palgrave Macmillan.  
s11077-007-9055-6. Dasgupta, A., & Beard, V. A. (2007). Community driven development, collective action 
Angeles, M. B., Barbesgaard, M., & Franco, J. (2019). Trends in small-scale fisheries in and elite capture in Indonesia. Development and Change, 38(2), 229–249. https://doi. 
Myanmar: tenure rights and gender. In L. Westlund and J. Zelasney (Eds.), Securing org/10.1111/dech.2007.38.issue-210.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00410.x. 
sustainable small-scale fisheries: Sharing good practices from around the world Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 
(Tehnical paper 644, pp. 67–86). FAO. 302(5652), 1907–1912. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015. 
Arulingam, I., de Silva, S., Senaratna Sellamuttu, S., & Palal, M. (In review). Youth de la Torre-Castro, M. (2019). Inclusive management through gender consideration in 
livelihood aspirations and realities: What role for fisheries? A case-study of small scale fisheries: The why and the how. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 1–11. 
Kyonkadun Village, Ayeyarwady Delta, Myanmar. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00156. 
Baran, E., Ko, W. K., Wah, Z. Z., Nwe, K. M., Ghataure, G., & Soe, K. M. (2018). Fisheries de Silva, S., Johnston, R., & Senaratna Sellamuttu, S. (2014). Agriculture, irrigation and 
in the Ayeyarwady Basin. National Water Resources Committee. http://airbm.org/ poverty reduction in Cambodia: Policy narratives and ground realities compared 
downloads/SOBA/SOBA%204.1%20Fisheries%20report_2017_F.pdf. (Working Paper: AAS-2014-13). CGIAR. shorturl.at/gxLT1. 
Bardhan, P., & Dayton-Johnson, J. (2002). Unequal irrigators: Heterogeneity and de Silva, S., Miratori, K., Bastakoti, R. C., & Ratner, B. D. (2017). Collective action and 
commons management in large-scale multivariate research. In E. Ostrom (Ed.), The governance challenges in Tonle Sap Lake, Cambodia. In D. Suhardiman, A. Nicol, & 
drama of the commons (pp. 87–112). National Academy Press.  E. Mapedza (Eds.), Water governance and collective action: Multi-scale challenges 
Baumgartner, L., Marsden, T., Millar, J., Thorncraft, G., Phonekhampheng, O., (pp. 108-119). Routledge. 
Singhanouvong, D., et al. (2016). Development of fish passage technology to Dey, M. M., Prein, M., Mahfuzul Haque, A. B. M., Sultana, P., Cong Dan, N., & Van 
increase fisheries production on floodplains in the Lower Mekong basin. Australian Hao, N. (2005). Economic feasibility of community-based fish culture in seasonally 
Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). flooded rice fields in Bangladesh and Vietnam. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 
Baumgartner, L. J., Boys, C. A., Barlow, C., & Roy, M. (2017). Lower Mekong fish passage 9(1–2), 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657300590961591. 
conference: Applying innovation to secure fisheries productivity. Ecological Dubois, M. J., Akester, M., Leemans, K., Teoh, S. J., Stuart, A., Thant, A. M., et al. (2019). 
Management & Restoration, 18(3), E8–E12. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.2017.18. Integrating fish into irrigation infrastructure projects in Myanmar: Rice-fish what 
issue-310.1111/emr.12272. if…? Marine and Freshwater Research, 70(9), 1229. https://doi.org/10.1071/ 
Baumgartner, L. J., Boys, C. A., Marsden, T., McPherson, J., Ning, N., MF19182. 
Phonekhampheng, O., et al. (2018). Comparing fishway designs for application in a Emmerton, M., Thorncraft, S., Oksanen, S., Soe, M., Hlaing, K. K., Thein, Y. Y, et al. 
large tropical river system. Ecological Engineering, 120, 36–43. https://doi.org/ (2015). Myanmar Energy Master Plan. Proceedings of the National Energy Management 
10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.05.027. Committee Myanmar. NayPyiTaw, Myanmar. 
Baumgartner, L. J., Barlow, C., Mallen-Cooper, M., Boys, C., Marsden, T., Thorncraft, G., FAO. (2003). Myanmar: Mission report on inland aquaculture and fisheries (Report, no. 
et al. (2021). Achieving fish passage outcomes at irrigation infrastructure; a case 2003/18). 
study from the Lower Mekong Basin. Aquaculture and Fisheries, 6(2), 113–124. FAO. (2019). Country profiles. The Republic of the Union of Myanmar. http://www.fao. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2018.12.008. org/fishery/facp/MMR/en.  
11
N. Duncan et al.                                                                                                                                                                                     W   o  r l d   D  e v  e  lo  p  m   e n  t  P  e r  s p e  c t i v  es 22 (2021) 100318
FAO. (2021). http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_cambodia/en#:~:text Karim, M., Leemans, K., Akester, M., & Phillips, M. (2020). Performance of emergent 
=Aquaculture%20in%20Cambodia%20is%20separated,practices%20are%20pred aquaculture technologies in Myanmar; challenges and opportunities. Aquaculture, 
ominately%20small%2Dscale. 519, 734875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734875. 
Félix, E. G. S., & Belo, T. F. (2019). The impact of microcredit on poverty reduction in Karpati, J., Neubourg, C., Laillou, A., & Poirot, E. (2020). Improving children’s 
eleven developing countries in south-east Asia. Journal of Multinational Financial nutritional status in Cambodia: Multidimensional poverty and early integrated 
Management, 52, 100590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mulfin.2019.07.003. interventions. Maternal & Child Nutrition, 16(S2). https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.v16. 
Fisheries Administration. (2011). Cambodia strategic planning framework for fisheries s210.1111/mcn.12731. 
2010-2019. RGC. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/cam143042.pdf. KC, K. B., Bond, N., Fraser, E. D. G., Elliott, V., Farrell, T., McCann, K., et al. (2017). 
Fraser, N. (1996). April 30-May 2). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Exploring tropical fisheries through fishers’ perceptions: Fishing down the food web 
Redistribution, recognition, and participation [Presentation]. The Tanner Lectures on in the Tonlé Sap. Cambodia. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 24(6), 452–459. 
Human Values. Stanford University. shorturl.at/uyCHT.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12246. 
Freed, S., Kura, Y., Sean, V., Mith, S., Cohen, P., Kim, M., et al. (2020). Rice field Khin, M., Baran, E., Grantham, R., Tezzo, X. S., & Johnstone, G. (2020). Myanmar inland 
fisheries: Wild aquatic species diversity, food provision services and contribution to fisheries and aquaculture: A decade in review. https://digitalarchive. 
inland fisheries. Fisheries Research, 229, 105615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. worldfishcenter.org/handle/20.500.12348/4049. 
fishres.2020.105615. Lawreniuk, S., & Parsons, L. (2020). Going nowhere fast: Mobile inequality in the age of 
Gidley, J. M., Hampson, G. P., Wheeler, L., & Bereded-Samuel, E. (2010). Social translocality. Oxford University Press.  
inclusion: Context, theory and practice. The Australian Journal of University- Leach, M., Bloom, G., Ely, A., Nightingale, P., Scoones, I., Shah, E. & Smith, A. (2007). 
Community Engagement, 5(1), 6–36. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? Understanding governance: Pathways to sustainability [Working Paper 2]. STEPS 
doi=10.1.1.982.606&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Centre. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/2440. 
Grabowski, R., & Self, S. (2020). Structural change in Asia, the real effective exchange Lee, B. C., Bendixsen, C., Liebman, A. K., & Gallagher, S. S. (2017). Using the socio- 
rate, and agricultural productivity. Journal of Economics and Finance, 44(1), ecological model to frame agricultural safety and health interventions. Journal of 
198–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12197-019-09493-5. Agromedicine, 22(4), 298–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2017.1356780. 
Global Nutrition Report. (2020). Cambodia nutrition profile. https:// Li, T. M. (2010). To make live or let die? Rural dispossession and the protection of 
globalnutritionreport.org/resources/nutrition-profiles/asia/south- easternasia/ surplus populations. Antipode, 41, 66–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 
cambodia/. 8330.2009.00717.x. 
Golden, C. D., Seto, K. L., Dey, M. M., Chen, O. L., Gephart, J. A., Myers, S. S., et al. Linn, K. N. (2020, June). https://www.myanmarwaterportal.com/news/1153-inland-fi 
(2017). Does aquaculture support the needs of nutritionally vulnerable nations? sheries-management-andintegrated-agriculture-improve-fish-availability-and-dietar 
Frontiers in Marine Science, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00159. y-diversity.html. 
Golden, C. D., Shapero, A., Vaitla, B., Smith, M. R., Myers, S. S., Stebbins, E. A., et al. Loughlin, N., & Milne, S. (2020). After the grab? Land control and regime survival in 
(2019). Impacts of hydropower development on fisheries and human nutrition in the Cambodia since 2012. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 51(3), 375–397. https://doi. 
Lower Mekong. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3, 93. https://doi.org/10.3389/ org/10.1080/00472336.2020.1740295. 
fsufs.2019.00093. Lovgren, S. (2020). https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/southeast- 
Gregory, R., Funge-Smith, S., & Baumgartner, L.. http://www.fao.org/3/CA2675EN/ca2 asia-most-critical-river-enters-uncharted-waters. 
675en.pdf. Lwin, H. Y., Ikuko, O., & Koichi, F. (2020). How the landless households survive in 
Gupta, J., Baud, I., Bekkers, R., Bernstein, S., Boas, I., Cornelissen, V., Iguchi, M., Kanie, Myanmar’s Central Dry Zone: Focusing on the role of interlinked credit transaction 
N., Kim, R. E., Bastos Lima, M., Obani, P., Schoof, P., Stevens, C. & van Zoomeren, D. between toddy palm climbers and traders. Asian and African Area. Studies, 20(1), 
(2014). Sustainable development goals and inclusive development (POST2015/ 65–91. https://www.asafas.kyoto-u-.ac.jp/dl/publications/no_2001/3_UI0237_Lwi 
UNU-IAS Policy Brief n #5). United Nations University Institute for the Advanced n.pdf. 
Study of Sustainability. http://earthsystemgovernance.net/sdg/sites/default/files/ Lynch, A. J., Cowx, I. G., Fluet-Chouinard, E., Glaser, S. M., Phang, S. C., Beard, T. D., 
files/publications/SDG Governance_PolicyBrief5.pdf. et al. (2017). Inland fisheries – Invisible but integral to the UN Sustainable 
Halwart, M., & Gupta, M. V. (2004). Culture of fish in rice fields. WorldFish: FAO. https:// Development Agenda for ending poverty by 2030. Global Environmental Change, 47, 
digitalarchive.worldfishcenter.org/handle/20.500.12348/2059. 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.10. 
Halls, A. S., & Hortle, K. G. (2021). Flooding is a key driver of the Tonle Sap dai fishery in Lynch, A. J., Baumgartner, L. J., Boys, C. A., Conallin, J., Cowx, I. G., Finlayson, C. M., & 
Cambodia. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018- Duncan, P. (2019). Speaking the same language: Can the sustainable development 
27340-1. goals translate the needs of inland fisheries into irrigation decisions? Marine and 
Hecht, J. S., Lacombe, G., Arias, M. E., Dang, T. D., & Piman, T. (2019). Hydropower Freshwater Research, 70(9). https://doi.org/10.1071/mf19176. 
dams of the Mekong River basin: A review of their hydrological impacts. Journal of Mahood, S. P., Poole, C. M., Watson, J. E., MacKenzie, R. A., Sharma, S., & Garnett, S. T. 
Hydrology, 568, 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.10.045. (2020). Agricultural intensification is causing rapid habitat change in the Tonle Sap 
Hein, A., & Belton, B. (2017). Aquaculture and rural development in Myanmar: Pathways Floodplain, Cambodia. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 28(5), 713–726. https:// 
to inclusion and exclusion. Discussion Papers, 17, 3–31. http://www.shd.chiba-u. doi.org/10.1007/s11273-020-09740-1. 
jp/glblcrss/Discussion_Papers/pdf/20170312.pdf. Matsuno, Y., Horino, H., & Hatcho, N. (2013). On-farm irrigation development and 
Helble, M., & Shepherd, B. (2017). Win-win: how international trade can help meet the management in lower Myanmar: Factors for sustainable rice production and 
sustainable development goals. Asian Development Bank Institute. https://think-asia collective action. Paddy and Water Environment, 11(1), 455–462. https://doi.org/ 
.org/bitstream/handle/11540/8315/adbi-win-win-how-internationaltrade-can-hel 10.1007/s10333-012-0336-0https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-012-0336-0. 
p-meet-sdgs.pdf?sequence=1. McCartney, M. P., & Khaing, O. (2014). A country in rapid transition. In U. S. Nagothu 
Htway, S. S., Phyo, A. S., Grünbühel, C. M., & Williams, L. J. (2014). Changing (Ed.), Food Security and Development: Country Case Studies (pp. 79–103). Routledge.  
livelihoods of farming and landless households in Ayeyarwaddy Delta. Asia Pacific McCartney, M. P., Whiting, L., Makin, I., Lankford, B. A., & Ringler, C. (2019). 
Sociological Association (APSA) Conference. Thailand, shorturl.at/gjoxB. Rethinking irrigation modernisation: Realising multiple objectives through the 
Howarth, S., Nott, G., Parajuli, U., & Dzhailobayev, N. (2007). Irrigation, governance and integration of fisheries. Marine and Freshwater Research, 70(9), 1201–1210. https:// 
water access: Getting better results for the poor [Conference proceedings]. The 4th doi.org/10.1071/MF19161. 
Asian Regional Conference & 10th International Seminar on Participatory Irrigation Ministry of Forestry. (2009). National sustainable development strategy for Myanmar. 
Management. Tehran, Iran. shorturl.at/ftRT3. Government of the Republic of the. Union of Myanmar (GoM). https://policy.asiapacif 
Hussain, I., & Biltonen, E.. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iwmicp/118406.html. icenergy.org/sites/default/files/NSDS.pdf.  
Ingalls, M., Diepart, J. C., Truong, N., Hayward, D., Neil, T., Phomphakdy, C., & Ministry of Health. (2011). National comprehensive development plan (NCDP). GoM. htt 
Tagliarino, N. (2018). State of Land in the Mekong Region. Bern Open Publishing. htt ps://consult-myanmar.com/tag/national-comprehensivedevelopment-plan/. 
ps://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/233650.  Ministry of Health and Sports. (2018). Multi-sectoral national plan of action on nutrition 
Jepsen, M. R., Palm, M., & Bruun, T. B. (2019). What awaits Myanmar’s uplands farmers? (MS-NPAN) (2018/19-2022/23) GoM. https://www.mohs.gov.mm/page/7190. 
Lessons learned from mainland Southeast Asia. Land, 8(2), 29. https://doi.org/ Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation. (2017). Myanmar 
10.3390/land8020029. climate change strategy and action plan. GoM. https://myanmarccalliance.org/e 
Joffre, O. M., Pant, J., Somony, T., Chantrea, B., & Viseth, H.. https://digitalarchive. n/mccsap/. 
worldfishcenter.org/handle/20.500.12348/2663. Miratori, K., Mam, K., Sean, V., Try, V., Brooks, A., Thay, S., & Gregory, R. (2019). 
Johnston, B. F., & Mellor, J. W. (1961). The role of agriculture in economic development. https://digitalarchive.worldfishcenter.org/handle/20.500.12348/3633. 
The American Economic Review, 51(4), 566–593. https://www.jstor.org/stab MoALi. (2014, May 1). Rural development strategic framework. GoM. https:// 
le/1812786?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents. drdmyanmar.org/documents/Strategic%20Framework%20Eng_.pdf. 
Johnstone, G.. https://digitalarchive.worldfishcenter.org/bitstream/handle/20.5 MoALi. (2018). Myanmar agriculture development strategy and investment plan 2018-19 
00.12348/98/3999_WF-3999.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. - 2022-23. GoM. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/mya180003.pdf. 
Kandulu, J. M., & Connor, J. D. (2017). Improving the effectiveness of aid: An evaluation Nasielski, J., KC, K. B., Johnstone, G., & Baran, E. (2016). When is a fisher (not) a fisher? 
of prospective Mekong irrigation investments. International Journal of Water Factors that influence the decision to report fishing as an occupation in rural 
Resources Development, 33(2), 270–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Cambodia. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 23(6), 478–488. https://doi.org/ 
07900627.2016.1188060. 10.1111/fme.2016.23.issue-610.1111/fme.12187. 
Kaminski, A. M., Kruijssen, F., Cole, S. M., Beveridge, M. C. M., Dawson, C., Mohan, C. V., NWRC. (2014). Myanmar national water policy. GoM. https://www. 
et al. (2020). A review of inclusive business models and their application in myanmarofficialwaterportal.gov.mm/wp-files/Myanmar%20National%20Water% 
aquaculture development. Reviews in Aquaculture. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 20Policy_3rd%20Edition%20(English%20Version).pdf. 
raq.12415. OECD. (2015). Policy challenges in implementing national development plans: 
Myanmar. https://doi.org/10.1787/saeo-2015-en. 
12
N. Duncan et al.                                                                                                                                                                                     W   o  r l d   D  e v  e  lo  p  m   e n  t  P  e r  s p e  c t i v  es 22 (2021) 100318
Orr, S., Pittock, J., Chapagain, A., & Dumaresq, D. (2012). Dams on the Mekong River: Schultz, T. W. (1964). Transforming traditional agriculture. https://www.cabdirect. 
Lost fish protein and the implications for land and water resources. Global org/cabdirect/abstract/19641802933. 
Environmental Change, 22(4), 925–932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Sen, S. K., & Pookayaporn, J. K. (2018). Towards a SDG compliant framework for the 
gloenvcha.2012.06.002. open learning modules: Experiences from Thailand and Philippines. In 
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. A. D. N. Bajpei, M. Bhandar, A. G. Flor, A. K. Pandey, S. H. M. Rizvi, & T. Zafar (Eds.), 
Cambridge University Press.  Open and distance learning initiatives for sustainable development (pp. 255–264). IGI 
Panha, T. (2018). International fish trade Profile: Cambodia. Regional Fisheries Policy Global.  
Network (RFPN). for Cambodia.  Sheng, J., Zhang, S., & Li, Y. (2017). Heterogeneous governance capabilities, reference 
Pasgaard, M., & Chea, L. (2013). Double inequity? The social dimensions of deforestation emission levels and emissions from deforestation and degradation: A signalling 
and forest protection in local communities in Northern Cambodia. Austrian Journal of model approach. Land Use Policy, 64, 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
South-East Asian Studies, 6(2), 330–355. https://aseas.univie.ac.at/index.php/asea landusepol.2017.02.031. 
s/article/view/2585. Sithirith, M. (2017). Water governance in Cambodia: From centralized water governance 
Pellow, D. N. (2017). What is critical environmental justice? Polity Press.  to farmer water user community. Resources, 6(3), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 
Phala, C., Sarin, T., Suvedi, M., & Ghimire, R. (2019). Assessment of community fish resources6030044. 
refuge management practice in the Siem Reap province of Cambodia. Environments, 6 Snoxell, S., & Lyne, M. (2019). Constraints to commercialisation of smallholder 
(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments6010001. agriculture in Tanintharyi division. Myanmar. Journal of Agriculture and Rural 
Platteau, J. P., & Gaspart, F. (2003). The risk of resource misappropriation in Development in the Tropics and Subtropics (JARTS), 120(2), 219–227. https://doi. 
community-driven development. World Development, 31(10), 1687–1703. https:// org/10.17170/kobra-20191212867. 
doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00138-4. Sobhan, R. (2010). Challenging the injustice of poverty: Agendas for inclusive development in 
Pouw, N. R. M., & Gupta, J. (2017). Inclusive development: A multidisciplinary issue. South Asia. SAGE Publications India.  
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 24, 104–108. https://doi.org/ Stevenson, J. R., & Irz, X. (2009). Is aquaculture development an effective tool for 
10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.013. poverty alleviation. A review of theory and evidence. Cahiers d’Agriculture, 18, 
Pritchard, B., Rammohan, A., & Vicol, M. (2019). The importance of nonfarm livelihoods 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1684/agr.2009.0286. 
for household food security and dietary diversity in rural Myanmar. Journal of Rural Stewart, F. (2002). Horizontal inequalities: A neglected dimension of development 
Studies, 67, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.02.017. [Working Paper]. In A. B. Atkinson, K. Basu, D. C. Bhagwati, D. North, F. Rodrik, 
Proposed loan, grant, and administration of grant Kingdom of Cambodia (2019). F. Stewart, et al. (Eds.), Wider perspectives on global development: Studies in 
Irrigated Agriculture Improvement Project , (51159–002). https://www.adb.org/s development economics and policy. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1 
ites/default/files/project-documents/51159/51159-002-rrp-en.pdf. 057/9780230501850_5.  
QSR International Pty Ltd. (2020). NVivo (released in March 2020), https://www.qsrinte Suhardiman, D., Lebel, L., Nicol, A., & Wong, T. (2017). Power and politics in water 
rnational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home. governance: Revisiting the role of collective action in the commons. In D. 
Rao, N. (2017). Assets, agency and legitimacy: Towards a relational understanding of Suhardiman, A. Nicol & E. Mapedza (Eds.), Water Governance and Collective Action 
gender equality policy and practice. World Development, 95, 43–54. https://doi.org/ (pp. 9-20). Routledge. 
10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.02.018. Teh, L. S., Bond, N., Krishna, K. C., Fraser, E., Seng, R., & Sumaila, U. R. (2019). The 
Raiten, D. J., & Combs, G. F. (2019). Nutritional ecology: Understanding the intersection economic impact of global change on fishing and non-fishing households in the 
of climate/environmental change, food systems and health. In S. Fan, S. Yosef, R. Tonle Sap ecosystem, Pursat, Cambodia. Fisheries Research, 210, 71–80. https://doi. 
Pandya-Lorch (Eds.), Agriculture for improved nutrition: Seizing the momentum, org/10.1016/j.fishres.2018.10.005. 
(pp. 68-80). CAB International. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzaa087. Tezzo, X., Belton, B., Johnstone, G., & Callow, M. (2018). Myanmar’s fisheries in 
Rajee, O., & Mun, A. T. K. (2017). Impact of aquaculture on the livelihoods and food transition: Current status and opportunities for policy reform. Marine Policy, 97, 
security of rural communities. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, 5, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.08.031. 
278–283. https://commons.erau.edu/publication/838. Than, M. M. (2018). Roles and efforts of the irrigation sector in Myanmar agricultural 
Rasul, G. (2016). Managing the food, water, and energy nexus for achieving the practice. Irrigation and Drainage, 67(1), 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2214. 
Sustainable Development Goals in South Asia. Environmental Development, 18, 14–25. Venot, J. P., & Clement, F. (2013). Justice in development? An analysis of water 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.12.001. interventions in the rural South. Natural Resources Forum, 37(1), 19–30. https://doi. 
Reverter, M., Sarter, S., Caruso, D., Avarre, J. C., Combe, M., Pepey, E., et al. (2020). org/10.1111/narf.2013.37.issue-110.1111/1477-8947.12002. 
Aquaculture at the crossroads of global warming and antimicrobial resistance. van Beijnen, J. (2018, October 3). The future of fish farming in Myanmar. Hatch. https:// 
Nature Communications, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15735-6. thefishsite.com/articles/the-future-of-fish-farming-in-myanmar. 
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.  Vicol, M., Pritchard, B., & Htay, Y. Y. (2018). Rethinking the role of agriculture as a 
RGC. (2010). Strategic planning framework for fisheries 2010-2019. http://extwprlegs1. driver of social and economic transformation in Southeast Asia’s upland regions: The 
fao.org/docs/pdf/cam143042.pdf. view from Chin State, Myanmar. Land use policy, 72, 451–460. https://doi.org/ 
RGC. (2014). National strategy for food security and nutrition 2014- 2018. http:// 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.009. 
extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/cam152935.pdf. Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., et al. 
Rosegrant, M. (2018, March, 20). Strategic planning for irrigation development in (2019). Food in the anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets 
Myanmar [Presentation]. MoALi Policy Forum, NayPyiTaw, Myanmar. https:// from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447–492. https://doi.org/ 
www.canr.msu.edu/resources/strategic-planning-for-irrigationdevelopment-in- 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4. 
myanmar. World Bank. (2019). Annual work plan and budget: Cambodia agricultural sector 
Saunders, F. P. (2014). The promise of common pool resource theory and the reality of diversification project. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/9702114681 
commons projects. International Journal of the Commons, 8(2), 636–656. http://doi. 84739779/pdf/98879-WP-PUBLIC-Box393184B.pdf. 
org/10.18352/ijc.477. Youn, S. J., Taylor, W. W., Lynch, A. J., Cowx, I. G., Douglas Beard, T., Bartley, D., et al. 
Schlosberg, D. (2003). The justice of environmental justice: Reconciling equity, (2014). Inland capture fishery contributions to global food security and threats to 
recognition, and participation in a political movement. In A. Light, & A. de Shalit their future. Global Food Security, 3(3–4), 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
(Eds.), Moral and political reasoning in environmental practice (pp. 77–106). MIT Press.  gfs.2014.09.005. 
Schlosberg, D. (2004). Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and Yu, B., & Diao, X. (2011). Cambodia’s agricultural strategy: Future development options 
political theories. Environmental politics, 13(3), 517–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/ for the rice sector [Policy discussion paper]. Cambodia Development Resource 
0964401042000229025. Institute (CDRI), Council for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), and 
Schmidt, O., & Theesfeld, I. (2012). Elite capture in local fishery management: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https://cdri.org.kh/wp- 
Experiences from post-socialist Albania. International Journal of Agricultural content/uploads/sr9e.pdf. 
Resources, Governance and Ecology, 9(3–4), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1504/ Zirbel, C. R., Grman, E., Bassett, T., & Brudvig, L. A. (2019). Landscape context explains 
IJARGE.2012.050325. ecosystem multifunctionality in restored grasslands better than plant diversity. 
Scholte, J. A., & Söderbaum, F. (2017). A changing global development agenda? Forum Ecology, 100(4), Article e02634. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2634. 
for Development Studies, 44(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 
08039410.2017.1275843. 
13