-
SOCIOECONOMICS ANDLIVELIHOOD VALUESOF TONLE SAP LAKE
FISHERIES
The importance of fisheries of the TonleSap Lake is
indisputable, given the highcontribution of about 60 percent to the
totalinland fisheries production. What may not bewell recognized is
the importance of Tonle Sapaquatic ecosystem to the livelihoods of
overone million people living in and around theareas who rely
heavily, if not entirely, on theresources. This synopsis draws on
recent stud-ies to provide estimates of values of fisheriesand
aquatic resources to local communities inthe five provinces
bordering the Tonle SapLake, i.e., Siem Reap, Battambang,
Pursat,Kampong Chhnang and Kampong Thom. Thesynthesis reveals that
all households in theseareas engage in diverse income generatingand
livelihood activities, including fishing, fishprocessing, fish
marketing, fish culture, farm-ing, daily labour and firewood
collection,regardless of their primary occupation. Thegross annual
household income from directconsumptive uses for all
fisheries-dependenthouseholds in the five provinces is estimated
atUS$233 million. Only about one-third of this iscaptured in
households with income less thanUS$1,000, which constitute about 72
percent ofall households. These low-income householdsare mainly
small-scale, subsistence fishers andfarmers with highlivelihood
depen-dency on the TonleSap Lake. Clearly,their livelihood
con-cerns, such assecured access toresources, and basicrights to
food security,jobs, education andhealth care, shouldbe emphasized
indiscussions aboutsustainable manage-ment of Tonle SapLake
fisheries andaquatic ecosystems.
-
For sustainable development of inland fisheries in Cambodia
Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute (IFReDI)
Department of Fisheries
186 Norodom Blvd., Tonle Basak, Chamkar Morn, Phnom Penh,
Cambodia, PO Box 582, Tel/Fax: (855) 23 220 417E-mail:
[email protected] Website: www.ifredi.org
ADBADB TA 4563-CAMCapacity-Building of Inland Fisheries
ResearchAnd Development Institute (Phase 2)
Made possible by:
SOCIOECONOMICSAND LIVELIHOOD VALUES OF TONLE SAP LAKE
FISHERIES
HAP NAVYSENG LEANG
RATANA CHUENPAGDEE
SYNOPSIS
-
SOCIOECONOMICS AND LIVELIHOOD VALUESOF TONLE SAP LAKE
FISHERIES
Hap Navy Seng Leang Ratana Chuenpagdee
2006
Published by the Inland Fisheries Research and Development
Institute (IFReDI)of the Department of Fisheries, Royal Government
of Cambodia, 186 NorodomBlvd., Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Hap, N., Seng, L. and Chuenpagdee, R. 2006. Socioeconomics and
LivelihoodValues of Tonle Sap Lake Fisheries. Inland Fisheries
Research andDevelopment Institute, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 24 pp.
This synopsis was written as part of a Technical Assistance for
the Capacity-building of the IFReDI, implemented by the WorldFish
Center and supported bythe Asian Development Bank (TA
4563-CAM).
This is not an official publication of the Asian Development
Bank, and the viewsexpressed herein should not be attributed to the
ADB.
ISBN-10: ...?...?
ISBN-13: ...?...?
Front cover photos: John KurienBack cover photo: Kadul
Kandarith
-
About IFReDI
The Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute (IFReDI)
wasestablished in October 2002 by virtue of Declaration No. 357 of
theMInistry of Agruculture, Forestry and Fisheries as a research
and developmentinstitute under the supervision of the Department of
Fisheries (DoF).
VisionSustainable development of Cambodia’s inland aquatic
resources for thecountry’s food, security, and economic
prosperity.
MissionTo provide scientific information and technical support
for the sustainabledevelopment and management of inland living
aqaatic resources in Cambodia,based on biological and socioeconomic
research.
Goals. Scientific research collection, analysis and
dissemination of biological and
socioeconomic data;. Development and upgrading of national
capacity for the rational
management of inland fisheries;. Maximization of the income of
fishermen and farmers;. Sustainable utilization of the fishery
resources.
186 Norodom Blvd., Tonle Basak, Chamkar Morn, Phnom Penh,
Cambodia,PO Box 582, Tel/Fax: (855) 23 220 417
E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.ifredi.org
-
SOCIOECONOMICS AND LIVELIHOOD VALUESOF TONLE SAP LAKE
FISHERIES
Hap Navy1Seng Leang2Ratana Chuenpagdee3
1 Chief of Socio-economics Division, Inland Fisheries Research
and Development Institute, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
2 Officer, Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute,
Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
3 Adjunct Scientist, WorldFish Center, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
i
-
ContentsList of Tables, figures
....................................................................................Acknowledgments
.........................................................................................Abstract
.........................................................................................................1.
Introduction
...............................................................................................2.
Tonle Sap Lake communities, their activities and other
characteristics......3. Livelihood strategies and
dependency.......................................................4.
Values of fisheries and aquatic
resources..................................................5.
Issues and challenges in sustaining fishing
livelihoods..............................6.
Conclusion.................................................................................................References
....................................................................................................
iiiivv1157121517
ii
-
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TablesTable 1 Percentage of households involved in
fishing.............................Table 2 Average annual catch
per household and utilization of catch.....Table 3 Percentage of
households involved in different
income generating
activities........................................................Table
4 Importance of common property
resources.................................Table 5 Percentage
distribution of male and female heads
of
household...............................................................................Table
6 Estimates of average annual household income
from all
sources...........................................................................Table
7 Total 'gross' income for aquatic resource-dependent
households of the Tonle Sap Lake
.............................................Table 8 Consumption
values of fisheries
................................................Table 9 Summary of
responses required to address challenges
in sustaining
livelihoods..............................................................Figures
Figure 1 Different kinds of values associated withTonle Sap
aquatic
ecosystem....................................................
Figure 2 Percentage distribution of households by income
level.............Figure 3 Percentage distribution of number of
households
and estimated gross annual
income..........................................
23
46
6
9
1011
14
78
10
iii
-
iv
The authors acknowledge funding support from Asian Development
Bankunder ADB-TA 4563-CAM (Capacity Building of the Inland
FisheriesResearch and Development Institute, Phase II) which
enables this research.We wish to thank H.E. Nao Thuok, John Kurien,
Blake Ratner, Yumiko Kura andMarko Keskinen for reviewing the
earlier drafts and for providing helpful com-ments. Special thanks
to Emelita C. Agbayani and Renato F. Agbayani for theireditorial
comments. We are indebted to Mr. Kadul Kandarith, IFReDI
researchassociate, who assisted us in data analysis and in the
preparation of figures andtables. Thanks also to the Provincial
Fisheries Officers of the five provinces,members of several
non-government and intergovernmental organizations andother
workshop participants who shared with us their knowledge,
experienceand perspectives. Views and opinions expressed in this
document are those ofthe authors and do not represent their
respective organizations. Any errorsand/or omissions are the
responsible of the authors.
Acknowledgments
-
v
AbstractSOCIOECONOMICS AND LIVELIHOOD VALUESOF TONLE SAP LAKE
FISHERIES
by
Hap Navy, Seng Leang, Ratana Chuenpagdee
The importance of fisheries of the Tonle Sap Lake is
indisputable,given the high contribution of about 60 percent to the
total inlandfisheries production. What may not be well recognized
is the importance ofTonle Sap aquatic ecosystem to the livelihoods
of over one million peopleliving in and around the areas who rely
heavily, if not entirely, on theresources. This synopsis draws on
recent studies to provide estimates ofvalues of fisheries and
aquatic resources to local communities in the fiveprovinces
bordering the Tonle Sap Lake, i.e., Siem Reap, Battambang,Pursat,
Kampong Chhnang and Kampong Thom. The synthesis reveals thatall
households in these areas engage in diverse income generating
andlivelihood activities, including fishing, fish processing, fish
marketing, fishculture, farming, daily labour and firewood
collection, regardless of theirprimary occupation. The gross annual
household income from directconsumptive uses for all
fisheries-dependent households in the fiveprovinces is estimated at
US$233 million. Only about one-third of this iscaptured in
households with income less than US$1,000, which constituteabout 72
percent of all households. These low-income households aremainly
small-scale, subsistence fishers and farmers with high
livelihooddependency on the Tonle Sap Lake. Clearly, their
livelihood concerns, suchas secured access to resources, and basic
rights to food security, jobs,education and health care, should be
emphasized in discussions about sus-tainable management of Tonle
Sap Lake fisheries and aquatic ecosystems.
-
1. Introduction
This synopsis aims to describe the socioeco-nomic
characteristics of fishing communitiesaround the Tonle Sap Lake, to
summarizeinformation on the economic and livelihoodvalues of the
fisheries to these communities,and to identify key issues that
might be con-sidered in sustaining their livelihoods. Thesynopsis
draws largely from recent studies onsocioeconomics and livelihood
of fisheriesresources in the Tonle Sap Lake,4 particularlythe
report by Rab et al. (2005) and Ahmed etal. (1998), both of which
provide baselinesocioeconomic information about communi-ties at two
different time periods5. The presentsummary focuses on the five
provincesbordering the Tonle Sap Lake, i.e., SiemReap, Battambang,
Pursat, KampongChhnang and Kampong Thom6. We firstdescribe Tonle
Sap Lake communities andtheir fishing, fishing-related, and other
incomegenerating activities. Next, we summariseoverall livelihood
strategies as well as theirdependency on aquatic resources. We
thendraw inference about the 'values' or impor-tance of fisheries
and other aquatic resourcesbased on the household surveys
conductedby Rab et al. (2005)7. We conclude with keyissues and
challenges in sustaining the liveli-hoods of the communities.
2. Tonle Sap Lake communities, theiractivities and other
characteristics
Fisheries have long been central toCambodian lifestyles,
particularly tocommunities living in and around the TonleSap Lake.
Fisheries from Tonle Sap areascontribute about 60 percent of
Cambodiantotal inland fisheries production (Baran, 2005),or between
200,000 to 218,000 tonnes basedon average productions from
2001-2003(DOF, 2004), with landed values betweenUS$150-250 million8
(MAFF-CNMC, 2003).
According to the study conducted in 1995,titled "Socio-economic
assessment of fresh-water capture fisheries of Cambodia" (Ahmedet
al., 1998), there were about 1.17 millionpeople in the five
provinces (comprising 145fishing communities and 195,000
fishingfamilies) who depended on fisheries and otheraquatic
resources for food and livelihoods. In2003, the population was
estimated to haveincreased to 1.25 million (Rab et al., 2005).
Fishing is generally categorized into threetypes: family fishing
(or small-scale), middle-scale fishing and large-scale fishing (or
fishinglot)9. Brief descriptions of these fisheries areprovided
below with estimates of production in1995, as reported in Ahmed et
al. (1998),based on household surveys of 867 familyfishing, 84
middle-scale fishing and 6 fishinglot, considered actively involved
in fishing atthe time of the survey. It is worth noting,however,
that the estimates from 1995 arelikely to be starkly different from
currentfigures considering the recent fisheriesreforms that may
have resulted in the increaseof number of fishing households.
(i) Family (or small-scale) fishing.
This is practiced in about every householdaround the Tonle Sap
and is usually carriedout by family members using small gears,such
as gill nets and bamboo fence traps.Family fishing does not require
licenseand it can take place all-year round.Considerable amount of
catches are used
Fisheries have long been central toCambodian lifestyle,
particularly toabout 1.25 million people living in thefive
provinces around the Tonle SapLake who depend on fisheries andother
aquatic resources for food,income and livelihoods.
Synopsis 1
4 Tonle Sap Lake is used here to emphasize the focus of the
synopsis on the lake area and its floodplains, and not TonleSap
River that connects the Lake to the Mekong River. The terms 'the
Tonle Sap Lake' and 'the Tonle Sap' are usedinterchangeably in the
report.5 The areas covered in Rab et al. (2005), i.e., Kampong
Chhnang, Siem Reap and Kandal, is a sub-set of what wascovered in
Ahmed et al. (1998), which also included Kampong Thom, Battambang,
Pursat, Kampong Cham and PhnomPenh. The Ahmed et al. (1998) study
was conducted in 1995-1996, while that of Rab et al. (2005) was
undertaken in2003-2004.6 Banteay Meanchey is excluded from the
synopsis because the bordering area to the Tonle Sap Lake is very
smallcompared to the other five provinces. 7 Figures presented in
the synopsis were re-analyzed from raw data obtained in the survey
conducted by Rab et al.(2005) to include information on only two
provinces, i.e., Kampong Chhnang and Siem Reap; they thus are
different fromwhat was reported in Rab et al.8 The exchange rate
used in this study is US$1 = 4,000 Riel.9 See detailed description
of each fishing type in Baran (2005).
-
for home consumption. Of all householdsactively involved in
fishing, 90 percent aresmall-scale operators. In 1995, about85,000
households engaged in family fish-ing, with an estimated average
annual pro-duction of 0.7 tonnes per household. Overtwo-thirds of
the harvest from this type offishing originated from Kampong
Chhnangand Batambang provinces.
(ii) Middle-scale fishing.
This is for commercial purpose and isallowed only during October
to May, whenthe water level in the Tonle Sap begins torecede and
the floodplain area is decreasingin size. Under current
regulations, license isno longer required for middle-scale
opera-tions. Gill nets are the main gear of middle-scale fishers.
The number of middle-scalefishing households in the five provinces
in1995 was about 9,000, each one making anaverage catch of about
5.3 tonnes perannum.
(iii) Large-scale fishing or fishing lot.
This is operated under a two-year leasesystem using gears that
can cover largeareas such as bamboo barrage traps andseine nets. In
1995, the average annual
production per fishing lot was estimated tobe 54.1 tonnes.
Fishing takes place in the Tonle Sap Lake, aswell as in small
rivers, inundated forests andflooded rice fields. Fishing in rice
fields occursmainly during closed season (June toSeptember). Other
fishing grounds are used
year round by small-scale fishers.
According to Rab et al. (2005), villages aroundthe Tonle Sap
Lake may be categorized basedon level of fishing activities of
households, i.e.,fishing, fishing cum farming and farmingvillages.
Overall, 'fishing' villages refer tovillages with 80-90 percent of
householdsconsidering fishing as their primary occupa-tion,
'farming' villages are those with at least80 percent of households
engaged in farming,while 'fishing cum farming' villages are
thosewith households relying on fishing during thewet season and
farming during the dryseason. Based on the 2003-2004 survey of270
households in Kampong Chhnang andSiem Reap provinces (Rab et al.,
2005),almost all households in fishing villages andabout 66 percent
of fishing cum farminghouseholds fished all year round (Table 1).10
Infarming villages, on the other hand, almosthalf of the households
fished during closedseason, when the water is high and farming
isinactive.
As previously stated, the type of fishing gearsused varies by
type of fishing operation,fishing ground and targeted species. Gill
netsare commonly used in family fishing as theyare considered a
relatively low-cost gear,suitable for catching many fish species
in
different fishing grounds. Thus, about 73percent out of 270
households surveyed (from62 percent in farming villages to 84
percent infishing villages) owned gill nets (Rab et al.,2005). The
most important species in terms ofquantity (between 13 to 36
percent of totalcatches) for all types of fishing is carp
(treyriel, Henicorhynchus spp.). Other important
Synopsis2
Table 1 Percentage of households involved in fishingat different
time of year by type of village
Notes: n = 45 in each village type in each province
Kampong Chhnang Siem Reap BothFishing cum Fishing cum Fishing
cum
Involvement in fishing Fishing farming Farming Fishing farming
Faming Fishing farmingFarming
Closed season 2 7 49 0 4 44 1 6 47Opened season 7 13 0 2 22 9 4
18 4All year 89 71 18 98 60 31 93 66 24Occasional or not at all 2 9
33 0 13 16 1 11 24
10 All tables in this synopsis are based on the re-analysis of
the survey data by Rab et al. (2005)
-
species are snakehead fish, catfish and othercyprinids.
Some difference in average annual catch perhousehold between
Kampong Chhnang andSiem Reap can be observed (Rab et al.,2005).
Annual catches of households infishing villages in both provinces
were muchgreater than those of households in fishingcum farming and
farming villages (i.e., about75 percent of total catches came from
fishingvillages). Comparison by province of averageannual catch per
household in fishing andfishing cum farming villages shows that
thecatches of those in Siem Reap doubled thosein Kampong Chhnang
(Table 2). This suggeststhat there were more middle-scale
fisheringand more fishing lots in Siem Reap. Thereverse was found,
however, for householdsin farming villages where catches were
higherin Kampong Chhnang.
Utilization of catches varies between types ofvillages and
provinces. For example, Rab etal. (2005) reported that among
predominatelyfishing villages in Kampong Chhnang andSiem Reap, an
average of 80 percent of totalcatches is sold fresh, 9 percent is
sold as fishfeed, 8 percent is processed, while theremaining 3
percent is for home consumption.Note, however, that percentage of
catches forhome consumption is considerably higher infarming
villages (about 34 percent) than infishing and fishing cum farming
villages(Table 2). The relatively low catch and highproportion of
catches for home consumptionsuggest that fishing in farming
villages ismainly small-scale.
Fish processing activities may be classified,based largely on
the scale of operation, as: 1)traditional or a family scale, for
home con-sumption; 2) commercial scale, with 40-60workers, mainly
for local market; and 3) indus-trial scale, for international
markets. The mostimportant processed products, in terms ofquantity
produced, are semi-final fish paste(73 percent) and fish paste (13
percent),locally called prahoc. These products are soldat prices
(about US$0.35/kg) lower than thoseof fermented and smoked fish
(US$0.60-0.70/kg) which are produced in much smallerquantity.
Similar to utilization of catches, farminghouseholds retain
almost all of theirprocessed products (about 95 percent) forhome
consumption and sell the rest. Fishinghouseholds, on the other
hand, sell 91 percentof processed products (Rab et al.,
2005).Although 63 percent of the 270 surveyedhouseholds reported
fish processing as one oftheir economic activities, only 16 percent
ofthem earn income from fish processing. It isalso worth noting
that participation of womenand children in fish processing
activities isrelatively high compared to direct fishing.
Forexample, women comprise about 80 percentof fish processing plant
workers.
Aquaculture is another economic activity thatis gaining
importance among communitiesliving in and around the Tonle Sap
Lake. Insome fishing villages, Rab et al., (2005) foundthat nearly
half of the households areengaged in fish-rearing operations. The
maintypes of aquaculture in the Tonle Sap are cageand pen culture
of a number of fish species,
Synopsis 3
Kampong Chhnang Siem ReapFishing cum Fishing cum
Utilization of catches (kg) Fishing farming Farming Fishing
farming Farming
Home consumption 136 172 150 723 240 128Sold fresh 7,402 1,166
347 11,369 4,597 121Fish processing 67 30 16 1,884 113 4Fish feed
592 889 44 1,449 73 1
Annual catch per household 8,197 2,257 557 15,425 5,023 254
Utilization of catches (%) Fishing Farming Farming Fishing
Farming Farming
Home consumption 2 7 49 0 4 44Sold fresh 7 13 0 2 22 9Fish
processing 89 71 18 98 60 31Fish feed 2 9 33 0 13 16
Table 2 Average annual catch per household and utilizationin
Kampong Chhnang and Siem Reap by type of village
-
including trey chdor (giant snakehead,Channa micropeltes), trey
pra (sutchi catfish,Pangasianodon hypophthalmus), trey po
(spotpangasius, Pangasius larnaudii) and trey ros(snakehead murrel,
C. striata), and farming ofcrocodiles. Fish raised in many
householdscome from live catch of fry or fingerling, whichare kept
in bamboo pens or in cages undertheir floating houses, fattened and
sold whendemand is high.
Overall, fishing and fishing-related activitiesare important for
the majority of households inthe Tonle Sap Lake. It should be
noted,however, that despite high involvement infishing and
fishing-related activities, manyhouseholds may still consider rice
farming astheir primary occupation. For instance, about72 percent
of 2,544 households in the fiveprovinces surveyed in Ahmed et al.
(1998)reported rice farming as their primary occupa-tion while only
12 percent considered fishingas their main activity. This could be
becauseon average almost 90 percent of the house-
holds built their houses on land. Among thosewho built houses on
water, the number inKampong Chhnang, Battambang andKampong Thom
provinces were highest atabout 7 percent (Ahmed et al.,
1998).Reported primary occupation (in terms ofincome and time
allocated) may not be thebest indicator of the importance of, and
liveli-hood dependency on, aquatic resources sincemany people are
involved in subsistencefishing, either on a daily or part-time
basis.Indeed, for many households, fishing is impor-tant not as an
income generating activity, but
as main source of protein and fall back againstcrop failure
(McKenny and Tola, 2002).
Table 3 shows the range of income generatingand livelihood
activities of all households -fishing, fish processing, fish
marketing, fishculture, daily labour, business and
firewoodcollection. It is important to note that, even infarming
villages, equal numbers of house-holds derive income from fishing
activities. Inother words, these villages are rather homo-genous in
terms of main sources of liveli-hoods, and thus are evenly
vulnerable tosudden environmental changes (Keskinen,2003),
discussed below. Given the occupa-tional pluralism that
characterizes Tonle SapLake communities, livelihood
considerationhas to take into account the dependency ofpeople on
fisheries and the entire aquaticecosystem.
In terms of demographic characteristics of theTonle Sap
communities, many studies reportan average household size of six,
headed
mainly by male member, with about 65-70 per-cent of all
household members in the workingage range of 11-60 years old (Ahmed
et al.,1998; Rab et al., 2005; Israel et al., 2005). Themain ethnic
origin of household members isKhmer, with Chinese, Vietnamese and
Chamas minority groups. The overall education andliteracy rate is
low; for example, as much as20-25 percent of household members have
noformal education. The low education levelapplies particularly to
female heads of house-hold and female household members. As
aresult, female-headed households have lower
Synopsis4Type of village
Fishing cumSources of income Fishing farming FarmingFishing 100
89 80Fish culture 48 19 2Fish trading 10 7 3Net/gear making 2 2
0Farming 21 69 78Fuel wood collection 46 51 52Bamboo & cane
work 2 1 1Livestock raising 30 24 28Daily labor 24 19
19Government/NGO 13 12 9Money lending 1 1 4Motor taxi/boat driving
0 2 1Shop/small business 20 19 30Others 3 2 2
Table 3 Percentage of households involved in differentincome
generating activities by village type
-
income, thus lower socioeconomic status,than male-headed
households (Keskinen,2003). When comparing between differenttypes
of households, the level of education ofhousehold members in
fishing villages islower than that of farming villages (Rab et
al.,2005). This could be attributed to the fact thatmany of these
fishing families live in floatinghouses and thus have limited
access toschool.
Like most households in other rural areas, thehouseholds around
the Tonle Sap Lake havepoor living conditions. They have
limitedaccess to basic amenities such as water fordrinking and
cooking. Ownership of assetsand level of debts show different
patternsbetween household types. As some fishinghouseholds build
their houses on boats, cagesand stilts over water, they own less
land andthe value of their houses is lower than that offarming
villages (e.g., land areas owned byfishing households was only
about 25 percentof those owned by farming households).
Fishing households have higher expendituresthan farming
households because of thenature of their equipment - e.g. boats
andengine for fishing and transportation, genera-tor for fish
processing, and mobile phone forcommunication. Thus, the overall
level ofassets of fishing households is higher thanthose of farming
households. However,because they incur more expenses for
con-sumables, fishing households consequentlyhave greater debts
than fishing cum farmingand farming households. Their main source
ofborrowed money are relatives, friends, tradersand local money
lenders - not financial institu-tions (Rab et al., 2005).
3. Livelihood strategies and dependencyon aquatic resources
While the term 'fisheries-dependent' house-holds may be used
generally to refer to mosthouseholds in the Tonle Sap Lake, it
isrecognized that the degree of dependencyvaries between types of
villages due to theirlocations or proximity to the waters. The
cate-gorization used in Rab et al. (2005) suggeststhat 'fishing
villages' have the highest degreeof dependency on fisheries
resources and'farming villages' are the least dependent. Thisis
evidenced by the difference in the timespent fishing: 4.55
person-hours per day perhousehold for fishing villages vs. 2.07
person-hours for farming villages during closed sea-son. Those
located along the waters and ininundated forests have better access
to fish-ing grounds and thus depend highly on fish-ing, while those
with access to agriculturallands are naturally more involved in
farmingactivities (Ahmed et al., 1998). Similarly,households
located within six meters of eleva-tion from mean water level rely
more heavilyon aquatic resources than those in higher ele-vations
and in urban areas (Keskinen, 2003).Furthermore, a study (ADB,
2005) using thezoning model adopted by the Tonle SapBiosphere
Reserve Project shows that peopleliving in the core zone (with high
degree ofprotection) rely more heavily on aquaticresources and,
thus, are more concerned withrenewable natural assets than those
living inthe buffer zone (areas designated for sustain-able
development) and in the transition zone(areas with relatively high
degree of econom-ic activity). This last study also emphasizesthe
importance of agriculture for people in thecore and buffer
zones.
The diversification of income generating andsubsistence
activities is an important liveli-hood strategy for the majority of
the peopleliving around the Tonle Sap Lake, regardlessof primary
occupation, gender, age and edu-cation. The importance of aquatic
resources isemphasized when considering that activitiessuch as
gathering of aquatic plants, non-aquatic and wild animals, water
birds and
The majority of households in theTonle Sap Lake maybe referred
to as'fishing-dependent', although thedegree of dependency varies
betweenvillage types (e.g., fishing, fishing cumfarming, farming)
and due to theirlocations or proximity to the waters.
Fishing households tend to havehigher percentage of expenditure
onconsumables compared to fishingcum farming and farming
households.Thus more fishers are in debt,borrowing mainly from
relatives,friends, traders and local moneylenders -- generally not
from financialinstitutions.
Households around the Tonle SapLake are distinguished by their
occu-pational pluralism, implying that liveli-hood consideration
has to take intoaccount the dependency of people onfisheries and
the entire aquaticecosystem.
Synopsis 5
-
firewood take place on a daily basis to supportbasic needs of
these rural communities. Forexample, all households collect
firewood forcooking and fish processing and the majorityof
households rely on collection of morningglory, baringtonia leaves
(or trouy rang) andwater lily for household consumption. Thesetwo
activities, as well as use of rivers for trans-portation, were
considered most important bythe households surveyed in Rab et al.'s
study(Table 4). Access to and utilization of these
common property resources is thus a criticalfactor in sustaining
livelihoods, particularly thelivelihoods of people with little or
no alterna-tives. The declining trend in accessibility
andavailability of products and benefits derivedfrom common
property resources, especiallyinundated forests and big rivers and
lakes,was indicated in 1995 (Ahmed et al., 1998),and in the more
recent study (Keskinen,2003). Some of the reasons for this trend,
inaddition to overfishing which directly impactsfishing
livelihoods, are changes in environ-mental conditions, population
growth andhabitat destruction (Keskinen, 2003).
Traditional gender roles have a bearing onlivelihood strategies.
Women continue to bearthe main responsibilities for home-making
andchild rearing, although they also collect food,vegetables and
other common propertyresources for home consumption. Men, on
theother hand, often work outside the house to
earn income, including from fishing or farming,or both.
Typically, women are not directlyinvolved in fishing, but they are
key actors inthe supply chain of aquatic products, in fishculture
and in the maintenance of fishinggears (Israel et al., 2005;
McKenney and Tola,2002; Keskinen, 2003). This traditional
genderdivision of activity is not apparent in house-holds headed by
females where comparablenumber of female heads of
householdsreported similar primary occupations as male
heads of household (Table 5). When neces-sity requires and
opportunities presentthemselves, women, often together with
theirchildren, go fishing in rivers using small gillnets. In other
words, female involvement infishing may likely be higher than
traditionallyunderstood since much of their activity, whichis aimed
at provisioning for the household, is'invisible'.
Is fishing a preferred lifestyle or is it the onlylivelihood
option? The study by Ahmed et al.(1998) revealed that some of the
main rea-sons for people's involvement in fishing areinherited
family tradition, part of traditionalfood collection for home
consumption, andprovision of cheap food source. According
toKeskinen (2003), more than 60 percent of thesurveyed households
living further away fromthe Tonle Sap Lake indicated the ability
tochange from fishing to other occupations,while those living
closer to water bodies areless able to change. Considering that
about
Access to, and utilization of, commonproperty resources is a
critical factorin sustaining people's livelihood,particularly those
with little livelihoodalternatives.
Diversification of income generatingand subsistence activities
is animportant livelihood strategy for themajority of the people
living aroundthe Tonle Sap Lake, regardless ofprimary occupation,
gender, age andeducation.
Synopsis6
Table 4 Importance of common property resources based on the
reportof uses by surveyed households in Kampong Chhnang and Siem
Reap
Level of % households Common property resourcesimportance using
resources
Very high >80 Firewood, morning gloryHigh >60 Barringtonia
leaves (trouy rang), water lily, serbania flower
(phkasnor)Medium >30 Garcinia (Sundane), water (for
transportation), rat, mollusc,
snails/crabs, lotus and lotus rootsLow >10 Mat making
materials, Garmcinia loureri fruits (sleuk sundane),
water spinach (kanchhet), animal grazing, swamp eels,traditional
medicine, recreation, snakes, toads
Very low
-
Synopsis 7
40-60 percent of households adjoining theTonle Sap Lake live
below poverty line (ADB,2005), it is important to acknowledge
theimportance of livelihood diversification andalternative
employment opportunities outsidethe fisheries sector.
4. Values of fisheries and aquaticresources
Information about values of fisheries andaquatic resources is
useful to determine theextent to which resources contribute to
thecountry's economic and social welfare, as well
as to sustaining rural livelihoods, particularlywhere dependency
on resources is high, as inthe case of Tonle Sap Lake
communities.'Total' values of aquatic ecosystem can beconsidered in
terms of use and non-usevalues (Figure 1). Among use values
aredirect use, indirect use and option values.'Direct use' values
are obtained from produc-tion, consumption and sale of resources,
suchas through fishing, farming and firewoodcollection, as well as
non-consumptive usessuch as energy, shelter, transportation
andrecreation. 'Indirect use' values are derivedfrom ecological
functions and servicesprovided by aquatic resource systems interms
of, for example, use of flooded forestsas natural fish nurseries
and spawning andforaging grounds, maintenance of waterquality, flow
and storage, flood control andstorm protection, nutrient retention
and micro-climate stabilization. 'Option value' is value
ofpreserving the option to use the resources in
Female involvement in fishing maylikely be higher than
traditionallyunderstood since much of theiractivity is often
'invisible'.
Figure 1 Different kinds of values associated with Tonle Sap
aquatic ecosystem
Table 5 Percentage distribution of male and female headsof
household by type of occupation and village type
Fishing Fishing cum farming FarmingType of occupation Male
Female Male Female Male FemaleFishing 82 89 68 70 12 8Fish trading
- - 3 - - -Fish culture 9 - - - - -Farming 5 5 24 30 86 92Laborer -
- 1 - - -Government/NGO job 1 5 1 - 3 -Teaching - - 1 - - -Others -
- 1 - - -
TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE
USE VALUE NON USE VALUEIntrinsic
significance ofresources and
ecosystems, e.g.Existence valueBequest valueCulture
valueHeritage value
DIRECT VALUEProcution andconsumptiongoods, e.g.
Fish, FirewoodTransportation
Shelter
INDIRECT VALUEEcosystem
functions andservices, e.g.
Water flowNutrient cyclingFlood control
OPTION VALUEPremium placed
on possible future uses or
applications, e.g.Closed season
Sancturary
-
the future, for example, in putting asideprotected areas. The
other type of values,'non-use', are intrinsic values such as
'exis-tence' values derived from the knowledge thatsomething is
there, regardless of current orfuture use possibilities, and
'bequest' valueassociated with the desire to set asideresources for
future generations. Non-usevalues are less tangible and more
difficult toestimate than direct and indirect use valuesand thus
are seldom considered in manage-ment decisions. In fact, valuation
of naturalresources is often aimed at capturing directuse values,
which is already a challengingtask, considering that 'total values'
are likely tobe higher than the estimates (see, forexample, Ratner
et al. (2004), on wetlandsvalues). Overall, while it may be
desirable toprovide 'dollar figures' as estimates of values,the
difficulty in valuation of natural resourcesmakes it more suitable
to infer values of theresources by assessing resource uses
andaccessibility and their importance to locallivelihoods.
One approach to obtain net economic values(NEV) of fisheries,
aquatic and other commonproperty resources is by estimation of
totalrevenues from production and sale of theseproducts. Total
costs of production are thensubtracted from total revenues.
Anotherapproach is to indirectly estimate values from
reported 'gross' household income fromdifferent activities.
While these data alone arenot the indication of total values of
resources,they reflect the importance of resources interms of
income dependency. In a survey ofrural communities involved in
subsistence andsmall-scale commercial fishing activities,these two
estimates of values are likely to besimilar, especially since when
asked aboutincome from various activities, respondentstend to first
think of the amount they produceand the prices obtained. As in the
calculationof NEV, cost information is needed to turngross income
into net income. This informa-tion, however, is generally difficult
to obtain.Estimation of NEV is therefore not attempedhere.
Using data from household surveysconducted by Rab et al. (2005),
direct usevalues of Tonle Sap Lake fisheries andaquatic resources
are estimated based onreported annual household income from
allsources. Estimates of individual householdincome are provided by
'level' of income (orwealth category) to differentiate the size
andscale of activities (Table 6). The difference inaverage annual
household income betweenthe highest income level and the
lowestincome level is vast, but the gap is particu-larly wide in
fishing villages. Further, incomeper household differs slightly
between village
Synopsis8
Average annual household income (US$)Kampong Chhnang Siem Reap
Both
Fishing Fishing Fishingcum cum cum
Income level Fishing farming Farming Fishing farming Farming
Fishing farming Farming≤1,000 412 414 406 655 580 432 533 466
4181,001 - 2,000 1,254 1,221 1,296 1,320 1,322 1,451 1,289 1,302
1,3982,001 - 5,000 2,548 3,655 3,345 3,525 2,991 3,345 3,525>
5,000 6,448 9,617 5,445 8,349 5,445
Number of householdsKampong Chhnang Siem Reap Both
Fishing Fishing Fishingcum cum cum
Income level Fishing farming Farming Fishing farming Farming
Fishing farming Farming≤1,000 26 42 42 26 19 37 52 61 791,001 -
2,000 11 3 3 12 12 4 23 15 72,001 - 5,000 6 4 11 4 10 11 4>5,000
2 3 2 5 2
45 45 45 45 44* 45 90 89 90
Table 6 Estimates of average annual household income (US$) from
all sources,categorized by level of income, by village type, by
province
* one sample (outlier) was removed.
-
types and provinces, with households infishing villages having
the lowest level ofincome and households in Kampong Chhnangwith
lower income in all categories than thosein Siem Reap. Also shown
in Figure 2, themajority of households in these two
provinces,especially in Kampong Chhnang, earn lessthan US$1,000 per
year. In both cases, thereare more households in the low income
levelin farming villages than in fishing villages.
The 'direct use' values (gross) reported inTable 6 are based on
income of individualhousehold. An estimation procedure is used
tocalculate total direct use values for all
'aquaticresource-dependent' households in the fiveprovinces. The
term is used here to recognizethe broader importance of the Tonle
Sap Lakebeyond direct benefit from fishing. It isimportant to note
that these estimates are the'minimum' values at best (or on the
lower end
of the income range), considering that a goodproportion of
products from various activitiesare for home consumption. Some
suggestionson how to adjust these estimates arediscussed below.
First, the number of households in eachprovince is obtained from
2002 census(UNDP, 2003) and the proportions of
aquaticresource-dependent households in eachprovince are based on
Ahmed et al. (1998).On average, about 42 percent of communes
in the five provinces are considered 'fishing'communes, with the
highest percentage (55percent) in Kampong Chhnang and the lowestin
Siem Reap (31 percent). Using theseproportions, the total
population depending onaquatic resources of the Tonle Sap
isestimated at about 1.25 million (based on anaverage household
size of six), suggestingabout 2 percent growth rate from 1995
datareported in Ahmed et al. (1998). Averageincome at the
individual household level fromthese two provinces (by income
category) isused to estimate income for the other threeprovinces,
assuming that estimates forKampong Chhnang represent households
onthe lower end of the income range, whilethose for Siem Reap
represent the higher end(Table 6). Note also that, for
simplification,income is averaged for all village types. Table7
shows the calculation of total 'gross' annualincome for all aquatic
resource-dependent
households for the five provinces around theTonle Sap Lake.
Estimates for the other threeprovinces (Battambang, Pursat and
KampongThom) are based on average values betweenKampong Chhnang and
Siem Reap.
Overall, US$215 million is estimated as grossannual income for
these communities, indicat-ing thus a 'portion' of direct use
values andimportance of aquatic resources to Tonle Sapcommunities.
This implies per capita incomeper annum of about US$172, based on
the
Synopsis 9
Figure 2 Percentage distribution of households by income level
for each village type
% h
ouse
hold
s by
inco
me
leve
l
Fishing Fishing Farmingcum
farming
Fishing Fishing Farmingcum
farming
-
Synopsis10
Table 7 Total 'gross' income for aquatic resource-dependent
households of the Tonle Sap Lake
a) Average annual income per household (US$)
KampongIncome level Chhnang Siem Reap Both≤≤1,000 83 61 721,001
- 2,000 12 21 162,001 - 5,000 4 14 9>5,000 1 4 3
KampongIncome level Chhnang Siem Reap Both≤≤1,000 409 556
4701,001 - 2,000 1,229 1,364 1,3212,001 - 5,000 2,548 3,508
3,287>5,000 6,448 7,531 6,897
b) Percentage distribution of households by income level
c) Estimated number of aquatic resource-dependent households by
income level
Kampong KampongIncome level Chhnang Siem Reap Battambang Pursat
Thom Total
≤≤1,000 39,742 24,630 32,384 27,309 26,924 150,9881,001 - 2,000
5,746 8,479 7,196 6,069 5,983 3,34732,001 - 5,000 1,915 5,653 4,048
3,414 3,365 18,395>5,000 479 1,615 1,349 1,138 1,122 5,703Total
47,882 40,376 44,978 37,929 37,394 208,560
Kampong KampongIncome level Chhnang Siem Reap Battambang Pursat
Thom Total
≤≤1,000 16.2 13.7 15.2 12.8 12.7 70.61,001 - 2,000 7.1 11.6 9.5
8.0 7.9 44.12,001 - 5,000 4.9 19.8 13.3 11.2 11.1 60.3>5,000 3.1
12.2 9.3 7.8 7.7 40.1Total 31.3 57.2 47.3 39.9 39.4 215.1
d) Estimated ‘gross’ income for all households by province
(million US$)
estimate number of about 209,000 house-holds with an average
size of six. When con-sidering household income by income level,the
situation is stark for the majority of house-holds, as over 70
percent of all householdsearn income of only about US$470, or
percapita income of about US$78 (Figure 3). Putdifferently, about
12 percent of households(with annual income above US$2,000)
cap-ture almost half of the total gross income fromall households.
Most likely, households withaverage income less than US$1,000
aresmall-scale, subsistence fishers and farmerswho rely heavily, if
not entirely, on aquaticresources for their livelihoods, while
thoseearning high income are middle-scale fishersand fishing lot
owners. The disparity in incomedistribution between households is a
seriousproblem that needs to be addressed.
In addition to values estimated from reportedhousehold income
(from production and sale),values of fisheries for home consumption
areadded. Based on utilization of catches in Table2 and the average
price of fish at US$0.25 perkilogram, about US$63 is estimated as
anannual average consumption value perhousehold. The total
consumption value for allhouseholds is thus about US$13 million
(Table8). Adding this proportion to the households
Diversification of income generatingand subsistence activities
is animportant livelihood strategy for themajority of the people
living aroundthe Tonle Sap Lake, regardless ofprimary occupation,
gender, age andeducation.
-
gross income results in an estimate of aboutUS$228 million for
direct consumptive usevalues of fisheries and aquatic resources
ofthe Tonle Sap Lake.
For Tonle Sap Lake communities whose liveli-hood strategies
signify a diverse range ofincome generating and subsistence
activities,
benefits from utilization of common propertyresources are added
to the above grossincome. Based on Rab et al. (2005), aboutUS$26
per household on average (highest forfishing village at US$42 and
lowest forfarming village at US$16) are obtained fromcollection of
aquatic plants and animals. Whilethis value is small, it is
significant for people in
Synopsis 11
(* data from table 2)
Income level (US$)
>5,000
3 6,897
2,001 - 5,000
9 3,287
1,001 - 2,000
16 1,321
≤≤1,000
72 470
% Household in each income level Annual household income
(US$)
Figure 3 Percent distribution of number of householdsand
estimatedgross annual income by income level
Average home consumption (kg)Fishing
cumProvince Fishing farming Farming AllKampong Chhnang 136 172
150 153Siem Reap 723 240 128 364Average 258
Consumption values (US$)Fishing
cumProvince Fishing farming Farming AllKampong Chhnang 33 42 37
37Siem Reap 177 59 31 89Average 63
Province Consumption values (million US$)Kampong Chhnang 1.8Siem
Reap 3.6Battambang 2.8Pursat 2.4Kampong Thom 2.4Total 13.0
a) Average total annual household comsumption of fisheries
catches*
b) Average total values per household (average unit price is
about US$0.25/kg)
c) Total consumption vulues from fisheries for all
apuatic-dependent households
Table 8 Consumption values of fisheries
-
the lower income level, contributing about 2-6percent to income
from main economicactivities. The estimated value of commonproperty
resources for aquatic resource-dependent households with income
less thanUS$2,000 in the five provinces is about US$5million,
giving the estimated total direct'consumptive' use value (gross) of
Tonle SapLake aquatic resources of about US$233million.
Estimation of average annual householdincome by income level, as
done here, allowsdifferentiation of livelihood dependency
ofcommunities around the Tonle Sap Lake.Overall, it can be stated
that the majority of thepeople living around the Tonle Sap are
highlydependent on aquatic resources. Their lowincome level makes
them more vulnerablethan those in the higher income levels. It
isimportant to underscore, however, that esti-mates reported here
are based on severalassumptions and do not include indirect usesand
other values of the Tonle Sap Lake. Atbest, these are the 'minimum'
values andshould be used only to indicate the impor-tance of
fisheries and aquatic resources to thepeople of the Tonle Sap Lake.
Another limita-tion is the use of data from surveyed house-holds in
Kampong Chhnang and Siem Reapto provide the estimates for the other
threeprovinces. More detailed study is required inorder to improve
these estimates. Note thatthis can be a simple exercise, for
example, ofconducting field surveys of households in theother three
provinces mainly to obtain theproportion of households in different
villagetypes.
It is important to re-emphasize that considera-tion thus far is
focused primarily on eliciting afraction of economic values of
fisheries andaquatic resources of the Tonle Sap Lake.Ecological and
social values of theseresources have not been captured.
Moreimportantly, fisheries and aquatic resources
are only a portion of the overall wetlandsecosystems of the
Tonle Sap Lake thatcomprise of rivers, streams, lakes, rice
fields,inundated flooded areas and other areas thatare either
seasonally or permanently coveredby water. Ecological, social and
economicvalues of these wetlands are vast and, there-fore, need to
be included in the discussion,particularly in the consideration of
people'slivelihoods, their resource dependency, in thedesign of
resource use policy and in decision-making processes (Bonheur et
al., 2005).
5. Issues and challenges in sustainingfishing livelihoods
Aquatic resource-dependent communitiesaround the Tonle Sap Lake
face severalchallenges in sustaining their livelihoods.From
ecological and environmental perspec-tives, they are vulnerable to
short- and long-term climatic variations affecting, for
example,changes in the amount of rains, flood leveland duration,
and changes in the size offlooded forest areas. Such changes can
alsobe induced by human activities, such as damconstruction,
defo-restation, use of pesticidesin agriculture and land
development. Onedirect consequence of these natural
andanthropogenic changes on fisheries andaquatic resources is the
loss of spawninggrounds and habitats, which results inreduction of
catches. Other kinds of activitieswith adverse impacts on fisheries
catches,and thus income to communities, are use ofillegal and
destructive fishing gears andoverfishing. Other developments,
includingaquaculture, agriculture, tourism and housing,may also
cause loss of flooded forest anddegradation to the health of Tonle
Sapaquatic ecosystems.
Along with the above, Tonle Sap Lakecommunities are faced with
social andeconomic challenges. As commonly foundaround the world,
population growth, socialand economic conflicts due to
decliningresources, increasing fishing pressure,changes in
ownership and access (toresources and markets), and gender
andethnic inequality are some of the issues facedin sustaining
livelihoods of people living in andaround the Tonle Sap. Conflicts
between usergroups are further aggravated by seasonalfishers whose
occupation of parts of the lakeduring fishing season and whose
frequent useof illegal fishing techniques cause directcompetition
with local communities
The estimates reported here are, atbest, the 'minimum' direct
use valuesof the Tonle Sap Lake. Ecological,social and other
economic values ofthe Tonle Sap and the overall wetlandsecosystems
need to be captured anddiscussed in the design of naturalresource
management policy toreflect the importance of theseresources to the
people's livelihoods.
Synopsis12
-
(MAFF-CNMC, 2003). Finally, alternativeemployment may not be an
option for mostpeople whose livelihoods have long beendepended on
uses of the fisheries, aquaticand common property resources.
Constraintssuch as low education and poor transportationfurther
inhibit opportunities for other incomegenerating activities (Israel
et al., 2005).
Another major challenge to sustainingfisheries livelihoods is
the governance andinstitutional arrangements required toimplement
the recent fisheries policy reforms.Since its introduction in
October 2000, about440 community fisheries organizations havebeen
established through the initiative of theDepartment of Fisheries
(DOF), and withsupport from various fisheries and
environ-mental-related non-governmental organiza-tions. Impacts of
such reforms on povertyreduction and food security, which are parts
ofthe key goals, have been largely discussedand the first
'official' round of assessment wasconducted in 2003/2004 in three
provinces,Kampong Cham, Pursat and Takeo, byCommunity Fisheries
Development Office(CFDO) and others (see details in CFDO andDFID,
2004). In general, the assessmentreveals positive changes in
poverty reductionfor the majority of poor people,
particularlysmall-scale fishers, farmers and fish traders,with
increasing income and job opportunities.Initial improvement in food
security may notbe sustained, however, considering highcompetitions
and decline in resource base.Alternative livelihoods need to be
furtherexplored in order to reduce pressure on usesof fisheries and
aquatic resources. CFDO andDFID (2004) also recommend
capacitybuilding and strengthening of communitiesand institutions
to manage the fisheries andfacilitate the process. This point is
empha-sized in other studies (e.g., Keskinen, 2003;Israel et al.,
2005), as the reforms took placeso rapidly that many communities
andinstitutions may not be ready to cope with allthe changes, and
the legislative frameworkrequired for implementation and
enforcementhas not yet been established. The three types of
challenges presentedabove, i.e., ecological and
environmental,social and economic, and policy and manage-ment,
deserve further discussion. InNovember 2004, some 40 participants
fromkey government units in charge of fisheries,e.g., DOF,
Provincial Offices and CFDO, aswell as non-governmental
organizationsconvened to consider what responses are
needed to address these challenges.The summary of their
recommendations isprovided in Table 9. From ecological
andenvironmental perspectives, key issuesidentified by workshop
participants are relatedto loss of habitats and flooded forests,
impactsof fishing gears and other developments.There is a need for
research to assessimpacts of activities, including the use
ofillegal fishing gears on fisheries resources andaquatic
ecosystems. Of particular interest isthe consideration for critical
habitats and thesuggestion to establish sanctuaries, possiblywith
no fishing zones, at the community level(i.e., with community
involvement). Thisinitiative might also be useful in
preventingpoaching and in addressing law enforcementproblems in
existing sanctuaries (MAFF-CNMC, 2003; Baran et al., in press).
Key issues concerning socioeconomics andlivelihoods of Tonle Sap
Lake communities areconflicts between stakeholders
(specificallymigrant and seasonal fishers with their use ofillegal
fishing gears), limited access to marketand credits and lack of
alternative livelihoods.Recommended as important responses
toaddress these concerns are systematic andcomprehensive research
and data collectionof basic social and economic information suchas
changes in fishing patterns, catches, catchcomposition, employment,
migration of fish-ers, ethnic difference, and other
livelihoodcharacteristics. Research to improve marketaccess,
contribution of fish in people's nutri-tion, and post-harvest
productions were alsodiscussed. Further, a suggestion was made
toexamine the changing roles of women in thenew context of
community fisheries, for exam-ple, their increased participation in
economicactivities or in decision-making.
As emphasized above, further work isrequired to improve the
estimates of values offisheries and aquatic resources, by
incorporat-ing other use and non-use values, as well asconsidering
the relationship between ecosys-tem and livelihoods. Given the
disparity in
Main challenges in sustaining fishinglivelihoods are related to
ecologicaland environmental aspects (e.g.,stakeholders conflicts,
limited liveli-hood options), and policy andmanagement aspects
(e.g., effectiveparticipation of stakeholders).
Synopsis 13
-
Factors/key issues
1. Ecological/environmental aspectsLack of information about
critical habitats andfunctions of sanctuaries
Use of potentially harmful and destructive fishinggears
Impacts of upstream dams on Tonle Sap Lakefisheries
Decrease in flooded forests
Conflicts between irrigated agriculture, fisheries,aquaculture
and other uses
2. Socioeconomics aspectsIncompatible methods of data collection
andanalysis
Conflicts due to diverse ethnicity of Tonle SapLake communities
(e.g., Khmer, Vietnamese, andCham)
Conflicts between seasonal migrant fishers andlocal
communities
Limited access to market at a commune level andto small-scale
credits (resulting in high indebted-ness to middlemen)
Lack of technical skills and capital for improve-ment of
post-harvest sector
Lack of alternative livelihoods
Vitamin deficiency among fishing communities
Lack of understanding of the changing roles ofwomen in the
context of community fisheries
Research/Actions needs
Need to conduct research on critical habitats toprovide
appropriate protection and to establishsanctuaries at local level,
possibly with no fishingzone
Need to identify which gears are destructive,especially gears
previously not allowed, as wellas to determine the impacts on fish
population
Need to determine the extent of changes inhydrology of Mekong
River and its impact on thefisheries
Need to conduct ecosystem research to assessimpacts of
decreasing flooded forests on fisheries
Need to assess impacts of different uses on TonleSap aquatic
ecosystems, as well as their viabilityand roles in sustainable
poverty reduction
Need to encourage use of similar data collectionmethod and
analysis in order to observe changesand trends
Need to collect basic information to differentiate,for example,
number of fishers, means of liveli-hood, approaches to conflict
resolution, for eachethnic group
Need to understand motivation and pattern ofmigration, impacts
of resource use, as well asdefine (and obtain consensus on) use
rightsregime
Need to understand market access and marketingsystem, nature and
sources of credits and netincome for small-scale fishers
Need to develop new methods and techniques toimprove
post-harvest products, including value-added
Need to explore livelihood options that corre-spond to
communities' needs and aspirations
Need to identify ways to improve contribution offish to
nutrition in diet
Need to examine changes in access to resourcesfor women and
their contribution to fishing, inves-tigate if new skills are
required, and support theirparticipation in decisions and economic
activities
Synopsis14
Table 9 Summary of responses required to address challenges in
sustaining livelihoods of thepeople living in and around the Tonle
Sap Lake
-
household income among small-scale fishers,middle-scale fishers
and fishing lot owners,and the varying degree of livelihood
depend-ency on Tonle Sap Lake ecosystem, morestudies are required
to obtain a better under-standing of values and to address the
existingdisparity.
In terms of policy and management, the iden-tified needs
included the understanding ofimpacts of laws and regulations on
people'slivelihoods, the compatibility of differentnatural resource
laws and the need for newdefinitions (e.g., of subsistence
fisheries) tocorrespond with changes in fishing patternsand gear
uses. Effectiveness of the policyreforms needs to be critically
assessed,particularly in terms of benefit sharing andstakeholders'
inclusion/exclusion issues.Finally, there is a need to examine the
likelyimpacts of WTO policies on inland fisheriesand small-scale
fishers of the Tonle Sap Lakein promoting commercialization,
changing thenature of trade, and increasing demand.
6. Conclusion
Fishing is an important activity for the majorityof households
in the Tonle Sap Lake, repre-senting more than one-third of
people'sprimary occupation. The importance of TonleSap aquatic
ecosystems lies beyond catchesfrom fisheries, however, as people
living in
and around the Tonle Sap Lake engage indiverse income generating
and livelihoodactivities, including farming, collection offirewood
and uses of common propertyresources. Indeed, occupational
pluralism isan important socioeconomic characteristic ofTonle Sap
Lake communities, implying thatlivelihood considerations need to
take intoaccount the dependency of people on theentire aquatic
ecosystem.
The estimated values from direct uses of fish-eries and aquatic
resources show the vast dis-parity between households with
differingincome levels. While the gross annual incomefrom direct
uses for all fisheries-dependenthouseholds in the five provinces is
estimatedat US$233 million, only one-third is capturedin households
with income less thanUS$1,000. These low-income households,earning
per capita income of about US$78,comprise about 70 percent of all
households.They are mostly small-scale, subsistence fish-ers and
farmers who rely heavily on aquaticresources for their livelihoods.
The values andimportance of Tonle Sap aquatic ecosystemare even
more significant to these peoplegiven the scarcity of employment
alternatives.
Considering that at least 50 percent of allinland fisheries come
from small-scale andrice field fisheries (MAFF-CNMC, 2003),
andbased on the importance of fisheries and
3. Policy and managementImpacts of laws and policies on people's
liveli-hood in fisheries and other sectors
Lack of awareness about law, rules, and regula-tions,
particularly among new migrants
Lack of incentives to join natural resource man-agement
groups
Effectiveness of Community Fisheries
Impacts of World Trade Organization (WTO)
Need to conduct research on impacts of onenatural resource law
on another and examinetheir compatibility
Need to consider a new definition for 'subsistencefishing' to
correspond to the changes broughtabout by increasing fishing
pressure and improveawareness
Need to raise awareness especially amongseasonal migrants with
no adjacency and tie toresources
Need to assess whether the decentralizationprocess is working,
e.g., in relation to benefitsharing, inclusion/exclusion issues,
based onexisting practices
Need to examine the likely impacts of WTO oninland fisheries and
small-scale fishers of TonleSap Lake, e.g., whether it will promote
commer-cialization, change the nature of trade andincrease
demand
Synopsis 15
(Table 9, continued)
-
aquatic resources to the livelihoods of morethan a million
people living in and around theTonle Sap Lake, as shown in this
report,serious considerations and direct efforts arerequired to
ensure that their livelihoods arenot compromised. The recent
fisheries policyreforms, with their focus on
community-basedresource management, are critical steps,which need
to be supported by appropriateinstitutional arrangements and
governancesystems. This may imply a shift of researchand policy
focus from addressing poverty andlivelihood problems from resource
perspec-tives (e.g., overfishing) to governance per-spectives
(e.g., an understanding of the socio-institutional mechanisms
governing people'saccess to resources (Béné, 2003)). An
inter-active governance framework that involvesactions and
participation from all stakeholdersto solve societal problems and
to createopportunities (Kooiman et al., 2005) is anexample of a
system that might be worthpursuing. It corresponds well with
the'Sustainable Livelihood Approach' that
integrates natural, social, physical, financialand human
components in the formulation ofpolicy, institutions and processes,
based onthe context of sustainability, vulnerability andpoverty
(see www.livelihoods.org).
Key research and policy considerations areprovided to address
challenges in ecological,social, economic and governance aspects
ofTonle Sap Lake aquatic ecosystems. Theseinclude enhancing
knowledge about theecosystem and the relationship between
eco-logical and livelihood importance, and under-standing of social
dynamics of stakeholders,including migrant and seasonal fishers
andfishers of various ethnic groups to addressissues related to
conflicts of resource use andaccess. Research on improving
estimates ofvalues of Tonle Sap Lake fisheries and aquat-ic
ecosystems by incorporating other use andnon-use values is
required. Finally, policy con-siderations are needed to address the
existingdisparity in income among aquatic resource-dependent
households.
Synopsis16Suggested research and policy considerations:
Increasing knowledge about the ecosystem, e.g., the relationship
between loss of habitats and flooded forests, impacts of fishing
gears and other activities on the health and productivity of the
Tonle Sap Lake;Understanding social dynamics of stakeholders,
including migrant, seasonal fishers and fishers of various ethnic
groups, to address issues related to use of illegal and harmful
gears, stakeholders conflicts, resource access, and
market;Increasing awareness about the existing disparity in income
among households; Improving estimates of values of Tonle Sap Lake
fisheries and aquatic ecosystems by incorporating other use and
non-use values;Exploring livelihood options, strategies and
alternatives to assess impacts of various activities and of
different policy options, in order to ensure food security and
quality of life;Understanding roles and contributions of women to
income generation and sustaining livelihoods, as well as in
management and decision-making process; andExamining the
effectiveness of the recent policy reforms, particularly in terms
of benefit sharing and stakeholders' inclusion/exclusion issues, in
order to make necessary adjustment in institutional arrangement and
governance structure.
-
ADB. 2005. The Tonle Sap Basin Strategy.Asian Development Bank,
Philippines. 44 p.
Ahmed, M., Hap, N., Vuthy, L. and Tiongco,M. 1998.
Socio-economic assessment offreshwater capture fisheries of
Cambodia:Report on a household survey. Mekong RiverCommission,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 186 p.
Baran, E. 2005. Cambodian inland fisheries:facts, figures and
context. WorldFish Centre,and Inland Fisheries Research
andDevelopment Institute, Phnom Penh,Cambodia. 49p.
Baran, E., Jantunen, T. and Chong, C.K. (inpress). Values of
inland fisheries in theMekong River Basin. In: Neiland A.E.
(ed.).River Fisheries Valuation: A Global Synthesisand Critical
Review with Particular Referenceto Developing Countries. Report for
theComprehensive Assessment of WaterManagement in Agriculture.
Béné, C. 2003. When fisheries rhyme withpoverty: A first step
beyond the old paradigmon poverty in small-scale fisheries.
WorldDevelopment 31(6): 949-975.
Bonheur, N., Kosal, M., Kosal, M., Sour, K.and Song, S. L. 2005.
Towards a holisticapproach to wetlands governance. The legaland
institutional framework and economic val-uation of wetland
resources in Cambodia. p.53-98. In: Oh et al. (eds.)
WetlandsGovernance in the Mekong Region: CountryReports on the
Legal-Institutional Frameworkand Economic Valuation of
AquaticResources. WorldFish Center, Penang,Malaysia.
CFDO and DFID. 2004. Policy Reform ImpactAssessment, Cambodia:
Impacts of theFisheries Policy Reforms in Kampong Cham,Pursat and
Takeo Provinces. 1° RoundAssessment Report. Community
FisheriesDevelopment Office, Department of Fisherieswith assistance
from IMM Ltd., U.K., andDepartment of International
Development.March 2004.
DOF, 2004. Statistics of FisheriesProduction 1980 to 2003.
Department ofFisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry
andFisheries. Cambodia.
Israel, D.C., Ahmed, M., Hong, Y.B., andChee, H.M. 2005. Aquatic
resources valuationand policies for poverty elimination in theLower
Mekong Basin. DFID and WorldFishCentre, Penang, Malaysia. 189 pp. +
annexes.
Keskinen, M. 2003. The Great Diversity ofLivelihoods? -
Socio-economic survey of theTonle Sap Lake. WUP-FIN
Socio-EconomicStudies on Tonle Sap 8, MRCS/WUP-FIN,Phnom Penh.
Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S. andPullin R. (eds.) 2005.
Fish for Life: InteractiveGovernance for Fisheries.
AmsterdamUniversity Press.
MAFF-CNMC. 2003. National Sector Review2003: Fisheries
Management. Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF)
inassociation with Cambodia National MekongCommittee (CNMC). 15
p.
McKenney, B. and Tola, P. 2002. Naturalresources and rural
livelihoods in Cambodia:a baseline assessment. CambodianDevelopment
Resource Institute, WorkingPaper 23, 166 p.
Rab, M.A., Hap, N., Ahmed, M., Keang, S.L.,and Viner, K. 2005.
Socioeconomics andValues of Resources in Great Lake - TonleSap and
Mekong - Bassac Area: Results froma Sample Survey in Kampong
Chhnang, SiemReap and Kandal Provinces. WorldFishCenter, Penang,
Malaysia. (Available atwww.ifredi.org)
Ratner, B.D., Ha, D.T., Kosal, M., Nissapa,A., and Chanphengxay,
S. 2004.Undervalued and Overlooked: SustainingRural Livelihoods
through Better Governanceof Wetlands. WorldFish Center Studies
andReviews 28. 24 p.
UNDP. 2003. Database of Commune Profile2002. Ministry of
Planning, Phnom Penh.
Synopsis 17
References