1. Summary of the above mentioned document

The above mentioned Report of the Workshop on Participatory Approaches in Aquaculture was held in Bangkok, Thailand from 28^th February to 1^st March 2000. The use of participatory approaches was analized in nine aquaculture case studies from different countries in Asia and one from Africa. The main conclusion was that there are no "absolutes" in participation and a wide range of different degrees and forms of participation may be manifested in the development process.

Participatory approaches proved to be particularly helpful in improving understanding of the role of aquaculture in rural livelihoods (as opposed to focussing purely on aquaculture as a technical activity) and in understanding the attitudes and perceptions of the people involved. The real potential of participatory approaches lied not just in the improvement of the understanding of aquaculture development workers but in the building of the capacity of the end-users of aquaculture to make decisions about aquaculture and its place in their livelihood strategies more effectively.

Participatory approaches are commonly regarded as an essential part of sustainable livelihoods. The participants agreed that this has been the first attempt to systematise the lessons learned from the application of participatory methodologies (RRA, PRA and others) to aquaculture projects. But they also agreed that this learning process needs to continue as more experience is gained and as the thinking about participatory approaches themselves develops.

The Workshop on Participatory Approaches in Aquaculture was part of an exercise that aimed to demonstrate, in practical terms, how "participatory approaches" have been applied in aquaculture development work and how they might be applied in the future. The idea for the workshop derived from the preparation of the FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 358, entitled "Rapid Rural Appraisal, Participatory Rural Appraisal and Aquaculture". While this document looked more specifically at two of the principle tools used in the application of participatory approaches (RRA and PRA), the workshop aimed to take a wider view, addressing the advantages and problems raised by participatory approaches in general.

The Workshop was organised by FAO, ICLARM and the University of Stirling (UK) with a strong involvement of DFID. The meeting was held the 28^th, 29^th of February and the 1^st of March in the Maruay Garden Hotel in Bangkok, Thailand.

Twenty-one participants from 13 institutions attended the Workshop. Some individual presentations were made on participatory methods in general, on tools used in RRA/PRA as well as on some specific applications such as the Mexican one where participatory methods were used in conjunction to GIS studies.

This report aims to review the presentations, discussions and conclusions reached at the workshop and to improve the understanding of participatory approaches among those involved in aquaculture development work.

3. Information on the Case Studies Approach

4. The scope of activities where participatory approaches were used

• As used in the case studies, participatory approaches have been regarded as a means of improving information collection and so improving the quality of research work. It is significant that all of the case studies described start with "research", a process of collecting information and learning from it. This is significant as there is nothing inherent in participatory approaches that suggests that this should necessarily be the starting point. However, it is clear that participatory approaches are, at least initially, regarded as a means of achieving a better understanding of conditions.

• Participatory approaches seem to be particularly helpful in improving understanding of the role of aquaculture in rural livelihoods (as opposed to focussing purely on aquaculture as a technical activity) and in understanding the attitudes and perceptions of the people involved. The various ICLARM farming systems activities described, the ALCOM study in Zambia, the CARE Cages research in Bangladesh and the DFID Laos study all fall into this category.
• The potential of using participatory approaches for more action-oriented research was specifically recognised in some cases. This was particularly the case in the DFID work in Laos and the ICLARM project in Cavite in the Philippines where the process of undertaking the research itself aimed to produce benefits for participating farmers.

In the following table, the 9 case studies are listed with a brief description of the context and the objectives of the activity that they describe.

Lessons Learned:

• The use of participatory approaches in aquaculture development activities can add value to those activities. During the research phase, they can ensure a better understanding of a wider range of issues and the context in which aquaculture is being considered or applied. They can also help ensure that aquaculture development addresses real issues and needs of potential users. During the implementation phase, they can ensure better implementation and better monitoring of impacts.

• In research, participatory approaches cannot be applied across the board to all types of research at all stages. They can make an important contribution to the identification of the subject of research by helping researchers to understand what the problems and priorities of potential users are. However, some forms of "basic" research are better carried out in a "non-participatory" way as participation by people in the field, particularly the poor, may expose them to increased risk. Once the results of basic research have been established, participatory approaches are an essential part of the adaptive research needed to refine solutions and make them appropriate to local conditions.

• In the implementation of aquaculture development activities, participatory approaches are important for ensuring that activities are implemented in an appropriate way and can increase the sustainability of activities by giving users the leading role in developing and adapting new activities. But participatory approaches require different forms of management compared to more "traditional" or top-down approaches. This management requires changes in skills and attitudes among those involved in aquaculture development and this requires time.

• The adoption of participatory approaches, and the specific approaches used, needs to take into account the capacity of the institutions and practitioners involved. Familiarity with the principles of participation, an acceptance of adaptive management of field activities, good planning and decentralised decision-making are all important in effectively supporting participatory activities. This importance should not be under-estimated and time and resources need to be devoted to developing these skills and capacity.

• The adoption of participatory approaches is not a panacea. It does not make other approaches unnecessary and is not necessarily the "best" approach in all situations. The costs and benefits compared to alternatives need to be carefully assessed.

• Participatory approaches, and particularly RRA and PRA (which are just two of the methods that make up participatory approaches), have been used primarily to contribute to research. Their use as a means of improving understanding of conditions, problems and issues is important but, by concentrating on participatory research, some of the wider potential of approaches may be missed. The real potential of participatory approaches lied not just in the improvement of the understanding of aquaculture development workers but in the building of the capacity of the end-users of aquaculture to make decisions about aquaculture and its place in their livelihood strategies more effectively. This area of application of participatory approaches needs to be further developed in the aquaculture sector.