REGIONAL FISHERIES LIVELIHOODS PROGRAMME FOR SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA (RFLP) --------------------------------------------------------- Activity 1.2.3 (2012) Coastal Community Fisheries Catch Monitoring in Cambodia For the Regional Fisheries Livelihoods Programme for the South and Southeast Asia Cambodia Component Prepared by Serywath Suy, Director Marine Fisheries Research and Development Institute (MaFReDI) Fisheries Administration (FiA) May 2013
86
Embed
REGIONAL FISHERIES LIVELIHOODS PROGRAMME FOR …FOR SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA (RFLP) ----- Activity 1.2.3 (2012) Coastal Community Fisheries Catch Monitoring in Cambodia For the Regional
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
7. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES ................................................................... 33
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: List of fishing gears monitored in this study ........................................................... 6
Table 2: Average catch (kg) and value (Riel) of crab traps per fishing trip from June 2012
to March 2013, ranking according to the total catch ........................................................ 11 Table 3: Regression on fish gill net .......................................................................................... 15 Table 4: Regression on crab traps ......................................................................................... 115 Table 5: Regression on crab gill net ........................................................................................ 16
Table 6: The comparision of average maximum length (cm) of the key aquatic species …..…311
Annex 2: Name of fishers and their fishing gears used in five target community fisheries
37 Annex 3: Average weight (Kg) and value (Riel) per fisher per trip (ranking according to
value at the landing site) .............................................................................................. 40
Annex 4: Monthly catch (Kg) and value (Riel) by fisher (Ranking according to value) . 41
Annex 5: Monthly catch (Kg) by species and by fishers, ranking according to total catch
over the period from April to November 2011 ................................................................ 43
Annex 6: Monthly landing value (Riel) by species and by fishersover the period from
April to November 2011 (ranking according to total value) ............................................. 52
Annex 7: Average price (Riel/kg) of catch by species by fisher .................................. 62
Annex 8: Average maximum length (cm) versus frequencies by fisher measured over the
period from April to November 2011 ............................................................................ 72
v
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Map of Community Fisheries (CFis) covered in the study.............................. 6 Figure 2: Average catch per fishing trip by fisher (June 2012 to March 2013) .............. 12
Figure 3: Average value (value at fish landing site) obtained per fishing trip by fisher .. 12 Figure 4: Monthly catch of top the ten fishers ranking according to the total catch over
the study period from June 2012 to March 2013. ............................................................ 14 Figure 5: Monthly total monetary value of top ten fishing gears during the study period
from June 2012 to March 2013. .................................................................................... 14 Figure 6: Fisher ID 1, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 ...... 17
Figure 7: Fisher ID 2, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 ...... 18
Figure 8: Fisher ID 3, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 ...... 18 Figure 9: Fisher ID 4, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 ...... 19
Figure 10: Fisher ID 5, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 ...... 20
Figure 11: Fisher ID 6, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 ...... 20
Figure 12: Fisher ID 7, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 ...... 21 Figure 13: Fisher ID 8, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 ...... 22
Figure 14: Fisher ID 9, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 ...... 22
Figure 15: Fisher ID 10, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 .... 23
Figure 16: Fisher ID 11, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 ..... 24
Figure 17: Fisher ID 12, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 .... 24 Figure 18: Fisher ID 13, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 .... 25
Figure 19: Fisher ID 14, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 .... 25
Figure 20: Fisher ID 15, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 .... 26 Figure 21: Fisher ID 16: Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 ... 26
Figure 22: Fisher ID 17, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 .... 27 Figure 23: Fisher ID 18, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 .... 27
Figure 24: Fisher ID 19, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 .... 28 Figure 25: Fisher ID 20, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 .... 28
Figure 26: Fisher ID 21, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 .... 29 Figure 27: Fisher ID 22, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 .... 29 Figure 28: Fisher ID 23, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 .... 30
Figure 29: Fisher ID 24, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 .... 30
Figure 30: Fisher ID 25, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013 .... 31
1
Summary
Cambodian coastal fisheries play a very essential role for supporting livelihoods in many
rural coastal areas, particularly for community fisheries (CFi’s) living along the coastline.
These fisheries resources serve as a source of food, employment and income generation for
many coastal fishers.
The project of “Coastal Community Fisheries Catch Monitoring”, which was financially
supported by the Regional Fisheries Livelihoods Programme Cambodian component
(RFLP/CMB), conducted monitoring of fish catch from 01 May 2012 to 31 March 2013 in
five CFi’s, with a total of 25 fishers (5 from each CFi) selected for collecting specific marine
fish catch data and recording the data in a supplied logbook on a daily basis.
The purpose of doing so was to get a better understanding of catch per unit of effort (CPUE),
the health of inshore fish stocks and the contribution of marine product to small-scale fishing
households. Key data items recorded including total catch (weights), catch by species, total
sale price, fish price of main species and total lengths of some key aquatic species.
The study involved designing logbooks, data collection methods, designing and entering the
data into the database, data checking, and preparing report to be shared back with the selected
25 fishers.
More than 100 different marine species were recorded during the study. Fish caught by
species varied according to different fishing gears. Data on catch, value, prices as well as
maximum length of all species were attached as annexes to this report.
Some fishing gears were highly selective, including crab traps, gastropod (octopus) long line,
squid hook and line, as well as hand collecting of blood cockles. A few fishing gears such as
crab gill nets, fish traps and hand collection with supplementary equipment were fairly
selective, and caught about 10 different aquatic species, and hence only a limited amount of
by-catch was taken by these gears. However, other types of fishing gears such as different
types of fish gill nets and hand push-nets were very unselective catching more than 30
different aquatic species and usually resulted in a high proportion of by-catch.
Overall, fishers spent an average of 9.4 hours fishing, with some variation. The average catch
at landing sites per fishing trip was around 22.6 kg with an average value of Riel 106,500;
though there was considerable variation over time and season for both the catch quantity and
its value.
Fishers soaked gill nets in the sea for an average of 10.3 hours with an average catch rate of
48.4 kg and an average total value of Riel 144,500 per trip. Crab traps were fished for an
average of 10 hours per trip, and gave an average catch of 9.2 kg, which was equivalent to an
average total value of Riel 91,126. Hand push-net were particularly practiced in Kep and
Kampot Provinces, and operated on average for 5.4 hours per trip giving an average catch of
5.1 kilograms with an average value of Riel 21,700 per trip.
Hand collection with supplementary equipment such as a spade, sliding board, and basket
were considered to be the least efficient fishing method, and provided the least catch and
2
income. Hand collectors spent an average of 7.4 hours per trip in search of aquatic products
and on average collected 7.9 kg of blood cockles, the cheapest species, with a total average
price of Riel 9,300.
To better understand CPUEs of different marine species, it is recommended that for further
studies:
A standardized fishing gear should be applied for standardised sampling sites in order
to understand CPUE which is based on a specific gear type. In order to robustly
generalize findings from the study, sampling sites should be geographically
representative of different fish habitats and ecosystems. For example, fishers expect to
catch different fish species in mangrove forest, seagrass and coral reef ecosystem
habitat areas.
Biological, socio-economical and environmental parameters should be properly
included in order to obtain a broader view about the size of the catch, value and
species occurrences as well as factors from socio-economic and environmental
conditions.
Findings from this study should be presented to the 25 CFi members who were
directly involved in data collection, recording and reporting in order to let them
provide feedback and validation.
A clear field guide containing a list marine species with proper local Khmer names,
English names, scientific names and a brief description of each species should be
produced and made available for this type of research. The current marine field guide
for Cambodia is available for only a few key main marine species, while a large
number of other species still remain to be properly documented.
3
1. Background The Regional Fisheries Livelihoods Programme RFLP, which began activities in September
2009, is funded by Spain (US$ 16.35 million) and will operate for 4 years in Cambodia,
Indonesia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste and Viet Nam.
The RFLP addresses the following issues in south and south-east Asia:
The failure to manage the interface between fisheries and the wider external
environment;
Over-fishing, declining stocks and catch per unit effort and threatened aquatic species;
Spoilage of aquatic product along the distribution chain and low income for small-
scale fishers for their product;
The vulnerability of poor small-scale fisher communities and their livelihoods;
Extremely limited supplementary and/or alternative livelihoods options;
Limited development focus on poor small-scale fisher communities; and,
Limited access to micro-finance services.
The primary stakeholders and target beneficiaries are (i) coastal fishers, processors, traders
and their families, their organizations and their communities, including the local authorities
and; (ii) government organizations and institutions responsible for the administration,
management and development of the coastal fisheries at local, district/province and national
levels.
The RFLP outcome will be: ‘Strengthened capacity among participating small-scale fishing
communities and their supporting institutions towards improved livelihoods and sustainable
fisheries resources management’.
Major RFLP outputs will be:
Co-management mechanisms for sustainable utilization of fishery resources;
Improved safety and reduced vulnerability for fisher communities;
Improved quality of fishery products and market chains;
Strengthened existing and diversified alternative income opportunities for fisher
families;
Facilitated access to micro-finance services for fishers, processors and vendors; and,
Regional sharing of knowledge in support of livelihoods development and reduced
vulnerability for fisher communities and of sustainable fisheries resource
management.
With inshore fisheries in particular being increasingly heaviliy exploited, fisheries data
collection at the Community Fisheries (CFi) level has become increasingly important,
especially for a better understanding of species abundance and the current catch rate by
fishers. Catch monitoring, especially for catch per unit of effort (CPUE), fish catch
composition and prices of fish at the landing site, are also essential for the establishment of
baseline data. Hence, a community-based catch monitoring programme is essential to allow
changes in catch/species composition and prices, as well as catch rate per fisher per fishing
gear over time and place, to be understood by co-managers (that is, fishers and government
4
fisheries decision-makers) and actions or interventions can be designed or modified based
upon the best available data.
Based on the above reasons, in 2011 RFLP Cambodia supported the Fisheries Administration
to conduct pilot catch monitoring at 5 CFis namely Okrasa, Trapiang Ropov, Chumpou
Khmao and Koh Rungsanlem, and Koh Kchang. Steps for developing and implementing the
For crab gill nets the relationship between monthly income from fishing was very strongly
influenced by the number of fishing trips, the catch volume, and the number of gear units,
with these variables accounting for 94 percent of the total variation in monthly fishing
income.
5.5. Key important species caught by fishers Overall, more than 100 different aquatic fish, shrimp, gastropods and bivalve mollusks
species were reported being caught or collected by the 25 studied fishers over the 10 month
plus survey period. Gill nets and hand push net were reported as having captured a greater
bio-diversity of species than other fishing gear types. However, some gill net types that were
designed to target only a small number of fish species and crabs such as the threadfin or karav
gill net, the mullet or kabork gill net and the crab gill net were more selective. In addition,
some fishing gears were highly selective, targeting and catching only one or two species and
17
these included crab traps, hand collection of common geloina, hand collection of violet
vinegar rrab, and hand collection of blood cockles.
In this section, an attempt has been made to provide detailed information on the key species
caught by each of the 25 selected fishers who were involved in recording their catches over
the study period from late June 2012 to March 2013. More detailed information about the
catch and value by species by each fisher is given in Annexes 5 and Annex 6 of this report.
5.5.1 Fisher ID 1: Wedge-shaped scoop basket Overall, 11 species and many other species grouped as “others” were recorded by this fisher.
The wedge-shaped scoop basket was primarily operated in sea grass beds areas. Apart from
this, the same fisher also reported collecting/gleaning marine aquatic animals by hand in
coastal wetland areas and mangrove forests. Almost 60 percent of the catch was made up of
the 2 species called Phy in Khmer which as yet are unidentified and Bangkea Sor in Khmer
which is also unidentified as is shown in Figure 6. Phy comprised 46 percent of the total
catch during the survey period, while Bangkea Sor comprised 24 percent of the total catch of
fisher ID 1.
Figure 6: Fisher ID 1, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.2 Fisher ID 2: Crab gill net (Mong Kdam) Fisher ID 2 reported only catching 6 species during the study period. Figure 7 below shows
the main six species caught by fisher ID 2 during the survey period. 93 percent of the catch
was composed of only 3 species which were blue swimming crab, the gastropod mollusk
(Conus vexillum) or Khyorng thnot in Khmer and the gastropod mollusk (Melo melo) or
Khyorng dong in Khmer which comprised 49, 35 and 9 percent of the catch respectively.
Interestingly, although this fishing gear specifically targets blue swimming crab, it also
captures several other economically important species and gastropod mollusks in particular.
18
Figure 7: Fisher ID 2, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.3 Fisher ID 3: Crab trap Fisher ID 3 reported a total catch of 12 different species. However, blue swimming crabs
formed the largest share (59 percent) of the total catch. Other important species included in
the catch were Kdam Krohorm which has not been identified, and Bangkorng Sor which has
also not been identified (see Figure 8).
Figure 8: Fisher ID 3, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
19
5.5.4 Fisher ID 4: Fish gill net Fisher ID 4 reported taking 19 different species using his fish gill net (Mong Trey) including
some minor catch species which was recorded as “others”. The main species reported by the
fish gill net included 20 percent deep-bodied mojarra (Gerres abbreviatus) or Trey Do Angkor
in Khmer as shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Fisher ID 4, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.5 Fisher ID 5: Hand push-net Fisher ID 5 reported a total of 14 identified species in the catch, including by-catch (others)
which was probably made up of several species. The hand push net or Chheb Runh Dai gill
nets in Khmer are often operated in inshore areas where there are sea grass beds. Three
species taken by the hand push net contributed over 70 percent of the catch and in descending
order of catch proportion these were Bangkea Sor (unidentified), Trey Damlong
(unidentified), and barhead spinefoot (Siganus virgatus) or Trey Katang Thmor in Khmer.
These three species comprised 48, 17, and 12 percent of the catch weight respectively as
shown in Figure 10.
20
Figure 10: Fisher ID 5, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.6 Fisher ID 6: Crab trap Fisher ID 6 reported 9 different species caught. By-catch which was composed of several
species was also reported in “other”. As shown in Figure 11, the crab trap was selective in
targeting mainly blue swimming crab known in Khmer as Kdam Ses which consisted of 76
percent of the total catch, with other species contributing only a small proportion of the catch
in comparison.
Figure 11: Fisher ID 6, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
21
5.5.7 Fisher ID 7: Fish gill net Fish gill nets were a highly selectively type of fishing gear. 733 percent of the total catch
which was comprised of two species were short mackerel (Rastrelliger brachysoma) know as
Trey Kamong Khloun Khley and an unidentified mackerel species (Rastrelliger spp.) and in
Khmer called Trey Kamong as shown in Figure 12 below.
Figure 12: Fisher ID 7, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.8 Fisher ID 8: Moolgarda (Kbork) gill net Fisher ID 8 reported a total of 20 different identified aquatic species in the catch from the
mullet (Kbork) gill net. However as Figure 13 shows, just four species contributed 80 percent
of the total catch. These species were flathead grey mullet (Mugil cephalus) or Trey Kbork in
Khmer, an unidentified mullet species or Trey Kbork Preng in Khmer, the bluespot mullet
(Moolgarda seheli) or Trey Kbork Korngkang in Khmer and Trey Chy (X-other) in Khmer.
These four species accounted for 23, 23, 18 and 16 percent of the catch respectively.
22
Figure 13: Fisher ID 8, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.9 Fisher ID 9: Moolgarda (Kbrok) gill net and hand push-net This fisher used two different gears named Kbork gill net and Hand Push Net to catch fish. In
total 29 different species were recorded according to the catch data for the period June 2012
to March 2013. However, two main species contributed 65 percent to the total catch. These
species were Trey Phtong Kam (Unidentify) in Khmer 20 percent and the bluespot mullet
(Moolgarda seheli) or Trey Kbork Korngkang 18 percent. Figure 14 shows that trash fish in
Khmer Trey Chy or Trey Cham Ros comprised the largest proportion by weight at 27 percent
of the total catch. This indicates that this gear was particularly unselective and has negative
impacts on aquatic stocks.
*Note: Other is the fish that share very small amount.
Figure 14: Fisher ID 9, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
23
5.5.10 Fisher ID 10: Threadfin (Karav) and other fish gill nets Within the sample of 25 fishers, some used two different gears to catch fish depending upon
seasonal migration patterns, including Fisher ID 10. He used a Karav Gill net and a Fish Gill
net. Karav or trey karav is the Khmer name for the fourfinger threadfin fish. This fisher
designed his own gillnet to target trey kavav or fourfinger threadfin (Eleutheronema
tetradactylum) and that is the reason why this gill net was named the karav gill net. However,
the total reported catch was mixed with that from the Fish Gill net catch. Despite combining
the catch from the two gears the two main species caught were short mackerel and fourfinger
threadfin which constituted 63 and 36 percent of the catch respectively, as shown in Figure
15.
Figure 15: Fisher ID 10, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.11 Fisher ID 11: Hand collection of Violet Vinegar Crab The fisher used this kind of gear to hand collect aquatic animals. However, the catch quanity
collected was much lower than for other gears. Since the beginning June 2012 to March
2013, the fisher only gathered a total of about 300 kg which was comprised of only two
species. As the Figure 16 shows, the Singapore vinegar crab (Episesarma singaporens) or
Kdam Chhor in Khmer which was the main target species comprised 88 percent of the total
catch, while mangrove mud crab made up the remainder of the catch.
24
Figure 16: Fisher ID 11, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.12 Fisher ID 12: Crab trap Normally, the Crab Trap known as Mong Kdam in Khmer language targets both mangrove
mud and blue swimming crabs, which are both high value species. However, interestingly,
fisher ID 12 as Figure 17 shows caught only mangrove mud crab, which coincidentally
fetches a higher sale price than blue swimming crab.
Figure 17: Fisher ID 12, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.13 Fisher ID 13: Hand collection of Common Geloina One more method that fishers can use to collect or harvest fisheries resources and especially
the common geloina (Polymesoda erosa) or Ngeav Phourk in Khmer is collection by hand as
fisher ID 13 did. He reported that collecting only mud clams as shown in Figure 18 below.
25
Figure 18: Fisher ID 13, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.14 Fisher ID 14: Crab trap Like fisher ID 12, this fisher used crab traps and only caught mud crab as shown in Figure 19
below.
Figure 19: Fisher ID 14, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.15 Fisher ID 15: Hand Collection of Common Geloina Like fisher ID 13 fisher ID 15 harvested only common geloina (Polymesoda erosa) as shown
in Figure 20.
26
Figure 20: Fisher ID 15, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.16 Fisher ID 16: Shrimp and fish gill nets Although fishers ID 16 used two different gears to fish, this fisher caught only four different
species. 81 percent of the total catch consisted of an unidentified mackerel species or Trey
Kamong in Khmer, while Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) or Trey Kamong Khloun
Veng in Khmer, accounted for 14 percent of the catch, as shown in Figure 21.
Figure 21: Fisher ID 16: Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.17 Fisher ID 17: Crab trap and fish gill net Like fisher ID 16, this fisher used two different gear types to catch aquatic animals but only
caught three different species. As Figure 22 shows, blue swimming crab comprised the
highest proportion of the catch at over 90 percent, while Indian mackerel contributing most of
the catch remainder at 10 percent.
27
Figure 22: Fisher ID 17, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.18 Fisher ID 18: Shrimp and fish gill nets While fisher ID 18 caught 25 different species, a single species namely the unidentified
mackerel species or Trey Kamong in Khmer accounted for 77 percent of the total catch. All
other species were only a small proportion of the total catch as shown in Figure 23.
Figure 23: Fisher ID 18, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.19 Fisher ID 19: Crab gill net Fisher ID 19 recorded 7 different species in his fisher logbook. As Figure 24 shows blue
swimming crab and mangrove mud crab were the main species caught by fisher ID 19 using
his crab gill net, at 86 percent and 7 percent respectively.
28
Figure 24: Fisher ID 19, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.20 Fisher ID 20: Crab trap Crab traps are a fishing gear made to target crabs. Blue swimming crabs (63 percent) were the
main species caught by fisher ID 20. Mangrove mud crabs were also caught (5 percent). As
Figure 25 shows the spottedbelly rock crab (Ozius guttatus) or Kdam Pkor Lorn in Khmer
and an unidentified species or Kdam Phlet in Khmer each consisted of 13 percent of the total
catch by weight.
Figure 25: Fisher ID 20, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.21 Fisher ID 21: Crab trap Unlike fisher ID 20, fisher ID 21 only caught crab species even though they were both using
the same kind of gear. Figure 26 below shows, blue swimming crab comprised 58 percent of
the total catch, followed by mangrove mud crab at 30 percent of the total catch and then the
swimming crab (Charybdis anisodon) or Kdam Sor in Khmer at 12 percent.
29
Figure 26: Fisher ID 21, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.22 Fisher ID 22: Crab trap As shown in Figure 27, the total catch of crab trap reported by Fisher ID 22 was composed of
only three crab species namely blue swimming crab (63 percent), mangrove mud crab (24
percent), and the swimming crab or Kdam Sor in Khmer (13 percent).
Figure 27: Fisher ID 22, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.23 Fisher ID 23: Fish gill net Fisher ID 23 reported 8 different identified aquatic species. However, as shown in Figure 28,
90 percent of the catch consisted of only two species namely Indian mackerel 66 percent, and
the Chacunda gizzard shad (Anodontostoma chacunda) or Trey kamoy in Khmer, 24 percent.
30
Figure 28: Fisher ID 23, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.24 Fisher ID 24: Hand collection of blood cockle (Riev Kreing Chhiem) Fisher ID 24 collected only blood cockles (Anadara granosa) or Kreing Chheam in Khmer in
the coastal area during low tides. He used only a wooden sliding board to sit on and to move
across the mud flats from place to place in search of blood cockles in the mud along the CFi
coastline. As Figure 29 shows, 100 percent of his reported catch was blood cockles.
Figure 29: Fisher ID 24, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.5.25 Fisher ID 25: Crab gill net As Figure 30 shows, the crab gill net of fisher ID 25 caught not only crabs, but also fish
species. 62 percent of the catch was made of two species of crabs namely the blue swimming
crab (Portunus pelagicus) and the mangrove mud crab (Scylla serrata) which comprised 48
and 14 percent of the catch respectively.
31
Figure 30: Fisher ID 25, Catch proportion by species from June 2012 to March 2013
5.6. Monthly average prices at landing sites by species by fisher Daily prices per kilogram of all species captured by all fishers at the landing sites were
recorded. Average monthly prices per kilogram of each aquatic species were then calculated.
The average monthly prices by aquatic species varied slightly between months over the study
period. The detailed monthly average prices of all aquatic species reported by the 25 selected
fishers at fish lending sites are given in Annex 7 of this report.
5.7. Frequencies versus average maximum length by fisher by species Data on average maximum lengths by species are provided as Annex 8 of this report. They
serve as an important baseline data which can be referred to see if the average maximum fish
length of key aquatic species being caught decreases over time, which would be an indication
of declining stock health. Below Table 6 gives a comparision of the average maximum length
data from 2011 and the 2012-13 data for a few key inshore aquatic species taken by a few
main small-scale fishing gear types. 4 of the 9 key indicator species has a smaller average
maximum size in 2011 than in 2012-13, while the converse was true for 5 of the 9 key
indicator species. The average maximum size of threadfin more than doubled in the second
year of sampling. FiA need to confirm if this was because of a sampling method error or if
this is real. Unfortunately the data in Table 6 covers too short a time series to identify any
trends (up or down) in average maximum aquatic species size, and so it is too soon as yet to
comment on the health of the key indicator species.
Table 6: The comparision of average maximum length (cm) of the key aquatic species
English name Main Species 2011 2012-2013
Crab trap/Crab gill net Blue swimming crab 10.2 9.9
Hand collection of Singapore
vinegar crab
Singapore vinegar crab
5.0 6.1
Fish gill net Kamong kloun Khley 9.1 10.3
Karav (threadfin) gill net Threadfin 17.9 40
32
Kabork (mullet) gill net Bluespot mullet 19.5 23.9
BangKea gill net Bongkea sor 7.1 4.6
Wedge-shaped scoop basket Bangkea phouk 8.9 6.6
Hand collection of common
geloina Common geloina 6 9
Hand collection of blood
cockle Blood cockle 4.8 3.5
It is also worth noting that under the current fisheries law of Cambodia, the sizes of aquatic
animals to be harvested are determined by the proclamation of the Minister of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries as stated in Chapter 5, article 23. However, there is currently no
proclamation detailing the minimum size restrictions of aquatic species caught despite the
fact that sub decree (signed on August 12, 2009) identifies 58 endangered aquatic animals
including 29 marine fish, reptile and mammal species and specifies which freshwater and
marine animals are banned from being transported or traded unless they are being farmed or
are in compliance with the domestic fisheries law and the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which Cambodia ratified in 1997.
6. Conclusions This ten month study provides some essential baseline data provided by 25 coastal small-
scale fishers using 11 different gear types in the coastal inshore waters of Cambodia. Fishing
was the main livelihood and income source of the 25 selected fishers which were from five
coastal CFi’s of Kep, Kampot, Preah Sihanouk and Koh Kong Provinces. Data on species
diversity, gear selectivity, total catch weight and value, catch weight and value by species,
average actual fishing time in hours per fishing trip, prices of marine aquatic fish and other
aquatic species caught, as well as the maximum length frequencies of species captured were
recorded from June 2012 to March 2013. The major survey findings were:
• More than 100 marine aquatic species were reported by the 25 selected fishers involved
in this study. The species caught varied according to the different types of fishing gears used,
the location was fishing was conducted, and the season. Data on the total catch weight and
value, and by species, and prices, as well as the average maximum length of all species were
collected, entered onto a computer in an Excel spreadsheet, checked for accuracy and
analysed and are now available in Annexes 1 – 8 of this report.
- Some fishing gears were highly selective and resulted in virtually no by-catch. They
included crab traps, and hand collection of blood cockles.
- Some fishing gears such as crab gill nets, fish gill nets and hand collection with
supplementary equipment was moderately selective, capturing around 10 aquatic
species or less, and usually with only limited by-catch.
- Other fishing gears such as different types of fish gill nets and the hand push net used
particularly in sea grass beds were highly unselective and destructive, capturing more
than 30 different aquatic species and usually with significant proportions of other.
- The overall average time that fishing gear was in the water was 9.4 hours though there
was significant variation between fishing gears, fishers and trips.
- Fish gillnets were set for an average of 5.8 hours per fishing trip and caught around
73.4 kg of aquatic products with a total value of around Riel 158,000 (US$ 39.5).
- Crab trap fishers set their traps for an average of 10.3 hours, and caught an average of
9.1 kg of crabs, with a total average value of about Riel 98,700 (US$ 24.7).
33
- Hand push-netting is practiced especially in Kep and Kampot Provinces. Hand
pushnet fishers typically worked for 5.5 hours per expedition and caught around 3.9
kg of aquatic products with a value of 21,000 (US$ 5.3) in average each fishing trip.
- The overall average catch and value at landing sites per fishing trip were around 20.8
kg of aquatic products worth Riel 95,500 (US$ 23.9) though again there was
significant variation across fishing gears, locations, fishers and season.
- There is currently no specification in Khmer law of the minimum sizes that can be
harvested for key aquatic species captured in the inshore waters of Cambodia.
- Having no minimum harvest sizes in Khmer legislation is no reason for inactivity, as
inshore fish stocks in the waters of Cambodia are already very likely over-fished. FiA
should therefore adopt a precautionary approach to inshore fisheries management. As
a starting point the minimum harvest sizes of key inshore marine aquatic species
currently used in Thialand, should be considered for inclusion of Khmer legislation.
Additionally FiA should encourage CFis to voluntarily use the same minimum harvest
sizes which Thailand currently uses.
- Piloting of inshore catch monitoring by fishers has been conducted with RFLP
support for 2 years, but longer time series data is required before trends in the average
maximum size of key indicator species taken by the main small-scale fishing gear
types will be seen and can be used as a proxy indicator of inshore aquatic species and
ecosystem health. It is recommended therefore that FiA continue the existing system
for several years and then to evaluate the results and cost effectiveness.
7. Suggestions for further studies
This study is entirely dependent on catches reported by fishers. However better off fishers
often change their fishing gear types in accordance with seasons and the migration behaviour
of the different target species. This results in problems as the fishers often report their
combined catch for all the fishing gear types they have used, rather than separate the data,
which takes more effort.
In addition, the number of fishing gears used often fluctuates because of various reasons
including theft, loss during heavy storms, seasonality of species occurring at specific
locations, the availability of crew and many other factors. All the aforementioned factors
make calculation of CPUE difficult to allow calculation across gear types. For this reason
throughout this study, calculations were therefore made based on “a fishing trip basis” rather
than on “a unit of fishing gear used”. For further study, therefore, standardized fishing gear
units should be used to provide standard sampling that will give a better understanding of
CPUE per gear type. Moreover, in order to be able to extrapolate the study findings to other
areas of Cambodia, the sampling sites should be more geographically representative of the
coastal areas of Cambodia and cover a greater range of different fish habitat types and
ecosystems. For instance, fishers expect to catch different aquatic and fish species in
mangrove forests, in sea grass beds and in coral reef areas.
This study focuses only on the reported catch and value by species of individual fishers. No
data was collected on the socio-economic status of fishers that collected the study data or the
fisher families to which they belonged. Very little environmental data was collected during
this survey, though environmental parameters would have been relevant and would have
affected this study.
34
The data and information reported in this study should be presented back to the 5 pilot CFi
members and especially to those directly involved in recording and reporting the data. This is
important, as it will give the research team and the fishers an opportunity to provide feedback
and validate the findings. Also, it is important that data from this study are used by the pilot
CFi committees to better plan and monitor and understand the catch status in their CFi
waters.
Finally yet importantly, a field guide containing the majority of marine aquatic species with
their proper local Khmer names, common English names, and scientific names and a brief
description on the identification of the species should be produced and made available, as this
type of field guide would be very useful for this type of research. Currently marine field
guides only exist in Cambodia for the most common key main marine aquatic species. A large
number of marine species remain to be properly classified and documented.
The average maximum length of aquatic species reported by fishers over time is likely to
provide good proxy information about aquatic stock health a lot quicker and more cheaply
than waiting for accurate CPUE data. This however requires that the government of
Cambodia and FiA invest funds in continuing this study until the time series data indicate
trends in average maximum sizes of key aquatic species caught by the main small-scale gear
types which indicate the health of key aquatic stocks and therefore give direction for fisheries